Most of the have families, goals (however modest)etc . Usually they are stressed by not being able to sell enough rather than dreaming of the days when they can give up the whole scene and more fully commit to recreational poverty or whatever.
Because the difference between a game and real life, is that, in a game, the consequences of losing are voluntarily accepted. In real life, there are real, painful, even lethal consequences to playing badly. That's a pretty good reason for taking it seriously. And you didn't get the choice of not playing.
Like playing the game of a soldier, police officer or fire fighter? We have no choice but to play the game? Reminds me of a song.
"Wow! Free accommodation and food!" is usually not what crosses a person's mind when they get a 10 year jail sentence.
I think a thing can be defined as "not a game" to you, if - you would avoid the consequences if it were possible to do so - up to and including - opting not to participate in the first place. If those criteria are not met, I'd argue it's not a game.
the relationship game all people have about a 98% chance that they will break up.(thats a 98% failure rate) around 65% will break up as the other or both of them is cheating. thats some pretty crap odds yet people persist and claim ignorance
Right. Relationship can be considered a game, inasmuch as one goes into it willingly, and (at least ostensibly) knowing it has risky consequences. When the screws are put to them, people will generally concede that they were not forced into a romantic relationship, even if their egos insist on saving some face.
indeed. not all, and in my opinion not ideal and not desired. yet many seem to percieve a concept of rules of engagement to concede dual equity as a form of battle between 2 people. i think the millennials are the 1st generation to mainstream normalise mixed gender friendships
