It's Not Healthy to Sign Terrible Contracts

Delano Squires had a blog entry over at one of my "favorite" blogs. With a title like "Making Boys Into Men" you just know it's going to be ripe.

Editor’s Note: This week, the Family Studies blog is publishing a series of short essays addressing the meaning and purpose of healthy masculinity in today’s world.

By "healthy masculinity" they mean "Men doing what we like." In their case, that's marrying, having children, and being compliant followers to their leadership. Let's get to Squire's contribution.

American boys and men are in a state of crisis. The notion that masculinity and traditional gender roles are “toxic” forces of oppression is a common refrain in our cultural commentary and political discourse.

Yup.

The first lesson is that no man should feel ashamed of being male, because God created him that way.

Good.

I also believe that men function best in environments marked by order, so I will teach my sons that men who want to lead families need to be led by God’s word.

Married men don't lead families. They might be allowed to appear to lead.

What's a Single Mother To Do?

Anonymous left a comment on this blog's most popular entry, which has hundreds of comments, so I wanted to call attention to hers.

I had my son with my now ex fiancé.

There was the first mistake. Conceiving before being in a stable, healthy, happy marriage.

We ended up breaking things off because he completely lied about who he was and it became a toxic environment.

Well, at least you didn't make more kids with him.

now I am a single mother who is currently picking up the pieces and doing what I can to give my son the best life possible regarding the circumstances.

It would be great if that included living with, or very close to, your nice, loving, married parents.

Despite how things ended, his father is still actively involved and we even hangout as a family periodically. 

If he's not abusive, I guess that's better than nothing.

My question is...if I choose not to get back with his father because of the boundaries that have been crossed..now what? Don’t date until ny son is 18 years old? Date a guy who is also a single father? Forever be alone? 

Good question.

1) Get your tubes "tied". Tubal ligation. Or, depending on your health history and your family health history, consider getting your ovaries and/or uterus removed. We don't need more children brought into this situation. Your son certainly doesn't need it.

2) Be there for your son. He needs parental attention. He doesn't have an intact home.

3) When your son is with his father, or grandparents, or aunts/uncles, you can date. Your son should never meet your new lover(s) until your son is 18, grown, moving out on his own. Even though people like me warn men to never date women with minor children, you can find plenty of dates anyway.

4) After your son is grown and out, you can date, be in relationships, shack up, marry, whatever. If you DO shack up or marry, be sure you get a prenup (marry) or cohabitation agreement (shackup) so that your son will be protected.

If you don't find this ideal, well, that's because your situation is not ideal. My advice is for your son's best interests out of the remaining possibilities.

Women Have Options Now

 

People lamenting the the fact that a smaller percentage of Americans are married now than ever before often will ask what has changed to bring this about.

Life has changed, indeed.

One thing that has changed:

Women have options now.

Do you want to change that?

Most people don’t.

It wasn’t all that long ago that women didn’t have full access to higher education, or the workplace, or financial services. Government was smaller with much less or no “social safety net” provided by government. Women who were abused by their husband had few places, if any, to escape and the social pressure, often from their own parents and siblings, was to stay with or go back to her husband. Being divorced could mean destitution and being ostracized.

A woman’s realistic options were:

• Marry young and pop out/raise children, keep the home, maybe work in her husband’s business/the family farm, and be dependent on her husband 
• Depend on her father, uncle, or brother, helping to raise their children and/or working in their business
• Be a teacher or secretary, which they might be expected to give up if they married 
• Be a prostitute 
• Be a nun 

Of course there were some outliers, but those options were what most women faced.

Women can now thrive without ever marrying. Women can decide to leave a marriage and nobody can stop them. They’ll even be applauded and can take half of the wealth with them and get ongoing payments. They can have government take care of them if they don’t take care of themselves. They can have their own residence.

Many women really don’t want to be wife to a husband. Many women don’t want to be mothers. In the past, many women like that were pressured into taking on a husband and having children. Now that they have options, many women opt to NOT marry. That’s just one reason marriage rates are down.

I’m glad women have options, although I want government much smaller and for private charity to handle the legitimate needs of those who need help. And women having options means lower marriage rates. I don’t see that as a problem, as long as women aren’t intentionally depriving a child of their father.

Do you agree? Disagree? Your comments are welcomes, as always.

When the Attention Thirsty Change Tactics

There are women who get enormous amounts of fame/attention, money, and/or power using their youthful sex appeal. They do it through modeling and/or acting, perhaps in "mainstream" movies and television shows, perhaps in cheesecake, erotica, or porn, whether pictures or video. Maybe their looks allow them to marry men with money, power, and/or fame.

Men tend to think women are at their most physically attractive when they are younger. Things start to decline at 25, and the decline accelerates at 30.

Are there beautiful women in their 40s, 50s, even 70s? Yes! But in general, women are at their most physically attractive when they're younger. That's a fact of life, whether I like it or not, and whether you like it or not.

One of the problems for the women who made their living via media based on their attractiveness/sex appeal when they were young is that the media in which they've appeared doesn't go away. Their appearance in Playboy when they were 23 is still around when they are 53. They're not just competing with newly "arrived" 20-somethings, but they are competing against their own younger selves.

Some of these women have decided the way to handle getting older is to attack the way they made a name for themselves.

When you're famous for something and then you switch to being in public opposition or criticism of that thing, you get a lot of attention and become a superstar in your new circles.

That's what some women have decided to do.

Keep in mind that most of the women who do this were very outspoken in defense of their old way of making money, back when they were in the thick of it. They rebuffed critics by insisting they were liberated, empowered, knew exactly what they were doing, in control, winking all the way to the bank, enjoyed what they were doing far more than other jobs.

They insisted they knew better than the critics, who were often accused of being stuck in the past, childish, uptight, simple-minded, trying to control other people. The women assured us they were enlightened, modern, in control of their situation, and doing something they enjoyed and found meaningful, that they understood the critics' positions and that the critics were thoroughly wrong.

And then... further down the line, with their bodies no longer anywhere like they were in their prime, lo and behold, they turn around, join in the criticism they previously assured us they had solidly debunked, and attack the people who helped them gain fame and wealth.

Of course someone has every right to discuss harassment, assault, shady business tactics, terrible people, and the drawbacks of a line of work. But recognize what is going on. Attention whores do what they do for attention (and money). They previously tried to make the very people they align with now look ignorant and inferior while presenting themselves as superior. Now they are working with the very people they used to mock. It isn't because they stumbled upon some new insight. It's because they aged out of the previous way of getting attention. They hit the wall.

They should be called out on it. "What do you know now that you didn't know then?" Just about anything they say will be something someone specifically told them and they scoffed about.

Most who enjoyed their fame don't do this, especially those who age gracefully. They quietly "settle down" or make the most of fan conventions or new roles.

Porn Panic From the Right

Dennis Prager talks about panics from the Left. Here an example of panic from the right, as expressed in two essays, which are very much like countless other essays and commentaries throughout the years.

"Susan" wrote on her blog at the URL https://thesparrowshome.com/pornography-is-destructive/ under the title "Hugh Hefner, Dennis Prager, and the Destructive Nature of Pornography" in October of 2017:

Hugh Hefner died last week. While I don’t revel in his death, the phrase ‘good riddance’ did cross my mind.  Hefner contributed heavily to bringing pornography to the mainstream, making it more easily accessible and normalized. Grieving his death never entered my mind.

If it hadn't been him, it would have been someone. Have you ever taken a real art history course? Or seen early movies, before the "code" days?

Valentine's Day Aftermath

Are you an unmarried guy who just spent a lot of money and effort on Valentine's Day, only to get what you used to get all of the time? Or did you get less than that?

Did you even propose marriage and give her a ring?

If you're not married, and you just made a big deal about Valentine's Day, and especially if you proposed marriage, you need to step back and think about what you've done and you are doing. Are you regretful? Are you doubting? Are you asking yourself "Why did I do that?" If not, you probably should be.

Most men shouldn't be in exclusive relationships, and certainly not marriage!

Most unmarried men, if they play their cards right, can get everything they want without spending a lot of money and energy on Valentine's Day, birthdays, holidays, or anniversaries.

If there is a woman who is planning to marry you this June, or any other time this year, you probably need to put the brakes on the relationship, especially if there are any red flags. If you're shacking up and/or if she has kids, plan your escape!

You don't need to be married. And there's a good chance that, deep down, you don't really want to be.

So, get out. And learn to be scarce so that you won't get trapped into wasting money, effort, and time on things like Valentine's Day or meeting a woman's family or friends for holidays.

Be a Free Man.

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

Last Minute Reminder: Don't Be A Fool on February 14

This is your last-minute reminder, to any men who aren't married.

DO NOT marry for Valentine's Day.

DO NOT propose for Valentine's Day.

DO NOT even see a woman who thinks you're going to agree to be exclusive, or live together, or marry.

If you're going to spend time with a woman on Valentine's Day, it should be a woman who doesn't know you, who is feeling lonely. DO NOT spend a lot of money. At most, share drinks with her.

You have been warned. Don't waste your money, time, or effort. Don't give a woman the idea that you're going to marry her.

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.

Annual Marriage Sellers Propaganda Week

February 7-14 is the week that marriage sellers have picked to be their annual publicizing of more propaganda than usual.

DO NOT FALL FOR IT GUYS! Certainly, DO NOT PROPOSE OR MARRY on Valentine's Day!

If you're not currently married, DO NOT let these people fool you.

There is no benefit to you to get legally married (or married again) that you can't get for less cost without legally marrying.

Marriage is a terrible state contract for most men.

Most marriages fail.

You can have an honorable, happy, fulfilled, full, productive, good life without ever legally marrying.

Something you're likely to see:

"Married people are happier."

For the purposes of this blog, I'm more concerned about men. Not "people." Our marriage laws and culture are gynocentric. Women get materially rewarded for marrying. Of course marriage can make women happy. (Don't be fooled, though. Women might like getting married, but many despise and resent their husbands, and don't really want to be wives.)

Briefly, because I've detailed this elsewhere, here's why you shouldn't infer what they are outright saying or trying to imply; getting married will make you happy.

1. Married men aren't always being honest or reality-based when reporting that they are happy. If they aren't assured their answers are anonymous and that their wife won't see their answer, if they don't want to admit "failure," if they think saying they are anything less than thrilled with their marriage would be a sin or a negative confession, they're not going to be honest. Most people in my life, including my wife, think I'm happily married. I'm not. But I don't let on (weekly therapy helps me keep the ruse going) because it would make my life worse if I did. I was VERY happy before I married. Unfortunately, I was ignorant and delusional enough to think I should marry.

2. Many of these husbands have no idea how much happier they'd be if unmarried.

3. Men told by their family, their religion, culture, etc. that they're losers if they're not married, and they've bought into it, are going to be happy that they got married.

4. Happier people are more likely to attract and keep a spouse. It isn't that marriage made them happy. They were already happy. If unhappy, they are more likely to get divorced and thus be counted as "unmarried."

5. Studies about this never separate out intentionally unmarried men. Rather, all unmarried men (divorced, widowed, shacking up, hoping to get married, unable to attract a wife, etc.) are lumped together. Men who have decided to be Free Men or have otherwise joined the marriage strike can be much happier than the average husband.

The other "benefits of marriage" can be debunked in the same or a similar way. Alleged correlations might sound great, but don't withstand close scrutiny. Again, these claims that marriage is of benefit to men never separate out men who are able to attract women, but have intentionally avoided marrying,

Feel free to link to, copy and paste, or steal shamelessly from this blog to counter the narratives you'll be seeing this week.

Married men are taller. Did marriage make them taller? No. The same goes for all of the other supposed benefits of legally marrying.

“But what about society? Doesn’t marrying help society?” Compared to what? Yes, if you’re comparing lifelong cooperative parenting compared to popping out babies with different people you don’t get along with. But those aren’t the only two options! And if you legally marry, you can’t stop the other person from ending it, thus hurting society, according to the same thinking. 

Here are just a few other posts on this blog that might help:

My Core Advice to Men

Why You Don't Want to Do That

Reasons For Men to Stay Unmarried

How to Just Say No to Giving Up Your Freedom

How to Keep Your Friends Free

You Don't Need a Wife

Guys: Read This If You're Thinking About Marrying

Quora has some gems. This is one of those gems. Someone asked "What is the brutal truth about life after marriage?"

This is a response from Chris Longford, "married for 13 years."

Sex can become monotonous, masturbation can become preferable at times, and cheating makes you feel horrible. 

I find studies showing that married people have more and better sex suspect, at least for men.

Children can be really annoying sometimes, especially while babies, and you will sometimes secretly regret ever having them (or having as many) and you feel guilty for having these thoughts. 

Yes! There will be times you think that you've ruined your life. For some, that never goes away.

You and your spouse will argue over absolutely pointless and meaningless things and the sight of each other will start annoying you due to built up resentment that neither talks about. You will not want to kiss your spouse passionately after a certain point, it becomes kind of like kissing a sibling. You still have sex, you just stop kissing. Except for the hello and goodbye peck thing.

This is optimistic. Some married people don't have sex.

But you become attached to your spouse, and of course to your children, and there are good moments also so you don’t want to leave. So you tend to be in a perpetual state of unhappiness mixed with what feels like odd contentment. But it’s really just fear of change or what your kids or parents or in-laws (or whoever) will think if you divorce. Plus, nobody likes to admit failure. And most of this stuff you’ll just hold inside and never tell a soul. While you smile for family photos and everyone thinks you’re so happy.

Still thinking marriage might be something you'd do?

There were a lot of additional comments at that link.

Misleading Marriage Statistics

Let’s consider someone I’m making up, but represents no small number of real men: Guy Sontag. Sorry, if that’s your name. It’s a name I made up for this post.

Guy Sontag has been subjected to severe trauma and he has serious health problems. As a result, he’s miserable, struggling with his finances, and isn’t motivated to pursue sex. And as a result of all of this, he hasn’t attracted a woman who will be a wife to him.

Marriage sellers want you to believe that Guy is sickly, miserable, poor, lonely, and having no or little sex because he’s not married, as if taking on a woman in a secular state legal contract would make him happy, healthy, wealthy, and give him a great sex life. It’s the other way around: he’s not married because a man in his condition is unlikely to attract a quality wife who wouldn’t be another burden on him.

Also consider another man who just went through a bitter divorce initiated by his now ex-wife; there was no lawful way for him to have stopped it. As a result, he’s wiped out financially, he had to move and his life has been completely disrupted, he’s feeling awful, his blood pressure is through the roof, and he hasn’t been having sex.

Both of those men are in the very broad “unmarried” category in the statistics marriage sellers are using.

Don’t you think it’s a bit misleading to lump men like that together with men who are enjoying life, have their act together, want sex and know how to get it, and have intentionally avoided marriage and conceiving children?

There are many men in this latter group who are happier and better off than the average husband or divorced man. You can choose to be one; you have much more control over your life, much more freedom if you’re a Free Man.

The marriage sellers want you to think signing a terrible state contract will make your life better. But there are plenty of miserable husbands who don’t have the money for things they want or even need, are getting little or no sex and “mercy sex” when they get it, and have little control over their own life if they choose to focus on their obligations.

Signing a terrible state contract doesn’t guarantee YOU a better life. Instead, it assigns you costs and obligations you don’t need.

Don’t fall for the trap.

Stay free.

Reasons For Men to Stay Unmarried

You were not born with a wife. You don't naturally acquire a wife by growing up, going through puberty, and living out your life. You have DO a series of things to get married.

Being a Free Man is the default. Do not buy into the marketing that implies EVERYONE gets married. Marriage sellers don't want you stop and question, "Is this a good idea? How will this benefit me? How will this enable me to accomplish my goals? Is this what I really want?"

Watch out when someone says "You're being selfish! It isn't all about you! Stop with the 'I' and the 'me' stuff." Marriage involves a contract. Would you sign a rental or lease agreement, a mortgage or other loan, or an employment contract without being aware of what the contract does and if that contract had little or no benefit to you, while placing significant obligations on you?

Imagine someone from the government hands you a stack of papers and says, "Sign this."

And you say, "Hold on! How will signing this benefit me?"

And they say, "Don't be selfish! Sign it!"

Would you sign that???

No? Well, most men sign the state marriage contract anyway, although more and more men are refusing to do so. That's right. FEWER PEOPLE ARE MARRYING. You will be part of a growing trend if you stay the course as a Free Man.

See here for what the state marriage contract does.

So, it's a bad contract, and that's reason enough to refuse to sign it. "But what what about 1) marrying without the state contract, and 2) the benefits of marriage?" In many places (check with a local family law attorney!), the state contract can be applied even if you never signed one, depending on your actions. Also, prenuptial agreements and cohabitation agreements can be thrown out by judges. There's no benefit to marrying that a man can't get otherwise at less risk or cost.

In no particular order, and perhaps to be updated and expanded, here are the reasons for men to stay unmarried:

It's the default.

There's no good reason to marry.

Marrying shifts your power to the woman.

Staying a Free Man allows you to do what you want, when you want, how you want, with whom want.

You want to be free to make decisions without having to defer to someone else.

You don't want someone else's interference in your professional and personal (family, friends) life.

You want control over your own earnings and your own spending decisions.

Marriage Week Propaganda Incoming

 

Remember guys, don’t fall for the misleading media that will be trying to fool you into signing a terrible state contract.

Don’t fall for pressure from family or “friends” or church staff.

See this:

https://tunasafedolphin.blogspot.com/2025/01/february-is-fast-approaching.html

Preparing For Marriage

Recently, I saw a tweet about preparing for marriage.

That got me to think... How could a man prepare for marriage?

If you're a man who thinks you want to get married, either to someone in particular or "someday", take these steps to prepare:

1) Throw out everything you own. Give some woman who isn't a professional decorator or stylist total control over buying everything to replace what you had, using your money. This includes just about everything from clothes to furniture to your vehicle.


2) Beyond that, literally throw away enough additional money that most of your earnings are lost. 


3) When you're horny, take a cold shower or hide in the bathroom to masturbate. Pretend like someone is standing outside the door and you don't want them to hear you.

Selling Marriage Because of Claimed Correlations

Marriage sellers claim that the problem with declining marriage rates include, among other things:

• Married men live longer
• Marriage matures people, especially men
• Unmarried women are dependent on government
• Unmarried women push destructive ideas
• Married people are more likely to own homes
• Married people are more likely to have more children
  

Assuming marriage does help men to live longer, and that's not certain, the longevity isn't the result of signing a terrible state contract or having a ceremony. It would be because of nagging to go the the doctor, and perhaps receiving care. But these things can be done without marriage. Why not cut out the "middle man"?

Likewise, women can be taught to avoid government dependence without making her dependent on a husband. Cut out the middle man!

As far as maturity, men and women can be encouraged to be mature without marriage. There are great, mature people who never married. So if you're concerned about maturity, figure out how to encourage people to mature even if they're not married.

If unmarried women push destructive ideas (a claim of Dennis Prager), perhaps it was their tendency to do so that have caused her to avoid marrying or caused others to avoid marrying her?

Married people are more likely to own a home because they're stuck. They don't have the freedom to move when they'd like. What's the alternative to married people owning the homes? Investors? So what's the difference to society? Someone's going to own the homes, and the owner has an incentive to take care of it.

I'm not opposed to there being more children, but what's really going on here? I've written about this already.

People are less likely to marry when they see that marriage won't improve their life. Fewer people are seeing marriage as worth it.

If you want people to behave a certain way, you just might have to encourage those behaviors directly, instead of counting on marriage to make people behave as you prefer.

Answering Marriage Seller Assertions, Talking Points, and Questions - Part 3

Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

Two can live together for less than separately.

What this means is if you're paying $3,000 per month and a woman is paying $2,500 per month, if you marry and move in together, she can stop paying rent or a mortgage and some redundancies will be eliminated, and the overall cost of living for the two of you will be less. Allegedly.

That benefits her. Unless you're already paying her way through life, which you shouldn't, how does that benefit you? IT DOESN'T. Even if she plans to contribute to rent or the mortgage, she will likely push to live in a bigger/more expensive place, there's no guarantee she will even keep working and financially contributing, and you're better of NOT allowing her to develop a claim to a home you owned.

Having her move in to your place puts your place at risk. She can have you kicked out of your own place, compel you to keep paying for her to live there, and claim at least some ownership. Don't allow that! DON'T MARRY! Don't let her move into your place!

Having her move in with you or you moving in with her will also will increase your utility bills and grocery bills, and she will likely insist on removing and replacing many items (especially if she thinks another woman touched them), and that will be costly.

Always keep in mind that divorce is very expensive, and even without divorce, at least half of your earnings are legally shifted to your wife. Wives make 80 percent of the spending decisions.

Stay free and keep control over your own assets and finances. Don't pay a woman's way through life. Respect their independence, their capability, their girl power. Believe women who say women don't need a husband.

Part 4

We Are Not a Project

I found a column by Suzanne Fields at conservative site Townhall. With a headline of "A Good Man Is Still Hard to Find" I took notice. [This entry has been bumped up.]

Women have been complaining since the original Adams family was evicted from the Garden of Eden that "A good man is hard to find."

Whining, complaining, nagging... yep.

Despite radical feminist mockery of the very idea of manliness, that men are natural sexual predators, most women -- with very few exceptions -- still want one.

Of course they do! It's nice to have the cash flow, the bodyguard, an errand boy, and a receptacle for your whines and gripes and thoughts.

The #MeToo movement has nevertheless changed a lot of things in the wake of the sexual harassment-scandal season. One of them is the regard in which men are universally held by women. It often seems we're back to the '80s, when there was a similar assault on the idea of manhood and some women decried all sex as rape.

Radical feminist activists Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin were widely credited with saying that "all sex is rape" and "all men are rapists." They both deny the statements, but Dworkin conceded that she did say, "Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent."

No wonder men are choosing to To Their Own Way (see MGTOW).

This Is Not a Case For Getting Married

The marriage sellers are linking to "A Case For Getting Married" by Matthew Walther. It's at The American Conservative, so all of you who aren't conservative are already warned.

In the extended social circles to which I belong a great deal of agony surrounds discussions of the so-called “dating scene.” Men are so lazy and so childish, and just look at the icky things they tweet; women are impossible to approach, etc.

Guys running game often wait for women to approach them. Hot women hate to be ignored.

Right off the bat, this reveals something about the author, or at least the people he associates with: they are bad at dating, and so they are happy if they don't "have to" do it anymore. We hear the same thing from Michael Medved, who thinks all men are as hapless as he apparently was.

My own belief is that beneath all the other difficulties real and imagined is risk-aversion. The longer people wait to pair up in the hope of finding the “right” one, the likelier they are to become so settled in their habits—and so neurotic about the opposite sex—that no prospective partner will be capable of ticking all of the ever-increasing number of boxes.

So, don't grow into the kind of person who you are, give all that up to be molded by some woman who will likely divorce you.

Husbands Are Well Aware Adult Media is Fantasy

Antiporn crusaders will often say that porn gives unrealistic expectations, or that men don't consider that there's a difference between what's depicted in porn and real life. But THAT'S EXACTLY WHY THEY WATCH - because there is a difference between porn and real life.

What media has realistic portrayals of men, women, or relationships?

Professional sports coverage? How many people look like that and can perform like that?

Action movies in which men and women both withstand severe beatings but are still able to function like not much has happened to them?

Marvel and DC movies? Romantic comedies? Sitcoms? Advertisements, especially for jewelry and engagement rings? "Reality" shows? Princess fantasies? Church/ministry brochures, websites, and social media depicting gorgeous couples and their perfect children, all perpetually smiling and laughing?

Husbands are VERY aware porn is fantasy. They know all too well that wives are rarely that enthusiastic about sex.

Here's where someone retorts with, "Well maybe you're a lousy lover."

That might work on guys who "waited" or "saved sex" for marriage. Those of us who didn't know better.

"You should do more around the house."

Some of these husbands, myself included, do more around the house than their wife. But many of us did NOTHING around the home of our girlfriends, at least when we first started getting together with them, and yet they were enthusiastic lovers.

"That's just your wife. You should have picked better."

Picked better how exactly, if you don't want people having sex before they sign a terrible state contract? And nope, it isn't just my wife or his wife. We have seen the same story from many other husbands and ex husbands. Consider the old joke about why a bride is smiling so much.

Finally, any time an antiporn crusader says "Porn depicts___" or "Porn has____"  or "Porn is___" ...and finishes those statements with anything other than "...material someone finds arousing," they are misleading people. Adult media is very diverse. "Porn teaches" or "Porn says" or anything of the like is a statement as silly as saying "Books teach" or "Books say."

It's OK to say "I don't like nudity or sex in media." Criticizing adult media with criticisms that you can also apply to other media, but don't, reveals that you are desperate to persuade people to adopt your opinion through double standards.

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.

Questions Expose Bad Thinking By Would Be Censors

Unfortunately, a lot of people spread the claims of crusaders who want to censor adult media or donate to them without asking some very basic questions about what they've said, what they're doing, and how they're doing it.

If they say or write a bunch of words without actually answering the question, then they haven't answered the question.

It's good to get them on record either through social media, email, text, audio, or video recording. It is good to think critically about what they say.

When they say "Porn is [something they consider negative]." it is almost always unreasonable. The there is a very plentiful, wide variety of porn. For example, if they say "Porn is misogynist," consider how it could possibly be misogynist for, example, a video produced by women with female performers in which nobody is hurt, disrespected, or portrayed as in a negative or dismissive way.

A common assertion is "Porn is rape." To that, I have responded:

A woman decides to masturbate and record it. She then sells the video. Either:
1) That is rape

2) That isn't porn
3) Your assertion isn't correct

Almost all of their assertions like that can be exposed with similar examinations or some simple questions like:

What is gay porn? ("Porn objectifies women!" What is gay porn?)

What is dominatrix porn? ("Porn is about women being abused by men." What is dominatrix porn?)

You've seen all porn?

Sometimes they will try to use numbers or supposedly scientific claims to impose what is a personal moral issue for themselves onto others. An example of that is when they say something like "79 percent of porn contains acts of aggression toward women." Really? 79 percent of which porn? They haven't watched all of it. Gay porn certainly doesn't have that. The inconvenient truth is that women like "aggressive" or "violent" or BDSM porn more than men. Also, one must know what they are counting as "aggression." A light slap on the butt? If these are people who have claimed that watching porn causes brain damage, how can they trust the claims of the people who watched all of that porn? And by their own claim, 21 percent of porn has no aggression in it. So that porn is OK, right? (Spoiler: they will still say it isn't.)

It's also important to remember that apparent correlation isn't causation, and to see if there are studies that contradict the studies to which the crusaders appeal.

Another good question to ask is why they hold adult media and adult media outlets to standards they don't apply anywhere else. An example of that is when the crusaders cite that someone uploaded illegal material to a porn site as to why a porn site must be shut down, while the crusaders are using a social media service with exponentially more illegal uploads. Or "She wouldn't do that if she wasn't being paid to do it!" That also describes most other work women do for money. "Some performers get injured." And how is that different than pro wrestling, football, or movies with stunts? If they claim that their goal is fighting rape, assault, child molestation, etc., but never apply the standards the apply to adult media to, for example, churches, then it smacks of "We want church ladies to give us money to censor porn."

I could go on. The bottom line, no pun intended, is... think. Pay attention. Follow the money.

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.

February is Fast Approaching

The rapid approach of February means a couple of things in particular.

1) If you’re seeing a woman you’ve been seeing for a while, especially one who is thinking of you as marriage material, you need to get scarce before February 14 and stay scarce until at least the 15th, or if she has a birthday or the two of you have what she thinks of as an anniversary soon after, until that day has passed. This is the season to be either enjoying time with your buddies, your hobbies, or new dates.

2) We’re going to be subjected to a glut of misleading marriage-seller propaganda, especially from the 7th through the 14th. Do not fall for it. But if you’re so inclined, you can comment on it with the truth. Feel free to borrow extensively from posts here. Here’s some basic truth-telling you can copy and paste:

****

Life has changed.

It’s never been easier to thrive being unmarried.

Most marriages fail.

The state contract is terrible.

The terrible state marriage contract brings nothing beneficial to a man he can’t otherwise get for less cost.

Most men can get everything they want out of life and live a good life without ever signing a terrible state contract.

Alleged correlations do not prove men benefit from marriage, especially when the data never separates out intentionally unmarried men.

Marriage isn’t for me, and that’s OK.

Better men than me have been divorced, some multiple times. If they failed, why would I be so arrogant as to think I’d succeed?

I haven’t found mutual attraction with a compatible woman who is willing and prepared to be a wife.

I’ve known many couples who were “happily married,” right up until the affair was discovered, or the abuse was revealed, or they divorced. 

I’m not ignorant, delusional, or masochistic enough to marry.

After listening to married women and divorced women, I don’t want to ruin a woman’s life by inflicting marriage on her.

Today’s secular state contract and social construct of marriage has little to do with Biblical marriage. In some ways it directly contradicts it.

We need Divorce Week, in which we show the reality of how common divorce is and what it does to men. Weddings are highly visible and posed pictures depict unrealistic expectations, but if we saw more of the truth, if it was more visible, fewer people would marry.

Wanting a series of parties in your honor, expensive jewelry, gifts, and a state contract that says you’re entitled to another person’s earnings no matter how you behave isn’t the same thing as wanting to be a good wife.

Once a man is earning a certain amount, he can hire professionals who can and will handle everything for much less than half of his income and without disputing, contradicting, or subverting his decisions. That includes, the more he earns: cleaning, laundry, cooking/preparing/serving meals, decorating, shopping/scheduling or otherwise being a personal assistant, listening to him, physical affection, accompanying him to places and events where he should have a woman by his side, giving him children, raising his children (if he truly wants any).

I’m seeing a woman. I decided if we can go two years straight without a red or yellow flag, I’d propose. The clock keeps getting reset.

I don’t need to sign a terrible state contract. I’m loyal and loving without one. We have overwhelming evidence having one won’t make a woman continue to be loyal and loving.

Children are a blessing. Most available women have them. Who am I to claim another man’s blessings?

If I could find an attractive, compatible woman who isn’t divorced, a mother, carrying debt, dealing with mental disorders or other health problems, or trying to use me to get/stay in the country, I’d marry her. So I guess I’m staying unmarried.

I’m against trafficking, and I have no way of knowing a woman who claims she wants to marry isn’t being trafficked. The way to end trafficking is to stop the demand.

****

Or, come up with your own succinct statements that are easy to quickly copy and paste. Suggest some in the comments below!

Why I Don’t Call Dr. Laura Schlessinger

Dr. Laura isn’t getting enough calls. Talk radio in general gets fewer calls than it used to, but the Dr. Laura Program is built around calls. As with many other hosts, she can monologue. But she wants calls.

We can tell she’s not getting enough calls because she dropped down to four “live” programs per week, but will still monologue for a while in the middle of the program, read letters, and yet still fill time with playing unannounced repeat calls, some from years ago and some from a few days ago. The screeners sometimes have to put unprepared callers up.

Her program can be heard live across North America. Why isn’t she getting enough callers?

Well, I know why I haven’t called. Maybe Dr. Laura or her staff will learn from me. I’m a paid subscriber to her program, not a general SiriusXM listener. I have thought for a long time that she’s an overall positive influence. I have concerns, questions, decisions, and situations for which Dr. Laura’s focused, experienced, sincere evaluation might help. I can probably disguise my voice enough without sounding weird. But I won’t call her.

Here are the reasons why.

1. She’s not there to help the caller. Callers are fodder for Dr. Laura getting her messages to listeners. She sees this as helpful to listeners. She has repeatedly said as much. I have no interest in being used as essentially an object lesson or warning against something I can’t change now. I already do that on this blog! She has helped many callers, but it's not her primary goal, and I believe she has hurt some callers. She will not take or will quickly dump calls that don’t easily serve her agenda, and spend much time countering a call that she might see as conflicting with her agenda after the caller is no longer able to clarify or defend. She usually won’t help callers who need to know HOW to discern, determine, or elicit something from others, so she gets curt or scolding if a caller says “I don’t know” regarding the reasons behind another person’s behavior. She can tell them how to find out, but she usually won’t. She will, more often, try to get the other person onto the program as well, which almost never happens.

2. Sometimes, she doesn’t listen. Per the point above, she doesn’t really need to listen to the caller in order to make assumptions and pontificate. But it can be a problem for her when listeners who are paying close attention notice, because they want her advice and statements to logically flow from what the caller said. And the caller sure wants that! There are reasons she might not listen to any given caller, other than preparing her retort or daydreaming. She has ads to read, other calls listed on her screen, work going on around her home (she works from home), a really great view, her dog, program staff talking in her ear (every once in a while we hear them when we’re not supposed to), and she eats, unmuted, during the program, while taking calls.

3. She doesn’t accept that crosstalk is a normal part of phone conversations, and reacts angrily to it. The way phones, especially mobile phones, work, there is no good way to avoid all crosstalk. Every other talk program host seems to have accepted that some crosstalk is to be expected, and calmly and politely work around it.

4. She interrupts, and not pleasantly. Related to the above, she will often ask the caller a question, the caller will start to answer, Dr. Laura will interrupt the caller mid-sentence, then be upset that the caller didn’t immediately stop the moment she interrupted. This can sidetrack the entire call. She has had many methods of interrupting, but the one she currently favors is a loud, high-pitched “WOO HOO!!! WOO HOO!!!” No thanks! Maybe try a gong? At least it would be funny. 

5. We have an incompatible worldview. I'm a Theist who believes in miracles, including that the Lord can and does operate in our lives. This does NOT excuse inaction on our part when, where, and how we should act. Followers of Jesus are supposed to do certain things and not do certain other things. Dr. Laura has decidedly dismissed certain things Theists in general and Christians in particular consider part of life. Sometimes her worldview, which appears to be Deistic or Atheistic, conflicts with this. This has an impact on the advice she gives and can cause her to sound critical of Christian theology.

Also, one of the things I'd ask her about is how to handle divorcing my wife in terms of my communication and other behaviors, if I were to do that. But Dr. Laura tends to think men owe women money for sex, whereas I see sex as something people share. Of course the law would force me to pay a lot in a divorce, but I don't see it as immoral to seek how to pay as little as legally possible.

6. Dr. Laura lives in a different world. Most radio hosts and most advice mavens pretty much live in the same world as the rest of us. For a long time now, Dr. Laura has had a net worth of tens of millions of dollars, if not more. She lives in an exclusive estate she tried to sell for 20+ million dollars. She pretty much works a job she loves, with no boss, four days per week, from home, for probably about 4 hours per day mid-day. Good for her, and I mean that, for doing so well. But it has influenced her advice sometimes, when she fails to understand the limitations and demands on her callers. One big thing I’ll be facing includes retirement. She often speaks out against it. I don’t need to be told not to retire.

Furthermore, disapproving of shacking up, casual sex, and making "salad" (blended) families is fine, but failing to grasp what present-day dynamics are, whether we like them or not, and deal with them, is a problem. We hear this when she tells a teen or young woman that the guy they had sex with is telling all of his friends, as if that is still some deterrent. There’s no stigma anymore in casual sex, unmarried cohabitation, and stepfamily constructs, or having a big wedding when any or all of these things have been involved. As my kids reach adulthood, I might be dealing with these things whether I like it or not. 

She has an unreasonable bias against technology. She rejects the use social media because she had to struggle to get her platform and now just any lowly person can have their message go viral even though they haven’t “earned” it. These things are a part of my life and there’s nothing wrong with that. 

7. She has a terrible history with family and close relationships. Her critics have made a point in pointing out her estrangement from her mother, which is part of the reason her mother was dead for quite a while before anyone knew. In Dr. Laura’s defense, as she has pointed out, her mother apparently had no friends to notice she wasn’t present, but Dr. Laura also wasn’t close to her father, apparently isn’t close to her sister, didn’t keep her first marriage together, and either her son and/or daughter-in-law requested she not talk about them on air anymore, other than mentioning stories of his childhood, or they’re estranged. Whatever is going on, it’s very different from when she’d frequently mention them, have current pictures of the three of them together posted on social media (which is OK for her to use), and have the DIL on the air with her to talk about HR situations. We also know Dr. Laura, well into adulthood and her career, decided to practice Orthodox Judaism (her mother was an Italian Catholic, her father Jewish), got her husband and son into it as well, then she stopped, apparently because of some problems with some people. What’s the common denominator in all of this?

We don’t really know how her relationship to her late husband was. We know she didn’t give their son her husband’s last name, and we know what little she has said: he was ill or in delicate health for years before he passed, he agreed with her when she said she’d destroy him if he ever hurt their son (said when she was pregnant), he protected her while she was very pregnant and crossing a busy street, he’d gas up her car. We really haven’t been told more, so we don’t know more than that and how the relationship started. He doesn’t show up in the stories of her son’s childhood other than handling something at the school office.

Yes, a heart surgeon can treat heart ailments even if they have their own heart ailments or even unhealthy behaviors. But in the context with everything else, it’s a concern. I have benefited from what she’s said and written about marriage and family, but it has to be taken with much salt.

8. General rudeness. I can agree that, sometimes, her tactics are “necessary” to push a caller out of their rut. However, that’s not always the case, as other professionals have demonstrated. She herself will, occasionally, show that she can be gentle and pleasant in dealing with a caller, so we know she can do it.

It’s definitely rude for the host of a call-in talk program to make assertions and bring up topics but refuse to take calls pertaining to them. If I could call her and discuss some of her assertions I think might be flawed, I might. But she doesn’t allow for that. She will not argue nor debate. As such, I’m left with thinking she’s mistaken or being too selective in the studies she uses; maybe I’m wrong, but she won’t take the steps to show why. Callers aren’t even allowed to address something relating to a previous caller other than to ask for “clarification.” 

So, there it is. I don't want to be misinterpreted and verbally beat up, I can't ask many questions I'd like to ask, and I have doubts that for some of my specific concerns, I'd be getting advice that isn't being skewed by her own obvious biases and the relational failures she doesn't discuss. Those are the reasons I don't call. I could call her to praise her for the many things I do like about her program, books, social media, etc., but that’s boring radio.

A Very Tiny Pool

"Refuse to date men use porn!" was tweeted out by one my favorite antiporn accounts.

First things first: Of course people can and should set any standards or requirements they think are best when it comes to who they'll date.

Two very important words in the tweet were "use" and "porn". What exactly are we talking about here? Is a guy who stares at artistic nudes once or twice per month or enjoys the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue just as out-of-the-question as a guy who is viewing hardcore videos 2-3 times per week? If so, there's going to be almost no man who passes this test. And "use" implies it is ongoing. Given how much we are told  by antiporn activists that porn damages the brain, shouldn't men who used porn be out of consideration, too?

Defending Your Decision Not to Have (More ) Children

Being a Free Man can be entirely ethical and moral. In fact, Free Men are morally superior to most husbands.

But what about when someone claims you you have an obligation to have (more) children? (This is usually paired with "...so you need to get married.") The claim that you have an obligation to have children is usually some variation of "Society needs children to continue."

That's true. Without new children, society would eventually end.

Also...

Society needs abundant, clean, freshwater to continue. Does that mean you are obligated to drill wells or be a waterworks engineer?

Society needs food to continue. Are you obligated to even have a single fruit or vegetable growing in a garden?

While there are homesteaders who do farm and have wells and also have lots of children, I can't think of anyone who has even attempted to make the argument that every person is obligated to produce freshwater or grow agricultural commodities.

Society needs people working. You can work more if you're not parenting. But you're under no obligation to do more than it takes to provide for yourself, plus a little more for giving, if you are able to do so. (The giving is mostly to help those who truly aren't able.) You have no obligation to have children. Other people will make children. That's clear.

You might choose to stay in a religion or cult that tells you that in order to be a member, you need to try to make children. You might choose to marry someone you know is expecting to have and raise children. Then you'd be obligated, unless you left. But there's no blanket obligation.

We have to do something in order to have children. Our default status is to be childfree.

Then there is another attempt that goes something like, "Children are like flowers. How can you have too many? I like my children."

That's good for them, as long as one of the older ones doesn't molest the younger ones and then the family goes on a "reality" show that ignores that. Children are people. You know people you like a lot, and people you don't like, maybe even people you can't stand. The same can be true of children. And people who generally don't like a lot of people probably aren't going to like having to raise people. Childfree people can pick the people they have in their life. Parents are pretty much stuck with their child, who could be a sociopath.

There is no blanket obligation to have children. For many people, it is irresponsible for them to do so. Get a vasectomy, guys.

Why Wait?

Dr. Laura's blog was updated with an entry with the title "Why Wait to Have Sex?"

People who engage in sex before or within the first few weeks of dating have lower levels of relationship satisfaction, communication and stability than those who wait longer.

The claim here is the first few weeks. So, a month in is good?

Why?

Because people who wait are so happy to be having sex that that they'll accept a lot of crap.

Because casual sex is lust over love. Without a foundation, the excitement of the passion wanes, and the relationship crumbles.

Not if they enjoy the sex a lot and are compatible. They have both "lust" and love after a while.

Most women want the first time they have sex with a man to be mind-blowing, special and something that brings them closer together.

Men want that, too.

However, there is no love or commitment early on in a relationship, so none of those needs are met.

That doesn't follow. People can have mind-blowing, special sex that brings them closer together without love and commitment.

I find it remarkable how many women would not entrust their apartment keys to a guy they just met (even if it’s just to water their plants) and yet, give no thought to exposing themselves to STDs and unplanned pregnancies.

If they have your keys, they can steal from you for a while without you even knowing. They can squat in your place and it can be a long ordeal to get them out. Some women actually enjoy sex, and don't see it as something a man does to them, but something they do with a man. But yes, STD tests, contraception, and vasectomies can be great things, and some people having sex on a first, second, or third date use those.

Contrary to what you see in the movies, people simultaneously orgasming 20 minutes after meeting each other rarely happens in real life.

Most married people don't experience simultaneous orgasms, either.

First-date sex is usually awkward, and it runs on his timeline — if you get my drift.

So now it's two dates in, rather than a month.

Also, some guys gladly engage in cunnilingus, fingering, etc. until she has at least one orgasm. Even on a first date.

Plus, there isn’t that much warm-up because there isn’t that much caring to give you a warm-up.

How would Dr. Laura know this? And again, the experience of many people goes against this.

Nothing has changed in the double standard. The more sexual partners a guy has had, the less he thinks of women and the sex he has with them. Guys know that the quicker they can get you to bed, the less wifey material you are. You may be humping for a few years or even shacking up, but there’s no true emotional bond.

Except for the millions of people for whom that hasn't been the case. There are couples who seem to have great marriages lasting decades who had sex on the first date. Everyone knows someone like that. I do.

Dr. Laura will tell female callers who've had unmarried sex "He's telling all of his friends he did!" These days, SHE probably told his friends. And hers. Like it or not, times have changed.

Men don’t value what they don’t have to work hard for.

How hard did most men have to work for their mother's love? And yet they value it tremendously.

If you want a healthy relationship, you should charge a high price for sex - the price being attention, care and commitment.

For Dr. Laura, a "commitment" means having a terrible state contract, joint finances, monogamy, and a bunch of other things that must all be together. In her mind, people can be together for ten years with the same goals and treating each other well, and it's not a commitment unless they have a state license and joint finances. Also, people shouldn't marry until after being together regularly for two yeas. There's a lot of room between a month and two or three years.

While she doesn't admit it, Dr. Laura borrows from materialism and religion for her secular program.

Materialism says men should pay - literally pay - for sex, because of supply and demand. This is why Dr. Laura says an unmarried man having sex is "getting sex for free." He hasn't signed over at least half of his income to the woman with whom he's having sex.

Religion: "This Scripture or this Prophet says unmarried sex is wrong."

She struggles to explain why people should save sex for marriage without citing either of those.

She didn't bring up abortion. Like STDs, unwanted pregnancies are a risk with sex. From a purely rational perspective, people should avoid sex if they aren't prepared for, or haven't taken steps to prevent, unwanted conception, spreading STDs, or catching unwanted feelings.

I'm not here to tell you to have sex before you marry, much less sex a few dates in. (Many of you will do it anyway.)

But I am here to tell you there's no way you should sign a terrible state contract unless you have experienced sexual compatibility and chemistry with that person, unless both of you don't care about sex (and you can't really be sure they don't). Actually, you shouldn't sign the terrible state contract regardless. But you shouldn't make vows, a joint residence, joint finances, or children with someone unless you know they can fulfill you in that way.

So, stay free.

Fun With Statistics - Cohabitation

Cohabitation, or "shacking up," as Dr. Laura (and I) still call it, leads to marriage.

That goes against what Dr. Laura says. Shacking up is one of her main no-nos, in her countercultural preaching. She often rattles off a few statistics (which may or may not be current) to try to bolster her point.

And yet, if someone is a marriage seller, as she is, I can use statistics to point out that cohabitation leads to marriage:

1) Most people in our culture who marry lived together before they married.

2) Couples who don't live together are far less likely to marry each other.

There it is! CONCLUSIVE PROOF that living together leads to marriage!

Right?

Well, in fairness:

1) Many people live together but never marry each other.

2) "Couples who don't live together" includes all those people who are only couples for a few months and then break up; of course they didn't marry.

My overall point is that using statistics can be misleading, as I already pointed out in this post, "Thinking Critically About Cohabitation."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not advocating living together unmarried with a romantic or sexual partner. I generally think it is a terrible idea. But more and more people will not marry someone unless they live with them first. To me, that's all the more reason to avoid shacking up, as I discourage most men from marrying and encourage them to stay free. Despite what Dr. Laura says, when a guy has his girlfriend living with him, it reduces his freedom.

Running Game - How Long Will She Be Around?

Running game is about weeding out the duds and the women who are too much work. It isn't about building a relationship so that you'll be monogamous, living together, married, and then raising children together.

As such, once you're into your groove as far as running game, and you're attracting women, it's no big deal when some women stop seeing you, or you need to stop seeing them, after a while. If you're doing really well, some will drop off the list simply because you don't have time for them because you're too busy with other, more attractive, more enjoyable women. That's peak game.

For most men, in most situations, the best of the relationship has already been experienced during the first three to six months anyway.

If she won't see you again, or you need to drop her, there's no need to spend any time being upset about it. You don't try to "make it work" or "win her back" or go to counseling or therapy with her. You simply move on, seeing other women or picking up new candidates. It's better to be alone than stop running game and cater to the demands of a woman. If you run game well, you won't be "alone" for long. You'll have your pick of dates. Never let on to women if you are in a slump or dry spell.

Conversely, a woman can be on your list or in your bullpen for YEARS if she's willing, stays attractive and enthusiastic, doesn't cause problems, doesn't start trying to enforce demands, etc. But what are the odds of that???

Protect Children By Parenting Your Children

"Protect Children Not Porn" is a false dichotomy.

It is expressed on services like Twitter/X as #ProtectChildrenNotPorn by the usual antiporn crusader would-be censors and the people who make a living grifting off of them, who try to make life as difficult for people who make, sell, and watch any erotica.

Groups like Exodus Cry (originating from an Evangelical church), Justice Defense Fund (which is basically Laila Mickelwait, who was with Exodus Cry but might not be anymore for some still unexplained reason), National Center on Sexual Exploitation (which is a rebrand of Morality in Media) and Fight the New Drug (which insists it is NOT a Mormon organization, and we know Mormons have never tried to conceal their motives and operations before) know that very few people will support a religious crusade trying to ban all pornography, but their core supporters want that. So these groups try to fool people with campaigns that claim to be secular campaigns about children and women being abused. 

Except that we know their campaigns are really about attacking the freedom of consenting adults to make and watch erotica.

How?

1) They claim that porn websites must be shut down if rogue users violated the terms of service by uploading illegal video content, claiming that such content victimizes women and children. But these same people have never called for shutting down churches (or their Mormon equivalents) when staff is is caught making or distributing such material, or actually, personally assaulting a woman or a child. They don't even pressure banks/credit card companies to stop processing payments to/for those churches.

2) They use social media that has far more illegal videos on it than any of the porn sites they target, and they know this.

3) They have attacked OnlyFans, one of the best services for ensuring the women participating are consenting, are indeed women and not girls, and that the people viewing their explicit material are adults (they charge!).  

One of them, let's just call her Mayla Ficklewaste, has let her toddler play with her phone, even though Mayla constantly searches out illegal videos, frequently visits porn sites, and the child was able to access X/Twitter, which has rape and snuff videos. Anyone can upload anything to X/Twitter right now. PornHub only has verified uploads. Guess which service this MF attacks?

It's a RUSE.

It's a SHAKEDOWN.

It's a FUNDRAISING PLOY.

They're NEVER going to ban porn, but they'll keep collecting money from scared, insecure, gullible people who are counting on them to do so. All they can do is shake down what other people have earned, and make life difficult for models and performers. Likewise, they tell the broader public that they simply want these restrictions, but that's a lie. Their crusade would continue.

They haven't prevented one person from being abducted, enslaved, or assaulted. But Laila sure has gotten lots of attention, fed her ego, and lined her pockets.

It is not "defending porn" or "protecting porn" to value freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and free enterprise.

It is not defending porn or protecting porn, and certainly not attacking children, to point out that "leaders" in these "movements" are hypocritical, two-faced, and fleecing the gullible.

They say there's nothing stopping children from viewing porn websites. There is "nothing stopping" kids from walking into traffic, or taking an automobile a joyride, or setting themselves on fire, or burning down their residence.

Except that there is. It is called...

P A R E N T I N G

That's why I use the hashtag #ParentYourChildren

These crusaders are such bad parents that they want the whole world to change for the sake of what they don't want their kid seeing.

Here's what people can do to parent their own child.

1) Don't give your a child a networked phone or tablet. If you do, have controls and monitors on it.

2) Keep any other device that can access online content in common areas of your home, where it will be supervised. Controls can also be used on these.

3) Don't let your children go without your supervision to any residence that doesn't follow these practices.

Would You Get on That Airplane?

Dr. Laura often gets calls from people who have a minor child and these parents are engaged, in a relationship, dating, etc., or considering it. Dr. Laura will tell them that marriages in which there's a stepchild (that's what their child would be to their spouse) have a 70 percent divorce rate, and that the rest of the marriages aren't all happy ones. She says this to discourage them from bringing more chaos and conflict into their child's life; to tell them that their minor children shouldn't even know they are dating. Indeed, if they've married or shacked up, whatever the child is doing that the parent doesn't like will be attributed to this fact, even if children in intact homes do the same thing.

Concerned for the child(ren), she drives the point home by asking "Would you go on an airplane if it had a 70 percent chance of having a terrible crash?"

Of course the answer is no.

But what's the divorce rate for first marriages without stepchildren?

What Is A Real Man?

A real man is any human being who is:
1. Male

2. 18 years of age or older
3. Not fictional

Whether a man does or doesn't do any certain things you or anyone else likes or doesn't like has ZERO determination over whether he is a real man or not.

Does Living Together Mean Doom?

Dr. Laura makes it sound like your marriage is doomed if you two cohabitate (“shack up”) with each other before you two marry. Well, chances are, it IS doomed, because it’s marriage and most marriages fail. Anyway, she also makes it sound like you won’t get married if you cohabitate while unmarried.

She’s highly likely to be basing that on very old data. But let’s grant that current data indicates “couples who cohabitated before marriage divorce at a higher rate than couples who didn’t cohabitate before marriage.” I don’t even know how anyone could word the second point. “Couples who cohabitate are less likely to marry than couples who don’t” is clearly not the case. Most couples don’t marry. Most people who marry had been a part of a different coupling multiple times before they ever married.

It’s possible to say AN INDIVIDUAL who shacks up tends to marry later or never marry in comparison than those who don’t. 

If the data takes couples who have plans to marry and tracks them over time, and sees that those who cohabitated before marrying had a higher rate of never marrying than those who didn’t cohabitate before marrying, that would be something. But since we don’t know the control group being used for the claim “couples who cohabitated unmarried were less likely to marry,” it’s a suspect claim. It’s far easier to make the first claim, as that is objectively, to some extent, observable: they married. They either lived together before they married or they didn’t. And over a certain amount of time, they either divorced or they didn’t. 

But what even counts as cohabitation? Even married people who didn’t officially share an address might have frequently spent days, weeks, even months in the same place. Back in my youth, I often spent 3-4 nights per week at my girlfriend’s place. I had my own place. I never claimed a girlfriend’s address as mine. Does that count? What if they spend almost every night together, some at his place and some at hers?

Keep in mind divorce is just one way a marriage can be terrible. A marriage can be legally intact but awful. Dr. Laura would claim the data also shows the quality of the marriage is better for couples who didn’t first shack up, but I’m not so sure. It could be that couples who didn’t cohabitate before marriage are less likely to be honest - with a sociologist or even themselves - if their marriage is crappy, and that could be for religious reasons, among other explanations.

Here’s the reality today whether anyone likes it or not:

-Most couples who marry cohabitated. (Twisting Dr. Laura’s tactic on its head, we can say shacking up leads to marriage, since most people who married shacked up.)

-Most people won’t marry someone they didn’t cohabitate with first.

-There are couples who’ve been together for decades, including officially or unofficially living together, who’ve never had even a courthouse wedding.

-There are people who’ve been married for decades who lived together before they married.

-If you want to be in either of those groups, there are things you can do to make it more likely.

One of the “dirty secrets” of the data Dr. Laura is using is that it lumps all unmarried cohabitation together, including people who never intended to marry or be permanent in the first place, and people who “fell into” living together. Data that separates out independently established, stable people who PLANNED out their cohabitation in advance, discussed and sincerely agreed about goals, intentions, rules, etc, and had a high level of general compatibility will show much better results.

Maybe you don’t want to marry.

Maybe you do.

Either way, cohabitation will be more likely and even may most likely work out if:

-It’s thoroughly planned out ahead of time, with sincere, honest, realistic discussions and agreement about goals, timelines, intentions, rules, etc. (Dr. Laura says there are no rules, but she doesn’t get to decide that for you.)

-It is done out of mutual intention, not incrementalism or “falling into it”, and an informed, experienced desire to live with each other, not out of desperation or zombie relationship escalators.

-You’re both responsible, established, independent adults who can generally handle life well and are fundamentally compatible.

Dr. Laura claims the intentions are different in shacking up, and that it is to avoid commitment. She was a trained, licensed, experienced therapist but she is not a mind reader. She doesn’t know what a caller she’s been talking with for 20 seconds really intended, and she certainly doesn’t know what their partner, who isn’t on the call, intended. She can make an experienced guess. Sometimes. 

Most of her listeners probably have no idea she did “everything” wrong. She shacked up for years with an older man who was a married father when she took up with him. She got pregnant at least once. And yet they subsequently married (as he had, she had been married before) and stayed married for decades, until he died. It apparently worked out for them. Although she’d say they beat the odds, if you could ever discuss it with her (she’d never let such a discussion about herself make it to air). If she’d discuss it and be honest about it, she’d probably say there was much misery because of how things started. 

I am compelled by my conscience not to end this post without stressing that  I think most men should avoid shacking up/cohabitating. It’s almost as bad as marrying. It’s costly and puts you at risks, shifting much of your power to her, and you can get kicked out of your own home. But if you’re going to do it, there are ways, as I explained, that make it more likely to work out.