Google Plus Circles are basically what I’ve been waiting for for quite a long time, now.

Here’s the video from Google that basically explains what they are:
 

Youtube Link => [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocPeAdpe_A8]
 
That’s all well & good, and it gives you a basic understanding of what you can do with circles, but if you’re “Internet Famous” or even just a power-user of social media sites, you’re going to need a better plan than “I CAN SHARE MY PARTY PHOTOS WITH MY COLLEGE FRIENDS!!! :D LULZ LOL FTW F2F IRL!!! :D”

You’re actually going to need to employ a 3-pronged attack if you’re going to build successful circles. “My College Friends” will quickly become a useless category to you if you have a whole lot of college friends.

This is because your college friends are all INDIVIDUALS and don’t have the same interests and don’t share the same quality of content and aren’t interested in the same topics. o_O

Wait.. Let me back up a little…

People Skillz

The reason I’m talking about this is because I’m popular In Real Life (otherwise known as “IRL”). Most people on the internet are not.

In fact, before Twitter, most people that you see with a lot of followers never had anyone listen to anything they had to say ever in life, which is why the service is so popular. You get to feel like thousands of people are listening to what you have to say. You feel popular. You feel interesting.

Meanwhile, I’ve been managing groups of followers since my earliest recorded memories, around Kindergarten (5 years old, in the United States of America).

As far as internet stats, I currently have 2,879 Facebook Friends and 3,127 Twitter Followers if you’d like to check it.

And here’s what the readership to my website, BillCammack.com looked like two years ago, in July, 2009:

So, Anyway…

Almost two weeks ago, before I received an invite to Google+ from my friend Jeffrey Taylor, I had never heard of it.

I had never heard of it and I wasn’t even checkin’ for Google as far as social stuff after Wave was WACK and Buzz was WACK, I had pretty much had it with their attempts at social.

Fast-Forward 12 days after receiving my invite, and 970 people have added me to their circles (though the lagging stats on my profile page says that only 692 people have me in their circles), or maybe that has something to do with whether people are broadcasting who’s in their circles or not. \o/

Circle Strategy

I started out using circles the way the video tells you to.. Grouping people by level of acquaintance or things you appear to have in common.

It became obvious, relatively quickly, that this wasn’t the way to go.

I hopped on Google+’s “Hangout” feature (no-cost group video chat for up to ten people) and had a brainstorming session with my friend Baratunde.

Baratunde’s an actual comedian. He’s an entertainer. I have fans, but he has *FANS*. I wanted to know what he was planning to deal with “circles”. He spoke on his thoughts about circles in this public Google+ post, entitled “Will Google Plus let me hang out with Halle Berry?”.

One of the things we discussed in that conversation was that circles needed to be concentric, not mutually exclusive.

For example.. I might go to a blip.tv party, and there could easily be 60-80 people that I personally know in the same room.

That doesn’t mean that we all share the same level of friendship, as Facebook would have us believe.

That doesn’t mean we all share the same depth of conversation, interaction or intimacy with each other.

That blip party isn’t a bunch of separate, mutually-exclusive parties.

It’s one large party which contains many, many sets of varying levels of relationships which intermingle with each other during the evening.

Similarly.. When you’re interacting online, you’re not dealing with mutually-exclusive groups.

Some of your friends from college are still your friends now.

Some of your IRL friends are also your coworkers.

Some of your coworkers are your girlfriends. >:D

Some of your girlfriends also like hiking or web design or debating dating situations.

If you group people the way you’re told to, you’re gonna get screwed, because you’re mixing people with differing qualities of content creation.

You’re going to end up with too much noise and not enough signal, and then you’re going to have to write blog posts about how your wife bounced from Google+ because she couldn’t take it anymore.

So.. The first thing you have to know in order to do it properly, is that you need to set up two different hierarchies of circles:

1. Listening Circles
2. Sharing Circles

I have people that I’m actual IRL friends with and I enjoy clinking brews with them at the bar and I totally enjoy their company in person, but the internet content they post is absolute DRIVEL! :D

dictionary.reference.com/browse/drivel – 2: childish, silly, or meaningless talk or thinking; nonsense; twaddle.

It’s complete garbage. I’m not trying to hear that. In fact.. I’m not even trying to have to scroll past that while I’m looking through interesting, relevant material.

If I made a circle called “Good Friends Of Mine”, it would be populated with garbage.

Fortunately, Google+ enables us to *IMMEDIATELY* promote and demote people in pretty much less than two seconds.

As soon as you see something that disturbs your reading experience, you hover over their name and get “Add to circles”, then hover over that and either demote them or remove them from your circles entirely. No muss, No fuss! >:D

After almost two weeks of dealing with content quality interruptions, I realized that the way to go is grouping people by the quality of their content… IIIIIIII HAVE A DREEEEEEAM… THAT ONE DAYYYY…

Listening Circles

So that’s your first set.. Your hierarchy of Listening Circles, grouped in order by quality of content.

What this allows you to do is cascade down levels of relevance.

First, you click on your circle that includes people that you always want to hear from.

This circle is valuable because Google+ moves very quickly, like Twitter does. If you don’t have a circle where you can find things posted hours ago or even days ago from the people you REALLY want to keep up with, you’ll never be able to find them if they’re mixed in with a bunch of other people’s content.

Once you’re up-to-date with the important posts, click on the circle of people that always have something relevant, intelligent, intelligently humorous, insightful or important to say.

This is where you’re going to experience your first round of demotions. :) SOMEBODY in this list is going to disappoint you with drivel and get demoted to a lesser ring.

Next, check the circle with people that post good material, but it’s leaning towards leisure-time reading.

This is where you’re going to experience your first round of promotions. Some people are going to surprise you with insight or relevance, and you’re going to want them to be in a higher-priority circle next time you do this. :)

After that, you have the circle with the cat-picture-posting people… The circle with the people that came from Tumblr & Twitter and don’t know to do anything other than incessantly post drivel every hour on the hour… The circle with the people that never, ever, EVER have anything to say for themselves that doesn’t have to do with Social Media, Search Engine Optimization, or shilling for their company or brand… The circle with people that you don’t know anything about, but you’re willing to give them a chance to make it into a relevant circle…..

If you want to do Pot Luck, you click on “Stream” in your sidebar, and you can see material in chronological order from everybody in all of your circles.

Sharing Circles

Second.. You need sharing circles.

“My College Friends” don’t all care about the music you’re working on or your business connections or actually *ANY* one particular topic you might feel like posting about on the internet.

You have to develop lists, groups, sets, circles, whatever, of Passionate Consumers of whatever your blog topic was.

If you post about social media, add the people that +1 or contribute thoughts to that thread to your Social Media Sharing Circle. Same thing if you post about dating or video production or whatever else you normally like to discuss online.

What you end up with is people in overlapping circles which work efficiently in the same way that your IRL interactions with people work. You hear what you want to hear from people when you want to hear it, and you tell (to a degree) people about what they’re likely to want to hear about.

If you have something you want to generically broadcast to everyone, you can elect to share it to either “Extended Circles” (a complicated version of “Friends of Friends” in Facebook-Speak) or “Public” (a complicated version of the main timeline, if you’re used to Twitter).

The one problem I have right now with “Public” is that there’s no way to restrict comments on your post to people that you’ve vetted. You can do that on Facebook by making your post visible to “Everyone”, but having your privacy settings restrict comments to people that you’re actually connected to.

Of course, you can block people for making inane comments in your thread, but I’m more of a Prevention person than a Cure person, Nah Meen? >:D

Hangout Circles

The third set of circles you’re going to need, well, if you’re the type of person to take advantage of group video chatting, that is.. is Hangout Circles.

A Google+ Hangout is a video chat between anywhere from 2 – 10 people.

well… unless you do it like Facebook press conferences and have 10 people bum rush the show on the same video camera.. then, I guess, hypothetically, A Google+ video chat fits up to 100 people. :P

But seriously, folks…

Group Video Chatting is definitely the move, but the quality level depends on the people that you get to join the chat.

When you create it, you have the option of sharing the invitation with individuals or circles (or extended circles or “public”).

If you don’t curate your hangout circles, you’re going to end up with pot luck, which may or may not go well for you.

On top of that, if you have thousands of followers, there are only 10 slots to begin with. It doesn’t make sense to invite 900 people to something like that.

What you need to do is either get your set of 10 people together ahead of time, perhaps using a Facebook Event, since Google+ doesn’t have Events yet, or at least get a core of people together where you know you’re going to have a good conversation once you invite more of your circles to the hangout.

There are way more issues with hangouts that I’ll talk about in another post, but essentially, to me, hangouts are the killer app to Google+.

The only reason I haven’t logged more hangout hours already is that I’ve been focused on figuring out circles.

Long Story Short… (too late)

Google+ is still in a closed format they call a Limited Field Trial, but you should be able to join up at plus.google.com/up/start/ pretty soon.

Most of what I said isn’t going to be useful to you if you know like 49 people, total. :)

In fact, most people didn’t bother to read this far, and they really don’t need to.

The people that need to read this are those of us that experience diminishing returns from social media sites because they eventually become popular.

Foursquare was very useful before it became a fad to be connected to people on that particular LBS (location-based service). As soon as the civilians found out about it and were able to add people they already followed on Twitter and Facebook, we had to make a choice between being sociable and using the service for its intended purpose.

Google+ Circles are a good way to deal with posting private and public content from the same account.. Private, meaning sent to people you specifically want to get that communication, not Private as in “Let me send this chick a picture of tha dilznick and get fired from my job.”

I think a lot of people are going to bounce from the service because they’ll feel like it’s Twitter with the 140 character restriction removed.

That’s pretty much what Jaiku was, back in the day.

Google+ is a new game, altogether. It’s an incredible time sink because there’s so much information (though, granted, a lot of it’s reduntant reposting) that you receive from so many people, and then you can actually follow the conversations connected to that content.

It’s not going to be for everybody. Trolls will probably have no presence on G+ at all, especially since their accounts are linked to their government names, like profiles.google.com/BillCammack and they’re not going to be able to hide behind fancy screen names and try to act disrespectfully.

Lurkers will be there, silent in the background, as usual. Google+ is the opportunity for ACTUAL thought leaders and aggressive debaters to shine.

The time is NOW! >:D Skynet has been activated. The online and offline worlds have been brought one critical step closer to each other. If you have your listening circles and sharing circles set up properly, you’ll thrive in this environment.

If not, you’ll suffer through a flood of minutiae and drivel from cat-picture and animated .GIF posters and decide that Google+ isn’t worth anything to you socially.

For cyborgs like The Kid, Google+ is gonna be big! :D hehe I’ll see you at the top, or I’ll see you at the bottom.

Welcome to Gladiator School! >:D

Related Posts

• Email. Not Facebook. Not Twitter. Not Phone. Not IRL…
• CNN Presents “Black In America: Silicon Valley”
• There’s No Social In Your Media
• How To Disable Facebook Places Tagging
• Google Your Date?

I spent the day on Seesmic yesterday and had a 90-post conversation involving several of the members. I’ll say first of all that Seesmic has made TONS of improvements since Andrew Lipson gave me an invite 3 months ago. They’re always making improvements to their site, so this post may very well be outdated relatively soon. :)

If you don’t know what Seesmic is, it’s basically like having a conversation with people on a bunch of stickies. In a way, it’s like Twitter, except it’s video and audio instead of text. You get to record a video which goes into the “public” timeline, and other people can watch it just about as soon as you post it. People who see your video can record their own video and make it a reply to your video if they so choose.

They relatively recently implemented threading as a one-dimensional, reverse chronological timeline. This was way better than no threading AT ALL :D but having held a several-hour-long conversation on it that was about actual intellectual concepts, not “what to name a dog” or “who’s going on a date tonight”, I got to experience the downsides of asynchronous video threading in Seesmic’s current format.

The reason I make a point of it being asynchronous is that it’s not a real-time conversation. It’s more like twitter or an email group than it is like Yahoo Live where several people speak to each other simultaneously, or even chat rooms, where everyone’s there at the same time and can jump in with their opinions if they feel like it.

Liz Burr made some excellent points that I hadn’t paid attention to as I was absorbing so many other things during a full day’s use of the app. Someone had made the point that because you record your own video and decide when to stop it, you get to say what you want in its entirety without being interrupted. Liz mentioned that since it’s asynchronous, you can be turned OFF at ANY point, or not listened to at all, as your screen name and icon are attached to your video in the thread. This means you have more of a chance of not.being.heard.at.all. if someone decides that what you have to say isn’t worth listening to based on your behaviors and what you had to say in previous videos. I “knew” this, but I hadn’t processed it until she mentioned it to me. I was already employing that behavior, for example, after listening to a post from someone that I determined was garbage, I would skip anything with their face on it after that.

At this point, I should mention how Seesmic is set up for people to become aware of people’s posts. It’s important to understand this to understand why one-dimensional threading is NOT optimal for an application like this. There’s a “public” timeline that catches everyone’s videos. This is world-wide, but you can set it to only pick up posts in your language. That’s still A LOT of people, and it’s not even open to the public yet. Your next option is a “friends” timeline. You get to choose to “follow” people, and only their videos will show up in this timeline. This is another way you can elect to bypass people whom you’ve determined have nothing valid or intelligent to say… don’t “follow” them. They’ll still show up if you’re looking at a thread that they’ve contributed videos to, but then you resort to visual parsing and skip them as usual.

These abilities to select people to follow and people to “allow to speak” by clicking on their videos and watching them all the way to the end absolutely alters each person’s perception of a thread they arrive to. Seesmic member Otir read a perfect analogy of the situation, telling the story of a bunch of blind people whom were all offered different sections of an elephant to feel and then to give their opinion of what an elephant is like. Each of them had their own perception of “an elephant”, and that perception colored what they had to say about elephants.

First of all, if you’re following certain people, their posts come up in your “friends” timeline. If you click on the member’s icon, you go straight to their opinion. That’s a good thing. However, you’re jumping in in the middle of the thread. You can click “conversation” and see the entire list of posts in that thread. This is where your personal bias comes into play. If you don’t have any respect for the people earlier in the timeline, you might skip their videos entirely, bypassing much of the context of the situation. If there are a whole lot of videos before the person you’re following, you might not be inclined to watch an hour’s worth of posts before you enjoy what you really came here to see… thus, bypassing much of the context of the situation. If you’ve determined that the person you’re following is more credible than others in the thread, you may be inclined to reply along the lines of that personal bias. This is where we get the blind people approaching the elephant from different sides and angles.

Another “problem” with this layout is that what you’re looking at is NOT actually linear other than chronologically. The posts are laid out by the TIME that they were posted to the site, but they are not differentiated by the TANGENT of the thread that that particular post followed. This leads to a circular, “telephone game” situation, because people show up to a thread hours after it started, read something a “friend” of theirs posted, which was dealt with hours ago, and respond to that person’s post without watching all of the surrounding material.

My thread was 90 posts long. Even if each person took only one minute to say what they had to say (and I’ve seen videos that were 5 minutes long, so if there’s a time limit on individual videos, it’s NOT shorter than that), that means that to absorb the entire thread, you’d have to sit there as long as a feature film. People aren’t going to wait that long to reply. As a matter of fact, people started showing up and making NEW threads asking for someone to summarize my thread because they didn’t want to go back and read it all. This is another way that posts get “lost in the sauce”. People show up and want to be involved, but don’t want to put in the work to go back and experience each post.

Another reason it becomes circular is let’s say you have three tangents in a thread. As the original thread participants scramble “left and right” (since it’s all appearing as a one-dimensional timeline) to deal with tangents, 20 posts down the line, someone reads something from a tangent that was already resolved, hits “reply” and now, your 21st post is actually a response to your 5th post. :/ Then, THEIR “friends” see what THEY posted and continue the previously resolved tangent, causing the original thread participants to scramble over there and put out THAT fire… AGAIN. :/ Meanwhile, the thread splinters more and more and is misinterpreted more and more but LOOKS like a single, chronologically-ordered discussion. The snowball rolls further downhill when someone shows up to post #60, which is really only three posts removed from post #5 and doesn’t want to read the rest of the material, so they assume that all 60 posts have been along the same tangent.

Like I said, this only comes into play if you’re trying to have an intelligent conversation. If you’re just socializing via video, you don’t need to worry about tangents and following thoughts and concepts. You just throw up a “me too” post and you’re good… you feel like you’re a part of the conversation, whether people are “following” you or not.

Jan McLaughlin mentioned an addition that I think would work very well in these situations… the ability for the originator to moderate their thread. I suppose the ability to assign mods would be useful as well. A couple of days ago, I left a 32-post thread of mine for a few hours and when I returned, it was around 60. Thinking that there was much interesting material to sift through, I clicked on it, only to realize that two people had started online dating in my thread. :/ Instead of taking their chances in the “public” timeline, the best way to try to get each other’s attention was to click “reply” so that it would show up in their “replies” folder (an alternative timeline to “public” or “friends”. The unfortunate side-effect of this was that as they kept “reply”ing to each other, their posts were being added to my thread.

It would be lovely to have a way to separate irrelevant posts from your thread. It would be lovely to be able to remove videos posted to your thread by people that just showed up to act dumb. Not *delete* them, just remove them from YOUR thread so that new people arriving after the fact wouldn’t bail on your 70-post thread because there are 30 posts worth of online dating inside it that’s completely indistinguishable from on-point conversation in a one-dimensional reverse chronological timeline.

Seesmic’s making tons of improvements, so I’m sure features are coming down the line that will facilitate intelligent conversation, such as GROUPS. The ability to have a discussion only amongst the people that *you* choose would be a major development. There’s no need to block others from reading it. Just stop them from diluting the content and making the originators waste time running around putting out fires. Like I said, they’ve progressed in leaps and bounds in the three months that I’ve been on the service.

Personally, I’m a fan of synchronous interaction, whether we’re talking live video or text chat. Even IRL, I enjoy holding arguments against 5 people at a time. :D The upside of asynchronous conversation is that you only have to make your point ONCE, and everyone hears it and we can all move forward and explore greater depths of the conversation. The downside is that you have to actually BE THERE at the time it’s happening to be a part of it. If you show up hours later, all you can do is watch the archive, if there is one.

The upside of asynchronous conversation is that you can join in on work breaks, when you get out of class, whenever it’s convenient for you, you can add something to an ongoing discussion. The downside is that depending on how much time has elapsed between the beginning of the conversation and your arrival, you might not be willing to put in the work to absorb the entirety of the conversation anyway.

Bill Cammack • Cammack Media Group, LLC

Related Posts

• Are You A Tech Elitist?
• Dude… Where’s My Twitter Link?
• Connections (Passing it On)
• The Lab – Episode 02: Response To Randolfe
• Only Date People Better Than YOU! :D

As you know if you’ve been following this column over the last 6 months, DatingGenius doesn’t “date”.

The term “dating” implies progression. It’s like something Richie Cunningham or Potsie Weber might do. You see a chick and you want her, but you’re not willing to let her know what time it is, so you beat around the bush taking her places in hopes that she’ll see you as the kind of guy she wants to give it up to. *yawn*

In fact, there *IS* no progression. A chick knows if she wants to mess with you off the bat. Depending on what you tell her after that, she either thinks more about giving you some or LESS about giving you some, hahaha :D … That’s all there is. You want to hook up with her, or else you wouldn’t be on a so-called “date” with her. Everybody knows it, so stop acting like you’re all sneaky and undercover and then try to surprise the chick with a “good-night kiss” when you drop her home, hoping that it works like in the movies, and all of a sudden, she’ll invite you in for…. a nightcap. :/

So, no. DatingGenius doesn’t “date”. He hangs out with chicks. Period. If they’re into DatingGenius like that, then CHA-CHINGGGG!!! :D If not, we have a good time anyway, then we go about our respective businesses.

Having said that, if you still insist on “dating”, like actually courting one person in a serial fashion with the intent of them eventually handing you a title that’s supposed to mean something, like “significant other”, then make sure you date someone BETTER. THAN. YOU! :D

Now, that might not seem to make sense, coming from the diabolical, empty-life-having (bookstore chick’s friend informed me of this a couple of weeks ago), sinister, evil, manipulating DatingGenius! :D You would think that he would advocate kicking it to the dumbest, low-brow character you can find in order to maximize your control over the situation. Dummies and lowlives are great if you’re just trying to get on ASAP and don’t intend to see them ever again in life. If you’re actually going to REPRESENT with this person, like as in let ANYONE ELSE know that you’re messing with them… That person needs to be a FANTASTIC individual. This is actually MORE IMPORTANT for the ladies than it is for the fellaz, so pay attention. :D

[Part 1: Dummies]

Let’s say the person you’re dating is a dummy. Like they’re just not intelligent. Maybe you’re on iChat with them and it takes them mad, crazy, stupid long to type a response to you, and then after all that waiting, it’s like a line and a half because they were only using their two pointer fingers to peck at the keyboard. Or maybe they can’t spell for JACK, and you’re wondering if they dropped out of school in the 5th grade to pack bags for change at the supermarket, then got hooked on drugs before making it back into the school system.

If you actually date this idiot, regardless of how good he or she looks or how good the sex is, don’t give yourself credit like you’ve pulled off some fantastic feat. In fact, anyone smarter than them will be able to manipulate them if they choose to, and you’ve “built your house on sand”… if not quicksand.

On top of that, you can’t TAKE this person ANYWHERE! :D Unless they happen to LOOK intelligent and you can convince them to not say ANYTHING around your peers, this person is an accident waiting to happen… Actually, an accident TRYING to happen, because it’s been my experience that the dumber someone is, the more they try to impress other people. Did you notice that? :D It’s like the smartest people, most of the time in a conversation, they’re listening and PROCESSING what people are saying. When they finally say something, it’s worth hearing and it’s the product of what they’ve absorbed from what’s been going on. Meanwhile, you see the dummies sitting there staring at the mouth of the person who’s talking… They seem to be trying to synchronize, like double dutch, getting ready to jump into the conversation when they perceive that the current speaker is about to finish his or her point.

The problem with this is that if you’re synchronizing, you’re not LISTENING, which becomes apparent when the dummy jumps in with something relevant to 10 minutes ago when they finally had ONE good idea, and they’ve been waiting until now to get a word in edgewise. That’s when the entire conversation stops and everyone tries to be polite. There’s this silent exchange that goes on between everyone. They’re not so much being polite to the dummy as they’re being polite TO *YOU* because it’s YOUR FAULT that this person’s in here $&%*ing up the program! :D Basically, people are embarrassed *for* you, and everyone’s trying not to mention that the emperor has no clothes on.

This is easily avoided, if you insist on dating dummies and bringing them out in public, by not giving them a title when you introduce them. We all have those friends… Every so often, they come around with a new…. person… and they introduce this person by name, but no title. Like, it’s clear that they’re out on a date, but by not declaring this person, you get to play it off down the line. Oh… That was a business partner from the Kentucky branch, my job asked me to show him around. Oh… That was my CEO’s daughter, visiting from San Diego. Who? When?… OH!… I was interviewing her for that intern position (at 11:30 pm). This only works, however, if you know you’re going to get rid of them eventually. If you end up eventually declaring them, you look like a chump for trying to play it off.

You also can’t leave people like this alone with your friends. Do NOT go to the bathroom. Do NOT go to the bar to order drinks. Do NOT pass “go” and Do NOT collect $200. Stick to this person LIKE GLUE. If you leave, and your friends ask your date “What do you think about Obama” and they reply “I think he’s still hiding in those mountains”, you’re *dead*. Laughing stock. You will NEVER live it down.

DatingGenius

Related Posts

• Thou Shalt Not Drink Soda With Pop Rocks!
• Marry Rich
• Does it matter what women think?
• Life Isn’t Fair
• Tip for the ladies: He doesn’t care! :D

I had this same conversation at least three times last week, so I may as well write it down so next time it comes up, I can save my breath and point the chick to this post. :)

Here is something very important that women need to know that could save you HOURS of wondering about why some guys do the things they do. This is a major stumbling block, and if you can get over it, you’ll be more effective in dealing with men…. especially men you aren’t interested in hooking up with. Ready? :D Pay attention, now………..

When it comes to ‘getting on’, Guys.Do.Not.Care.What.Chicks.Think.

That’s it. Period. That’s the tip that will save you HOURS of confusion and commiseration with your girlfriends over Haagen Dazs. Guys do *NOT* care AT.ALL what you think.

Now, let’s go over some typical and oft-repeated statements that women make:

“Didn’t he see my wedding ring?”
“I told him I only saw him as a friend”
“I wasn’t dressed sexy, but he still tried to get my number”
“Every time I talk to him, I only give short answers”
“I told him I wasn’t interested in him, romantically”
“I told him I was a lesbian and introduced him to my girlfriend”
“What makes him think I’ll date him after he dated my sister?”
“We can’t XYZ… We work together!”
“How dare he ask me out when I know he has a girlfriend?”

Yadda Yadda Yadda Blah Blah Blah EVERY.SINGLE.EFFIN’.DAY, some chick is confused about why a guy keeps trying to kick it to her. It’s very simple. He’s kicking it to you because HE.WANTS.TO.GET.WITH.YOU, *PERIOD*! He’s not interested in what you think about it. He’s not interested in what you have to say about it. Let’s look at what floats a lot of guy’s boats… pornography.

Pornography is ‘what?’ for the most part?….. Pictures & Videos. There may be audio content as well, but the audio pertains to the sex. These things are flying off the shelves. Pornography is BIG BUSINESS. Now, let’s think about how many of these publications (… I almost spelled pubications just now :/) and videos include chicks talking, or expressing their thoughts about something intelligent like the stock market or taxes or computer programming……. NONE. Why? Because when it comes to getting on, NOBODY CARES what you think. They care about what you look like and what you’re going to do. Period.

Now, let’s revisit some of our typical chick quandaries above, in relation to pornography:

“The porno chick had on a wedding ring?”
- So what?

“The porno chick wasn’t dressed sexy, but he still tried to get her number”
- The plan is to get her OUT of her clothes in the first place, so what difference would it make to a guy whether a chick has on pumps or sneakers? What difference does it make if she has on a leather mini or baggy sweats? None.

“The porno chick only gives him short answers to his questions”
- Short answers are better than NO answers. You’re still in the game if you’re getting ANY answers at all. That’s the whole point, to stay in the game until you can get on by hook or crook….. mostly, CROOK! :D

“The porno chick told him she wasn’t interested in him, romantically”
- He’s not interested in HER romantically, either. He just wants to hit it. Women tend to confuse a guy being physically interested in her for sex with liking her as a person. More on that in another post. Let’s just say that one has nothing to do with the other.

“The porno chick is a lesbian”
- Good. That way she’ll mind her own business when I meet other chicks, OR she’ll bring extra chicks, and I won’t have to do any work to hook up with them. Regardless of what she claims she’s into, a hot chick is a hot chick. Lesbianism is merely an accessory… a fringe benefit. :D

“What makes him think the porno chick will date him after he dated her sister?”
- See the lesbian section, above. The more, the merrier. Extra points if they’re related.

“How dare he ask the porno chick out when she knows he has a girlfriend?”
- There are enough chicks out there that will mess with “taken” guys or married guys or whatever. I mean, that’s NOTHING… If you take a look around the internet, you’d be SURPRISED at some of the stuff they can get chicks to do, like not even with PEOPLE! :O So, having it be known that you have a significant other doesn’t lessen your odds of getting on one iota. In some cases, it makes you MORE attractive to chicks for several reasons, including that it seems like a challenge to try to get “some other chick’s guy” to hook up with her.

So there you have it. Of course, some of y’all tuned out to the analogies because you don’t consider yourselves porno chicks. This is like the phenomenon where women will go out to a club and dance happily and sing along with “Bitches Ain’t ish But Hoes & Tricks”… because… say it with me, ladies!!! :D

“Oh… He’s Not Talking About *ME*!!! :D”

hahahahahaha

So that’s the trick that leads to your enlightenment about those guys that try to pick you up at the club or the gym or the supermarket or waiting for the bus or in the street in the middle of the night near Port Authority, when it’s time for the runaways to beat the clock for the last bus heading back to their part of Jersey….. um… what was I talking about?….

DatingGenius

Related Posts

• Life Isn’t Fair
• Does it matter what women think?
• Only Date People Better Than YOU! :D
• It’s The End of The World as We Know It! :(
• Purely Looks

If you go out with the same chick for more than one week, the odds begin to increase exponentially that she’ll want to have a kid with you.

Biologically, that’s how women are built. If you consistently hang around them, they start to see you as a viable protector/provider for your pending family.

Meanwhile, the guy’s just happy to have a cute chick to look at and to ‘get on’ whenever he feels like it.

Sooner or later, she’s going to start testing you with questions about the future. SOONER is the time to act, rather than later, once you realize what’s going on. If that whole “family thing” wasn’t in your playbook, and you don’t want to break up with her ASAP and start over with a different chick that doesn’t like you as much (meaning you have more time until “the kid thing” rolls around again), there’s only ONE thing to do…..

…

Buy her a dog. :D

That’s right friends, BUY HER A DOG!!! :D Works every time.

Besides shoes, there are a few things that women *LOVE*. You’ve probably noticed this already in your own relationship. Women love:
A) Attention
B) Feeling like someone needs them
C) Telling people what to do

Once she gets used to fulfilling these three things through YOU, she starts thinking about the next level. Actually… This is why she wants to have a kid with you in the first place… You paid her too much attention, you let her feel like you needed her, and you acted like you were listening when she told you what to do.

So now, she’s asking these LTR / family-oriented questions and you’re like “How the hell did she come up with all this ‘relationship’ stuff? :/” … That’s right… She made it up on her own, with zero prompting or indication from you that you were doing anything but enjoying your time with her.

Lots of guys’ reaction to this is to start acting strange, have WAAAAAAY less sex with this girl in case of an unfortunate mishap, and break up with her as soon as possible for *ANY* reason they can figure out other than “um… I’m not trying to have a kid with you… PEACE! :D”. If you don’t want to go that route, yet have ZERO intentions of having a kid with her… Buy. Her. A. Dog!

You will notice how in society today, women treat dogs like babies.
They carry them around in bags… Yes, women carry babies in bags. You’ve seen those reversed-backpack things they walk around with the kid in.
They keep them on leashes… Yes, women have kids on leashes… go to the mall and check. Extendable too, just like regular dog leashes, except it doesn’t go around the kid’s neck.
They feed them.
They get attention from them.
They tell them what to do.
They feel like the dog needs them. [Interestingly enough, this is a function of the fact that they FEED the dog. The dog needs FOOD, not HER. However, it still fulfills the necessary emotional requirements to deflect her from stopping taking the pill or poking holes in your condom collection that you left in her crib.]
They take the dogs into stores to shop.
They take dogs with them to outdoor cafes and eat lunch together.
They kiss their dogs.
They sleep with their dogs.
Etc, Etc, Etc……

Besides the myriad identical substitution features, she gets to feel like you and she “have something together”. This has the same relationship-maintaining qualities as buying her an engagement ring to deflect her from asking you about getting married, but that’s a different topic. :D She thinks that “buying a dog together” is an indication of commitment / relationship, so roll with it. Meanwhile, as far as I know, dog food costs less than diapers, and if the two of you end up breaking up, you don’t have to pay child support or pay for the dog to go to college.

The other obvious benefit to buying your girlfriend a dog is you don’t have to spin the wheel of fortune wondering what her body’s going to look like after 9 months of stretching and more eating than she *normally* does. Speaking of which… Did you notice how maternity-wear came into style RIGHT AFTER media attention came to how girls were walking around in the streets with “Muffin-Tops”? That would be the amount of flab that hangs out over their belts when they wear jeans that are too small for them and shirts that aren’t long enough to cover that up. Somebody was really smart to start selling pregnancy clothing to girls that aren’t even pregnant. :D

So, yes. Buy her a dog. You get all the same features as a kid (well, minus eventual language ability) with less current expense and ZERO exit expenses like child support or alimony. You maintain your relationship and don’t have to dump an otherwise perfectly good chick. You maintain her figure and therefore your impetus to get physical with her… which was the whole point of having her around in the first place! :D

DatingGenius

Related Posts

• Life Isn’t Fair
• Thou Shalt Not Drink Soda With Pop Rocks!
• It’s The End of The World as We Know It! :(
• The Lab – Episode 02: Response To Randolfe
• Take her to the Book Store!