WBML-TV

for all of you that subscribe to brothersmanlaw television you may have to adjust the contrast of your set before viewing. . .

I had a couple things on my mind I wanted to share. . .It's been that kind of couple of weeks ! I meant to disagree with some of the things I've read since the last time I posted. I am well aware that this is brothersmanlaw, I am also aware as I hope all of you are that sometimes brothers fight, sometimes they disagree, sometimes they just don't see eye to eye. I was reading phantom zone and I felt like Greg didn't do me justice. And in the interest of contrast and balance, I wanted to present my difference of opinion.

A. Guys they want to immediately have sex with;
B. Guys they might be interested in having sex with;

I can roll with both of these. I always believed the woman usually knows at-a-glance. You might be able to talk your way into some. But 7 times out of 10 you talk yourself out of some. Holla if ya hear me !

C. Guys who will forever be emasculated into "friends" (translation: no sex -- ever -- no matter what you do or how hard you try.)

My first problem here is that there are so many more categories(ie; sugar daddies, pimps, . . .but that's a whole nother post.) My direct issue is to say that "friends" = emasculated. I mean damn, I have female friends that I have never slept with for a myriad of reasons including they ain't feelin me like that but should I not be "friends" with them ?
It makes me ask myself, can I be friends with a woman I am attracted to and not try to sleep with her. Shit, I hope so. I have female friends who are married who weren't married or unnatractive when we became friends. I hope to get married. Should I warn my future wife that all these women immediately want to sleep with me, might be interested in sleeping with me or are going to emasculate me.
I love to believe the first one is the most true. . .gimme a minute to think about that. Ahhh yes ! I mean I did look through my phone book last night wanting to get some and saw a bunch of women's names that were just platonic. I wish I had a found a non-platonic relationship, but this wasn't To be true not last night. Too bad I didn't get any numbers off of my reformed pimp routine, I was projected thourgh December. But let me not be digruntled. Greg did drop some gems about men hiding your physical interests. I wholeheartedly agree. Fellas, be slow and sweet if you are slow and sweet. Not if you are a ho and street. And the manlaw produced was "be who you be" is close to my highschool yearbook quote penned 13 years ago.

A true brothersmanlaw passed down to me from my brother when i was 16:
("As long as you're you, I'll be me")

as far as the bad boys getting all the chics. . it's true women love a bad boy but them cats don't last. . .and good women don't want them anyway. . .

now before I go, before the comments begin, let me leave you with this. I ain't writing to get a rise out of you, okay a little. I'm writing cuz I enjoy sharing my thoughts. I ain't baggin blogger broads (broads only used for aliteration, i swear !) . I ain't trying to come off as the sensitive blogger. Besides, most of ya'll don't know me from Adam. I am trying to provide contrast to the blog, the same contrast that i also possess in my thoughts, a different mindset to the party. So please rather than trying to diagnose or expose, attempt to understand. Cuz on the real, "Game always recognizes game" and ya'll see it because I didn't even have to mention no names.

next post is gooders girl inspired from this comment: You told a tale, okay a personal one, testifying that you are a changed man -- but my question is:

What would you change?

STAY TUNED