Stop Wishing Marriage on People

BEFUDDLED IN FLORIDA wrote in to Dear Abby about the joys of marriage. [This entry has been bumped up.]

I endured an arduous decade-long marriage with a subsequent nasty divorce and custody battle. This was followed by years of contentious child rearing with my ex.

What are the odds this is a man?

With my children now grown, I am free to spend my money the way I want and have absolute freedom. I live alone, and quite frankly, I love my life. I am 100% sure that I want to remain unmarried.

Being free is the way to go!

When people ask me about getting remarried, I tell them "never again," and I mean it. Yet, inevitably, people say, "You never know, you might get married again someday." Abby, I DO know. It's been more than 20 years.

I used to get annoyed, but now I just blow it off. Do you have any retort that doesn't sound rude? I have thought about saying, "I guess you know me better than I know myself," but it sounds snarky.

Unfortunately, no response other than "I sure hope I can remarry!" will be received well. You're going to have to break a few eggs here. Tell them how awesome unmarried life is. Drive that home until they can't stand to hear it anymore. Tell them how much you love the freedom, like having control over your own life, how you don't have to argue with someone in your own home, you don't have to spend your money on things you don't want or don't need. Talk about how everything is less expensive for you.

Guys, check out these posts that deal with this:

How to Just Say No to Giving Up Your Freedom

Keeping Boundaries as a Free Man

Why Aren't You Married?

Practical Advice For Men Avoiding Relationships

Dennis Prager on the "Burned Excuse" For Not Remarrying

Dennis Prager Latest Talker to Cut Back

Dennis Prager has become the latest longtime talk radio host to cut back.

Starting next week, his weekday nationally syndicated terrestrial broadcast program, and no doubt the pay podcast version of the same, will drop from three hours to two.

The publicized explanation is that Dennis wants more time to work on multiple books he wants to complete.

It hasn’t been unusual for him to take entire days off to work on a book, or for him to skip the last hour or entire days for travel or other activities, with a “Best of” recording or guest host taking his place. For a while he was also doing his third hour with a cohost.

I have no idea if he’s cutting back on the Dennis and Julie podcast or his fireside chats.

While I’m sure Dennis does want to complete more books, I wouldn’t be surprised if another reason for this change is to allow Salem or anyone else paying him to avoid paying him more with his new contract, or even to lower his pay.

Dennis notes he will be starting both hours at the top of the hour rather than six or seven minutes in, saying this will constitute a full radio hour more of content over the course of the week, meaning his listeners will only be losing four radio hours per week, not five. Shifting to :00 from :07 will mean losing the top of the hour news/traffic/weather many of his stations have. I will be curious to see if the ads are shifted to the other breaks. The length of the podcast hours will reveal this. 

Dennis is also announcing he’ll be doing a monthly chat with subscribers to his higher tier subscription, Pragertopia Plus. 

Dennis has had four dedicated hours each week: Ultimate Issues (Hour 3 Tuesdays), Male-Female (Hour 2 Wednesdays), Happiness (Hour 2 Fridays), and Open Lines (Hour 3 Fridays).

My guess is he’ll keep all four. Ultimate Issues will move to Hour 2 and his Friday program will start with the Happiness Hour.

It has never appeared to me that Dennis has had any trouble filling three hours five days per week. He can monologue, he has no shortage of guests, and I’ve never gotten the impression he’s struggled to get callers.

Though I vehemently disagree with him on his pathological pushing of marriage, I usually find his program a worthwhile listen, so I see losing 4-5 hours of it per week to be a negative. At least he’s still alive and on the air.

Should She Call Him?

 

Dr. Laura Schlessinger wants unmarried women to do less sex. She never talks about what she was doing in the past when she wasn’t married. She insists her show is a secular program; religion doesn’t come into play except for her to use a caller’s religion against them or to help them with something. So she can’t refer to religion as to why unmarried sex is wrong in general. But without that, she appears to be envious, or angry about “unfair competition,” or lowering the price of sex. She tries to avoid that by citing mental and physical health concerns and social stigmas (which she attempts to perpetuate).

Just about every episode of her program has calls from prior episodes dropped in, unannounced, as filler and I don’t know if this call is one of those. But it did appear in Hour 2 of Wednesday, January 24, 2024. “Anna” appears 26 minutes into the podcast hour. 

Anna explained that she’s not sure if she should reach out to someone she was dating for two months. She’s 30, he’s 35.

“Everything was going great” and then he “unexpectedly” said he needed to put them “on pause” because he had some “emotional things he needed to deal with,” that he “adored” her and that he “hoped to call her soon.”

Yes, it’s likely those “emotional things” are women who are hotter and/or f—- better than Anna. But there is a slight chance he really did need to sort through some emotional considerations on his own.

“Should I reach out to check in on him?” asked Anna.

“OF COURSE NOT.” declared Dr. Laura. 

Please note that Dr. Laura is generally going to discourage women from appearing to be the pursuer.

“That was the nicest way to dump you.” Dr Laura said he was classy but she doesn’t like it when “people dangle some hope.” She told Anna, “Get on with your life. Assume it’s over.”

Anna started talking and Dr. Laura loudly interrupted her, which is her habit. 

“A. He’s not that interested.

“B. Maybe he is but he’s screwed up in the head.

“Either one of those is not that good for you.”

That’s where the call should have ended. But Dr. Laura is lonely, horny, frustrated, and not happy that if she wants a man, she has to compete against easier, younger, hotter women. 

So she continued the call.

“Did you have intercourse with him? -Oral sex? -Anything else?” She tells callers not to keep talking after they ask one question but she asked three before the caller could get a word in edgewise. 

Anna: “Yes.”

(The rest of the quotes below are from Dr. Laura, pontificating.)

“How stupid you are, as a woman, to do that?”

Why did she include “as a woman?” Would it be OK if it was two gay men? Perhaps because Dr. Laura talks as though men should pay women for sex, and there’s no way the guy had paid enough yet.

“In two months.”

She never gives an acceptable time frame. If it must be in marriage, that means waiting until your late twenties, spending about two and a half to three years, according to the timeline she pushes, getting legally entangled in a bad state contract, and THEN finding out whether or not you enjoy each other sexually. 

“Not knowing the guy.”

This is correct. You really don’t know someone well that soon. On the other hand, there are situations in which Dr. Laura would decide that’s more than enough time to decide someone should be out of your life entirely. Why isn’t it long enough to decide you want to get sexual?

“The sex is meaningless. Is it the same thing as brushing your teeth? It must be.”

Is enjoyment meaningless? What exactly would make the sex meaningful? Dr. Laura didn’t say.

“How many guys are you going to have sex with because you like him and you’re dating?”

I’d like a woman to respond to this and say “As many as I want to.” But they’re usually so taken aback by the scolding and nervous about being on the air in the first place that they just take the haranguing. Seriously. Without a religious rule prohibiting it, what’s the argument against it? Pregnancy? Diseases? There are precautions they can take.

“How does sex become lovemaking?”

When there’s love.

“In the future, how will sex be meaningful?”

The same way going to dinner will be meaningful. Imagine a guy saying “I’m not taking you out for a nice dinner because I’m saving that for my future wife.” Same with gifts. Or long talks.

“If a future guy says how many men have you had and you have to say 15, is he going to be interested?”

This is funny, because Dr. Laura berates husbands who are upset after they find out their wife has had more lovers than he thought. She condemns husbands for even trying to find out. But if Anna and any future guy do discuss their experience, and he’s not OK with her “body count,” then they’re “not a match” as Dr. Laura is so fond of saying. 

“How do you keep sex important if you just use it as a part of dating because you’re attracted?”

The same way you keep going out to a nice dinner important.

“How do YOU become important if you use sex as part of attraction?”

What does that even mean?

“I think women your age don’t think about any of this. You just operate out of the moment.”

There have always been women like that, some of them Dr. Laura’s age.

“But when you add up all those moments, you’re not going to be proud of yourself, pleased with yourself, or even happy. And you could end up quite depressed. Because how many times are you going to get naked and do it and not end up with anything meaningful? And how do you think you’ll avoid depression at that point?”

This appears to be relying on the kind of stigma Dr. Laura tries perpetuate. “You’re going to feel upset at yourself because women like me are going tell you that you should.”

If Anna regrets having casual sex, then sure, having casual sex is going to bring her negative feelings.

But if she doesn’t regret it, it’s a different matter.

When describing the situation, Anna had said everything was going great. Although Dr. Laura will often deny such a statement as true, it is what Anna perceived. That means she liked the guy. The sex must have been good and she didn’t regret it, which is why she wanted to reach back out to him. If she regretted the sex or there was something about the guy she didn’t like, she wouldn’t have done the call with Dr. Laura. 

Most likely, the guy found Anna to be too clingy, demanding, somehow flawed, or just not as much fun as his other options. Dr Laura was correct in saying Anna should move on with her life. If the guy reaches out, it’ll most likely be because women he prefers more aren’t available that evening or that week.

The Incredibly Shrinking Michael Medved Show

I used to listen to the Michael Medved Show as much as I could on live radio, and then the paid podcast when he was dropped by Salem for Gorka.

I eventually stopped allowing that subscription to renew, and very rarely would catch that show live via the home station’s (AM 770 KTTH Seattle) website. Supposedly it was also syndicated, by another company other than Salem.

Last month, that station announced that as of the turn of the year, it was going to air the national Guy Benson show in the the slot Medved had (Noon-3pm Pacific).

As of this posting, I don’t know if there is any radio station carrying Medved’s show. I can’t find any listed on the show’s website.

It looks to me like the program for now is strictly Internet, and people can listen live (for free, I guess.... I'm not sure) or pay for the podcast, which is simply a recorded version of the live program.

This change didn't cause much buzz. As far as I can tell the same basic article, essentially "copy pasta" from the station's press release, was carried in a few places, with someone erroneously implying Medved had still been syndicated by Salem. Nobody has bothered to update Medved's Wikipedia page since August 2023 (as of this posting).

It's been a few years since Tom Leykis gave up doing this live, call-in Internet program because not enough people were paying to subscribe (Leykis is strictly podcast now, when he feels like recording). I don't know what Medved's situation is as far as the program's finances. More people are used to listening online now, so online programs might have a better go than Leykis did.

There are multiple national shows airing live Noon - 3pm Pacific. Medved's now-former home station apparently has a deal with Fox, which carries the Benson show. Not that a show has to air live, but it's better if it does. A couple of other things were going against Medved: age and his criticisms of Trump and various other Republicans as well as conservatives. His target audience no doubt preferred he spend more time pointing out the flaws of the Democrats and the Left.

I'd be interested in the inside scoop as far as the Medved Show's finances, reach, and if he retained any staff or if that staff stayed with the station or went somewhere else entirely. What are his plans? Will he keep the show going even if it costs him money instead of paying him? Having a website, live stream, phone lines, a screener, a producer, and a podcast archive costs money. Is he the kind of guy who wants to (or feels he needs to) work until the day he dies, or does he plan to retire?

There were many times I enjoyed his analysis and perspective over the years. I found his movie reviews worthwhile, too. His history programs played when he was out were the only long-since-recorded talk radio to which I'd listen. And of course he regularly had "Disagreement Day" and guests with whom he differed. He was a big presence in talk radio for decades. But I hadn't listened to his program much since I dropped that podcast subscription.

Whatever is or is not going on with him, I wish him well.

We Are Not Going Back

During the first hour of Dennis Prager's Monday, August 19, 2019 show, toward the end of that first hour, he said he "doesn't understand" waiting to marry until establishing or gaining success in your career (succeeding professionally/financially). He claims it isn't rational, and it isn't what people did in history. "Why can't you work on your career while married?" he asked. [This entry is bumped up, and some details of my life might have changed since.]

He says things like this because he is a marriage-seller and because he has no idea what it is like to be a young person today, trying to make their way in this world. He's made it clear that he buys into the idea that man isn't really a man unless he takes on the burden of supporting a wife and children, as if women still don't have access to employment, property ownership, and personal finance. 1) If someone is working on career success, marriage, especially with children, is an enormous disadvantage. Even putting aside the emotional drama and turmoil a wife and family can bring, a spouse and children put a demand on time; there will be days you'll be late for work, or have to leave early, or not be able to work at all due to family matters. You'll get calls and texts that demand your immediate attention, taking you away from whatever you're supposed to be doing. Also, these days, establishing yourself in a career often means long and odd hours, extra days, networking at lunch and happy hours, business travel, moving, and changing employers. None of these are friendly to family.

Translating Happy Hubby Talk

[Bumped up.] Recently I considered what I'm sure I've realized before... that many men who say how great and wonderful marriage is either had no game as bachelors or felt guilt about fornicating. A lot of them are, and always have been, nerds. They couldn't get laid when they were younger, but once some woman figured that she'd better cash in her aging chips and look for "security" and a "good provider" (someone who'd actually be able to pay her way through life) and that she could settle for a nerd because he would have a dependable high salary and probably wouldn't whore around.

An Answer to Dennis Prager's Question

Dennis Prager, who, perhaps, prioritizes promoting marriage over everything else, used his Wednesday, June 29, 2022 "Male/Female Hour" to talk about ultimatums to marry.

Men, if she gives you such an ultimatum, do NOT give in.

Dennis Prager asked "What's the rational response to 'If you love me, you'd marry me.'?"

Here it is. Put on your glasses, Dennis. Look closely.

"If you love me, you won't encourage me to enter into a terrible state contract that is detrimental to me."

There it is. That's the rational response.

It is rational to refuse to enter a terrible contract.

A man and woman can love each other, still commit to each other, still share their lives, still take care of each other and do everything good any other couple does, without that terrible state contract.

They can even draw up legal contracts, if they'd like, including cohabitation agreements (never do it without a lawyer, guys).

Dennis Prager also said he can't think of any reason to not marry someone you've been with for years. I know Dennis Prager is a better thinker than that. Here you go.

An open letter still awaits. I've been listening to Dennis Prager and reading his writings for years. I have yet to hear or see him fully address why the benefits unique to marriage outweigh the unwanted obligations and disliked limitations of that bad state contract.

Stay free, men!

Where Can You Find a Friend?

 
Where can you find a new friend, if you want and need one?

You want quality friends.

Family. I’m not talking about your parents, or, if you have them, your children. It’s great if they’re not terrible people and you’re friendly with them and can do things with them in addition to the requisite family obligations. But most true friends in your family will be more of a horizontal connection, like siblings and cousins. Maybe uncles or nephews. Some people will not find friends in family, and that’s OK. You being born into a situation doesn’t mean you’ll find friends there.

Acquaintances. These are not the same thing as friends, but they can become friends. You know each other on some level because someone or something introduced you to each other. Who are your good quality acquaintances?

Neighbors. Making neighbors your friends is great and practical. If you’re living in a rental or they're renting, you or your neighbors might not be there long. But if you both own, there’s probably more stability. It's better to have neighbors as friends than as enemies. Maybe you'll just be friendly. But if you find a friend or two in the neighborhood, that's great.

Classmates. Like family, classmates aren’t friends by default. If you can’t see being friends with them when you’re not required to sit in the same room or won’t be studying together, then it’s not going to work. But if you have things in common beyond your academic connection, a classmate can make a good friend.

Co-workers. This is risky. I generally advise keeping your employment life and your personal life as separated as possible, despite it being historically common to make friends at work. You don't want friendship interfering with business or your career advancement. If you’re leaving your employer and likely won’t be back, that might be the time to go ahead and make someone a friend. If you work for yourself, it’s a different matter. But don’t let “friends” take advantage of you for free work. If you trade work with each other, fine. But if it is one-sided on an ongoing basis, that’s not friendship. 

Church. Ideally, church (or your equivalent) will be a great place to make friends. Free men need to be careful, though. If you end up shifting so that most of your friends are from your specific church, that might be a sign you're in a cult. Be careful.

Hobbies, clubs, charities, activities, etc. Obviously, you’ll have a shared interest with the people you meet these ways. Just don’t expect that your interest and involvement will always align with theirs. Sometimes, people move on from these things, and that’s OK. Also, beware of the self-proclaimed enthusiast who seems to gripe more about your shared interest than enjoy it. Sometimes people should move on from something, but haven’t, and they’ll suck all of the enjoyment out of it.

Again, you might not need more friends. But if you do, some places to look for them are better than others.

Did I miss something? Left me know in the comments.

Red Flags

I generally advise against marrying, shacking up, or getting into exclusive relationships. But if you're going to do any of those things, especially if you're going to have children with a woman, there are some red flags to look out for if you insist on doing these things with a woman.

Basic Incompatibility. If your major goals, worldviews, lifestyles, strengths/weaknesses, or personalities are incompatible, then you're not a match, no matter how attractive you find her or other ways she impresses you. If one of you wants to have a lot of children and the other doesn't want to have any children, that's a red flag. If one of you is an atheist who is highly suspicious or dismissive of clergy and the other is a Christian who turns to a pastor with problems, that's a red flag. If one of you wants to live in a high rise in a big city and the other one wants to live on a farm with no town center in sight, that's a problem. If you both need to be the dominant person in the relationship, it ain't gonna work. If you are both disorganized or bad with money, it's a nightmare waiting to happen. You might have a wild fling, but this isn't a person with whom you should make babies, or live, or marry, or pledge exclusivity. You might not think religion matters that much, but it becomes much more important when you have kids, or at least when you share a residence and finances and are legally responsible for each other. Also, don't think you can give up your goals and be happy about it.

Note that the above are determined by who you are and what you need and want. The below are generally applicable regardless of who you are.

She Has Minor Children. Nope, nope, nope!!!

She's a Coworker or Working in the Same Company, Location, Profession, or Industry. It is FAR too risky for man to even compliment a woman under these circumstances. Even if she won't file allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination, or worse, someone else could merely because they heard or saw you together. A bad breakup will mess up your career. Do not date any woman with a nexus to your job.

Don’t Call Dr. Laura If You’re Doubting Truth Claims of Your Religious Organization

I don’t think Dr. Laura has explicitly stated what her current theological beliefs are other than a few limited statements. She has every right to keep her theology private. Although she'll sometimes work with a caller's tradition, the program isn’t a religious one. But because it isn’t a religious program, she should probably defer some calls. [Bumping this up because it is still relevant.]

From what she has said, she’s either a Deist, Agnostic, or Atheist. It matters, and we can discern this to be so, because she doesn’t believe in miracles and will get snippy with a caller who mentions or implies being saved from a terrible or worse fate by supernatural intervention. Also, because she encourages people to stay with their current religious organization, as if it really doesn’t matter which one they are with. 

I originally felt compelled to write this entry because of a call she took on Tuesday, December 10, 2019, 27 minutes into first podcast hour. But she has subsequently taken other calls reinforcing my point.

“Sarah” or “Sara” was the caller. The caller said hello and started to get emotional, saying she didn't want to get emotional. She was crying.

"I was raised in a very orthodox religion..."

Dr. Laura asked which one. "You were raised in what church?"

"The Mormon church."

Sarah went on to say "Recently, within the last couple of years, I found out a lot of inconsistencies about the church, a lot of things that I was taught that aren't true about the church…”

She started getting emotional again.

Dr. Laura told her she needed to stop crying. "This is not life and death."

Well, actually, for believers, it is. It certainly was for the martyrs.

A False Dichotomy

Dr. Laura asserts the following dichotomy to her callers and her audience:

• Marriage means, among other things, having a state contract, making vows, living together, sharing finances, sexual exclusivity in complete privacy. Otherwise, it isn't marriage.
  
  
• Those things aren't part of dating, especially long-term dating, or living together without a state license (shacking up). There are no obligations and there are no agreements, such as an agreement to sexual exclusivity.

According to her, romantic relationships are either marriage as she defines it, or, if two years or fewer old, are mutually agreed to be on the way to marriage, or they are aren't worthwhile and there are no rules.

She's allowed to say what she wants on her program. But she can't dictate this for anyone else. The dichotomy she presents does not describe reality.

There are married people who don't have a state license, never had a ceremony, keep separate finances, spend substantial periods of time apart, and/or aren't sexually exclusive. They use the terms "husband" and "wife," treat each other as spouses as far as doing things together and generally putting each other first and caring for each other, are recognized as spouses by the people around them, and might even be recognized as married by the state.

There are unmarried people who have been together for years, live together, share finances, and/or have agreed to sexual exclusivity. The people around them recognize that they are a couple and respect their agreements.

These things are happening every day. Millions of people do these things. This is going on, whether I like it or not and whether anyone else likes it or not. And for the record, I'm generally against, in most cases, agreeing to an ongoing exclusive relationship, living together, or marrying.

A state-licensed marriage isn't the only personal relationship with rules. Friendships usually have rules. So do most unmarried romances. Commitment is in behavior. The state license isn't a commitment to do anything other than have the spouse who earns more pay the other.

If she's going to deny a caller's reality, the reality they've been living, the caller should probably consider getting advice from another source.

Prager U Gets it Right on Some Career Advice

Prager U doesn't always get it right. After all, they've posted multiple videos trying to trick men into thinking what we now call marriage is actually a good thing for them.

But they got this one right.

I have encouraged you to Know Thyself. This, below, is also great advice, especially in conjunction with knowing thyself.. It's "Career Success and the Proximity Principle" featuring author Ken Coleman. The video is below, but I'll include much of the transcript below. And, if for some reason, the YouTube embed isn't working, try this link.

Brace Yourself For the Attempt to Fool You

 

Each year, there’s a push during the first half of February to fool men into signing a terrible state contract. This year will be even worse, likely starting now, as a fixated marriage seller (it’s how he makes his living) promotes his book, which will be officially released during this time. The book tries to sell people on marrying.

Don’t fall for the marriage selling propaganda that’s heading your way.

Do check out the “marriage strike” and “Free Men” tags here. 

Life has changed.

There’s no benefit to most men in signing a terrible state contract.

Most marriages fail.

Most men can thrive and have a great life without ever signing a terrible state contract.

Our default status is unmarried. Most men have no compelling reason to change that status.

Don’t be fooled with false claims that you will be better off if you lay down your life to the state. Don’t allow insidious shaming tactics claiming it’s somehow better for society if you sign a terrible state contract. Marriage sellers don’t care about what’s best for you. They think they benefit if you get trapped. Misery loves company.

Stay free!