Before I make an entry of today's events, I think it's worth discussing whether, in principle, by airing a private conversation---that I initiate---in a public forum (this blog) I destroy any claims to chivalry that Smooth and I set out in the introduction. I think not (naturally). Here's why:
First: I can't overstate our committment to approaching the women we think are attractive with the utmost respect. Slinging an untoward remark or obstructing any young woman's way about town is not an acceptable outcome. This should go without saying. However, what I've discovered in describing Game: On Boston to some of my closest female friends and aquaintances is mixed opinion ... and, so far, drastically so; some think that this is a great idea, that men need to be bold, and that seat-of-your-pants romance should come in vogue. I, of course, side with this camp.
On the other hand, some have expressed dismay that we're doing this; the criticism, this far, amounts to: "I'd be offended if you blogged about a private conversation we had on the street, and if I found out subsequently that we met because of this blog, I'd be upset." It's a reaction that I don't understand.
This brings me to my second reason for disagreeing with the disgust, for lack of a better term: any of these women we approach is free to shoot us down. Hard. And more power to them; they obviously aren't for us if they aren't the type that thinks this is a) mildly amusing, b) brave, c) flattering, or d) productive. I like to think that we are performing a two-fold service: we're making the pool of eligible bachelors for these women smaller by disqualifying ourselves, and we're giving other guys who read this blog case studies to improve their approach---whether it be imitation of avoidance.
Third: I know many of the women my age love reality TV. Nothing wrong with that, I cried for Jillian too. But ... don't you think it's just a
tad hypocritical to indulge the voyeur in you despite the havoc the attention might wreck on the reality stars' lives. To the rejoinder: "They sign up for those shows and that life", I say "Yes and No." Do you think, had Jon and Kate known what trouble the media spotlight would turn out to be, that they'd have gone through with filming? Michael Jackson? And even if they would "do it all over again, unchanged", I don't agree that someone who agrees to talk to a stranger in public has any reasonable expectation that her conversation will remain private. Identities are protected (no pictures will be taken), and only if she reads this would she ever know to whom we refer.
Fourth (and in my opinion, most important): ladies, you can't have it both ways---either you want to be swept off of your feet or you don't. By forcing ourselves to get out of our comfort zone, we're increasing your odds of that happening dramatically (even more so if this catches on).
Long-short: I apologize to everyone who's offended by this adventure, but I think you're taking it a little too seriously. The woman who'd fall in love with me will see this for what it is: all in good fun.
Now, on to the main event...
