In Transactional Analysis (TA), a “game” is a recurring pattern of transactions between people that has an ulterior, unconscious motive and leads to a predictable negative payoff. When men and women are dating, some men may engage in psychological “games” to protect their egos, avoid intimacy, or assert control.
Here are some examples of games that men may play in dating situations, drawn from TA understandings and documented analyses of interpersonal behavior:
-
“Now I’ve Got You, You Son of a B**”** – In this game, the man waits for the woman to make a small mistake or violation of expectation, then uses it as an excuse to express anger or superiority. The hidden motive is often to justify feelings of resentment or rejection [1].
-
“See What You Made Me Do” – This game involves blaming the woman for the man’s emotional outbursts, mistakes, or shortcomings. It maintains the man’s internal narrative that he is not responsible for his actions—“She pushed me too far” [2].
-
“Kick Me” – A man might unconsciously invite rejection by dating women who are unavailable or critical. When rejection occurs, it confirms his negative self-beliefs (“No one really wants me”) and grants a familiar emotional payoff—self-pity or victimhood [3].
-
“Let’s You and Him Fight” – This game can occur when a man provokes rivalry between others for his attention or validation, allowing him to feel desirable while avoiding emotional commitment or vulnerability [4].
-
“Rapo” – This is one of the most well-known seduction games described by Eric Berne. In this game, a man flirts or pursues a woman under the guise of romantic intent but is primarily seeking a sense of conquest, validation, or power. At the climax, he may withdraw or shame the woman, leading both to negative feelings [5].
-
“Courtroom” – This game involves power struggles masked as moral judgment. The man acts as a “judge” (“You were wrong to say that”), while the woman becomes the “defendant.” It leads to emotional separation rather than intimacy [6].
In almost all cases, these games serve to maintain psychological scripts and reinforce early life decisions—such as “People can’t be trusted,” or “I must always win.” They offer an illusory sense of control or validation at the expense of authentic connection.
Sources
In addition:
In Transactional Analysis, games are repetitive, unconscious patterns of communication that yield concealed emotional “payoffs.” When men are dating women, these games often serve to protect self-esteem, justify avoidance of intimacy, or affirm an internalized life script. Here are several more games that men frequently play during dating relationships and how they relate to deeper TA structures:
-
“Uproar” – This game features constant conflict and argument. The man subconsciously seeks stimulation and validation through fighting, often replaying a Parent–Child dynamic learned in childhood. The payoff is the sense of being “right” or in control, even at the cost of closeness [1].
-
“Yes, But…” – The man invites the woman to help (“I just can’t find the right person”), but every solution she offers is negated (“Yes, but she wouldn’t like my schedule”). The real goal is not to solve the problem but to confirm helplessness, reinforcing a Child ego state belief: “Nothing ever works for me” [2].
-
“See If You Can Guess What I Want” – He withholds clear communication about needs, expecting the woman to intuit them. When she fails, he feels justified in criticizing or withdrawing affection. This game reinforces a Child-based script of “No one understands me” [3].
-
“Frigid Woman” (Reversed) – Traditionally, this TA game described a woman’s behavior, but men may play a reversed form by expressing sexual interest and then rejecting intimacy. It can stem from a Parent message like “Sex is bad” or “Women can’t be trusted.” The payoff is maintaining emotional distance while feeling morally superior or in control [4].
-
“I’m Only Trying to Help You” – This game looks altruistic but hides control or condescension. A man may impose “advice” or “guidance” under the guise of caring, reinforcing his Parent ego state, while pushing the partner into a submissive Child role [5].
-
“If It Weren’t For You” – The man blames the woman for restricting his freedom (“I could have been successful if it weren’t for you”). The deeper function of the game is to avoid responsibility for his own choices, validating a script conviction that others are obstacles [6].
-
“Pygmalion” – He selects a partner to “fix” or “improve,” playing the benevolent controller while maintaining superiority. When she resists, the game provides emotional justification for his disappointment, sustaining the belief “No one appreciates what I do” [4].
-
“Why Don’t You—Yes But” – A man presents problems in his love life or personal growth, but systematically rejects each suggestion the woman makes, confirming his belief that “nothing works.” The payoff is self-justification and attention, not resolution [5].
-
“Look How Hard I’ve Tried” – The man appears devoted or sorrowful after relationships fail, but at depth, he unconsciously contributed to their demise. The payoff is to preserve the self-image of a “good guy” who’s unlucky in love [2].
Each of these games derives from internal ego state dynamics—Parent rules (“Be strong,” “Don’t trust women”), Child fears (“I’ll be hurt again”), and Adult rationalizations that mask emotional insecurity. The script directive and payoff serve to confirm early life decisions about trust, love, and worth.
No comments:
Post a Comment