Bill Cammack » boyfriend

Unequal Relationships

Bill Cammack — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 03:35:21 +0000

I’m not aware of many equal relationships. Most of them consist of one person that was sweating another person, and then the sweatee agreed to date the sweater.

That’s not to say that equal relationships don’t exist. I’m sure there are lots of them.

I’m just saying that in most cases, one person has more power in the relationship than the other one does, regardless of whether the “stronger” person utilizes that power against the “weaker” one or not.

Roles

It’s imperative that you understand your position in your relationship.

If you’re the sweater, make sure that you remember that you’re lucky to be in this relationship, because the sweatee didn’t forget it and will not fail to remind you if you overstep your boundaries.

It’s like sometimes people work in the same office, so they’re coworkers… Except one person is the boss and the other person is the employee. They’re in the same place, but they don’t have the same amount of power in their relationship.

Now.. If the boss elects not to ensure that the employee takes exactly one hour or less to eat lunch, the boss has that right, and the employee can do whatever he or she wants.

However.. If the employee demands an hour and a half for lunch, because they got all comfortable with the boss not “bossing”, not only don’t they have any power to enact that policy without getting their pay docked every day for 30 minutes worth of time that they wasted when they were supposed to be working, but they ‘might could’ get fired.

Unfortunately, the nature of relationships dictates that people ACT AS IF they’re equals, even if it’s clear that they aren’t.

I don’t know that that’s such a good idea.

I’m not saying the leader in the relationship should act like a jerk or assert their power over the follower, but when followers start ‘feeling themselves’ and encroaching on the decision-making territory of the leader, it’s probably a good idea to subtly and graciously remind them what time it is before they get themselves fired.

Shot-Callers

I’m sure some people are thinking “Why would someone date someone they didn’t consider their equal?”

That would be because people want what they want from relationships, and equality might be irrelevant to them.. especially compared to sayyyyyy… looks, money, sex, food, shelter, status, trickin’ and takin’ them skiing in The Aspens.

Swimmin’ in Women wit’ they own Condominiums. It’s all about the Benjamins. What? o_O

YouTube Link => youtu.be/fNTBb1u6UGg

Anyway, there are lots of reasons why people hook up with and date people they don’t consider to be anywhere near their equals in life.

Since people don’t usually say “You know I’m better than you, right? :D” and still have a relationship left, they tend to keep it under the hat until the follower goes overboard with the rights they think they have because they saw a movie about relationships one time, or they heard something from a friend about the way their relationship “should” be, and they believed the hype and fell for the okey-doke.

I would hope that the lucky party would retain a sense of their place in the relationship and not put themselves in the awkward position of having to be reminded, but that’s not always the case.

I would also hope that when they cause the leader to reprimand them, they recognize that an admonishment is a vote of confidence in them which says that they can return to their rightful place and continue this relationship… It could have been worse, with the leader ejecting, and then the follower’s back to square one, looking for love on Plenty Of Fish and ok Cupid.

Of course, followers can improve their station through loyalty, functionality, putting their best foot forward, looking good, staying in shape, paying attention to what the leader likes, cooking good food, being intelligent and witty, and generally endearing themselves to the leader.

However, since they weren’t TOLD that they’re the follower, they’re not likely to do their best to stay in the game.

None of this actually comes to light so long as both parties play their positions. It only becomes an issue when the person without say in the relationship attempts to assert himself or herself.

Power

Often, it’s not so much that one person has power over the other one, but that one person has *NO* power over the other one. This happens when one or more of the parties is autonomous.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomy

1: the quality or state of being self-governing; especially : the right of self-government
2: self-directing freedom and especially moral independence
3: a self-governing state

See.. If someone self-directs their freedom, there’s nothing you can do to control them, or really even to influence them.

All you can do is inspire them to do you favors though your own actions and ways of being towards them.

Anything they do for you isn’t because you compelled them to, but because out of the goodness of their hearts, they felt you deserved it.

You can’t make any power moves against them, because that would require… power.. which you don’t have.

Some people don’t react well to realizing they’re second-class citizens in their own relationship. Everybody wants to believe they’re on top of their game, but that’s clearly impossible.

If that were the case, everybody would be hooked up, and nobody would be online dating.

However, these people often don’t bounce, because they don’t feel like starting all over, and they believe that they’re the leader’s equal anyway, so they think they can work their way “back” into a position of authority, which, in fact, they never held.

This continues until the follower feels once again that he or she can make demands, and then they find out that nothing’s different from the last time they tried this.

Jeeves

The three landing positions for this situation are that the follower stops being annoying, the leader dumps the follower, or the follower ejects to attempt to find a relationship with someone that considers them an equal or better.

There’s no point in the leader informing the follower of his/her position in the relationship, so long as everything the follower wants to do is the exact same thing the leader would have suggested anyway.

It’s like successful back-seat driving.

When people think of back-seat drivers, they think of someone that doesn’t have their hands on the wheel, so whatever they say doesn’t really matter. The driver’s going to do whatever he/she wants to do, regardless.

The Dog Stays.. You Go.

Bill Cammack — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:39:12 +0000

Pets

Women tend to overestimate their position on the totem pole relative to other aspects of men’s lives, such as their cars, friends and pets.

Think about it.. If a dude has had a dog for like 20 years and then a gal shows up and tries to regulate, talkin’ ’bout he has to get rid of the dog, she might find her bags packed and waiting for her at the door after he hits it one last time.

Speaking of which, if dude hasn’t hit it yet, she has no pull, whatsoever. He can get a new woman that he ISN’T having sex with, immediately. He can’t get a new beloved pet, so she might have to take a long walk on a short plank.

Ultimatums

While we’re on the subject, the same thing goes for women that he knows.

It will never cease to amaze me that women watch these Lifetime cable channel movies and chick flicks and then believe that they can tell a grown-ass man whom he can and can’t spend time with. :D

If he feels like appeasing you, he’ll tell you yeah yeah yeah and then keep doing what he always did before he met you.

It’s amazing that some women actually believe that now that they’re hooking up with a guy, that gives them some kind of authority to regulate his life. It’s even MORE AMAZING that their grown-ass-woman homegirls commiserate with them and tell them that they’re right for trying to control the dude and he’s wrong for not accepting her control.

You would swear that Little House On The Prarie was real. It was FICTION, ladies! :D hahaha A STORY! :D

On top of that, LHotP was hypothetically located…. wait for it…. ON. THE. PRARIE! :D haha Not in some metropolitan area where you can just get another chick if one of them becomes more of a hassle than she’s worth.

If there’s something that’s bothering her, OF COURSE she should bring it up and debate it and put her foot down about things she doesn’t like and things she’s not going to stand for… However.. When she does that, she needs to be prepared in case he says “You’re right. That’s not fair. Bounce. I’ll date some other chick.”

See, that’s what happens with ultimatums. They don’t always go the way the person making the threat wants them to go. This is why it’s important to focus on reality, as opposed to movie-based and tupperware-party-supported fantasies about how relationships work.

Unless she knows she has something that he does NOT want to live without, an ultimatum merely forces a guy to make a choice.. A choice between two VALID options. Select “Her” or “Not-Her”.

If the choice is between a woman he’s been dating for 3 months and a woman he’s known and appreciated for 3 years, the girlfriend might find herself singing “Yo Ho Ho And A Bottle Of Rum” while she takes that long walk on that short plank.

Control

On top of that.. If a woman can control her man, so can anybody else. o_O

There’s nothing in particular about her brand of control that supersedes anyone else’s version, so if she forbids him to go to the strip club, and he’s like “ok”, and then his boys say let’s go the strip club, he’ll say “ok”, then the stripper will ask him if he wants a lap dance in the champagne room, and he’ll say “ok”.

Xena: No Sex In The Champagne Room
YouTube Link => youtu.be/VeHlXlmPzTo

So either you’re controlling someone who’s easily controllable, or he’s faking you out by pretending to follow your orders and then living his life as usual.

This is why women are surprised when they find out “their man” is still screwing his ex. They think they’ve exerted some kind of control over him that requires him to tell the truth. They think that something they’ve done has made him disinterested in having sex with other women.. including their cousins, sisters and mothers.

It’s just not true.

In most cases, guys will ELECT not to pursue hookups with other women, because they respect the relationship they’re in, or they’re already doing everything sexual they want to do with their current girlfriend/wife/FWB/whatever, or they’re not the type of person to go back on their word, or “cheat”. That’s a CHOICE they’re making, though. It’s not some kind of natural state that they’re forced into by some gal they’re dating.

Some guys are naturally monogamous and want to be. If that’s the case, AGAIN, it has nothing to do with the woman. She didn’t MAKE him monogamous, she just happened to find and date a man that already was.

That’s why I always shake my head when women ask “How do I get him to _____”. You don’t have any actual control over him. Your best bet is to be the best woman you can towards him, let him know what YOU’RE interested in as far as the relationship, and hope that a) he gives a damn what you want, and b) he’s willing and able to do that for you.

Sharing

We already went over this in “The Roster (Multiple Girlfriends)”, but basically, it’s easy for women to get ON the roster. It’s tougher for women to make it to THE TOP of the roster. It’s a major accomplishment to actually REMOVE OTHER WOMEN from the roster and achieve an exclusive relationship with a sought-after guy.

This is because there is a plateau of achievement. There’s no actual peak, until and unless the cream rises to the top and a dude is just blown away by his experiences with a gal.. or, as I said earlier, he’s naturally the type of person that only wants one girlfriend and is currently auditioning and hoping to settle soon.

Women, who like to believe what they watch in movies, and the stories they hear from their mothers and older women (who, of course, were TOLD, regardless of the reality of the situation, that they were in an exclusive relationship, or else dude would never have had the sex that produced this daughter in the first place), think the process goes from dating to exclusive girlfriend to fiancée to wife.

In fact, they’ve skipped a step.

It goes dating -> one of my girlfriends -> my only girlfriend -> fiancée -> wife.

This is what’s confusing to women, when they make it to the “one of my girlfriends” stage that they don’t believe exists.

They wonder why dude is treating them like a girlfriend, but he’s not trying to verbally declare them exclusive.

This is where women screw themselves, because instead of easing back and sharing him with the other women until dude makes up his mind (assuming he plans to EVAR make up his mind) and selects her of his own free will, they start wondering how they can MAKE HIM dump the other chicks, or his friends, or his pets, or his job, or his dreams….

So, right when women are in position to MAAAAAYBE make it to the next phase, they make a nuisance of themselves and get bounced off the roster.

Supplements

The women you can have a good and enjoyable time with, stay.
The women that try to get you to trade them something in order for them to act the way they’re supposed to act in the first place, go.

Stay in the pocket. Make yourself useful. Be a cheerful person. Make sure you always look good. Be the type of woman that he wants to wake up to in the morning, and you “might could” get the Golden Ticket.

Once you try to overpower or outsmart a grown-ass man into restricting his personal options in the one life he’s going to have to live, so that you can feel better about yourself because you feel like you have control over someone, you’re starting yourself on that long walk, and the only question is how short the plank is.

If you try to come between a dude and his dog, you may just find out that regardless of what he told you while he was trying to get laid, the dog’s more important than you are.

Guys don’t have to lie to dogs. Dogs don’t understand English. We lie to women.

We lie to women to increase y’all’s functionality and usefulness.

One of those lies might be “You’re more important than my dog.”

Another lie might be “I only go to my ex’s house so I can see my dog.”

I guess the point is that women need to see themselves as supplements to the happiness in men’s lives, not replacements for our happiness.

You don’t get to suck everything good out of our lives so you can feel better about your own. Ain’t that type-a party.

If there’s something you don’t like about your relationship, talk about it.. discuss it, have a debate about it, make demands if you feel you’ve got it like that. If you don’t like what you hear, try again some other time, or bounce from the relationship. You most DEFINITELY shouldn’t remain in a relationship that you’re not enjoying, or where you feel you could do better for yourself.

What I’m saying is, don’t fall for your own okey-doke that dude will definitely forsake his beloved dog, cat, snake, owl, or lizard for you.

If you decide to make an argument out of it, while dogs don’t know English, they know the vocal tones that usually lead to “Welp.. I won’t be seeing THIS CHICK around here, anymore! :D haha Don’t let the door HIT’CHA where the Good Lord SPLIT’CHA! :D”

Then again, of course, you might be successful! :D hehe You might actually strongarm him into choosing you over his pet. Congratulations to you, and good luck with that! :D

Your Girlfriend Is A Ho

Bill Cammack — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 03:34:49 +0000

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

Single.. But Not Really

Bill Cammack — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:12:27 +0000

“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

That’s Your Man’s Problem

Bill Cammack — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 10:24:46 +0000

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

Bill Cammack » boyfriend

Unequal Relationships

Roles

Shot-Callers

Power

Jeeves

Related Posts

The Dog Stays.. You Go.

Pets

Ultimatums

Control

Sharing

Supplements

Related Posts

Your Girlfriend Is A Ho

Witnesses For The Prosecution

Situational Amnesia

Related Posts

Single.. But Not Really

Dating

Single

Hook Me Up!

Frying Pan? Meet Fire

Type 1

Type 2

Settling

Related Posts

That’s Your Man’s Problem

Focus On The Facts

That’s Your Man’s Problem

Real-World Application

Good For The Gander

Off The Market

Related Posts