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. 

Minimize Hostility

Most women don't like men.

There are some who genuinely like men.

But for the most part, most women don't like men, even if they like what men can do for them.

Even women who like and appreciate what men can do for them might grow entitled, demanding, and  then resentful.

Contempt and disrespect pervade.

What men do is never enough. Women in "committed" relationships think they settled.

Many men simply don't grasp this. For example, most heterosexual men are physically attracted to a wide variety of women, and like seeing a woman's genitals, even if he doesn't know her. Conversely, most women don't even like their own husband's penis and don't care to see it. There's a good chance even your newlywed wife isn't physically attracted to you.

Consider gays and lesbians. Most gay men, who have no interest in women sexually, do not hate women. In fact, they often have women as best friends. But a lot of lesbians openly hate men. Because they aren't attracted to any men, they have no reason to pretend to like them.

For most of human history, women depended on men directly. That's no longer the case. Women can earn money in white collar or service jobs, and have full access to financial services, asset ownership, etc. Gun ownership can physically protect her.

Even though women no longer need men, there are still "kept" women, far more than men. But even many kept women grow to despise and resent the men who provide their lifestyle.

There are women who prefer male bosses and/or like hanging around men. But that's not necessarily because they like men. In some cases it is because women are so bad to each other or because these women believe they can manipulate these men.

Perhaps nothing is more amusing to a woman than when a man gets hurt or injured.

 

Pay attention to how women talk about men in spaces and platforms that cater to women. Notice the advertisements that effectively appeal to women, and how men are usually portrayed as helpless, pathetic, stupid, ignorant, annoying, disgusting, etc.

In addition, women who appreciate men or at least their man can be poisoned by their mother, sisters, friends, media, etc. into being hostile.

What's my point?

My point is DO NOT BURDEN WOMEN. Respect their independence and autonomy. Stay free. Do not enter into a terrible state contract with someone who, chances are, isn't attracted to you and doesn't like you, or at least soon won't.


She Feels Differently Than You

The Sight of Human Skin Doesn't Harm Human Brains

Cathy Reisenwitz has a video and an excellent written commentary about adult media.

A 2020 study showed that ~70% of people watch low amounts of porn with no discernible negative ramifications. Around a quarter of people watch a lot of porn with no measurable downside. And around ~5% of people watch a lot of porn, and it seems to cause or exacerbate problems for them.

Five percent. You can find five percent of people for whom watching a lot of sports is problematic. The problem isn't what they're watching. Compulsive/problematic media viewing is a symptom of a problem. Porn isn't the problem.

Problematic porn consumers are more likely than average to show symptoms of hypersexuality, depression, boredom, and low self-esteem. They’re likely not getting their basic psychological needs met.

They have problems. And they watch porn. Porn isn't the cause.

And this study builds on other research showing that feeling guilty about watching porn is a high predictor of having a “porn addiction.”

"Porn addiction" isn't a scientific term. It's a term used by salespeople and the people they've duped, and people who are trying to shift blame for their problems.

In fact, another study showed that men who look at porn more often who are in relationships have more sex with their partners. Women who look at porn more often have more partnered sex whether or not they’re in relationship, have better sex, and have more sexual flexibility.

Antiporn crusaders count viewing porn itself as misogyny and violence against women, so of course they dispute these findings.

Porn use is associated with decreases in violence against women. Men who look at more porn are actually less sexist than men who look at less of it.

This sort of thing never dissuades the antiporn crusaders. 

Every study I’m aware of that purports to show that porn is harmful either: 

1. Fails to correct for the fact that people who feel ashamed of themselves for watching porn are far more likely to report “problematic” porn use, regardless of how much they watch or how it’s otherwise impacting their lives

2. Misrepresents MRI results to show spurious findings

3. Fails to establish causation. People already at risk of becoming sexual abusers are more likely to watch a lot of violent porn. But there’s no evidence that watching a lot of violent porn causes the average person to be more likely to perpetrate sexual violence. In fact, there’s a lot of evidence in the opposite direction.

4. Mislabels porn

5. Is otherwise shown to be faulty. 

 

When you hear of studies that claim to show adult media as physically or mentally harmful, you should keep in mind that there is an abundance and extreme variety of porn, so studies focusing on one particular kind may not be indicative of anything else. Also, such studies usually don't control for masturbation. There's also the very basic consideration that apparent correlation doesn't establish causation.

There are many studies on "both sides," but most people can't sort through the details of studies. Think carefully. Porn is, usually, depictions of nudity and sexuality. Do you really think depictions of human beings in their natural state or engaged in reproductive behavior would be physically or mentally harmful to the observer? How exactly would that make any sense from either a naturalistic, evolutionary perspective, or if you believe in some form of Divine creationism? Wouldn't that mean having sex with your spouse with the lights on would be harmful?

Reisenwitz's commentary is definitely worth a read, and touches on religion. I note that Jesus is never quoted as telling any woman to cover up. Instead, He told his followers to pluck out their own eye or cut off their own hand if they have a problem. Antiporn crusaders claim to be concerned about abuse of women and children but many of them never say one word about churches where women and children have been raped. What do you think Jesus finds more disturbing: an erotic performance on video, or a member of the clergy raping a congregant?

Dennis Prager talks about panics pushed by the Left. These antiporn crusades are a panic pushed largely from the Right (and also from the Left by certain misandrists).

We Are Not Going Back

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

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

Running Game - Slumpbusters

If you're not running game like a well-oiled machine yet, or you took a break, or you're in slump, you might benefit from one or more slumpbusters.

A slumpbuster means hooking up with a woman you wouldn't have as part of your regular bullpen. Maybe she's too old, maybe she's too fat or too skinny or otherwise less attractive to you, maybe she's not enthusiastic or skilled enough. But she's willing to hook up. If some affection is better than no affection to you, that's what a slumpbuster gives you.

However, slumpbusters also help because they "prime the pump." Somehow, some way, the fact that you're active at all helps bring other women to you. It's just one of those mysteries of reality.

Managing Danger

Many years ago, a significant earthquake hit where I was, and without even thinking about it I was under an extremely sturdy table as fast as I could get there. I didn't even have to think about it, because I had thought about it many times before.

Thinking ahead and paying attention can help protect you.

"What if...?" can help you.

How many people get into accidents while driving because they weren't paying attention? How many accidents have been narrowly avoided because someone was paying attention? We count on other drivers driving safely and following the rules of the road, but sometimes they won't or can't: They have have a medical problem, they're drunk, they're fighting with a passenger, they're distracted, their vehicle has a mechanical failure, they're angry or set on committing a crime, a pedestrian/animal/other object gets in their way, etc.

Driving or anywhere else...

How to Keep Your Friends Free - Prevention

I have a habit of writing some really long entries, but I'm going to try to post some things as series instead, to keep them from getting too long. With that in mind, I'm starting a series about how Free Men can keep their friends free. Even if you're not a Free Man, you can use some of these tactics to help other men stay free.

The best way to help other men stay free is through PREVENTION. Helping them from getting into a mess in the first place is the ideal. It's best to do things proactively and prophylacticly, BEFORE he gets into an exclusive relationship.

Here's how.

• Point out to each Free Man (especially young men) in your life why he doesn't want to climb down that ladder, down into that pit in which a woman will have more and more control over his life.
  
  
• Point out that legal marriage is a bad deal for most men, most marriages fail, and men can have happy, full, productive lives without ever legally marrying.
   
• When these guys aren't in "exclusive" relationships, point out the benefits to them of being a Free Man and why they wouldn't want to give that up.
  
  
• When he's doing something he enjoys, with or without you, point out how he either wouldn't be able to do it or do it the way he wants, or it would cost him a lot more, if he was tied down to a woman, especially with kids.
  
  
• Point out that being a Free Man is our default state, and even marriage-sellers say marriage is hard work and takes a lot of compromise and sacrifice. 
  
  
• Point out to him how a newlywed woman butches up and blimps up. There will be examples in his life and in media.
  
  
• Point out that women use sex as a loss leader and do "bait and switch" all of the time. They are on their "best behavior" during early dating because they are trying to lock him in. Things will never be better with a woman than the first 3 to 6 months. 
  
  
• Point out examples of men suffering because they gave up their freedom and autonomy. They can be men you know or men in the news. Point out the beaten dogs, the emasculated guys, the ones whose balls are in their purse of the woman who owns him. Point out when guys waste their lives arguing with a woman. Point out the men who've been or are being put through the wringer in divorce.
  
  
• Point out that a Free Man gets to control his own calendar/social schedule, and how his money is spent.
  
  
• Point out that he doesn't need a girlfriend, and he certainly doesn't need a wife.
  
  
• Encourage him to avoid dating just one woman, and to avoid giving a woman the impression he's only dating her, and to avoid seeing any given woman more than once per week.
  
  
• Debunk the misleading marriage-selling statements he might hear, like the one about the sex in marriage being more frequent and better.
  
  
• Discuss Red Flags with him.
  
  
• If a woman he's dating is giving him grief, is too much work, or possessive, point out that there are plenty of other women and he doesn't have to date her.
  
  
• Frequently get together, whether at home or wherever else, to enjoy doing things as Free Men.
  
  
• Share with him the tactics you find helpful for staying a Free Man. For example, encourage vasectomies. Encourage having a holiday season game plan.
  

Of course, you can send him whatever entries and pages from this blog you find helpful.

If you have other tips you think should be added, comment below.

This entry turned out to be long anyway, and it might get longer still. In the next installment of this series, I plan to write about what to do when he's getting into an "exclusive" relationship or already is, and might be heading for the marriage trap.

UPDATE: Here's the Intervention entry in this series.

UPDATE: Here's the Recovery entry in this series.

A Running List of Reasons Given By My Wife

This will be a running list, in no particular order, of reasons or excuses my wife (and maybe yours!) gives to NOT make love or have sex. As I've written in other entries, we're down to about once every three weeks, and usually it's a mercy session.

Some of these reasons might be legitimate some of the time; I'll grant that. But cumulatively, it is rather sad, given that this is supposed to be a mutually enjoyable "gift from the Lord" that is supposed to be a major benefit to marriage that, in turns, strengthens marriage and is good for our health and all of the other stuff.

Now, I know how the world works. The average man wants sex more than the average woman, and the same holds true for our little microcosm: I want sex more than my wife. Traditionally, on a societal level, this has either been handled through official polygny or through mistresses, concubines, or prostitution. Or, even if monogamous, there has been an agreement, whether tacit or explicit, that marriage is an exchange. The wife has agreed to sex as often as the husband wants it (in addition to cooking and making sure the household chores are done) because he's protecting her, providing for her, and keeping the children in line (even with just the threat of what'll happen when Dad comes home). This agreement seems to have been abandoned for the most part, which is one reason why most men shouldn't bother to marry. I'm fulfilling my end of the bargain, however.

I'm sure there are some snarky types out there who will read these and tell me that if I was a more considerate and all-around better lover, I wouldn't hear these excuses so often. See, that's what I'd believe, too, if I didn't have the experiences of my wayward youth. I know it isn't me. And I have solicited her thoughts and feelings during neutral times (away from lovemaking situations) about what I can do to make things easier and more enjoyable for her. The bottom line is that, whether because of her medications or some other reason, she doesn't like sex much. She pretended to be craving sexual affection before we married, and still somewhat until we had our children, because she wanted the guarantee of my financial support. Once she had it, she no longer had to pretend. She will not say it that way, but that's the harsh truth. (And it is the harsh truth for a lot of men. I suspect the real reason prostitutes are put down is because they deliver when they're paid and paid women who don't deliver hate that.)

Same goes for "You should be romancing her. I bet you're not taking her out on dates like you did before you married!" Hey, I've tried. She shoots down dates, she doesn't want flowers, and she doesn't want me drawing a nice bath for her.

Feel free to add your own reasons or excuses in the comments, even if you're a woman whose husband is rejecting her.

Since this is a running list it will be updated and bumped up from time to time, and I'll elaborate on some excuses.