There was this French philosopher who wrote a book that was a series of fictional letters between a Persian living in Paris and his wives and eunuchs back in the harem. At the end of the book, his most beloved wife commits suicide as a way of showing that she always retained ultimate control over her life. In her last letter to him, she tells her husband that even though she always obeyed his commands, he never controlled her. Externally she was his, but spiritually and mentally, she was free.
That reminds me of head games only to the extent that they're a tool people use to provide the illusion of control/power where none exists.
That's the worst-case scenario view of it.
At best, it's a way of treating people like a means to an end: "I need/want x/y/z and, in order to achieve that, I need to use this person." It's really the lazy man's way out of a situation. Instead of pushing yourself analytically to become more creative/inventive, you take the easy way out and manipulate/play games.
But in essence - people that play games with others? Intentionally? To hurt/manipulate the other person?
Since the conversation really isn't going at all too fast a rate, it must be like one of those books that you flip and see the little cartoons do something. Except for that the cartoon guy in this one would be moving really slow.
That reminds me of head games only to the extent that they're a tool people use to provide the illusion of control/power where none exists.
That's the worst-case scenario view of it.
At best, it's a way of treating people like a means to an end: "I need/want x/y/z and, in order to achieve that, I need to use this person." It's really the lazy man's way out of a situation. Instead of pushing yourself analytically to become more creative/inventive, you take the easy way out and manipulate/play games.
But in essence - people that play games with others? Intentionally? To hurt/manipulate the other person?
That's fucked up.