Marriage Material Men

As anyone who has skimmed through this blog can tell, I'm a huge fan of the Dr. Laura Program and the hostess herself. As such, I listen to every minute of the show and thus I think I've discerned what she would consider the basic requirements of marriage-material men; in other words, what she tells her female callers to look for when it comes to finding a husband.

In no particular order, here they are:


1) He is 28-35 years of age. That might slip down to 27 and slip up to 38 or so, but guys in their earlier 20s are not considered marriage material and men in their 40s or older who have never been married (see below) aren't married because either they really don't want to be or there is some serious flaw with them. Now, she doesn't oppose people remarrying when their children are grown and there is a prenup to protect those adult children and they meet all of the other criteria. However, the focus of this entry is on first marriages.


2) He is the same age or slightly older than the woman.

3) He has no minor children and has never been married before (with the possible exception of widowers). Even if he doesn't have kids, having been married before makes things more complicated and can make divorce more likely. Remember, we're talking about guys in their late 20s and early 30s.

4) He is done with his education and training.

5) He is not in debt.

6) He doesn't abuse substances and is physically and mentally healthy.

7) He doesn't play video games and has no Facebook or social media account.

8) He is Alpha, not weak, and not a momma's boy nor does he allow a problematic mother (or anyone else) to control or negatively impact his life.

9) He earns enough to be the sole support of wife and children in a nuclear family home without others (and he wants to), to pay for private school or homeschooling plus activities, to pay lawyers to "go to war," to pay to care for elderly or disabled relatives to have the care they need, to pay for you both to avoid ever being burdens on your children, and many other things.

10) He has a job that pays as much as described in #9 and is steady, stable, and secure, and yet it doesn't require moves, frequent travel, semi/pseudo-social situations with women, working/commuting long or odd hours or extra/odd days that would intrude into family time, communicating outside of work hours, nor has dangerous conditions, and will allow him to be home for dinner every night.

11) He has a compatible religious background to the woman. Saying "neither one of us is very religious" doesn't count if the religions are in conflict. For example, Jewish (non-Messianic) and Catholic. This is only a must if there is a possibility, however slight, of having children.

12) He is otherwise fundamentally compatible with the woman (major goals, raising children, personalities, etc.)

13) He is willing and able to be completely monogamous for life (no threesomes, swinging, swapping, group sex, polyamory) and would never ask the wife to have sex where others might see nor to watch others have sex in-person.

14) The woman is strongly attracted to him, including physically.

15) There are no red flags in addition to anything covered above, including things that would be red flags if they happened more often or on a larger scale. (You can't come back later say, "It wasn't this bad!")

I personally disagree with #7. I think it is simply something she didn't grow up with and she has an unreasonable bias against such technology. Otherwise, I think these are very good rules for a woman looking for a husband.

In today's world, the combination of #9 and #10 is increasingly rare, especially fitting into the criteria of #1. However, since the priority is family and children, these are necessary things. This is why she frequently gets female callers who say that they "have to" work, or whose husbands aren't home enough or the right hours/days, or whose (potential) husband is older. But remember - "everyone", deep down, wants to be with someone.

UPDATE: It has become painfully apparent with COVID-19 shutdowns that #10 is exceedingly rare in the sense that very few jobs are secure, steady, and stable. They can be removed by government fiat at any time.

"Marriage Matures Men"

How often do we hear that crap?

Age and life experience mature men. Of course you're more mature now than when you got married. You're older!

Think about people who say that marriage matures men and that's one reason they want men to get married. They want women to marry immature men. Go ahead, ladies! Pair up with an immature man.

Men can be unmarried and mature. How about we focus on how to make that happen, if it really is so important that more men get more mature? Just like I tell men to go to their doctor, why not cut out the "middle man" (the terrible thing that what we now call marriage usually is) and go for the ultimate goal, if that's really what you're concerned with?

Marriage can actually keep men immature. They never figure out how to be independent and make decisions. They marry because someone else will tell them what to do and they think she will pick up after them.

When someone says "marriage matures men," it is fair to ask them what they mean by "mature." It might mean "does what I want them to do."

Depending on how they define it, other things that mature men include:

• Being tortured in an internment camp
• Natural disasters
• Poverty
• Battling cancer
• Combat
  

No thanks!!!

Marriage kills the dreams of men and turns them into beaten dogs. It sucks the fun out of their life. People mistake that, or the natural effects of aging or life experience, for marriage maturing a man.

"Marriage matures men" is one of those things said to try to shame, trick, or pressure men into marriage. Don't fall for it. You can be a great, productive, happy person without ever marrying.

Explain What You Mean in Telling a Husband to Man Up

I've posed this question before, directed at Dr. Laura, but a lot of people tell a husband to "man up" or "grow a pair" or "use your balls" or something similar in dealing with his wife, usually when there is a disagreement or the wife is behaving in some way that is immoral, irrational, unfair, or destructive. I'd very much like to know what someone who says such a thing means by it. What do you they expect the husband to actually do?

He can assert his opinion or demand. His wife can easily ignore or dismiss it.

Then what?

He can't force her to comply, and even if he can physically take unilateral action, she can use the force of law to stop him. He can't withhold his earnings from her (at least in Dr. Laura's scenario, a first marriage wouldn't have a prenup keeping finances separate). Anything he refuses to do for her, she can pay someone else to do using his earnings.

Attention Newlywed Men

Hello, Gentlemen.

June is wedding season. Did you just get married?

Are you already regretting it?

Maybe you think it is the best thing you've ever done. Yeah, that's what you think for now.

Especially if you do not have children with this woman, you need to keep something in mind. How much alimony you'll have to pay her often depends on how long the marriage continues. For example, there are states that say if you were married for six years, you have to pay alimony for three years. Eight years of marriage means four years of alimony. In states like California, ten years of marriage can mean lifetime alimony.

So, the clock is ticking.

Don't let embarrassment, or thinking of it as "failure" or "quitting" if you get out now, or the sunk costs (how much you spent on the wedding, honeymoon, etc.) stop you from getting out sooner rather than later. It would be better to be free, and free sooner, than live a life of quiet misery. get stuck with years and years of alimony, and spend far more money on things she wants as the years ago by.

Things aren't going to get any better than they are now. Likely, they will get worse. People say things got better over time are usually saying that they stopped caring about what they needed, wanted, and their dreams, and developed tolerance to the misery. Guys often forget what freedom was like. Don't let that happen to you!

If you don't have children with her, do not get her pregnant if you're having doubts that marrying her was a good idea.

Much of the advice in this post applies to how to get out. But you definitely need to consult with a family law attorney, since you signed a state legal document (most likely).

Cult of the Cubicle

The lockdowns associated with the 2020 pandemic widely revealed something that some people had already discovered:

Thanks to technology, many office jobs can now be done entirely or almost entirely from home, or some other "remote" location.

Some employers embraced this for the long term, significantly reducing the office space their company leased or owns.

Others, steeped in what I'll call the Cult of the Cubicle, have been trying to get everyone back into their cubicles, or even worse, their "open" workstations.

If responsibilities can be handled through telephones and computing devices (smart phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, etc.), they can be done through "telework" or remotely. Presentations done on screens can be presented and experiences remotely. Meetings can be done remotely. Trainings can be done remotely.

There are tasks, there are personalities, there are home situations which make it preferable for some people to work in the common office. Some collaborations are going to be better that way.

But for others, why not let them work from home/remotely full-time, permanently, if that is what they want? Either they can do quality work at the quantity needed or they can't. If they can, what is the problem? I can't think of any except for a desire to have a feeling of control over people.

Commuting has costs and risks. For many people, their residence and their employer aren't going to be close, or the commute is going to be slow and stressful even if the physical distance isn't all that far. In the greater Los Angeles area, it isn't unusual for people to have commutes that are over an hour one way, and that's without an accident that stops a commuter train, or closes lanes on a freeway or tollway. The saving grace for people in those commutes is usually radio, podcasts, or audiobooks, or they might do phone calls as they move slowly along the roadways.

But that's about the employee's quality of life. How does allowing more people to work work "from home" more of the time benefit employers? There are many ways. In no particular order:

Why Dr. Laura Should Go on Howard Stern and Why She Won’t

Recently, Dr. Laura relented on her avoidance of virtually all interviews. It was because she was trying to get people to buy tickets to her two live, in-person shows in a theater. [This entry has been bumped up from late 2024.]

She had trouble selling seats.

It must have been a wake up call to her that she doesn’t command the same audience interest and response as she used to.

Until she “stooped” (my word) to the publicity appearances, she had been abiding by a self-imposed avoidance of interviews. There was only one exception I can think of during her avoidance: she’d talk with Megyn Kelly, who is on the same SiriusXM channel. She’s done that twice, I think.

But, to sell seats she had to go on other shows. She has avoided that because she wants people to have the impression of her she crafts and tightly controls on her program, and the related podcasts, website, videos, and social media posts.

Indeed, on at least one show during this promotional stint, she was asked about her first (as far as we know) marriage. She did her best to quickly get away from that topic.

Both she and Howard Stern are primarily connected to SiriusXM. Both she and Stern are in far different places than they were at the height of their fame, with smaller audiences. Her program has changed a bit; his much more so.

Stern, for all of his flaws and all of his changes, can still do a great interview. But Dr. Laura doesn’t want a great interview, at least not one that is truly great in pulling up explanations of things she’d otherwise not discuss on-air, like her first marriage, getting pregnant out of wedlock (apparently twice, at least), her affair with Bill Ballance and his later revenge after his perception she unduly snubbed him, her relationship with her mother and her mother’s death, her affair and shacking up with married father Lew and interactions with his children, her sister, and the state of her relationship with her son.

There’s a lot she doesn’t want to talk about.

Stern was vicious to Schlessinger when she was a target of activist groups and revenge nudes.

There are also serious political differences, and she doesn’t want to debate.

But if she’d go on Stern’s show, it would be memorable, and she might possibly gain some listeners, especially since they already use SiriusXM. If she humanizes herself, and dispels misconceptions, it would be positive. She could say something along the lines of, “Yes, I’ve been there and done some of those things. And I learned better, which is why I preach against those things now. And I’m trying to help people, especially to make life better for children, and the feedback I get says my program is helping people. My personal life has never been perfect. Whose personal life is? Life is complicated. But I have important experience, insights, and skills that help people.”

She and Stern could also commiserate about growing up in NYC when they did, dealing with radio station program directors and syndicators, television executives, activist groups, writing books, and book tours.

I’m fairly certain from what she’s said on-air that people around her have recommended she go on Stern’s show. She didn’t say his name so there’s still a bit of doubt, but if I had to wager I’d assume it was Stern being referenced. But she was emphatic that she wouldn’t and she’s always been negative at the mention of his name, like when a caller says he listens to both on SiriusXM.

She should do his show. But she won’t. 

Part of Running Game is Saying No

 
Men who think they have to jump through hoops for women in order to get what they want from women, saying "yes" to what a woman asks of them, have been misled.

In general, NO works much better.

Another Lament That People Like Erotica

When you watch sexy videos, it makes Mark H. Butler and Misha D. Crawford sad.

Pornography is a cultural icon of the sexual revolution, and many in society have been wisely wary of both. But not so much anymore, as a recent nationally representative survey shows that overall acceptance of pornography has jumped in the last few years to reach over 70 percent.

That's just people willing to tell strangers. Significantly more watch.

The ubiquity of internet porn, with its triple-A engine of accessibility, anonymity, and affordability, both highlights and heightens this acceptance, while simultaneously increasing and intensifying debate about whether pornography represents a real public health risk—to relationships and a stable society.

It's not a public health risk.