Bill Cammack » dating

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

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

Appearance Of Bias

Bill Cammack — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:45:40 +0000

Reader “Sam” accused me of being biased on a topic. I think bias is worth discussing.

Of course, we’re all biased because of our personal experiences in life, how we grew up, who we were born to, everything that happens to us shapes our opinions.

There’s a difference between that and not being able or even WILLING to think about things from both sides of the situation.

So for instance, as far as politics, am I happy that Barack Obama was elected President of the United States of America? Hellz Yah! :D .. I was *VERY* happy about that when it occurred, and I’m still happy about it now.

Does that mean that I think his ideas for the direction for the USA are better than what the Republicans are suggesting? No. I have no idea. I’d like to understand more about why both sides have such ridiculously different ideas about how to successfully move forward.

However.. At this point, it’s the REPUBLICANS that are trying to come up with one person to challenge President Obama in the 2012 election. They’re presenting people and asking us to consider a world with one of their candidates in the most powerful job on the planet (in my BIASED, American opinion). It’s the REPUBLICANS that are auditioning right now, and most of them SUCK! :D

When I bring up the fact that these people suck, I’m accused of being biased as opposed to having objectively assessed them and having found them crucially mentally LACKING, as far as what it takes to be the leader of the free world.

Look at Rick Perry.. If you went to a driving school, and the so-called “teacher” said “THERE ARE THREE THINGS YOU *DEFINITELY* HAVE TO AVOID WHEN YOU’RE IN A CAR!!! :O .. The first is X, The second is Y, and the third is….. The third is…. Um.. I forgot. Oops. \o/” you would find that person incompetent and you wouldn’t hire that person to TEACH YOU how to drive.

It’s only common sense.

The problem isn’t forgetting things. I forget things all the time, like chicks’ names. >:D

The problem is that you were so excited about something that you swore was SO IMPORTANT, and then you couldn’t remember THREE THINGS?… That means you weren’t actually excited about them. That means that they’re not that important to you. That means you’re putting on an act. That means you’re disqualified as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America.

But.. If I say “Rick Perry isn’t smart enough to be the President”, I’m accused of Bias. :D

Look at Michele Bachmann. I said months ago that all she does is memorize and regurgitate information like a robot. I’d rather watch Siri in a debate, because at least Siri’s unpredictable:

YouTube Link => youtu.be/rNsrl86inpo

Bachmann listens to the question, you see her eyes rolling around in the back of her head, preparing her response, and then she says “What I’d like to say is..” and then repeats something you’ve heard her say in the past.

She’s good at that, but she’s not auditioning to be a parrot. She’s auditioning to be the President of the United States of America, and that’s not gonna cut it.

But when I say Bachmann isn’t a viable candidate, I’m accused of bias. :D

On top of that, I might also be accused of chauvinism. Someone might say I’m disrespecting her because she’s a female. No. I’m pointing out that she’s mentally not currently prepared to be the President of the United States of America. :) It’s the same thing I said about Palin four years ago. It’s the reason I knew Barack Obama was going to be President as soon as I found out the Republicans didn’t have anyone better than Palin to send as VP.

It has nothing to do with the fact that they’re women. Just listen to them speak. That’s all you need to do.

However, because they’re female and I’m not, someone can accuse me of chauvinism for pointing out their myriad deficiencies that disqualify them for the position the Republicans are presenting them for.

Same thing with Herman Cain. As soon as he starts getting accused of dick-slinging, it’s “because he’s black”.

All of a sudden, the same dude that swears up and down that his traction with Republicans shows that they’re not racists wants to say that the reason he’s being accused of feeling chicks up in cars and having a side piece of ass for the most recent 13 years out of his 49 years of marriage is because people are racially motivated to dis him.

No.. If Cain had been white, and he had been paying some chick’s rent without informing his wife, and that chick stepped up front and claimed she’s been giving him ***** for the past 13 years, I’d still pat him on the back and ask him how it was.

What about John Edwards? o_O .. He’s not black, and he got snagged for having a kid with that extra chick. Edwards didn’t get to play the white card, claiming that every time a baby of a side piece shows up, it’s blamed on the white guy.

But if I say Cain isn’t a real candidate, and he’s only selling books, I’m accused of bias. :D

Newt Gingrich is a jerk. It’s just that simple.

I’m a jerk too. It takes one to know one. Gingrich doesn’t give a flying **** about you, your family or anything else.

Put Gingrich’s finger on “the button” and he’ll cause more damage than that Montgomery Burns dude:

Nobody cares about what Santorum is saying.

Santorum finally got an endorsement yesterday, from ONE DUDE, who wouldn’t/couldn’t even say that his entire organization backed Santorum.. just him. :D Santorum will be off the stage soon.

Ron Paul says what he means and means what he says… This is why he will never be elected to be the President of the United States of America.

If you’re like “**** Vermont! :D haha They shouldn’t have built their houses on questionable land! :D haha Sucks to be THEM!!! >:D”, you need to stay in local and regional politics and stay off the nationwide stage.

Paul should either win Iowa or come in a close second, but once you exit “flyover states” (which, to my international friends that don’t live here, those are states that you never actually set foot in during your entire lifetime, but you might FLY OVER them on your way from New York City to Los Angeles, Miami, or Chicago), he’s not going to have any traction, because we realize we need to work together as a team, an united country. It matters what happens past the General Store and the High School Football Stadium. We’re all in this together.

Ron Paul’s ideas were forged around the time that the “Indians” were still being diseased and murdered out of existence, and it was “Every man for himself” in the wild west, like on “Bonanza”… People still live like that in the sticks, but those ideas don’t play in actual cities.

But if I say Ron Paul’s *TRIPPIN’*!!! :D haha I’ll be accued of being ageist or whatever. :D

So, The only chances Republicans have AT ALL is to send Romney or Huntsman against Obama.. Unless they introduce a brand new nominee at a Brokered Convention.

By pointing out how ridiculous their candidates are, I’m accused of bias. In fact, I’m just reporting actual facts that disqualify these people from currently being fit to win a general election against Barack Obama.

If you think they’re fit, leave a comment below, explaining why and HOW you came to that conclusion. If you convince me that you’re right, I’ll say so.

So, While I believe bias is real and affects all of us, if you’re intelligent, you only ride it so far.

If you like the concepts that Michele Bachmann stands for, you can’t look past the fact that she’s memorizing and regurgitating.

If you like the concepts that Ron Paul stands for, you can’t look past the prospect that if he had the power, he might dismantle the federal group that’s going to help you out when a tornado or flood hits your town, which his nowhere near where he happens to live, so **** you.

If you like the concepts that Herman Cain stands for, you can’t look past the possibility that he would be the one deciding whether or not to send our troops to attack a country he doesn’t know ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT.

So don’t accuse me of bias because I don’t subscribe to yours. >: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

Bill Cammack » dating

Your Girlfriend Is A Ho

Witnesses For The Prosecution

Situational Amnesia

Related Posts

Asking Women Out On Dates

Related Posts

Appearance Of Bias

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