Unpaid?

"When someone is selling something, they don't like it when other people sell the same or similar product or service for much less." - Me [This entry has been bumped up.]

On Dr. Laura's Thursday, June 18, 2020 show, she took a call from a woman who has had a boyfriend for three years and she called about the possibility of talking marriage. Dr. Laura asked her if they were having sex. Of course the answer was yes. Dr. Laura called her an unpaid whore, which is a term she tends to apply to shackups, which the caller noted because they weren't living together. Dr. Laura went on to say that women like the caller are "giving men sex for nothing."  (I may be conflating the call with another one from the same episode, during which a man challenged the wisdom of marrying without having lived together.)

Aren't they giving each other company and sex? What exactly is he getting out of the relationship that she is isn't?

Again, we see the principle that men are expected to pay for sex, or that women don't enjoy sex.

And, we have no idea what bills of hers he's paying, or what gifts he's giving her. If he's taking her to nice dinners and paying for her vacations, entertainment, recreation, etc., then she is getting paid.

Dr. Laura brought up the white wedding dress and how it's not fair for women who aren't virgins to wear them. Except the truth about white wedding dresses says otherwise.

More Fun With Statistics - Body Count and Marriage

"People who have no or fewer sex partners before marriage are more likely to be satisfied with their marriage and less likely to divorce."

Have you heard that or some variation of that?

Even if true, it would be completely useless to you if you've already married. If you've had "more" sex partners, then it would be all the more reason to avoid that terrible state contract! Or if she has. If you both have, that's EVEN MORE reason not to marry.

But some will find that statement useful in telling younger people to or anyone who has has "fewer" sex partners why they shouldn't have (more) sex outside of marriage.

It won't deter anyone who doesn't want to get married.

And it might not deter people who are good at analyzing data and statistics.

Let's look at a couple of graphs that are being used to push this message.

As Panscan points out, we're not seeing the entire graph. There's a 5 percent difference between people who have had 2 partners and people who've had eleven, twelve, or scores of partners. But it looks more dramatic when you remove all of the graph under 50 percent.

Also, if we're going to take the graph seriously, men who've had 6-10 partners are better off than men who've had four or five partners, and women who've had 11 or more partners are better off than women who've had 4 partners.

Even if a man "waited" for sex, there's still a 27 percent chance - more than 1 in 4, he will admit to not being very happy in his marriage. And for women, that's 35 percent - more than one in three!

Finally, notice that the husbands are happier than wives. Guys, don't be selfish by asking a woman to marry you!

Now let's look at the second graph.

This graph uses months.

Notice that people are divorcing a couple of years in. Guys, if you're foolish enough to marry, refuse to spend much on the wedding and related events.

80 months in (so a little over 6 and a half years in), the lowest rate of divorce is still 10 percent, meaning 1 in 10 couples. Most people will have had a 25 percent divorce rate! 1 in 4 couples!

Also, if we take this graph seriously, if you've had one premarital partner, you might as well have had countless, at lease as far as six years or so down the line.

What is really going on here?

Answering Marriage Seller Assertions, Talking Points, and Questions - Part 11

 

Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here and Part 3 here and Part 4 here and Part 5 here and Part 6 here and Part 7 here and Part 8 here and Part 9 here and Part 10 here.

Marriage channels male sexuality.

This is an unproven assertion. It depends entirely on the opinions of the person asserting it and how they are defining terms. The words used can mean different things. But there is no definitive, clear way to prove that John Doe is better behaved because he married, or his dis-likeable behavior is because he's unmarried. It's one of those statements that sounds good, and marriage sellers simply rely on people nodding their head in agreement rather than questioning what it even means.

Most marriages in the USA (and maybe another country you're in) involve the expectation of monogamy, or at least the wife's veto over the husband's sexual desires. This is usually what the marriage seller means: beating a man down. Putting him on a leash (and not in the kinky way). Putting aside swinging, threesomes, hotwifing (ask Jerry Falwell Jr. to explain that one to you), polyamory, "plural marriage," and other forms of having the wife officially on board with her husband having other partners, many married men still have mistresses and affair partners, flings/one night stands, or go to prostitutes.

It might help to ask the marriage seller who uses this argument "What do you mean by that?" Maybe they will hallucinate about an imaginary person, or they will tell on themselves.

What exactly are they afraid would happen if even fewer men married? Men who want to have sex with women can't have sex with women unless those women agree or unless it is rape. So are they worried that a man who decides not to marry is going to rape? Or that he's going to get consent from many different women? Or... what exactly? If they're worried about rape, what they're telling you is that a woman should marry a rapist because they think it's more likely he'll only rape her. If they are worried the man is going to conceive children he won't take care of, well, plenty of married men do that. But how about encouraging vasectomies? If they claim "children without fathers" is their concern, ask them if it would be OK if he had a vasectomy, or was only with women incapable of conceiving or they always avoided intercourse.

It's funny that some of the same marriage sellers who make this assertion also say that married men get more sex. So... unmarried men have "unchanneled" sexuality, but aren't having much sex? That would be their claim, anyway.

This assertion might boil down to "I don't like the way you/other unmarried men are carrying on." So what? So what if this other person doesn't like it? I see husbands and wives do a lot of things I don't like.

Again, varying replies might work, depending.

A) Running game also channels male sexuality.

B) Male sexuality can be channeled without a terrible state contract.

C) I channel my sexuality very well without a terrible state contract.

D) Men can be monogamous or otherwise restrained or responsible in their sexuality without a terrible state contract.

E) Marriage starves male sexuality.

As with many other things in life, do not simply accept assertions and claims as true without questioning them. So many of the arguments marriage sellers use are flimsy and depend on you simply accepting a platitude.

Is That Really in the Good Book?

I added a link in the right column of this blog. It's for a website called Biblical Sex. Maybe you don't consider the Bible an authority on matter of sex, but you probably interact with people who do. Some people try to base laws on it. We often hear people appeal to what they think the Bible says about sex, erotic media, erotic fantasies, and looking at the bodies of other people.

The Biblical Sex website tries to clear up what the Bible actually commands and doesn't command, in doing so, the website often disagrees with that is taught in certain conservative religious organizations and movements. I'm not saying I agree with everything the website says, just that it is worth reading the articles there.

Continue to read this entry if you have any interest.

A Change in Perspective

At the opening of her Wednesday, January 18. 2023 program, Dr. Laura read something written by a man with the title of  "All The Wrong Reasons I Pursued Love with Women Why I'm Changing Now".

Here's what it said:

*****
I was taking women out because I lacked the confidence to say no.

I had a fear that if I didn't spend a lot of money or time on them they wouldn't want me or see me.

I was using dating to get my needs met. Sometimes I was just horny and needed some fun or relief, but I wouldn't communicate that.

I felt that nobody would give me that, so ultimately I would end up paying for an expensive date out and about, listening to her babble on and on, and buying her gifts.

I also had a belief that my value was tied to my wealth.

I also learned that when I was horny and not having sex, I wasn't able to think clearly anymore.

It no longer became about enjoying life, but about ego. Will she stay with me? Am I good enough for her?

I never asked myself if I was enjoying these relationships.

I also learned that I could do and have what I wanted without giving up so much of my time, money, and freedom.

We have a tendency to spend and do tasks to keep a woman because of fear, and this is something I wanted to challenge.

I want to see what it is like to stop paying costs I didn't have to, and trust I will have a better life if I learn to limit my dates and learn to enjoy my own company.

And I have a feeling that will be much more rewarding than I can imagine.

I've also learned that my hard work and resulting earnings are sacred. I want to keep control over my wealth.

I will no longer take women on lavish dates who don't want to have the kind of fun with me that I like.

Staying free has helped me develop my own set of beliefs and flourishing into someone I can respect.
*****

Just kidding. That's not what it said. Everything above does have an analogy to the sentences Dr. Laura read. But what she read was from something written by a woman and the title was "All the Wrong Reasons I Slept with Men Before and Why I’m Changing Now." Dr. Laura DID NOT cite on the air where the essay was posted and who wrote it. Instead, she was very limited in what she actually read from the essay, even removing important phrases from some sentences.

Dr. Laura left out the parts about how this involved supposedly Buddhist meditation, from someone raised as a Southern Baptist, and how this person doesn't believe in a need for get a state license for marriage, nor for marriage to be permanent; check in frequently to see if the relationship should continue. What we have here is a woman who rode the carousel. And now that she's older, her hormones are changing, and the men she can attract aren't as high in their social status, she's basically saying she's only going to have sex if she feels an emotional connection, rather than just for recreation. She can still go through many men per year, but she's going to pretend it's much more profound than what she was doing before.

I'm not faulting a single woman for thinking she's going to put more meaning behind when she has sex. But let's be clear about what's going on here, and what Dr. Laura did with the text.

And what we have another example showing that men can get young women with no strings attached and little time, money, and effort spent by running game.

The Reformed Ho

The Rational Male and others have been making much of what appears to be the trend of sex workers or de facto sex workers, and self-identified promiscuous women “finding Jesus” and becoming “born again” church girls.

Let me make something clear right away.

If someone has truly repented and embraced the true Jesus as Lord and Savior, that’s a beautiful thing, whoever they are and whatever they’ve done.

A problem arises in that only the Lord knows for sure what’s going on in someone’s heart. We can only make guesses based on behavior, experience, and time. After all, Judas Iscariot was one of the Twelve Disciples, appearing to be a follower of Jesus.

That a woman has appeared to have repented and is attending church, even been baptized right there in front of everyone, does not obligate any man to wife her up.

By the way, that goes both ways. No man is owed a wife.

I generally discourage men from legally marrying, and almost as strongly discourage men from socially/religiously marrying. But if you’re going to marry, a supposedly reformed “ho” is probably a bad choice, even more so if you’re a virgin or have little experience, or are a lackluster/“vanilla” lover/not well hung.

Consider…

1. Even if she never says it, she’s going to be comparing you to many other men. It is almost certain she has been with many men more skilled, more exciting than you. It’ll be even worse if she ever rubs that in.

2. You’re going to think about that from time to time, and realize she picked you as her retirement plan.

3. You’re going to resent that she had her fun, exciting, passionate, wild, varied experiences and you sacrificed and waited, going without. And you might feel bad for thinking that way.

4. Perhaps frequently, guys will look at her and/or you a certain way, or she will look at them a certain way, or they might look at each other a certain way, and you’ll know that guy has at least seen her naked, maybe he’s been inside her, and he didn’t have to sign away half of his earnings, pledge exclusivity, maybe didn’t even have to romance her or take her on an actual date.

5. If you have kids with her, the kids will likely have to endure taunting from other kids (if she was in erotic media or web camming). I don’t think it’s OK to do that, but it’s likely to happen anyway. Your kids are likely to see some of her old work.

I could go on, but I explained many concerns that apply in general  to “body count” and can apply to the more specific situation of a “reformed ho” here:

Does a Woman’s Body Count Matter?

What the critics and cynics think is that these women have aged out, maybe brushed up against the wall a bit, and are looking for a retirement plan. Women younger and hotter than them have hit the scene, and so it’s harder for these experienced women to get the attention and money they used to.

So the women turn to the reliable, dependable churchgoing guy whose experience with women and their manipulations is scant, who will be happy to be having sex at all no matter how infrequent or restrained, who likely won’t be cheating on her, who will be pressured to accept her as redeemed and forgiven, and who will believe or be told it’s all his fault if anything goes wrong in the marriage because he’s supposed to lead and serve her.

Heck, she never even has to feign a headache. She can brush him off by saying she’s having flashbacks to her past, which, of course involved her being “used and abused” no matter how much it appeared she was enjoying herself and no matter how much she said at the time it was all her choice.

In response to the discussions about these situations, I’ve seen what amounts to “But what about promiscuous men?” Formerly promiscuous men might be better matches for formerly promiscuous women, though such men are more likely to still want a lot of sex. But as far as criticizing such men…  fair or unfair, we can, for the sake of argument agree that men shouldn’t have been promiscuous but also maintain there’s a difference, because of biological and sociological realities. Except in very rare cases, women ingest or absorb more body fluids from men than the other way around. That’s just a part of the biological reality, as is the fact that it’s women who carry pregnancies, not men, making it problematic in the minds of some that she’s had the body parts and fluids of so many men in her.

Just part of the psychological and sociological consideration is her history of being abused, her relationship or lack thereof with her father, and her need for male attention. Those things, if present, can interfere with marital success.

Men who say that her redemption in Christ is what allows him to gladly take her as a bride despite her past likely have limits to that grace, even though Jesus can overcome anything.

“It doesn’t matter if she had hundreds of men.”

OK. But would you still say it doesn’t matter if she…

-had thousands of men

-had many women as lovers

-engaged in group sex

-was with many men married to her friends

-was with otherwise evil men, knowing they were evil

-was with 13 year-old boys

-was with dogs

-was with horses?

And yes, there are many women out there who’ve done one or more of those things.

Likely, there is some point at which the man says “Can’t be with a woman who did that.” Such men shouldn’t wag a finger at men who say they can’t be with a woman who has a three-figure body count, or even “just” a two-figure body count, even more so if those men have a low or zero body count.

Marriage is optional. And there are still men who want to marry (the poor saps!) who don’t want to be married enough to override the turnoff of a woman’s sordid past. That significantly reduces the pool of wife material women.

But if a man is running game instead of looking for a wife, her past is much less significant, other than the requirement she NOT be a virgin and not have children. A promiscuous woman is a good thing to guys running game.

The bottom line here, no pun intended, is that yes, Jesus can bring redemption and healing, but if a man is foolish enough to be looking for a wife, all other things being equal (which rarely happens), he should pick a woman who hasn’t ridden the “carousel” thousands of times; that’s the natural inclination of most men who want a wife.

When The Attention Thirsty Change Tactics

Does a Woman’s Body Count Matter?

Dennis Prager Discussed Virginity

During his Male/Female Hour on his Wednesday, March 29, 2023 program, inspired by a previous caller, Dennis Prager asked callers about whether virginity was important in looking for a spouse and why. Dennis, who is in the middle of writing commentaries on the Torah (the first five books of the Bible), says while he thinks ideally intercourse should be saved for marriage, he "doesn't have the understanding that it is important in choosing a wife." Uh, well, I'll have to look up how he explains the Torah passages that have been cited as saying otherwise.

The first or one of the earliest callers was a woman whose son is 40 or almost 40, says he's intentionally kept this virginity, and he wants to marry a woman who has, too. Dennis asked if the son really does want to get married, and the caller related how her son had talked about wanting to be a husband and father, but some of the women he was interested in weren't interested in him, and vice-versa.

When Dennis found out that the caller was divorced from her son's father and is remarried, to a man who was also previously married, Dennis said "So it doesn't matter!" and encouraged her to point out to her son that she wasn't a virgin when she married a second time and neither was her husband.

What does Dennis mean that "it doesn't matter."? Any two people who are currently unmarried and aren't too closely related and are old enough to legally consent can get married. It doesn't make it a good idea! For all we know, the caller's marriage is terrible, or it will soon be. (Of course, that doesn't seem to be a problem for Dennis... divorce is no big deal to him other than it means people won't be married for a period of time.) People who beat each other can get married. Does that mean someone shouldn't seek to avoid a spouse-beater? There are always people who marry despite problems and red flags. It doesn't mean they should!

It's not unreasonable for someone who is looking to marry for the first time to want someone who has had the same lifestyle as them.

Dennis is so emotionally fixated on the idea that everyone should be married that he thinks people should abandon their standards.

He went on to encourage the caller to ask her son if God wants him to stay unmarried rather than to marry a woman who isn't a virgin. Dennis referred to "It's not good for man to be alone," which is from the Torah (and I argue is collective... none of us are alone now), but what about what the rest of the Torah says about choosing a wife???

Now, let's be clear here. I never had virginity as a requirement for a wife. If I got trapped in some silly "alternate life" movie that had me unmarried and I HAD to marry, I'd AVOID virgins. My advice to any man who is foolish enough to marry is to marry a woman who can at least pretend to want sex with grown men. Virgin women over a certain age are really skilled at NOT having sex. And I warn women that men who are willing to "wait" might be gay, asexual, low drive, pedophiles, or dealing with some psychological problem.

But if a man or woman insists her spouse be a virgin, I don't try to talk them out of that, or any other standard they might have. Because I think it's fine for people to never marry.

One caller came close to articulating a logical reason clearly, but I don't think Dennis got enough good responses on the program.

It is important to note that the caller who inspired the hour was looking for women in their early 20s. He wasn't looking for a 45 year-old virgin. And based on what people have said, they want to marry a virgin because...

• That is what their religion teaches and they want someone who demonstrates adherence to the religion
• They see virginity as a special gift and if they're going to marry someone, they think they should be the ones to receive (and, as the case might be, reciprocally give) that gift
• If both of them are virgins, they will be at the same level of (lack of) experience
  
• They see it as a sign of self-control that will make it more likely their spouse will remain faithful and endure times in which there won't be sex
• They believe it reduces potential problems with jealousies
• They don't want their spouse remembering past experiences
• They don't want their spouse making comparisons to past lovers
• They don't want to be with someone who has "a reputation" or is the subject of gossip
• They don't want to bump into their spouse's past lovers
• Some people believe that people, especially women, have a hard time bonding well with a spouse if she has previously bonded this way with others
  
• Some women get bored of sex, and so her being a virgin means it will take longer for her get bored of sex with him
  
• Men don't want to pay or pay more for what other men have gotten for less or free
• Some men see it as problematic for their wife to have had another man's cells/DNA inside of her
• STDs
• Virgins haven't had abortions
  
• Virgins don't have any biological children somewhere out there
  

I find some of those reasons to be silly or downright contrary to facts, and you likely do, too, but since Dennis asked the question, I wanted to provide the answer. Those aren't MY reasons, but reasons I know others have.

I wouldn't advise a man look for a virgin to be his wife. But I wouldn't advise most men look for a wife. Men who are just looking for hookups, booty calls, or even just "a girlfriend" should avoid virgins. Sex is a learned skill.

Don't Watch Adult Media, Run Game Instead

If we take the claims of professional antiporn crusaders seriously, it is far better to have casual sex, especially if tested for STDs and using contraception, than it is to watch porn.

According to the professional antiporn crusaders, nobody should watch porn because among many other evils, porn:

• Is addictive
• Causes depression
  
• Conditions viewers to prefer images to sex
• Causes misleading expectations about sex
• Causes men to assault partners by beating and choking them
  
• Is often "revenge porn"
  
• Causes ED
  
• Inherently causes trafficking
• Causes child abuse
• Is violence
• Causes rape
  
• Is rape
• Encourages/causes pedophilia/child rape
• Causes brain damage
  

So clearly, the answer is to get tested, get a vasectomy, and have sex instead of watching porn. The best way to get a lot of sex when you want it is to run game.

Of course, many of the antiporn crusaders will tell you they're against premarital sex. I am, too, because if it is premarital, by definition it means they get married, and most men shouldn't marry.

She Likely Doesn’t Exist

  

Guys just need to accept that it is EXTREMELY rare to find a woman who:

1. Has a low, especially 0 body count

2. Will be a good, enthusiastic lover

3. Is willing and prepared to be a good wife

4. Will be faithful in every sense of the word, never divorcing

5. Is attractive to him

6. Is attracted to him

It’s better to stay free and date strategically or not at all.

Accept that if you marry, it’ll almost certainly be detrimental to you and you’ll be with a woman who doesn’t actually meet the criteria you are seeking.

The first two criteria will almost never be found together. Sex is a learned skill, and the kind of woman who is enthusiastic is unlikely to hit the age of 18, 22, and especially 25 without having multiple, if not many, lovers. If she’s in her late 20s and hasn’t had lovers, how much can she really want sex?

Each additional criterion further reduces the pool of women to the point that it might be empty. I didn’t even include compatibility, which is an absolute must, or health. 

Most women don’t actually know what they want now, let alone 40 years from now; to be fair your goals can change, too.

You can complain all you want on social media media, in forums, on podcasts, to advice columnists, but just assume you’re not going to find a compatible woman who meets those six criteria.

Once you accept reality, you can plan and live your life accordingly. I recommend being a Free Man.

Translating Happy Hubby Talk

[Bumped up.] Recently I considered what I'm sure I've realized before... that many men who say how great and wonderful marriage is either had no game as bachelors or felt guilt about fornicating. A lot of them are, and always have been, nerds. They couldn't get laid when they were younger, but once some woman figured that she'd better cash in her aging chips and look for "security" and a "good provider" (someone who'd actually be able to pay her way through life) and that she could settle for a nerd because he would have a dependable high salary and probably wouldn't whore around.

Why Running Game Works

Running game helps you get what you want for as little cost (money, time, effort, freedom, etc.) as possible. It works.

But why does it work?

Running game works because of how women are.

Boys are often told they need to jump though all sorts of hoops, be successful, hard workers, good earners, romantic, generous, sensitive, sweet, strong, chivalrous... on and on and on... to get a woman. But it's just not true.

How do we know it's not true?

One extreme way of knowing it's not true is that there are women who are sexually attracted to men in prison for being serial killers or for raping children.

A far more common way of knowing it's not true is that we all know young, attractive women who are or were with unreliable jerks and deadbeats; many of them allowed those guys to knock them up. Ever hear women talk about their ex husbands, ex boyfriends, baby daddies, and what terrible guys they are? Those are the guys who turned them on so much, they were willing to have intercourse and do all sorts of other sex acts with them.

The proof is in what women do, not in what they say they want.

There's a very small percentage of men that many women will immediately want to have sex with based solely on his body and face. Many of those men are gay. Other than that, it's about how you carry yourself and what she thinks you can do for her.

Why Wait?

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

Men want that, too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, stay free.

Women Need to be Romanced

 

Husbands, how often have you heard that if only you were more sensitive, caring, romantic, did more around the home, and jumped through any number of hoops, your wife would be willing to have sex with you more often? Haven't you heard that women need to be pursued and romanced over the course of the whole day in order to get turned on?

Exhibit A, your Honor: A recent [this entry has been bumped up from April 2018] letter to Dear Abby.

UNWORTHY IN THE MIDWEST wrote:

I am a 17-year-old senior and have been dating the same boy for two years.

High schoolers shouldn't do that. Not exclusively, anyway. Guys, you don't need a girlfriend while you're trying to get educated.

A month ago, he told me he wanted to break up "because he needed some time to figure out what he wanted."

Translation: "I want to figure out if I want to have another girl as my girlfriend, primarily by sticking my penis in her."

I was devastated but agreed. Two weeks later, he told me he was sorry and he loves me.

Translation: "I couldn't get the other girl or she's not as good at sex or sexually compatible with me as you are."

We are back together now, but the weekend after our breakup,

Hours or days after the breakup.

I went to visit a college girlfriend. We went to a party and I ended up having sex with a boy I didn't even know.

Here are the really big questions, men:

How much romancing did that boy do?
How much of her laundry did that boy do?
How much did he prove that he could take care of her, protect her, provide for her?
Did he ever take out the trash?
Did he ever wash the dishes?
Did he ever buy her flowers?
Did he set up a candlelit dinner?
Did he even buy her dinner?
How much money do you think he spent on her?

You get the idea. He didn't do any of that, and yet she did him.

Somehow, she was able to have sex without any of that romance or helping out. And she's not a freak. This is very typical.

I feel guilty and unworthy. What should I do? If I tell my boyfriend, I'm sure I'll lose him for good. If I don't tell him, I'll always worry that he will find out from someone else.

You're 17! Are you going to go to the same college as this boyfriend?

He has a lot to learn if he thinks she wasn't getting some, especially since he was probably getting some or trying really hard to (or had already, when he broke up with her). Guys, expect that within hours after you break up, she's getting some. Come to think of it, you shouldn't assume  or count on her having only been with you while you were a couple anyway.

Surprisingly in this age of "me too", Dear Abby didn't tell the LW she was raped. Even if the age of consent is 16 or 17 where she was (and we don't know it was), she was probably drinking.

When Marriage Sellers Make One of My Points For Me

The Institute for Family Studies, despite being, overall, a marriage seller, is the gift that keeps on giving. There was another round of trying to convince people they're better of having less sex and less sexual variety. Let's take a look at this graph:


 
That graph was used to try to show people that sexual abstinence before means your marriage will be much more stable.

Look closely,  though. Even the best category shows that more than 55 percent of married people in that category believe their marriage may be in trouble of ending. Remember, this is from an organization that is promoting marriage. A minority of married people think their marriage is "very stable."

Do you want to get into a terrible state contract in which, most likely, you will be worried that you are facing what some men call "divorce rape"?

It gets "better," though. Let' look at the next graph.



According to this, 78-80 percent of married people who "saved sex" are NOT very satisfied with their sexual relationship. Sure, the point they were trying to make - that it's even worse for those of you who've had two or more partners - is true... so don't bother to marry!

Why bother to sign a terrible state contract if those are the odds?!?

When someone implies or outright says that "saving sex" for marriage will mean your marriage will be stable, without fear of it ending, and that your marital sex life will be very satisfying, they are ignoring that for MOST people who marry under those circumstances that's not true! Even just the data from which these graphs come indicate there are many married people who are very dissatisfied with their sex lives, including people who "waited". Those people, and the trade offs and risks shouldn't be ignored.

To be fair, there may be studies that show relationship stability and sexual satisfaction rates are even lower for people who aren't married. That's a "cart and horse" thing, meaning it could be that if people don't think their relationship is stable and the sex isn't great, they're less likely to marry.

But yet again, I must point out that these studies and surveys never distinguish intentionally free men who run game to find out how stable their lives are and how satisfied they are with their sex lives. There are men who are loving life and thriving free of a supposedly exclusive or marital relationship, and some them are also very happy with their sex life.

More Fun With Statistics - Body County and Marriage

Life on the Carousel

In an effort to discourage what they see as unfair competition, people like Dr. Laura will tell unmarried women something like:

 "The more sexual partners a woman has before she marries, the less she'll enjoy marital sex."

How exactly is that determined?

We can't compare people to themselves. No one person has had both experiences - having many sexual partners before marrying and having few or none before marrying. So how can anyone know?

This is how it is determined. Usually among other questions, they ask women who are or were married:

• How satisfied they are/were with their marital sex life
• How many partners they had before they married

Then, they notice that there appears to be some correlation.

Let's be clear about a few things though.

1) This is based on self reporting. People who have had few or no sex partners before their marriage have nothing for comparison. It's like giving a starving person plain rice. How happy is that person going to be with rice? Very! As far as sex, it's basically saying "I like sex" or "I'm happy with our sex life" even if they're having sex four times per year.

2) Who has few or no sex partners before marrying? Very religious people. Many of them consider it a sin or even a "negative confession" to say that they are anything less than thrilled with their marital sex life. Also, some unattractive women don't attract many sex partners. Of those who do marry, they're probably going to be happy.

3) There are many women who saved sex for marriage and then had a terrible sex life.

4) There are women who had "many" sex partners before marriage and have a great marital sex life. They tend to be women who like sex a lot and have a high drive.

5) What people who use this tactic are advocating is that you make vows and sign a state contract with someone before finding out if you're sexually compatible. It is VERY different to have no sex at all before marrying and to get very sexual with one person before marrying them. The latter often get lumped together with the former, even though with the latter, if they realize they're not sexually compatible, they are far less likely to marry in the first place.

6) It means something that the people who use this tactic don't apply to anything else. If a woman never goes to a nice restaurant before she marries, won't that make the experience of going to one with her husband that much more special? So an unmarried woman should decline offers to go to a nice restaurant, right?

There are many women who get bored of sex. If those women have had many sex partners before they married, then they might hit that wall of boredom earlier in their marriage. Incels and some others (like Dr. Laura, "purity" purveyors) say a woman's ability to bond, and thus enjoy sex more, gets damaged more the more sex partners she has (like a piece of tape that gets reused and reused loses effectiveness). But for any individual woman, there's no assurance that she'll enjoy sex a lot if she's waits and she won't enjoy it much if she doesn't.

Again, these studies never separate out women who have decided not to marry at all, are enthusiastic about sex, and don't have moral qualms about unmarried sex. Some of them enjoy sex very much. I know my first serious girlfriend enjoyed sex a lot even after having many partners. Or at least she was very effective at pretending to.

A Tale of Two Dear Abby Letters

Two recent letters to Dear Abby provide lessons for men, especially when taken together.
 
PUT-UPON MOM IN GEORGIA wrote:

My 50-year-old daughter divorced her husband 15 years ago because she thought she could do better.

Unless it would truly be better for her to be alone, you already know that was a stupid move. Did she talk with any other women around that age about how hard it is to find good men?

From what I could see, he was a good husband. She didn't work and lived a comfortable lifestyle with two small children.

How much in assets did that guy lose? How much money went to lawyers? How much alimony did he have to pay? How much time with his kids got taken away from him? How much child support did he have to pay?

Since the divorce, that lifestyle has gone steadily downhill.

Of course!

She can't hold a job because she always finds some way to be offended, and quits.

What must it have been like to live with her?

She had a house my husband and I paid the down payment on, but lost it by making the ownership joint with her abusive second husband.

So she exposed her kids to an abuser?

She no longer receives child support because her children are grown, so her finances are worse than ever. We bought her a car last year because she had no transportation.

All that money should have gone in to trying to get custody of the kids, or helping their first ex son-in-law so do. And isn't child support supposed to be for the children? Why did it stopping hurt her finances if she no longer had to support children? Hmmm...

My question is this: How much should we continue to financially support her?

NO MORE!

Yet again, guys, we see that you should avoid signing a terrible state contract with a woman.

In another letter, PROCEEDING WITH CAUTION wrote:

I'm a 32-year-old woman. My 20s were spent in a serious long-term relationship. It was a lot of firsts for me. After we split, I took a couple of years to sow my wild oats and find out who I am as an individual.

Guys, you want to meet up with women when they are doing that.

I'm now looking for something more than "friends with benefits."

"I've had my fun."

However, the last few men I've met and gone on dates with, as wholesome as they seemed on dating sites (which have been my main source of meeting men), were really just looking for hookups. I want to find a life partner.

What does "life partner" mean? Dose it involve someone doing free work for you? Paying your way through life?

Most men want hookups. Some are willing do more because they think they have to. But most men, especially if they know what they're doing can get hookups. That's the competition you're facing.

I have been chatting with a potentially great guy I met online, and we have a date scheduled. But I'm nervous that when we meet that he'll expect more than a date. I'm over that. Like I said, I want an actual relationship.

You're over that? So you don't like sex?

Can you give me some advice on what to do and say, or not, on a first or second date to help move it in the right direction without scaring the guy away?

That depends if you're going to hold out or not. If you're not going to hold out, don't bother with the speech. If you are going to hold out, be blunt about that, and tell him it's not an invitation for him to try to persuade you differently.

If he sticks around, consider he might be desperate, have little drive, be gay, or otherwise in little interest in grown women. Or, he might be very religious. Are you willing to be with a man who is very religious, and everything that entails?

Pay attention, men.

Should She Call Him?

 

Dr. Laura Schlessinger wants unmarried women to do less sex. She never talks about what she was doing in the past when she wasn’t married. She insists her show is a secular program; religion doesn’t come into play except for her to use a caller’s religion against them or to help them with something. So she can’t refer to religion as to why unmarried sex is wrong in general. But without that, she appears to be envious, or angry about “unfair competition,” or lowering the price of sex. She tries to avoid that by citing mental and physical health concerns and social stigmas (which she attempts to perpetuate).

Just about every episode of her program has calls from prior episodes dropped in, unannounced, as filler and I don’t know if this call is one of those. But it did appear in Hour 2 of Wednesday, January 24, 2024. “Anna” appears 26 minutes into the podcast hour. 

Anna explained that she’s not sure if she should reach out to someone she was dating for two months. She’s 30, he’s 35.

“Everything was going great” and then he “unexpectedly” said he needed to put them “on pause” because he had some “emotional things he needed to deal with,” that he “adored” her and that he “hoped to call her soon.”

Yes, it’s likely those “emotional things” are women who are hotter and/or f—- better than Anna. But there is a slight chance he really did need to sort through some emotional considerations on his own.

“Should I reach out to check in on him?” asked Anna.

“OF COURSE NOT.” declared Dr. Laura. 

Please note that Dr. Laura is generally going to discourage women from appearing to be the pursuer.

“That was the nicest way to dump you.” Dr Laura said he was classy but she doesn’t like it when “people dangle some hope.” She told Anna, “Get on with your life. Assume it’s over.”

Anna started talking and Dr. Laura loudly interrupted her, which is her habit. 

“A. He’s not that interested.

“B. Maybe he is but he’s screwed up in the head.

“Either one of those is not that good for you.”

That’s where the call should have ended. But Dr. Laura is lonely, horny, frustrated, and not happy that if she wants a man, she has to compete against easier, younger, hotter women. 

So she continued the call.

“Did you have intercourse with him? -Oral sex? -Anything else?” She tells callers not to keep talking after they ask one question but she asked three before the caller could get a word in edgewise. 

Anna: “Yes.”

(The rest of the quotes below are from Dr. Laura, pontificating.)

“How stupid you are, as a woman, to do that?”

Why did she include “as a woman?” Would it be OK if it was two gay men? Perhaps because Dr. Laura talks as though men should pay women for sex, and there’s no way the guy had paid enough yet.

“In two months.”

She never gives an acceptable time frame. If it must be in marriage, that means waiting until your late twenties, spending about two and a half to three years, according to the timeline she pushes, getting legally entangled in a bad state contract, and THEN finding out whether or not you enjoy each other sexually. 

“Not knowing the guy.”

This is correct. You really don’t know someone well that soon. On the other hand, there are situations in which Dr. Laura would decide that’s more than enough time to decide someone should be out of your life entirely. Why isn’t it long enough to decide you want to get sexual?

“The sex is meaningless. Is it the same thing as brushing your teeth? It must be.”

Is enjoyment meaningless? What exactly would make the sex meaningful? Dr. Laura didn’t say.

“How many guys are you going to have sex with because you like him and you’re dating?”

I’d like a woman to respond to this and say “As many as I want to.” But they’re usually so taken aback by the scolding and nervous about being on the air in the first place that they just take the haranguing. Seriously. Without a religious rule prohibiting it, what’s the argument against it? Pregnancy? Diseases? There are precautions they can take.

“How does sex become lovemaking?”

When there’s love.

“In the future, how will sex be meaningful?”

The same way going to dinner will be meaningful. Imagine a guy saying “I’m not taking you out for a nice dinner because I’m saving that for my future wife.” Same with gifts. Or long talks.

“If a future guy says how many men have you had and you have to say 15, is he going to be interested?”

This is funny, because Dr. Laura berates husbands who are upset after they find out their wife has had more lovers than he thought. She condemns husbands for even trying to find out. But if Anna and any future guy do discuss their experience, and he’s not OK with her “body count,” then they’re “not a match” as Dr. Laura is so fond of saying. 

“How do you keep sex important if you just use it as a part of dating because you’re attracted?”

The same way you keep going out to a nice dinner important.

“How do YOU become important if you use sex as part of attraction?”

What does that even mean?

“I think women your age don’t think about any of this. You just operate out of the moment.”

There have always been women like that, some of them Dr. Laura’s age.

“But when you add up all those moments, you’re not going to be proud of yourself, pleased with yourself, or even happy. And you could end up quite depressed. Because how many times are you going to get naked and do it and not end up with anything meaningful? And how do you think you’ll avoid depression at that point?”

This appears to be relying on the kind of stigma Dr. Laura tries perpetuate. “You’re going to feel upset at yourself because women like me are going tell you that you should.”

If Anna regrets having casual sex, then sure, having casual sex is going to bring her negative feelings.

But if she doesn’t regret it, it’s a different matter.

When describing the situation, Anna had said everything was going great. Although Dr. Laura will often deny such a statement as true, it is what Anna perceived. That means she liked the guy. The sex must have been good and she didn’t regret it, which is why she wanted to reach back out to him. If she regretted the sex or there was something about the guy she didn’t like, she wouldn’t have done the call with Dr. Laura. 

Most likely, the guy found Anna to be too clingy, demanding, somehow flawed, or just not as much fun as his other options. Dr Laura was correct in saying Anna should move on with her life. If the guy reaches out, it’ll most likely be because women he prefers more aren’t available that evening or that week.

Does This Deter Teen Girls From Fornicating?

Dr. Laura, who has an awesome program and does a lot of good, has been consistent in recent decades about what she tells teen girls and what she tells their parents to tell them about sex.

I think it was the second hour of the program from Monday, September 9, 2019 that she got a call from a mother who'd heard from her sister that her (the caller's) daughter had sex with her boyfriend of about six months and that the daughter was planning to tell her. [This entry has been bumped up.]

Dr. Laura told the caller/mother to tell her daughter:

1) He's told all his buddies
2) Other boys are going to want to get into her also
3) There's nothing special, sublime, or sacred about what they did
4) Animals do the same thing
5) There's no love or commitment attached to it
6) Now you have a reputation
7) Boys talk about it
8) The next time you date you're going to want to do it again because the bar is down and it's less meaningful
9) By the time you marry you'll probably have a pregnancy or STD.

Do these messages deter teen girls today from having sex? I have my doubts.

Dating Without Marriage in Sight

Good Catholic Husband Matt Walsh commanded people not to date if they don't want to get married. Dr. Laura has often told men they shouldn't be dating unless they're prepared to pay for a wife and kids. And she's also said people shouldn't marry until their late 20s. So I guess that means no dating for her followers until then. Here's Wash's column at Daily Wire. [This entry has been bumped up.]

It’s no secret that my generation is extremely delayed in the marriage department.

That's the first line. I wasn't aware there was a requirement to be married by a certain age.

The average age of marriage is now 27 for women and almost 30 for men.

That sounds about right.

Women Get Something Out of Shacking Up, Fornication

This is something I wrote several years ago. It is as relevant as ever.