Bill Cammack » wife

Unequal Relationships

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

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

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

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

Roles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shot-Callers

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

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

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

YouTube Link => youtu.be/fNTBb1u6UGg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Power

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

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeeves

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

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

It’s like successful back-seat driving.

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

The Dog Stays.. You Go.

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

Pets

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

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

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

Ultimatums

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Control

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

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

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

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

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

It’s just not true.

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

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

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

Sharing

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

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

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

In fact, they’ve skipped a step.

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

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

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

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

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

Supplements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How To Deny Allegations

Bill Cammack — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:02:57 +0000

I was in Brooklyn Friday night. That means that I wasn’t in, say.. Zimbabwe, Africa.

If someone hires Gloria Allred to say “Bill Cammack was in Zimbabwe Friday night! :O”, I’ll probably ignore it completely.

If I elect to speak on it, I’m going to say “No.. In fact, I was not in Zimbabwe Friday night.”, and that’s going to be the end of it.

The truth of the matter is my “defense”. I don’t have to get personal about it.

I don’t have to say “THAT ***** IS A LYING-ASS *****!!! :O” and talk about her finances, her relationship status, or anything else about the accuser.

I don’t have to make elaborate gestures, like producing passports that aren’t stamped “Zimbabwe”.

I don’t have to hire Africans to say that they’ve never seen me in Africa in their entire lives.

I don’t have to do anything, in fact, because I wasn’t *in* Zimbabwe, and for someone to say that I was, it’s a waste of their time.

So, The proper reply to “Bill was in Zimbabwe” is “No, I was not”.

The *IMPROPER* reply to “You were in Zimbabwe” is “You can’t PROVE that I was in Zimbabwe! :O”

Does that make sense?

OBVIOUSLY, there’s no proof that I was in Zimbabwe, because I’ve never been to Africa AT ALL in my entire life.

I’ve barely even watched television shows about Africa.

Why would I bring up the fact that you can’t prove something that I know you can’t prove, because it never happened? o_O

Why would I say “The chick that says I was in Zimbabwe last night is broke and can’t pay her bills”?

Why would I say “The chick that says I was in Zimbabwe last night filed sexual harassment charges at her other job, too”?

Why would I ask a reporter “Have *YOU* ever been accused of being in Zimbabwe? o_O”?

These are things that you say when there’s actually A POSSIBILITY that the story is true.”

So, if you’re going to call a press conference and mention things that people claim you said or did, all you have to do is call them “False Allegations”. If you also call them “Unproven Allegations”, you’re leaving the door open that they MIGHT have been proven, if, say.. there weren’t legally-binding restrictions on the women telling their side of the story to the press, or if you know that the last time you tapped your side-piece’s ass was several months ago and she’s not currently pregnant, so there’s no proof that you ever hit it during your 13-year, extramarital friendship with her.

As a bonus tip.. It doesn’t matter who snitched on you.

If people believe you were in Zimbabwe, accusing a competitor of spreading the rumor isn’t going to make your denial any more credible.

So.. Again.. The way to deny allegations is to deny them.

Just say it isn’t true and keep steppin’.

If you keep yammering about proof and snitches and conspiracies, you appear unnecessarily defensive, which makes you look MORE GUILTY, not less.
–
Follow Bill via Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Email Subscription | RSS Feed

Appreciate Your Girlfriend

Bill Cammack — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:33:57 +0000

Appreciating your girlfriend is one of the best things you can do to keep your relationship fresh, interesting, and exciting. :D

All too often, we completely ignore or just plain fail to acknowledge “the little things” that our gals do for us that make our lives so much better.

Sure.. We make sure she “gets hers”, but other than that, what are we really doing for the special women in our lives? o_O

How about next time she cooks you that fantastic meal, which she also planned out and shopped for during her free time after she finished working all day, you pick up a sponge and gladly do the family dishes?

How about next time you pass that store, and see a pair of jeans on display that will make your girl look particularly fat-assed and delectable, you roll right in there and buy them for her?

billcammack.com/2008/06/26/how-to-dress-your-girlfriend/

Photo Credit: six4eleven.com

How about next time, instead of inviting her to come see Conan The Barbarian with you in the theater, you ask her which boring-ass chick flick you can suffer through for her sole benefit?

How about next time SHE wants to go out with her girlfriends, you don’t call the act of staying at home with your own biological child you had with her “babysitting”?

How about next time, instead of falling dead asleep after the fact, you take one for the team and force yourself to cuddle with her?

Yes.. I realize that you’re only dating her for sex and entertainment, but there’s so much more you can do to make her experience exciting and worthwhile in the meantime.

Turn your brain off. Think to yourself “If I were a chick, what would I want to do right now? o_O” and then go with the flow.

Go shopping with her at the mall. Just make sure you don’t end up on the bench with the Health-Tex-Wearing husbands whose wives have dressed them up as little kids to ensure that they never get sex from a female other than them ever again in life.

Take that walk with her through Central Park when you’d rather watch that football game that’s more important to you than she is right now.

Go antique-shopping with her when you don’t give a flying **** about old-ass furniture.

Take her out for that lavish Italian meal instead of taking her on dates to the gym so she can work out and stay in the type of shape you enjoy.

Spend the day with her at her Grandmother’s house with the rest of her family in attendence, playing it off like you’re not hooking up with her every hour that you’re physically awake…

Pretending that you’re not hooking up with your girlfriend, *NOT* pretending that you’re not hooking up with her Grandmother…

I mean.. If you *ARE* hooking up with her Grandmother, you want to play that off too, but, um….

Anyway… It’ll all be worth it. I guarantee you. The happier you make her, the happier she’ll make you.

So, Fellaz!!!… Pick up that sponge and grin your way into a fantastic and ultimately fulfilling relationship! >:D
–
Connect with Bill on Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Email Subscription | RSS Feed

That’s Your Man’s Problem

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

I just watched this Paul Newman film that was released in 1967, called “Hombre”.

Skipping past the race-relation value of the film, while I was watching it, I was amazed (yet, not) about what they were asking Paul Newman’s character to do in the situation they were in.

Basically, some guy stole money from the people that raised Paul Newman’s character, like in a significant amount that it endangered their lives. This guy had that money and his wife on a stagecoach that Paul Newman happened to be on.

The stagecoach got robbed, and criminals stole the money from the dude that had stolen it from the people. They also took the dude’s wife.

Paul Newman got the money back that belonged to his people, but the criminals still had some other dude’s wife.

They sent one of the criminals to negotiate, who basically said (it was a Western, and they were in the desert) “Give us the money and give us your water, and we’ll give you some other guy’s wife back… If you don’t give us the money and water, we’ll kill the woman.”

Paul Newman’s reply was basically “**** you. Shoot her.”

A conversation ensued, after the criminal returned to his posse to relay the message, where this woman that was also on the stagecoach with them asked him something like “Money is more valuable to you than a woman’s life?”

I understood what she was saying, but she wasn’t looking at the big picture.

Focus On The Facts

The money in the saddlebags was going BACK to the people that it had been STOLEN FROM, who were ALL in danger of losing their lives because they weren’t going to be able to buy food or supplies in the wild west. Paul Newman was carrying ALL OF THEIR LIVES on his shoulder in those saddlebags.

What she didn’t want to address was that the people that Paul Newman was trying to save were equally valuable to the one female that he was NOT going to save by giving away those people’s money.

She also didn’t want to address the fact that the money had been STOLEN by the captive woman’s husband in the first place, which was why they were in that predicament.

She also didn’t want to address the fact that if Paul Newman hadn’t shot two of the robbers, their posse would have gotten away with the money AND the woman, AND left them in the desert with no water or horses, presumably to die of thirst.

Most importantly, and the focus of this article, is that NOBODY in the entire film wanted to address the fact that this was NOT. PAUL. NEWMAN’S. WOMAN.

Regardless of what happened to her, his life wasn’t going to be any different.

If he gave the money away, he saves some nobody’s life, so she can go off with her husband and do God knows what, to ZERO benefit to Paul Newman.

If he keeps the money, he gets to save the lives of the people that raised him.. A LOT of the people that raised, him, not just one person.

This is clearly a no-brainer… “**** you. Shoot her.”

Meanwhile (which is relevant to my eventual point), the husband tries to get slick.

Even though the criminals have his wife, and the money and water are their only bargaining chips, he gets the drop on everybody BUT Paul Newman and orders them to give him the money and the water because he’s breaking north (leaving).

Of course, he gets caught by Paul Newman, who offers him a 1-on-1 shootout, which this ***** of course, declines. He’s made to leave the money, leave the water, and LEAVE! :D hahaha SEEYA!

Now… Here comes the same chick, asking Paul Newman questions about “How do you expect him to live in the desert without any water? :O”

Another stupid question, because he was about to leave YOU, ME and all the rest of us HERE without ANY bargaining chips against the criminals, INCLUDING water, so **** him.

The husband ends up rejoining the group, and they’re trapped in a house with the criminals surrounding them and once again attempting to use this guy’s wife to barter for the money.

The robbers decide that it would be a good idea to take this guy’s wife to an open area and leave her there, tied to a tree stump or something, in the desert heat, with no water, until someone came down from the house and traded them the money and water for her life.

That’s Your Man’s Problem

This sparked a new round of conversation about “How can you NOT trade some MONEY away for a PERSON’S life? :O”

Now.. This conversation didn’t go the way it was supposed to go, and I understand why it didn’t, for the general welfare.

The back-story to this situation was that the people that had been robbed were “Indians” (which, of course, nobody’s an Indian here because this isn’t India and Christoper Columbus was LOST! :/), and Paul Newman was white, but had been raised by the Indians that had been robbed by the husband that was cold chillin’ in the house, safe, with everybody except his wife.

Therefore.. In 1967, it was important to get the point across to the movie-goers that people raised by Indians are taught proper morals and will do the right thing when the situation calls for it, and “Indians are people, just like us.”

So, I understand, artistically, why the proper conversation never occurred in “Hombre”, and I’m glad they wrote the script that way, and I’m sure a lot of people learned something from it, but here’s how the conversation would have actually gone:

Chick: You’re just going to leave her out there to die, instead of giving away the money that will save the people that sustained your life to this very day? :O

Paul Newman: There goes her husband right thurrr.. Let *THAT* mother****** go get her.

It was the husband’s fault that he stole the money. It was the husband’s fault that he brought it on a stagecoach. It was the husband’s fault that he brought HIS WIFE with him while transporting his stolen money. It was the husband who tried to leave with the money and water while holding the rest of the group at gunpoint. It was the husband that NEVER. *******. VOLUNTEERED to go save his own ******* WIFE when the criminals put her out on display to quickly die of dehydration.

THAT’S the bottom line of the discussion. I didn’t steal the money from the Indians.. HE did. If I hadn’t shot those two dudes, the money and water would be gone, so now, they’re both *MY* property and the money will be returned to the people from whom it was stolen, because I say so. This husband-dude put his own wife in danger by bringing her along with him during a criminal enterprise. He got her into this, so now it’s up to him to get her out of it. Period.

Of course, since they needed to prove a point for race relations in 1967, Paul Newman goes to save some other guy’s wife, gets in a gunfight with the criminals, kills both of them and dies in the process, thus proving that Indians can raise a white guy to have morals and compassion. Fortunately, he had already told this other dude in the group to return the money to the Indians, so we can assume he didn’t die for nothing and that they got their money back.

I personally found this situation amazing. I was like *WHEN* are these people going to complain to the thieving, flat-leaving husband that *HE* hasn’t lifted a finger to try to save his own wife, who’s currently tied to a log right there in front of his eyes? o_O

They didn’t even bother to film one single frame of that dude showing ANY concern for his wife’s situation or well-being. Not. One. Frame… They showed him caring about getting away with the money, though.

Real-World Application

Fast-Forwarding to the year 2011 AD, I still find it funny that people expect people with no vested interest in a situation to act more responsibly than people that are directly connected to and/or affected by that situation.

Let’s look at “cheating”, for instance… I find it completely amazing that a gal will be in a relationship with a guy, he hooks up with some other chick, and the girlfriend gets mad at…. drumoll… THE. OTHER. CHICK! :D hahaha That’s SOOOO STUPID! :D

First of all, that other chick didn’t make any agreements with you.. Your man did.

*HE’S* the one that swore up and down on a stack of bibles that he wasn’t going to hook up with anybody except you when you agreed to date him or marry him or become FWB or whatever… Shouldn’t you be mad AT HIM instead of some random chick that met a guy that may or may not have said he’s in a relationship before they got busy?

Why are you expecting someone with ZERO vested interest in your personal happiness to support your relationship? o_O .. How about the person that told you to your face that he was going to be ‘faithful’ to you?

I’m completely amazed. Don’t ask Paul Newman to go save somebody else’s wife.. That’s. Her. Man’s. Problem.

Her husband/boyfriend/whatever is the one that took on the responsibility for her well-being. She aligned herself WITH HIM for whatever reasons she had at the time. If she wanted to be under Paul Newman’s protection, she should have hooked up WITH HIM, but noooooo. :D

So, don’t expect other women to support YOUR relationship to some dude.. Especially women you don’t even know. That’s. Your. Man’s. Problem. He’s the one that signed the exclusive-sex contract with you, so if he hooks up with some other chick, take it up WITH HIM, not WITH HER.

This also applies to the club.

If you’re broke and you can’t afford to buy a drink, that’s YOUR MAN’S problem! :D

You’re providing value to him, so he needs to be providing value to you.

Random dudes that you don’t know from Adam and that you’re not hooking up with have no obligation to get you drunk offa their hard-earned money.

You can call them cheap or whatever, but it’s not THEM that’s begging.. it’s *YOU*!!! :D

If you want a drink at the restaurant, bring your money or offer to wash some dishes for them to earn your keep. If you can’t afford it and don’t feel like working, tell YOUR MAN that you’d like to party beyond your financial means and get HIM to hook you up.

Good For The Gander

Of course, the same advice goes for the fellaz.

If you make a deal with some chick and then she gives it up to the next man, get mad AT HER, not at him, because he didn’t promise you jack-**** as far as not screwing your woman. SHE promised you that she wouldn’t hook up with other guys, so talk to her about your breach of contract issues.

Also.. If you’re one of those guys that plays up to less-attractive women at the club to get them to buy you drinks for free, then you just might have to play your position and actually hook up with her if that’s how you’re livin’! :D haha You might have to put in some work or stay sober.. your choice! >:D

Off The Market

A lot of women run into this issue when they change their classification from “single” to “in a relationship”. They don’t become aware until after the fact that the only reason certain guys were doing things for them is that they were currently FWB or at least in the running to get some in the near future.

Once she selects a guy and claims she’s only going to hook up with him, some of her so-called “friends” become immediately unavailable.

If she needs to change a light bulb, she needs to tell HER MAN to do that for her. That’s HIS responsibility. Nobody else cares if she sits around in the dark.

If she had a bad day?.. Save it for David. That’s HER MAN’S JOB to listen to that stuff.

If she needs to get some…. well…. a brotha Might Could see what he can do about that! >:D

But Anyway… I think people need to focus more on the alliances and affiliations they make, so they have a more realistic understanding of what’s going to happen when they ask someone to do something for them.

In “Hombre” (putting aside the race-relations subtext of the script), the choice was clear.. One chick doesn’t get shot by dudes that shouldn’t shoot her anyway, or A LOT OF PEOPLE that raised Paul Newman’s character starve and die because that chick’s husband robbed them.

Real-World no-brainer.. “**** you. She’s nothing to me. Shoot her.”

As far as the conversation in the house? Another no-brainer.. “There goes her husband right there. Tell that ***** to go get his wife, whom he dragged into this situation in the first place by robbing people and then inviting her on the stagecoach with him as he was transporting the money, and whom he tried to flat-leave by breaking north with the money and the water when he knew damned well that the criminals were holding her hostage. I’ll cover him from here with the rifle.”

As far as women trying to juice guys for drinks at the bar, if you’re cold lampin’ with no visible means of purchasing anything, I hope you have a bus pass stashed somewhere on your person, because whether you get drunk right now or have to walk home later tonight… That’s YOUR MAN’S Problem! >:D
–
Connect with Bill via Facebook, Twitter, Email Subscription, RSS Feed

Bill Cammack » wife

Unequal Relationships

Roles

Shot-Callers

Power

Jeeves

Related Posts

The Dog Stays.. You Go.

Pets

Ultimatums

Control

Sharing

Supplements

Related Posts

How To Deny Allegations

Related Posts

Appreciate Your Girlfriend

Related Posts

That’s Your Man’s Problem

Focus On The Facts

That’s Your Man’s Problem

Real-World Application

Good For The Gander

Off The Market

Related Posts