Normal Relationships & Labels

Bill CammackI’m not a fan of labeling relationships because the label doesn’t indicate or describe the functionality of the relationship. Similarly, the LACK of a label doesn’t indicate a lack of functionality between individuals. Therefore, the label itself is almost entirely useless.

I was watching this movie the other day, and this guy’s trying to get to know this new chick. He explains something about himself to her and she says “Oh.. You’re one of those [X] guys”. His response is “I don’t really, uh, subscribe to any label”.

When I heard that, I realized that that’s what I should have been saying all along. I mean, I’ve BEEN saying that forever, but I haven’t stressed it enough, since I’ve been attempting to inform the average Joe/Josephine about what my life is like. It’s just not as easy as I thought it would be. Things that make perfect sense to me don’t make sense to other people. Things that work for me don’t work for other people. I’ve attempted to explain something that I’ve now decided I just can’t explain. I just have to be thankful for the situation and keep it movin’. πŸ˜€

Labels

Labels are only as relevant as the people that are willing to adhere to them.. meaning that basically, they’re completely useless.

Let’s examine the term “Girlfriend”, which, to me, means “The chick you’re most likely to have sex with today”. What does that term define, really? What does it rule IN, and what does it rule OUT? Nothing.

Every single day, you can read about guys that are really nice to their girlfriends and guys that are really horrible towards them. That means that the label “Girlfriend” doesn’t come automatically equipped with decent behavior from the boyfriend. What’s THAT worth? There are guys that are faithful to their girlfriends and guys that have several girlfriends at the same time.. The point being that applying a label to a situation doesn’t have any bearing on what actually happens between those two (or more) people.

Polyamory

In my attempt to describe my non-average life to the average person, I’ve described myself as polyamorous in the past. At this point, I realize that the term has been co-opted to stand for a particular segment of society that engages in regular “relationships” with multiple people, simultaneously. That’s completely not what I meant or subscribe to. It’s kind of like how the original Punk Rockers played, loved and listened to Punk Rock because that’s how they felt and how they lived. Eventually, people started loving what the originals loved and produced and started emulating their heroes, especially dressing like them. Next thing you know, anyone who dresses the same way is considered a Punk Rocker, regardless of whether they ROCK or not. :/ Anyone who styles their hair a certain way is considered “Emo”. It’s a haircut, people.. a haircut. It’s absolutely meaningless.

The strict breakdown of the term Polyamory is from Greek πολυ [poly, meaning many or several] and Latin amor [love]. All it actually means is to love many people. Period. Unfortunately, somehow, “relationships” became equated with loving someone, which is absolutely retarded. There are lots of people in relationships that don’t love each other and lots of people that love each other that aren’t in relationships with each other. Love is a feeling. Some would argue that it’s a chemical reaction. You feel it or you don’t. You feel it for nobody, one person or many people. You feel it for one person at a time or many people simultaneously.

So, this very basic and understandable term has been co-opted to mean people that are in several simultaneous open relationships. I realized this when I saw a show about it recently. This chick was dating this chick that was dating a dude. In order to explain this mess, I’ll label the original couple [A]. Chick[A] was dating Dude[A] and then Chick[A] started dating Chick[B]. Meanwhile, Chick[B] was NOT dating Dude[A], so it looked like this:

     Chick[B]<->Chick[A]<->Dude[A]

What woke me up was when Chick[B] decided that she wanted to go out with Dude[B]. Instead of doing what she wanted to do, because it’s her life.. she decided to consult with Chick[A] as far as WHAT. SHE. THOUGHT. about Chick[B] potentially dating Dude[B]. This is when I did at least a triple-take and was like “um.. This is retarded. How are you going to ASK anyone that’s not your parents whether you can go out with someone you like or not?”. This is in fact LESS FREE than a regular “relationship”, because NOW, you have not ONE but TWO people that might veto your involvement with someone that you’re naturally attracted to.

Cost of Living

Unfortunately, this is the price you have to pay to be involved in so-called “deviant lifestyles”. The pool of people that you’re sexually compatible with is a rather small subset of the general population. Your choices are to get down with whatever rules the other person lays down for being involved with them or not to be involved with them at all. They know what they want and what they don’t. If you can’t get down with the program, you’re useless to them anyway, so there’s no point in being involved with you past friendship.. IF that.

So Chick[B] had a sit-down with Chick[A] and basically asked her permission to go out on a date with Dude[B]. Chick[A] looked actually hurt about it. I suppose some people like to feel like they’re so special that they can have multiple GFs/BFs and all of their SOs are only interested in them. haha Right! πŸ˜€ .. So Chick[A] sanctioned the date between Chick[B] and Dude[B] *IF* Dude[B] was brought to the crib to meet Chick[A] before the date! HAHAHAHA Incredible.

Anyway, you get the picture. This situation was a complete mess. It’s indicative, however, of what labels get you. Once you subscribe to a label, people treat you as if that label means something, when it actually means nothing. In actual fact, Chick[B] could have dated or messed with Dude[B] anytime she wanted to, and it’s none of Chick[A]’s business at all. The only reason any of this happened is that Chick[B] bought into Chick[A]’s game of “I own several people”, when in fact, Chick[A] owns ZERO people… Lincoln freed the slaves.

Viewing the situation from Chick[A]’s point of view, you only have as much power as other people give you. If someone decides to opt-out of your lifestyle, you’re short. There’s nothing you can do about it. They’re just not interested, so you’re left with your remaining roster of GFs/BFs. That’s the way it works.. People come and go. Society in general subscribes to “one guy, one girl”. If that’s not what you’re offering, it’s a tough row to hoe. It’s not for the faint of heart. Some people catch feelings about stuff like this, which I think is really funny/pathetic. It’s all in the game. If you’re not offering what someone’s brainwashed to want for themselves, they’re going to eventually select someone that’s at least willing to CLAIM to want to be involved in the type of relationship they’re looking for.

Reality

I don’t know what happened in that situation because it was too boring to continue watching. I figure that at some point, Chick[B] would have figured out that it’s her life and it’s the only one she’s ever going to have, so she may as well do what she wants to do when she wants to do it. It’s not going to serve her in the future if she declines to mess with Dude[B] because Chick[A] caught feelin’s about it.

The fact of the matter is that people like what they like, feel what they feel and do what they do. It’s really not any more complicated than that. There’s no label that can actually describe one person’s relationship to another person. Every relationship is unique because it involves two unique individuals. Regardless of whether someone dresses like a Punk Rock or cuts their hair in an Emo style, you can’t expect them to act or react in an uniform fashion with everyone else that tries to look or act like them.

Unfortunately, without the trial & error of becoming intimately involved with A LOT OF PEOPLE, this ‘trend of uniqueness’ isn’t going to be apparent. According to the media, there are NORMAL PEOPLE and then everyone else. As long as you subscribe to what they’re telling you everyone else subscribes to, you’re seen as NORMAL as well, and you get to stay in the game. Once you deviate from that, people start murmuring on the back-channel unless you’re a celebrity, in which case they murmur in the tabloids.

Do you like to screw chicks other than your wife? Well then.. You’re a sex addict, aren’t you? πŸ˜€ .. Of course you are. You should be in rehab.

Did you “cheat” on a chick that’s considered one of the most beautiful and sought-after women in the world? There must be something WRONG with you, then! πŸ˜€ Make sure your publicist apologizes for you and get better at doing your ‘dirt’ on the sneaks.

Did you spend over $50,000 on prostitutes from just ONE madam? hahaha REHAB!!! You’re SICK! πŸ˜€ .. I hope you get to say “Hello” to the thousands upon thousands of guys that should be in rehab WITH YOU for spending thousands of dollars each year buying drinks for girls they’re not even guaranteed to have sex with! πŸ˜€

Did you spend $4,000 hiring JUST ONE PROSTITUTE and importing her from one state to another, even though you’re known for busting up prostitution rings? πŸ˜€ ……

Do you like to figure out fancy things to do with cigars and female interns during telephone business meetings? πŸ˜€ … Which reminds me. I believe I’m going to need an intern soon.

I mean, seriously.. The list goes on forever and ever of people that got caught doing what they hid FROM YOU so that they could appear “normal”. Up until the time these people were found out, everybody was like “Oh! Look at the shining examples of upstanding citizens! :D”.. Immediately afterwards, everybody goes “Oh! They’re Not NORMAL!!! :O”. Actually, yes.. Yes, they ARE normal. They’re all doing what makes them happy. This is what people do.

They like to hide, because a) it’s none of your business, and b) they don’t feel like being talked down about in the tabloids, but you can’t stop the bum rush. They’re going to do what they want to do with whomever they want to do it because that’s what makes their life worth living. If you don’t like it, you can go take a long walk on a short plank. Hit the bricks. Kick Rocks.

“Rubber”.. Meet “Road”

For the most part, people are willing to overlook aspects of a relationship that they don’t like in order to receive the benefits of being with that particular person. This works well with the current system because people like to advertise the positive points of being with them and deemphasize if not completely OMIT the negative points. That’s all well and good until someone gets found out…

A chick might say that she’s completely down with giving a guy as much sex as he wants in order for him to be her boyfriend.. but omit the fact that she’s also willing to give it up to several guys in a bathroom stall while they videotape it, until the time she gets caught and needs to make up an excuse.

A politician might say he’s faithful to his wife, until the time he gets caught and then she has to do the Perp Walk with him while he pretends to act sorry for the cameras and read the statement that his publicist wrote about how badly he feels for his family and the people who elected him.

A guy might be lovey-dovey to his girlfriend, until the time she gets nosey in his business and he kicks her ass in a Lamborghini on Grammy night.

A chick might claim to be this 14-year-old boy’s teacher, until it turns out she’s also his girlfriend and she’s pregnant by him.

A guy might insist that he never had sex with That Woman, until his semen shows up on the dress she wore to work that day.

A married guy might go to jail for defrauding rich people, AND THEN a chick might write a book about how she’s been carrying on a 20-year affair with him behind his wife’s back… How come she didn’t write it BEFORE he became a pariah? πŸ˜€

See what I mean? All these people have all the labels and none of them are worth JACK!.. NOTHING! Boyfriend, Girlfriend, Husband, Wife, Teacher, Student, Investor, Actor, Singer, Politician.. ALL completely useless when it comes to describing and/or defining the relationship between people. It all comes down to the character of the individuals involved.

Bill CammackThis is why I don’t bother playing the label game with people. It’s meaningless and it’s a waste of my time and brain processing cycles.

I never ask people about their so-called “relationship status”, but I’ll listen if they feel like telling me about it. If they tell me about it, I accept it as a possibility, but not as truth. I’m totally disinterested in who people say they are and COMPLETELY INTERESTED in what they actually DO.

Also.. The examples I gave above are *only* the headlines that hit the papers / internet. This type of stuff goes on every. single. day. in average people’s lives and they sweep it under the rug so they can look “normal” to everyone else that’s putting up the exact same front.

Does this happen to everyone? Of course not. Does it happen to A LOT of people? Yup! Does it happen to a lot of people that DON’T KNOW it’s happening to them? Yup! πŸ˜€

If you’re lucky, YOU’RE a nice person, you MEET a nice person that wants to be nice TO YOU and y’all live happily ever after. Sweet! More power to ya! πŸ˜€

Hopefully, the other person’s idiosyncrasies stay under their hats.. If they happen to slip out, hopefully you can deal with them and still want to be in a relationship with them. If you’re really lucky, you’ll consider the revelations delightfully kinky and take your relationship in an entirely new direction! πŸ˜‰

~ Bill Cammack

Join the Conversation

10 Comments

  1. Bill, thanks for the clarification on Polyamory. You’d mentioned it in at least one post prior (I vaguely remember spoofing it as “Polymagnanimous”) and you are correct in your belief that your intent was misunderstood. At least it was by me. I’m seeing this as a result of the fluidity of language and also the nature of one-to-many communications. In the latter folks tend not to ask, “stupid” questions and just take away what they could figure out from context or whatever. I’m just as guilty as the next reader.

    I agree with the Rubber meet Road section. Had a conversation about politicians with friend of mine several months ago. We were talking about people in power and infidelity. I said I didn’t mind having a guy be Prez who cheated on his wife and it was out in public. She insisted the person for this role should be a paragon of virtue and above reproach. I said words to the effect that I suspect politics attracts a certain kind of person and it’s not a realistic expectation for anyone who’s been questing for power/position/authority their whole adult life to actually be faithful. I think this kind of professional drive would be reflected in a man’s sex drive. It’s a “more, more, more” kinda thing so you may as well be asking for superman or a unicorn. . It occurred to me as I was writing this that I could be wrong and it’s really that we have so much visibility into their lives that it seems like a disproportionate number are “cheaters” when in fact it may reflect the general populationt. I wonder if female politicians just get caught less or don’t catch the buzz the same way?

    1. Yeah, man. I wrote about this in August 2008: “Political Sex Scandals”.

      People elect politicians to get in there and FIGHT for what THEY (the people) want. Then, they expect that same person to NOT fight for what THEY (the politician) really want. Meanwhile, that same requirement that your friend suggested, “being a paragon of virtue and above reproach”, equates to being MARRIED. If you’re not a Family Man (or Woman), it’s a tough road to hoe in politics, because you’re supposed to aspire to the same things that your constituents aspire to. Meanwhile, you actually have to be MORE than they are in order to do your job. It’s really similar to how they ask people to go to war for their country and then when they come back from killing people every day, they ask them not to kill anyone in regular society.

      As far as the Poly thing, all I meant was the literal interpretation of the term, which is that all of my relationships are individual. What I think or feel about one chick has NOTHING to do with what I think, feel or do with a different one. My interest doesn’t turn on and off based on verbal agreements I make with people. It also doesn’t turn off for one chick because another chick I like is in the same room. The more, The merrier.

      Fortunately for me, enough chicks like me that I don’t have to bother with ‘relationships’. I actually have a BACKLOG of women that I was supposed to spend time with and never did. According to a Facebook app, I have 725 female friends, and that’s just the ones that are actually ON Facebook. I meet new chicks every week. This is why I have a different view of the situation. Women are easy to come by. I don’t have to bother locking one down. It’s honestly more work (and trouble) getting in and out and in and out of relationships all the time instead of just going with the flow and never bothering to label what we’re doing with each other.

    2. “It occurred to me as I was writing this that I could be wrong and itÒ€ℒs really that we have so much visibility into their lives that it seems like a disproportionate number are Ò€œcheatersÒ€ when in fact it may reflect the general population.”

      Hi Steve,
      I believe that it only reflects the general population. My hometown is a small village with approx. 5.000 inhabitants. Rumours usually travel fast, and my mother who still lives there is well connected, so I get to hear all the juicy stories about infidelity, marriage crisis, break-ups, alcohol addictions, people being in therapy etc.. It seems that whenever a neighborhood throws a party, pretty much everybody is hopping into bed with everybody else and their dogs. Okay, maybe not the dogs, but you know what I mean. And we are talking about average, respectable middle-class folks here. When I remember all the couples I still know there back from high-school (usually my friends’ parents), I can name only 2 couples whose marriage I would call a happy one to the present day. Some of the others are still living together, but I would not want to lead that kind of life, even if I got paid for it.

      I guess most people just don’t take the time to keep the connection alive, and that must be especially difficult as a politician, because politicians have to attend so many public functions, and even if their spouse is with them, it is basically a waste of time, connectionwise. They may be too busy to realize that the connection is gone, just feel a void, and having sex with a new person is – for most people – the easiest way to feel better for the moment, right? Instant gratification…..

      1. 5,000 PEOPLE??? πŸ˜€ .. Well, now we know where you got some of your “conditioning” as far as relationships, hahaha πŸ˜€

        I live in Manhattan, NYC. This means that I never see the same person twice. That’s only a slight exaggeration. I just about never get on a bus with anyone I was ever on a bus with before. I just about never get in a subway car with anyone I ever noticed I was in a subway car with before. I never walk down the same streets and see the same people, unless they live or work there and are basically fixtures.

        The term I’ve used for people is “expendable”, by which I mean that it really doesn’t matter how many friends you lose, you can always get more tomorrow and the next day and the next week and the next month and the next year. There are always people to meet here that you never met before.

        What this leads to is a fast “game”. I don’t have time to date some chick for like three weeks and find out about her life. I have the time in which I’m sitting with her right now and that’s it. I may or may not request contact information, and if I do, it’s to stay in peripheral contact via Social Media and not to call her over and over and keep hanging out with her.

        I know as soon as I detect a chick whether I want to have sex with her or not, I know within 5 minutes whether I want to bother to pursue that or not and I DEFINITELY KNOW by the end of an hour-long conversation whether the chick is cool enough for me to consider her an actual friend that I would have good conversations, do things and go places with.

        If I don’t know anything about a chick after being around her for an entire hour, our communication isn’t working properly and it’s a wrap. I’m outtie! πŸ˜€

        As far as the politicians, it’s not that they go to so many functions.. It’s that their jobs depend on them looking like Family Men. As Steve mentioned, they’re expected to reflect what society’s supposed to aspire to.. Which happens to be married, and most likely with at least one kid, hahaha I suppose to be sure that the marriage itself isn’t a sham! πŸ˜€ “Look! Look! We actually popped one out! See? I told you we were actually having married sex together! :D”

        If politicians were built to bend to pressure, they wouldn’t be elected to represent what their constituents want. Politicians are built to get what they want, so the people that elected them get what THEY want. However……. The politician can’t afford to dump his wife, because he’ll be voted out ASAP. His only choice is to get his on the side, with or without his wife’s knowledge, until he gets busted and has to do the perp walk.

        Look at Strom Thurmond!!!… According to Wikipedia, THIS ************ conducted the longest filibuster ever by a U.S. Senator in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (which, if you’re not familiar.. I know you’re from Europe.. had to do with BLACK PEOPLE), at 24 hours and 18 minutes in length, nonstop… *AND* *THEN*… AFTER HIS DEATH it was revealed that Thurmond and a black maid, Carrie Butler, had a daughter whom Thurmond never publicly acknowledged. Amazing, right? Talking ALL THAT YANG in public and then laying up with the black chick behind closed doors to the point that he actually HAD. A. BLACK. DAUGHTER! πŸ˜€

        Politicians are sneaky and underhanded. They have to be. It’s their job to WIN, WIN, WIN! If they can’t do it to others, others are going to do it to them and they’re going to get voted out. It’s completely ridiculous for people to expect that politicians aren’t going to enjoy the fruits of their labor, one of which happens to be attractive women.

  2. If you don’t believe in labels, why do you have an article about whether or not “your his girlfriend?”

    1. I’m betting because, other people believe in those labels and Bill had heard the question posed several times before. Now, what do I win?! lol

      1. Hey Erica. Thanks for the comment! πŸ˜€

        Steve’s absolutely right. You’ll notice I often use quotes around the term “relationship”. That’s because I don’t believe in them, or rather that I believe that all humans have a relationship to other humans they come into contact with. Just because a chick gives you some doesn’t mean your relationship to her outranks your relationship to anyone else. It DOES mean that y’all shared something important and hopefully special to both of youse.

        Unfortunately, I have to explain my concepts to people in terms that they believe in and that I don’t. I also use quotes around the word “cheating”, because I don’t believe in that either. Fidelity is something that’s traded to someone in order to get something from them, usually fidelity in return. I’m not going to trade anybody ANYTHING in order for them to give me what they want to give me anyway.

        How would a chick feel if her boyfriend told her he’d only go with her to her mother’s house for Sunday Dinner *IF* she did a strip-tease for him? See how dumb that sounds? Similarly, don’t ask me to alter my relationships to anyone else so YOU can feel better about yourself and claim you have some kind of control over me that you don’t have.

        Still, I have to explain things the way reporters on the news do it. They don’t CARE that whomever got shot or that bank got robbed or whomever lost their house because of the mortgage. They still have to tell you about it, because that’s their job. There’s a difference between reporting something and FEELING SOMETHING about what you’re reporting.

        So, while I don’t believe in labels, that’s the game I have to play within because everyone else was successfully brainwashed and won’t be able to absorb the information unless I describe it to them in terms they can fathom.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.