Everything Must Go!

Now, Bark Like a Seal

2012-01-24T10:04:00.000-08:00

Some people who have shacked up for years and have kids plan these elaborate weddings, complete with a white dress. And have you seen any of those elaborate flash-mob-dancing wedding proposals?

Yeah, well, it is getting worse.

Teresa Watanabe reports at LATimes.com about a high school senior named Alex Hom asking a freshman by the name of Brooke Drury to the winter formal dance. This is at South Pasadena High School in California. That city is often referred to as Mayberry, yet is home to a lot of Hollywood people (some famous actors have attended that public high school, including at least one Oscar winner I can think of.) So if it can happen there, it can happen anywhere, as evidenced by the rest of the article.

So he rounded up more than 20 friends, supplied them with red roses, choreographed a dance routine and wrote out his plea on signs. Then he had a friend bring Brooke, blindfolded, to a spot on campus for the big production.

"I thought, this is my senior year and I gotta go out with a bang," Alex said.

He's not the only student elevating the art of the school dance invitation.

Students are folding the question into homemade fortune cookies, tucking it into pinatas, knitting it into scarves, spelling it out with pepperoni on pizza and orange chicken on fried rice.

There are animal-themed invitations, using live puppies and turtles as messengers.

Ugh.

Camille Santos, Van Nuys High's student body vice president, recalled one student who dressed up as a knight and got a friend to dress up as a dragon to "attack" his prospective date. Then he rode onto the scene on the back of another friend dressed as a steed, "slayed" the dragon and popped the question.

"We live in a generation where flashy is good, bigger is better," said Camille, whose boyfriend placed his invitation to prom two years ago inside a rhinestone-studded fortune cookie box after dinner at a Chinese restaurant.

"We want to be seen. We want the world to know how romantic we are."

TMW. Too much work. Especially for a high school dance. This is stuff you do for a wife. If a guy does this kind of thing and she doesn't react well, he could easily be accused of being a stalker or a sexual harasser.

I won't even get into the potential problem of a 12th grader (who can often be 18 years old) taking a 9th grader (who can often be 13 years old) on a date. That's nothing new. Way back in the Dark Ages when I was in high school there were those girls who went to all of the formal dances starting in their freshman year, asked by seniors. But a senior asking them used to be impressive enough.

There's a line between being endearing and romantic and being narcissistic or beta.

Yeah, the kids in the article had some cute ideas.

But the larger issue I see with this trend towards more showy and elaborate schemes for not just marriage proposals but now high school dates is that it is a reaction to the flip side, which is the prevalence of casual and promiscuous sex. Today, guys can get sex from many girls for little or no effort and no strings attached. So the more hoops guys are made to jump through to go the traditional route, the more guys will go the other way instead. Aside from getting to see lots of hits for their online video, how many of these guys have more fun on the evening in question than the guy who just shows up at an after party, not having spent any time or money on the event at all?

Yes, men tend to value things for which we work, but if we perceive the escalating requirements are frivolous or simply about feeding egos, we may bow out. We'll work by saving up money, dating a woman to get to know her, and buying an expensive ring, but if we have to hire some Broadway director and choreographer to ask a question, something is very, very wrong.

Why We Have the Death Penalty

2012-01-23T10:21:00.000-08:00

I've probably heard all of the arguments against the death penalty. I understand some people have good reasons for opposing the death penalty in California.

However, I am so convinced that Manling Tsang Williams deserves to be executed that I would not hesitate to strap her down and push the buttons myself. Lethal injection is too good for her.

She has shamed the Tsang family and doesn't deserve the Williams name.

Haven't heard of her? No Lifetime Original Movie will be made about her.

From the Whittier Daily News comes this report from Brian Day. Whittier and Rowland Heights are communities east of Los Angeles, in eastern Los Angeles County.

A judge sentenced Manling Tsang Williams to death Thursday for smothering her two young children with a pillow and slashing her husband to death with a sword in the family's Rowland Heights home in 2007.

2007. She should be dead already. Neal Williams, the man to whom she had made vows, was 27. Their sons were 7 and 3.

A jury convicted Manling Williams of three counts of first-degree murder in 2010, along with the special allegations of using weapons and lying in wait. After one jury was unable to agree on whether to sentence her to death or life imprisonment, a second penalty phase jury recommended last year that she be put to death.

Please tell me that the people who were siding with the life sentence were hoping it would make it easier for another prisoner to beat her to death.

"The evidence is compelling that the defendant, for selfish reasons, murdered her own two children," [Judge] Martinez said.

Her motivation, Martinez said, was a "narcissistic, selfish and adolescent" desire to start a new life with another man, free from the hindrances of family life.

In the months before the murders, Manling Williams had reconnected through the Internet with an old friend and began a relationship with him.

The judge pointed out that Manling Williams had numerous family members who would have taken in the children, should she have decided to abandon them.

She could have left them with Neal, who worked at Disneyland, by the way. He helped bring happiness to strangers.

After smothering Devon and Ian in their bunk bed, "The defendant savagely, brutally and viciously attacked her husband with a katana sword," Martinez said.

Neal Williams was stabbed and slashed more than 97 times in the attack, investigators said.

"In the final moments of life, Neal begged the defendant for help," the judge said.

Don't try to tell me lethal injection is "cruel and unusual" punishment. It is too good for her.

Defense attorneys Tom Althaus and Haydeh Takasugi argued for their client's life to be spared.

Althaus told the court that the killings were not calculated executions, but a "sudden mistake."

This is exactly why I couldn't be a defense attorney.

"There's no basis for the prosecution's contention that these murders were planned," Althaus said, adding that Manling Williams was in a state of "extreme mental and emotional disturbance" when she killed her husband and sons.

Neal was no doubt in a state of extreme mental and emotional disturbance and physical disturbance but he didn't murder anyone. And yes, there is a basis for the contention that these murders were planned - at least the second and third ones. Unless she's a giant octupus and killed everyone simultaneously.

Mitigating factors also included a difficult upbringing and no previous history of violence, he said.

Who didn't have a difficult upbringing? So she assassinated the character of her family. Great. Let's say it is all true. She should have THANKED Neal every day for being her parenther in a BETTER life. No previous history of violence... that's a good one. How many husbands and kids did she have before?

Althaus acknowledged that his client had had an extra-marital affair, but disputed the prosecution's assertion that the affair formed a motive for the crime.

A tramp as well as a murderer.

Out of more than 700 California death row inmates, fewer than two dozen of them are women, and none has been among the 13 prisoners executed since the death penalty was restored in 1976.

This is an outrage. Those vicious murderers are sitting there with shelter, health care, meals, running water, security protection, recreation, communication with others, and so many other things. We should execute at least one a week until Death Row is vacant.

Martinez said that the evidence showed that Manling Williams had planned the killings two months in advance, and immediately began trying to conceal her guilt afterward.

She wore latex gloves as she attacked her husband, he said.

Testimony indicated it takes five to 10 minutes for a person to die by suffocation, meaning that Manling Williams had at least five minutes to contemplate her actions while killing one of her children before killing her other son in the same manner, Martinez said.

"She clearly had time to reflect on what she was doing," he said.

Following the killings, the judge said, Manling Williams typed up a note indicating that Neal Williams had killed the children and himself, she disposed of bloody clothing and returned home before screaming to neighbors that someone had killed her family.

While being interviewed by detectives after the discovery of the bodies, "For hours, she feigned grief, sadness and bewilderment," Martinez said.

It was only after being confronted by investigators with a bloody cigarette box that was found in her car that Manling Williams broke down and admitted the murders, Martinez said.

Neal married the wrong woman. That was his biggest mistake.

Are You Surprised That Homemakers Are Valuable?

2012-01-18T15:31:00.000-08:00

Porcshe Moran has done that report that makes the news at least once a year, "How Much Is A Homemaker Worth?"

I say a good homemaker is priceless, especially if they make the home pleasant for the income earner and provide ever-present love and guidance to the next generation of citizens. But lets look at what is being said this time around.

We examined some of the tasks that a homemaker might do to find out how much his or her services would net as individual professional careers. We only take into consideration tasks which have monetary values and use the lowest value for each calculation.

Private Chef
Meal preparation is one of the major tasks of most homemakers. From breakfast to dinner, there is plenty of meal planning and cooking to be done. The American Personal Chef Association reports that its personal chefs make $200 to $500 a day. Grocery shopping is another chore that needs to be factored in. A homemaker must drive to the supermarket, purchase the food and deliver it to the home. Grocery delivery services charge a delivery fee of $5 to $10.

Total cost for services: $1,005 per five day work week x 52 weeks = $52,260 per year.

The article does similar calculations for:

House Cleaner
Child Care
Driver
Laundry Service
Lawn Maintenance

I'm surprised they left out prostitution, but maybe they take the approach that women actually like lovemaking, too. Then then the conclusion is:

Total for a year of all services is: $52,260 + $6,137 + $31,200 + $4,168 + $936 + $1,560 = $96,261 per year.

Uh huh.

The daily work of a homemaker can sometimes be taken for granted by his or her family members.

Unfortunately, that's true, and it is also true that some feminists denigrate women for being homemakers, as do political types who want more income to tax, employers who want more labor supply to lower labor costs, and businesses who want people to have more "disposable" income to spend on crap they don't really need.

I've already addressed reports like this in this previous entry.

I do want to know that in general, if you don't like your chef, cleaner, daycare provider, driver, laundry service, or gardner you can fire them either immediately or with very short notice, and paying your latest bill will settle the matter. You generally do not sign lifetime contracts with them. However, if you marry someone who promises to be a homemaker and it turns out that person does next to nothing or does a horrible job, in states like the one I live in the default, standard contract is that "firing" them means giving them half of everything you earned while they were in the contract with you, and continuing to pay them one day for every two days you had the contract, or for life if they were under contract with you for ten years. There is NO penalty for failing to perform any of the tasks adequately.

Being Stealthy

2012-01-17T16:30:00.000-08:00

This is probably more than you ever wanted to know about anyone.

I have mentioned my paruresis before.

Actually, it is difficult for me to use the toilet in a public or unfamiliar restroom, and even harder for me to use a urinal. I think is part of larger OCD problems on my part. Even without OCD, I'm very much a creature of habit in many areas of my life.

After the wake-up urination session, I can often hold it the for the rest of the day, and typically do hold it for at least 14 hours.

But there are rare times when I just have to use a restroom when & where I'd rather not. That happened recently, and it occurred me that for me, a "successful" (least stressful) trip to the a restroom for me goes like this:

Nobody sees me go in.

Nobody else is in there when I am.

There no sign anyone else has been there recently except for the janitor.

Nobody comes in during my time there.

Nobody sees me leave.

The worst thing is when I'm standing at the urinal trying to start taking a leak when someone walks into the restroom. Sometimes I zip up, flush, and wash my hands as if I actually used the urinal, even though I didn't.

This doesn't stop me from living life, mind you. I've never hestitated to travel or visit anywhere because of this. I always wondered how I was going to handle potty training the kids, but it worked out, somehow.

Just wanted to share.

Advice to a Middle-Aged Woman Re-entering the Dating Pool

2012-01-13T09:31:00.000-08:00

It's titled "Jumping Back In" but is there still water in the pool? "Bella" wrote in to Dear Margo:

After a marriage of 20-some years, I am about to dive into the middle-aged dating pool.

Oh boy, is she in for some fun.

I suspect it will be very different the second time around, but part of me thinks it may be just like picking up where I left off.

The first one is right for two reasons: 1) the rules have changed, and 2) you've spent up one of a woman's most valuable dating assets - your youth.

Friends tell me, however, that it’s a whole new ballgame and difficult.

Yup!

Dear Mago metions baggage, then ends with:

But … chins up. The men you will be seeing are just as nervous as you are, and I’m here to tell you that you will get the hang of it.

Dear Margo is either oblivious, delusional, or didn't have the heart to tell this woman the truth. Some of the people commenting did, though.

There are two big questions that the letter writer should have answered by including the information:

1) What are you looking for in general? Free dinners and entertainment? Another marriage? Steady companionship? Sex? If she's getting alimony, she may not want to get remarried if she values the steady money over marriage.

2) Are you willing to try men significantly younger or older than you?

Almost all of the successful, desirable, dating heterosexual men around near her age are divorced or on a marriage strike and dating younger women. If she wants to marry or even date a man near her age, she's probably going to have to be open to dating men who can't afford to pay for her to have nice dinners and entertainment, never mind financially support her if they marry. If she wants those things, she will almost certainly have to go with a significantly older man. If she just wants companionship and doesn't care if the guy is "of modest means", then it isn't so much of a problem.

She'll also find it isn't a problem to get sex if that is all she wants, but it will be easiest to to be on the "A" list with guys who are younger (since women their age are dating older men) or significantly older. Guys around her age will probably have her on the "B" list.

Speaking of sex... there's no short supply of younger, hotter women than her willing to have casual sex with the men she'll want to date. Most men these days expect it by the third date, if not before, and a lot of women consider themselves rejected if he doesn't try for it by then (if those women aren't taking the initiative themselves).

Those are the brutal, harsh realities.

If she wants to marry a successful man near her age who would make a good husband, her best hope is going to be to find a divorced man whose wife threw away a perfectly good husband, yet he hasn't been turned off to marriage. If he has no minor children, that will be the best scenario. He'll likely be paying alimony to his ex-wife, though. (If he was widowed, she won't have an ex to deal with it all.) To snag such a man, she's going to have to compete against those younger women I wrote about above. The does not mean she has to jump into bed with him – if he thinks sex is for marriage or only for steady, exclusive relationships, he'll appreciate it if she keeps that boundary in place. She should play up her advantages over those younger women (if she has them) – a better understanding of how to keep a man happy (did she learn from her ended marriage?), better earning ability, more experience in social graces, etc.

Enjoy!

Sheesh... after I wrote all of this I remembered having written something like this before. Previously:

A Question for the Ages

An Unmarried Woman

She Might Have to Go Older or Younger

Is It OK For Her to Ask For a Date?

Dear Abby Uses a Bad Argument

2012-01-11T16:24:00.000-08:00

"INNOCENT TEEN IN MICHIGAN" wrote in to Dear Abby:

I have been dating "Kyle" for more than six months, but I have loved him for more than two years.

Well, we already know she's a teen, so I'm taking the idea that she's "loved him" for 18 months longer than she's been "dating" him with a grain of salt.

I always thought we had a wonderful relationship and that Kyle was a sweet, innocent guy.

Sounds great! Everything's going great then, right?

Well, he just confided to me that he has an Internet porn addiction!

There are some problems here. The first one is that he said something to you. The second is that he either 1) believes that there is such thing as an addiction to porn or 2) thinks you believe there is such a thing or he wants you to believe there is such a thing.

Anything pleasurable or exciting can become "addictive". But I'll only believe porn addiction is real in cases where someone goes through withdrawal symptoms akin to those suffered by nicotine or heroin addicts (provided he is still allowed sexual release).

He has a habit. It's probably just a phase and he'll grow out of it...

...oh, about the time he's declared dead.

I'm very hurt by this and don't want to lose him.

You're hurt by what? (See, she doesn't really believe it is an addiction. Who responds to "I have to confess that I'm addicted to crack" with "I'm hurt."?) You're hurt he was stupid enough to say that to you? Or are you hurt that he looks at other women (actually, pixels... not really women)? If so, you're going to be hurt by just about every heterosexual man you ever encounter.

What should I do? (By the way, we're both 14.)

Fourteen? And she says she's loved him for over two years? She's in Fantasyland much more than he is. What should she do? She should NOT be having a boyfriend, that's what. She should be focusing on her studies, her hobbies, her friends, and her family, because in less than four years she's going to a legal adult who's going to need to start making a life for herself on her own.

Notice she didn't invoke a common religion they share. There's the real issue with viewing porn; the Bible, including the teachings of Jesus, tells followers of Christ not to ommit adultery in their heart by looking at a woman with illicit lust (not sure anymore that pixels really count as women, but let's say they do). For everyone else, there's really not an issue. I have seen reports that more porn viewing correlates to less rape, in fact. If you have a legitimate debunking of that, let me know where to find it. But for now, I don't buy into my fellow Christian conservative mantra (if "mantra" can be used when taking about Christians) that staring at Victoria Secret ads will inevitably lead to becoming a child rapist-murderer. Or there would be billions of such murderers.

She's in Michigan, so in a few years Sharia law should take care of all of these problems there. Her boyfriend won't be free to watch porn unless he's a honcho terrorist like that fish-food dude OBL.

The other way to get that boy to stop watching porn is to personally keep his testicles empty, but that's not an option considering they're not married to each other and they're both under the age of consent. Actually, his viewing of porn is probably why he's been so "innocent" and hasn't made a move on her after being together for what, to people their age, seems like a long time. Other boys his age are getting oral sex from their classmates... in class.

Dear Abby responds:

You should urge Kyle to get help for his addiction.

No, you should urge him to not have a girlfriend. A fourteen-year-old boy doesn't need help for the fact that he likes seeing the bodies of women or sex. That's something called.... male nature. The exception is if he's trying to be faithful to his Lord, where men often fight their fallen nature, male or just plain human.

Addiction, by definition, is behavior that is compulsive and out of control.

If I was a betting man, I'd bet it isn't out of control. Notice that she thought everything was wonderful and he was so innocent (meaning he's not raping or beating her, despite the certainty that porn causes males to do that) and he seems to have his act together.

The problem with teenage boys getting involved with Internet porn is it gives them an unrealistic expectation of how regular, normal women look and act.

How come we never, ever see people (other than a few defenders-of-masculinity) saying the same thing about romance novels and romantic comedies? Soap operas? Twilight? If such unrealistic expectations are a reason not to watch media, there are very few things people can watch. I wrote about this before. Really... what if he's looking mostly at pictures of ordinary young women who have sexted by sending nude pictures of themselves standing in front of the bathroom mirror? Such pictures don't give unrealistic expecations of how women look and behave. Or what if it was a video an average-looking married couple had made of themselves making love, without doing anything unusual? Does that mean it a-okay in Dear Abby's book? I doubt it. So this is a bad argument, as I've said before.

Although you don't want to lose him, becoming more involved could lead to his wanting to try out his sexual fantasies with you -- and if you go along with it, it will land you in a world of trouble.

Due to their ages, I agree, but only because of the age (and that they're not married).

The smart thing to do is end this relationship now.

Agreed! But for different reasons. Dear Abby should not give girls... unrealistic expectations... about men and boys.

Look, with webcams and cameras in mobile phones, there is a steady supply of legal pictures and videos of porn and nudes from everyone from celebutants to the girls next door, and the supply never diminishes as the pictures and videos will be around forever. It will only grow and grow as millions of girls reach the age of consent day by day, year by year, and decide that this is something they want to do, and as these things are distributed through file-sharing and social networking. People who want to see this stuff can access so much of it for free, just about anywhere they are. For better or worse, isn't going away, and that boy is going to find it, as will the majority of males.

Let's assume the girl will think the same way about it at age 25 (unlikely, but let's assume so). How much viewing on the part of a boyfriend is acceptable to her? The less tolerant she is about this, the smaller the pool of guys who will meet her standards in that area. It isn't so hard to find a boyfriend who doesn't regularly view such stuff. But if she wants one that never has, then she's going to have a thimble-sized pool from which to choose.

Don't Try This at Home (or Wherever There's a Road)

2012-01-11T14:24:00.000-08:00

Angel Jennings reports at LATimes.com:

A teen in the Sacramento suburb of Natomas sustained life-threatening injuries after being run over by a car while lying in the street, authorities said.

Did he trip? Had he been assaulted and left in the street?

The 16-year-old was in the middle of the road wearing headphones about 7 p.m. Tuesday when the Chevy ran him over on Regginald Way and Taylor Street, Fox40 News in Sacramento reported.

The driver, apparently not an illegal alien with no license and no insurance, actually stopped and called the police! Yay! No charges have been filed against the driver, who is probably traumatized.

The teen was being treated at a hospital for critical injuries considered life-threatening.

As far as I can tell, there are three possibilities here:

1. The teen is a potential Darwin Award candidate who was simply being stupid.

2. The teen was intentionally trying to commit suicide.

3. The teen was assaulted and left in the street, or suffered some sort of medical issue such as seizure, and fell down in the street (though the text of the article probably would have mentioned something about that).

It's a terrible situation no matter what, but I somehow feel numbers 1 and 2 are worse, and at first glance, I was sure it was #1.

If it was 1 or 2, then you know what we need? A National Office of Not Being Human Roadkill, perhaps with a Czar or Secretary cabinet position. We can tax gasoline even more to pay for it, and then when those revenues take a dip, we can raise incomes taxes to keep such a necessary office and the people who've been retired from it for 40 years fully funded. We'll have public service announcements, printed warnings, education programs, and we'll have to teach in our schools about prominent people in history who have been hit by cars. Or maybe not.

Adoption is a Beautiful Thing

2012-01-05T14:58:00.000-08:00

Do you know where your children are?

DEADLOCKED IN NEW JERSEY wrote in to Dear Abby:

My husband and I have been married 11 years.

So far, so good.

We went through eight years of fertility treatments before having our twins.

Hmmm.

When they were a year old, we discovered I was pregnant with our third child.

Surprise!

We have two embryos left and need to decide what to do. We either use them or destroy them.

Those embryos are human beings. Think about it this way: "We have two toddlers left. Do we raise them, or do we destroy them?" Fortunately, adoption is a more realistic option when it comes to children who are still embryos.

I think we need to give the embryos the chance they were meant to have. However, my husband is concerned only with the financial side of it as we have been living on one salary and things are tight.

Gee, better hope you don't get sick, if your husband puts money ahead of human life.

My heart aches over this.

If only there was some way people having trouble conceiving becoming parents that didn't involve creating more embryos than they were both willing to give a reasonable chance at living.

Do I do what I believe is right and stand by my religious and moral beliefs, and take the chance my husband will resent me for the rest of our marriage?

Guys, think about this. She can go ahead and have those children implanted whether he likes it (or knows about it) or not, and he can be held financially responsible for them. She can adopt them out, and he can still end up financially responsible for them. I say men should not donate sperm and should be very cautious about banking it for themselves, and that applies here as well. He needed to give his sperm (unless they used donor sperm) for this to happen. Which also brings up the point that even if they did use donated sperm (or some creep at the lab decided to secretly use his own sperm) and her husband doesn't want more children, he can still be held financially accountable by a court. All it takes is one judge.

But I digressed. What she is apparently talking about is going ahead and having them implanted over his objections. She should not do that. What she should do is donate them. I was happy to see Dear Abby give information about doing just that:

Your embryos could be donated for embryo adoption by a couple who have been unable to conceive, and who would love to raise them. For more information, you should contact an attorney who specializes in family formation, or contact the Snowflakes Frozen Embryo Adoption and Donation Program. Its phone number is 714-693-5437 and its website is www.nightlight.org.

Thank you, Dear Abby!

Unfortunately, it seems that some people in the fertility/reproductive assistance business want to increase their "success" rates, and so they will create more children than will be given a reasonable chance at life, pick the most promising embryos (discarding or experimenting on the others - killing them either way), implant multiple embryos, and selectively kill any that make it to the fetal stage that might have a medical problem or are the weakest if "too many" of them have made it to that stage. Too many parents don't need much arm twisting to go along with any of that. The result? Innocent human beings are being killed by other human beings, and even those who aren't killed are being treated like commodities.

Ladies, if you spend your twenties and early thirties partying and having sex with bad boys you wouldn't want to be the (financial) father of your children, or you spend that time getting graduate degrees and climbing the corporate ladder... rather than learning what kind of man would make a good husband and dating and then marrying such a man... so that you find yourself marrying in your mid or late thirties, expect that your're going to have trouble conceiving.

I realize it is emotionally easy for me to discourage or be cautious about fertility treatments, IVF, third-party reproduction, etc., since my wife and I conceived the children we wanted to have, without aid, in two months and in three months, and those children have survived. But that it is easy for me to write does not make what I write false or wrong. I value human life. I also appreciate that I was conceived in a loving act of passion rather than in lab equipment and stuck in a freezer. Even if a child was conceived in rape, it is better for an adoptive set of parents to give someone else's biological offspring a good life rather than killing their own biological children in an attempt to have a biological connection to the children they end up raising.

Party Like It's 2008?

2012-01-03T14:59:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I like to say, "the more things change, the more they get back to the way they were before". That applies to talk radio in the Los Angeles market.

Today, local talk radio station KABC* AM 790 is looking more like 2008 than it has since... 2008. That is because Doug McIntyre is back on morning drive and Larry Elder is back on afternoon drive.

I was happy when I heard the new schedule. I like T-Rae, McIntyre's new co-host. I will miss her as the news anchor during John & Ken on KFI, but then I will probably be listening to Larry Elder more than J&K, so it kind of evens out.

I'm so glad Larry has been moved from the 9am-noon slot. I would listen to him when Dennis Prager was a repeat or had a guest host, which meant I didn't hear him much. Now I'll be able to listen to Limbaugh as my back-up to Prager.

While I will likely pick Elder over John & Ken, I will still want to know what J&K are talking about since I like their analysis of local and state government, and criminal defense attorneys and their clients. But if I have to, I can podcast them (not that I have much time to listen). So when Elder is on break I will check out J&K. The drawback to Elder being in the 3-6pm slot is that I'll hear less of Frank Pastore on KKLA 99.5 FM. When J&K were on break or talking about something I didn't care about, I would listen to Pastore.

Getting back to the 5am-9am show... I'm glad there will be a real alternative to that "baby-seller" Bill Handel, who has the time slot at T-Rae's previous station. I've been listening to Handel more as a default, and while there is much I enjoy about Handel's show, I often enjoy his show more when he has fill-in hosts. Usually, with the shows I listen to regularly, I don't listen to fill-in hosts. The exception is when Rush Limbaugh has Walter E. William filling in – I will choose Williams over just about anything else. But Williams guest hosts about once a year, as he just did during the holiday break.

Speaking of the holiday break, with Dr. Laura running "best of", I didn't need to listen to those podcasts, and some of the other shows to which I listen were running repeats or had guest hosts at least part of the last few weeks, so I was able to catch up somewhat on the Bible Answer Man podcasts and a more specialized podcast I won't name for the sake of my semi-anonymity.

As far as the Los Angeles area radio market weekday schedule, this is how things are looking for me...

5-9am Bill Handel on KFI and McIntyre/T-Rae on KABC

9am-Noon Dennis Prager on Townhall.com or KRLA, with Rush Limbaugh on KFI as a backup.

Noon-3pm Michael Medved on Townhall.com or KRLA, with Sean Hannity on KABC as a backup.

3pm-7pm Larry Elder on KABC (until 6), John&Ken on KFI as a backup, and Frank Pastore 4pm-7pm as a backup.

If Tom Leykis comes back to terrestrial radio in April or later, I'll be interested to see where and when, and how I'll end up actually reacting with my listening habits.

*Don't let the call letters "KABC" fool you. KABC used to be an ABC radio station, and still carries ABC Network news, but after Disney bought ABC, eventually Disney spun off some of their radio ownings to Citadel, which then went bankrupt, and now the Citadel stuff ended up with Cumulus. But I'm guessing the call lettes "KCUM" are either taken or not allowed by the FCC, for reasons any 13-year-old boy can tell you if you don't find it readily apparent. Anyway, KABC AM is not to be confused with local ABC owned-and-operated KABC-TV Channel 7.

Revisiting Hank Hanegraaff and the Bible Answer Man

2011-12-29T15:02:00.000-08:00

This entry may be of no interest to my readers who aren't "evangelical" Christians. Sorry.

I have been meaning for a while to write again about the Bible Answer Man radio program hosted by Hank Hanegraaff. I feel bad about not getting around to it until now. I have previously written about my thoughts and experiences regarding the Christian Research Institute, the Bible Answer Man program, and Hank Hanegraaff, and I want to be fair. Letting my previous statements stand without an update wouldn't be fair.

For well over a year I have been listening again to the Bible Answer Man podcasts, because I finally got into podcasts. (The show is currently off of terrestrial radio where I live.) The BAM is one of only three shows I consistently podcast, the others being Dr. Laura and Stand to Reason, though I am far behind on STR. I listen to several other shows as they are broadcast. Happily, it seems like the BAM has gotten better than when I wrote this. I am finding the program more edifying again. There seems to be fewer editions that are entirely about selling the latest featured resource. Yes, there are shows that are partially or entirely about such resources, but it seems like those are fewer and further between than they had been and there are also shows that are partially or entirely about an article in the latest Christian Research Journal, but I appreciate those more than I used to because I'm no longer getting copies of the Journal and reading them cover to cover. It's a great magazine, but I'm a bit of an Obsessive-Compulsive information hoarder and I really don't need more magazines piling up in my man cave. Fortunately, older articles can be accessed online.

Speaking of the Journal, something that put my biggest concerns about Hank aside was this document written by Elliot Miller, editor of the Journal. I trust Miller; he has a lot of credablity with me. He's a longtime fixture at CRI, used to be a regular co-host of the BAM, and worked extensively with CRI founder Walter Martin. I even met Miller once during a CRI open house. Miller has provided a thorough and satisfying defense of Hank against the claims of critics. Now, perhaps I'm missing something and I've misplaced my trust. Maybe Miller was lying up and down, and is either the evil mastermind behind Hank's nefarious reign or Hank has compromising pictures of Miller with a live boy or a dead girl and thus is able to use Miller for cover. How else do the critics explain why Miller is still there and offering such a thorough defense? Surely Miller's professional experience and connections would allow him to leave CRI if things were so awful and make a good living and continue his personal mission, either on his own or by joining an existing operation. Since critics didn’t start attacking Miller until he defended Hank, I doubt that Miller is involved in some sort of terrible conspiracy, or the critics would have gone after him at the same time or before they went after Hank.

One of the things that Miller explained that I want to highlight is that Hank doesn't make money off his books sold through the ministry. I mean yes, the money above cost funds the ministry, and Hank gets a salary from the ministry, but is isn't like he’s using the ministry's resources to sell his books for direct personal profit. He could tell listeners to go find his book on Amazon or their local bookstore (if they can still find one), which would benefit him more, and his mentions of his books no doubt prompt people to buy them from those other sources, but he does encourage people to get them through CRI.

As with Miller's ongoing involvement, I am reassured by the ongoing connections with Stand to Reason and Answers in Action, which are both ministries of old-school CRI/Walter Martin connections.

For more on these issues, see this over at Answers in Action: http://www.answers.org/newsletters/hankresp.html

Another thing that helped address my concerns is that there are members of Walter Martin's family who have backed Hank. See what Cindee Martin Morgan has to say at http://www.waltermartinjude3.com/criresources.html

Unfortunately, though, the family is divided. That’s a shame, as I have enjoyed the work of Jill Martin Rische and her husband, such as what you can find at WalterMartin.org. For their side of things, see http://www.waltermartin.com/cri.html

You can get more perspective here:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2010/03/03/hank-hanegraaff-and-my-confusion/

And these links are decidedly anti-Hank:
http://www.dwaddle.com/focus/Pages/hank.html
http://focusonthefaulty.com/pdfs/MyResponsetoCRIAttack.pdf

Someone found my website by searching for "Hank Hanegraaff scumbag". Really? Now, I have to say I have never met Hank. I only know him through what he's written (or approved) and what he's said on the BAM and media appearances. I saw him in person at least once at a CRI event. I have no idea what Hank is like to work for, do business with, or live with. People who have done those things are going to have their own experiences that I can't argue against, nor do I have a good reason to completely accept them as reflecting reality. I'm mainly dealing with that less-than-five-hours-per-week that he's recorded in doing the BAM show. He could be a great guy, he could be a miserable tryant. For all I know he kicks puppies before and after each broadcast. I don't know, but my guess is that people who have been fired from CRI or have been subject to scrutiny by CRI with unfavorable results are more likely to have negative things to say about Hank.

Hank insists on some things I'm not so sure about. I'm not in full agreement with everything Hank says, and that's okay. As he says, we can debate secondary issues as we have unity on the essentials. I will have to save more about my uncertainties and disagreements for another post, but I did want to note some examples of where he has firmly planted his flag on issues disputed within the Church.

Although he seems to dislike being labeled in some areas of theology and usually tries to present multiple views on matters disputed within the Body of Christ, from what Hank says on the show he appears to mostly be Arminian rather than Calvanist, believes that Christ is "the elect", believes in eternal security ("once saved, always saved"), is Covenant rather and Dispensationalist, is a Creationist ("don't blame God for evolution", "evolution is a low-grade hypthesis"), and an "Old Earth" one at that ("we need to study two books of revelation, the Bible and the Book of Nature"), believes in a local Flood of Noah (which he calls "worldwide", but not global, since he says worldwide" can mean the Middle East/Mediterranean area), is a somewhat of Cessationist (much more than when he wrote Christianity in Crisis an Counterfeit Revival), and a Partial Preterist.

While I'm hard pressed to find a difference in his conclusions, he seems to bristle at the label of "Partial Preterist", claiming that they read with the Bible in one hand a history book in the other (while Premillennial Dispensationalists "read with a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other"), claiming that his framework is "Exegetical Eschatology", which indicates that those who disagree with him aren't exegeting. As he says, we have to read Revelation with the “background music of the Old Testament", but don't those who believe differently about the future claim to be doing that, too? I could go on, but I would be going on too long of a tangent. The bottom line here is that I’ve been listening to Hank and I have read his book he keeps referring people to, The Apocalypse Code, but I am still undecided about end-of-the-world eschatology (other than being convinced Jesus Christ will return and reign over a resurrected universe). So, I live this way: I want to be spiritually ready for history to end (or my own demise to take place) today, and also brace for life to continue and for things to deteriorate (like the Premils predict), while working to make things better (like the Postmils predict).

As I have previously noted, a program like this, indeed the entire ministry, is unavoidably controversial. Hank is still skewering popular televangelists, authors, and Second Coming datesetters, and regularly explains where Word of Faith, Watchtower, LDS, and Muslim theology and practices differ from traditional Christianity, while making a case for traditional Christianity and giving critiques of atheism, abortion, euthanasia, homosexual behavior, and pornography.

While some of his monologues and answers might rile people up, he is extremely patient and compassionate with callers.

He is very good at making things memorable. That is, after all, his specialty. The show can get repetitive, not only because callers keep asking the same questions, but because Hank either refers to his own written materials or repeats back memorized answers. After all, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel and he has put much thought into producing concise and memorable answers. If you listen long enough, you may be able to give the answer word for word as Hank gives it.

The ministry relies on donations, but pleas for donations are usually fleeting except for the months of June and December. This is because the fiscal year ends with the end of June and many people, mindful of tax deductions make donation decisions in December before the end of the calendar year.

With podcasting, you can skip past the donation pleas, the advertising breaks that devide the show into three segments (when you podcast, all of the ads are CRI's), the answers you already know Hank will say or for which you otherwise have no interest, or the segments or whole editions plugging a resource for a Journal article in which you have no interest. The website pages for the podcasts are very helpful, listing the topics and any guests. When listening to the podcasts, as with other podcasts, you can pause and go back and listen to something again, which aides in taking mental or written notes. You can keep the podcasts and note at what time in the podcast something happens that you want someone else to hear. It is far superior to relying on a radio broadcast.

I do miss the days when others were the regular hosts of the show, such as Elliot Miller, Ron Rhodes, Paul Carden, and Ken Samples, probably in no small part to that being the time when I became aware of the broadcast. But back then, Rhodes used to write books with a focus on the nature and work of Jesus Christ and practical analysis and effective countering of Watchtower and LDS theology, rather than what he's doing lately, which is writing books on how oil and cyberterrorism will certainly be prominent in the any-day-now playing out of his Premil end-times scenario. I would now expect that I would be more likely to hear Rhodes on Coast to Coast AM rather than BAM.

Two more things I want to mention:

1. The Journal continues to cover important, relevant, and practical matters well.

2. I recently finished reading the entire Bible again, having purchased a used copy of Hank Hanegraaff's "Legacy Study Bible" and his reading plan, which intends to group books of the Bible by authors. It also includes "Hankronym" LEGACY introductions to each book, some suggested corresponding verse notes, and some of Hanegraaff’s other Hankronym summaries in the back. As some of have noted, it is rather light as study Bibles go, but I'm glad to have it. I needed an NKJV anyway.

So, what's my summation of the program and host right now, and by extension, CRI? Overall, I think things have gotten better since I expressed by earlier concerns. Is there room for improvement? Of course. However, I am much more confident in the ministry and more willing to support it. (Unfortunately for CRI, I'm out of cash these days.) The BAM program and CRI can never be as they were when Walter Martin was alive. Martin had his own personality, and his own beliefs, and times have changed. For good or bad, I think the Bible Answer Man is currently more palatable to the skeptic than in the day of Walter Martin. But that's like saying the top of the Empire State Building is closer to the Moon than the top of my house. From what I can tell the ministry is bearing good fruit by helping people to be followers of Jesus Christ, and that's what matters most.

UPDATE January 5, 2012: Someone found this entry by searching "hank hanegraaff bible answer man full of [censored]". Really, people?

Stop That Clock

2011-12-27T15:43:00.000-08:00

I don’t like to see people divorce. That's just one reason I don’t like to see people get married when they aren't prepared to be spouses or aren't right for each other. For followers of Christ, divorce is allowed (certainly not commanded) for unfaithfulness, which can translate into the "A"s – adultery, abandonment, abuse, and addiction. I would also include fraud in that. Abuse isn't a husband telling a wife she has enough shoes or that she should probably skip that extra scoop of ice cream. Abuse involves physical force, terrorizing, etc. Addiction doesn't mean that your husband likes to play video games or masturbate to nude pictures of adult women when he's sexually rejected. Addiction means drinking himself into a stupor repeatedly, spending the savings on crack, etc.

While divorce is never the ideal (the ideal would be not marrying the wrong person in the first place), if divorce is justified and almost certain, the laws of your state may behoove you to avoid delay. In states like the one I'm in, two more days of marriage mean one more day of alimony, and ten years of marriage means lifetime alimony.

With that in mind, check out the plight of "Broken Heart in Michigan" writing in to Dear Margo:

I am a 24-year-old male who’s been going through a pretty tough time for quite a while. I’m a former serviceman who got married during my military tour. While I was still in, I had to be away for a period of two weeks, unable to leave my command. I was able to call my wife every day when my daily shifts were over, and everything seemed to be OK. However, when I was finally able to return home, the house was cleaned out, except for my uniforms and very few other objects.

At least she didn't mess with his head while he was at his command. I'll give her that.

A letter was on the counter stating she had left for her home state to be with another man. Six months later, I was discharged and returned to my own home state. All of this happened three years ago.

When he was 21. That was young to marry.

Since then, we have been in limited contact via email, and every time the topic of divorce comes up, she gets dodgy and disappears for weeks if not months. At one point, she sent me a package of divorce papers from the state we were married in,

I wonder which state that is? It matters.

and I filled them out on my end and sent them back to the state’s court system. However, nothing happened with the proceedings. I again filed for divorce through my home state and had her “served.” She blatantly refused to answer them, and the courts will do nothing until she does. What can I do? I need to move on.

I don't know how things work in Michigan*, and neither does Dear Margo. She tells him to get a lawyer, and that's good advice. The marriage can't be anywhere near the ten year mark, but it is possible that she's trying to extend his alimony requirement. She could also be lowering his credit rating. This is a case of abandonment and there's no good reason to delay. He obviously made a mistake marrying her.

*When the Muslims take over the state, he may be able to marry four women and get them beheaded if they get out of line.

Merry Christmas!!!

2011-12-23T11:23:00.000-08:00

Here we are again.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Thanks for reading this blog and for all of your feedback.

I pray that you are having a great and meaningful Christmas.

Don't spend too much time online, especially if you could be spending that time with framily and friends during this special time of year.

Can't Have a Wedding Without a Groom

2011-12-21T16:49:00.000-08:00

Well, a few US states and a few countries say you can. But I'm talking about real marriage, not activist-invented piggy-backing.

"ROB IN TOMAKOMAI" wrote in to Dear Abby:

I am beyond tired of the number of women I read about in your column who refer to their wedding day as "my special day." News flash, ladies: You should be using the term "our special day"!

I agree, but most of these women writing in have been shacking up with the guy for years, and in many of those cases, he’s already had everything he wanted, and he’s agreed to get married and have more than just a bare-minimum wedding ceremony because she’s been nagging him for it, or his family or others around them want it, even if just to have a party. In those cases, it really is her special day, and he would rather it not even happen. Most of those guys will not actually say that, for fear of upsetting her. After all, the reason they are going along with it is because they didn't want to have her move out.

If you're so focused on your dress and hair and any faux pas -- real or imagined -- your guests may commit that you lose focus on the life you and your husband are beginning, perhaps you should buy a pet rather than get married.

One of the problems is when the "wedding machine" gets cranking after the engagement, and life for her is all about planning the wedding. She isn't devoting her attention to make sure she isn't making a mistake marrying this guy, and she has an incentive to ignore any red flags she does see – to avoid the hassle and embarrassment of calling off the wedding.

Any person who has stayed married for more than a few years knows the marriage ceremony is the easy part. The self-absorption that permeates today's wedding scene ranges from embarrassing to sickening.

Well said, Rob! A wedding is an important event, and it is understandable why a bride would fret about the details. But the reason a wedding is important is that it is the legal, social, spiritual, and often religious uniting of the couple; it is supposed to change many things about their lives. When that is forgotten in the planning of what becomes a theatrical event, a party, and a vacation, marriage is trivialized.

Dear Abby responded:

Weddings (and funerals) can bring out the worst in people because they are times when emotion sometimes trumps common sense.

And they are events that can bring together people who may share blood or (past) legal ties, but don't like each other.

The majority of American brides are gracious, polite, loving and hardworking. They are also prepared for the realities that come after the fairy tale wedding.

Eh... the statistics say otherwise. Actually, most people (regardless of sex) who are getting married for the first time don't truly know what they are getting themselves into, no matter how much they've read, talked, and thought about it. It is like becoming a parent. You can know on an intellectual level, but you don't really know until you're in the middle of it.

Please don't judge all American brides by the ones you read about in my column. The weddings that go smoothly I don't hear about.

Good point!

My MIL actually tells the story of walking down the aisle as a bride and noticing how nice it was to have all of her friends and family there, and was struck with the thought of, "Oh, he's here, too" when she saw her husband-to-be waiting for her at the altar.

Kobe Bryant: Another Poster Boy For the Marriage Strike

2011-12-17T17:36:00.000-08:00

None of us really know what was going on in the marriage of Kobe and Vanessa Bryant. Let's get that out of the way up front. However, we can make some educated guesses and note some realities that we're sure about:

1. They got married young.

2. NBA basketball players, especially superstars, have women constantly offering them sex; that is only part of the hero worship and butt-kissing they get. They are on the road a lot of their careers.

3. Kobe Bryant admitted to infidelity; at least one woman accused him of assault/rape.

4. Everyone knew Kobe Bryant was going to make hundreds of millions of dollars between his pay for the NBA and endorsements.

5. There was no prenup. In California, generally... ten years of marriage or more generally means lifetime alimony and everything acquired during the marriage is "community property" and split 50/50.

6. They have kids, and I expect Kobe will have to pay "child support" on top of everything else he will be paying. I put child support in quotes because it will be many times the amount it takes to actually support a child.

7. Kobe Bryant fulfilled the "traditional" role of bring home income... very, very well.

8. Vanessa Bryant probably didn't have to do much cooking, cleaning, laundry, or many of the other things homemakers have traditionally done. Did they children ever not have a nanny around?

An elite few men will ever make anything like the money Kobe does, or be the best in their field. But as extreme of an example as it is, this situation is still an example of why some guys do, or should, avoid marriage, or at least have a prenup.

This is what Janis Carr and Sean Emery reported in the Orange County Register...

According to Orange County Superior Court records, a petition to dissolve the couple’s marriage was filed by Vanessa Bryant and response was filed by Kobe Bryant on the same day.

As is the case with the majority of divorce, she's the one who filed.

A report on TMZ.com said the Lakers guard, who was accused of sexually assaulting a Colorado woman in 2003, was unfaithful again.

It is a rare man who can resist the temptation thrown at an NBA superstar.

The Bryants have been married for 10 1/2 years, having wed April 18, 2001 in a small ceremony in Corona del Mar. They have two daughters, Natalia Diamante, 8, and Gianna Maria, 5.

The couple reportedly does not have a prenuptial agreement, which means Vanessa could be entitled to half of Bryant’s net worth, estimated at $360 million. He signed a three-year contract extension in last year worth nearly $90 million that will keep him with the Lakers through the 2013-14 season and he has endorsements with Nike, Turkish Airlines, Nubeo watches and Vitamin Water brand of drinks.

Call me cynical, but I'm highly suspicious of the timing. Why not a year ago? Could it be because if they split after nine and a half years, she would have stopped getting alimony less than five years down the line?

Whatever you think of professional basketball, it involves a lot of hard work and is high-pressure. This isn't a matter of a couple of people looking at a middle-class life in which the wife could have had a career that paid as much or more as the husband's, and they jointly agree that she would take care of the kids and he would take care of her. Vanessa not only wasn't out there sprinting back and forth all night, jumping, throwing, etc... and appearing in ads... but she couldn't possibly have done it. And yet she's going to get half... more than half, really... of what he was paid.

And before anyone comes back with "but he cheated - he deserves to pay"... How do we know she didn't cheat? How do we know what kind of wife she was? She may or may not have broken other vows. But none of it matters because California is a no-fault divorce state. It doesn't matter if Kobe was cheating with Shaq, or if he had been the perfect husband. His mistake was either getting married or not getting a prenup. Because if she truly is leaving him over infidelity, rather than the lure of autonomy over hundreds of millions of dollars, the odds were overwhelming that he was going to cheat. He should not have married, or he should have married someone who didn't expect monogamy.

Hopefully, for the kids, they will reconcile. If not, may they both focus on raising those kids instead of being tabloid fodder running around with different lovers. Kobe: stay away from the Kardashians.

Most people should get prenups, because even if you marry someone who is loyal, dedicated, and against divorce, everything can change with a brain injury (accident, tumor, some disease) that changes their personality. The laws of the state and the judges sitting in the courtrooms already have a prenup for all of us. Why let strangers decide?

Blogging, E-mail, Pony Express?

2011-12-13T13:59:00.000-08:00

It wasn't all that long ago that blogs started as a communication form. And it wasn't all that long ago before that that e-mail started as a communication form.

Both have been partially replaced by Facebook, Twitter, and text messages.

If someone wants to broadcast their thoughts they can do so on Twitter or Facebook, and on Facebook it is easy to control who sees it and who doesn't on an update/note per update/note basis. With blogs such as this one on Blogger, it is either "subscribers only" or "everyone can see".

I get a much fewer legit e-mails these days. I used to check each of my "important" e-mail accounts about three times a day. Now days go by and I realize I haven't checked some of them. So much more of the communication that used to take place that was is done on Facebook. I also notice that updates on our family blog have grown less and less frequent.

I don't want to see blogs or e-mail go away. I love the formats and other particulars of both.

I do enjoy Twitter and Facebook. Maybe I need to set up a Twitter account associated with this blog? I have deliberately kept this blog isolated from most of my online presence for personal and professional reasons. Twitter would be good mostly for calling attention to articles I think are helpful or interesting when I know I will not have time to pick through them in detail on this blog, and to comment on an a concurrent event or television show.

It's not that I think everyone should read what I have to say. I'm just one man with one man's life experiences and opinions. I like having the outlet. I like being able to get things off my chest. It's therapuetic for me and helps me think.

It just occurred to me that it has been many years since I wrote a journal entry in a hardcover paper sketchbook. Wow. I used to always carry one around with me.

Do you think techology is moving too fast for people to adapt?

Thorns on the Roses

2011-12-07T07:49:00.000-08:00

The time my wife and I had together without the kids was good, for the most part. But let me back up. This entry isn't pretty, but it is honest.

There's a reason I asked recently about verbal abuse. Part of what was rough recently was that my wife was saying the kinds of things to me I'd never say to her. It doesn't happen often, but she has given me the finger, threatened to withhold sex (more on that below), and many more things (mind you, I am the one with the anger problem, right?).

I've worked in jobs where I have had to take a lot of insults and yelling, and just shrug it off. But I don't live with those people and trust my finances and very life to those people, or share children with them.

But she apologizes for everything. Some of the stuff she apologizes for is stuff I have not felt I could bring up. And then I'm supposed to accept the apology, but in doing so for some of those things, I’d basically be accusing her of screwing everything up and marrying me under false pretenses, and I don’t want to kill the marriage or hurt her, because despite my gripes there are many things I like about the marriage and I love her.

She's been bitchy and has had little patience lately in dealing with the kids. She's also been having a pity party. I look at her attitude and how she's not keeping herself up and I wonder what happened to the woman I dated. She recognizes that there has been a problem, and is going back on her favorite antidepressant. You should see her collection of medicines. More on that later, too.

We've been to three counseling sessions, but we have no current plans to return. Not sure if we'll go back the same counselor. My wife wasn't all that impressed with him, but I'm not sure what she was expecting considering the sessions aren't quite an hour. It seems she wanted a list of clear suggestions. But I don't think the guy has heard enough to offer that, even if that is his style.

During the second and third sessions of counseling, she gave a different reason we live where we do – the floor plan of the house. In the first session, it was about proximity to her family. When I pointed that out, she said proximity was why we looked in that area. The floor plan is why we got that specific house. She takes my dissatisfaction with anything about the house as a personal attack on her. But she did note and was appreciative that I hadn't had "an explosion" since the vacation.

We couldn't see it when we committed to go, but taking that stupid vacation with her family, combined with some unforeseen stuff that followed, has put us into an uncomfortable financial position unlike any we've been in since we married. My wife has apologized repeatedly, telling me it was the worst decision she's ever made (and not just because of the financial aspect). I've stopped almost all savings and investment contributions. We don't have a liquid buffer of funds. if we're hit with any unusual or unexpected large bills in the near future, we're likely going to have to liquidate some of our retirement savings. We're going to put our property taxes on our credit cards, despite the large fee charges for doing so, in hopes we can pay it down the line (we just got a new credit card that will not accrue interest for a while). So far, we’ve always paid all of our credit card bills monthly before any interest or charges are added, but we might have to break that. We have an amazing credit score, but that's probably going to change. We’re likely going to have to walk away from the condo we moved from when we moved into our house; it is underwater with no end in sight; the rent was only enough to cover the hard costs and the renters have fallen behind, so we’re subsidizing them. So that will hit our credit.

No small part of the problem is in the increase in doctor visits, treatments, and medicines. We have insurance. Good insurance. But she’s ramped up costs lately. Now I know it isn't like she wants to have the problems that she's having treated. But she wasn't honest and upfront about this stuff when she knew what I wanted when we were dating, perhaps because she was in denial to herself, or maybe she was just insecure about being thorougly open. I'm not rich, and if we were going to be a one-income family and take care of our kids, I needed someone who could either do the earning or take care of the kids, and given all appearances at the time and her career at that time, I had reason to believe she could take care of the kids just like any other SAHM, and that she didn't live an expensive life. But now she thinks of herself as limited, and all of the treatments are time consuming, involve a lot of paperwork, and cost money. Oh, and I'm not even talking about her teeth. I can't even relate, because I've never had to even fill a cavity, but it seems like every time she goes to the dentist we're going to be out hundreds of dollars, despite having insurance.

Here's an example. Earlier this year, she sought an additional treatment from a new doctor. This isn't quite covered by our insurance, so it is an additional set of charges we're now incurring. She gets medication from him. I don't see that the new medication is helping. But she says she notices a difference when she forgets a dose. Of course she does. She's prone to psychosomatic issues (as intelligent people can easily be) and so is now dependent on the new medication. But... I can't point that out to her, because when she was a kid and really did get sick, some of the doctors accused her of faking it, and only later was it objectively verified that she was actually ill. So bringing up the likelihood of something just being in her head is taboo, even though it is true. I hate rules like that.

This has impacted lovemaking. She challenged herself to start off the year being better about that (there had been a lack of frequency). But earlier this year, when her sister announced her latest pregnancy, my wife started thinking she may be pregnant, too (which would not be ideal), as they were pregnant at the same time the last time around. My wife even had some symptoms. Turns out she wasn’t pregnant; it was just more psychosomatic drama. But ever since then, her already low-drive sank to nothing and she won't allow herself to have an orgasm.

I consider it my husbandly duty as well as privilege to not only make love to her, but bring her climax. My wife has tried to disabuse me of something I read in a magazine years ago that said it was a myth that it was okay if woman didn't orgasm. She has insisted she doesn't need to every time, and I have accepted that. But every previous lover been with (and there weren't dozens, but enough) has had at least one orgasm every time, with very rare exception (my first two sessions with my first lover... heck, I didn’t orgasm the first session... and maybe once or twice when I was warned ahead of time she was feeling out of sorts).

It's either a problem in her head, or a problem with the new medication, which she takes because of a problem in her head. I had hoped that a recent visit to her OB/GYN would help, but the best thing told to her was that she should gain some weight. She was looking extra thin lately. Frankly, I'd prefer her slightly overweight than so thin. She's the skinniest woman I've ever been with. Her padded bra helped fool me, but it was her personality, values, outlook on life, and goals that had drawn me to her - that she was stunningly beautiful was the icing on the cake.

In all of those past relationships, those other women wanted me. Wanted to have sex with me. Wanted sex. Would beg me to come over to their place instead of going to sleep. They weren't just there "if I needed them". With the kids gone, things were a little better. Otherwise, for the last several months, lovemaking has mostly been limited to her giving me mercy oral (which is certainly batter than nothing!), in the dark, fully clothed. I want to make love to her. I want to see her body, feel her body, and enjoy it.

Lovemaking is a major way I relate and express my love. I have been confident in it. I’m not confident in doing automotive repair, but I am in pleasing a woman. I think of lovemaking as not only a part of love and bonding, but as worship, play, and a hobby. I want to practice!

On an outing, the kids were occupied, my wife was occupied, and rather than sitting around staring into space, I checked e-mail on my phone. This prompted my wife to write me an angry letter, telling me she was going to plan life for her and the kids as though I wasn't around, and I could stay home with my books and computing devices. Mind you they all know that even if I am paying attention to such a device or reading, they can approach me and interrupt and I will give them my full attention. Still, my wife told me she's never going to stop nagging me as she seeks to "improve the family". I warned her that if it was going to be that way, I was going to start nagging her in return and asking her to change.

I have bit my tongue about some of the things I have wanted to point out to her because I fear there will be no repairing the damage if I speak up - what was done is done and there's no changing it, and there's no way to improve upon the things in the future that I have held back about. So it is best not to bring them up to her.

The financial situation has really been tough on her, and she thinks back to the fights her parents had over the years about money. When we found out we were going to be hit with another big, unexpected bill, she just had this look... so I apologized for having put her in this position, as she needed to have married someone who earned more.

This, apparently, broke her and she apologized profusely and said she didn't want anyone else, she wanted me.

To which I replied that it doesn't sound like it, because she's been telling me over and over again that I do so much wrong and that I need to change.

Things got better between us after that, and that is when she told me she was going to go back in the antidepressant.

I have never been on any medication for mood or mental issues, so it is hard for me to understand all of that. I simply think, "Why not just change your attitude?" She thought maybe I should get on something, but therein is the difference between us. I am more prone to err on the side of not getting help and relying on my mind to make things better, and she is more prone to err on the side of letting her mind make things worse and deciding medication is the answer. I realize that sometimes brain chemistry needs a medical fix, but if something can be fixed without medication, I figure that it is best to go that way, at least for me.

If I could go back in time, perhaps to while I was driving home from one of our earliest dates, this is some of what I would tell myself:

1. Yes, she's a strong-willed, Christian woman, but what also factors in to her being a virgin is that her libido is very low. That makes it easier for a woman as beautiful as her to be a virgin at her age. Don't be fooled by all of the passion she'll have while making out.

2. You need to go with her to all of her medical appointments and find out how her condition and medications and mental state about those things are going to impact her roles as wife and mother. Sure, she seems perfectly capable in every way right now, but she's hiding the reality, for whatever reason, from you and perhaps herself.

3. Her mother's alcoholism will cause several serious problems in your home.

4. Yes, she has a big family and they are nearby, but you're not going to be able to rely on her family – not to babysit, not to help out in tough times, not for anything.

5. All that liquid savings you have? It's all going to go away, and not because of any catastrophe.

Would I have stopped seeing her? It is hard to say. I can't think exactly as I did back then, because we have all of this history together now, vows to each other, kids together, and that has probably literally changed my brain. But I would certainly have had some additional important things to discuss with her, and would have made some different decisions over the years.

The fact is despite everything I've written here, things are generally good, I enjoy her, and I love her. She apologizes for so many things – insisting we live close to her family rather than mine, the recent trip, and many other things, so maybe that bodes well for the future. Certainly, it is better than if she saw nothing wrong with the mistakes we (yes, we) have made. Also, she pointed out just last night that she's feeling so much better now that she's back on the antidepressant and we had that time to ourselves.

Stay tuned. If our renters get some money they've been expecting and pay off what they owe us, we'll be out of our hole. But we'll likely still need to walk away from the condo.

I'm Still Here

2011-11-30T17:03:00.000-08:00

There's been so much I've wanted to blog, but I have had enough time. I wanted to give you an update on my marriage, and I started to write it, but I'm not going to have time to finish it until next week.

Things got a little rough there. They are doing a little better right now. We're about to spend a few days together without the kids. Hopefully, they will be good days so I'll have a happy ending to my update instead of it being such a downer.

We did have a fairly good Thanksgiving, at least. How about you?

Question For My Readers

2011-11-21T16:02:00.000-08:00

What constitutes verbal or emotional abuse?

I pretty much have a zero tolerance policy for physical abuse in my advice to others an in my personal life. I haven't ever been physically abused in a dating relationship or my marriage, thankfully.

I'm not talking about self-defense or defending children through force. I'm not talking about someone being completely unhinged and an open-handed slap being needed to get their attention. I'm not talking about literally pushing someone away when you don't want them touching you. I'm talking about actual domestic violence... hitting, biting, kicking, throwing things at you, scratching, aggressive pushing, etc. If someone does that once, they shouldn't be given the chance to do it again, no matter how many times they apologize.

But what about with verbal or emotional abuse? And what would constitute such things?

I think, perhaps, I have accepted apologies for those things in some of my relationships. I wouldn't accept an apology for physical abuse. Why did I accept them for verbal abuse? But again, does anyone have a good definition or examples? Can they be excused as "saying the wrong things" if an apology has been given, while physical violence can't be excused?

Thanksgiving Reminder

2011-11-18T13:47:00.000-08:00

It is that time of the year again - when married people endure problem in-laws and everyone has to deal with their own problem family members, and when some unmarried people sitting around a Thanksgiving meal endure from family the questioning, nagging, teasing, and whatever else about why they're not married or why they don't have kids yet.

Don't get me wrong. I think it is acceptable to ask a family member who is currently expecting a child and will not be giving the child up for adoption about getting married. But if somone isn't in that position, they should not have to endure yearly or more frequent pressure from other family members about getting maried.

See a previous posting of mine on this subject.

If you have endured such questioning, have you come up with any good things to say thay stop the questioning and pressure?

The answers would likely be different depending on one's personal beliefs and the general family's traditional belief. For example, if the family is very religious and so are you, you can say, "God just hasn't brought me the right person yet."

But if most people at the table aren't religious, espeially not you, it is very easy (at least for a man) to reply honestly with, "What would I get by being married that I can't get being unmarried?"

Either way, perhaps a good response is...

"I like my life the way it is right now. I get to do what I want when I want. Nobody argues or fights with me, or nags me in my own home. I never has to sleep on the couch. I get to have my place the way I like it. And I get to come here and endure this line of questioning from the likes of you instead of having to spend the holiday with someone else's family."

Two common questions asked of those with no plans to marry are, "Aren't you worried about growing old alone?" and the related "Don't you want someone to take care of you?"

But plenty of people who marry and have children end up growing old alone and in a horrible nursing home. Most of the people who sit in nursing homes with little or no visitation from family had children. And as far as being alone, there are these wonderful people called... friends. And when your friend gets mad at you and decides not to deal with you any more (or you decide not to deal with your friend anymore), you don't have to lose your home and pay that friend money.

Have any of you endured this line of questioning? How have you handled it?

(Yes, regular readers, much of this is a reprint from a previous entry on the same subject.)

A Bad Choice With Permanent Results

2011-11-16T10:22:00.000-08:00

I recently went to a gathering/reunion of sorts. It was hosted to remember someone with whom I use to work who took his own life.

Aside from the fact that I do not believe we are, in the ultimate sense, our own (I believe we belong to God) and this kind of suicide is morally wrong, I also believe that life is way too short as it is.

But "John", I'll call him, obviously didn't feel that way. I don't have much information with which to work, but from what I understand, the suicide could have been motivate by the fact that he'd essentially been unemployed for the last four years.

He was a handsome, friendly guy with a great smile and a great sense of humor, and he did have artistic talent. He just wasn't make a living with it.

For most men, being unemployed that long is spirit-crushing. Career women are an extremely important part of today's world, and for some women, their careers are everything. But the fact remains, women tends to marry men who earn more than they do. Quality women who want a family tend to look for men who will provide enough "security" for them to not have to work full time. When a woman hears from a female friend that the friend is seeing a new man, the first, or one of the first questions will be "What does he do for a living?" if it wasn't immediately stated. Men don't care all that much what each other's girlfriends do for a living (a guy will boast about his date's job only if it implies she is beautiful/sexy).

For men like John, not having a successful career is devastating.

John had a brother and countless cousins. He probably looked around him and saw all of them in their marriages and raising children. He was in his mid-40s and hadn't been able to build enough stability or savings to support a family, and probably realized that even if his career were to take off tomorrow, it was going to be too late for him to build a relationship, marry, have children, and fit in to the culture of his extended family.

It is too bad he didn't see the good possibilities ahead, even if he never married, even if he ended up working a low-level job for the rest of his life. It is too bad that he did this to his family and friends.

I've known too many people who have taken their own lives.

Life is too short as it is. There are always good times ahead. There is help. Get help instead of doing this to those who love you.

Thank You, Veterans

2011-11-11T13:05:00.001-08:00

There really aren't words to describe how thankful I am for our military veterans. Thank you to all who have served.

Where Are the Good Guys Going?

2011-11-09T11:28:00.000-08:00

It's undertatement, and a late statement. It would be like saying the federal government is starting to go beyond Constitutional mandates. Mark wrote in to Dr. Laura, prompted by her monologue on women being attracted to bad boys:

We 'good guys' eventually become more than a little bit misogynistic when we see our 'bad' brethren basically having their way.....over and over and over again......with women, while we often become neglected, and taken for granted, in our relationships. It's always been said, "Good guys finish last," but, frankly, I think it's never been truer than it is today.

Just about every heterosexual guy wants sex from women. There are a few who, for whatever reason, have no sexual desire or a superseded sexual desire. The vast majority of straight guys want sex from women, even if they believe it is best to wait for marriage, or engagement, or "commitment" or "love", or whatever. Because of those beliefs, some men will resist temptations. But more men do find it more difficult to resist temptation when there are fewer worthy women. Men will see the guys around them having sex with few or no strings attached, with little effort spent... and what are they supposed to do? Save themselves for a woman who was out bed-hopping and is now of the attitude "been there, don't that", and make vows to her to lay down his life and financial security for her? I realize that this is the carnal way of viewing these matters, and that we're supposed to obey God regardless of the results, but how many people out there think that way?

Women who act this way do so at their own peril, in my opinion. It's becoming more and more apparent that ALL guys are losing more and more respect for women everyday. The bad boys never viewed them as being more than sexual objects and we good guys question whether or not staying true to the traditional values and mores is even worth it anymore.

There are men out there who were good and would treat a woman with the utmost respect, love, affection, and kindess, but have had their hearts hardened and now take the casual sex freely offered without strings, picking the more plentiful easy women over the increasingly rare virtuous women. Such a man doesn't appear to suffer any consequences for doing so. Some men will be good men regardless, but many men will be only as good as women encourage them to be. Women do have that kind of power.

Previously: Thoughts on the Marriage Delay and Marriage Strike

A Refresher About What To Do

2011-11-08T07:03:00.000-08:00

Let there be no doubt about what you are supposed to do when you witness (or have other proof) that someone is molesting or assaulting a child: call the police.

If you see the head of a charity molesting a child, call the police.
If you see your boss molesting a child, call the police.
If you see the coach of a championship team molesting a child, call the police.
If you see an educator molesting a child, call the police.
If you see a daycare (day orphanage) worker molesting a child, call the police.
If you see a police officer molesting a child, call other police.
If you see a pop music superstar molesting a child, call the police.]
If you see a member of the clergy molesting a child, call the police.
If you see a scout leader molesting a child, call the police.
If you see a neighbor molesting a child, call the police.
If you see a movie director molesting a child, call the police.
If you see a judge molesting a child, call the police.
If you see the President of the United States, or a candidate for such a position molesting a child, call the police.
If you see your spouse, shack-up, lover, or date molesting a child, call the police.
If you see your parent molesting a child, call the police.
If you see your sibling molesting a child, call the police.
If you see your grown child molesting a child, call the police.

Call the police. THEN you can call others. But call the police yourself. Don't rely on others to call the police or "take care" of the situation.

Protect children.

Got that?

(No, I was never molested.)

It All Started With That Dagnabit Telegraph Machine

2011-11-02T10:11:00.000-07:00

As usual when I nitpick about something on Dr. Laura's radio show, I'll state that I love her show and books and agree with almost everything the says. She's made my life better and that of so many others.

On to the nitpick.

Dr. Laura's made no secret to her listeners of her concerns about technology. She had made comments about grown, married men being on Facebook ("even though" she tells her listeners to comment on Facebook). She recently noted what our technology is doing to our personal relationships and culture, and I think some (not all) of her concerns are like being concerned that the invention of the spear was cutting down on fathers showing their sons how to hunt without a spear.

On this past Friday’s show, she talked about "online dating". I don't think people really date online, though. They may communicate, they may have exhibition/masturbation sessions, but the issue that was really being addressed was finding a date online.

She tends to put research into her commentaries, and this was no exception. She said "1 out of 10 sex offenders uses online dating." My initial reaction to that stat: Is that all?!? I would think most sex offenders, like 7 or 8 out of 10, would use online dating, the rest either being too old to "get" technology or not wanting to violate probation.

This also brings up the question I always have with the phrase "sex offender". Are we talking about a 35-year-old man, now a model citizen, who, when he was 18, was prosecuted for having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend? That's a far cry from someone who rapes a stranger or molests his relatives. It's like saying "sexual harassment". There's a difference between complimenting a woman on her new hairstyle and telling her you're going to fire her unless she does you.

I'm confident more than 1 in 10 sex offenders walks the aisles of supermarkets, so if someone asks you for your number or e-mail address when they meet you in a supermarket, look out!

Then Dr. Laura, based on that stat, made a common statistical error by saying it means that "one out of ten guys you find online is a sex offender". Nope! At least, not based on the stat she cited. That one in ten sex offenders uses online dating sites does NOT mean that one in ten guys on those sites is a sex offender. I won't bore you explaining that, but if you don't see what I mean, just trust me. Or ask someone who understands statistics.

She went on to say that online dating industry is bigger than the porn industry (which is good, because we all know that porn can lead to terrible things, like... dancing).

She cited a stat that said one of three women who meet men online, have sex on the first encounter. I do not think that has anything to do with online dating. The use of websites in general, and online dating in particular, are so common now that it is safe to say that these women would be doing this no matter how they met guys. Dr. Laura's comment reflected her overall attitude towards fornication: "Men are making out like bandits." That, as I've said before, implies that women don't enjoy fornication or get anything out of the dates. Yes, women tend to enjoy married lovemaking more (as do men), but many of them are getting orgasms, attention, ego boosts, free meals, or other things they want that they would not be getting if they weren't fornicating.

Anyway, the tips Dr. Laura went on to give about online dating, such as meeting in a neutral location, were very good. Even the best matchmaking services are simply ways of meeting people, and may be a way to keep in touch while dating. Nobody should assume that what someone has said about themselves is true or that the personality that comes across through the online communication is a thorough representation of the person. It takes spending time in person together in different circumstances to get to know that other person and see if they are what you need in a girlfriend/boyfriend, partner, or spouse.

High Holy Day For Attention Whores

2011-10-31T07:12:00.000-07:00

Did you go to a party over the weekend? Did you see the attention whores? Females of all ages use Halloween as an excuse to wear way-too-revealing "costumes". Hey, it can be great eye candy for guys (and gals) who want eye candy, or want to see females they know in near nudity.

The festivities continue all through today and tonight, of course.

Now, far be it from me to tell adults how to dress when at a private party. But if a woman dresses with her boobs nearly hanging out, she wants people to look at her boobs. Maybe she just wants one person in particular to do it, but she doesn't get to pick and choose when she is in a room full of people. If she wants to pick and choose, she'll do it in private.

What is up with those parents who let... or even encourage... their little girls to dress as wanna-be porn stars just because it is Halloween, or All Saints Eve, or Reformation Day?

Don't get me wrong. I think it is great in general to be able to dress up in costumes and have some fun, but let's not kid ourselves about the sexually-charged stuff. It's like when a woman says it doesn't count as sex (cheating) when it happens out of the country, or in another state, or while on vacation... as long as it is them or their friends doing it.

Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children?

2011-10-26T07:56:00.000-07:00

"Colleen", in a letter to Dr. Laura, wrote about her disapproval of a pilot that ran on NBC. The title character, Whitney, was seen taking a shower with her boyfriend. That was the opening scene.

A little bit later I went back to see if anything had improved - wrong it was far, far worse. As Whitney's boyfriend was talking to his friend that he and Whitney had broken up, the friend was scornful he would even care- "What, you like having the same VAGINA every night?" As I quickly turned off the set, I was so disgusted. This is what we've come to in America, women are just interchangeable vaginas????

Well, "yes" in the sense that there are some guys who just want sex. "No" in the sense that the reason they don't mind being out of a committed relationship is that they can easily get sex from a variety of women, all whose bodies are different. If your "vaginas" (really, the whole body, the attitude, the sex) were really interchangeable, then the guys would stay put because there would be no reason to try other women. These days, vaginas are cheap, not interchangeable, due the law of supply and demand. They have always been in high demand. But beginning with the culture of mobility and urbanity, growing with contraception, functional atheism (in which people behave as though there is no God) and then "liberation" of women, easy access to many vaginas is widespread... so to speak.

Now, as I've previously written, it is more enjoyable to make love than to have casual sex, all other things about the sex being equal. But the guys in these scenarios do not want everything that comes along with being in that kind of relationship, which is harder to find anyway because much of the female population has changed in attitude.

It makes me sick to think of the children watching garbage like this.

I am a parent myself, and yes, it is hard to protect them from a lot of the bad influences, but discernment and filtering are very important. So is innoculation, which works much better than isolation or indoctrination.I agree that parents should not be letting their children watch something like that. However, are you proposing that everything in society be designed and operated so as to be child-focused? Children should be a top priority to their parents, and society as a whole should value children, but not every aspect of life should be appropriate or appealing to little kids.

Volunteering for Abuse

2011-10-19T17:15:00.000-07:00

BRUISED AND ABUSED BOYFRIEND wrote in to Dear Abby:

I have been dating "Carmen" for a few years, but in the last year she has started becoming violent when we are having an argument.

First of all, why has the dating been going on for "a few years"? Do you have no intention of marrying?

I think this is domestic abuse, but she claims it isn't because I'm a man.

WRONG! Geez, so much for equality. The first time she got violent, you should have left immediately, and only returned to her if you were convinced, for good reason, that it was an aberration. The second time should have meant it was over. I'd say "call the cops" but you'd probably be the one arrested, so you should have 1) left, telling her never to contact you again, and 2) if she did contact you, filed a restraining order.

So far, I have restrained my instincts -- but eventually I know Carmen will cross the line and I'm going to snap. I have the potential to hurt her badly.

And then there would be a Lifetime Original Movie about how evil you are.

I have tried everything to make Carmen understand how I feel, but she continues to insist it doesn't matter because I'm so much bigger and stronger than she is.

WRONG! And there's no getting her to understand.

When she hits me, it doesn't hurt physically, but the anger I feel is indescribable.

What she does now doesn't hurt you, but she might do something worse later, or when you’re sleeping. And were you planning to have kids with her? Children are easier to injure, and they don't need to see their father abused anyway.

Stop rationalizing and LEAVE!!!

I'm at the end of my rope and considering breaking up with her before I hurt her.

Considering? It is bad enough you are still there.

I don't want to end the relationship, but I think it's the only way to make her see things from my perspective.

Who cares if she sees things from your perspective?!? I’m sorry, I know it isn’t a Biblical word, but this guy is a p---y. My guess is that he's rationalizing it because crazy chicks give wild sex. And that's all good, but only until she cuts it off and puts it into a garbage disposal.

Or should I call the cops the next time she hits me?

While that is exactly what a woman should do (call the cops), it isn't advisable for men, unfortunately.

Dear Abby told him to end it.

Please think ahead -- if Carmen resorts to violence when she becomes upset with you, then she very likely will with any children you would have together.

Yup!

Some experts are now saying men are more likely to be subject to dometic violence than women. I don't know if there is a way of knowing for sure, but we do know who is more likely to be arrested, and who has the shelters and assistance programs waiting for them, etc.

The sex of the perp and the sex of the victim doesn't matter. Do NOT tolerate abuse. It is better to be alone than to be in a bad relationship, but there are billions of fish in the sea anyway, so chances are, you'll find someone a lot better.

Blog Tinkering

2011-10-17T09:22:00.001-07:00

I decided my blog was not easy enough on the eyes. Trying to fix that.

The First Session

2011-10-12T13:16:00.000-07:00

The counseling session was not as bad as a visit to the dentist. It's a very experienced male, by the way, so hopefully he's not an idiot with a bias against normal male behavior. I felt awful laughing at some of what my wife said, but at least I wasn't yelling. If the laughing bothered her, she didn't let on. Rather, she was very thankful that I agreed to go, and has been in a good mood and sweet to me ever since I "agreed" to go. Yes, I agreed after my money was already committed to it. It was interesting because...

1. I found out she considers me a "rage-aholic". That was a surprise. I couldn't help but think of Homer Simpson's line, "I'm a rage-aholic! I'm addicted to rage-ahol!"

2. When she described what happened on vacation, she was going to make it sound like I had just started yelling like a madman. I had to break in and point out that she had been yelling at me, and I yelled back, then her sister yelled at me, and I yelled back, and that I was in a situation that I would never had subjected her to in the first place.

3. She's now upfront about the reason we live where we do - to be close to her family. The same family she is now avoiding. She used to say to me (and others) that we're living there (as opposed to closer to where I do most of my in-person work, or closer to my family) because she liked the house and the layout fit our needs. This is connected to why I yelled at her a few months back "because she got sick". I didn't yell as her because she got sick. I yelled at her because she was insisting I was going to take time off from work to take care of her, to which I asked why in the world we were living where we were, so far away from my family members who could (and wanted to) help out without taking any time off of work. When we were deciding to buy that house, I pointed those things out to her... we were going to have to live with the problems the house had because we weren't going to be asking the bank to take care of them, and we weren't going to have the money to do much to fix the place up. And we were going to be far from my family and work. Yet, these things continue to be issues, which is why they may prompt my yelling. We didn't quite go over all of this in session. But when I yell about something related to the house, she takes it as a personal attack on her and her family.

4. The real problem with my yelling may be that her mother yelled when she got drunk. She equated my alleged "rageaholism" with her mother's alcoholism. There's no comparison. Yes, there are some superficial similarities... we both deny our "addictions" are as bad as my wife says they are. But that would be true if she found a complete stranger and accused them of being addicted to gambling and the stranger denied it. See! Just like her mother! She focused a lot on the tone of my voice when I yell. So, perhaps if I yell in a different tone it will be a-okay?

5. She clearly conspired with my sister (and her own sister, obviously) to set up this counseling session and not tell me until it was too late to cancel. I have talked with my sister and also my mother on separate phone calls. After each call, my wife asked me if I told them about the counseling. And when I told her I hadn't mentioned it, she asked me why. Why bother? They both surely know about it. They can bring it up if they want. I'll likely not talk with them about it.

6. It sounded for a while like my wife was going to directly ask me to further cut back in usage of the desktop computer and mobile device. She said I would be happy if I didn't have her and the kids and all I did was sit on the computer. If I didn't have her and the kids, I wouldn't be on the computer all of the time, I'd be out with friends some of the time. But yes, since I'm a reader and a writer, and that can all be done on the computer, I can keep myself entertained by sitting in front of the computer. Mind you, all of the DVR space is taken by her shows and the kids' shows. I like to be productive rather than sitting around, and when the kids are occupied and my wife is occupied, I take the chance to get online. Technology is the only way I can still keep in touch with my friends at all. I pointed out that if the goal was to reduce my stress, doing something to increase my stress was a funny way to do it. Late in the session, she told me she was not asking me to cut back, but c'mon... she made her feelings known, and now I'm going to be some uncaring jerk who keeps right on... reading the news and barely keeping in contact with my friends.

Again, she was very appreciative that I had gone. Jump through the hoop, get a biscuit. That's a good boy.

Opening a Can of Worms?

2011-10-09T22:35:00.000-07:00

Things have been good since the trip. My wife even said something that, in the past, would have gotten me riled up and perhaps yelling in response, but I handled it well.

But after that, she told me that she's going to have a marriage therapy appointment, and wants me to go. She told me this too late to cancel, so even if I could convince her it would be a waste, we'd still be out the money. Her sister (the one who I got into the fight with) and brother-in-law are going to babysit. We'd be better off using the time to go on a date.

I had made it clear to the party matching us, and I know my wife knew this before we dated, that I wanted someone who was healthy, not someone who was always treating an illness, real or imagined. When I met my wife, she was working full time, on her feet, with kids. On our first date, we talked about career and having a parent at home. I was open to being the one staying home. She said she wanted to be the one to stay home. She always wanted to be a hands-on Mom. She grew up with younger siblings. I took all of this to mean that she would be able to handle being the parent at home, and I was willing to be the sole income earner in exchange for having someone taking care of the kids.

But it hasn't worked out that way.

I can't bring this up in counseling, because she would take it as a personal attack on her due to her disability (again, I could not have known before we had kids how it was going to impact her ability to care for them). There would be no going back from that. And what would be the point? I'd never leave now. I made vows, we have the kids. She'd be badly hurt emotionally, and I'd rather not have to deal with that, in addition to not wanting to hurt her. She can't change. Well, she could change her thinking, if not her body, but she won't.

So I won't be able to be fully open and honest in counseling, at least not in front of her. So it is going to be waste.

And will she like the results? She's said repeatedly she loves her life and it is the way she's always wanted. Well, it is going to have to change a lot for me to get the things I'll need in order for me to get my yelling under further control.

This could get really, really bad.

More time and money spent that we don't have free to spend. That means more stress on me, even if the counseling itself is neutral. And what if it isn't? What if it does more harm than good?

Turning Down the Volume

2011-10-03T17:19:00.000-07:00

I gave a recap of our horrible vacation here.

At the end of that one evening that started out with me trading shouts with my wife and her sister, my wife kept me awake begging me to get therapy and get drugged for my "rage". I calmly and quietly asked her if I had ever... ever... come out of the blue and just started yelling at anyone. She had to answer no.

It is true, my temper has been a problem for me in my life.

It was a problem when I was a kid, and I learned to control it by the time I was a teen. Now that I think about it, I think I got a handle on my temper about the time I started masturbating to orgasm. Coincidence?

Anger has never been a problem for me professionally. If anything, there are times when I should have displayed anger and didn't.

It hasn't been a problem while I drive (no road rage from me).

As an adult, it has never led to a physical fight or violence.

I don't throw things, hit things or people, kick things or people, push people, or break things.

I don't berate or insult others.

I scream... loudly and angrily... often I'm screaming questions... "Why did you do that? What do you expect me to do?" Or refusal, such as "I'm not going to do that!"

It was never a problem in any of my past relationships – I don't recall that I ever yelled at a girlfriend except perhaps with one who would have already been yelling at me. But sometimes with my family, and that now includes the family I have made, I yell. My wife has correctly noted it is when I think I should have control over something, but don't.

With the kids, it was "STOP [fill the in blank]!" I say "was" because when my wife sat me down to point it out and why it was a problem, I stopped.

Even when the yelling is a response to an angry or yelling statement from another adult, I shouldn't be yelling as often as I am.

But I refuse to drug myself when I know behavior modification can work.

My mind is the last thing that is mine.

I'm not sure I have a need for outside help based on something that happened under very unusual circumstances, and things got better after that, as least as far as I'm concerned. I haven't yelled since. But my wife would argue that it has been a pattern.

Maybe it is.

But I'd have to think that any decent therapist, before passing out drugs, would ask questions like:

1) Do you get enough sleep? (The answer would be no.)
2) What do you do to blow off steam? (Besides blogging, nothing.)
3) What do you do to unwind? (I don’t. I work, I take care of the kids and things around the home, and the only breaks come when visiting family that can keep the kids occupied.)

My wife has repeatedly said she has the life she's always wanted. But apparently that's not quite true. She married a man who is happy to earn the income so she can concentrate on being there for the kids, who takes the lead in taking care of the kids on days when I am home, who likes to be financially responsible, who doesn't abuse substances, who seeks to meet her needs and please her in various ways, who encourages her in her faith and generally agrees with her outlook on current and personal events, who does some chores around the house…AND who sometimes yells.

I told my wife I would probably yell a lot less if I did more things my way in my timing, so she should expect to hear "no" more frequently. She didn't think that was a good solution.

Now she's got my mother and one of my sisters telling me that going to see a counselor would be a good thing. But what my wife doesn't realize is that my mother and sister would want certain changes that would make things more difficult for my wife.

I'm wary. I think going to a counselor would be a waste of time (we don't have enough of it as it is), money (ditto... I don't care how much of it insurance covers... we're not saving enough), and there is always the risk that the counseling will do more harm than good.

My wife and I do a good job of talking things out.

I find writing therapeutic.

I don't have anything to say to a therapist. Like I said above, I could tell the therapist I yell too much and it is bothering my wife and kids. Then what happens after the therapist finds out I don't get enough sleep, personal time, or time with the guys? I have my responsibilities, and those aren't going to change.

Okay, so what about joint counseling? I'm wary of that for additional reasons. The fact is, I can't tell my wife everything that has been bothering me or has bothered me. That's why I write it here. I can't tell her because it will hurt her and much of it isn't going to change. Some of it can't be changed. I do need to tell my wife what bothers me instead of letting it build up inside me, as long as it isn't something that will hurt her AND that she can't change. Once something is said, it can't be taken back.

My wife accused me of resenting her and the kids. I love them. I genuinely like to be around them and enjoy them. But what I did not admit to her is that yes, there is some resentment there.

1) I'm pissed off that the house costs so much. It's energy inefficient, and that can't be changed without spending lots of money. The shower, the laundry water, and the kitchen sink all back up too often in no small part, according to multiple plumbers, because the flippers were monsters who didn't bother to do things to code. (Why did I pay for an inspection?). We need to redo the electrical wiring in parts of the house. The "walls" in parts of the house are going to need to be replaced. The place attracts ants and bees to the point we have to contract with a pest control company. I told my wife that if we were going to buy the place, we were going to be dealing with it as it was, because we weren't going to have a lot of money to fix anything, and she agreed. But here we are. So what? We're not going to move. So why talk about it? My wife has already told me that reacting to her saying something like "We need to get a plumber out here again" with anything but indifference or happiness (and then scheduling a fix) is going to feel like a personal attack on her, since she likes the house and picked it out. So I blow up when I realize it is going to be time to cut another check.

2) I'm pissed off that I didn't make a point of finding out how much my wife's medical and dental bills would be before we married (I've never had a cavity, so it is hard to relate to the fact that her mouth needs constant work.) I wrongly assumed it couldn't be that big of a deal since she was making it just fine financially. I can't bring this up; it would hurt her to the core and there's nothing she can do about it.

3) I'm pissed off that I got more sex when I was unmarried, and that the woman who seemed to have as much drive and passion as I did, and had certain skills lost those things after she became my wife.

4) I'm pissed off that, much more than I expected, life as a husband and father has meant what I want, from little things to big things, has gone by the wayside. Of course I want to meet the needs of my wife and kids, and I am proud to do that. I just didn't realize that my needs weren't going to be met.

And I don't want to hear a laundry list, in front of a therapist, about what is wrong with me or what I do wrong. My wife already tells me. I don't need some third party saying, "She's right!" I believe her when it comes to just about everything. I do think my yelling has been a problem. I don't think it is as much of a problem as she thinks it is. I'm determined to get better.

I also don't need a therapist to tell me to focus on the good. See, I just wrote it. Focus on the good. Fine. But I'm still not getting enough sleep or other things that will help reduce my yelling, and no matter how much I reduce my yelling, chances are, there are still going to be times when I yell. My wife yells, too. Not nearly as much as me, but she does. Most people do. But even if it is two years down the line, the next time I yell is going to bring all of this up again.

It turns out that after the fight she immediately used her phone to buy a book and companion workbook on anger. I came home after working to find her reading them, and she wants me to read them, and I will. After the kids were in bed that night, she kept insisting that we were going to need counseling. I cited past success in modifying things and the books, and told her that unless she has something else she wants to bring up, I don't think counseling is yet necessary. My wife says there's nothing else… just this yelling stuff.

Things started to get better after the fight on the trip. They got much better when it was just our family again, and it got MUCH better after a long sleep

After I pointed out that I don't get violent, I don't make cutting remarks when I yell, etc., she finally said it was "the tone of my voice". I had to laugh inside and think about how I've heard Dr. Laura Schlessinger tell women who call and say the same thing about their husbands to ignore the tone.

Her family handled things differently. Again, yelling is usually not the way to go, and I should work more on that again. But handing my wife a drink and getting drunk along with her, which is what her father does, isn't a good way to handle it, either. My wife knows that, but since yelling apparently wasn't her father's thing, it bothers my wife more than it should.

But I will work on it. Obviously, it is possible for me to handle things without yelling, since I only do it with my close family - the people who deserve a better me the most of all.

Didn't Chevy Chase Do a Movie Like This?

2011-09-27T15:32:00.000-07:00

The vacation I was dreading has come and gone, and it could have been a lot worse.

But yes, it was a disaster. My wife said it was the worst week in her life, and that’s saying a lot.

So here I am, poorer, with a backlog of work, and strained relations with my in-laws.

A lack of sex is enough to make things horrible for me, and turn me into a cranky guy. The lack of alone time made it worse. Travelling and not getting enough sleep piled it on.

I was stressed out with work, house, and car stuff leading up to the vacation, and I knew the car problems were going to be waiting for me when I got back. Plus, I ended up having to do some work while on this "vacation".

Travelling was such a hassle.

My kids got sick. One of them vomited all over me and my seat on the first flight. My wife got sick. Her sister got sick. Her sister's husband got sick. Their kid got sick. I didn’t. We were sharing a suite, which means my family was in one room, her sister's family was in another room. Their parents and brother were in another suite.

There wasn't a lot of sleeping, at least not on the part of me or my wife.

I discovered that my sister-in-law is annoying. I have no doubt I was annoying to her, too, but I really have no idea how her husband, who is supposedly not a chubby chaser (she didn't want one), can get it up for her. I think she's crossed the line from obese to morbidly obese. Not a lot of morbidly obese women can snag a husband who earns as much as her husband. She should treat him very well. And that gets into what really is irritating about her. Someone being morbidly obese is not irritating to me. But I can't stand the way she talks to her husband, their kid, or my kids. She also makes assertions about things like politics, history, and religion that I know I can counter effectively and thoroughly, but rather than argue, I kept looking for the common ground to keep the peace. She never shuts up. She's always "sick" with something and only "happy" when she's miserable.

There aren't a lot of people who just generally irritate me, but perhaps part of the problem was that we were in the same suite. When at a normal family event, there is so much else going on and I can always move away from one area to the other, and it is only for a few hours anyway. Not so in this circumstance.

We spent a lot of time in our suite, driving, hitting chain stores and restaurants, and swimming in a pool. All of that I can do at home for a lot less money and less hassle. Sure, there was sightseeing, but I can see the same stuff online and get a better view.

The kids were unusually high maintenance and I got vomited on again while out and about.

At least mother-in-law did not embarrass us in a drunken episode out in public. Instead, she spent much of the week drunk in her suite as my father-in-law made trips to the market to keep her supplied. So much for this trip being for a family event.

My wife and I did get one moment to ourselves. We slipped out for dessert and a badly needed quickie in the back of the rental vehicle.

One evening, while getting ready for a dinner that everyone was going to, I refused a request by my wife (a request that most men would refuse) and my wife, who was having a bad time and was tense, yelled at me. I yelled back. Her sister yelled at me. I yelled back. Then it devolved into arguing about anything and everything. It wasn't good. It was in front of the kids.

It actually wasn't difficult for my wife to come up with an easy solution to the original problem.

My sister-in-law and I have not talked since, and that has been WONDERFUL as far as I am concerned. Unfortunately, it isn't going to be as fun for my wife.

Our flight back was an overnight. I don't sleep on flights, so this was a bad bookend to a horrible "vacation".

In general, the trip was a rotten thing to put the kids through. It was bad enough for the adults. Thankfully, my wife never wants to do anything like that again. We even skipped a family event that has already taken place since the trip.

Teaching Your Daughters About Men and Making Boys Men

2011-09-26T10:35:00.000-07:00

Perhaps you have seen this on Facebook:

We need to teach our daughters to distinguish between a man who flatters her - and a man who compliments her. A man who spends money on her - and a man who invests in her. A man who views her as property - and a man who views her properly. A man who lusts after her - and a man who loves her. A man who believes he is God's gift to women - and a man who remembers a woman was God's gift to man...And then teach our boys to be that kind of a man."

As I've written before:

There IS a shorter supply of good men who are also marriage-minded, because such men are usually forged by 1) a combination of good mother figure AND father figure who are themselves in a good marriage; 2) participation in nonfeminized programs and events where men socialize boys without interference or constant observation from women; 3) women who demand the men they socialize with be good. How many men are raised and exist in such a situation these days? Being raised in daycare, sharing an address with a never-married or divorced mother, not having man-oriented socialization, and being surrounded by immodest, easy females is not a recipe to make good, marriage-minded men.

How many of the people you've seen posting the first quote have stuck their sons in daycare, or made babies with the wrong man, or have passed up good men and fornicated with jerks? How many of them, if they do have a husband, let their husbands raise their sons with masculinity? How many people who have posted that first quote as their status update have behaved in ways that contradict the quote?

Major Retailer and Employeer Announces Male-Friendly Initiatives

2011-09-18T12:36:00.000-07:00

Wow, Wal-Mart has announced several initiatives to promote men workers and men-owned businesses, since men have been hit harder by the recession.

These are some of the things included:

It will source $20 billion from men-owned businesses in the U.S. and will double its sourcing from such businesses in every market globally.

It will also offer training, market access and career opportunities to 60,000 men working in factories to help them "develop the skills they need to become more active decision-makers in their jobs and for their families."

In markets around the world, Wal-Mart will work with major professional service firms and merchandise suppliers with more than $1 billion in sales to increase male representation on Wal-Mart accounts.

Wait... wait... Aw, shucks, I got that wrong. I had to go back and read the story by Andrea Chang at LATimes.com again. Switch the sexes, of course. Uh,except that men HAVE been hit harder by the recession.

But Wait, There's More!

2011-09-13T09:20:00.000-07:00

Recently I blogged about how I was not feeling great about our upcoming vacation.

Well, things have gotten even better.

A few weeks ago, everyone was over at the in-laws' home for an event that involved my wife's family, my family, and my sister-in-law's in-laws.

As a sister of mine was leaving, my father-in-law essentially made a verbal pass at her, albeit one that might possibly be chalked up to being a clumsy, and thus inappropriate, compliment. That possibility would normally be slight, but considering the guy's history, the possibility evaporates. He doesn't get that benefit. When Tiger Woods was busted? My FIL got in trouble. When Arnold Schwarzenegger was busted? My FIL got in trouble.

My sister, a sweet woman but no paragon of virtue, was creeped out enough to have nightmares about it. She told me about the incident several days later. I told my wife as soon as the timing was right (meaning, the kids were asleep and I could hold her hand and talk with her calmly, face to face.

My wife was horrified.

She told her siblings.

It was decided by all that it was best not to tell my mother-in-law. She would not do anything positive or protective with the information, and would almost certainly use the information as an excuse to get drunk and go into a rage.

My brother-in-law said he'd talk with his father about it.

I figured... okay, that's over and done with. We even got together again with no big deal.

But then my wife decided to call her father (when she knew her mother would not be around) and chastise him. He apologized repeatedly with qualifications. Then he apologized without qualification. Apparently, he let the call change his mood, and later in the evening my mother-in-law noticed, asked him what was going on, and rather than going with some other, easily available explanation, my Ivy League-genius father-in-law confessed to her.

This is going to be very interesting, going on this trip with them. Will we even make it, considering we were planning on sharing rides to the airport? Will something happen on the flight? Will the timeshare unit be mildly chilly or a minefield?

Stay tuned! Provided I survive, I will tell you what happens.

I Still Don't Want to Go on Vacation

2011-09-06T15:34:00.000-07:00

Last summer, I wrote this. It didn't happen.

Short of something dramatic, though, we are going on a vacation soon. I'm not looking forward to it. Is something wrong with me?

Here's my thought process.

On the plus side, we're going someplace to which I've never been, and it is a major tourism favorite. If you were to ask me to name the top five places I'd want to visit before I died, this would be one of them.

Now for all of the other stuff.

We're going as part of family thing for my wife's family. As such, our lodging arrangements are set. Due to these arrangements, the highly-touted "vacation sex" is out. I just don't know how it will be possible to get even a little bit of time with a little bit of privacy somewhere in order to even have a quickie. So, NO SEX for over a week. Granted, if we have sex before the trip and after the trip, it will almost be keeping our pace anyway, but at least at home I can masturbate every day that we don't have sex. (Wanna lecture me on how married men shouldn't be doing that? Have at it.)

This also means I'm not going to be getting any alone time to do other things, like reading or all of the other things I find easier to do when I don't have a bunch of noisy people hovering around me.

My routines will be disrupted. This almost always comes with the territory for any vacation, and I understand this should not keep people from taking vacations. Still, I'm a wee bit obsessive-compulsive and I'm a creature of habit, and most of the stuff I don't do while on vacation I will want to do when I get back, so that means I will have a backup of things to do.

Now, many of those things are voluntary, but work isn't. Work piles up. Most of my work will not be done by someone else while I'm on vacation. It will be waiting for me when I get back.

Then there are the costs. I'm currently the sole income earner for my family. We're not destitute, but we have my income flowing into our regular bills, our investments, and our giving. We don't keep much in our basic banking accounts, and I like having an emergency buffer. Tourists often get gouged, and the costs of this trip are depleting our buffer (we didn't have time to plan far enough in advance to budget for this trip).

There are also the usual hassles that come along with taking a vacation, and I've haven't flown since the groping started, so this is going to be an interesting experience. I almost never use public restrooms or those on airplanes, so a long day of traveling is fun. I can hold it just about all day (it’s a gift, or the logical result of paruresis), but as I get older, that's another discomfort.

Our kids are still at the ages during which we have to constantly watch them, especially where there's water around (such as a pool).

In summary, I'm not expecting this vacation to be relaxing for me, but just the opposite. There will be some nice views, but other than that, I will pretty much be doing what I would be doing at home – watching our kids, but it will be costing me a lot more than living at home.

So yes, there are some things wrong with me. But put aside the OCD and paruresis, which never stopped me from taking a vacation before I became a father, and is there something wrong with my thinking about the vacation? Is this normal?

People Dr. Laura Schlessinger Has Pissed Off

2011-09-06T07:28:00.000-07:00

Dr. Laura has pissed off a lot of people. Here's a list that I do not claim to be exhaustive.

In no particular order:

1. Fat people. That's about 2/3rds of Americans. More precisely, she's pissed off the ones who don't like to be told they can and should do something about it, but that solution is not some magic pill.

2. People who like to imagine they are engaged even though there's no ring and no date.

3. Women willing to be easy, casual lays and shack-ups. Schlessinger rains on their parade by telling them they don't have rights over the males with whom they are having sex and that they are making life harder for decent women.

4. Guys who don't want females described above wising up about sex.

5. Women who insist on a large, traditional wedding and all of the traditional trappings and parties that have been added over the years, many of whom demand their parents pay for it, after shacking up for years and even making babies. (More generally, people who want their parents to keep financially supporting them even as they flagrantly violate tradition, morality, or parental sensitivities.)

6. Parents who have chosen to raise their children in America but still want their children beholden to foreign traditions.

7. People who want to take their young children to weddings despite a lack of invitation.

8. Guys who don't want to take responsibility for anything, but rather hide behind deference to feminism.

9. Men who don't want there to be an expectation that men always pay for a dates.

10. Men who want to date even though they can't yet afford to support a family.

11. Wives who want to withhold sex from their good husbands.

12. Parents who want to keep their adult children dependent in perpetuity.

13. People who think having their own child or grandchild sucked into a sink is (or was) preferable to giving that child up for adoption or raising the child themselves.

14. People who make money off of having babies sucked into sinks.

15. People who are in no position to provide a baby with a stable, married, mom-and-dad home who refuse to put the baby up for adoption.

16. Men who want to do something with the newly-discovered information that they have been raising what turns out to be, biologically, another man's child.

17. Anyone else who thinks it is important to tell children their father is not their biological father or that there is some long lost half sibling out there somewhere.

18. Women who have learned their husband has another child who needs a father and don't want him to have any contact with that child.

19. People who think open adoption is better than closed adoption.

20. Adoptees raised by decent families who seek out their biological parents/siblings, especially with "medical history" as the excuse.

21. People who want to be surrogate wombs, or egg or sperm donors for a family member or friend.

22. Organ donation advocates who encourage the practice of living children donating to parents.

23. Women who don't want to raise their own children or have made choices that make it much more likely their children will be raised by strangers.

24. Day orphanage operators and other business owners who depend on the above women.

25. People who want to intentionally raise a child without a mother or without a father, and "rights" groups that claim to represent them.

26. Divorced or never-married parents of minor children who want to date, (re)marry, and even make more children to the detriment of the children they already have.

27. Parents who drug their kids, especially boys, in response to normal behavior or normal reaction to the bad situation created by the parent(s).

28. People who make money off of such drugging.

29. So-called "children's rights" advocates who think that minor living at home should not be drug tested nor have their diaries, communications devices, possessions, or rooms searched against their will.

30. Pedophiles and anyone who wants to have sex with your minor children.

31. People who think quick, light swats on the tush are child abuse.

32. Parents who want to be their child's buddy.

33. People who want to place their parents before their spouse.

34. People who want to come between spouses.

35. Adult children of widow or widowers who don't want their parent dating (yet).

36. People who want power over their stepchildren.

37. People jealous of their spouse's deceased previous spouse.

38. Adults who leave children to die in hot automobiles.

39. The authorities who neglect to prosecute such people.

40. Parents who demand that all of their children simultaneously ace all advanced placement classes, letter in at least two sports, and master a musical instrument, even if they hate those sports and hate playing music.

41. People who want their kids to excel in gymnastics or football.

42. People who think gay or lesbian people shouldn't be treated with respect, and if they weren't treated with respect, they'd all become happy heterosexuals.

43. People who think the "n" word is so horrifyingly bad that only people of African ancestry should be able to say it... over and over and over again... and that if anyone else says it on the air, it is such a terrible thing that the clip should be played over and over and over again.

44. Pacifists

45. Adults who enjoy video games. (I do think Schlessinger goes overboard in her dislike of video games as recreation for adults, though I don't play.)

46. People who hate dogs or, at least, hate hearing about them.

47. People who make or watch trashy so-called reality television.

48. People who want to complain to their deployed military spouses over and over again about something that deployed person can't address.

49. People who want to hurt their spouse or alleviate their guilt telling their spouse of an adulterous fling or affair that ended.

50. Adults who were victims of childhood sexual abuse who still haven't taken any steps to protect anyone else from the abuser.

51. Any adult who knew the abuse was going on, but did nothing about it.

52. Teacher union bosses who think they should be in control of how children are raised.

53. Guys who admit to women they date that they watch porn.

54. People who think married people should never watch porn.

55. Women who like to think they have a magic vagina that can change a man.

56. People who don't want to disclose to a potential employer that they have a disability, medical condition, or pregnancy.

57. People who think it is a great thing that the Americans With Disabilities Act prevents businesses from charging people to accommodate their service animals.

58. People who like to blame every lousy thing they or a loved one does on diseases or addictions.

59. People who want to raise children in "interfaithless" homes

60. Therapists who like the steady income provided by clients coming to them to whine about the same things for years and years, and the people who like doing the whining.

61. Callers who want to go on and on whining, and the listeners who want to hear the whining.

62. People who hate Jews.

Is there anybody left???

Tactics in Breaking Bad News

2011-09-01T09:24:00.000-07:00

When someone has been seeing someone who threatens suicide if there is a breakup, my advice, stolen from Tom Leykis, is to schedule a session with a licensed therapist with that other person, under the pretense of getting relationship counseling, or with the claim of needing therapy yourself and wanting them along for some of the sessions. Once they are in the session, the dumper needs to tell the therapist what the about-to-be dumped has said as far as harming themselves or others, tell the other person it is over, and walk out. Then the dumped person is legally and morally the responsibility of the therapist.

We (the wife and I) might have to break some bad news to her mother, which will almost certainly send her mother into a drunken rage. Who knows... I need to talk with my wife about it more - maybe there is no good reason to say anything.

But this got me thinking. Besides dumping a suicidal person in a therapy session, where and how are other good places to break bad news that is likely to bring a destructive response?

Well, thanks to the post-9/11 America, I'm thinking a long commercial flight might be a good place, at least for your own protection.

Let's say you're going to dump someone who has not threatened suicide, but threatened (or conducted) violence to you. Why not dump them during a flight? But only if you can remain totally calm. If they go into a rage on the flight, they'll likely commit federal crimes. They get arrested and taken away once the flight is over. You may end up held for questioning for a while, but you'll be protected.

What do you think?

I can imagine the TSA and flight attendants are thinking, No, please, don't let this become an increasing trend.

Deserving

2011-08-31T09:17:00.000-07:00

A female relative of mine who recently divorced her (most recent) husband and has spent a lot of time over the years as a single/divorced mother recently had this as her status update on a social networking website:

Every woman deserves a man who calls her baby, kisses her like he means it, holds her tight like he never wants to let go, doesn't cheat, wipes her tears when she cries, doesn’t make her jealous of other women, instead makes other women jealous of her, is not scared to let his friends know how he really feels about her, and lets her know how much he really loves her.... Re-post if you agree.

Every woman? Really? Even those women who murder their own husband and kids? What if she is a horrible woman and treats men like crap?

Notice that the wording is not "everyone woman deserves a husband".

I think I've seen this status update posted before, including by women who make the kinds of choices that allow men to treat them like crap. You know the type... they will sing along the loudest to "I Will Survive" and still go on to jump into bed with jerks. Women may say they want one thing, but often treating them a different way gets a guy what he wants. Sometimes, the more of a jerk a guy is, the more a woman will keep having sex with him and doing anything else he wants.

As for jealousy – some women are especially insecure and jealous, and nothing a man does will change that.

I do believe in the inherent worth of every human being, including every woman. Even those girls who are still in their mother's womb have inherent worth. But I also believe in personal responsibility, and that there are things some women do to bring crappy guys into their lives and drive away loving men. I also believe a relationship between a man and a woman is a two-way street.

If I were going to post an equivalent of the status update, it would be:

Every man deserves a woman who respects him to his face and behind his back, doesn’t cheat, doesn’t sexually reject him but is an enthusiastic lover, keeps herself together, doesn’t make him jealous of other men, instead makes other men jealous of him, sends him off to have time with the guys with a smile instead of eye-daggers, lets him do things for her, doesn’t treat him like one of her girlfriends, tells him what she needs instead of expecting him to read her mind or decipher hints, is not scared to let her friends know how she really feels about him, and lets him know how much she appreciates and respects him...Re-post if you agree.

Is This Outrageous or About Right?

2011-08-24T07:23:00.000-07:00

Richard Winton at LATimes.com reports that a guy in his 30s caught molesting his 13-year-old goddaughter (police think it started when she was 12) has been sentenced to just three years in state prison after pleading no context to two felony counts (two other counts were dismissed). And if you know anything about the current situation with prisons in California, he's probably gonna get out plenty early, after spending the most of the time in county jail.

Wait...

Let me check that again...

Oh!

I knew something had to be wrong with that. I didn't think a guy would get only a three year sentence for something like that. It wasn't a guy with his goddaughter – it was a woman with her godson. This is an update on a story I noted on here before:

The operator of a South Los Angeles day-care center convicted of molesting her 13-year-old godson was sentenced Tuesday to three years in state prison.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Terry Bork sentenced Chelsea McClelland, 35, to state prison and ordered her to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life for the assaults that occurred in December 2010.

So much for "thirteen will get you twenty".

Checking Up On Your Classmates

2011-08-22T17:43:00.000-07:00

Men and women are different, and life works out accordingly.

Ladies, you’re three paths towards making it to “the good life”:

1. Being born into it (over which you didn’t have control) and not squandering it (over which you do have control).

2. Serving the needs and wants of others in financial transactions (employment, investments).

3. Attracting and marrying a successful man before your looks fade too much, and keeping him for the rest of your life, or at least long enough for the laws of your state or the provisions of a prenup to leave you well off.

If this stark reality sounds awful, look at it this way: It is one more option than men have. Academia and the workplace are now oriented towards the needs and tendencies of women. Female CEOs earn more than male CEOs. The workplace is your oyster.

The good news for men is that it is still true that a man's attracting ability tends to increase as he gets older, at least into old age, while a woman's attracting ability tends to decrease. That's because when it comes to initial attraction, men are visual and women want a man with money, power, and/or fame (or "security and confidence", but it is the same thing thing).

Guys, if you're in your later 30s or older, you can have a good laugh by looking up your high school classmates (Facebook) or especially by attending a 20-year, 25-year, or 30-year reunion. Time (and calories) haven't been kind to most of the girls who were considered the most beautiful and were ever so popular when I was in high school. There are a couple of exceptions, to be sure, and there are those girls who were awkward in high school who became beautiful, poised, confident (and more than capable) women. But there are women who wouldn't give me the time of day back when we were in high school who are unrecognizable now, and not in a good way. And if they got used to getting by on their looks, they're in trouble now. I can honestly say that my wife, who didn't go to my school (and if she had, it would have been after I had graduated anyway... heh heh), is easily more beautiful than any of my high school classmates.

More importantly, though, is that she's an excellent wife in most and important respects. Reading some of the Facebook updates, I can see that some of my classmates aren't or wouldn’t be.

I'm so glad I didn't get into a "high school school sweethearts" thing with one of those girls and get married. Ugh. I shudder at the thought.

Thank you, Lord, for saying "No!" to my foolish, childish prayers back then.

Why Would a Grown Man Have a Facebook Account?

2011-08-15T12:50:00.000-07:00

As I've mentioned many, many times, I listen to Dr. Laura Schlessinger and I agree with her on just about everything. This is one of those instances where I disagree with her.

She asked a recent caller, a wife, why a grown (married) man would have a Facebook account. (Not that she wants kids to have them, either.) The implication, based on other things Dr. Laura has said, was that Facebook is only for women, since they are social and all, and for men who are looking for sex.

So I suppose married men shouldn't make comments on her Facebook page?

I've noticed before that she seems to be technology-averse in many cases, and yes, she wants people to get outside and exercise and go see people in person. I get that.

But there are many reasons a grown, married man would want a Facebook account. Most of my male contacts on Facebook are married. Facebook, like MySpace before it, are essentially organizing tools. Long before MySpace, people were using online communications to network; store and share pictures, videos, and other files; e-mail; chat; have group discussions; express their opinions and relate their experiences; plan events; and keep contact information. Social networking services like Facebook allow them to do that all in one place.

A grown, married man such as me can use Facebook to keep in touch with family, friends, and professional contacts. No, it isn't possible for us to all live close to each other, drive to each other, or bicycle to each other. Sorry!

The reality of my life right now, given professional and family demands during this phase in my life (I haven't even been able to blog nearly as much as I'd like), is that I'm simply not going to see many of my/our friends and professional contacts in person very often. To keep in touch with each other, our options are: 1) writing snail-mail letters; 2) phone calls; 3) e-mail; 4) social networking such as Facebook. This most recent option is the most efficient, convenient, inclusive, and customizable. I can use Facebook when I first wake up or when I'm about to go to bed; those aren't good times to be visiting others. I use Facebook to leave little love notes to my wife. I use Facebook to share pictures of my children with my parents. Surely, Dr. Laura wouldn't want grandparent deprived!

I have never, ever used Facebook to flirt with, hit on, or enter into an inappropriate emotional relationship with a woman. (Or a man, for that matter.)

So let's not cause undue suspicion on married men who are current in their use of technology and communications.

Homeless Guy Scores Jailbait

2011-08-02T15:45:00.000-07:00

What am I missing here? Tony Barboza reports at LATimes.com.

A registered sex offender living in a tent in Moreno Valley has been arrested on suspicion of having sex with two underage girls, police said Tuesday.

James Russell Watkins, 29, was arrested Saturday after police responded to a tip about a possible sexual assault of two teenage girls near Alessandro Boulevard and the Old 215 Freeway.

He was arrested, essentially, for statutory rape. He's not being charged with forcible rape, or kidnapping, or unlawful detention.

After interviewing Watkins, police said, they determined he had had intercourse with the girls at various times throughout July.

So, not twice, as in once with each girl. Various times.

Watkins, a parolee and registered sex offender who told police he lived in a tent in the area, was booked on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse, child abuse and violation of parole.

Okay. So it sounds like the girls willingly had sex with him. I know, they are too young to consent and I'm in no way defending this creep. But what's up with these girls? I would think they were junkies, but there's nothing about him being charged with supplying them with anything. That implies to me that these girls were willingly visiting this guy for sex.

I remember when one of the reasons young guys wanted a nice car was score with the young women. This guy is a bum. What's going on with these girls? If they wanted sex, they could no doubt get it with guys who aren't homeless. There's something missing here. And what are the odds these girls aren't from homes with good fathers? Fairly high, I'd think.

Irony? Hypocrisy? Or What?

2011-08-01T14:11:00.000-07:00

We have a daughter involved in a voluntary group activity. My wife had some reservations about how this activity was being organized. The final straw was that the woman running the thing got knocked up with no plans to marry her boyfriend.

So, we moved our daughter to a new group.

But at our final event with the old group, the expectant mother, who was unaware at the time of our plans to leave, made a comment to everyone about how one set of girls meets Friday nights, which "keeps them out of trouble".

Huh?

What kind of trouble is she talking about? Surely, she can't be talking about getting knocked up with no marriage in sight.

Or is it supposedly different because she's an adult?

That points out the different reasons why different groups bemoan teen pregnancy. I don't think teen pregnancy is a problem when say, a mature, family-minded 19-year-old wife is pregnant by her 24-year-old husband who is earning a good living, and these people are right for each other. I would guess that this woman's problem with teen girls being pregnant is that it would limit their ability to party in their early 20s. My biggest problem with unmarried teens (or unmarried women of any age) getting pregnant is that it is bad for the child and bad for society.

Interesting Poll of Men and Women

2011-07-28T11:57:00.000-07:00

Chris Michaud reported for Reuters on a poll conducted by AskMen and Cosmo. The headline was “Half of men would ditch woman who gained weight?” This is how it starts:

Men are more concerned with their partner's body type than women but they also seem to value family more highly, according to a new survey released on Tuesday.

Is it really news that men are more concerned with their partner’s body? Only to those people who have had so much "education" they believe there is no real difference between the sexes.

Nearly half of men questioned in the poll of 70,000 people said they would ditch a partner who gained weight, compared to only 20 percent of women.

A lot of the other half of the men are lying. I’ll get back to this below.

Two-third of men also said they had fantasized about their partner's friends, while only one-third of women had done so.

Two-thirds of men admitted this. A typical man only avoids fantasizing about any semi-attractive unrelated female through actively, intentionally stopping himself.

While only 18 percent of women said they would want their mate to be better endowed, more than 51 percent of men said they wished they themselves were.

It is an extremely sensitive issue for men. We relate to our penises in ways that women usually don't when it comes to parts of their bodies. That isn't to say that women wouldn't want part of their body to be different. Often, though, ladies, the things you're obsessing over a man finds fine or even great the way it is. As far as myself... at the risk of "TMI", I'll just say that I haven't had any worries since I was about 17 or 18 and measured myself, having read what the averages were.

But the survey also found 39 percent of men chose family as their top choice of the ultimate status symbol.

There are career men out there who got married and made babies in no small part because they thought they had to do that to gain favor with the people who would be hiring/promoting them. These are the guys who are likely to always put career before family. If I was a boss, I'd rather hire someone who didn't have a family over someone who neglects family.

By contrast, 43 percent of women selected a beautiful home, compared to only 6.5 percent of men. One-quarter of women named a successful partner as a top status symbol.

Those would mostly be women hot enough to attract rich men.

But men were more likely to lie about the number of sex partners they had had (50 percent) than women (35 percent).

How can the people behind the poll know this? It is relying on people to be honest about when they lie. Do they assume people will be more honest with them, rather than the people they know?

One thing both sexes agreed on was an as-yet undeveloped male birth control pill, an idea that proved popular all around.

A "temporary vasectomy" would do wonders for men, but would probably result in more infections as fewer men would use condoms. There are women who poke holes in condoms. What are they going to do about the pills? Find them and replace them with fakes?

But the sexes differed about paying for dates, at least in the early stages. More women, 38 percent, think each should pay their own way, versus 33 percent who think men should foot the bill. But 59 percent of men think they should cover the tab, at least until a relationship is established.

I want to know why.

Nearly 80 percent of men said they feel cheated by the divorce courts.

Most of the other 20 percent have not been divorced.

But more women feel the sexes receive equal treatment than those who agree the men get a raw deal.

Well, duh! They should ask their fathers, brothers, and sons.

Women are also far less comfortable with their mates keeping in touch with their ex. More than two-thirds of men are okay with their partner friending an ex on Facebook, as opposed to 38 percent of women.

Men care a lot of less about social contact. They just don't want her having sexual contact.

But three-quarters of men surveyed said they consider sexting cheating.

Interesting.

Back to the "getting fat" thing. Men are visual creatures, and we need to get turned on enough to get erect in order to have sex. A woman can be aided by artificial lubricant, so it is a little different. The weight issue is also a matter of respect. Letting yourself go tells your man you don’t respect him or care. Like it or not, successful men are expected to have attractive wives, so there's the status signifier thing.

Boiling it down to the most basic reality, men marry for sex, women marry for security (which really means money). So imagine, ladies, if you married a man with a steady, high income, and then after you married him, he voluntarily halved his income, for no other reason than he was tired of working hard. Would you stand for that? You can't avoid growing older. Usually, though, you can avoid getting fat.

The full results of the poll can be found at www.askmen.com/specials/great_male_survey and at www.askmen.com/specials/great_female_survey

A Problem With Same-Sex "Marriage"

2011-07-26T11:07:00.000-07:00

As you no doubt know, New York became the latest state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. There’s nothing I have to say that isn’t already said at The Opine Editorials, except for a few notes.

For example… Did you know that this is causing a problem for courts when it comes to divorce?

It's true.

When lesbians divorce, the courts have to do extra work to find men to ding for the alimony.

It's no easier when gays divorce. The courts have to do extra work to find a woman to assign custody of the kids.

Thank you... I'll be here all week.

She Might Have to Go Younger or Older

2011-07-21T15:38:00.000-07:00

It's not easy for a 50-something woman in this position. MISSING OUT IN WYOMING wrote in to Dear Abby:

I am a 54-year-old woman who, after a long marriage and unavoidable divorce, is ready to date.

Sorry you went through that. The divorce could have been avoided by choosing wisely and treating kindly. Choosing wisely, thought, can be difficult if someone hides who they really are before you marry them.

I work out daily, am active in my church, take classes, and socialize with women and married couples. I'm in excellent shape and am told I'm attractive and fun.

All good things.

There are few available men my age (or a little younger or older) and almost all of them seem to be looking for women in their 40s, 30s or even 20s.

This is true - that there are few available men, since almost all people get married. A heterosexual man that age is likely to be married or remarried, or divorced at least once.

Here's the heart of this letter:
Why are men my age so unwilling to date women their age?

The short, brutal answer is: Because they don't have to. Men tend to gain money, power, and fame, as they get older, and that makes them more desirable to women. The more of these things a man gets, the more and hotter women he has available to him. Sure, women appreciate hunks, but the bottom line is that the kind of women these men want (young women who will provide sex for little effort/time/money invested) are usually going to choose the guy with money/power/fame over the younger, hunky guy who is living paycheck to paycheck. These men have those women available to them, and they are going to pick those women before picking you.

"Hotter" for most men often unavoidably means "younger", because men are visual creatures who prefer tighter, perkier, less damaged/aged female skin.

When these men get older, they may look or a woman who will be able to take care of them in their old age, but for now, they want sex with hotter women. A lot of them have been married before and it isn't what they want right now, or, even if they are looking or a wife, they want her to be hotter and deferring to his age and experience.

They don't want another friend. They don't want someone with whom they can discuss politics or deep subjects. They want a younger, hotter, fresher body.

I write all of this as a guy who, during my wayward younger years, thoroughly enjoyed the company of a woman your age. The older women I dated were attractive, sexy, and a lot of fun and could carry on an intelligent conversation. But I wasn't looking to marry any of them, or travel with them, or anything like that. It was conversation, perhaps a movie, perhaps dinner, and most definitely about fornication.

Am I destined to spend my life without romance?

There is probably a man your age out there who is right for you and wants you. Maybe you've ignored a few of them already because they are "boring". Chances are, though, he'll be of modest means because the guys your age who are better off do have the option to go younger. If it really is romance you want you'll increase your odds if you are willing to date men significantly older than you or to play the cougar by seeing younger men… who can't find women their age because they are dating the men your age. If you want a husband it is going to be difficult, but not impossible, to find someone your age; it will be nearly impossible if you expect him to be much better off financially than you.

Dear Abby responded:

I can't speak for "all" older men, but many of them in our youth-obsessed culture look for women considerably younger because it helps them fool themselves into thinking they are younger than their years.

That might be the way a woman thinks, but not the way a man does. It really is as simple as younger generally = hotter. Yes, there are unattractive 20 and 30-somethings, but few women have hotter bodies at age 54 than they did at 34 or 24. Like it or not, a man's ability to attract someone in the dating world tends to increase as he gets older (to a certain limit) and a woman's tends to decrease. This is one of the big reasons why marriage "protects" women and is advantageous for women.

When you're 54 and you’re with your husband of 20+ years, he has that love and bond and history and experience and memory and vows with you. Your body turns him on in part due to these factors. That isn’t the case with the unmarried men who are strangers to you, who will have a more difficult time being turned on by the mere sight of you across the room. It is easier for them to be turned on by looking at that 20 or 30-something they don’t know either, and that makes them more likely to approach that other woman rather than you.

You are physically, socially and intellectually active, so stop allowing yourself to be marginalized and consider dating men who are younger. It worked for Demi Moore.

Not a bad suggestion.

Deflation and Sagging

2011-07-20T16:00:00.000-07:00

This is one of those brutally honest posts that necessitates my anonymity, to protect the innocent (not me… my wife). It is about body parts, not the economy. You are warned.

I like boobs. A lot of men do. There's a lot of evidence to this fact. I've liked them since I was born. Boobs are some of the greatest handiwork of God. In general, women, because men and women are different, don't really understand the effect of female skin and body parts and appearance on men. Women may appreciate a nice butt or biceps on a man, but it usually isn't anything like a man's appreciation for a woman's behind or her boobs.

My wife's were never the greatest pair I've enjoyed*. I've never said that to her, of course. I don't want to say anything that will hurt her or cause her to reduce my access to her boobs. But they were very nice when we were first married. I didn't marry her for her boobs. I guess you could say I did on some level, because if she had a penis instead of a vagina and boobs, I wouldn't have married her. But you know what I mean.

Her boobs were at their most beautiful during the pregnancies. Very nice. But then came the breastfeeding and pumping. She was extremely dedicated when it came to those things. We had a daughter who was (and is) very talented, but not at suckling a real live nipple. So my wife pumped for a year and put her milk into bottles. That's dedication. I knew no boy of mine would have the same trouble; he'd suckle, and suckle well, darn it. And I was right. My wife was glad I was right, because she wanted that experience with at least one child.

Now after all of that, objectively speaking, her breasts aren't in such good shape. I told myself to expect this before I married. After all, we all get older.

I'm not stupid enough to say anything about it.

But the other night she did. And she has said something before, too.

Now, what am I supposed to say? "You're right. They've really lost a lot of their magnificence."? Lie and say they're looking better than ever, which she will know is a lie? I did the best I could while still telling the truth. I said I like them and enjoy them and the best thing about them is that their part of her, and she's beautiful and sexy. All true. And she was very happy to hear it.

But man, that was a minefield she put in front of me, and I could have made a fatal mistake.

Barring a breakthrough in medicine, I really don't see what can be done about it. I am not interested in her getting implants or other work. If she comes to me and asks to get such work, I will first tell her again that she attracts, arouses, and delights me as she is and then discuss the other ways we could spend such money.

Do I wish her boobs were like they were before the kids? Sure. But I also wish I didn’t have gray hairs spouting on my chest and that I had the skin I had back then (before the kids). I'm just thankful she still has them at all. God forbid she get cancer and need to have them removed. I'd still love her, still find her sexy, and I would be even more thankful to still have her. I'd still find her sexy because her attitudes and actions matter more, and even when it comes to her body, even with the "boob shriveling" as she has put it, she's got a great body.

Those breasts fed and comforted my kids. That is beautiful.

So, ladies, what do you have to say? Ever led your man to a minefield like that one? Guys, ever had a minefield like that one put in front of you?

*I had a long-term girlfriend who was 23 when we got together who had unblemished, natural, beautiful DDs and she was not overweight at all. It is kind of hard to beat boobs like that, especially since we got along very well and she was low maintenance.

File This Under No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

2011-07-18T15:34:00.000-07:00

Or, perhaps, be more cautious. Chino Hills is located just outside of Los Angeles County in southern California’s benighted Inland Empire, kinda in the heart of the four-county block of LA, the OC, and the Inland Empire. Phil Willon reports at LATimes.com:

A Chino Hills woman who was trying to hang a bird feeder from her second-story patio lost her balance and fell to her death early Monday morning, authorities said.

The woman, who was not identified, died after an unsuccessful attempt by a Chino Valley Fire rescue crew to resuscitate her.

Sad.

According to a report by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, the woman was trying to hang the feeder from a wood beam directly above her patio ledge around 3:45 a.m. She fell two stories down, landing on a concrete floor near the base of a staircase.

That was awfully early in the morning. Did she work a night shift? Was she unusually tired? That can impair perception, coordination, and judgment.

Sometimes we get complacent in familiar surroundings, such as home, and aren't as cautious as we should be. She may have put up bird feeders like that many times with any close calls. My sympathies to her loved ones.

Change VAWA to VAPA

2011-07-13T13:24:00.000-07:00

Phyllis Schlafly, a favorite target of Leftist feminists who usually "forget" to explain where and how she is wrong, talks about the problems with the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in this installment of her column that calls on WAVA to be rewritten.

For 30 years, the feminists have been pretending that their goal is to abolish all sex discrimination, eliminating all gender differences no matter how reasonable. When it comes to domestic violence, however, feminist dogma preaches that there is an innate gender difference: Men are naturally batterers, and women are naturally victims (i.e., gender profiling).

Starting with its title, VAWA is just about as sex discriminatory as legislation can get. It is written and implemented to oppose the abuse of women and to punish men.

Ignoring the mountain of evidence that women initiate physical violence nearly as often as men, VAWA has more than 60 passages in its lengthy text that exclude men from its benefits.

Schlafly isn't just complaining. She has specific recommendations.

For starters, the law's title should be changed to Partner Violence Reduction Act, and the words "and men" should be added to those 60 sections.

The law should be rewritten to deal with the tremendous problem of false accusations so that its priority can be to help real victims. A Centers for Disease Control survey found that half of all partner violence was mutual, and 282 scholarly studies reported that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men.

Currently used definitions of domestic violence that are unacceptably trivial include calling your partner a naughty word, raising your voice, causing "annoyance" or "emotional distress," or just not doing what your partner wants. The law's revision should use an accurate definition of domestic violence that includes violence, such as: "any act or threatened act of violence, including any forceful detention of an individual, which results or threatens to result in physical injury."

If refusing meet a wife's every request is considered domestic violence, the concept is trivialized. There are women who are beaten by their shack-ups or husbands, and their plight should be taken seriously, not equated to disagreement.

Women who make domestic violence accusations are not required to produce evidence and are never prosecuted for perjury if they lie. Accused men are not accorded fundamental protections of due process, not considered innocent until proven guilty and in many cases are not afforded the right to confront their accusers.

Here's another specific problem:

Feminist recipients of VAWA handouts lobby legislators, judges and prosecutors on the taxpayers' dime (which is contrary to Section 1913 of Title 18, U.S. Code), and the results are generally harmful to all concerned. This lobbying has resulted in laws calling for mandatory arrest (i.e., the police must arrest someone -- guess who) of the predominant aggressor (i.e., ignore the facts and assume the man is the aggressor) and no-drop prosecution (i.e., prosecute the man even if the woman has withdrawn her accusation or refuses to testify).

She goes on to cite the same thing Michael Barone cited in a column I discussed here.

Victims of actual domestic violence have an obligation to 1) remove themselves and anyone for whom they are responsible from the situation, and 2) document the abuse, and, depending on how serious the abuse is, 3) following through in prosecution. Law enforcement should definitely cooperate, but not abandon the "innocent until proven guilty" approach. This will not only protect the victims (and thus allow them to leave the victim status behind), it will also protect others from becoming victims.

Becker and the Pecker

2011-07-12T11:47:00.000-07:00

This is going to be... big... news. Maybe you've already heard it. From the Orange County Register:

A woman is behind bars after police say she poisoned her husband, cut off his penis and threw it in the garbage disposal because he "deserved it."

He probably "deserved" it the way some women "deserve" to be beaten or sexually assaulted.

At about 9 p.m. Monday, officers went to a home in the 1400 block of Flower Street [Garden Grove, California] after a woman called 911 and reported a medical emergency, Garden Grove police Lt. Jeff Nightengale said.

Officers found a 51-year-old man tied to the bed and bleeding from his groin, he said. The man, who has not been identified, underwent emergency surgery at UCI Medical Center in Orange and was listed in serious condition, Nightengale said.

The 48-year-old woman, Catherine Kieu Becker, is accused of using an unknown poison or drug in her husband's food to make him sleepy, Nightengale said. She then tied him to the bed and, as he woke up, she cut off his penis with a knife, Nightengale said.

That would make it premeditated. Perhaps a lawyer will still manage to come up with a hormone defense.

The victim told detectives that he believed there was something wrong with the food Becker prepared for him, Nightengale said.

So he was complaining about her cooking? Is that why he deserved it? Oh, wait, he means that he was poisoned.

Becker and the victim are going through a divorce, he said.

Okay guys, one of the first rules about divorce is STAY AWAY FROM HER!

Becker was arrested on suspicion of aggravated mayhem, false imprisonment, assault with a deadly weapon, administering a drug with intent to commit a felony, poisoning and spousal abuse, Nightengale said.

What, no "illegal dumping of biological" waste? Let's see if she is actually held accountable.

Crazy women are fun in bed. Until they cut off your pecker.

By the way, it's California, so even if she is guilty, she is STILL entitled to half of the marital assets, and, if he earned more than her, alimony. Now, he can certainly sue her for what she (allegedly) did to him, and I hope he does.

Men, choose wisely. Add this woman to the "Do Not Date" list.

A Case of Alimony Fraud

2011-07-10T17:27:00.000-07:00

Any government program is going to have abuses, fraud, waste, etc. That is one reason why I support the idea that the best government is tightly limited government. Government-decided alimony is no exception.

FURIOUS IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST wrote in to Dear Abby:

My parents divorced 20 years ago. The court approved a mutual agreement that Dad would pay monthly alimony until Mom remarried or one of them died.

In states like California, this is standard if the marriage lasts ten years or more. It is ridiculous. There are very few cases in which this is warranted.

He has never missed a payment.

Sounds like a law-abiding man. You're not going to see his face on a billboard. You're not going to see his story on Lifetime.

I have recently discovered that Mom secretly married her live-in boyfriend 11 years ago, but has continued receiving the alimony without telling my father.

On the plus side, at least she didn't continue to shack up like some women do to take advantage of the insane alimony system. This is why the "until marriage" thing does not work in alimony.

Is she committing a crime for which she could be arrested? And is her husband guilty of any wrongdoing?

Well, see, there's the negative side. Your mother is a fraud. That's the nicest word I can use about her. Other men might use words that rhyme with itch and blunt, but not me. I'm not a lawyer; I have no idea if her husband can be held criminally responsible for aiding her fraud or "receipt of stolen property." She is likely a tax cheat as a result of this, and he could be as well.

I am extremely upset over this and want to do something to correct this injustice.

Good for you. Even more so if you are a female. I have no idea if you are.

It isn't fair.

Welcome to the battle of the sexes as far as the law goes.

Dear Abby responded:

Marriage certificates are public records, so get a copy of your mother's and mail it to your father. He needs to stop paying the alimony, and he can sue her in family court for any money she wasn't entitled to. His next move should be to consult an attorney and decide how he wants to handle this.

Exactly. Good advice.

I WONDER why feminists have not been vocal in attacking alimony policies - not all, just some - which presents women as unable to take care of themselves? It is a throwback to when women didn't have equal access to the workplace, property ownership, and the academy. If a feminist truly cares about equality and women not being treated as property, shouldn't she be against lifetime alimony in most cases? I get the importance and purpose of alimony in cases when the agreement was for a husband to earn in the income and for the wife to maintain the home and raise the children; she'll need time to establish herself in the working world. (This should all be required prenuptial stipulations, IMO) But for life?

Isn't there some way this situation can be made better? Perhaps through a "divorce insurance" policy? I could see having a policy where if the spouses stay married until one of them dies, the policy pays the survivor, provided the survivor didn't kill the deceased. If they divorce, the policy pays the "alimony". I'm no insurance expert, so feel free to tell me I'm smoking crack.

I really do think that this is one of those things couples should have to state in writing before getting married what the agreement is going to be. A husband-to-be should be able to voluntarily agree, before marrying, to lifetime alimony, but I think it is a bad thing to have as default in most cases. Especially in states with no-fault divorce.

I'd be curious to know the circumstances of the marriage and divorce.

Will the Academy Get Even More Hostile to Men?

2011-07-06T16:55:00.000-07:00

Townhall.com can be a great place to find conservative opinion on current issues and breaking news. They feature a wide variety (and thus sometimes they disagree with each other) of columnists who fall under the "conservative" designation (which means they might be in the GOP, or libertarians, or fiscal conservatives, foreign policy conservatives, social conservatives, etc.). The site is part of Salem Communications, which is a media company that has a lot of radio stations and syndicated programs with some of the best talk show hosts.

Today, I wanted to point out a column from a couple weeks back by Michael Barone.

He points out the university used to be place in society where you would find the widest allowance of free expression. But things have changed:

Today, we live in an America with enormous cultural variety in which very few things are considered universally verboten. But on campus it's different. There, saying something considerably milder than some of the double entendres you heard in cable news coverage of the Anthony Weiner scandal can get you into big trouble.

What brought this on?

These reflections are inspired by a seemingly innocuous 19-page letter on April 4 from the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights to colleges and universities. The letter was given prominence by Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which has done yeoman work opposing restrictive speech codes issued by colleges and universities.

OCR's letter carries great weight since there are few things a university president fears more than an OCR investigation, which can lead to losses of federal funds -- which amount to billions in some cases.

In my opinion, the only institutions of higher learning that should be getting federal funding in the first place are ones doing work (such as training) for the military, or some other Constitutionally-stipulated federal government work.

The OCR letter includes a requirement that universities adopt a "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof for deciding sexual harassment and sexual assault. In other words, in every case of alleged sexual harassment or sexual assault, a disciplinary board must decide on the basis of more likely than not.

That's far short of the requirement in criminal law that charges must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And these disciplinary proceedings sometimes face charges that could also be criminal, as in cases of alleged rape.

Uh-oh. This means things are going to get even worse for men - a minority on campus already.

Lukianoff notes that campus definitions of sexual harassment include "humor and jokes about sex in general that make someone feel uncomfortable" (University of California at Berkeley), "unwelcome sexual flirtations and inappropriate putdowns of individual persons or classes of people" (Iowa State University) or "elevator eyes" (Murray State University in Kentucky).

All of which means that just about any student can be hauled before a disciplinary committee. Jokes about sex will almost always make someone uncomfortable, after all, and usually you can't be sure if flirting will be welcome except after the fact. And how do you define "elevator eyes"?

Simple. "Elevator eyes" are when a man looks in the general direction of a woman and she finds him unattractive or dislikes him for any reason, and she wants to complain about him. Isn't that easy?

As Lukianoff points out, OCR had other alternatives. The Supreme Court in a 1999 case defined sexual harassment as conduct "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims' educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities." In other words, more than a couple of tasteless jokes or a moment of elevator eyes.

Now now, the Supreme Court is only to be listened to when it says something these people like.

Look, fully half my ancestors were women, I have sisters, I have a wife, I have a daughter. I don't want them to have to deal with sexist hate or crude behavior. But this is being ridiculous and downright dangerous. You may be sympathetic to this cause, especially if you are a woman who has been subjected to crude comments, but do you want your brother, your son, your husband, your male friends to be railroaded off campus on the whims of a, perhaps, emotionally or psychologically unstable woman?

For sure, throw violent people off campus and into prison. Remove anyone on staff or in the student body who is proven to persist in actual harassment. But if it is going to be merely "he said vs. she said", her word is going to be given more weight.

Casey Anthony Verdict

2011-07-05T12:44:00.000-07:00

Anyone seriously believe that if it has been "Kasey Anthony", a father, with the same evidence, and they were voting for conviction on the lesser charges, that a jury would have let him skate on the more serious charges?

Keeping the Revolution Going

2011-06-29T15:33:00.000-07:00

I'm an unabashed American patriot.

Okay, time for the necessary disclaimer. No, I don't think everything about our nation is great right now nor do I believe everything about our history is good. I believe the Constitution is the most brilliant blueprint for government devised by fallen men, and I also see that we often stray from it.

With that out of the way, I have to say I love this country and I thank the Lord that I was born an American.

As I write this, Independence Day is rapidly approaching, and I want to call attention to this initiative by talk radio host, author, and teacher, Dennis Prager.

Prager, noting how the Passover Seder has kept the memory of the Exodus alive for thousands of years, thought Americans needed a ritual to keep the principles of the American Revolution alive, and of course what better day for that ritual than Independence Day?

Note that Prager University is a distinct website from the website featuring Prager's show. There is a reason for that. Prager University is set up as an educational entity that seeks to counter the destructive influence of Leftist universities and media.

My Father's Wife is Killing Him

2011-06-27T16:18:00.000-07:00

Although I can't name anyone off of the top of my head, there were probably men who were killed in the past because divorce either wasn't an option for a wife or a disastrous one. Likewise, while I condemn murder and I blame murderers for murder and I don't believe any woman deserves to be so much as assaulted for using marriage and divorce laws to her advantage, let alone legitimate protection... I do have to wonder if some women who have been murdered by their husbands or ex-husbands would not have been if the laws had been different, or there was a good pre-nup, or something along those lines.

My father has worked very, very hard. He grew up in the rural Midwest in a family of very modest means. Their home was a single room for part of his childhood. My father was not good with his hands, and his father, who did manual (but skilled) labor, told my father he'd never be able to support a family. At the urging of his teachers, my father applied to universities and for scholarships, and was able to go to a good university and graduate. He came out to California to teach.

My father met my mother, married her, and decided that if he was going to have a family, he needed to earn more than what he was making as a teacher. He went to graduate school and got a higher degree. He landed a job in that field, and proceeded to work his butt off. He stuck with the same employer, played the game, and got into management. He didn't stop until he made it all the way to the top.

He was well on his way to that top spot – he was in the last position he'd have before making there, when my parents divorced.

My father has always been an awesome father to me.

When I was in high school, my parents started to have problems. My father couldn't understand why my mother couldn't be like his female colleagues or the wives of his male colleagues and enjoy "social" events related to his job. My mother did not give him the respect at home a husband should have, while at the office he was admired, respected, and he usually got his way. My mother didn't understand the modern office, and that my father had to interact with women in ways professional men of the past didn't, because in the past women were either secretaries or not present in the office; not colleagues or bosses. My father was reluctant to take vacations that were completely personal, with no connection to his professional goals. My mother has always had some personality issues. Counselor after counselor and a great sex life (according to my mother) couldn't prevent the decline of their marriage.

When I left for college, my father moved into my room at home. It wasn't like my parents were staying together for my sake – I had younger siblings. My father later moved out of the house entirely, but stayed close, and then the divorce was final about three years after I had left.

It is a community property state, and my mother, although having retired to the workforce, earned significantly less than my father. So he has payments to make to her for life, as it is unlikely she will ever remarry. She claims she got screwed over. My father never discusses any of that stuff with me.

My father met another woman, who was willing to be by his side at all of the functions and parties he went to. They married around the same time my father finally made it to the top at the office. Several years later, my father was fed up with the board and took his retirement. He could still collect his retirement and work elsewhere, and that's exactly what he did, and my guess is that he makes significantly more in his new position, even though he isn't the CEO.

We don't discuss his finances, but apparently he's discussed them somewhat with one of my sisters, and it sounds like he's been rather foolish. My father apparently didn't know that his wife owed back taxes and back child support (yes, a woman owing child support). From what I understand, when they sold her house and bought another one, it was placed in her name. She works, but she's self-employed and I highly doubt she earns anywhere near what my father does. So the way I figure it, my father paid off her back taxes and child support and is paying for her home.

My siblings have never liked my father's wife, and I don't think they've been fair to her. This is not surprising, since the nexus of that side of the family is my mother and my eldest sister. I've had mostly a good relationship with my father’s wife, and have been willing to give her every benefit of the doubt. But my perception has been changing. There was another recent incident during which she publicly disrespected my father. And it makes me think back to how she acted for a full year after my wife and I married; events around the wedding did not go the way she would have wanted, so we couldn't all get together. After we let her vent at us for something we had nothing to do with, things seemed to be fine and we were willing to put it all behind us.

She had three children of her own. One has opted to make a life on the other side of the world. Another has opted to raise her family close to her father, who is in a different part of the country; a man we have reason to believe is evil. The only one who came back to the area killed himself. All three of her children liked my father. So my father hasn't been the problem, and apparently a man who does unspeakable things to his own children is preferred to my father's wife (but perhaps the daughter is sick?).

My father has been going to counseling and trying to patch things up with my siblings. He's aging as though he's under a lot of stress.

The marriage has lasted more than ten years, so if it ends my father will be paying a second woman for life and will have to find a new home. For all I know her expensive tastes have saddled them with debt and lousy credit.

If my father does want to leave his wife, he may not because of the financial issues.

My wife says that my mother is still in love with my father. My father has a rather bad memory of his marriage to my mother, so it's not like there would be hope of them getting back together.

A definite benefit for my father for going through another divorce would be better relations with my siblings. Heck, they'd probably throw him the biggest party he's ever seen and let him move in to one of their places.

I was taken off guard by how my father was disrespected. I should have said something, but I tend to do better when I've had time to mull it over. I will be better prepared if I ever see that again.

Guys, don't be stupid with your money. If you marry, marry a woman who has good financial habits, and get a good pre-nup that involves full disclosure. Do not pay for anything – a house, a car, anything – that isn't in your name.

The Brady Bunch Was Fiction

2011-06-22T17:04:00.000-07:00

I can't believe I never thought about this before. I've thought plenty about how simply dating a single/divorced/widowed mother to minor children can obligate a man to shell out money for her kids, but I hadn't thought about the position that parents are put in when their adult children date parents of minor children. FAIR-MINDED IN WEST VIRGINIA wrote in to Dear Abby:

Our daughter is divorced with two children.

So sad to hear it.

She has been dating a man who has three children.

Even more sad to hear that. Her kids don’t need that. Neither do his kids. And he doesn’t need to obligate himself financially to your daughter and grandchildren.

Recently, they decided to move in together.

Shacking up is a horrible idea. What a terrible example for the children. It also increases the likelihood of abuse.

All the children are first grade or younger.

That mostly makes it worse. The only upside is that since they are being thrown together pre-puberty, it is less likely they will be having sex with each other.

So what's the letter writer's concern? The chaos? The bad example? The negative correlations? No! It's...

What would be the proper way to handle birthdays?

If my daughter and her boyfriend were married, or even engaged, I wouldn't have a problem sending gifts to his children. But since my husband and I hardly know this man (we live in another state and have met him only once or twice), we're not sure how to handle this.

Do not acknowledge his birthday at all. But his kids have no control over this. I'd say you should send them all gifts, but the chances are, this mess isn't going to last very long, and then the kids may still expect gifts. The kids are a little young to appreciate it, but you could make savings deposits for your grandchildren, and send the cards to your daughter with the instruction that she present them to your grandchildren when the other kids aren't present.

What's the proper thing?

The proper thing was for your daughter to not shack up in the first place.

Dear Abby responded:

Your daughter and grandchildren have formed a household with her boyfriend and his kids. If you're compassionate people, you will treat all of the children equally for as long as the relationship lasts.

So, if her daughter were to get a roommate, wouldn't that mean they "formed a household" and they should send gifts to the roommate's kids? It isn't like they all get together every week.

If they decide to marry, which is a possibility, you will wind up being grandparents to all of them.

If. Blended families rarely work anything like the Brady Bunch. And they aren't even family, because it is a shack-up situation.

What a mess. Don't do this to your parents. If you're not going to wait for the kids to be grown, then at least get married and thereby make the other people family.

The Minefield of Complimenting Beauty

2011-06-22T09:35:00.000-07:00

What ever happened to giving and accepting compliments? MARRIED TO A KNOCKOUT wrote to Dear Abby:

Twice, while attending social functions, my wife and I met couples for the first time. On each of these occasions as we were saying goodbye, the husbands said to me, "Your wife is gorgeous."

Certainly, that’s better than "Does your wife play fetch?" Isn't it?

They said it in front of their wives, which surprised me.

Why? Isn't that better than doing it behind their wife's back? They're not saying, "My wife is ugly compared to your hot babe."

The first time it happened, I didn't know what to say.

How about, "Thanks. I blame her mother."?

The second time, I replied, "So is yours," even though the women weren't all that attractive.

Well, that was polite of you.

I'm wondering if their comments were appropriate, especially because they were made in the presence of their wives. I wasn't offended, just caught off-guard and felt uncomfortable for their wives.

It could just be compliments. I mean, would you feel this way if they told you that your wife was so sharp, or so nice? On the other hand, maybe they are swingers and are doing some early testing of your waters. If the next time they see you they say, "Won't you join is in the hot tub... for some drinks... and some wild sex" you'll know.

Dear Abby responded:

The comments those individuals made strike me as insensitive to the feelings of their wives because it invited a comparison which could have made the women feel uncomfortable.

Really?

I think you handled both situations gallantly.

Okay. Well, I don't recall putting anyone in that same position, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with the situation. Back in my bachelor days I would make a point of shaking a man's hand and telling him "way to go", nodding slyly towards his attractive wife or girlfriend. But that was usually a moment between just the two of us.

Recently, one sister-in-law was asking another who is getting into even better shape, and who is involved in the performing arts (no, not stripping or anything nude), if she is going to get breast implants. The question bummed out the second sister-in-law, and I wanted to tell her that there's nothing wrong with her body the way it is. I didn't say a thing, though, because I thought it my freak her out or upset my wife. I like my wife's body better, mind you, and I think about my wife and her body constantly, but there's nothing wrong with that sister-in-law’s body. When my wife and I were back home, I mentioned the situation and what I had thought. She didn’t seem like she would have been upset. Instead, the conversation diverted to the first sister-in-law who'd asked the question. She's so out of shape that it is clear she envies her sister's body and even said that if she could do one "simple" thing to have the perfect body, she would.

Anyway, when in doubt, it is best for a man, especially a husband, to stay silent. I can't help but think this is related to "sexual harassment" policies in the workplace and radical feminism, and in Christian circles, the concern that a man may possibly admire the female form, even if that form doesn't belong to his wife. Complimenting a woman's appearance is now a minefield. And make no mistake about it - when a man is told his wife is beautiful, it is also a compliment to the man. It says he has good taste and that he was capable of attracting a beautiful wife.

Making Up and Something New

2011-06-21T15:38:00.000-07:00

One of the things I love about my marriage is that my wife and I can't stay hostile very long. Much of the damage recently done, detailed in my previous entry, was repaired within a few days. I was still telling her "I love you", still kissing her (albeit just pecks), and still hugging her, though mostly in response to her rather than initiating. She's not stupid. She knew I was upset.

My wife had thought I was angry – angry about her calling me "fixated". But it wasn't that. I was hurt. I was hurt about the other things.

As with my previous entry, this is going to get detailed about lovemaking, so don't read it if you don't want to.

The male ego is very fragile, especially when it comes to our sexuality and our wives. In addition, the most enjoyable thing for me about lovemaking (and I enjoy so many things about lovemaking) is bringing pleasure to my wife and being close to her. I like every inch of her and I want to experience her as much as I can, to the point that something like leaking breast milk (not an issue anymore) can be a turn on for me rather than a turn off. I have no itch to crouch down in the shower to receive a “golden shower” from her, but the thought does not turn me off, because it is her.

It would be so nice if it was the same for her when it comes to me. The fact is, it isn't. But we can still have enjoyable, passionate, intimate lovemaking, as demonstrated the other night.

So she was doing the mercy oral thing (it was one of those nights she didn't want to be kept awake for hours due to having an orgasm herself), and it is difficult for a husband stay hurt or grumpy when his wife is so lovingly attending to his first and lifetime buddy, so I did a very stupid thing. I asked, "Are you okay with this?"

That ticked her off. She asked if there was anything sexual that she'd let go on for more than two weeks that she wasn't okay with.

I replied, "Not that I know of."

Asking "Are you okay with this" was stupid on my part, because she wasn't going to get any points for simply saying yes, and if she said she didn't like it (she has claimed in the past that she does) then it would ruin the experience for me. I know some guys are different, and like the idea that a woman loves them so much she'll do it even though she doesn't like to, but I am mostly focusing on making her feel comfortable and loved, and so it is not so easy for me to sit back passively while she does something for my pleasure unless she enjoys doing it. She may very well not like it some days, and like it others. Or could be learning to like it. The best response she could have given was "Mmmmm, I looove it." But that's not her.

She said she's not a porn star. But I didn't get my ideas, desires, or expectations from porn. I don't think I'd ever really seen a porn video before I started fornicating. I know there are women who would enjoy fellatio more, and some who like not only doing it to completion, but some who like swallowing.

My wife mentioned not wanting to vomit, and I said that it wasn't a good idea to talk about vomit when I'm trying to get and maintain an erection.

We've made up, but the completion is still an issue. She said she searched for tips and didn't have much luck, but what good are tips going to be if she is so disgusted by the taste/temperature/texture? I half-jokingly told her she just needs to deep throat. Seriously, perhaps there is something she can have in her mouth already to aid the experience for both of us? Unless we figure out something, it is going to stay with the current Standard Operating Procedure... she'll get away from there once my orgasm in inevitable... which diminishes the orgasm.

I confessed to her about the responses I'd considered, which I wrote about, to try to give her an idea of how I felt about the situation. (The situation being she not only completed, but swallowed all three times she fellated me leading up to our wedding, but now she "can't" complete and got upset about me making a suggestion.)

She repeatedly told me I'm not gross and my ejaculate is not gross. I joked that anything you're not willing to have in your mouth must be gross, then cited examples as to why my statement was absurd.

She also cited that she had been able to go without sex until we married (and she wasn't a teen when we married). I told her that sounds like "I don't like sex." I wasn't meaning to be contentious, just point out to her that along with talking about vomiting, some talk is not exactly going to light my fire in bed.

Despite all of that, the night ended well. We were planning to spend some time at her parents' place the next day and she told me she didn't want her mother detecting the tension, since her mother is very good at that. So that is why we had to make up when we did. I told her we're going to be going over to her parents' a lot more often then.

We capped off the night with fellatio, including an (attempted?) prostate massage – something I had never experienced before. It definitely felt different. It also had to be something she thought about ahead of time, because she had to trim at least one of her fingernails. Another sign was that she had wanted me to wash up really good just before. It wasn't something that I had asked for, but something she knew I had grown to be open to. In the past, I would have flatly rejected the idea.

If I haven't scared you off and you're still reading this, I am open to feedback and suggestions, as always. But I see again that in many ways, I picked a very good woman to marry because despite the problems we still have, we generally have a good time together and work through things.

That Didn't Go Very Well

2011-06-16T10:02:00.000-07:00

After the jump, I vent very explicitly about some issues with lovemaking in my marriage. You are warned.

I almost never get enough sleep. Usually these days, on days I'm working, I get no more than 6 hours and quite often just 5 hours, usually interrupted repeatedly by the dog or the kids or whatever. This provides a convenient excuse for my wife to kiss me and send me to bed without lovemaking. Because I need my sleep, you see. She doesn't reject me. She just behaves as though it is a given that I need to get to sleep and she needs to do her activities.

Recently, I managed to be awake enough when she finally came to bed that I was able to grab her, hold her wrists together with one of my hands (she's a slight woman, she is), order her around, and make passionate love to her while she stayed passive, even when I wasn't "forcing" her to be. She had what she claimed was the most intense orgasm she's ever had and claims she likes it when I "take charge". You see, I've usually tried to be very gentle and tender in my lovemaking.

But I don't know if I’m going to try getting so dominant again any time soon. Why? Because now I'm resentful. My male ego has been severely wounded.

Last night, I decided I was going to re-emerge from the bedroom and order her to come back into the bedroom with me and give me mercy fellatio. I should have masturbated instead. We'd both be a lot happier today if I had.

As we were getting settled and kissing and she was just about to do what seems to be a chore, I made the offer that if she ever let me ejaculate in her mouth again, I'd be willing to let her transfer it into my mouth. I don't have a burning desire to do that, but I thought perhaps it would give her a reason – curiosity – to try it, or a "good for the goose, good for the gander" sort of thing.

She was thoroughly disgusted by the idea, and then upset. She said that she thought we had agreed that it was no big deal that she no longer allows me to ejaculate in her mouth.

I didn't recall that, and I told her so.

Rather, I remember she was willing to try in the shower, but then we put that project on hold for temporary reasons that have long since gone away.

She said something about us having being married for X years now, explicitly saying that since she hasn't done it all of of this time (post wedding cake, that is), I shouldn't expect it or ask. (Which takes me back to me "taking charge"... since I mostly haven't for the X years we've been married, I guess I shouldn't do that. Or try anything else we haven't established as part of our routine.)

She then said that I was "fixated", but she took that back after I pointed out that we've been married for X years and I've asked/hinted a grand total of two of three times now.

She told me that ejaculating into her mouth would be disgusting; my semen is disgusting. She compared the substance and body function that helped create our kids and by association the moment I'm experiencing intense pleasure, to "hocking a loogie". I don't think there is a faster way to make me lose an erection or cause me to completely shut down emotionally. And again last night, without my prompting, she did note that she swallowed all three times she gave me fellatio before we married. So she can do it. She can at least keep the fellatio going through the orgasm, even if she doesn't swallow. That makes this all so much worse. (And even if she didn't do that before we married, I still would have asked some time during our marriage.)

Before leaving the room, she "apologized" that she's not as good as some of my past lovers. I replied that I had never said that. She correctly said that I've never said she's the best lover I've ever had (which she once claimed she wanted to be). She is the best kisser, and I have told her so, but no, I haven't ever lied to her by telling her she's the best lover I have ever had. I guess this is one of those lies a husband is supposed to say. Yes, during my wayward days of fornication, I did have some better loves, including some that enthusiastically gave great fellatio and swallowed consistently. At least one seemed to genuinely get off on it. Another one revealed after we were no longer active with each other that she didn't like fellatio in and of itself.

Clearly my wife's sill hurt about my history, but she knew I had a history very early on. She lied to me when she told me that wouldn't be a problem. She wouldn't call it a lie... she'd say she just didn't realize how she would feel.

What's worse is that things like this (her suddenly losing the "ability" to do something after eating wedding cake) make me wonder if much of her disability isn't psychosomatic after all. I never hint at that because I know how painful suggestions by others have been to her, even though she mentions to me some things that indicate she thinks some of it might be psychosomatic.

I know how I'm supposed to handle this as a good Christian husband. I'm supposed to never ever bring it up again, and still go on doing all of the things I do in an effort to give her the most physical and emotional pleasure I can.

But I'm tempted to respond in the following ways:

1. Not "taking charge" again. If she asks why, I'll say we were married for X years without me doing that. (So help me God if she ever has an affair and cites monotony as the reason.)

2. Pulling out/stopping intercourse before ejaculation. She claims she likes me to ejaculate insider her and requests I do – though that could be more about trying to prevent me from ejaculating anywhere else on her. Because, you know, my semen is disgusting and all. But I would pull out, and when she asks why, I'll point out that I don't "hock loogies" inside vaginas, and we already have our kids.

3. Not doing cunnilingus, and when she asks why, comparing it to licking a sweaty armpit. Of course, I like cunnilingus so much this would punish me more than her, especially since she's just fine with not having an orgasm.

The thing is, if she were to now insist that she's changed her mind, I wouldn't believe it. I wouldn't enjoy it, because I now know how she really feels, and I don't like to beg, and I won't enjoy something much if I know she is having to force herself to do it.

It is times like this that part of me is glad I fornicated, so at least I don't have to wonder what certain experiences are like.

Have you been there, too? What say you? Ladies, I know there are plenty of you who also see semen as an annoyance at best, but there are others who are different.

Maybe She'll Get a Show on E!

2011-06-14T12:55:00.000-07:00

From the Associated Press, distributing stuff from Maine's Portland Press Herald, comes this update on a repeat "American Idol" contestant.

A police report says 25-year-old Jessica Candage of Yarmouth was spotted Sunday evening by a Portland officer who said it appeared she was preventing her husband from walking toward him. The officer then saw Candage punch her husband, Craig, in the face several times.

She's now facing domestic abuse charges, and I hope she will be get the very same treatment as if the sexes were switched in this story.

Craig Candage told the Portland Press Herald the incident was his fault and his wife shouldn't have been charged.

Isn't that the classic response from a victim of DV? There's something wrong with him for trying to protect her from the law. Or she's really, really good in the sack. Most crazy women are, and a lot of guys will put up with a heckuva lot for wild sex. It's all fun until she cuts off your penis or sets you on fire, and not only gets away with it, but has a movie made about her to air on Lifetime.

Jessica Candage competed on "American Idol" under the stage name Jessica Cunningham.

Cunningham? I don't remember Joanie behaving that way.

She twice made it to the final 24. When last voted off the show, she responded to the judges' rejection by delivering a two-fisted, obscene gesture.

That was no doubt a way to get a little more airtime. Stay classy.

Another Boy Being Raised in Chaos

2011-06-13T15:15:00.000-07:00

Here's another shining example from the "single mother" files. FEARFUL NANA IN GEORGIA wrote in to Dear Abby:

My daughter, "Alana," has a 7-year-old son my husband and I have helped to raise while she got her life together and pursued her lucrative career.

There's no father around, or mentioned at all. One must wonder why Alana didn't give the boy, "Tristan", up for adoption since she is so busy.

The problem is, every time Alana gets a new boyfriend, she rushes to make the boyfriend Tristan's "daddy."

Unacceptable. She shouldn't be doing that, but no man should be putting up with it.

The men my daughter chooses are crude, rude and, without fail, feel a need to "straighten out" Tristan. My grandson does not need straightening out because he is polite, engaging and a good soul.

What he needs is you to adopt him.

Alana claims she's "in love" and fails to see the potential harm this guy could inflict on Tristan. We do not employ corporal punishment, but Jeff has already said (several times) he would "beat his butt"!

That is your concern? Spanking? That's the least of the problems with what is going on.

Dear Abby questions Alana's self-esteem (of course - even though it sounds like Alana wasn't spanked). If she has such low esteem, how did she get a lucrative career?

You and your husband need to get across to her how harmful it is for her to repeatedly introduce men to her son as "daddies."

She's not going to listen.

Parents should wait until they know their prospective mates well enough to be assured they won't injure the child physically or psychologically.

Parents should wait until their kids are grown.

That poor kid. His grandparents are his lifeline. Who knocked up Alana? Do you have any idea what is being done to your offspring?

Should He Have Shut Up?

2011-06-11T11:30:00.000-07:00

Dr. Laura usually gets it right. As my readers know, I'm a huge fan of hers.

Unless there was some off-air info the audience wasn't given, I think she dropped the ball on this one. June 9, 2011 Hour 2... almost 27 minutes into the podcast, she takes a call from "Brooke" who says she's in a 7 month relationship, and about 4 months in "before they started dating", the guy she is seeing told her he's "had an issue with pornography". No explanation was given by the caller as to what exactly was meant. Some people consider clothing catalogs pornographic.

Dr. Laura usually asks, "men, women, children, or small farm animals?" But she didn't.

He's now taking steps to be "accountable", including not having a lot of personal communication devices/computers that would allow him to access whatever it is that he calls porn.

He says he's a virgin and he's a Christian. If he wasn't religious, I can't see him having confessed to a girl he was dating his problem. He probably wouldn't have seen it as a problem in the first place, and wouldn't be taking steps to avoid porn.

Dr. Laura - who has told woman after woman that it isn't a big deal if a guy looks at porn of women or heterosexual sex as long as it doesn't go beyond mere recreation as far as time usage, doesn't keep him from making love with his wife, and doesn't use up family funds - noted that it must be "serious" if the guy was going without personal computers in his home.

I think this is a misunderstanding, because Dr. Laura is not steeped in the same religious culture as the caller and her (potential) boyfriend.

She told the girl to move on or have her tubes tied.

Assuming the guy was only looking at women or women having sex with men, I would think if the guy wasn't taking accountability such steps, but was still looking at porn, we can reasonably guess from Dr. Laura's other statements about men and porn that her advice would be to tell the girl to get over it. It is quite possible that if this guy had never told this caller he had what he considered a problem, or had simply never tried to do anything about it, she would never, ever have found out in the first place. They could have had a lifelong happy marriage without the subject ever coming up.

It is quite possible that the guy was simply very horny because he was a virgin and not having sex on a regular basis, and once he was having regular lovemaking with his wife, he wouldn't have much use for porn at all. It is normal for men, even Christian virgins, to be horny on a regular basis, and have erotic dreams. If they don't masturbate, they are going to ejaculate anyway, as it is natural biology.

Frankly, if a guy is so "pure" that he doesn't ever look, then I'd tell a woman to be extremely careful that lest she marry a man with no sex drive, or who has been traumatized and isn't going to make love to her.

There probably is some guy out there compatible with this caller who is a virgin (if that is what she wants), and who hasn't "had a problem" with porn. But that will be a rare specimen indeed, and more rare with each day that goes by (assuming she wants to marry a man her age or older).

As for this guy, he'll be punished for doing what he thought was the right thing, what others have probably told him to do as part of his accountability, and being honest with the caller. Or we could see it as ongoing punishment for having indulged in the first place... though others who have indulged and aren't so open about it will not face that punishment (at least not in this life).

If the caller stays with him, she'll probably let it bug her and if she does, she will no doubt take that out on him.

If she dumps him, he'll be that much older and a virgin, and I'd wager (if I was a bettin' man) that the older a man is a virgin, the more wary Dr. Laura would tell a woman calling her to be wary.

As I've written here before, my wife was a virgin when we married. She made no secret about that. She also told me after we married that she had had a VHS tape of soft core (Cinemax or Showtime) to help sooth her urges. I never saw it - she claims she erased it when we married. She didn't get into anything strange. She didn't become a murderer. She's a great mother, and for the most part, an excellent wife.

I don't write any of this to defend porn, sinful lusting, or any other sin. But I do think people should be realistic, fair, and not let reactions get out of proportion.

Should Christians Marry Younger?

2011-06-08T15:13:00.000-07:00

This entry is very long may be of no interest to my readers who are not Theists.

I usually catch some of Frank Pastore's show in the Los Angeles radio market. Pastore has a great show and I generally think he’s awesome. (Long story short: Pastore had a horrible childhood, was an atheist who scoffed at believers, became an MLB pitcher, had a career-ending injury, and became a Christian after being challenged by teammates. He got formal education that equipped him to talk intelligently about religion, philosophy, and politics.) On Tuesday's show, he was again talking about a concept I've heard him discuss before, because Dr. Al Mohler had been on "Focus on the Family" talking about it.

Here's the concept:

Christians should be raising children from birth with the expectation that they will marry at about ages 18-20, and the Church (Christians) should support such young newlyweds as they "grow into adulthood together".

Why? Because what we're doing now, which is telling our young people to complete their education, mature, and establish their careers before marrying at about ages 25 to 30, while we also are telling people to save sex for marriage (wink, wink) isn’t "working". It isn't working as evidenced by all of the shacking up, fornication, unwed pregnancies, and multiple "failed" relationships going on with "Christians"… which may, possibly, unthinkably, lead to the horrible abomination of.... men admiring pictures of nude women.

Okay, so I added that last part, but "porn use" is one of the problems cited with having people who are feeling raging hormones by age 13 wait 12 to 17 years to marry.

Mohler presents marriage as the expected norm in a way so as to portray the "gift of celibacy" that would allow a good Christian to stay unmarried as extremely rare. (Unfortunately, some men find that the "gift" of celibacy isn’t so rare in wives.) It could be taken in a way so that unmarried people are made to feel like something is wrong with them and they aren’t being good Christians, even if they aren’t fornicating.

Even lowering the age most Christians marry to 18 isn't going to eliminate the problem. As Mohler himself notes, people are growing physically/sexually mature at younger ages – currently by 13. Even if people do marry by 18, that still leaves five years of raging hormones. How many "Christian" children lose their virginity before 18? Would that number go down if they know they'll likely only have to wait until 18 rather than 25?

Things probably have gotten worse, but from what I hear some records indicate it was not rare at all in "the good ol' days", all the way back to the days of American Revolution, for women to be pregnant already when they married. And prostitutes have always had customers – many of them have been sons taken by their own fathers. And yes, people got married younger and divorce was less common… but that was in no small part because women were expected to obey their husbands and let them have ultimate control, husbands could beat their wives, and wives had a much harder time of getting a divorce, let alone one that would by anything but a disaster for them. Marriage "worked", except for women stuck with abusive or uncaring husbands unwilling to consider her desires. Certainly, things have gotten better in some respects. What has definitely gotten worse is that our culture is now accepting and celebrative of unwed pregnancy.

Yes, out-of-wedlock pregnancies are a problem, and STDs are a problem, as is fornication even when it doesn't lead to such pregnancies or doesn't spread STDs. But I don't buy the idea that any relationship between a man and woman that doesn't lead to marriage until death is a "failed" relationship. Nobody ever talks about friendships that are no longer active as being "failed friendships". I reject the idea that the only purpose for seeing someone is to marry that person. Dating or courting or whatever you do helps you to learn about yourself and how you interact with different personalities, and plus there is benefit to experiencing things (such as activities, recreation, entertainment) with someone else. (I do believe that if someone is looking for a spouse, they should stop dating someone once they know they couldn't marry them.)

Here's my biggest problem with "let's raise Christians to marry at 18". We have created a world in which that doesn't correlate to educational and career success, and a world in which children are financial liabilities instead of assets. If we expect one spouse to financially support the other as well as multiple children, that spouse is usually going to already be well on the way to achieving a successful career.

I do not follow Mohler closely, so perhaps his plan covers this, but doesn’t encouraging Christians to marry at age 18-20 essentially cede professions and positions that require higher education, especially advanced education, and a high investment of time, at least in the earlier stages, to non-Christians? Especially if we also condemn any kind of artificial contraception? The fact is, if someone marries and starts having children at 18, 19, or 20 instead of going to college immediately after high school and giving full-time attention to studies, odds are they are either not going to get a degree or are going to be delayed, often significantly, in getting a degree. It is (next to) impossible for someone to be a good spouse, a good parent, and give full-time attention to studies. My father-in-law did manage to go to an Ivy League university right after high school while marrying at 18 and having children immediately, and he went on become a doctor. But that marriage ended in divorce relatively soon, and he had a full scholarship. The workplace is also much different than it was 30, 40, or 50 years ago. Many jobs and careers require someone trying to get established to work long or odd hours, extra days, travel, frequently relocate, and engage in semi-social networking activities in mixed-sex situations. How many spouses are going to put up with that? What wife is going to be happy if her husband is never home, they are financially struggling, and he's spending a lot of time with female coworkers and potential clients?

Even a Christian boss is going to prefer someone with education and experience. Even a Christian client is going to prefer someone with more experience.

So here's what we'd be committing to if we adopted this model as the norm:

1. Mostly abandoning the fields of science, law, government, medicine, and any other that requires extensive education… to non-Christians.
2. Extensive involvement in private marital matters as we mentor younger, newlywed Christians as they "grow" into adulthood.
3. Financially supporting other married adults.
4. Having less money to give to churches, ministries, and missions.

Hey, I think it is better for newly married people to be internally financially independent, not living with parents, and not having to air their dirty laundry to family and friends in an effort to cope, and not having grandparents be the primary caregivers to children. But that's just me.

Yes, people get more set in their ways as they get older, and so they are less flexible. But that doesn't need to be a problem for marriage; people simply need to find someone with whom they are compatible. With technology, that has never been easier. Who wants to marry someone who is immature? I can’t help but think of the Christian relationship experts who say that the relationship stops advancing once sex is involved. They say this to point out that a dating relationship isn't going to get any socially deeper than it was when they started having sex; delaying sex is better for the relationship. So I ask – does the wedding ceremony matter more than having mature people in a mature relationship? Because let's say our Christian couple meets at 16 and married at 18. Are we to believe their relationship is automatically better and more advanced than a couple that met at age 27, started having sex with each other at 28, and married at 29? If a man stops maturing, or at least maturing in the relationship, the moment he gets sex, then isn't the 18-year-old married Christian man going to be stuck at age 18? Or is it different because he can leave a fornication situation at any time, but he can/t lave a marriage as easily? In reality, anyone can get a divorce for any reason. Do the legal/financial consequences of divorce make the difference?

Christians: Would you rather 1) all of our institutional and elected leaders, all of our movers and shakers, and our wealthy be non-Christians while just about all of our children marry as virgins, or 2) some positions of power and leadership be occupied by Christians and we continue with many of our children losing their virginity before they marry. You may like option 1, but how long will we be free to live a Christian life in any sense in such a culture? Sure, some people become Christians as adults, but how long would we even be free to evangelize and make disciples of the movers and shakers, or anyone else?

I'd rather my child fornicate because they married later rather than marry, as a virgin, the wrong person and otherwise stunt their growth because they married earlier. Those aren't the only options; they are just the likeliest ones. Fornication is definitely a sin, but it isn't the end of the world. I fornicated, and yes I know there were/are negative consequences, spiritual and otherwise, for having done so. But I never shacked up, I never got an STD, and as far as I can tell, there was never a pregnancy; I am now (generally) happily married, and my wife (my virgin bride) says she is so happy and has the life she's always wanted. Your mileage may vary, and I recognize that. But it is possible - that just because "Christian" youth are fornicating does not mean they must have all of the other baggage come along.

Sex is for marriage. I truly believe that. But I also believe that marriage is sacred and ought not to be entered into with the wrong person – more likely to happen when getting married young - or before both people are ready to get married. I have heard that "sex covers a lot of sins", meaning that if you're fornicating with someone, you are less likely to see that they aren't really the right person for you. There's a lot of truth in that. But isn't it also possible that someone could marry the wrong person or marry before they are ready because they were so horny and they didn't want to have sex outside of marriage? People should not allow themselves to be blinded either way.

So far, I am unconvinced that young marriage (and the socialization from the cradle to support it) is the answer to what ails us.

I know I have LDS readers and those in other "faith communities" in which members are known for marrying young. Maybe you can shed so light here on marrying young and still being successful. How is it accomplished?

Hot For Teacher

2011-06-08T08:26:00.000-07:00

WONDERING IN WYOMING, a teacher of ten years, wrote in to Dear Abby:

One student I've kept in touch with recently admitted his romantic love for me.

This is not unusual, thought I tended to look at my teachers as... teachers. I don't recall thinking much about their personal lives at all. I was there to learn from them, they were there to teach me.

"Kyle" is now in his 20s and on his own. As his teacher 10 years ago, I'd never have dreamed of this happening.

You should have been warned about this.

What's difficult is I think I reciprocate those feelings. I never expected the man I connect with most to be a former student, but Kyle is an adult and I know him as such.

She goes on to express her hesitation as well as her openness to this being the love of her life, asking if it would be inappropriate to follow her heart.

Wyoming is generally not the place I think of when I think of attractive women. I'm sure there are some there. But the most attractive young women tend to gravitate to the large metropolitan areas, especially the warmer ones, because there are more men with money, power, and fame to compete for her affections, and more opportunities for her to show off what she has. Think Los Angeles, Dallas, and Miami. Anyway, Kyle has an attraction, but it could be some unrealistic fantasy, especially a teacher-student fantasy, and his infatuation may give way to disillusionment. Or, maybe he's genuinely and deeply drawn to her. Hopefully, it is the latter.

If she's been teaching for ten years, then she's probably at least 32. She doesn't explain what grade she teaches, but Kyle is, at the oldest, 28. A wife being four years older can certainly work. Now, if he's 21, then the long-term prospects aren't so good.

I don't see any moral problem with her dating him. Dear Abby agrees, though warns that she should expect gossip and should be prepared to relocate. Good advice.

I'd bet money (if I was a wagerin’ man) that some male teachers and coaches in WONDERING's area are married to former students.

The girlfriend I had the longest relationship with (before my wife) was starting her teaching career when we first started dating. She had an amazing body. No matter how conservatively she dressed, she couldn't hide her DD breasts, and at least once, jealous female students falsely accused her of flaunting them. The funny thing was, that girlfriend failed to accept that she had a great body. She was teaching middle schoolers the first year, and she asked me if she should make male students work at the chalkboard. It took me a second to get the real meaning of her question, but once I understood, I advised her that it would be best to let the students stay in their seats. At that age, boys are getting erections all of time with little rhyme or reason, but her presence was plenty of reason. Those poor boys didn't stand a chance. Even if they cared more about the caboose. Or legs. She was all good.

So, ladies and gentlemen... did you have a crush on any of your teachers? Or whether as a student or adult, do you have any experience with a situation like this? Would you tell the letter writer not to do it?

He's a Little Late in Ending This

2011-06-07T14:46:00.000-07:00

This guy is complaining about his girlfriend constantly being tardy and losing things. I was always on time for everything... before I had kids. And I am literally compulsive about checking to make sure I don't lose things. If you were hanging around me, you'd see me checking my pockets often. LOSING PATIENCE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST wrote to Dear Abby:

I have been in a seven-year relationship with "Maddy," which will probably end soon because she can't seem to stick to any kind of routine. Maddy is in her mid-30s, the youngest in a large family, and grew up without any kind of responsibilities.

So you've been dating her for seven years now, since she was in her mid to late 20s, when she should have been looking for a husband, if that is what she wants. Nice.

She's always misplacing and losing things -- watches, cameras, jewelry, etc. Her mail goes unopened and her bills get paid late even though she has plenty of money.

You should have noticed all of this fairly early on, and realized this was not a match for you.

Maddy thinks I'm "controlling" because I get frustrated when we have to be somewhere at a specified time and she's always late.

Uh huh…

I have planned entire weekends with dinner reservations and events scheduled and let her know what time we need to leave. When the time comes, she's not even packed yet. Worse, she can't understand my irritation. Is this relationship worth saving -- or my sanity?

You should have ended this a long time ago. You don't want a lifetime of this.

My guess is that this guy thought she would get better as she matured – perhaps he thought it was “cute” at first. Or, it is possible that he simply wants to trade her in for a younger model (notice, we don't have his age, though he mentions hers) and this is his excuse. He was able to tolerate this stuff because she was younger and hotter and good in bed. But now she's well out of her 20s* and she's probably getting complacent and dropping things out of her sexual arsenal... probably getting less and less enthusiastic and taking more and more effort on his part to get her to climax. Dumping her means he gets to go on the hunt again, experience a new, younger body, and have that New Relationship Energy again.

*If you’ve read some of my better past entries, you know I enjoyed the company of women of various ages, including into their 40s and 50s when I was in my 20s. But many men, especially in Category 4, see 30 as the "expiration date" when it comes to women. For them, it is downhill from there. And now that she's in her mid-30s, her options are dropping away.

Ah, Malaysia

2011-06-06T16:28:00.000-07:00

A group of women in Malaysia is making headlines because the group has said women should give it to their husbands good, and let him run the show. Associated Press writer Eileen Ng reports.

As a new bride, 22-year-old Ummu Atirah believes she knows the secret to a blissful marriage: obey her husband and ensure he is sexually satisfied.

Well, yes, unless her husband is a complete idiot. My wife obeys me. And guess what? I obey her, too. We don't treat each other like children.

Ummu and some 800 other Muslim women in Malaysia are members of the "Obedient Wives Club" that is generating controversy in one of the most modern and progressive Muslim-majority nations, where many Muslim Malaysian women hold high posts in the government and corporate world.

The new club, launched Saturday, says it can cure social ills such as prostitution and divorce by teaching women to be submissive and keep their men happy in the bedroom.

Well, it would certainly cut down on the number of men seeking divorce. In the USA, women are far more likely to file. As far as prostitution, There are some married men who go to hookers because the wife will not meet a reasonable sexual request. However, there are plenty of men who go to hookers for other reasons, such as not being married and lacking game, having a fetish for hookers, or having some sort of fetish that is difficult to fulfill in with an "unpaid" partner, etc.

"Islam compels us to be obedient to our husband. Whatever he says, I must follow. It is a sin if I don't obey and make him happy," said Ummu, who wore a yellow headscarf.

I'm sure there are Muslim women (and men, for that matter) who swear up and down that this is false.

The club, founded by a fringe Islamic group known as Global Ikhwan, has been dismissed by politicians and activists as a throwback to Medieval times and an insult to modern women of Malaysia.

I'm still not seeing what is so bad. Well, except for the fringe Islamic thing.

But the group's activities, which previously included the setting up of a Polygamy Club, show that pockets of conservative Islamic ideas still thrive in Malaysia.

Ah. But are they touting one husband-multiple wives polygamy with this particular program? And have they written in to Dear Abby?

Despite the group's conservative Islamic background, Rohayah Mohamad, one of the founders of the club, openly talks about the virtues of marital sex even though most of her colleagues are shy about the topic.

"Sex is a taboo in Asian society."

Oh yeah, right. Asians never ever talk about sex. Right.

"We have ignored it in our marriages but it's all down to sex. A good wife is a good sex worker to her husband. What is wrong with being a whore ... to your husband?" she said.

Whores charge.

Okay, well, wives who earn less than their husbands, which is most, are paid through community property laws within marital law. So, I suppose the argument can be made that a husband is already paying up. But is that true in Malaysia?

Marital lovemaking is supposed to be mutually enjoyable. A wife should not think of it in literal prostitution terms, and neither should her husband. But if you want to use "whore" in the nonliteral sense, then I getchya.

She said wives must go beyond the traditional roles as good cooks or good mothers and learn to "obey, serve and entertain" their husbands to prevent them from straying or misbehaving.

Again, let's be clear. Husband should not stray. However, it is more understandable that a husband will stray if his wife rejects him. After all, if you’re hungry, do you simply not eat if the kitchen is bare? No, you go out and get some food. Wives do have the power to keep their otherwise good husbands from falling to temptation. If the guy is messed up, he's going to cheat regardless. And he may marry a Kennedy.

Indirectly, "disobedient wives are the cause for upheaval in this world" because men are not happy at home and their minds and souls are disturbed, she said.

I would never go that far.

Some of the upheaval in this world, after all, is caused by women being catty towards each other.

Okay, so I kid. But women really do have more power than men, especially when men choose not to control everything through brute strength. That is because men will only do what we can get away with and still get women to have sex with us and make us dinner.

Part-Time Sister Wife?

2011-06-01T15:32:00.000-07:00

NEEDS A BREAK IN PHOENIX wrote in to Dear Abby:

I'm 53, work in an office six to eight hours a day, and then come home to cook dinner and do household chores.

Sounds like life.

My husband, "Todd," is 48. He works eight to 10 hours a day and expects sex three to four times a week.

"Expects"?

I'm exhausted and can't do it anymore!

Then quit your job. Marital lovemaking isn't supposed to be a chore. Be happy your husband, who is younger, still wants your 53-year-old body. This is yet another example of why some men avoid marriage.

My best friend, "Mavis," has been a widow for five years. She tells me she's going crazy because she hasn't had sex in all this time. She asked if I'd share Todd just one night a week.

Mavis could be having sex if she wants. She could be doing so with a new husband, or fornicating with a steady or different guys. It is her choice, really, although she's not going to have the best men to choose from. Maybe that is why she is trying to horn in on your man. Don't compound the problem by inviting her to commit adultery with your husband.

Mavis isn't pretty, but she has a very shapely figure. Frankly, I'm ready to agree, but I haven't mentioned it to Todd.

Don't. Either he'll like the idea, or be profoundly hurt or disgusted. Neither would be a good reaction.

If my husband agrees, it would take a lot of pressure off me and I could sure use the rest. What are your thoughts on this arrangement?

Have you called the folks at TLC? They could film all of this. I'd recommend MTV, but you're over 25.

Dear Abby, who has no problem endorsing fornication as long as adultery isn't involved, gets all judgmental:

Please find another way to take a break. What you're contemplating would likely be the beginning of the end of your marriage.

So? Sounds like she's not so happy in it and is breaking or wants to break the vows anyway. If she had instead written to you and said the truth another way – that she is unhappy with her husband and sexually incompatible, wouldn't you tell her to leave him anyway?

You may think you'd be "safe" because Mavis isn't pretty, but to quote Benjamin Franklin, "In the dark, all cats are gray."

From what I understand, Franklin would know. Actually, given the wife's attitude and Mavis' "hunger", it would be easy for the husband to find Mavis to be a much better lover regardless of how she looks.

If you're tired, let Mavis help with the chores -- but not this one.

She didn't offer a solution. Sex isn't supposed to be a chore. How about dropping down to part-time work? Or hiring domestic help? Her husband probably does things around the house, too – notice she doesn't say he doesn’t lift a finger around the house. But he's not too tired for sex. Something tells me she wouldn't be too tired for sex with George Clooney.

Doesn't sound like they have minor children in the mix. Imagine if they did. That's the reality of so many married couples theses days. Both have full work schedules and they have minor children. Why? Often because women have been told they must have careers outside the home, and they wouldn't respect their husbands if their husbands didn’t also have careers. Or because people think they need bigger homes, more cars, more vacations, more toys. Or they are trying to save up to fork over money to some increasingly expensive and ever-worsening institutions of indoctrination, er, uh, higher learning.

Anyway, back to the idea of having another woman do some of the "heavy lifting". Be honest, ladies, if nobody else would find out and there wasn't a religious issue, do you think you'd consider something like this? Or maybe you'd be the one who'd want someone else (male or female) in addition to your hubby. Men can be deeply in love with and attracted to their wives, and still find other women strongly attractive. Given male sexual nature, I think most men would take on another woman if there wasn't a religious issue and if the wife would be agreeable. We have plenty of examples of men who do this even with the religious prohibition and even though it hurts their wives deeply.

He Changed the Rules

2011-05-31T16:28:00.000-07:00

I continue to listen to Dr. Laura as a Family Plus Member, which allows me to download podcasts of all three hours of her show (which runs Monday-Friday). It is the only paid podcast subscription I have. On Thursday, May 26th, her third hour pretty much began with "Jennifer". Jennifer said she and her husband agreed when they married that she would be a "stay at home mom" to their children. But now that she's out on maternity leave and has told him she still wants to be a SAHM more than she wants to return to her job, he has responded by saying he "didn't marry a housewife" and asking why she bothered to get a degree.

Before calling, she had even already done what Dr. Laura usually suggests in this situation, which is for her to come up with a workable budget and present it to him to prove that it is possible for them to live on his income. He rejected it, because he wants a more expensive lifestyle.

It is an incredibly sad situation.

Jennifer's husband is and example of someone Dr. Laura will say is not a "real man". Chastity "Chaz" Bono is not a real man. Just about anyone with an "XY" chromosomal makeup is a real man. They can be lousy men, or evil men, but they are still men. Notice we never hear the phrase "real woman". But Dr. Laura is allowed to talk like this in my book because she doesn't insist on radical egalitarianism. I often write about "guys" when I want to distinguish some men from more mature men. But I've digressed.

Anyway, this is one reason that I, unlike Dr. Laura and so many others, favor prenuptial agreements even in first marriages, even when neither person has much in terms of personal wealth. I'd like to see each couple getting married have to swear under penalty of perjury that they have discussed this issue and what their agreement is, and I'd like to see the laws and courts back it up. If Jennifer's husband truly stated that he agreed that she should be a SAHM, she should have been able to get that in writing, and if he refuses now, he should be required to pay her enough in child support and alimony that she can be a SAHM with or without him. Likewise, if a woman agreed she was going to be a SAHM and then refuses, the husband should be allowed to be a SAHF and to get enough from her that he can. Or, switch the sexes. That should all be enforceable via prenup.

Perhaps Jennifer's husband wouldn't have married her in the first place if he had to sit down and sign a legally binding agreement about all of this. Or, maybe he would have married her and bitten the bullet now, instead of trying to change the rules.

When the woman who is now my wife brought up the subject early on in our dating, I firmly said that strangers would not be raising my children. I also added that how that works out is open to discussion. All she ever wanted was to work in her chosen career field (which she was doing at the time), be a wife, and then be a SAHM. So neither of us had a problem with me being the income earner and her being the primary caretaker. She now says she has the life she's always wanted, and I'm glad for that.

Would it be nice to have more money? Yes, it would. And I'm sure Uncle Sam and the State of California would both love the extra income tax. But I'd rather my children have their mother as much as possible.

I guess that would make me a real man in Dr. Laura's vocabulary. But I care more about the respect and thanks I get from my wife.

Who Says Gays Can’t Get Married?

2011-05-26T13:45:00.000-07:00

CONFUSED ON WHAT TO DO wrote in to Dear Abby:

I started a relationship with a co-worker.

Guys, unless you don’t care about your job, do NOT socialize with your female coworkers. Sexual harassment laws and policies make it too risky. Keep your communication with female coworkers to the bare professional minimum.

We went out for several months, and I found myself really enjoying his company. The feeling was mutual. After several months I told him I was developing feelings for him, more than just friends. He told me he was gay.

So he's thinking he’s getting a new friend, and she was looking for a husband. She should be very thankful that he was honest with her. I've written about, and heard from, women who've discovered after marrying that their husband's homosexual.

I was shocked, saddened and angry all at the same time, but we went on to develop an even stronger friendship.

So everything is okay, right? Right?

I have fallen in love with him, but I have had counseling and I believe those feelings are in check.

Uh huh. Sure.

We have a special bond that's hard to explain.

If you say so.

For lack of a better term, we have used the words "soul mate" to describe this feeling.

So you're deliberately avoiding sex and marriage? Why is that?

He has even said he would like a lifelong commitment with me and has thought about marrying me.

I would strongly advise against this, because of your attraction to him. If you weren’t attracted to him, and you didn’t want sex, and you were fundamentally compatible with him in other ways, and you got a pre-nup and didn’t make babies, then it could be okay.

Dear Abby responded:

But while you're thinking, consider carefully how important sex is to you. Some, not all, women would be content with what he's offering. But what if you should meet someone? You also need to know whether this man is ready, willing and capable of forgoing a sexual relationship with a man. How would you feel about it if he met someone?

Good points.

What do YOU think?

The Last Oprah Winfrey Show

2011-05-25T08:48:00.000-07:00

Finally, our long national nightmare is over.

I couldn't watch the show. It would lower my testosterone levels.

Where will millions of women now get faulty spiritual guidance?

She Has It and Flaunts It

2011-05-18T14:36:00.000-07:00

How revealing is too revealing? And does it change as an adult gets older? PRIM AND PROPER IN OKLAHOMA wrote in to Dear Abby:

My mother-in-law, "Kay" -- who is in her 50s -- dresses like she's in her teens or 20s.

What does that mean, exactly? Well, read on.

Don't get me wrong, she looks great. She exercises several hours a day to keep in shape and follows a strict diet.

Kay wears spaghetti-strap shirts and short skirts in the summer, and bikinis to sunbathe. I understand that she wants to show off her body, but is there a way to direct her to more age-appropriate clothing?

So... bikinis, short skirts, and spaghetti-straps are okay for teens? But not for a woman in her 50s?

Dear Abby responded:

You are well-intentioned, but if you are wise, you will refrain from giving your mother-in-law any unasked-for fashion advice.

That's for sure. I'm not so sure about the well-intentioned bit, though. She could just be jealous. A lot of women can't stand it when another women draws attention while in their presence.

Anyone think the MIL would take the criticism well, and would change how she dresses as a result?

Any of you know anyone like either of these women... perhaps it is you?

Here's the argument I've heard from some of my fellow religious conservatives (Christian and otherwise). "None of that is appropriate at any age because it causes men to think of women as sex objects or have impure thoughts." I've also heard that some of that is fine for available women, but not for women who are making a commitment. Then there's the reverse - religions in which married women can wear blue jeans, but unmarried women (who are all supposedly virgins... which often means they only have sex with guys outside of the family religion/social circle) can't wear jeans, but instead wear really long skirts. And learn how to walk in short strides.

What say you? Back in my bachelor days I wouild insert some joke here about sending me a picture if you're not sure what is appropriate so that I could tell you one way or the other.

A Reminder: Don't Donate Sperm

2011-05-17T09:47:00.000-07:00

For various reasons, I say men should not donate sperm. In no particular order, here are some reasons why:

1. If someone wants to raise a child, they can adopt. If someone wants the experience of pregnancy, they can adopt a very young child ("extra" frozen embryo).

2. If donating to someone you know, you’re going to feel some sort of "ownership" of that child, which will cause parenting conflicts.

3. Human life should not be treated like a commodity.

4. You should have more influence over and responsibility for someone created with your generic material. You know what it is like to grow up with your genes already.

5. If you bump into your offspring or your offspring bump into each other many years down the line, there is no small chance there will be an intense physical attraction of the sexual sort. Pregnancies can result long before the biological relation is known.

6. Your sperm may be used to make human beings for the purpose of killing them.

7. In man cases, donated sperm is used to condemn a child to a fatherless life, either to be raise by a woman who doesn't have enough time or social skills to do it the natural way, or two women (or perhaps four or more, should the original two split up) – none of these people recognizing the importance of fathers, and perhaps men in general.

8. You may end up on the hook for child support. Yes, it has happened.

9. Resulting children could show up later to wreak havoc in your life.

There's more corroboration of points 5, 8, and 9 in this recent article.

Donor anonymity is given to encourage men to make donations, says Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Sperm banks fear potential donors will get cold feet if they think they may be held financially or legally responsible for the children they help produce, he says. But donors need to understand that "anonymity cannot be enforced," Caplan adds. "When children, for emotional or health reasons, want to find their 'biological' parents, records are unsealed and they do." Kids trump parents, Caplan concludes, and their need to know is more important: "Courts will go this way, as they do in adoption."

Guys, don't do it. Just say no.

My sister-in-law has donated scores of eggs in multiple sessions. She's done doing that due to newly found moral reasons (thankfully). But what complications will she have down the line as a result? Will she, her future children, or my own kids bump into her kids? How many embryos (human beings) were created only to be destroyed or later selectively aborted (murdered)?

Another Closeted Hubby

2011-05-16T17:28:00.000-07:00

Painful. I've written about this before, and got a comment from a woman who was put into a similar position. HELPLESS IN MIAMI wrote in to Dear Abby:

I recently learned that my husband of 35 years is gay.

That’s an awful long time. How often did you have sex? Perhaps he's bisexual? I just know that I could not fake it with a man for 35 years, because I'm straight. And that would become apparently rather quickly. Women can "fake it" much easier than men.

I never suspected and I am stunned.

There are a lot of reasons for this, not the least of which is that back when you married, there was more pressure for gays to be closeted.

We have three children and eight grandchildren who all adore him.

Okay.

I learned his secret from an email he left on the computer screen.

Well, it could have been worse. You could have walked in on him with another man, or someone else could have.

It took a few days, but I confronted him and he told me everything.

That must have been a load off for him, but quite painful for you.

He has been with men since before our marriage.

Pressure or not, he should never have married you. On the other hand, consider your children and grandchildren that resulted.

He assured me he has never done anything that could have caused me to get a disease. I went for an examination and I'm fine.

Well, that's good.

I'm lost about what my next step should be. I'm in my late 50s. Starting over isn't something I ever considered… I have no interest in having sex with my husband again, but being apart from him terrifies me.

Do you care about having sex with anyone again? If not, why not stay put and be friends and roommates, if you can be friends with someone who kept such a big thing secret from you all of those years. He'll always be the father of your children, after all.

I feel like I'm in prison.

How so, exactly? If you do want sex and romantic love, then yes, get out. But if not, and if you otherwise enjoy his company, you might want to stay.

Dear Abby's response indicates she also considers him bisexual. She also refers the woman to a group dealing with this issue.

I would completely understand it if she remains upset and wants to get as far away from him as possible. Consider if he was straight, and seeing other women on the side. But he obviously prefers men enough to go behind her back, and it has to hurt that the man she thought desired her didn't, or at least not as much as she thought. I think the law should be such that he should get punished in a divorce. He built a life with her under false pretenses, cheating on her along the way. She should not have to suffer much loss of her lifestyle, from a material perspective. Not sure about the laws in Florida, but in California it wouldn't matter. He'd be able to take half, as though this was an equal deal all along.

Why, Paul? Why???

2011-05-10T09:40:00.000-07:00

Poor Paul McCartney. He apparently had a long, happy marriage to Linda, and then she got sick and died. That had be a horrible thing to go through. Understandably, Paul got married again, probably expecting a long, happy marriage again.

But he ended up having to pay some ridiculous amount of money when the married ended. You'd think a guy who has had to pay out so much money would be "shy" on marrying again. Apparently not.

Oh well. It is his money to throw away if he wants to.

It Shouldn't Be a Chore

2011-05-06T13:40:00.000-07:00

Andrea, who really has quite a great blog, has this great recent entry calling on the Christian wife to be her husband's lover.

Many Flags Waving in the Wind

2011-05-05T16:30:00.000-07:00

It seems rather simple to me. “Stuck” wrote in to Dear Margo:

I've been dating a wonderful man for nine months. We enjoy a variety of activities and generally have a lot of fun together. However, as I approach my 31st birthday, I find myself thinking in terms of the big picture.

Tick-tock.

I've always thought I would like to have children, but I would prefer not to have them close to my 40s. Although my boyfriend has never specifically stated that he does or does not want children,

Strike one.

we have some differences - approaches to managing money, for one,

Strike two.

and I like to travel, while he does not.

Strike three! He's OUT! (Actually, here's a likely translation of this "Woman" into English: "I like men to pay for me to take vacations. He's not falling for it.")

To date, he has not been able to say the "L" word, and from what I understand, this may be a lingering effect of his past relationship.

It's only been nine months. That isn't too long for him to wait, though you’ve probably been having sex for what, eight months?

I'm not sure what to do.

Date other men. Only see this guy if you have nobody more compatible to see and nothing else to do.

I feel ready to start thinking about settling down and having children in the near future, but I have no idea whether my boyfriend will be at that point anytime soon.

Don't bet on it.

Should I "go with the flow" for now and enjoy what we have, or discuss my thoughts?

Go with the flow if you value sex with him more than you value getting married, having kids, and traveling. Although travelling will likely be reduced if you have kids, at least until they are older, because it is such a gigantic pain in the behind to travel with young kids.

Dear Margo responded:

Why don't you ask him what his thoughts are?

Waste of time. If he really wanted kids, he would have brought up the subject already. Don't give her hope that talking about it is really going to change him. At "best" he'll agree to whatever she wants because he likes her company and doesn't want to go through the trouble of finding another woman who will have sex with him (even though it really isn't much trouble at all). Then, she'll get pregnant and he'll make her life miserable or he'll leave.

She should find someone more compatible with her who is prepared to get married.

I Didn't Get Married To Have More Bills

2011-05-03T12:41:00.000-07:00

My wife's New Years resolution I wrote about here didn't last long. She actually reminded me of it the other day, remarking that she had let it disappear. I'd forgotten. How bad is that?

Why are things like this? In my wayward youth, every date or evening with my girlfriend of any given moment would involve sex (one we were into the relationship, that is). This was 3-4 times per week. Here I am, a married man, and we're making love a dismal once a week and maybe, maybe she throws in mercy oral once between lovemaking sessions.

It is possible, that, despite how passionate she was when we were dating (and deliberately restricting our physical affection), she simply has a low libido.

It could be her medication, which can reduce libido. But she was taking that when we were dating and she displayed a lot more passion then.

If I wanted to get really cynical, I could say it was the wedding cake and the kids. She has what she wants. She doesn't want any more kids because she doesn't think she can take care of more. An orgasm is not enough of a motivator to make love more often, apparently, and my desire for lovemaking isn't as important in her eyes as my need for sleep.

By the time everything is taken care of on any given day, it is clear I'm not going to be getting enough sleep, so she urges me to simply go to sleep, as making love would deprive me of some of the precious little sleep I'll be getting, and if she allows me to bring her or orgasm, she'll not be able to get to sleep until later than she would otherwise.

I could force the issue, of course, but that kind of defeats the purpose. I don't want a hostage in bed, or to feel I am inconveniencing the woman I am supposed to cherish. I want a passionate and enthusiastic partner.

As much as I stress that fornication is wrong, I can cite some good things about that part of my past. One of those things is that I know I'm not a horrible lover. If I didn't have that experience, I would be rather insecure and down on myself. I would be convinced that I must be a horrible lover and thus a failure as a husband, and nothing she could say would be able to change that, because the proof I'd have would be in the action (or lack of it) and attitude I have already experienced with her. And when she indicates lovemaking is no big deal for her, the message is received, as it is with any husband who hears such a thing, that is isn't a big deal to make love with me.

I didn't have to fool or manipulate those past lovers into having sex with me. If anything, my past lovers were the aggressors. Such is the state of the "gentler" sex these days. I never felt like I was keeping them from something else they wanted to do, or otherwise inconveniencing them, or making them do a chore. Of course, none of those women were right for me, and I didn't marry any of them. I married my wife. My wife takes care of our kids. My wife is a grandmaster coupon shopper. My wife makes dinner. My wife does laundry and washes the dishes. She does a lot for our family, and it isn't like I’m forgetting all of that. But I do want to make her lose control, to lose herself in the moment more often. I want her to enjoy herself and enjoy my affection.

So what is the answer? Turn up the romance, right? But there's only so much we can do to increase that in our lives right now. In fact, we've recently been managing to get a limited date night once a week (which is an improvement), but the circumstances mean... surprise... even less sleep, and that's not because of lovemaking. If anything, these date nights are less conducive to lovemaking than other nights.

At this rate, if she ever does get an fire lit down below, I might be so over it I'll need a little blue pill to have sex with her rather than masturbate.

See: Married Men Get More Sex

Exit Only

2011-05-02T13:47:00.000-07:00

This message is about an anal orifice. Skip it if you don't want to read it.

A while back I wrote about how I got caught up in a moment and rimmed my wife. Since that happened, I have gone to play with the back door about once out of every two lovemaking sessions. We're back to basically making love only about once a week (that's another post for another day), so that means I've been going to the back door about twice a month. This has never involved my penis; it has mostly been oral and some digital. Usually, it was after she had reached orgasm through cunnilingus, and I would flip her from her back to being face down on her knees. Always, after she would leave the room (orgasms keep her awake, and she has always gone to sleep at a later time than me anyway), I would take the precaution of rinsing with mouthwash.

Sitting here writing about it, it doesn't turn me on. The thought of it has never been a turn-on to me; the hypothetical was always a turn-off, if anything. And yet I was doing it without her asking me to, and I'm trying to figure out why. I think I was turned on by her willingness to let me do it. It was something new, something I had never done before with anyone.

My wife doesn't take much initiative or try to innovate, so it has been up to me to do so. I love her completely, including every inch of her body. I revel in tasting her and pleasuring her with my tongue. So maybe this was an overcompensation for her not doing what I know she can do – swallowing or at least orally capturing my ejaculate.

Anyway, after the first time it happened, she said she was ambivalent about it. It didn't rock her world, but if I wanted to do it, that was enough – although we reminded each other that my penis would not be going there.

But... she has finally decided she's had enough. She said, after she giggled in the middle of everything (and I didn't consider it a good giggle, so I asked what was wrong), she's never liked the way it felt, and the tone of her voice made it clear that there wasn't going to be a "...but if you want to keep doing it, go ahead."

And so that door closes. It's probably for the best. I'd still like to pay a lot of attention to the rest of her tush, however. It's beautiful.

Hmmm. I've never sucked toes. Maybe I'll have to try that.

An Unmarried Woman

2011-04-26T15:53:00.000-07:00

SINGLE IN DIXIE wrote in to Dear Abby:

I am an average-looking, middle-aged woman. I have many friends and a career I love.

So far, so good.

What I do not have is a partner.

Some people are happy like that. Not her.

It breaks my heart. I feel excluded from an important part of life -- romantic love.

She wasn't always excluded, as she writes...

I have had relationships with men. All of them were disasters.

All? Why? Are you bad a picking men, or bad at treating men? If it is the former, find out why you are bad at picking men, or you are likely to keep picking bad men.

I wonder how many great men passed you by because you were embroiled in disasters with bad boys?

Once you do have that figured out, don't be unrealistic in your standards. By no means should you put up with lousy treatment or anything like that. But if you're only going to consider, say, high-earning professionals around your age... the unmarried ones either don't want to be married or can attract younger, hotter women.

At the age I am now, there seems to be little or no hope of finding anyone.

I'm not going to lie. It is difficult for an "average-looking, middle-aged woman". This is why so many women "pin the tail" on the groom before they get to that point, with mixed results.

Most of my friends are married or in committed relationships, and I feel like an outsider.

That could be part of the problem – you’re hanging out with married people. They're already married.

I am involved in my church and my career, and to all outward appearances, I look happy and successful.

Is your church the kind that tends to drive away unmarried men? That could be another problem.

But, Abby, inside I am terrified that I'll be alone forever.

See, as unromantic as it sounds, I could have been happy being unmarried. I was happy being unmarried. But I understand that other people are different.

Sometimes I wonder how I will survive this life.

I suggest saving, investing, insuring, and networking. And not getting a lot of cats.

Dear Abby tries to convince her it isn't so bad:

There are worse things than being alone.

There are worse things than just about everything.

Chief among them is being stuck in a relationship (formal or otherwise) with someone who isn't right for you.

This is true.

If you are spending most of your time with couples, perhaps you should arrange to spend more time with other singles.

Yes.

Expand your circle. Travel, if you can afford it. It will make you a less depressed, more interesting person to be around.

Yes, yes.

Here's what I’ll add:

First of all, you've made it this far in life. Yes, you are lonely, but ask yourself if you are really willing to trade some of your established ways and autonomy for romantic partnership, and make sure that you're not just feeling left out because of your friends being married. If you really do want a romantic partner, read on...

Honestly assess yourself. "Average" these days means "overweight". If you are more than ten or fifteen pounds overweight, shedding the fat will give you an advantage. Also, see if there is something else to do to improve your appearance. Is it time for a new hairdo? Time to change the wardrobe and makeup use?

Some women give off a "do not touch" vibe. You are probably giving off a "desperation" vibe. Neither one is helpful. Do you know how to flirt? Do you carry yourself in a way that makes you approachable? Do you put yourself in places where eligible men are likely to be?

Career women sometimes give off a vibe that they need to always be in control. A lot of men don't want that in their personal life. Also, most women marry men who earn more than they do. Have you considered men who earn about the same or less than you? There may be very romantic men who are right for you who earn less and you should consider them because you don't need a man to support you.

In addition to considering a man who earns less, you should also consider older men or younger men. You said you're looking for romance. A middle-aged woman can certainly have romance with a younger man or an older man. If you were younger and looking to start a family, I'd recommend a man about your age or slightly older, but that's not your situation.

You didn’t menion a hobby. Maybe you should get involved in a hobby, activity, or cause where you are likely to find elible men who are compatible with you. There are such men out there who have the same ache you do.

Go do something about it!

He Wasn’t A Husband

2011-04-25T16:22:00.000-07:00

TRICKED IN RICHMOND, VA wrote in to Dear Abby:

I was in a long-term relationship with a man who died recently.

My sympathies on the loss.

After his death I found out he had other girlfriends while he was with me.

Had he taken a vow of monogamy?

It turns out he was a con man who used women.

How so, exactly? I am baffled most of the time when the word "used" is thrown around in situations like these. For example, a man pays a woman's way for an night out on the town. They both enjoy it. They have sex. They both enjoy that. Somehow, that is "using" her. How is she being used? Isn't he being used? after all, he's paying money for a date they both enjoy.

I am stunned, sad, hurt, angry and feel like a fool.

Why? He wasn’t your husband. Point me to the codified moral system he was living under that says it is okay to fornicate, but only with one woman over a given length of time. She doesn't even say he lied to her. He probably did, I would imagine. That would make him a liar. But he was already a fornicator. He didn't become one by fornicating with more than one woman.

When people who knew us as a couple see me, they ask about him. When I say he died, they respond by offering condolences over "my loss."

Well, yeah. That's normal human behavior.

Should I thank them for their kindness and leave it at that, or should I tell them the truth about him so they won't waste time feeling bad about his demise?

Thank them. Nobody wants to hear it. When you die, do you want people to say you aren't worth mourning because you did some things they didn't like?

Dear Abby responded:

If it will make you feel better to vent, do it. However, if rehashing the unhappy details would make you feel worse, keep them to yourself.

Nothing about... if you want monogamy, at least get and make a vow of monogamy?

Prom Time Again

2011-04-21T08:55:00.000-07:00

Every year now, I take notice of this ritual, which has become another day, along with "Sweet Sixteen" (or other birthdays for certain cultures, at 13, 15, etc.) and wdding days that are all about feeding the narcissism and sense of entitlement of attention whores and attention whores-in-training.

Refer back to my "Beware the Prom", and this look at a Dear Abby column, and this look at a different Dear Abby column.

Getting Longer

2011-04-20T13:01:00.000-07:00

This is one of those posts I figure is best offer a warning about. I'm talking about recent news about "male enhancement". Click through if you want to read about it.

The Drudge Report linked to this AFP article on a study that says men can make their penises longer. The study involved a review of medical literature and was published in the Journal of the British Association of Urological Surgeons.

A male member -- measured on the dorsal, or upper, side -- can be considered normal in length if it is at least four centimetres (1.6 inches) when limp, and 7.5 centimetres (three inches) when rigid, noted several of the studies evaluated.

Most sources I have seen have said the average is between 5-7 inches in the erect length, mostly in the 5+ range.

Among the non-invasive methods, tested on 109 subjects, so-called penile extenders that stretch the phallus through traction were shown to be most effective.

One study reported an average increase of 1.8 centimetres (0.7 inches), while another measured an extra 2.3 centimetres (0.9 inches) in a flaccid state, and 1.7 centimetres (0.67 inches) when erect.

But the regimen for achieving these gains was arduous: six hours of daily traction over four months in the first case, and four hours every day over six months in the second.

Is that really worth it? And I'm not sure why it matters what the size is when flaccid. I guess that is strictly shower/swimsuit showing off? Seems to me that men are better off making sure they are physically fit.

Another device, known as a "penis pump," uses a manual or motorised pump to create a vacuum inside a hard cylinder sheath, stretching the phallus.

Six months of treatment, however, "was not found to be effective for penile elongation, although is provided some sort of psychological satisfaction for some men," the researchers said.

Must be the ability to feel a connection with Austin Powers.

So-called peno-scrotal rings -- expandable or rigid bands that fit around the base of the scrotum and penis -- "might help to augment penile size and maintain erections in men suffering from anxiety", they reported, but only two cases were evaluated.

Advertisements claiming that another popular technique -- so-called "penile lengthening exercises" -- can add centimetres or inches to one's manhood are unfounded, say Oderda and Gontero.

Even the methods that did show some increase in length did not result in a gain in thickness, they noted.

But nor was their shrinkage.

"It is interesting that no girth decrease was reported with traction therapy, as one would have instinctively thought," the researchers said.

Most boys (and some grown men, obviously) do worry about this at some point or another. If a boy happens to catch a glimpse of his father naked, in underwear, or in revealing swimwear, his father, obviously post-pubescent, may look huge to him, and he might wonder if he'll ever get like that.

I don't know if women can fully understand the relationship a boy or a man has with his penis – how he thinks about it.

I used to worry, until I read the "5-7" range somewhere I considered trustworthy and I compared that with a measurement I'd taken around age 17 during a particularly strong erection. Then years later, after the third girlfriend in a row made positive comments on my size that were made apart from a moment of passion, the issue was definitely put to rest for me.

But guys will always be insecure about this, and spend money looking for more size. And there will always be some guy with more, just like there will always be a woman with a better body somewhere out there. A lot of women say it doesn’t matter. Others say it does. Extreme size, either way, will limit how or what positions and techniques can be tried in lovemaking. But the way I see it, vaginas are designed to pass babies, and a penis is never going to be that big.

Mangum's Alleged Victim Dies

2011-04-14T13:39:00.000-07:00

According to this article, Durham police confirmed that Reginald Daye, 46, has died.

A man who said he was Daye's nephew called 911 to report the stabbing, saying it occurred while Daye and his girlfriend were arguing about rent money.

Don't shack up and don't ever pay her bills, and this won't be an issue.

In March 2006, Mangum claimed three white players on the Duke lacrosse team trapped her inside a bathroom at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., where she was performing as a stripper at a team party, and raped and sexually assaulted her.

Her story about the incident was so inconsistent that state officials later declared the players innocent, saying there was no credible evidence against them.

Former Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong was later disbarred for withholding DNA evidence from defense attorneys in the case.

The three lacrosse players and some of their former teammates are suing Nifong and a police investigator, claiming their rights were violated during the case.

Crazy chicks are fun in bed, but it isn't fun when they falsely accuse you of rape, drive your children into the Hudson, cut off your penis, or stab you to death. On the other side of the coin, bad boys are a lot of fun, until they beat your or kill you. Choose wisely.

It's Because I'm Fat, Isn't It

2011-04-13T09:36:00.000-07:00

Somehow, it got to be a huge (pun intended) story that American Idol has been accused of weight bias by a teenager who was in the audience. Mind you, this is a show that has featured fat contestants.

From reading this Associated Press article from Lynn Elber, there doesn't seem to be any corroborating evidence to back the claim of 19-year-old Ashley Kauffman of Riverside, California of being told she was too fat to sit in the front row. Even one of the others in her group is quoted as saying nobody else in the group heard Idol staff telling her that.

To me, Kauffman's claims are highly doubtful. Who tells an audience member, someone the staffer wants to be cheerful and enthusiastic on camera, that she's fat?

But let's assume for the sake of discussion that someone actually said to her, "You’re too fat to sit in the front row."

This is a television show we're talking about. It isn't a public school, or a city council meeting. It is their show, they should be able to set the rules and arrange their audience the way that works best for them.

It doesn't matter how many Americans get overweight or obese. It isn't attractive to most people, and it isn't what most people want to see on TV. I write this as someone who has been fat. But reading through the article and actually watching the show, I find it hard to believe the claim.

According to a FremantleMedia statement, Kauffman and five other friends were among the first to arrive for the show and were told that there were "six great seats" available, three in one row and three in another.

Okay…

The group agreed to split up and Kauffman "did not sit alone or in the back of the house" as she alleged, FremantleMedia said. "In fact, she and her remaining party were seated just four rows behind their friends, directly in camera shot, in some of the best seats in the house."

Kauffman was in a row that included a VIP guest of judge Steven Tyler, Westphal said. They were a few rows behind the judge's table in a spot that has been featured on camera before, he said.

What does a witness say?

Hannah Solarzano, 19, said Tuesday that she was part of Kauffman's group, which traveled from suburban Riverside to Los Angeles for the show but hadn't met her before that night. Solarzano said she was seated next to Kauffman and didn't hear any insults being directed at her.

"Nobody started talking about the comment that was supposedly made to Ashley until she brought it up," Solarzano said. "I never heard those words except from her."

While she couldn't support her account, Solarzano said, it obviously stings to be labeled as overweight.

"You don't call a girl `fat,' ever. It's code," Solarzano said. "I understand how upsetting that can be. But, c'mon, honey, it's `American Idol.' You've got to move on from there. Big deal."

Exactly. Move on.

But, like most reality shows, the "Idol" audience and contestants generally have reflected American diversity, including when it comes to size.

An examination of a recording of the episode attended by Kauffman showed that it opened with a sweeping camera shot that included a cross-section of audience members, including some who could be characterized as plus-size.

So while the headline of the story is attention-grabbing, the article itself appears to debunk the claim.

If you're fat, do something about it other than being overly sensitive. Your life will be better if you get fit. I'm not talking about being ten pounds overweight (which can acually look good, depending). I'm talking about really being fat. Lose the weight, and things will be better.

He Must Like Chaos

2011-04-12T16:45:00.000-07:00

I would have loved to have heard this guy call in to Dr. Laura. DEVOTED IN BLOOMINGTON, MINN. wrote in to Dear Abby:

I'm in love with a woman named "Camille" who has three children from three different fathers.

What exactly is the appeal? If you’re looking for a wife, this isn’t the right woman. If you’re primarily looking for sex, this isn’t the right woman. If you’re looking to pay to raise the children of other men, go right ahead.

She has never been married.

Well, at least she didn’t contribute to the high divorce rate.

She also has a male "friend" whom she has her children calling "Daddy" even though he's not.

How many more red flags do you need?!?

I have loved Camille for 20 years, and our paths recently crossed again.

Ah, you’re delusional and a masochist. The picture is getting more clear now.

When I first meet her, she had only one child.

That was one too many. She should have stopped with one and raised that child, not dealt with a revolving door of desperate men who should have found some other warm place to put it.

Camille says she loves me and wants us to be married, but I'm having a hard time accepting that all of these children's fathers will be part of our life -- as well as the "friend."

Well then I guess it isn't going to happen, is it? You haven't mentioned if you've ever been married or have any kids.

Can a psychologist help me get past this?

This is beyond psychologist level. Try a psychiatrist (you know, with an "M.D." after their name). Or maybe you need a really good hooker. Better yet, consult an exorcist.

Even Dear Abby responded:

I don't know. But before you take this relationship further, you should definitely see one.

Sheesh. Guys like that are the suckers that keep knocking up these never-married mothers. Those poor kids.

An Unmarried Man – Oh, the Horror!

2011-04-06T09:47:00.000-07:00

I recognize that the personal dynamic between a mother and son is a little different than the overall cultural attitude towards unmarried men in general. But the former got me started on the latter in what I wrote below. PROTECTIVE MOM IN OHIO wrote in to Dear Abby:

My son "Marshall" is 36. He's handsome, has a great job, is a wonderful son and would be a tremendous "catch." The problem is Marshall has no interest in marriage or even dating.

That he has no interest in marriage isn't abnormal or a problem. As far as dating – he isn't dating that you know about. He could be a Category 2. He could be a Category 4, and you would never know that he's doing women in their apartments and retiring home for a good night's sleep.

He was in a relationship six or seven years ago that ended badly.

Most "romantic" relationships do. Very few end with dignity, civility, and both people feeling great about the situation. Very few lead to a lasting, happy marriage.

Since then, he has decided he doesn't want any woman getting close to him. He hasn't been on a date since.

He must be saving time and money like crazy! Again, a man doesn't need to go on a date to "get close" to a woman. It's called "booty call". He could also have close platonic female friends, especially since he doesn't have a girlfriend or wife who would demand an end to such a "threat".

Marshall spends his time hunting, fishing and playing/watching sports with his single and divorced friends.

Sounds like a great life. Good for him! I'm a married father, and generally happy about that. But have almost no time to enjoy my lifelong hobbies and I get to spend even less time with my friends. (I tend to blog when I have to wait for something and I'm not around my family.)

It doesn't help that the divorced friends tell him he's doing the right thing by staying single, and how they wish they had done the same thing.

They are speaking from their experiences. Don’t like it? Talk to your "sisters" about how they treat men.

Every time I raise the subject, he tells me he's happy with his life and doesn't want to change.

So what's the problem? Would you rather he be married and miserable? Is he your only child? Become foster parents if you really are so intent on being grandparents.

How do I get through to him? My husband says we should let him do what he wants because it's his life.

How do you treat your husband? Are you as annoying to him as you are to your adult son? Perhaps your son doesn't like the marriage model that was provided for him. That thought would hurt, wouldn't it?

But I have trouble accepting that my son wants to stay single the rest of his life.

Then go blow money on a therapist. Maybe your son gay; gay in the homosexual sense, or gay in the classic sense in that he likes his life the way it is and sees no reason to sacrifice, compromise, and legally obligate himself to someone else. He could even be one of those rare people who are asexual in the sense of not having a sex drive.

Dear Abby responded:

You come from a generation in which marriage was the norm. However, in the decades since you were married there has been a slow (but steady) erosion in the percentage of Americans who think marriage is important.

Actually, the overwhelming number of people do get married.

So trust him, love him, and don't push him. Marriage, when it's a good one, is wonderful. But it is no longer a must, and more and more people are concluding it isn't for everyone.

True.

I can understand parents wanting their children to marry and give them grandchildren. And situations like this one prompt people who have been married for fifty years to pipe up and talk about how important and great it is. But things have changed a lot in the last fifty years, in the law, in the courts, and in the social scene. Fewer women are willing to be good wives or even have a clue how to be a good wife. Fewer women are willing to raise their own kids, or would respect a husband who stayed home to do so. Even "liberated" career women want to marry a man who earns more than they do; the majority marry men who do.

Then there are the social commentators and others who are in a kind of panic that there are actually men out there who are happy being unmarried. They assert that all of these men are 1) immature; 2) not really happy; 3) neglecting their obligations, and 4) a threat. You see, as long as there is some unmarried woman out there who claims she wants a husband, then it is supposedly some sort of sin that men haven't lined up to legally obligate themselves to her. And unmarried men are a threat because they might have sex with your daughter, your sister, your mother, or your wife! (As if married men never do such things.) They're a threat because they might give miserable married men an example of a life to dream about. And perhaps my favorite is the notion that unmarried men will go out and commit crime because they're unmarried. Everyone knows about the high crime rates around monasteries.

I, on the other hand, being a happily married man, maintain that a man can be unmarried, childless, and still be a responsible, mature man and good citizen. It is of no concern to me if a man is unmarried and childless as long as he's: not committing serious crimes; isn't behaving in a way that puts other, unconsenting people at risk; isn't getting handouts from the government. A man who takes care of his responsibilities is mature.

And let's not ignore the blindingly obvious fact that there are many immature, irresponsible guys who are or have been married and spawned children. It isn't immaturity in men that is causing the bulk of the marriage delay or marriage strike. Rather, immature men are more likely to go ahead and marry the wrong woman or before they are ready to be husbands because they aren't mature enough to avoid making those mistakes when pressured to, or because they are immature and want a maid and cook. If more men were mature, the marriage rates would actually drop more, because more men would hold out for one of the increasingly rare women who are quality wife-and-mother material.

Never-married, childless men who don't have a girlfriend are viewed with suspicion by so many people, including in church, in the workplace, and in politics. But they may actually be the person in the room who is the most responsible and mature.

How Do You Decide If You Want Kids?

2011-04-05T12:10:00.000-07:00

"Stumped" wrote in to Dear Margo:

Almost everything about my relationship is perfect. There is one thing, however, that’s not. And I can’t decide whether or not it’s a big deal. My fella’s older and already has a child - who has kids of her own.

So he's a grandfather.

I've never had baby fever, but I think about it more lately than I ever have. How do I know if I’ll regret not having a child of my own?

She didn't mention marriage. Should we assume she isn't marred to this guy? He should not be having any more children because he is too old, unless we're talking about a fit, healthy 40-year-old man with a 21-year-old daughter who has made babies.

But the question of whether or not to have children is one of the top three questions a person must face in life. I struggled with that question myself. If you're not reasonably certain you want to be a mother, then don't be one.

Can that change? Of course it can. The four basic scenarios are that you get to be past childbearing age and you find that what happened over the years was...
1) Wanting to be a mother and becoming a mother.
2) Wanting to be a mother and not becoming a mother
3) Not wanting to be a mother and not becoming a mother.
4) Not wanting to be a mother and becoming a mother.

#1 and 3 are best, of course. #2 is bad for you. #4 is bad for the child, and we definitely want to avoid that one.

You should spend a lot of time babysitting your boyfriend's grandchildren. Imagine you had to deal with that 24/7/365 for 18 years – dealing with illnesses, injuries, doctor visits, potty training, education, discipline, etc.

So how should a woman decide if she wants to have children? Here is a checklist:

1) Do you find yourself with way too much free time?
2) Do you find yourself with way too much free energy?
3) Do you want to reduce your chances of ever getting a good, full night's sleep?
4) Do you think you have too little to worry about in life?
5) Do you find yourself with way too much extra money?
6) Do you want to make your sex life much more difficult and restricted?
7) Do you want to get sick more often?
8) Do you want to make it more difficult to do just about everything you do in life, from taking a shower, to going to dinner, to travelling, to moving?
9) Do you want to be forced to deal with your current lover or any other man and his family for the rest of your life? (Or can you imagine finding someone else and putting up with that person and his family for the rest of your life?)
10) Do you find that your breasts are too perky?
11) Do you want to significantly change your body into a less youthful state?
12) Do you want to spend a few years changing diapers and potty training?
13) Do you want to watch another human being going through all of the pain, frustration, embarrassment, and heartache of growing up?
14) Do you want to forgo books, movies, television shows, and songs you like to have to read/watch/listen to ones that drive you crazy or bore you to tears – over and over and over and over and over and over again?
15) Is your home too quiet, clean, and organized?
16) Are you willing to a) put a career on hold for at least several years and restrict your husband's career, or b) let your husband put his career on hold, while restricting your own career?
17) Do you want to drive a "family car" and wear mom jeans?
18) Do you want to live a life in which taking the children anywhere will mean constantly watching them and tending to them so as to keep them from maiming themselves, maiming another child, breaking something expensive, or getting kidnapped, raped, tortured, and murdered (a crime for which you will automatically be a prime suspect)?
19) Do you want to frequently be told by others, family and strangers alike, you're not doing what's best for your child?
20) Do you either want to be a homeschooling teacher, pay for private school, or condemn your children to the absurdity and dysfunction of public education?

If you can answer yes to these questions, then maybe you should have kids.

Let's face it. Yes, babies are freakin' adorable, but most kids born throughout history were born because they were the natural result of sexual intercourse. Parents did find kids handy as labor to help on the farm or in the family business. But we don't use child labor anymore, except in that oh-so-progressive entertainment industry. Instead, we send kids to school for 13-19+ years, thus turning them into a personal financial liability rather than an asset. (Collectively, we need more children to keep the government ponzi schemes funded... so it is strange that many of the same people who love those ponzi schemes encourage trending towards fewer births.)

Seriously, it is more important to ask what you have to offer a child, because parenthood isn't about you, it is about the children. But parenthood can be enjoyable, despite all of the drags implied by my list. I do get enjoyment from being father. There's a lot about my childless life I miss... a lot... and sometimes I wonder if I shouldn't have condemned my child to having me as a father, but Nature's God does something to the brains of some men, like me, so that when we become fathers we develop this kind of amnesia and restructuring, so we don't mind so much that we're not doing hardly of the things we enjoyed so much before we became fathers. Really. It's bizarre. Don't think this happens to every guy with offspring, because it clearly doesn't.

I find my children entertaining. Watching them learn new things, the funny things they say... their giggles, gifts, and hugs... they're priceless. I never thought I was going to enjoy changing diapers, but I even had fun doing that, and being a father has certainly taught me a lot about thinking of myself as God's child. Being a father has definitely caused me to learn more about myself. If nothing else, I have continued the long chain of my family line another generation, and I'm influencing a least a tiny portion of the next generation through people who will hopefully outlive me.

So, I guess the bottom line is that if you care mostly about personal freedom, personal pleasure, career, and amassing material wealth, then it is a good idea not to have kids. But if you care more about loving others and continuing humanity, then give serious thought to becoming a parent.

Dear Margo (oh yeah... almost forgot) responded:

You don't mention this man's preferences.

That's a very good point. Even if he is fit and 40, he might not want to start another round of kids.