Bill Cammack

One of the reasons I really enjoyed MTV’s “Jersey Shore” is that they finally showed the lifestyle of what I call “Hunters”. Pauly & Mike were hunters, at least at the time that show was taped. They were down for the game. Fresh (new) chicks every night. They had a couple of repeat chicks, but for the most part, they were struggling to see what they could do every day and that’s what hunting’s all about.

Hunting isn’t for everybody. A lot of guys are looking to land the best chick they can get and retire. That’s what Ronnie did. He definitely COULD have hunted if he wanted to, but he didn’t want to. :D He sold out for the guaranteed daily lay with a chick that floated his boat and there’s nothing wrong with THAT! :D ‘Matter of fact, it looked like Mike was hating himself for having his hands on Sammi first and blowing it by pulling more random chicks to hop in the hot tub and make out. Had he realized his error earlier, it might have been “The Situation” that sold out and Ronnie & Pauly hunting. Read the rest of this entry »

ok.. So I’m listening to this conversation that Danielle Ricks hosted, and the gist of it was whether men (in general) were looking for strong women and I hear several times from several people, male & female, something to the effect of a woman “letting” a man lead in the relationship.

This is a very basic, yet fundamental problem, and women need to cut it out, ASAP.

Leadership

If you’re in the army, and woman has a particular rank and a man has a lower rank than she does, he doesn’t get to override her opinions… about ANYTHING. NUTH-THANG!… NOTHING!… NEVER. Case Closed, Done Deal, It’s a WRAP! She outranks him, so by the codes that they live and fight by, he has to take orders from her or peel potatoes in the brig.

There’s a reason why the woman gets to tell the man what to do. She’s put in the work to achieve the rank she’s achieved and he hasn’t achieved that rank, so that’s that. Unfortunately, people don’t tend to apply this simple logic to relationships. Read the rest of this entry »