This season’s premiere episode of Jersey Shore was only interesting for one reason.. MTV decided to surprise the cast by bringing the people they care about together for a surprise party.

That would have been all well & good, except for Nicole’s various sexual hookups with guys and girls that were invited to the same party. :D

Witnesses For The Prosecution

As I’ve previously stated, over the last couple of seasons, Nicole has hooked up with housemates Mike, Vinny, and Deena. The latest episodes between her and Vinny and her and Deena occurred while she was in Italy last season, which means it was during the time she was dating her current (according to the timeline of the released episodes) boyfriend. This is all on videotape. :D There’s no denying any of that.

What ISN’T on videotape is that Mike said Nicole blew him recently, which was also after the time that Nicole had claimed to her boyfriend that she was sexually committed to him… Well.. Mike’s SAYING IT is on tape.. The actual activity is not on tape, which led Nicole to initially attempt to deny it, rather unsuccessfully.

This is what made this surprise reunion interesting. There are only two eye-witnesses to Nicole blowing Mike. That would be Mike’s homeboy and Nicole’s homegirl, who were hooking up with each other at the time that Nicole did her thing with Mike.

Unfortunately for Nicole, both of these witnesses were invited to the party, so she was now outnumbered 3-1, as far as people who were going to claim that she never blew Mike.

I say this because Mike’s boy was DYING to tell what he knew, and Nicole’s girl was shutting the **** up. :D .. Had there been any question, or, rather, had it actually been a lie that Nicole did what Mike said she did, Nicole would have felt brave, because she had one more person to tell the truth for her, and Mike had one more person to lie for him, and the truth would have easily won out, or at least, there would have been sufficient reasonable doubt to have people remain undecided about what actually happened.

At first, it seemed like Nicole was up for the confrontation, because she was talking all kinds of yang to Mike’s friend that has the information on her.. However, in a previous episode, she had been talking all kinds of yang to ACTUAL POLICEMEN that were escorting her drunk ass off the boardwalk to a waiting police car, so we know she completely loses her mind when she drinks.

The most telling aspect of this situation is that the next day, when Nicole was sober, Mike stepped to her and told her she should apologize to his boy for saying mean things about him…. She actually did it.

She did it because she knew she had to do it or else dude was going to spill the beans, and a) her homegirl wasn’t going to back her “I didn’t do it” play, and b) she was the only person with something to lose in that situation, because her boyfriend was the only one that didn’t know the story.

Situational Amnesia

Another interesting aspect of that party was that as much as Nicole’s boyfriend DOESN’T know about Nicole’s various sexual escapades, there’s one thing that he knew for sure, since Nicole admitted it to him. He knew damned well that Vinny had ****** his girl. :D

We know he knows, because after Nicole tells him over the phone she hooked up with Vinny (and this was edited, so who knows how the actual conversation actually happened), her boyfriend replied “Tell Vinny he’s dead!”

I understand that that was an emotional reaction. I imagine that guys are going to feel upset and temporarily irrational when their girlfriend calls them up and informs them that within the 48 hours (probably 24 hours) that she had an argument with him, she spread her legs for the next man.

I understand that he didn’t mean dead dead.. He meant to say “I’m really upset with Vinny for ******* you”. In fact, it’s not Vinny’s problem. Dude should only be upset with his girl for giving up the ass, because he had a deal with HER, and not Vinny.

The funny part about all this is that Vinny had been ******* Nicole way way way before she even met this dude she’s dating now, so he really has nothing to be upset about. He started dating a girl that was already consistently ******* some other guy. It’s too bad for him that she didn’t say that. It’s too bad for him that she didn’t tell him that as soon as she gets drunk/horny, she throws sex at just about anything that moves.

Don’t get mad at the next man because he accepts the easy sex from “your” girl. Tighten your game up, playah. >:D

Anyway… This was very interesting, because the boyfriend ends up in the same room with the guy that ****** his girl.. The same guy that he claimed was “dead” (meaning he was upset with him), and according to MTV’s edit, he never had AAAAAAAAAANY kind of conversation with Vinny. o_O

Apparently, there was no escalation of the beef, no squashing of the beef, and no discussion of the beef, whatsoever.

Nothing. \o/

Dude seemed to have completely forgotten, or completely gotten over the fact that Vinny had rather recently dicked his girlfriend down.

I mean, it was like nothing had ever happened. Dude was all lovey-dovey to Nicole, kissing on her and asking her if she was feeling ok..

Seriously, fellaz.. If you know damned well that you’re going to develop amnesia after your girl steps to the left and gets some from the next man, skip making a major scene about it on the telephone, in person, or EVER, in fact.

Just don’t bring it up. Let it slide. Recognize that you’re the type of guy that’s going to stay with your girl regardless of how many other guys are screwing her.

There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s ok. You don’t have to act like you care so that people think you’re normal.

Take it like any other information. “How was your night?… oh.. You drank until you fell down for no apparent reason, because you were standing still when you buss your ass? o_O .. oh.. You made out with some chick you just met at the bar? o_O .. oh.. You hopped in bed with your male roommate and gave him a Happy Ending because you and I had an argument several hours before that? o_O .. Glad you had fun, dear. Talk to you tomorrow.”
–
Follow Bill via Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Email Subscription | RSS Feed

Related Posts

• Why Women Are Better Liars Than Men
• How To Deny Allegations
• “Moral Failing” In Relationships
• Single.. But Not Really
• That’s Your Man’s Problem

“Single” is another one of those dating titles that are absolutely meaningless, like “Just Friends”, “Friends With Benefits (FWB)”, “Girlfriend”, “Boyfriend”, etc..

No title means anything at all without consistent actions backing that up.

If you call yourself my friend and then I ask you for a very simple favor and then not only don’t you do me that favor, but you can’t be bothered to even RESPOND TO MY COMMUNICATION and TELL ME you’re not going to do me that favor, what does the title “friend” mean?.. Nothing.

You can go around saying I’m a friend of yours all year and it doesn’t mean jack-****.

Dating

As far as dating’s concerned, if you tell people you and I are “Just Friends” and then you hook up with me, what title does that make us now? o_O

Are you going to go around telling people we’re FWB?.. Nope. You’re going to hold the line and keep telling people the same thing, regardless of what the reality is, so the title is meaningless.

If a dude says he has a girlfriend, does that mean he’s only messing with her?.. Nope. Doesn’t mean anything at all.

At the same time, if a guy *DOESN’T* publicly claim a gal as his girlfriend, but he loves being with her and spends as much time as he can with her, she’s receiving what people assume is “girlfriend treatment” from watching television and movies, except what she’s getting is real.. authentic…

So.. Titles, in general, don’t mean anything at all. There are guys that are sexually faithful to women they won’t claim IRL, much less on the internet, and there are guys that marry women with ZERO intention of stopping hooking up with other chicks.

What someone calls you is worthless compared to how they consistently act towards you.

Single

“Single” is one of the most ridiculous categorizations available, yet, people react to this word as if they understand what it means.

I always mark Single on social media sites, just to see what happens. Mainly, what happens is that the site serves me advertisements ranging from Christian Singles to Jewish Singles to Cougar Dating to Sugar Daddy Dating and all of the ads use the exact same pictures of chicks with DD bra sizes.

Other than the ads I’m served, nothing else happens, because women know that if they step to a dude, they “might could get got”! >:D

It’s a totally different situation for women that mark themselves as single. It’s pretty much as if they instantly signed up for an online dating service, with all the unsolicited propositions they receive.

One of the main and persistent misconceptions bout Single people is that we’re disgruntled about being single.

Everybody wants to offer you women when you’re single… I mean, right off the bat, that perk right thurrr is enough incentive to remain single for your entire lifetime. >:D

Hook Me Up!

Back in the day, when I was like 15 years old or so, I was going on a trip with some friends of mine. The guy who had invited me had a girlfriend (whom he went on to eventually marry and have a family with), and she had invited some of her homegirls to come with us… I didn’t find out until the day was halfway over that one of the gals had been specifically selected FOR ME and brought along SOLELY to keep me company.

Obviously, my friend who invited me hadn’t been aware of who The Kid is, because I had spent the entire day kickin’ it with 3 or 4 OTHER CHICKS and never spent any time at all with my ‘arranged marriage’ until my friend directly asked me how I like her when all the chicks went to “powder their noses” (read: talk about us guys).

After that, I courteously spent some time talking to her, so her day wasn’t a total waste, but she wasn’t my type, and nobody had ASKED ME what my type was before they brought a girl for me.

This happened to me another time, years later, when my cousin Shanghaied me into a blind date situation.

She had invited a bunch of people to get together for dinner, and I wasn’t hip to the game while we were still mingling, but when it was time to sit down, I noticed that everybody there was paired up, except for this ONNNNNNE CHICK and yours truly and that we were suspiciously placed right next to each other at the table.

That’s when I realized that The Kid had fallen for the okey-doke.

I pulled my cousin to the side after dinner and thanked her for her efforts, however, I can’t just be kickin’ it with any ole chick that happens to be single and looking to retire from the game.

Meanwhile.. Women in general LOOOOOVE to be matchmakers. I mean, some of them, like my homegirl Maria are *ACTUALLY* matchmakers, but, in general, women that perceive unattached guys start automatically trying to figure out which one of their lonely homegirls could use some action in their lives.

This is obviously to the Single guy’s benefit, and causes a backlog of chicks to hang out with, even if he’s not making new female acquaintances of his own every week.

Frying Pan? Meet Fire

So.. As poor as the dating scene in New York City is for women to begin with.. It’s actually worse than it seems… Not all of the guys that label themselves as Single are ACTUALLY single.

It would actually be more intelligent to label us Free Agents.

“Single” simply means that I’m going to do whatever I want to do with whatever grown-ass woman who decides that she feels like doing it with me, whenever I feel like doing it.

It doesn’t mean I’m lonely. It doesn’t mean I don’t have several girlfriends that I spend time with on a regular basis. It doesn’t mean I’m looking to retire by finding one female that I can spend all of my social time with… The only thing it means is that I’m not burdened by any responsibility or guilt that will prevent a chick from GETTING GOT if she steps to me.

I will hit it in a box. I will hit it with a fox. I will hit it while eating Green Eggs & Ham. I don’t care. It doesn’t matter. I don’t have a wife or girlfriend I have to lie to about what I was doing last night.

This is one of the reasons the dating scene is so tough for women, besides the fact that there are 4 or 5 of them for every 1 of us here.

You’re actually competing against TWO groups of women if your goal is to meet a guy and corral him for your own personal and exclusive use.

The group of women that all of y’all are aware of, for lack of a better term, are usually referred to as hoes.

Type 1

Basically.. For every, like, nine women that aren’t willing to give it up, there’s one woman that’s willing to hook up with all nine of the guys that those gals are frontin’ on.

I’m not even including strip joints (read: sex in the back rooms) and actual prostitution. I’m saying that there are regular-ass women that are DTF right now, and playing that “I’m only going to hook up with him after the fourth date” game is only stalling *her* from getting on, and not him.

Whenever she feels like getting with the program, he’ll take it, but he’s certainly not waiting around for it like he has nothing better to do with his life.

So.. That “Make him wait for sex” rug has been pulled out from under women’s feet, and they’re going to need some new tactics.

The other set of women, who are actually way more of a hindrance to women that are looking to build Long-Term Relationships (LTRs) with guys, are what I’ll call Surrogate Girlfriends.

Type 2

There are only really two things you’re going to do with your girlfriend. You’re going to hang out with her, and you’re going to hit it.

Females attempt to maximize the “hanging out” part while rationing the “hitting it” part.

I’m not sure why that registers as a WIN to them, but it’s like ok, whatever.

Y’all might actually make it to a LTR if all the other women dude knows are “hoes”. Like.. If all he’s doing with them is enjoying the sex, but he actually likes you as a person, you have a chance.

If he already knows women that he likes to hang out with, spend time with, and attend events with, you’re pretty much Toast. (read: Finished. Done Off. Kaput)

If worse came to worse, and for some odd reason, he just HAAAD to select one woman, it would be one of his surrogate girlfriends, and not you.

I mean, seriously.. Think about it.. Why in the world would a guy select a woman that he’s only known for a few months, that’s been frontin’ on sexing him the entire time she’s known him, over a gal that’s been consistently excellent towards him for several years already? :D It doesn’t make any sense.

Dude has represented himself as Single, but if he wanted to get married, he could get married tomorrow. If he wanted to have kids, he could start that process tomorrow. If he already has several girlfriends, you’re not bringing anything to the table that he doesn’t already have.

On top of that, he’s already kicked the tires on these other chicks. He already likes who they are as human beings. He likes who they are as business professionals. He likes their senses of humor. He enjoys their company. He thinks they’re sexy. They’ve come through for him AS ACTUAL FRIENDS whenever he needed something from them. They’ve been sharing life together for years already, and there really isn’t much of a transition from the relationship they’ve already built to a traditional, drone-recognized “relationship”.

Settling

That’s why I say that the women “Single” guys know that they enjoy spending time with are way more dangerous to women’s raps than the gals they hook up with and don’t think anything at all of as people.

If a guy actually intends to ‘settle down’ eventually, it’s going to be with a gal whose personality he enjoys and whom he can see himself spending a lot of time with going forward, whether he’s hittin’ it or not.

There are always women around for sex.. professionally or otherwise… The needle in the haystack or the diamond in the rough is the gal that you just plain enjoy and look forward to being around, for aesthetic, emotional, spiritual and intellectual reasons.

Just because a guy marks himself as Single doesn’t mean he doesn’t already have that in his life, several times over. It doesn’t mean he doesn’t have any girlfriends. It doesn’t mean he’s not already in love with one or more of them.

In fact.. It doesn’t mean anything at all, other than that he’s currently unencumbered by anything that would prevent him from interacting authentically with you, should he elect to do that.
–
Connect with Bill on Google+ | Facebook | Twitter

Related Posts

• What You Call It vs. What It Is
• Nothing In Common With Your SO?
• Your Girlfriend Is A Ho
• That’s Your Man’s Problem
• Girls Don’t Have Friends That Are Guys

I just watched this Paul Newman film that was released in 1967, called “Hombre”.

Skipping past the race-relation value of the film, while I was watching it, I was amazed (yet, not) about what they were asking Paul Newman’s character to do in the situation they were in.

Basically, some guy stole money from the people that raised Paul Newman’s character, like in a significant amount that it endangered their lives. This guy had that money and his wife on a stagecoach that Paul Newman happened to be on.

The stagecoach got robbed, and criminals stole the money from the dude that had stolen it from the people. They also took the dude’s wife.

Paul Newman got the money back that belonged to his people, but the criminals still had some other dude’s wife.

They sent one of the criminals to negotiate, who basically said (it was a Western, and they were in the desert) “Give us the money and give us your water, and we’ll give you some other guy’s wife back… If you don’t give us the money and water, we’ll kill the woman.”

Paul Newman’s reply was basically “**** you. Shoot her.”

A conversation ensued, after the criminal returned to his posse to relay the message, where this woman that was also on the stagecoach with them asked him something like “Money is more valuable to you than a woman’s life?”

I understood what she was saying, but she wasn’t looking at the big picture.

Focus On The Facts

The money in the saddlebags was going BACK to the people that it had been STOLEN FROM, who were ALL in danger of losing their lives because they weren’t going to be able to buy food or supplies in the wild west. Paul Newman was carrying ALL OF THEIR LIVES on his shoulder in those saddlebags.

What she didn’t want to address was that the people that Paul Newman was trying to save were equally valuable to the one female that he was NOT going to save by giving away those people’s money.

She also didn’t want to address the fact that the money had been STOLEN by the captive woman’s husband in the first place, which was why they were in that predicament.

She also didn’t want to address the fact that if Paul Newman hadn’t shot two of the robbers, their posse would have gotten away with the money AND the woman, AND left them in the desert with no water or horses, presumably to die of thirst.

Most importantly, and the focus of this article, is that NOBODY in the entire film wanted to address the fact that this was NOT. PAUL. NEWMAN’S. WOMAN.

Regardless of what happened to her, his life wasn’t going to be any different.

If he gave the money away, he saves some nobody’s life, so she can go off with her husband and do God knows what, to ZERO benefit to Paul Newman.

If he keeps the money, he gets to save the lives of the people that raised him.. A LOT of the people that raised, him, not just one person.

This is clearly a no-brainer… “**** you. Shoot her.”

Meanwhile (which is relevant to my eventual point), the husband tries to get slick.

Even though the criminals have his wife, and the money and water are their only bargaining chips, he gets the drop on everybody BUT Paul Newman and orders them to give him the money and the water because he’s breaking north (leaving).

Of course, he gets caught by Paul Newman, who offers him a 1-on-1 shootout, which this ***** of course, declines. He’s made to leave the money, leave the water, and LEAVE! :D hahaha SEEYA!

Now… Here comes the same chick, asking Paul Newman questions about “How do you expect him to live in the desert without any water? :O”

Another stupid question, because he was about to leave YOU, ME and all the rest of us HERE without ANY bargaining chips against the criminals, INCLUDING water, so **** him.

The husband ends up rejoining the group, and they’re trapped in a house with the criminals surrounding them and once again attempting to use this guy’s wife to barter for the money.

The robbers decide that it would be a good idea to take this guy’s wife to an open area and leave her there, tied to a tree stump or something, in the desert heat, with no water, until someone came down from the house and traded them the money and water for her life.

That’s Your Man’s Problem

This sparked a new round of conversation about “How can you NOT trade some MONEY away for a PERSON’S life? :O”

Now.. This conversation didn’t go the way it was supposed to go, and I understand why it didn’t, for the general welfare.

The back-story to this situation was that the people that had been robbed were “Indians” (which, of course, nobody’s an Indian here because this isn’t India and Christoper Columbus was LOST! :/), and Paul Newman was white, but had been raised by the Indians that had been robbed by the husband that was cold chillin’ in the house, safe, with everybody except his wife.

Therefore.. In 1967, it was important to get the point across to the movie-goers that people raised by Indians are taught proper morals and will do the right thing when the situation calls for it, and “Indians are people, just like us.”

So, I understand, artistically, why the proper conversation never occurred in “Hombre”, and I’m glad they wrote the script that way, and I’m sure a lot of people learned something from it, but here’s how the conversation would have actually gone:

Chick: You’re just going to leave her out there to die, instead of giving away the money that will save the people that sustained your life to this very day? :O

Paul Newman: There goes her husband right thurrr.. Let *THAT* mother****** go get her.

It was the husband’s fault that he stole the money. It was the husband’s fault that he brought it on a stagecoach. It was the husband’s fault that he brought HIS WIFE with him while transporting his stolen money. It was the husband who tried to leave with the money and water while holding the rest of the group at gunpoint. It was the husband that NEVER. *******. VOLUNTEERED to go save his own ******* WIFE when the criminals put her out on display to quickly die of dehydration.

THAT’S the bottom line of the discussion. I didn’t steal the money from the Indians.. HE did. If I hadn’t shot those two dudes, the money and water would be gone, so now, they’re both *MY* property and the money will be returned to the people from whom it was stolen, because I say so. This husband-dude put his own wife in danger by bringing her along with him during a criminal enterprise. He got her into this, so now it’s up to him to get her out of it. Period.

Of course, since they needed to prove a point for race relations in 1967, Paul Newman goes to save some other guy’s wife, gets in a gunfight with the criminals, kills both of them and dies in the process, thus proving that Indians can raise a white guy to have morals and compassion. Fortunately, he had already told this other dude in the group to return the money to the Indians, so we can assume he didn’t die for nothing and that they got their money back.

I personally found this situation amazing. I was like *WHEN* are these people going to complain to the thieving, flat-leaving husband that *HE* hasn’t lifted a finger to try to save his own wife, who’s currently tied to a log right there in front of his eyes? o_O

They didn’t even bother to film one single frame of that dude showing ANY concern for his wife’s situation or well-being. Not. One. Frame… They showed him caring about getting away with the money, though.

Real-World Application

Fast-Forwarding to the year 2011 AD, I still find it funny that people expect people with no vested interest in a situation to act more responsibly than people that are directly connected to and/or affected by that situation.

Let’s look at “cheating”, for instance… I find it completely amazing that a gal will be in a relationship with a guy, he hooks up with some other chick, and the girlfriend gets mad at…. drumoll… THE. OTHER. CHICK! :D hahaha That’s SOOOO STUPID! :D

First of all, that other chick didn’t make any agreements with you.. Your man did.

*HE’S* the one that swore up and down on a stack of bibles that he wasn’t going to hook up with anybody except you when you agreed to date him or marry him or become FWB or whatever… Shouldn’t you be mad AT HIM instead of some random chick that met a guy that may or may not have said he’s in a relationship before they got busy?

Why are you expecting someone with ZERO vested interest in your personal happiness to support your relationship? o_O .. How about the person that told you to your face that he was going to be ‘faithful’ to you?

I’m completely amazed. Don’t ask Paul Newman to go save somebody else’s wife.. That’s. Her. Man’s. Problem.

Her husband/boyfriend/whatever is the one that took on the responsibility for her well-being. She aligned herself WITH HIM for whatever reasons she had at the time. If she wanted to be under Paul Newman’s protection, she should have hooked up WITH HIM, but noooooo. :D

So, don’t expect other women to support YOUR relationship to some dude.. Especially women you don’t even know. That’s. Your. Man’s. Problem. He’s the one that signed the exclusive-sex contract with you, so if he hooks up with some other chick, take it up WITH HIM, not WITH HER.

This also applies to the club.

If you’re broke and you can’t afford to buy a drink, that’s YOUR MAN’S problem! :D

You’re providing value to him, so he needs to be providing value to you.

Random dudes that you don’t know from Adam and that you’re not hooking up with have no obligation to get you drunk offa their hard-earned money.

You can call them cheap or whatever, but it’s not THEM that’s begging.. it’s *YOU*!!! :D

If you want a drink at the restaurant, bring your money or offer to wash some dishes for them to earn your keep. If you can’t afford it and don’t feel like working, tell YOUR MAN that you’d like to party beyond your financial means and get HIM to hook you up.

Good For The Gander

Of course, the same advice goes for the fellaz.

If you make a deal with some chick and then she gives it up to the next man, get mad AT HER, not at him, because he didn’t promise you jack-**** as far as not screwing your woman. SHE promised you that she wouldn’t hook up with other guys, so talk to her about your breach of contract issues.

Also.. If you’re one of those guys that plays up to less-attractive women at the club to get them to buy you drinks for free, then you just might have to play your position and actually hook up with her if that’s how you’re livin’! :D haha You might have to put in some work or stay sober.. your choice! >:D

Off The Market

A lot of women run into this issue when they change their classification from “single” to “in a relationship”. They don’t become aware until after the fact that the only reason certain guys were doing things for them is that they were currently FWB or at least in the running to get some in the near future.

Once she selects a guy and claims she’s only going to hook up with him, some of her so-called “friends” become immediately unavailable.

If she needs to change a light bulb, she needs to tell HER MAN to do that for her. That’s HIS responsibility. Nobody else cares if she sits around in the dark.

If she had a bad day?.. Save it for David. That’s HER MAN’S JOB to listen to that stuff.

If she needs to get some…. well…. a brotha Might Could see what he can do about that! >:D

But Anyway… I think people need to focus more on the alliances and affiliations they make, so they have a more realistic understanding of what’s going to happen when they ask someone to do something for them.

In “Hombre” (putting aside the race-relations subtext of the script), the choice was clear.. One chick doesn’t get shot by dudes that shouldn’t shoot her anyway, or A LOT OF PEOPLE that raised Paul Newman’s character starve and die because that chick’s husband robbed them.

Real-World no-brainer.. “**** you. She’s nothing to me. Shoot her.”

As far as the conversation in the house? Another no-brainer.. “There goes her husband right there. Tell that ***** to go get his wife, whom he dragged into this situation in the first place by robbing people and then inviting her on the stagecoach with him as he was transporting the money, and whom he tried to flat-leave by breaking north with the money and the water when he knew damned well that the criminals were holding her hostage. I’ll cover him from here with the rifle.”

As far as women trying to juice guys for drinks at the bar, if you’re cold lampin’ with no visible means of purchasing anything, I hope you have a bus pass stashed somewhere on your person, because whether you get drunk right now or have to walk home later tonight… That’s YOUR MAN’S Problem! >:D
–
Connect with Bill via Facebook, Twitter, Email Subscription, RSS Feed

Related Posts

• How To Starting Dating Again
• Relationship Compressors vs Limiters
• How To Deny Allegations
• Appreciate Your Girlfriend
• What if she could hear what you’re thinking?

Reader “Susan” left quite a lengthy comment on my post Women’s Guide To NYC Dating, so I decided to make my response to her its own post so we can all benefit from this discussion…

Hi Bill, well thanks for the long response.

Just to let you know, back in about February a few months after having moved (as a life-long new Yorker) to the midwest, I met a guy. Actually, I met a couple guys. Hell, I could have met more had I went out on the town a fraction as often as I did in New York. But the one I’m dating is a keeper. We quickly became boyfriend-girlfriend, and it’s WONDERFUL. Hell, I need to start practicing yoga to limber up. Every moment is wonderful, and we both acknowledge it. Easily. I trust, I give, I need, and I am trusted, given to and needed. We think it’s because we have ‘perspective’ as he says. He’s not that experienced, nor am I, even at my age. And this is the one thing I’ve always been looking for in a person. It’s hard to even explain, if I had more time…

I’m very happy for you, Susan. :) I hope you get to enjoy your relationship with this fellow for a very long time.

This is what happens when you move to the sticks. You automatically remove the rest of your competition. It’s much easier for ANYBODY to shine in an environment where they happen to be an anomaly.

That’s my point about dating in NYC for women. There are too many of y’all. There’s no reason to select one, because there are like eight other gals offering the exact same thing.. and then eight more next week.

This is one of the reasons why NYC is the “Neverland” of dating for the guys. Between new imports, tourists, and chicks that change neighborhoods and move near you, there’s a never-ending supply of females who provide essentially the exact same experience. There’s no reason for a guy to have a girlfriend when he knows 20 gals that don’t have a man and are dying to go out with him at the drop of a hat.

In the sticks, you have to get in where you fit in. If you don’t lock Betty-Sue down, the next man’s going to pull her and then you’re stuck with the same selection you had before the new gal arrived.

I’m not saying that to be funny.. it’s just the truth. It’s like how I can go anywhere in the country and chicks will fall all over me because I’m from NYC. It’s nothing I’m personally doing. I just made myself an anomaly because I’m different from their usual selection of guys.

I really want to respond to some of your points, many of which I disagree with on such a fundamental level that they’re difficult to explain, or perhaps, are difficult to be understood by those who have a different set of values, or lacking any knowledge of what theirs really are, or are too stuck in their own. But I will try- mostly for the lonely, strong goodhearted, New York women on here who keep plugging along in unhappiness and even misery!, and, most importantly perhaps- who have a new, revelatory inkling of something brighter, those women who have caught a sudden whiff of something being rotten in the state of New York.

I’m a fan of the lonely, strong, good-hearted New York women in this town.

I also realize that y’all have a tough row to hoe if you’re asking a guy to select you out of millions of other women that are bringing just about the exact same qualities to the table.

I’m looking forward to reading this, which I can say because I’m stopping along the way to type my responses so I can gain maximum personal enjoyment from your comments and reply as authentically as possible.

There’s so much I could say, and so little time. *sigh*

As is rather typical, women MAKE time for things that are important to them, which you obviously did with this reply. :)

This is why guys know that when we offer you an opportunity to get together and you act like you’re not interested or too busy, we need to focus our attention on women that are dying to spend time with us.

Your general argument about women being miserable being due to our own (assumed) unreasonably high expectations of men, is the expected one. It’s a common one on the internet. It reeks of bitterness, vanity and narcissism on the part of those arguing it.

This is interesting, Susan.

If I told you “Don’t walk out in the highway, because you’ll get run THE **** over”, would you call me bitter? :D

If I said (not meaning YOU in particular) “You’re sweating me more than I’m sweating you.. In fact, I can exchange you at any time for a gal I met on the subway this afternoon”, would that be Narcissistic or factual? o_O (assuming that I can actually do that)

It’s easy to dismiss information that you wish wasn’t true by attempting to color the other person’s perspective. Unfortunately, I know lots of guys that have ZERO intention of being “faithful” to chicks and lie to y’all’s faces and do whatever they want behind your backs. I also know guys that will tell you they’re NOT going to get involved with you in some sort of “relationship” and that you can KICK ROCKS because there are other women interested in spending time with them right now.

Those Prince Charmings exist here as well. Good luck getting your hands on one (again, not you.. I realize that you’ve moved out of town already and are in a happy relationship) with at least another 500,000 lonely, good-hearted New York City women that want him as much as you do.

It’s also misandrous. Men are not less capable of emotion, love or commitment than women. They are geared to protect us. Their hearts are not less developed or smaller than ours. They may work differently, but they are not less. I am so, SO, sooo tired of hearing that they are. I know in my soul now – or perhaps simply remember- that indeed it’s nothing but the ideological insistence of many embittered or small-minded, wounded men whose hearts are indeed, smaller, and not *all* men.

I like this comment, Susan. I’ve never heard it before.

I’ve never said that men are less capable of emotion. I’ve never written that men don’t love women. I know guys that are committed to their girlfriends and/or wives.

What I’m telling you is that while you’re playing the “relationship” game, guys are playing the “get laid” game.

Are there guys that want relationships? Yep. How long do you think they’re going to remain on the market in New York City? o_O

I could announce on Facebook that I’m looking for a girlfriend, and I guarantee you I’d have at least 6 offers within the first 30 minutes. I’m not actually going to DO that, because I take my online presence seriously, but the fact remains that if I put it out there that I was ready to retire from The Game, I would be approached by a gal that I find perfectly adequate for a relationship that very same day.

It’s not like guys like that stay available for months. It’s not like you’re going to meet one of them in a bar, because he’s told myriad women that he wants to be faithful to them and they said “No Thanks.. I’d Rather Play The Field”.

In fact.. **** 30 minutes. I know women right now that I could contact, wake up out of their sleep and tell them “I want you to be my girlfriend” and they would agree and the next FB status update I made would be announcing my new relationship.

I don’t have to get up from this computer. I don’t have to take any new women out to dinner. I don’t have to wait until the fourth date to hook up with them. I don’t have to eat Green Eggs and Ham.

The only guys that stay on the market are a) the guys whose standards are too high for what they’re personally bringing to the table, and b) guys who aren’t looking for a relationship AT ALL, but will lie to you about it in order to get you to give it up.

Moreover, it, this repellant new ideology, is an illogical premise. It simply makes no sense. No living organism accepts misery as a state of being without attempting as desperately as possible to struggle *away* from it. That’s what pain is- a signal our body is giving us to get away from something. An organism will adjust its tactics or expectations. A starving, sick bear will eat a dead fish. To think that all us women, some of us quite intelligent and accomplished (hence our coming or being here), are simply consistently, for years, clueless of where we stand in the pecking order, and pursue men who are ‘out of our league’ and then surprised at our resulting treatment which brings us misery by that ‘object’, yet continue to persist in this behavior is clearly irrational. Some women do this. They are damaged and deserve to be pull themselves or be pulled, from the dirt. But they are a minority. What I and others have been complaining about and seeking advice for is another issue. We are starving and are lucky to even find a dead fish..so perhaps we’re considering another migration pattern.

I’m not saying that smart women are dumb. :)

I’m saying that how viable you are as relationship material is directly proportional to how much competition you surround yourself with.

For instance.. Most places I go, I’m the only person that looks like me. That makes me an anomaly and makes it easier for me to meet women, because I’m different.

If I found some society, some country town or whatever, where a lot of the guys looked pretty similar to me, my visual advantage is GONE. That means that the only way I’d be able to differentiate myself from the crowd is by my personality, which is what I told women to do in my article.

Are my best girlfriends going to be selected for America’s Next Top Model?.. Nope! :D However.. *I* enjoy how they look well enough, and I LOVE. SPENDING. TIME. WITH. THEM. because of their unique personalities.

Could I spend time with better-looking airheards? I sure could. It would be a waste of my time, personally.

I’m not saying that y’all ENJOY your misery and you flock to it! :D You’re absolutely right that that would be irrational. I’m saying that unless y’all decide to open your ******* EYES and see that there’s a CEO-female sitting to your left in the subway car and a VICE-PRESIDENT-female sitting to your right, and a START-UP-ENTREPRENEUR-female sitting across the aisle from you, you’re not going to realize that you’re not as unique as you think you are and the odds are lower than you think that some guy’s going to consider entering an exclusive relationship with you.

He’ll put you on The Roster and hit it whenever he gets around to it, but an exclusive relationship is a tough row to hoe when you’re surrounded by women that are as attractive, talented, wealthy, ambitious and sexy as you are.

Further, it’s clearly a suspicious theory. Would it not be more comfortable to you, as a ‘player’ to believe that the complaining women are indeed less deserving of what they pursue, and thus should view the awful treatment they get (in their naivete, and sometimes pure-intentioned-ness) is due to their own folly? That women generally deserve less than what they intuitively need? Does this not naturally absolve you of guilt for your actions which perpetuate misery? This theory is a justification for lack of ethics and maturity. It also assumes that the pecking order is the same everywhere- it isn’t, and never is.

lolol First of all, I’m not a player. :) Women like me. There’s a difference.

I’m not “playing” at anything.

The term “player” is applied incorrectly as a blanket statement meaning “Guys that won’t conform to having only one girlfriend”. A player is a guy that approaches you specifically to swindle you out of something, which is usually either sex or money or money AND sex.

All I’m saying is that unless you can demonstrate to me some reason why I shouldn’t hook up with other chicks, that’s what I’m gonna do and you can kick rocks if you don’t like it.

That’s not playing. That’s the truth.

To address your point.. If I were a player, I would continue using the dirty, underhanded tactics that I know work on y’all females over and over and over and over and over, and I wouldn’t be writing blog posts so y’all might wake up and start to brainstorm some countermeasures.

In fact, y’all bore me to death with how easy it is to pull you with stuff like “I love you”, “I want to marry you”, “I’m divorcing my wife”, “I want you to star in my feature film”… *YAWN*

Going back to my highway analogy.. I see the cars and you don’t. You see an empty, 8-lane highway. You feel like you can walk out on the pavement, put down a blanket and have a picnic and you’ll never get run over.

Then… You go out on the highway, get run the **** over, I tell you WHY you got run over, you tell me I’m bitter and then you put your blanket down on the highway again, which is why a lot of my friends ask me why I even BOTHER to try to enlighten y’all. :D

As far as what women deserve, that’s delegated on an individual basis, similar to how you figure out what men deserve.

If you go to McDonald’s and there are 5 Big Macs lined up next to each other on the shelf when you arrive, how do you know which one to select?… That’s right.. It doesn’t make a difference which one you select, because they’re all essentially the same is my point.

The dating downfall of the arrogant female is assuming that the woman right next to her isn’t as accomplished, DTF and arrogant as she is. Does one of the Big Macs have more lettuce than the others? Yep. Is one of them built a little better, and the others look sloppy next to it? Yep. Does that guarantee the best Big Mac that it’s going to be selected by the customer? Nope.

What if the customer decides to buy all five? o_O

As far as the pecking order, you’re right that it varies from location to location, even within NYC. That’s why it’s important to recognize where you are, so you can properly assess your chances of landing an exclusive relationship.

Mile Marker 5

I want to tell you something. I’ve thought a bit about this just the other day and this is what I came up with. I wonder if anyone here have perhaps come up with the same idea. Here it is: it should take a while to get to, as all the important things do. Humans write stories. We think in metaphor; we create symbols. When we fantasize, about Prince Charming or that dream of opening that cupcake store or that dream job, these ideas encapsulate much of who we are. They have spiritual value for us and play particular critical psychological AND social roles.

When us ‘deluded’ women fantasize about Prince Charming, we all fantasize about him in different ways. There has never been one Prince Charming for all women. Sure he is handsome, tall and charming..he usually has a horse and a kingdom. But not really. We don’t all *actually* see him with those traits or carrying all those things. Sometimes he appears when he need him to, because he is Prince Charming. He is the deep, deep desire of many women to know that there is someone who is not perfect or rich or handsome or can and will ‘rescue’ us, but that can make us happy- or content.

How we are and *if* we can be made happy at all is up to the mental and emotional state of the individual woman. But we can have our needs fulfilled and be happy, and we want this intuitively- as all humans do- and this is why Prince Charming was created by someone somewhere, and made known to everyone everywhere.

Prince Charming is an ideal, and a hope, and ideals carry us…they also reflect who we are and what we need, and what we should give.

That’s all well & good, however you’re overlooking the common denominator.. EXCLUSIVE. RELATIONSHIP.

Regardless of how y’all fantasize about whomever sweeping you off your feet and finding you special yadda yadda, it all comes down to whether he’ll give up his NATURAL RIGHT to hook up with any chick that wants to hook up with him and give YOU some kind of say over his personal sexual choices.

NONE OF Y’ALL fantasize about Prince Charming riding up on his horse or whatever, hitting it and quitting it.. and if any of y’all do, Google “Bill”, and I’ll see what I can do. >;)

All jokes aside, this is a very simple issue. “You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake.”.. In the context of this post, how unique you are is determined by the number of unique people that you’re directly in competition with. In the sticks, it’s not that many.

I love people from the sticks, and think they’re the most genuine people you will find, and people from big cities play too many games and are a hassle to deal with. You can go into one wine bar in NYC and see 20 attractive, well-dressed, highly-accomplished, highly-intelligent, single-with-nothing-better-to-do-with-their-time-than-mess-with-you females sitting around talking to each other with ZERO men in sight. How in the world is that supposed to inspire a guy to accept one girlfriend in an exclusive relationship when he has a good chance of meeting a totally fantastic woman later today or tomorrow?

I suppose that you fancy yourself a sort of cynical, streetwise, savvy ‘there’s no Santa claus’ naysayer- someone who knows *better* than many others. This is where your pride stems from. But this is not truth. This is lack of perspective.

In fact, I’m not proud of myself at all. I’ve done nothing. My looks were genetically handed down to me from my parents. I have natural charisma and talent and my mind was honed by attending the top schools available to me, including Hunter College Elementary School, Bronx High School of Science, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT, as it’s referred to in every movie you’ve ever seen about brainiacs.

http://alum.mit.edu/www/billcammack

I have nothing to be “proud” about. This is how my life went. I had nothing to do with it.

Similarly, women like me because I’m fly. I have nothing to do with that. It’s nothing to be proud of. It’s nothing I’m DOING TO y’all. It’s natural mass appeal. To be proud that chicks like me would be like being proud that I can drink NYC tap water. It’s no big deal.

All I’m saying here is that if you can play baseball, it’s easy for you to get on your little league team. It’s easy for you to get on your high school team. It’s easy to get on your college team, at least to ride the bench. When you want to enter the Major Leagues, there’s a major cutoff. They won’t even let you ride the bench unless you’re the best of the best. I’m not saying that NOBODY plays in the major leagues. I’m saying that people that compare favorably to their competition make it there. The more competition anyone has in anything, the less likely they are to get what they want.

Like.. Let’s say I wanted to get my Paul McCartney on and marry a rich chick. My odds on doing that are VERY. SLIM.

I don’t hang out with rich people. Rich people hang out with other rich people. Rich people introduce available rich women to available rich men that all hang out in The Hamptons, but apparently not Quogue, as tRHoNYC were bitchin’ and moanin’ about over the last couple of weeks.

If I took a stance of “I deserve to date a rich chick and become involved in an exclusive relationship with her so I can play XBOX and eat bon bons on the couch all day”, it would be A. TOUGH. ROW. TO. HOE. and it doesn’t make me a bitter or cynical person to state that about myself or anybody else that isn’t connected to that society.

Similarly.. Women that say they only want to date a certain type of guy are painting themselves into a corner, with the only WIN being found in their personalities. There’s a chick in this same subway car with a fatter ass than yours. There’s a chick that’s smarter than you. There’s a chick that’s prettier than you. It MIGHT be the same chick that has all those physical advantages over you. You are NOT going to “out-physical” millions of women that are readily available to NYC men. Even if you’re the best-looking chick, you might not be as DTF. You might be too busy with your career to spend a lot of time with the dude. Your odds of winning are extremely LOWWW unless you’re willing to accept whatever dudes happen to step to you or whatever raps you cultivate on your own.

On top of that, it’s the dudes with the Porsches and the million-dollar cribs that run top-of-the-line women in and out of there like Charlie Sheen, so how are you supposed to get him to give that up? o_O

For what? o_O

I’m just offering y’all helpful tips. If you’re stuck in a rut, try demonstrating more personality instead of wearing a shorter skirt.

Appreciating a worthy object of desire, i.e. beauty, is what we do as humans. To see beyond the exteriors into the beauty that hides, is what we need to do as humans more often. I believe in New York it’s almost nearly impossible because there is too much beauty in general, too much clutter. It’s a shame because it’s one of the most liberating experiences one can have.

Strangely enough, what you just said is what my entire article is about.

Bill, I understand you are saying that us women should not play out of our leagues. I explained above why some of that ideology is silly: because ‘leagues’ differ in different places and are the harshest and least balanced in NYC and L.A., because it assumes decency of treatment is only for the most beautiful, because we are geared as humans to want an ideal, and because it assumes that’s exactly what us women are doing when many of us clearly aren’t.

That’s not what I’m saying.

What I’m saying is “Recognize The Game”.

If I decide that I want to date Lindsay Lohan & Britney Spears simultaneously, that’s what I’m going to try to do. I don’t give a flying **** about leagues or any of that.

At the same time, I’m going to realize that my chances are slim to none… and Slim left town.

All this “blah blah my inner beauty” stuff isn’t going to get you a date. If it gets you a date, it’s not going to get you an exclusive boyfriend in a town with millions of other women with inner beauty just like yours.

Again.. The dudes that are looking for inner beauty find women like that very quickly, because y’all are practically littering the streets of Manhattan. You can always find packs of 4-5 women shuffling around town together because they have no men to spend time with. I’m sure all the gals in those packs are just as ambitious, internally beautiful and deserving as you are, so it just amazes me that women think they’ve got some kind of clear advantage in the dating field here.

As for “There’s someone for everyone”, I find it comedic that you say ‘history proves it’ when you actually give no evidence for it. I;’d need a graph or a multicolor pie chart based on a double blind study to agree. Evidence bolsters a theory; not historical events. Events are products of human behavior. Your argument is not even tenuous; simply because it’s like saying ‘history proved that Germans like killing Jews’. Actually, under certain sets of factors in certain environments, sets of *individuals* will commit genocide against other sets of individuals. That’s all that history has proved. It certainly doesn’t disregard individual psychology, pathology, free will or all the massive and gorgeous resistance that makes movies and novels. You’ve missed the point. The point is that, like gravity or evolution, the idea that there is someone for everyone can not *be* proven, but it could be attained in a perfect utopia where individuals made better decisions.

ok. :) You have a semantic point there. How does this work for you?…

In an environment where men outnumber women, there’s someone for everyone, because some guys are going to be desperate enough to tap the worst-looking female in the group, so all the ladies could get some.

In New York City, where there are at least tens of thousands of lonely women ambling aimlessly around town hoping and praying that they become involved in an exclusive relationship with a guy that meets X standards, there is *NOT* someone for everyone, because the top guys get several girls each and there’s no reason why they should even bother to feign exclusivity with ANY of them.

Bringing up Aborigines and lost Mayan civilizations will not help women get a date in New York City in the year 2011.

I think it’s unhealthy to send ANYONE into the world with the idea that they are going to get into some *perfect* relationship eventually because there simply *is* no perfect. Young girls should be taught the truth: that life is hard, and men can be douches just like women can, and some men are not perfect but wonderful, that if you are wonderful too, you are more likely to get wonderful back; and to be wonderful for the right reasons, so you have the strength to only accept the wonderful.

I agree with you ENTIRELY on this, Susan. 100%

The discussion of what you had to play with as a child is an irrelevant one. I played with my brother’s tinker toys and transformers; I threw dolls that friends of my parents (who never MADE me play with anything) to the ground and usually ignored them. I’m still quite feminine. That doesn’t mean anything, and it’s unfair to those little girls who genuinely enjoyed playing dress up and using easy bake ovens. Perhaps they learned to love cooking enough to become chefs or caiterers or to become great housewives. Good for all of them. Good for them.

It doesn’t matter that you don’t know how to change a diaper and that I knew how when I was 6 or that my boyfriend doesn’t know how to. What matters is a person’s character and their ability to give, to learn, to learn how.

“I wasn’t set up for that life. I don’t think it’s fun. I was playing baseball and football while your baby doll was wetting itself and you were being set up.”

I am glad you know what you’re not set up for, my hope would be that things in your world fall right and that everyone is ok with how they do.

Another interesting point that I’m glad you brought up.

I’m very happy that women like to cook and clean too, because SOMEBODY’S gotta do it.

I recognize WHY society does that to y’all. It’s necessary that someone has the skills to raise and nurture children or the society goes straight downhill.

What I’m saying is that by training girls to do that and not training boys to do that, you end up with a necessarily skewed group of adults. Go ask the guys that you know what they would do if they had a son.. would they give him a baby doll to play with? An oven? A tea-party set? See what they tell you. >:D

Then.. You have shows like “Teen Mom” on MTV where the chicks are always surprised that their boyfriends REFUSE to change diapers or whatever. Who wants to do THAT? \o/ haha That’s why y’all have to be brainwashed, or else there would be two adults standing around drawing straws about who was going to change the baby.

My point is that the education/brainwashing isn’t global in this issue. If boys were equally stressed to play with dolls and kitchen utensils, it would make sense to expect them to be happy about doing chores like that when the time arose.

I’m also not saying that brainwashing MAKES women feminine. I wish it did, because a lot of New York females could stand a whole bunch of extra femininity. Every time the Southern Ladies come to visit, y’all pale in comparison.

I am not glad over the derision seeping out of your words. No woman has been set up. Women are not victims (that you think we are is sad for you, not for us). We work out of our own intuition and needs, and sometimes they’re babydolls who’ve wet themselves and sometimes we get bored and walk away and sometimes we change the diaper and sometimes we don’t play with dolls but mostly tinker toys and we change our brother’s diapers because we’re envious that our mom knows how and we don’t. Sometimes we grow up to be great moms and sometimes we don’t and it’s all okay because none of use have been set up. We make choices and we have enough of them in our society to take responsibility for them.

I wish their was some specificity to what this so-called ‘dream’ of ours is. Perhaps you don’t know what it’s like to be trusted or loved, or perhaps you don’t believe there are enough people out there with enough maturity, character and values to ever be monogamous and content. Perhaps you are incapable of it, but there certainly are enough good men out there to make most of us happy at least, even if ta bunch of them have to lose 100 lbs, start putting on makeup and cooking for some bald, short average guy. I’m pretty sure us humans can work it out…nah- to be honest, only some of us can. But those SOME are the most deserving anyway.

As I mentioned about your Prince Charming chapter, There *IS* specificity to your collective dream. It’s to be the property of a man and to have him simultaneously be your property.

I’m very clear on what you’re trying to do. :) The only reason for y’all to call someone your boyfriend or husband is so you can claim some kind of superior relationship to him over other women.

It doesn’t matter what FLAVOR the dream comes in.. It’s the same dream. Self-validation through acceptance by another.

The evidence of that dream is that if your so-called boyfriend or husband screws some other chick, you’re going to cry about it and break up with him. Why break up with him when he was exercising his free will? o_O

Because it flies in the face of your control over him is why. Therefore, the illusion of control is at the core of your fantasy to be someone’s girlfriend.

I, on the other hand, recognize that I don’t have any control at all over any females at all on this entire planet. If they like me and want to give me some, that’s fantastic! :D If they’re not interested, I’m either going to attempt to make them physically interested in me or let it slide.

It’s not my problem if a chick I’m messing with has a so-called boyfriend or any other type of relationship because she’s going to do whatever she wants to do, exercising her own free will, whether that’s to my benefit or not.

This is the difference between us that you detest. I’m not playing your game, and you’re hoping I’m the only one that feels and thinks this way…

Mile Marker 10

“I’m not making this stuff up myself. This isn’t fiction. I’m not speculating. I’m talking about what people have actually said and done, or what I’VE actually said and done.”

Anecdotal evidence is laughable in a court of logicians.

No intelligent, logical woman with good values doesn’t know what some men are thinking, lol. But an intelligent, logical woman with good values knows what to kick to the curb and when. We *also*, importantly, know that it’s not a terrible thing because there are good men out there, you know, the ones that sometimes daydream about that porn they saw while you’re PMSing and talking about your father’s death those years back, but that stop and realize that you’re talking, and begin listening, and hold you in their arms even if they’re not in the mood. Many men do this, and many of them do this often, and many of them don’t consider it a burden, and many even may want to talk about their father’s death too one day and be held in your arms too…and maybe that’s why they are do understanding to you to begin with?? Maybe it’s because some people have a capacity, and others don’t.

Agreed. Some guys genuinely want to be there for you in that fashion. Other guys do it because they know they’re not going to get laid without it. Other guys bounce if any topic other than sex comes up.

Young women are not making good decisions in terms of their dating choices anymore, but unfortunately alot of them are hopeless due to what they see out there in terms of men’s behavior. It’s a circle, a back and forth thing.

Doesn’t it make sense then to post about topics I post about so these same young women might be able to read a debate that might open their minds and eyes to situations they’re currently in?

“If the only examples you have of what men think is buying y’all flowers and candy and saying we’re wrong when we know we’re right, you’ll never be able to understand why a relationship went south or never got started at all.”

lol You’re totally right here!!! Because if this is actually what women expect, it’s something called narcissism. It’s a pathology, a psychiatric condition. Perhaps though, this is the way that you view it through the lens of your own narcissism, your own colossal and neverending needs? Perchance?

hmm.. Not sure that narcissism has anything to do with this one.

All I know is that there are lots of simple and basic tricks that mean nothing at all, yet come in handy for pacifying women that have found something to complain about, regardless of how perfectly legitimate and correct y’all’s complaints are.

If a chick is riffin’ with a dude and then he brings her flowers and she STFU and sexes him, it has nothing to do with my personal narcissism, just like it’s not my fault that y’all love to stop and stare into shoe store windows.

“I would say that if you detect a “mocking and derisive tone” in what I have to say about “women’s needs”, it’s because y’all bore me to death with how easily you’re led to do whatever men want with some simple, meaningless words.”

Ahhh! Now you’re one to something, I love this. lol. Truly, not all women are this weak and dumb. Also, not all women assume that men are constantly lying about everything.

“I don’t have to love you at all, but if I say it, you’ll believe it, because you want to believe it, because you were trained to believe it from when you were a little girl….that y’all fall for like dominoes, every single day.”

Ok, now this is just weird. What woman actually believes a guy loves her when she barely knows him or he hasn’t committed to her first?? That’s just too bizarre to even contend with. You must be attracting the most pathetic, naive, or damaged young women in the whole city if that’s the case. Tsk tsk. What’s even sadder, actually, is that you seem to want to justify these women’s messed-upness by interpreting it as being a result of us being ‘trained’ to expect love everywhere immediately from any guy that comes along. I think it’s more likely that they’re just desperate for any affection from a man in this city, which as sad as *that* is, they still are certainly complicit in that guy’s absence the next morning, lol.

ok.. Let’s use your terminology. :) When you used to live here, you not only had to contend with the top women in the world, like brainiac Google Vice Presidents, but desperados that are willing to give away what you’re trying to get paid for at half price or no price at all.

The only reason a guy has to commit to you is so you’ll sex him. He can get everything else from you by just hanging out with you and not offering you a title. When you’re surrounded by thousands of women that are willing to sex him off the bat, what incentive does he have to give that up?

Unfortunately, you hear this a lot from women. Y’all snap all over “easy” women, but who do you think is getting all the dates? o_O

Y’all wonder why you have three degrees and make beaucoup ducats and then the dude you wanted was spotted at a club with this chick that flips burgers at Wendy’s and wears $19 stretch jeans from Conway’s.

Decrease your competition, Increase your opportunities to WIN! :D

It really IS that simple.

“What a guy thinks of you doesn’t actually matter at all. … Once you realize this, it doesn’t lead to your thinking that you don’t need a man, but it’s a healthier foundation for you to stand on and SELECT a man to be with that recognizes you and appreciates you for the qualities you’re bringing to the table.”

Well I must say, I think this is a bit unbalanced, typical of modern liberal feminist thought that I find so repugnant, ideological, socially damaging and inherently illogical. If the man has good character and you want a good relationship, OF COURSE what he thinks of you matters- not because you’re desperate to please everyone like someone with low self esteem but because that’s the mutual aspect of a good relationship. It matters what you think of him and it matters what he thinks of you. All this separateness is no foundation for a good relationship, it’s good for the independent type of people who should have separate lives. But I will reiterate, what he thinks should only matter to a woman AFTER she’s appropriately judged his character and has known alot about him for a while.

Another semantic issue. I was talking about how we can tell you you look like you lost weight and you feel slim and we can turn around and tell you you look like you gained weight and you feel fat and self-conscious.

I agree with what you wrote, however, about healthy relationships being based upon mutual admiration, love & respect.

“There’s nothing to pulling women, because y’all fall for the same tricks every day.”

Lol at “y’all”. This is hilarious. I have a little story for you. An old roommate of mine, a nice little plain looking guy with woman troubles, got me interested in the Pick Up Artist on VH1- at first for my feminist radar, secondly because it was fascinating as a social experiment. I then read ‘The Game’ by Neil Strauss. I got so far into this as to email with the author a bit. Want to know what I learned from both that book, the show and what apparently many other men have said to me too? Throughout the entire book, where the narrator must have bedded gosh- hundreds of women- from psychology students to porn stars, not one- not a single ONE- of these descriptions of these women were the type of chick I’d hang with. As an ex- New York club chick, I can tell you I’ve seen alot of this. And I can tell the women who are high quality types from the marginally attractive, semi-educated nutcases with low self-esteem and not much to say about anything, in a New york minute. I know the models from the art students and the bulimics from the biology PhDs from good families. Is this misogynist of me? Or is it just truth that in every group of people, like all the people of the planet, some people are just *better* than others? Hmm, an interesting thought but. Anyway, EVERY SINGLE woman was either very young and working through esteem issues, or just plain messed up, and the only chick this guy fell for in this book was ‘high quality’. The articulate supersmart ultracool famous rocker chick.

The point is, the girls falling for this are either 1. naive and very young (shame on you) 2. vulnerable in some way due to self esteem issues from whatever in their lives (shame on you) 3. just dumb (shame on you) or 4. know exactly what they’re doing and are ok with a one night stand where they dont have to feel guilty for wanting and having because that guy is ‘just a jerk’.

I don’t buy that the MAJORIY OF ALL WOMEN are falling for the ‘game’. Certainly not the high quality ones.

This is what I was talking about just above. You’re projecting your concept of “better than” onto the guy who’s doing the selecting.

You’re also projecting your concept of “high quality”.

To lots of guys, “high quality” means a nice ass and the desire to let us get up on it one time for the people.

To lots of guys, “high quality” means she might not be the best-looking, but she’s pleasant to spend time with and doesn’t cause drama.

To lots of guys, “high quality” means she’s broke as a joke, but she’s pretty & sexy and enjoys spending time with us.

To lots of women, “high quality” means “We can do the same things a man can do”, which nobody cares about.

If you’re rich and you look busted on a date, you’re not getting asked back out again.

If you’re intelligent and all you want to talk about is the stock market, you’re not getting asked back out again.

If you live in The Hamptons and you bitch and moan because some guy wants to take you out a date in Quogue, you’re not getting asked back out again.

If you’re a CEO of a company and you FREAK OUT when a guy accidentally or purposefully touches your shoulder, you’re not getting asked back out again.

Women who consider themselves High Quality are merely dismissing their obvious competition, which is Low Quality women that guys find just as viable to date, hook up with and enter relationships with as HQ women.

I’m serious. Did I? you know when I did? About twice when I first started dating and my brother had just died. Have I since then? Nope.

Coincidence? I think not.

So alot of this game is based on sound behavioral principles…women, the more time and effort invested, the more women will give back, sooner. But at the end of the day, it’s either taking advantage of the weak and it’s not the best women who are going along with it..because the ones who know their worth are not going to go have some fun with *you*, they’re going to go have fun with a perfect 10. I know I did once or twice! ;) And you must know this.

High Quality Woman + No Ass + Not DTF = LOSE

Low Quality Woman + Do Fries Go With That Shake? o_O + DTF = WIN

The qualities that you’re focusing on to determine the value of a woman are the qualities that women use to determine whom they’re going to invite to their dinner party.

Those qualities have nothing to do with how men select women to date, EXCEPT for the guys that are looking for one fantastic woman to hook up with, and as I said in the beginning, those guys go on and off the market in a split second, so good luck with that.

Mile Marker 15

“Some women object to even CALLING dating “a game”, but it most definitely is.”

At first, it is a bit of a game, and games are fun and healthy, and provide a playing ground for important psychological needs and abilities- as long as no cheating is involved. The real trouble begins where people haven’t agreed as to what the rules are, and it may be argued that in fact, due to the very nature of dating (ie. people who barely know eachother getting to know eachother) the rules can not BE known as they havent been discused first and people seem to all have different sets of rules today. And so precisely because of this, we are more ethically indebted to eachother to be more upfront and honest about things.

Further there is no way that as you get into ‘I genuinely like you’ and ‘let’s be exclusive’ territory there should be games. Perhaps little things, a bit of jealousy or showing off here and there, but there should be more giving than manipulation. The problem is that some people are too damaged to ever really be normal. *sigh*

The way I see it.. Unless people are willing to be absolutely authentic with each other, games are being played.

I agree with you that in a perfect world, people would meet each other, decide they like each other, map out ground rules, and authentically move forward together.

“…stages of “Don’t want to look like a slut” and “What will he think of me?” and “I don’t want to be judged” and “Where is this relationship going?” and “Are we exclusive”, blah blah blah.. ”

See that’s the problem. It’s supposed to be easy. Too many women don’t get it. The guy is supposed to be the one putting forward where things are going without you asking. The point at which I feel I really have a burning desire or feel I just have to ask, is the point at which I’m gone. Because the ENTIRE MEANING AND POINT of a relationship doesn’t exist. I don’t get to feel secure, or cared about, or special, or needed, or that the man is there and wants to be with me in the way I need him to be. SO WHY BE THERE?

WHY THE HELL DIDN’T SHE LEAVE ALREADY?

Guys are always telling y’all where this relationship’s going. It’s usually going right where it currently is.

A guy should know that if he’s not making sure that his girlfriend knows (or at least, believes, because he said so) that he intends to be with her for a long-ass time, they’re leaving the door open for the next man to borrow his chick.

If he’s not helping her to stay, he’s helping her to leave.

“Meanwhile, we just watch y’all run around in unnecessary circles until you finally calm down and get with the program that you always wanted from the first time you felt attracted to us.”

Why I’m sure you know, because you know *all* women right? I totally felt attracted to a guy because he’s a player? Because he’s so sexually experienced that I can get chlamydia? Or worry about getting it? Um no, sorry I had a good father and I haven’t been abused so um. Nope. *buzzer* Wrong. That woman isn’t happy, or she wouldn’t have been running around in circles as you say. She’s doing so because she’s drawn into a sad, pathetic pattern where she wants *him* but also wants more of him that he can give, and she simply can’t leave, who knows why.

..and no, it’s not society telling us to be prudes but that we really want only random sex with hotties. Women need bonding more often than men do, that’s all. We want *more* of the man than his penis. We want more of his penis more often. It’s evolution. Some men can give us this, some can’t. Why waste my time with hot chlamydia man?

Agreed with you on avoiding STDs by not “getting around”.

Having said that…

Unhappy, Sad, Pathetic, Desperate, No Earning Potential Woman + Cute Face + Nice Ass + DTF = WIN

High Quality is determined by the choosER, not the choosEE.

“Lying to you would make you feel better, yet send you out into the world similarly ill- equipped to deal with your next relationship.”

But see. The problem is that I think you and I are at full poles apart from eachother in terms of what’s going on. There are good women out there who are desperate for a simple, even short term exclusive relationship in NYC and can’t find it, and it’s not society but their own deepseated needs, and it’s breaking their hearts, esp. as they begin aging. *THAT’s the problem- But you on your end, seem to keep trying to tell us that wake up to a harsh, pathetic reality and only expect the very least from the smallest people, and that it’s OKAY. It’s tearing society apart, or at least is on its way to do that unless more women stand up and state their needs and fess up to their misery and set some boundaries for acceptable behavior and that we actually need men.

oh.. I see what you’re saying here. You have an excellent point, but you only got half of the message.

I’m absolutely sympathetic to the plight of NYC females. Entirely.

The first half of my point is that dating in NYC SUCKS for women.
The second half of my point is that if y’all don’t realize how badly it sucks, you’re never going to work hard enough to give yourselves a viable chance of achieving your desired outcome.

I’m not saying “This is your life.. Live with it!”. I’m saying “This is your life.. DO something about it!”.

You’ve seen that video footage of kids throwing rocks at tanks. If you believe the tank is going to be “hurt” by you throwing rocks at it, you’ll keep throwing rocks and never achieve anything. If you’re made to understand that you can’t hurt a metal tank with a rock, you’re either going to stop throwing rocks or you’re going to START throwing them with a new purpose. You’re now throwing rocks to say “**** YOU!!!” to the tank operators inside. You know you’re not going to hurt them, but you can show them your bravery and disrespect them by standing up to them.

My point is that if women don’t WAKE UP, the future’s absolutely predictable. If y’all keep thinking that you’re “High Quality” in your own minds, which translates to nothing of value in a guy’s mind, AND doesn’t make you MORE HQ than the other women surrounding you at the cocktail hour for the business conference you attended in Switzerland, you’re going to keep taking shorts and wondering why you never stopped the tank with your rocks.

In a town FULL of attractive women, nobody’s going to select you because you’re attractive.
In a town FULL of women that make money, nobody’s going to select you because you make X per year.
In a town FULL of women with PhDs, nobody’s going to select you because you have a Bachelor’s Degree.
In a fown FULL of female CEOs, nobody’s going to select you because you’re a Vice President.

The *ONLY* way to distinguish yourself here is via personality. Period.

If you want to find a boyfriend in NYC, you have to be proactive about it. Let guys know who you are, what you want, and why we should give it to you.

I think there’s an in between here? Like maybe, let people be players, but leave the rest alone to work through the sometimes imperfections of real and healthy relationships?

“As far as NYC being a hellhole for women who are looking to get involved in a monogamous LTR, I say it’s better to recognize that, feel sour about it briefly, then put together a gameplan to get what you want out of life,”

The trouble, Bill, is that part of what some of us want out of life- and many of us women will recognize this- is that part of what we need is not to get more out of life but to give something to it.

“..instead of hoping against hope that something’s going to change when every woman in the same subway car with you is trying to achieve the same thing you are, and guys know that we can take our time choosing or never choose at all.”

It’s just the numbers. (And the fashion industry skewing up guys’ expectations). Water seeks its own level and good people will find good people. Relationshippers will find relationshippers. But not in New York. And thank god in the heavens or Buddha or Ganesh or whoever that there are much better places than New York. And they are everywhere.

After all the time I just spent writing this stuff, I really, REALLY, *REALLY* dread asking you to ELABORATE on your concept “Part of what we need is not to get more out of life but to give something to it”.

That’s, unfortunately, an interesting statement that I’m *HOPING* you have a BRIEF explanation of… o_O

oh one last thing. The chick from that book I mentioned, The Game? She left the guy in the end for a way hotter, attractive fellow musician.

Take that for what it’s worth….maybe gaming works in some ways but not others, which the author makes pretty clear, and there are more than example of this in the book: it gets you women sexually, but not for the long term (if that’s what you want). The Game doesn’t work in the heart. Which really, is what alot of us, not just women, and sometimes even players with all the options in the world, really want.

From your point of view, she left the guy for a way hotter, attractive fellow musician.

From my point of view, dude got to screw her a gajillion times and now he’s free of her with no financial burden (read: Child Support).

As far as The Game working “in the heart”, sure it does. It depends on how you apply it and what your goals are.

Some guys use game to trick women into doing stuff they otherwise wouldn’t have done.

Other guys use game to get past unnecessary roadblocks, which ends up CREATING the relationship between them instead of falsifying and eventually destroying it.

Anyway.. This was good fun, Susan. Thanks for the exercise. :)

I wish you the best of luck in the sticks, so you don’t have to come back here complaining that guys from The Midwest are JERKS!!! :D haha

Cheers!
–
Connect with Bill via Facebook, Twitter, Email Subscription, RSS Feed

Related Posts

• Unattractive Women’s Relationship Advantages
• Girls Don’t Have Friends That Are Guys
• Asking Women Out On Dates
• You’re Still Not Me
• He’s Lying To You [The Okey-Doke, Part 02]

Now.. Before you start crying about the title, haha “Girls don’t have friends that are guys” is a direct quote from Vinny on Jersey Shore, from when Sammi was trying to convince Ronnie that this other guy she invited to come see her at a club was a “friend” of hers.

I already talked about that situation in “We’re Just Friends!!!”, so go check that out if you want the background details from the episode. Right now, I want to speak generally about people who pretend to be “friends” with other people.

Friends

1. Men pretend to be friends with women so they can have sex with them.
2. Women pretend to be friends with men so they can claim they’re not having sex with them.

Are there males and females that actually ARE friends?
Absolutely.

They’re friends for the same reason that anybody else is friendly towards each other… they have something in common. They enjoy the same music, they both like building computers from individual parts, they play the same sports, have similar tastes in women.. whatever.

However.. There are lots of guys that pretend to be friends with a gal because they know that’s the only way they’re going to be able to stay in the pocket long enough to hook up with her.

It’s like rap game 101.. It’s like the first smooth trick the cavemen learned or something. If you step to a female and say “You look good, I feel like tappin’ that”, she’s going to go “EEW!!! HE ONLY WANTS ME FOR MY BODY! :(“.. which is true.. and then she proceeds to give you a hard time in getting it.

Meanwhile, if you would have said “Pleasant weather we’re having today! :D”, you’ll be able to get on much faster, because even though nothing at all is different from your point of view, and you only spoke to her because you were hoping to have sex with her as soon as possible after the first second you saw her, she’s not actively mentally defending against giving you what you want.

Cat?.. Meet Bag

Reality normally becomes apparent to women in a couple of ways.. First of all, when he finally decides that he’s never going to get to hook up with her and then he abruptly stops contacting her or responding to her calls, texts & emails, and second, when he decides that HE DOES have a chance to get on, and lets her know he’s physically attracted to her, in love with her, blah blah blah…

Both of these situations tend to catch women off guard because they actually BELIEVE that sexual attraction has nothing to do with their friendship with that particular guy. The best way I can describe it from the guy’s POV is that it feels like a psychological projection, where she goes “I’m not sexually attracted to you.. Therefore, you’re not sexually attracted to me, either”. It’s very, very strange. It’s almost funny, except it’s a dangerous way of thinking. The equivalent would be “I don’t believe that there are cars speeding on this highway, so the speeding cars won’t believe I’m walking across it”.

Another version is “I told him I’m not sexually attracted to him, and he’s still talking to me, so he’s accepted that we’re not going to have sex, ever in life”. WRONG! He knew he was going to have to get around obstacles when he first saw you and decided he wanted to try to hook up with you, because that’s how the game goes. We come to get it. You give us a hard time about it. That’s how it works… That’s what we signed up for when we approached you and introduced ourselves…

It’s All In The Game

When I was around 14 years old, there was this chick I had a serious crush on in camp, and I finally decided to go meet her… Having no rap at all, I walked up to her and probably said “Hi. I’m Bill. What’s your name? :D”, and she didn’t say Jack-**** to me.

So I asked her a few more times, and she eventually said something that wasn’t a name.. I don’t remember what it was.. Let’s say she said “Football”. So I said something like “ok, Football. Nice to meet you” and she kept ignoring me.

I carried on that one-sided conversation with her for a while, and then the conversation was over. Every time I saw her after that, I had kind words for her, and always included her name. I can’t tell you what happened, because I didn’t have any technique at the time and I wasn’t doing anything that I figured would ever get me progress with her. All I can guess is that she eventually realized that all I wanted was to be nice to her, and at some point, I was passing by her and greeted her as “Football”, and she broke out laughing and told me what her name was. We became good friends after that, and remained relatively close to each other during the rest of my stay there.

The point being that boys go through this BS from the very beginning of when we start talking to girls. Girls are programmed to give us a hard time, and we naturally adapt to accept this and get around it. 101. This is why “I told him I’m not sexually attracted to him” doesn’t have any effect on whether he’s attracted to her. That’s pretty much where we start every single hookup attempt.

What’s even less effective is “I told him I wasn’t going to have sex with him”, because that’s not even explicitly denying sexual attraction… That’s saying that you might or might not give him some, but at this point in time, you have a reason why you’re not going to do that = He’s gonna stay in the pocket and ride it out to see what happens.

One of these excuses why you’re not planning to give him some is that you have a boyfriend, fiance, husband, whatever. This is another non-factor to guys that are interested in you. This is why, when your relationship dissolves, all these guys that you thought were your “friends” suddenly profess their love and/or attraction to you and start offering you tha dilznick.

It’s not that they’re not your friends. They are. They’ll build computers with you and go see that 3D movie with you, but they’d also stick it in a split second if they thought you’d go for it.

You’re Not Slick

This is what guys know, and this is why Sammi’s excuse (which, of course, turned out to be a lie) wasn’t fooling anybody and caused Vinny to say “Girls don’t have friends that are guys”.

What he was saying is that Sammi was implying a platonic (2b : of, relating to, or being a relationship marked by the absence of romance or sex) relationship with the dude by calling him her “friend”, when everybody knows dude would have screwed her if she was down with it, and everybody knows that SAMMI KNOWS dude would have hit it, which is why she contacted him and invited him to come hang out with her at the club.

Whether she actually wanted to hook up with him or just use him to make Ronnie jealous is irrelevant. That dude was clearly *NOT* her [platonic]friend. If she had wanted a friend to spend time with her at a club, she should have invited a female.

As it turns out, after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie, she finally admitted that she’s made out with the dude in the past (which, she didn’t have a choice but to fess up, because dude described a specific instance where they hooked up IN DETAIL to her on the phone with Ronnie & Mike right there, hearing the entire conversation), but her new excuse was that it was before she had been dating Ronnie.

Unfortunately, that makes you look WORSE, and not better. :) As soon as you break up with your boyfriend of a year or so, you tell a guy you used to mess with to come see you at the club? hahaha Nice one! :D

What Was She Thinking?

I was explaining this situation to a friend of mine that doesn’t watch Jersey Shore, and she asked me “Why did she think the guy was going to back her play?”

Usually… Guys that kick it to other guys’ girls don’t know each other… That situation would never have gone down like that, except that it was on a television show.

What would have happened is that the dude would have arrived, seen Sammi hanging out with Ronnie, told Mike that he had been invited to the club by Sammi and showed Mike the text messages, and then Mike would have shut the **** up.

That’s because snitching is good for television ratings, but it sucks in real life. That could easily have turned into a fight.

Under normal circumstances, Sammi would have been in the middle, and there would have been no reason at all for the other guy to tell Ronnie the truth about his interactions with Sammi. I’m sure this is what she was thinking when she decided to drag Ronnie over to the dude that a) she initially lied and said she never texted, and then, when Nicole informed her that she already saw the texts from her on his phone, she b) changed her lie to “Yes, I texted him, but he’s my friend“. She was already caught in lies, and she figured that there was no reason for Ronnie to find out the truth, so she gambled and lost.. big time.

Because this happened on television, Mike called the dude on the phone, who said directly and clearly that he had made out with Sammi when Ronnie asked him about it… Instead of living with the disgrace of being caught in I-don’t-know-how-many lies at this point, Sammi gets on the phone and says “We never made out! :O” resulting in his description a the location and situation for which she had no rebuttal and ended up FINALLY copping a plea to Ronnie that she messed with him a couple of years ago.

I think that besides thinking she’s smarter than Ronnie (which she may very well be), she was thinking the other dude didn’t have anything to lose by lying for her so she could remain in good standing with her boyfriend… Except he DID have something to lose, which was that he would have looked like a liar AND a Herb AND a troublemaker if he recanted his story. On top of that, as soon as all the roommates saw her text messages to him, the cat was out of the bag. Everybody knew she was lying before she even BEGAN lying about not having texted anyone.

If this had not been on television, the IRL conversation and then the telephone conversation between the two guys would never have occurred, Sammi would have lied and claimed no physical involvement with the dude, and that would have been that. In fact, the fact that she texted him wouldn’t have surfaced in the first place.

Of course.. This entire situation could have been avoided if she would have sent him one. more. text. saying “Don’t come to the club” once she felt like she was getting back together with Ronnie.

Midnight Racing

So anyway.. Like I said.. Guys pretend to be friends with gals so we can stay in the pocket until she finally gets with the program. Gals pretend to be friends with guys so they’re not accused of having sex with us.

One of the funny things about this is that, similar to bordellos, it doesn’t work in the other direction… Women don’t pretend to be friends with men so they can get laid.

First of all, y’all don’t have to, and second, it wouldn’t help you anyway… Y’all either “Could Get It”, or you can’t. Whether a guy races remote control cars with you in the park or not isn’t going to get you any credit towards sex.

It might help you out in a jam, though.. Like when you stumble home at 4am and your boyfriend is wondering what you’ve been doing all night, you can say “Well.. *hic*.. I was hanging out with this guy I know, and we were racing RC cars and I lost track of the time”.

……………

So, ladies.. Stop trying to use “We’re just friends” as a cover.. Especially when the only thing y’all have in common is that you look good to him and he’s down to hit it.
–
Connect with Bill via Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, MySpace, Email Subscription, RSS Feed

Bill Cammack – “Neo vs. Morpheus” by Bill Cammack

Related Posts

• Platonic Relationships
• It’s All In The Game (Online Dating)
• Why Men Rebound So Quickly
• Why You Can’t Get A Boyfriend In NYC
• He’s Lying To You [The Okey-Doke, Part 02]