Bill Cammack » chicks

Asking Women Out On Dates

Bill Cammack — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 10:20:50 +0000

I’ve had a couple of interesting conversations recently on the topic of men inviting women out for dates. Perhaps this is an indication that I should reevaluate the situation.

The way I see it, there’s no point in “asking a chick out”, unless a) you intend to hit it ASAP, or b) you’re looking for an actual girlfriend and you’re considering her for the job opening.

As I’ve been saying for years, The Kid doesn’t date. I hang out with chicks and whatever happens happens and whatever doesn’t happen doesn’t happen.

There’s no point in specifically designating a hangout with a chick as a date, because the same thing’s going to happen either way. There are dudes that get laid from hanging out with chicks, and there are dudes that DON’T get laid from going on dates with chicks! :D haha What’s the point? \o/

In fact, you’re making it worse for yourself if you frame it as a date, because she’s expecting you to press up on her. You’re telegraphing to her that you’re trying to hook up with her. You’re skewing her vision of your hangout from the giddyap.

OTOH, women (of course) clamor that by NOT framing your hangout as a “date”, you’re skewing her perception in the other direction. By not aggressively pursuing her, you have her thinking “He doesn’t want to screw me”, which colors her reaction to your invitation and makes her feel like you want to be “Just Friends” with her.

That’s actually irrelevant, because regardless of what she thinks, she’ll get the picture when you press up.

Also, if you frame it as a date and she accepts, then she’s going to put her best foot forward to look as good as she possibly can at this point in time. If you frame it as a hangout, she may very well show up looking like a bum, and then you know what you’re REALLY going to get if you continue to spend time with her.

Women think too much as it is, so you really don’t want to add to their troubles by putting them under the pressure of wondering how their date is going. How they’re doing. How they look. Whether you like her or not. Whether you’re ever going to “ask her out” again. Whether you’re going to stalk her Facebook page. Whether you’re going to dump her after sex. Whether you’re hooking up with any of her friends, sisters or aunts…

I live in New York City with literally MILLIONS of women. I meet new women every week. If I were pressed to do it, I could meet women every day of the year. There’s no shortage whatsoever of female company here. In fact, the ratio is something like 5:1 in my favor. Even if every single guy here isolated one chick, that still leaves 4 out of every 5 chicks for me, which is like hundreds of thousands of women, if not a couple million.

That’s assuming I never leave New York City.

It’s easier to want to go on dates and have girlfriends and stuff like that when you live in the sticks and your best bet in life is to hook up with and eventually marry Becky Sue.

I think that’s great! :D I’m happy for people that live and enjoy the simple life. :)

Perhaps it’s time to start unnecessarily inviting women out on dates for the experimental value. o_O

I really detest how women react completely differently to the exact same situation because of what you name it, such as ******* vs. “making love”… You tell a chick you want to make love to her and she’s falling all over herself in a romantic stupor. You tell a chick you want to **** her, which is exactly the same thing, and you get all kinds of obstacles and opposition! :D haha So Annoying! :D
–
Follow Bill via Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Email Subscription | RSS Feed

You’re Still Not Me

Bill Cammack — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:55:33 +0000

Oh, Life..
Is bigger..
It’s bigger than you.
And you are not me.
~ R.E.M.

YouTube Link=> youtu.be/xwtdhWltSIg

Back in the day, when I used to play the relationship game, I had a few girlfriends..

simultaneously..

I didn’t think anything of it at the time. It’s easy to have multiple girlfriends by not giving them what they want.

Females have this strange ability to really, really, REALLY want to physically hook up with you, but to find mentally-based excuses to withhold things from you that you never asked them for.. like fidelity.

Guys aren’t like that. When we’re sexually attracted to a woman, it propels us FORWARD in the relationship, not BACKWARD. The more a gal likes you, the more mental roadblocks she throws in her own way, blocking herself from purely enjoying her time with you because she’s so busy trying to figure out whether she looks like a slut, or whether she gave it up too soon, or whether she can get you to take her to dinner instead of just going to her house and hittin’ it whenever you get in the mood, and all other kinds of nonsense that guys never think about.

I mean, seriously.. Think about it. :) When was the last time a guy was concerned that he screwed a chick too soon and she had lost “respect” for him? haha Never.

When was the last time a guy was concerned about a gal taking him out to dinner instead of inviting him to her crib and immediately hoppin’ on tha dilznick? hah Never.

Nobody cares about these things. A gal looks good or she doesn’t. You want to hit it or you don’t. She’s down with it or she isn’t. You have a good time with her or you don’t. It’s all very simple, and it’s extremely funny, watching women mentally run all over creation to eventually arrive in the exact same place where you’ve been chillin’, waiting for her to stop bullshitting and act like a grown-ass woman that does what she wants to do when she wants to do it.

So, Anyway.. It’s easy to have multiple girlfriends, because they take themselves out of the game. THEY’RE the ones that are concerned about you committing to them, not the other way around, yet, if you deny them certain things, they get on some “SISTAHS ARE DOIN’ IT FOR THEMSELVES”, Equal Rights tip, and start trying to blackmail you with giving ***** to the next man if you don’t commit to them.

Meanwhile, you have three other chicks that are saying the exact same thing, so you can afford to have one or two or three go offline for a few months, because unless you’re down to ZERO WOMEN, you’re still 100% in the game.

In fact.. The more women that you know that go on strike, the *EASIER* is is for you to have multiple girlfriends, because there’s less maintenance involved. The more they front on you, the more time and energy you have to screw the next chick.

The reason I brought up the multiple-girlfriend scenario wasn’t merely yet another self-aggrandizing post about “The Kid”… I wanted to talk about poachers, schemers, potential cockblockers.

If you only have one girlfriend, obviously, there’s no way that your girlfriendS are going to have overlapping social circles.

As soon as you have two or more, you have to be concerned that any friend of one of them might also be a friend of another one.

If that happens, you have to have your hierarchy set up properly, or else the entire house of cards could crumble. You have to know what the order is.. Which chick you’re willing to lose if she finds out about the other one(s). That’s your only defense against cockblocking.. Preemptively informing the most important women about what’s actually going on.

This is bad enough when it only involves a chain of women. Once guys get involved, it turns into a different situation.

Women just say a bunch of hypothetical nonsense, like “GIRRRRLLLL???… I wouldn’t even STAND for that because BLAH BLAH BLAH” when they know damned well that as long as their boyfriend hits it properly, they STFU and take whatever he gives them.

All that does is cause temporary confusion for the affected girlfriend(s) until you set them straight with logic and they get their minds right.

When guys get involved with this process, it’s different, because the only reason they’re talking to your girlfriends in the first place is that they’re trying to have sex with them.

The way The Game is set up, guys pretend to be friends with women until they can figure out how to get them to spread their legs. It’s during this precarious time that your girlfriends are likely to be influenced by guys that they don’t believe have ulterior motives in cockblocking you. They think the guy is their “friend”, so he’s telling them something that will help them live their lives efficiently. In fact, he’s trying to get them to stop sexually focusing on YOU so they can get their foot in the door, or get their chocolate in her peanut butter, so to speak.

If you have a proper network of friends, and you have the proper relationships to your girlfriends, you’re informed of these insubordination attempts. You hear about who it was that tried to influence your girlfriend, what they said, where it happened, how they know each other, etc.

So it’s funny to hear about how guys attempt to undermine your relationship(s) by gathering information and snitching on you to chicks that they assume don’t know what’s going on. They know the rules of The Game, and they know your girlfriend knows the rules, so they stack up a list of your rules violations and attempt to sink your battleship.

Unfortunately.. That only works against people that were following the rules to begin with. I never followed rules because I don’t have to. I don’t have to promise chicks things to get them to hook up with me. They want to do it or they don’t. If they don’t want to, I can convince them that THEY DO, or I can’t. >:D

I was editing a video yesterday, and this guy’s girlfriend was on the screen, and she’s a model, really cute, etc, but all I was thinking of the entire time was “This is the chick that this guy has promised not to have sex with ANY other females on the planet for? :D”.

It doesn’t make any sense. :) I guess I’m the Ron Paul of relationships. Free Will. Free Agency. I’m not offering you jack-**** in exchange for hooking up with me. Do it if you feel like it. If you don’t, do something else. Nobody cares. We enjoy our time with each other or we don’t.

If that’s how you met chicks from the giddyap, and they finally figured out that you were serious and not just writing controversial ish to increase your blog post readership, your relationship gels and solidifies in a different way from dudes that promise fidelity and then get caught cheating.

Since guys don’t actually know you and can’t possibly fathom the depth of your relationship to your girlfriends (or THEIR girlfriends), they think they can undermine you by informing chicks that you’re dating that you’re dating other chicks.

Being that any chick I’m messing with can KICK ROCKS if she doesn’t enjoy our time together, I’m always amused by hearing about these feeble attempts at peeling my girlfriends.

The ensuing conversation goes essentially like this:

Her: Some dude told me XYZ
Me: ok.. What are you going to do about it?
Her: ….. What do you mean “What am I going to do?”
Me: I mean, you’re going to stop messing with me, or what?
Her: Well.. No.. But..
Me: So why are we talking about this?
Her: …………

Basically, Ladies… If your FUNCTIONALITY in a relationship isn’t going to change because of a situation, the situation isn’t worth discussing.

If you’re going to feel differently, or talk differently about me to your friends, or roll your eyes to the left instead of to the right from now on, nobody cares, if it doesn’t functionally affect my relationship to you.

I don’t give a damn what women are doing with the next man while I’m doing my own things that don’t concern them. It’s like DADC.. Don’t Ask, Don’t Care.

So, While these dudes probably succeeded in getting laid a bunch of times with chicks I was currently messing with, they never got what they actually wanted, which was to gain full control over the female.

This is because, at the end of the day, I’m me and they aren’t.

They can offer fidelity all day (they’re probably lying, BTW), but they’re offering faithfulness from an inferior male.

You can’t do what I do, because you have no idea what I do. All you know is what YOU do and what you’ve seen on television and the movies and the information you’ve gleaned from your similarly-unsuccessful homeboys.

You can’t come anywhere near to having the relationship to her that I currently have to her. If I decided to play her and tell her I was exclusive with her, you’d get shut out, immediately. Today. Right this minute. Phone. Email. Text. You’re done.

You can’t do that to me because I’m not playing by the rules.

I know your limitations and you don’t know mine.

If you were me, you’d actually have a chance, but you’re not, so you don’t.

Conversely.. I’m not interested in blocking you from getting what you want from any female you find attractive.

I don’t have time (or interest, frankly) to do all the stuff you’re claiming you’re going to do for her, so take her out on dates, take her on vacations (oh.. I’ll veto it if you try to take one of my chicks to Aruba), buy her clothes and jewelry, give her titles like “girlfriend” and “fiancee”, marry her, have kids with her, do whatever you want to do with her. More power to ya! Good luck with that! :D

Just be aware that so long as she’s still physically attractive, The Kid is still on the case. >:D haha Just because you feel like you got over on me and stole one of my chicks doesn’t mean that’s what actually happened.

She may have been lent to you, or perhaps even rented. o_O

She might never have been “with” me to begin with, but was just spending time with me until someone felt like sweeping her off her feat and subsidizing her lifestyle.

Either way, the only way to remove the next man from the equation is to bring the same thing he’s bringing to the table and then more, which is why I don’t bother.

Women are Free Agents just as much as men are. Once you realize that, you’ll learn to get what you can get from them and let that be that. The concept of locking a chick down or putting her in “deep check” is for amateurs.

All you can do is be the best man you can be for her and offer her as much of what she tells you she wants as you can… What you CAN’T do is be ME, just like I can’t be you.

Stop focusing on *MY* relationship to your girlfriend and concentrate on your own.
–
Follow Bill via Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Email Subscription | RSS Feed

Platonic Relationships

Bill Cammack — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:55:48 +0000

Platonic Relationships

Here’s a fun video about why men and women can’t be “just friends”:

YouTube Link => youtu.be/T_lh5fR4DMA

Granted.. It’s easy to skew a video like this by asking 100 gals and 100 guys if they believe men and women can be “just friends” and then only airing the responses from the gals that say “Yes” and the guys that say “No”.

Regardless, I think the video points out something interesting about so-called “Platonic Relationships”.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/platonic
2b : of, relating to, or being a relationship marked by the absence of romance or sex

If you Google “Platonic Relationships” you don’t get anything.. Other than probably this article, once I post it.

I was surprised by this, because as much as chicks yammer about platonic relationships, I would have thought there would be a plethora of articles and definitions of this situation that they believe exists.

Two Decisions, Not One

The problem that I have with the concept of platonic relationships is that relationships are defined by the individual, not by the couple.

They seem to be defined by the couple, because one person says to the other person “Let’s go steady” or “Will you wear my ring” or some other nonsense that indicates that they intend to exclusively date the other person, and then he or she agrees to enter this verbal agreement that they’re now “together” or “an item”.

In fact, that’s not ONE agreement, but rather TWO agreements by TWO individuals.

Both people have verbally agreed to be exclusive with each other (whatever that means to each one of them). If one of them decides they’re no longer exclusive, they don’t require the consent of the other person to hook up with someone else.

If it had been an agreement which required both people to begin it, it would have also required both people to end it. Capisce? :D

In the video.. Whether it was doctored or not.. What you saw was a bunch of females saying they believed that men and women can be “just friends” and a bunch of males saying Hellz Naw! :D

Lindsey Chen and I discussed the basics of this situation back in 2008, in “Does He Want To Be Friends?”.

Basically, there are three situations where a guy is actually “Just Friends” with a gal.

He doesn’t find her sexually attractive
He shares things in common with her that make him friends with her the same way he would be friends with a guy
He has a better use for her that will no longer be available to him if he hits it.. Money, Food, Her better-looking girlfriends and female family members, Whatever..

The first one is the main one. If a guy doesn’t wanna tap that, we can be friends forever. :D

However.. If he’s not physically/sexually attracted to her, she actually has to have something about her personality or what she does in her daily life that’s of interest to him if he’s going to spend time with her at all. She no longer gets the chick modifier and will be scrutinized on the same level as if he were choosing a male friend to spend time with.

Of course, this is a much higher standard. This is why you see a lot of tomboys with a lot of male friends. The women are actually considered “one of the fellaz” because of how they carry themselves and what they’re bringing to the table, personality-wise. You don’t see a lot of girly-girls with a bunch of male friends, because nobody’s actually trying to have them hanging around unless we’re scheming on them. >:D

#3 is self-explanatory.. What’s the point of hooking up with ONE chick when you can become “Just Friends” with her and gain access to all of her homegirls? >:D

Also.. What’s the point of hooking up with a chick that’s a client of yours and take the chance that she’ll get all emotional about nothing and jack up your cash flow, when you could remain in a “platonic relationship” with her and use all the extra money you get to court other women? >:D

That’s not what we saw in the video. What we saw was women saying men and women CAN be “just friends” and men saying men and women CAN NOT be “just friends”.

What percentage of that population do you think overlaps?.. How many women are currently in platonic relationships with men that aren’t in platonic relationships with them? o_O

Same Word, Different Meaning

Women define “platonic relationships” as “We don’t have sex with each other”.

Men define “platonic relationships” as “I haven’t hit it yet”.

You see the problem here? :) The only way the relationship is *ACTUALLY* platonic is if BOTH PEOPLE agree that they don’t want to have sex with each other, but women think that just because THEY aren’t thinking about hooking up with the guy, he isn’t thinking about hooking up with them either.

This is why it’s so funny in the video when dude finally asks the chicks “Do you think XYZ dude would hit it if you let him?” and then they look all confused, because this is the first time they’re even thinking about it.

It’s funny because the guy has been thinking about having sex with her every time he was around her, but he knew that he needed to play the “friend” role to stay in the pocket until he could get on.

So.. How is that relationship actually platonic, when all it takes is for the chick to get horny one time, or mad at her boyfriend, or drunk, and then all of a sudden, she wants to give her “friend” some, and he’s down to hit it? \o/

It isn’t.

Ladies.. Here’s how you test whether you’re in a platonic relationship or not:

Ask him “Would you have sex with me?”
Ask him “Why not?”

Of course, this is purely hypothetical. :D

No guy in his right mind is going to admit to you that he’d hit it, and if he wouldn’t, he’s not going to tell you the truth about WHY he wouldn’t.

However.. In theory.. That is how you would find out.

Theoretically, He’d either respond “Yeah.. You could get it”, or some variation of “You don’t have enough ass to turn me on” or “Ain’t that type-a party” or “I value you for your mind, not your body” or “Aren’t you kind of nerdy to be having sex?” or something that would describe the reasons why he hasn’t hit it yet, and whether or not he’s planning to get with you in the future.

Other than that, you are *NOT* in a platonic relationship if the dude’s actually attracted to you, because the first time you spread your legs, he’s goin’ in. >:D

2 minutes into the video, this chick says “That was one instance”, hahaha What about that, Ladies? :D

What happens after you give your “just friend” some one time? Are you STILL in a “platonic” relationship? o_O

See what I mean? It’s all bogus, like how chicks wear white wedding gowns when they know they’ve been giving it up ever since dude bought them the engagement ring.

Everybody knows he hit it before the honeymoon.. Took it for a test drive or a thousand…

This just makes the situation worse, when women that know damned well that they’re *NOT* in platonic relationships with dudes play it off like they are so they don’t get stigmatized as a slut, which is a different ridiculous topic…

So, No.. Unless a dude HONESTLY doesn’t want to have sex with a chick, he isn’t in a platonic relationship with her. Period.

Even in the situations where he forgoes acting on natural his impulses to gain other things from her, that’s not removing his desire to hit it. He’s just trading that in for a goal that he perceives to be more valuable, such as more girls or more money.

Can Men & Women Be Friends?

Having said all that.. My friend Shauna mentioned that the video doesnt really explicitly state why men and women can’t be friends.

She’s right about that.

There are actually two different definitions of “Friends” that are going around. One of them means “I like this person and enjoy spending time with them”, and the other one means “I would not have sex with this person under any circumstances”.

When women say “He’s a friend of mine”, they mean “I haven’t had sex with him and will never have sex with him between this moment right now and when I finally croak”.

When men say “She’s a friend of mine”, they mean “I’ll hit it whenever she’s in the mood, but until that time, she’s nice to look at, so I’ll keep chillin’ with her”.

So.. While it’s absolutely true that there are LOTS of actual and honest friendships between men and women, that only means that they mutually enjoy each other’s company.. Not that dude wouldn’t hook up with her.

Whether that particular relationship is platonic or not depends on how BOTH PEOPLE feel about hooking up with each other, *NOT* that they haven’t had sex YET and that every time she defines their relationship as platonic to other people, he readily agrees, knowing that if he doesn’t, the jig will be up, and all this time he’s spent pretending to be her friend will have been wasted. >:D
–
Follow Bill via Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Email Subscription | RSS Feed

Bros Before Hoes (Guy Code)

Bill Cammack — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:47:46 +0000

“Bros Before Hoes” is generally misinterpreted to mean that anybody who is male gets preferential treatment in any situation where he’s in active or passive competition with a female.

An example of this is this 2008 election t-shirt design featuring Joe Biden and Sarah Palin:

This is not actually what Bros Before Hoes means, or what it stands for.

Before I get into the actual explanation, I’d like to say for the record that females have their own slogan for Girl Code, which is “Chicks Before Dicks”.

Friends

The way American society works, it’s very easy for guys to be friends with guys and it’s very easy for gals to be friends with gals. This is why you see a lot of polarized groups. You’ll see four guys hanging out at the baseball game. You’ll see seven women eating dinner together with no boyfriends in sight.

This is because, in general, males and females are not friends.

In fact, other than attempting to get laid, there are some guys that never speak to women at all.. unless they have to, like for some work project or something.

On the other side of the coin, there are some women that have no male friends at all either.. of their own choice and decision, not because girls don’t have friends that are guys.. That’s an entirely separate issue.

Meanwhile, Political Correctness would have you believe that we’re all one big androgynous melting pot. That’s not true.

Women often find this out the hard way… They think some dude is their friend, and then they announce to him that they’re not going to have sex with him and he vanishes into thin air like The Great Gazoo.

The Great Gazoo is a tiny, green, floating alien who was exiled to Earth from his home planet Zetox as punishment for having invented a doomsday machine, a weapon of immense destructive power.

His invention was a button which would destroy the universe if pressed, though he insists he made it on a whim with no intent of using it.

Gazoo was discovered by Fred and Barney when his flying saucer crashed.

*POOF* She never hears from him again, because the only reason he was speaking to her was so he could get laid.

This works in the other direction as well.. Guys will remain in the pocket and play that “friend” role until a chick announces that she’s broken up with her boyfriend, and then here come the suitors out of the woodwork, talkin’ ’bout how much they want to hit it, yadda yadda, when this whole time, they’ve been layin’ up in the cut, waiting for their turn to tap that ass.

So, what you end up with in this society is a group that seems to be based on equality, but it isn’t… Some people, including guys<->gals are actual friends, homies, home-skillets, like, they have a REAL relationship…. Other people are only allowed to remain in position as long as they remain functionally useful, and they’re often quickly and unceremoniously replaced.

This is the *actual* genesis of Bros Before Hoes.

Class

In a seemingly-equal group of Americans, you actually have two classes.. The first class being people (guys or gals) that have been invited because someone respects their personality, and the second class being people (guys or gals) that are only allowed to hang around because one of the first class members is trying to **** them.

In the authentic application of the concept, a guy might have male “bros” and also female “bros”. The actual differentiation is how much the individual is valued as a person, and whether they’re considered a first class citizen, *NOT* whether they’re male or female.

For example.. Back in the day, guys would bring chicks around and introduce them to us as their girlfriend or “wifey” or whatever… I would play along with the game and interact with these gals as if they were going to be recurring characters in our lives.

In fact, I already knew that they were NPC’s (Non-Player Characters). In a movie, they would be considered “extras”. They’re in the movie, and you see them in the coffee shop, but they don’t have any lines and may or may not get their name in the credits at the end of the film.

The funny/backwards aspect of situations like that is that these NPC’s would swear up and down that they were pivotal, important people, and make statements and demands as if they were in some type of powerful position. :D

Next thing you know, some other chick was being brought around by that same dude, introduced with the exact same title, and treated exactly the same way by tha fellaz.

No ceremony. No problem. No beef. No gradual or sudden dissolution of the relationship.. The previous chick would just disappear into thin air like The Great Gazoo, and she may or may not ever be mentioned again, ever in life.

If the story of her ejection was funny enough or interesting or educational enough, it might be told to the crew. Other than that, she was just replaced, and it was regular and no big deal and the next one up on deck got light until she disappeared also.

So, the actual meaning behind Bros Before Hoes is that if a dispute occurs involving a first class citizen (bro, male or female) and a second class citizen (ho, female), it’s in your best interest to side with the person who was your friend beforehand and will be your friend after the fact, instead of siding with the chick you happen to be screwing at this particular point in time, because you’re going to replace her with another one if she bounces.

You can’t replace actual friends that easily.

Chicks Before Dicks

Technically, this should work the same way in reverse, meaning:

The actual meaning behind Chicks Before Dicks is that if a dispute occurs involving a first class citizen (chick, female or male) and a second class citizen (dick, male), it’s in your best interest to side with the person who was your friend beforehand and will be your friend after the fact, instead of siding with the dude you happen to be receiving tha dilznick from at this particular point in time, because you’re going to replace him with another one if he bounces.

In reality.. Ain’t that type-a party. >:D

Most of the time, if you’re a friend of a chick and attempt to persuade her against the guy that’s currently hittin’ her off, you’re going to run into major resistance and might even get removed from her roster of friends.

This is why, when women don’t have any sex in their lives, they’re all content to hang out with a bunch of other women all the time, and then, AS SOOOOOOON as some guy’s willing to hit it, they bounce from “Girls’ Night Out” faster than Tea Party Debate audience members would let a 30-year-old without health insurance die.

So.. Since women’s emotional attachment to sex clouds their judgement, Chicks Before Dicks (Girl Code) isn’t as strictly adhered to as Guy Code.

There’s really no way around this… My advice to you is that if you have something negative to say to a female friend of yours regarding her source of sexual satisfaction, you’d better have as much concrete evidence as you can muster before you even bother to bring it up. :D

Female Bros

There aren’t a lot of Female Bros. This is because, like I said earlier, a lot of guys don’t even talk to women unless they’re trying to screw them, and then, as soon as it’s determined that they can’t get any, the guy stops talking to them, because what’s the point of that? \o/

However, these situations occur.. Mostly through getting to know women through work or social media or through mutual friends or the chick used to date your homeboy or whatever.

When this happens, these relationships as real as they come.

A lot of people fail to perceive male<->female Bro relationships, because they don’t believe they exist.. like The Great Gazoo. This leads to serious miscalculations on their part, when they incorrectly apply “Bros Before Hoes” to a social situation.

If I’m chillin’ with a female Bro and she spies a guy she likes, I’m going to try to faciliate her getting laid (or whatever she’s trying to do with him), just like I would for some male homeboy of mine I happened to be chillin’ with that saw a chick he wanted.

Also, if I see something that I feel shouldn’t be happening to her, I’m gonna back *her* play, not the play of the dude that’s trying to get over.

This is entirely different from cockblocking… I’m not on the payroll. I’m not paid to babysit some grown-ass woman from giving it up to some dude.

As long as what he’s doing is on the up-and-up, I’ll let him rock. If he can talk her panties off or whatever, good for him, I hope he enjoys himself! >:D

However.. If I feel like the situation isn’t proper, I’m going to check with her.. *ESPECIALLY* if the only reason she’s where we are is because she agreed to come somewhere with me… If I’m the reason she left her house, I’m going to make sure she returns to her house safely. Period. I don’t give a flying **** what anybody thinks about that. It’s what’s happening.

There are too many guys and gals in this town that leave chicks laying around in the garbage… Not on *MY* watch.

Fakers

I wanted to clear this up because there are a bunch of clowns running around on “reality” shows claiming Guy Code when they really have no integrity whatsoever.

They’re making guys look like chumps by claiming Guy Code and then snitching on their so-called boy to his girlfriend about something he did or deliberately gossiping or instigating unnecessary conflict.

It’s even worse when their adherence to Guy Code only lasts as long as they don’t have a chick to climb up on, and as soon as they achieve that, they become one of the girls.

In fact, guys like this don’t have *ANY* Bros, whatsoever. They’re mercenaries. They’re out for self. Dolo. Just because they’re male doesn’t mean they have any legitimate claim to raise their glass in the club and yell “BROS BEFORE HOOOOOOOES!!! >:D”.

Dudes like that make things tougher for the rest of us, since women attribute their ridiculous behavior to guys in general.

If they were really down with Guy Code, they’d represent it properly… The guys that are down with you get special privileges. The gals that are down with you get special privileges, and, in return, need to carry that extra weight associated with being “one of the fellaz”. They need to keep the crew’s business ‘out that streets’, not cockblock, and generally fulfill the responsibilities of a first class citizen.

Since these dudes ARE NOT authentically down with Guy Code, they make the rest of us look shabby by snitching on their boys, not backing up their girls, and siding with second class citizens over first class citizens so they can get some trim one time in life.

A real relationship is a meritocracy. Just because a dude is male, that doesn’t make him your Bro. Just because a chick is female, that doesn’t make her your Ho.

Don’t play yourself by assuming you’re automatically considered a first class citizen due to accident of birth.
–
Connect with Bill on Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Email Subscription | RSS Feed

Why You Can’t Get A Boyfriend In NYC

Bill Cammack — Sat, 07 May 2011 15:22:55 +0000

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

Bill Cammack » chicks

Asking Women Out On Dates

Related Posts

You’re Still Not Me

Related Posts

Platonic Relationships

Platonic Relationships

Two Decisions, Not One

Same Word, Different Meaning

Can Men & Women Be Friends?

Related Posts

Bros Before Hoes (Guy Code)

Friends

Class

Chicks Before Dicks

Female Bros

Fakers

Related Posts

Why You Can’t Get A Boyfriend In NYC

Mile Marker 5

Mile Marker 10

Mile Marker 15

Related Posts