Most Men Shouldn’t Marry Nor Have Children

Most men shouldn’t marry nor have children, so most boys should not be raised with the assumption that they will or should marry, and they definitely shouldn’t be raised with the assumption that they will have a lasting, happy marriage.

I realize there are religions out there that pretty much mandate people marry and try to have children. I can’t argue with every different religious organization that claims to have authority over your life. What I do know is that the Bible, taken as a whole and rightly divided, does not mandate you marry and have children. Don’t tell me contraception, tubal ligations, hysterectomies, and vasectomies are wrong because they are are unnatural, as you accept artificial medical treatments, live in a home that has been constructed, and drink water and eat food that has been processed in some way.

Most men shouldn’t marry or have children because 1) they aren’t suited to it, 2) aren’t positioned to do it, 3) aren’t living in a culture that supports it, and 4) won’t find a suitable woman with whom they could.

Answering Marriage Seller Assertions, Talking Points, and Questions - Part 8

 

Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here and Part 3 here and Part 4 here and Part 5 here and Part 6 here and Part 7 here.


Men don't do well alone.

Some men don't do well alone. Some women don't, too. So what? Why should that compel men who don't want to sign a terrible state contract to do so? How about teaching more people how to thrive independently?

Some men are responsible, happy, thriving, and productive on their own.

Men certainly don't do well in bad marriages or when they are screwed over by the family courts.

Ask the marriage seller where they are getting this idea from. It may be from media, which tends to portray men as bumbling fools who need a woman to run their life. They might try to use statistics, which almost always is a matter that comes down to "which is the cart, and which is the horse.” For example, certain crimes tend to be committed by young, unmarried men. But young men are likely to be unmarried, unless they are members of certain religious subgroups, and maybe the fact that they are violent criminals is why they aren't married; implying that signing a terrible state contract magically turns criminals into great citizens is bizarre. Why should any woman be asked to take that on?

When a woman says men don't do well alone, she might be revealing that she has a low opinion of men. When a man says it, he's usually telling on himself. He didn't do well alone, or at least that's how he remembers it. I did great on my own. I was in great financial shape, and doing well physically, professionally, socially, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually. I didn't go hungry, lived in cleanliness, had clean clothes to wear, and had good hygiene. I was dating, I learned not to waste my time or money when I did.

You can probably cite examples of men who have done well on their own. You might be one of them.

Finally, just because someone won't sign a terrible state contract doesn't mean they are alone.

So, some of the ways to answer this include:

A) I'm doing fantastic alone!

B) I'm not married, and yet I'm not alone.

C) It's not a binary choice. Being unmarried doesn't necessarily mean being alone.

D) It's never been easier to thrive being alone. Let's show more people how they can.

E) Would you please explain what you mean by that? (They will likely use statistics in a misleading way, or hallucinate about some poor slob who can't take care of himself. If the latter, ask them if they mean that wives should take care of husbands as if they are their mother.)


It isn't good for man to be alone.

This is either the same thing as the assertion above or citation of Genesis. This assertion has no effect on anyone who doesn't take the first few chapters of Genesis as prescriptive and authoritative for how we live today. It's like trying to order one's life around the understanding that tortoises beat hares in speed.

If someone does consider the early chapters of Genesis to have prescriptive authority over life today, then they can note that this was a statement made when Adam was completely alone. In that sense, none of us are alone anymore as there are over eight billion people in the world now.

So the answer here is, "We're not alone."

If the person who is trying this on you respects what Christians all the New Testament, point to Paul and Jesus himself (although Mormons believe Jesus married).

Finally, ask them if they’re opposed to any pain relief in childbirth, since the early chapters of Genesis also say Eve will give birth in pain.

Be fruitful and multiply.

As with the statement above, this is a statement in early Genesis. There is no indication that it is directed at all people in all places for all time. It was directed at two people.

Humanity has multiplied. It has been done.

So the answer here is "We have."

Also, we can multiply without a terrible state contract.

You can find Biblical passages about all sorts of activities the person using this verse hasn't done themselves.

In today's world, men can thrive without signing a terrible state contract with a woman. Living in your own residence by yourself does not mean being alone. We have friends, family, neighbors, and we can have companionship.

Part 9

Answering Marriage Seller Assertions, Talking Points, and Questions - Part 6

Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here and Part 3 here and Part 4 here and Part 5 here.


It sounds better to say "This is my wife" instead of "This is my girlfriend."

This is another assertion of made by marriage sellers that requires you to simply accept and agree in order for it to work. It's based entirely on personal preferences. In contrast, Dr. Laura, herself a marriage seller, has encouraged her married listeners to think of, and call, themselves their husband's girlfriend or their wife's boyfriend.

For people who say this, like Dennis Prager, it is based on his emotional fixation on marriage. My own convictions have me reacting almost entirely in the opposite way, meaning I feel better when a man introduces me to his girlfriend than his wife. When he introduces me to his wife, I usually feel sorry for him, and when he introduces me to his fiancee, I want to pull him aside and warn him.

So, again, there are several ways to respond to this.

A) That's your personal preference. My preference is different.

B) It sounds even better to say "I get to do what I want to do."

C) Men who run game don't introduce their dates at all.

It is amazing that people like Dennis Prager want to you sign a terrible state contract because he thinks it sounds better to say "wife" instead of "girlfriend."

A word of caution. Yes, you can call a woman your "wife" even though you're not legally married to her. Depending on where you live and the other things you do, though, that might put you into the same legal/financial jeopardy as getting legally married. So, "girlfriend" is definitely better.

Part 7

Reminder: Stay or Get Free

 

With June almost here, I’m issuing this urgent reminder to stay free.

If you aren’t free, but haven’t filed the terrible state contract often called marriage, don’t file or sign it. Get free. Then stay free.

You don’t need to be married.

What Makes You Think You'll Succeed At What Better Men Failed?

If you are heading for, or even just "open to" marriage, consider that many admirable, smart men have been divorced. Some multiple times. Men you personally know. Men you know about.

Why have they been divorced?

Here are the options:

1) They picked wrong.
2) They didn't treat their wife right.
3) During the marriage, their wife suffered from a trauma or illness that caused her to become the wrong wife.
4) The present system itself is deeply problematic.
5) More than one of the above.

If these good men picked wrong, what makes you think you will pick better or are picking better?

If these good men didn't treat their wife right, what makes you think you will be better at how you do marriage?

There are traumas/illnesses that are unavoidable. So, even if you pick right and treat right, you can still end up being miserably married or divorced.

If the present system is deeply problematic, that's the system into which you'd be marrying. What is that system? 1) Family law and courts transfer money and power away from you, to a woman, and reward bad behavior and women for divorce. 2) Socialization doesn't prepare women to be good wives and discourages them from being good wives. 3) Misandrist culture emasculates men and punishes them for being husbands and fathers.

Again, what makes you think you're going to beat the system? What makes you think you're going to succeed at what so many better men failed?

There's a lot about Dennis Prager I admire, and he seems to have a great grasp on human behavior and human nature and most of the dynamics between men and women, and his first marriage was, statistically, started when it had a good chance of lasting (he was in his late twenties or into his thirties, not some immature 19 year-old). And yet, that marriage didn't last and his second marriage didn't last either. He'd tell you to do what he did, and get married a third time, because it is inconceivable to him that men should learn to thrive on their own, because he formed, very early in his life, an emotional fixation on men being husbands.

Today, in the twenty-first century, men can thrive being free. There is no good reason for most men to sign a terrible state marriage contract. The contract is of no benefit to most men, and you can live a great, happy, fulfilled life without it. So why take on the risks and obligations of something at which so many better men have failed?

This isn't like technological development, in which knowledge accumulates. Human nature, if it is evolving, doesn't evolve fast enough to mean that what men want has changed in the last few thousand years. So, this isn't like "I can build a better rocket." The social aspects of marriage involve dealing with a woman. Female nature, like male nature, hasn't changed much, but the socialization of women has, and not in a way that supports lasting, happy marriages. When that is paired with the fact that our current legal system and current culture will empower a wife to ruin your life, it is arrogance or delusion to see that some great men haven't had lasting, happy marriages - in fact most men who have married have failed marriages - but think you are going to succeed at it.

Why take that risk, when you can get everything you need and want in life without doing so?

Stay free, guys.

As always, you are welcome to comment below. It would be especially interesting to hear about good men you know who have had a failed marriage, or how you thought you could do better and you found out otherwise.

Is Getting Married a Smart Short-Term Financial Move For a Man?

I was listening to podcasts from the Dr. Laura Show from mid-June 2015, and she took a call from a woman whose grown daughter was in a five-year relationship, and NOT shacking up with the guy. Both of them had been pursuing graduate degrees. The reason the guy had given to the caller's daughter about not yet being married was financial. Dr. Laura scoffed at this and noted he's supporting himself and paying rent, so there would be no cost to to marrying and moving in the caller's daughter. [This entry has been bumped up.]

I've heard Dennis Prager express similar ideas.

Dr. Laura did acknowledge that having children would increase costs.

A lot of guys fall for the mistake in thinking that moving in a wife or a shack-up honey will be 1) financially efficient and 2) a good financial decision. Let's just stick to moving in a wife, since shacking up is a horrible idea all around, and Dr. Laura would discourage it. [Marrying is almost always a horrible idea for men, too.]

The reality is, it isn't as simple as "Oh, now she's here so she can contribute to rent." The ideal portrayed is that, after marrying, these two will continue to earn at least as much as they already are in their respective jobs, and they will eliminate redundant expenses. and would be able to buy some things they'd usually buy separately "in bulk" together. But how often does it really work on that way?

In no particular order:

1) Moving a wife in means getting married. While Dr. Laura often tells the joint biological parents who are shacking up to run down to the county office and get married (because marriage is correlated to benefits to the children), it is highly unlikely this woman, who has been dating this guy for five years and not shacking up with him, would agree to that. Instead, an expensive wedding and related expensive events/purchases would be "necessary".

2) Once married, women tend to push for children (and others also apply pressure to have children) or "forget" to take contraception.

3) Most likely, his utility and grocery costs will increase, along with his vehicle maintenance and operation costs.

4) She will start buying all sorts of stuff they don't really need, since she won't feel like she needs to be tight with her money for survival. His money will now legally be her money, so she won't feel the need to be thrifty. Also, she will insist on redecorating, and throwing out and replacing everything from cookware to furniture, especially if some other woman he had sex with ever touched any of it.

5) For much the same reasons as #4, she might push for a bigger apartment or a home purchase.

6) She will pressure him to work less and avoid networking happy hours, to make social engagements she's arranged, and to keep him from spending time with other women, who are now fully integrated into workplaces. She will also likely discourage him from taking promotions that would involve moving or changing health plans or might put him on the radar of women she thinks are more attractive than her.

7) She will likely work less.


Don't even try the "married men earn more money" line.

There's probably a bunch I'm forgetting. The point is, dismissing financial concerns as unfounded fails the reality test. Now maybe he's just using it as an excuse. But it isn't necessarily the case. And  these things  are just the short-term, because that was the issue. The claim was that the man wanted to be on better financial footing before marrying. For the long term, marrying will definitely be against his financial advantage, as at least half of everything he'll earn will be hers by law.

One Exception To "You Knew This Before You Married"

When Dr. Laura has a caller complaining about something in their marriage, she will almost always have one of these two statements as part of her response, even if she uses different wording:

1) You knew this about them before you married them.

2) You didn't spend enough time getting to know them before you married them. 

Usually, it is true. I do maintain, though that people: 1) CAN hide who they truly are, and especially a bad habit, for the 24-33 months she recommends before marrying, and 2) people can be changed negatively by illness or trauma.

But what I wanted to talk about was sex. 

Answering Marriage Seller Assertions, Talking Points, and Questions - Part 9

Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here and Part 3 here and Part 4 here and Part 5 here and Part 6 here and Part 7 here and Part 8 here.


These questions are closely related, and so the answers can be adapted.


Don't you want someone special in your life?

There is more than one way to answer this depending on your situation.

A) No.

B) I have multiple special people in my life.

C) I am someone special in my life.

D) I can/do have someone special in my life without a terrible state contract.

E) Everything in life is a tradeoff. I'd much rather be guaranteed my freedom than have the possibility of having a wife, and even if having one, only for as long as she chooses to stay.

F) I just haven't been able to find her.


Don't you want to come home to somebody?

This is a variation on the previous question, and all of the answers for that question work. In addition, many married men come home to an empty home.


Don't you want to grow old with somebody?

This is another variation of the previous question. Marrying doesn't mean you will grow old with someone. Plenty of people who married grow old alone.

You can also say that no, you don't want to grow old with someone. You want to be with adults who want to be with you, and to whom you're attracted, whatever your age and whatever their age.


Don't you want someone to take care of you when you're older?

That's what long-term care insurance and medical professionals are for.


Who'll be there for you when you die? Who will care?

You want me to sign a terrible state contract with someone and endure their crap for 60 years in case it makes it more likely they'll be there when I'm dying? People who do something with their life or maintain good friendships will be mourned. Both of those things are easier if a man stays free.


You're going to end up sad and alone.

Most people who end up sad and alone married.


It's amazing how people want you to spend a life in a terrible state contract and, likely, a terrible arrangement, giving up your freedom and sacrificing your dreams and what you want to do, so that one specific person might be there when you die or are getting close to death.

Part 10

One Flesh Or Not?

Dr. Laura will often tell wives calling in (and thus wives listening to her show) that it's not a big deal for a husband (and father of minor children) to enjoy adult media...

...as long as he's not doing it instead of being with her and the adult media doesn't feature children, small farm animals, men (gay porn), or barely legal adults.

This has to greatly upset the portion of her audience that has bought into the anti-porn panic/hysteria about how it turns brains into mush and turns men into serial killers, or women who consider to be a form of infidelity.

But what about the other end of this spectrum? Dr. Laura, like a lot of other relationship experts, says it's a problem if he's using such media instead of being with his willing wife. This appears to be a presumption that his body and sexuality belong to his wife.

What Do I Mean By Free Men?

I like using the term "Free Men."

What do I mean by that?

For the purposes of this blog and related communications, Free Men are men who are free of legal and financial entanglements with women.

Ideally, they are also free of social bondage to women and do not have any dependent children, especially not children over which a woman has any parental rights. 

A Free Man is, at the very least:

• Unmarried
  
  
• Residing independently from women
  
  
• Without legal or financial obligations with women, such as a cosign for a loan or account, co-ownership of property or anything else of significant value, a mortgage or rental agreement, paying child support, paying alimony or palimony. A woman should not have access to your home or finances; she should not be on a lease or rental agreement with you and should have no ownership rights over any home you own. You should never impregnate a woman or donate sperm or in any way look after or pay for her child (such as with a single mother who wants to be your "friend" or girlfriend.)
  
  
• Unrestrained by any agreement to exclusivity with a woman

Usually, he's also going to be childfree.

Put the Shackle Back On

On Tuesday, October 18, 2022, the Dr. Laura Program ran a call in the third hour that I'm almost certain was a repeat or was recorded off-air. Both are regular elements of the program.

The call was with a husband and wife. The husband had just left the wife within the last few days.

The focus of the call became the husband's claim that he left so he could do what he wanted to do. It sounded like he wanted to golf, fish, and certain other similar things.

Dr. Laura kept hounding him with "Why can't you do it while you're married to her?"

Then Dr. Laura said that she did what she wanted to do while married to her late husband. Note: Dr. Laura usually will not allow callers to compare themselves to her or ask what she'd personally do, but she often compares herself to the caller.

But there was a problem with that.

The caller was the husband. Dr. Laura was a wife. Dr. Laura usually notes significant differences between men and women, husbands and wives, and their power within marriage. In her marriage specifically, she had the fame and was a high income earner. She was also a trained psychotherapist. And for the last how many years of the marriage, Dr. Laura was in much better health and shape than her husband. OF COURSE SHE DID WHAT SHE WANTED.

A husband has little power other than to leave, and for most husbands, leaving still doesn't restore all of his power, and the courts will order the husband to spend a significant amount of his life earning money for his ex.

Many husbands can't do what they want because most wives have an extensive list of things (written or not) for the husband to do that occupies his time and energy, and if he doesn't do them or even if he does and his wife doesn't like what he wants to do with his leftover time, she can make his life a living Hell.

She can get hostile and bitchy. She can bitch at him and nag him, including while he's trying to sleep (that one is especially fun, I know from experience). She can shut down all affection. She can get him kicked out of his own home. She can spend him into debt. She can destroy his belongings. There's worse.

She urged the husband to go back to his wife, saying he can do what he wants to do and still be married. Yet, if he had already been doing what he wanted to do Dr. Laura might have gotten a call from the wife and told the wife she was married to a selfish man who didn't want to be married or that she "doesn't have a marriage."

It sounded to me like Dr. Laura was trying to prevent the wife from being a divorced woman at an age she would have slim pickings for a new husband. The call wasn't anywhere near long enough to get a good idea of what has really been going on in the marriage. Dr. Laura may have known due to a letter or what was discussed or sent back and forth prior to the call, but the listeners didn't.

How to Keep Your Friends Free - Intervention

As I wrote in the first entry of this series, Prevention is ideal when keeping the men you know free.

Sometimes, Intervention will be required, because some of these men won't stay free. They will tie themselves down to a woman.

When a man is in, or heading towards, an "exclusive" relationship or the marriage trap, your assistance will mostly have to be more subtle to prevent him from getting locked in. He's getting sex from her (or, in rare cases he's not but he thinks he'll be getting some later), and he thinks it's the best or only sex he's going to have. He won't want to give it up. He might also be feeling pressure from his family or a religious congregation.

So, subtle will usually be the way to go. Being repetitively direct and blunt probably won't work. He's in LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE. You're probably not going to get through to him with a frontal assault. 

Two Calls in the Same Hour of Dr. Laura

I found the proximity of these two calls especially interesting. To be clear, they might not have actually been handled mere minutes apart, as the presentation of the program would imply, because 1) Dr. Laura does take some calls off-air, to be recorded for use in the program, and 2) previously aired calls are rerun. And both of these things happen unannounced, letting listeners believe this is all happening live.

May 13, 2025, Hour 2.

“Diane” called, age 70, married 37 years. We’re never told how old her husband is; we’re left to assume he’s about the same age.

In the last year, her husband has said he “doesn’t like” their sex life, it’s “too traditional”, and he’s “much more kinky”, wants “more exciting sex” and wants a girlfriend on the outside of their marriage.

Diane suggested she could do “some of” the things he wants to do, but since he knows she isn’t into it, he doesn’t want it with her. He doesn’t think it’s natural for her.

“He wants acknowledgment from another woman.”

Dr. Laura asked Diane if she’s willing to stay married to someone who’ll have sex outside of the marriage.

Diane was unsure, but of course Dr. Laura pushed for a decision. She does this even though it would be easy to give Diane both advice for staying as well as advice for if she is going to leave.

Dr Laura said that, if all this time of being married, they hadn’t done anything kinky, then it would be out of his nature, too.

Huh??? That’s dung. He could have very well struggled to contain his desires and feelings for 37-plus years. Dr. Laura knows that! But she just wants to beat up on the guy.

Dr. Laura goes on to say he’s at a point in his life he just wants to go out to play, and this is why men go to a prostitute or watch porn; so they don’t have to satisfy a woman.

Where did she get that? There was no indication from the call the caller isn’t satisfied, that her husband doesn’t want to satisfy her, and that he won’t want to satisfy any other woman he’s with. But Dr. Laura repeated it. She hasn’t talked with the husband at all and yet she made this assertion. The husband even said he wanted someone who was into it, so at least his claim is that he cares about the woman’s enjoyment.

Diane said her husband wants S & M.

She also said he’s been a good husband.

Dr. Laura, who has deemed many men who’ve done all sorts of things “good husbands” overall, said “Good husbands are not defined by the behaviors you just described to me.” First, no, Diane was referring to other behaviors. If she had tried describing all of those good husband behaviors at the start of the call or at any other time, Dr. Laura would have stopped her, perhaps with the uberannoying “WOO HOO!!! WOO HOO!! Diane’s husband has treated her well for decades, apparently. Two, talking about his desires isn’t being a good husband? No, if you maintain he’s just supposed to never talk with his wife about his desires. But isn’t it better he talked about his true feelings with his wife instead of simply sneaking out to cheat, hiding it from her?

Diane said she is “torn” because otherwise she loves the marriage. Kudos for Dr. Laura for not going on a long side rant about the word “torn.” I guess she was too focused on badmouthing Diane’s husband.

“Why do you want to stay with a guy who doesn’t want to sexually fulfill you and make love, he wants sicko sex?” Who said he doesn’t want to fulfill her? This is a contrarian assertion by Dr. Laura.

Diane said he says he wants to make love with her and have crazy sex otherwise.

In an attempt to distract the listeners from the fact she’d been messing up, Dr . Laura pivoted to saying she feels sorry for the caller for even debating it. That’s something Dr. Laura does when she’s losing - pivots to disapproval and shaming. She’s the great Dr. Laura, so her feeling differently from the caller is supposed to either change the caller’s position or make the caller feel lowly.

Dr. Laura called it a fact that Diane’s husband going to bring home STDs. See, since it’s “not a religious show,” it’s hard for Dr. Laura to say what exactly would be wrong with this arrangement if Diane was OK with it. Her husband could have had a vasectomy and “I’m Dr. Laura, and I don’t like it” doesn’t seem to be working, so the STD card gets played.

The problem with that is: This isn’t secret. He’s talking with his wife about it. There have been studies showing that people who are upfront about these things are LESS likely to spread STDs, because they get tested regularly and take precautions.

Then Dr. Laura mocked the idea that Diane’s husband would be able to separate out making love with her and getting kinky with someone else. What does that even mean? That he’d still try to get his wife to do S & M? I highly doubt that. Most men are very good at compartmentalization. Dr. Laura knows this! But she ditched that in an attempt to convince Diane and listeners that, somehow, it would be a problem. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn’t. The alternative is guaranteed to be a problem: he’s either going to leave or be resentful.

Dr. Laura continued by asserting the caller won’t be horny for her husband. How does Dr. Laura know? On the contrary, maybe the caller would get off on it?

When Dr. Laura said women Diane’s age want to maintain the nest, the caller elaborated on that and mentioned being alone. Dr. Laura said “you’re never alone” because of friends, family, activities, etc. Um, what does she tell people who don’t want to marry? “You’ll be alone.” 

Case in point, she went on to say that the husband’s other lovers won’t care to be there when he’s dying (right after calling him a “sh!t” and “creepy.”) Yet again, Dr. Laura doesn’t know that. It happens more often than she’d ever want to admit: a lover who isn’t their spouse and never was a spouse being there as a husband is dying. I can think of someone I knew in such a situation, off the top of my head. I know Dr. Laura, instead of admitting she is asserting something that might not be true, would pivot to calling that strange or disrespectful. And who’s to say his wife will be there when he’s dying? She might die before or she might have divorced him for reasons unrelated to his desires.

Dr. Laura asks if she knew he was into S & M while dating. Diane said she knew he was into “kinky stuff like threesomes.”

Dr. Laura likened it to knowingly marrying a serial killer. I mean really. A guy wanting some sexual adventure has her thinking about murder. Oooookaaay.

Dr. Laura went on with her often-repeated “this is why I do this on radio, so that other women will be warned.” Right, that’s it. Not at all that it pays much more and if she’s in a room with a client/patient she can’t mute them, put them on hold, or hang up on them.

For sure, ladies, don’t marry a man who’d ever want a threesome, or sex with another woman, or an open marriage, or swinging, or BDSM, or whatever. (Spoiler: Almost all men who don’t have a low libido want at least one thing you’d find a turnoff or unacceptable, and even if he genuinely doesn’t at age 28, he might at age 48 or 68. So be sure to avoid this by never marrying.)

Society doesn’t say Diane’s husband’s desires are wrong. Some religions say they’re wrong. But again, the program “isn’t a religious program.” Most of society would say it’d be wrong for him to pursue his desires without his wife’s permission or at least making sure she is informed. Most of society would support him divorcing her to pursue his desires, or never having married.

Do with that reality what you will.

Dr. Laura has made it clear over the decades she is completely opposed to anything but monogamy in marriage. I can’t ever recall her articulating why, though, other than “you took vows to forsake all others,” which isn’t always true. However, I’m certain she has praised callers, letter writers, and others who’ve have been polyamorous, or swingers, or in an open marriage, or have done threesomes, or some other similar things: she just didn’t know the person she was praising had experience with those things, because it wasn’t the topic at hand.

*****

The other call during the same hour was from “Benjamin.”

Benjamin was married for 25 years and he and his wife were both virgins when they married.

He said their sexual relationship had been “tenuous” throughout their marriage because his libido is much more active than hers.

Dr. Laura didn’t jump in and point out that it’s normal for husbands to want sex more often than their wife, so he continued, saying three or four years ago, he said to his wife that had he known they’d be fighting back and forth about this he doesn’t know he would have entered into the relationship.

Notice that this is another example of how men are NOT supposed to be honest or share their feelings. They’re supposed to just shut up and keep being a butler and bank account.

Dr. Laura asked him about watching sex scenes in movies and whether he was doing all of the really exciting things the male characters were doing. Huh??? What does she think the characters are doing in these movies? And she knows they’re fiction, right?

Ben didn’t really say. He probably had no clue what she was talking about: romantic dinner? Passionate kisses? Sneaking out in the morning?

He said for him it was a matter of frequency and satisfaction.

Apparently based just on that, Dr. Laura said “Well that made you a crappy lover.” A good lover is primarily concerned with her satisfaction, not yours.

Uh, he didn’t say only his satisfaction. Also, what if Ben’s wife is a lesbian, or into a kink? Dr. Laura didn’t know anything relevant, unless Ben wrote a letter, in which case that should have been mentioned. Notice she didn’t tell the other caller, Diane, to be focused on her husband’s satisfaction.

Dr. Laura then went on to say the wife likely didn’t know much about her own body, even though the opposite could be true: she might have masturbated a lot before marriage to avoid having sex; she might be masturbating a lot now.

Dr. Laura went on to tell Ben that “probably you’re terrible at it and she has never gained an appreciation for it.”

Poor Ben. He has no way of knowing if he’s bad at it. For Dr. Laura to quickly assert that based on next to nothing is not OK. It’s a common tactic women use against men who say their marital sex life isn’t good. It’s been used against me. Except I know from experience that isn’t the problem. Dr. Laura KNOWS there are many wives who don’t have the same libido she apparently had (which had her doing things she now pretends never happened); many wives aren’t sexually attracted to their husbands. She wrote an entire book that’s mostly about that!!!

Anyway, she went on to tell Ben he and his wife should go to a sex therapist together.

Hmm. I’m guessing Ben and his wife were VERY religious and might still be. What are the odds they’re going to go to a sex therapist?

Dr. Laura continued, saying “Or you’re going to be divorced.”

What is she basing that on? It’s been 25 years. They made it this far. She then asserted again that Ben is a bad lover and turned his wife off. She wants to send him a “tape” of the conversation to play for his wife. Oh, no. No no no.

Now, it’s possible Ben is a bad lover. Sex is a learned skill, and he hasn’t had much opportunity to learn. But it’s also possible his wife simply has little interest in having sex with him or anyone else at all, and it has nothing to do with anything he did or didn’t do. She might have what Dr. Laura would call “trowma” or maybe she has hangups.

Poor Ben. He’s likely never going to experience a good sex life.

Well, there you have it. Two more examples among countless examples of why it’s better to avoid marriage in the first place.

. 

Answering Marriage Seller Assertions, Talking Points, and Questions - Part 5

Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here and Part 3 here and Part 4 here.

 

 

Doesn't the woman you're with want to marry?

There is more than one way to answer this depending on your situation, but this question is based on you having at least one woman you are seeing, which may not be the case. In some cases, more than one of these answers will be useful for you.

A) No.

B) She says she wants to marry, but I know she isn't prepared to be a wife.

C) More than one woman I'm with wants to marry. I treat them equally by not marrying either/any.

D) There are things I want. That doesn't make it her/any woman's obligation to do them.

 

E) So what?

F) I take marriage very seriously and I don't want to enter into it lightly [...or at all].

G) We haven't been seeing each other long enough. [60 years might be enough.]

It is important to remember that you're not holding any woman hostage. Ideally, you haven't made any promises about actually proposing or getting married to any specific woman, nor are you living with any woman. She is continuing to see you AS-IS.

If you have told a woman you will propose to her or you will marry her, you need to invoke your prerogative to change your mind, and the sooner you make that clear, the better. She might leave/stop seeing you, she might not. Even if she does, it is far better than marrying. Living together is usually a very bad idea, but don't make it worse by signing a terrible state contract.

This sort of question by marriage sellers is often followed up with "So you're just using her?" or "You're wasting her time!" You are no more using her than she is using you. Since you're not married, your interactions are entirely voluntary, whereas marrying (even if subsequently divorcing) forces some interactions even if one of you no longer wants to interact in that way. If she doesn't enjoy the time she's spending with you or doesn't otherwise get anything out of it, she is free to NOT see you.

Part 6

Disconnects When It Comes to Discussing Marriage Online

There are a couple of common disconnects with people who try to counter me in discussions on Twitter/X about marriage and being a Free Man.

1) They accuse me of being an incel or lonely, dateless, can't get a wife, etc. It takes two seconds to check my profile and see that I'm married. It's especially stupid because my personal status has nothing to do with whether I'm writing the truth or not, or whether it is a good point or not.

2) When I say legally marrying is detrimental to most men, or there's no benefit for them to do it, or ask someone to cite a benefit for a man, responses (the ones who don't try to divert, anyway) often cite something men can get without legally marrying, and often without socially or religiously marrying.

The lack of reason and logic, the use of fallacies, the bad mind reading, and the hallucinations are quite sad. I'm not obligated to defend an argument I don't make. I welcome legitimate disagreement and discussing the differences. When someone libels me, however, I will usually block them.

Why Married Men Should Have An Affair

I'm for harm reduction.

Most married men want sex more than their wife, and many of them get rejected, some more often than others. Now, many men in that situation turn to adult media (porn), as we know they should never pester their wife. However, considering everything I've seen from people and organizations like Laila Mickelwait, Justice Defense Fund, Exodus Cry, Fight the New Drug, No Fap, Your Brain on Born, Daily Wire, National Center on Sexual Exploitation, churches I have attended, and so many more, - it's clearly less harmful to have an affair with someone you know, like a neighbor.

Here, I'll demonstrate:

Porn: Addictive
Affair: Not addictive

Porn: Often necessitates time in rehab
Affair: Need for rehab much less likely

Porn: Causes some men to spend hours and hours in isolation
Affair: Usually doesn't take up that much time and isn't in isolation

Porn: Multi-billion dollar industry
Affair: Eh, maybe some gifts here and there

Porn: Rots brains
Affair: Doesn't rot brains

Porn: Causes sex trafficking
Affair: Doesn't cause trafficking

Porn: Causes unrealistic expectations in young men
Affair: Causes no expectations in any other young men

Porn: Damaging to real sex
Affair: Is real sex

Porn: Is filmed rape
Affair: Not filmed, not rape

Porn: Supports "revenge" porn, uploaded nonconsensually
Affair: Doesn't support revenge porn

Porn: You can't be sure the performers consented
Affair: You won't be doing anything without her consent

Porn: You can't tell if the performers are really adults
Affair: You know she's an adult

Porn: Is violence
Affair: Not violence

Porn: Turns people into rapists and serial killers
Affair: Doesn't turn people into rapists and serial killers

Porn: Causes ED
Affair: Doesn't cause ED

Porn: Performers are abused
Affair: You won't abuse her

Porn: Performers get injured
Affair: You won't injure her

Porn: She's only doing it because she's desperate for money
Affair: Don't give her money so you are making sure she just wants sex for the sake of having sex

Porn: Some performers abuse substances
Affair: You can choose to only have an affair with someone who is sober

Porn: Kids find it
Affair: You won't let that happen

Porn: Constant novelty
Affair: Just one person

Since I'm reliably assured that porn is "adultery, infidelity, cheating" and many ministries I know of spend far more time talking about the evils of porn than having sex with a neighbor, and considering everything I've observed as stated above, clearly the less harmful option is to have an affair, especially if it avoids marital rape.

...Right?

(I've never had an affair and I don't advise it.)