What a Woman Can Do With Your DNA

There are some simple facts of biology. Men usually produce millions of viable sperm cells on an ongoing basis. A man is able to do so starting in puberty and lasting most of the rest of his life. Sperm cells can leave his body while he's asleep. He doesn't have to have an orgasm to expel sperm cells.  New human life takes place inside women. Women get pregnant, men do not.

There are some basic realities of current law. Once a woman has possession of a man's sperm cells, he has lost any control, legally, he has over them.

When a sperm cell leaves a man's body, he loses all control of his own DNA.

Here are the things a woman can do with YOUR sperm cells, men:

Thinking Critically About Cohabitation

Introduction: Is Unmarried Cohabitation Bad?

I've been carefully mulling over just about everything I've accepted about sociology.

Let's look at shacking up (unmarried cohabitation).

Don't misunderstand. I'm against shacking up. But I'm also against misleading people.

Dr. Laura (and many socially conservative commentators) will tell callers that shacking up is linked to negative indicators, such as:

• It makes it less likely you will get married
• It makes is less likely you will stay married
• Increased infidelity
• More abuse
  

When Dr. Laura (or any other commentator) barrages someone with all of this, most recipients aren't prepared for it and don't have the wherewithal or the time to counter the claims. Indeed, as Dr. Laura says, she refuses to argue or debate, which seems strange if she's confident that she's right. She hits her callers with this and that's that.


How Do We Know If It is Good or Bad?

The Modern Workplace and How It Relates to Marriage

Men are expected to "provide". It isn't just traditionalists like Dr. Laura who say this. Most women seek out and marry men they think do, or will, earn more than they do, even if they claim to be liberated, feminist, independent. Notice Oprah's lack of legal marriage. It would be difficult for her to attract a man who earns more than her.

In order to pay for a family, men generally need stable, well-paying jobs that provide a reasonable level of security. However, our economy has changed.

If Enough Churchgoing Men Refuse to Marry, Polygyny Will Be Encouraged

"What's next? Polygamy?"

That was often heard, especially from Religious Right people, during the successful battle to extend, nationally, state marriage licenses to same-sex couples. For a long time, religious conservatives (Evangelical Christians especially) have insisted heterosexual, married monogamy is the ideal and the only acceptable sexual relationship.

The way the marriage-and-family ministries have talked about polygamy, or anything that isn't monogamy, you'd think the Bible emphatically condemns anything that isn't monogamy. 

But it doesn't.

The Biblical case that "monogamy is the only way" is a very weak one. It is based on trying to say that polygamy (polygyny, really) in the Bible led to problems. You won't find any passage in the Bible that actually says monogamy is the only acceptable relationship. On the contrary, many heroes of the Bible had multiple wives (and more). 

I have a prediction.

If more and more men, including churchgoing men, go on a marriage strike, some of these religious organizations that have warned against polygamy will switch to encouraging it. For the LDS church, that would be familiar territory. These organizations will encourage it because they want women to marry and have babies, and lots of babies, and if there aren't enough men, they will break down and encourage women to share husbands. 

Just wait.

Running Game - When She Starts Getting Lazy

When you're running game at expert level, and you have a full roster with extra players waiting in the bullpen, one reason to drop a member of your roster is if she drops any one thing you like off the sexual menu or her sexual repertoire. You should have made it clear you like it, and since you did when she did it, and she's done it for you before, she shouldn't have dropped it.

Dropping it means she's either getting comfortable and thinks she has you locked in - meaning she was doing it to reel you in with no intention of continuing to do it, or she's on her way out/favors another guy to the point she doesn't care about doing what you want anymore.

Either way, don't talk with her about it. Don't complain, don't whine, don't demand, don't argue, don't pressure. Don't "negotiate." What's the point? If she wanted to do it, she would have. Desire can't be negotiated.

Don't say anything at all to her. Simply ghost her. If she tries to talk with you after you ghost her, it's because she thought she had you locked in, or the other guy didn't work out. (You should always assume they are seeing other guys; don't indicate you want to be exclusive.)

"Dropping it" would be on a three strikes or less basis. For example, let's say it's fellatio. There can be legitimate reasons she won't want to do it once or twice, like dental work, cold sores, etc. But when it is three times in a row (meaning, over three or more weeks), it means she's dropped it off the menu.

Guys who fall into the trap of thinking they want an "exclusive" relationship tend to end up simply accepting this stuff, because they aren't seeing anyone else and don't want to "start over" with someone else. That is a very common way men end up having a terrible sex life. Early on, she's trying to hook you in. She's auditioning. Don't stick around for it when she stops doing what you like.

One Sign It is Time to Move On

Dialoguing With Marriage Sellers

This happens a lot.

Marriage Pusher: Guys, marriage is great! I'm so happy!!! Married people are happier than singles!!!

Me: Most marriages aren't both lasting and happy.

Marriage Pusher: Marriage isn't supposed to be about your happiness.

Sometimes it's great to have it in writing.

Grandpa Lived in a Different Era

I’m so tired of people asking why husbands and fathers today aren't like their grandfathers or great-grandfathers in terms of leading their homes, tempering their wife when she's way out of line, and keeping their kids in line, etc. The embellished memories of how those men of yore kept everything hunky dory without losing their cool can be entertaining and even amusing to hear once or twice, but the constant extolling of this imagined past familial utopia is irritating.

There are very important things that aren't included in this praise of these "real" men.

Those men could literally beat their wives and children, rape their wives, and kick any of them out of home without giving them a dime in walking money. If some punk was horning in on one of the girls in the family, the dad could run him off the property with a gun. And none of it was against the law or, even if it was technically against the law, nobody would arrest these men, let alone prosecute them or convict them. Now, not all men actually ran their homes like that, but the general cultural understanding that they could was enough to keep their families in line. Wives and children did run away, facing destitution in doing so, especially when relatives were unwilling to take them in. Many of their relatives would side with the husband/father. Yes, a woman might find that her own father would side with his son-in-law. Just about everyone else did, too... employers/customers, clergy and congregations, mental health providers, doctors, banks, newspaper editors... just about anyone. Wives were told to go back and obey and please their husbands, with maybe doing something on the sly behind his back (like squirreling away some savings if the husband would spend too much or wouldn't let his wife have enough money).

A married woman couldn’t get a credit card or engage in many other financial actions without her husband’s agreement. This is the real reason some women had secret stashes of cash the home. They couldn’t put it in a bank without their husband knowing.

Unlike now, a marriage license was an actual license to live together, have sex, and have children. There could be serious legal consequences if you did any of those things without a marriage license. That license gave a man access to his wife’s body, whether she felt like it at the moment or not. If she cheated on him, not only could be beat her, kick her out, and divorce her, but she could be criminally charged and she certainly wouldn’t get half of everything plus lifetime alimony.

Is that how things should be run? I'm not saying these were good things. But they "worked" in that they 1) kept children from being a disobedient presence in the family home, and 2) kept wives from emasculating their husbands or acting significantly in contradiction to what he wanted. If you can find an acceptable way to achieve those goals now, please share it with us. We’d love to know the secret. And sorry, telling men to “be like your grandfather” ain’t going to do it. You might as well tell someone to fly on a magic unicorn. Grandpa lived in a different era.

The men of today have different dynamics to deal with in the home. They also have different dynamics to deal with outside the home. Every workplace, every institution has been feminized, and mostly of them have been integrated with women. Most media and most businesses and other organizations seek to cater to feminine sensitivities and priorities when there is a conflict with masculine. Grampa didn’t have to compete with both other men and women in selling his labor. He didn’t have to worry that having a normal conversation with another guy at work could get him fired for “harassment” because someone overhead something they didn’t like.

Sorry, everything else has been changed. You can't expect men to behave as though nothing has changed.

Sensational Headlines Might Mislead

Law enforcement agencies are government departments, dependent on taxpayer money, and like getting credit for good deeds.

News media likes sensational headlines because it gets them clicks and viewers.

A lot of people have conspiratorial and crisis thinking, meaning they are sure there's a crisis going on, and it is the result of a vast conspiracy.

Every once in a while, there will be a headline like this:

"68 Missing Children Recovered From Human Trafficking Operation, [Law Enforcement Agency] Says"

That makes it sound like there was a building with 68 children inside of it, where strangers would go and pay money to sexually abuse them, maybe "buy" them to take home.

Shocking, right? How evil!!!

Except... that's not really what happened. And thank goodness it isn't.

The Importance of an Emergency Fund

Less politely, they are called "F--- You Funds."

You need a minimum of six months, ideally a year, of liquid funds. This would be enough to cover your hard expenses if all of your income stopped: mortgage/rent, utilities, vehicle/transportation, clothing/laundry, medical/health visits and costs, groceries, necessary memberships and subscriptions, etc. You can get an over-estimate by looking at every outgoing payment out of your bank or credit union account for the past year, and totaling that up.

Why? Because your employment might change. Life changes. Emergencies happen. Disasters happen.

You want to have the fund in place so that if your employer(s) disappear, or become too much trouble, or decide they don't need you anymore, you can walk away and be OK. Do you know what it is like to be at a job mostly for the fun of it, knowing that if things are no longer fun, you can walk away and be OK? I had a time in my life like that. (Unfortunately, I made the mistake of marrying, so that changed.) Having an emergency fund doesn't turn a blah or lousy job into a fun one, but it does give you peace of mind and a lot of flexibility.

If you're truly living paycheck to paycheck, without an emergency fund, something is wrong. You need to change that somehow. Cut expenses. Get a raise. Get more work. Change jobs. Sell some of your stuff. If you have debts, pay those off, starting with the debt with the highest interest rate first.

You need to put aside as much money as you can on a regular basis until you have a full fund. Have it automatically move from your checking account to your savings account, if you can. Or into some relatively safe, liquid account like brokerage account. Once you do have that fund in place, consider continuing the diversions, to an investment account. Unless you're elderly or terminal, you should be investing and saving up. Think of it this way: plan, budget, save, invest, and insure.

Guys, this is much easier to do if you don't have a wife and kids for which to pay. If you have an emergency fund and you make the mistake of marrying, at least ensure, with a lawyer, that your emergency fund stays separate. It will help you if there is a divorce. Do what your lawyer says: Do not co-mingle that fund, do not spend it on stuff for your marriage, or for your wife. ALSO, if you get an inheritance, work with a lawyer to keep that separate as well. THAT can be your fund if you don't have one already.

Not Everyone Wants the Same Life as Dennis Prager

As of Friday, August 2, 2024, Dennis Prager continues to frequently mock DINKs (double income, no kids) and lament that fewer people are marrying and having a lot of children.

I’m certain he’s going to be doing this on a regular basis for the rest of his radio career/life. That everyone who is able should marry and raise kids is his foundational core belief; I’m convinced his belief in the God of the Bible and his identifying with the Jewish religion is because he sees both as supporting that core belief, rather than the other way around.  

Fridays still have his Happiness Hour and this time it included “How do you want to look back on your life?” Dennis had his foundational belief (marry, remarry if divorced or widowed, raise kids) from an early age. He often cites that married men in his childhood congregation got to wear a shawl (so what?), and that when a child is born there’s the Jewish tradition of praying for the child to grow up for good deeds, Torah, and marriage (so, peer pressure from long dead people). 

It either doesn’t occur to him or he completely rejects that other people might think and feel differently, and that it can be legitimate. To him, they must be immature or somehow defective or mistaken in their thinking. It’s almost like he wants to be a fertility cult leader.

He’s prone to trying to back up his disproportional emotional fixation by citing alleged correlations as if they’re causal in the direction he wants, and anecdotes rife with selection bias.

It’s important for young men listening to him to know he’s been twice divorced, he’s got another man’s son living with him (and will until he dies or has his third divorce), he lives in a wealthy area, he constantly travels, he never eats a home-cooked meal from his home, and he rejects the norms of modern fatherhood under which the listeners will be expected to parent.

He finally referenced that last part, correctly asking if the current norms of parenting are discouraging some people from having children. He’s previously indicated he rejects them, by the way he talks about them. He expects children to occupy themselves, sit at the table with adults to be seen and not heard, to attend a peer’s birthday party without his involvement, to be fine with him NOT attending their artistic/scholastic or sports participations, and to sometimes stay home while he (and possibly whichever woman he’s currently married to) travels for fun. He’s encouraged grandparents of means to pay for their grandchildren to be homeschooled (such as replacing income), but how many people truly will be able to do that, and have it work with the family dynamics? Some will see that as giving the grandparents too much power.

He says people shouldn’t let children completely change their life.

But they will. Otherwise, they’ll be considered bad parents. We don’t live in the same world in which Dennis raised, or had his wife raise, children.

Children will change everything about the life of people having them now.

Dennis has made it clear he doesn’t think a marriage should stay together for the sake of minor children; I’d like to ask his children about that.

I get the impression Dennis’ life would be much the same whether or not he had children. He’d still do the work he did, he’d still travel like he does, eat like he does, observe sabbath like he does, attend/run a synagogue like he does, smoke cigars like he does, divorce and remarry. Most people don’t carry on life the same way once they are parents, nor should they.

Dennis HAS repeatedly indicated children put a damper on a sex life. Even as a marriage seller, he has to admit that. He chuckles about it. It’s not funny when you live through it.

Speaking of sex, he has written columns and made statements that draw accusations of supporting marital rape. Ladies, you should be clear about what Dennis means when he says you should marry: He thinks you will owe your husband sex, sex is something women do for men, and it’s fine for your husband to divorce you if you don’t hold up you end of the contract.

But in turn, he believes a husband owes you money, attention, romance, protection, etc. And your husband should still be the father for any kids, including conceived in adultery. 

His urging you to marry isn’t simply about getting you through a religious ceremony and into a state contract. It’s about a whole set of behaviors to which he thinks you should conform. 

He thinks you, ladies, will be much more rational if you have a husband, and it’s your lot in life to turn irresponsible, even violent “boys” into “real men” by being their wife.

During that particular Happiness Hour, Dennis again asserted that a man will work harder if married. If/when true, it means a man can spend his time doing what he wants if he stays free. He also again asserted that he doesn’t understand the thinking that one should be financially stable before marrying, in part because he says two can live “more cheaply” than one. 

This is horribly misleading to young men.

One of the most common reasons for marital strife and divorce is money. And remember, Dennis wants you popping out babies right away, so it won’t be just two. Guys, you shouldn’t marry, but if you’re going to, you should definitely wait until you’re financially well off and have achieved your dream, because marriage kills dreams and it costs men a lot of money, and the more wealth you have, the hotter the wife you can attract. 

People like Dennis can’t accept that life has changed.

We deal with reality here on this blog. We deal with the way things are. And with the way things are, most men shouldn’t marry, and most of those who shouldn’t marry shouldn’t have children. Get a vasectomy. Either go monk mode or run game. Or, if you absolutely must delude yourself into thinking you can have a woman who’ll meet your needs as long as you’re exclusive to her, don’t sign a terrible state contract with her and each of you should have your own places. She can stay responsible for hers. (DINKs aren’t ideal - most men should stay free.)

Be able to look back on your life and be happy you didn’t waste so much time, money, energy, and whatever else on a woman or women who ended up hating or resenting you. 

More Fun With Statistics - Body Count and Marriage

"People who have no or fewer sex partners before marriage are more likely to be satisfied with their marriage and less likely to divorce."

Have you heard that or some variation of that?

Even if true, it would be completely useless to you if you've already married. If you've had "more" sex partners, then it would be all the more reason to avoid that terrible state contract! Or if she has. If you both have, that's EVEN MORE reason not to marry.

But some will find that statement useful in telling younger people to or anyone who has has "fewer" sex partners why they shouldn't have (more) sex outside of marriage.

It won't deter anyone who doesn't want to get married.

And it might not deter people who are good at analyzing data and statistics.

Let's look at a couple of graphs that are being used to push this message.

As Panscan points out, we're not seeing the entire graph. There's a 5 percent difference between people who have had 2 partners and people who've had eleven, twelve, or scores of partners. But it looks more dramatic when you remove all of the graph under 50 percent.

Also, if we're going to take the graph seriously, men who've had 6-10 partners are better off than men who've had four or five partners, and women who've had 11 or more partners are better off than women who've had 4 partners.

Even if a man "waited" for sex, there's still a 27 percent chance - more than 1 in 4, he will admit to not being very happy in his marriage. And for women, that's 35 percent - more than one in three!

Finally, notice that the husbands are happier than wives. Guys, don't be selfish by asking a woman to marry you!

Now let's look at the second graph.

This graph uses months.

Notice that people are divorcing a couple of years in. Guys, if you're foolish enough to marry, refuse to spend much on the wedding and related events.

80 months in (so a little over 6 and a half years in), the lowest rate of divorce is still 10 percent, meaning 1 in 10 couples. Most people will have had a 25 percent divorce rate! 1 in 4 couples!

Also, if we take this graph seriously, if you've had one premarital partner, you might as well have had countless, at lease as far as six years or so down the line.

What is really going on here?