Cult of the Cubicle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Honest Messaging Would Look Like From Censorship Crusaders

Whether #Traffickinghub, Laila Mickelwait, Justice Defense Fund, Exodus Cry, Fight the New Drug, or so many others, anti-porn crusaders are desperate to present their attacks on adult media as either an attack on criminal material or only a specific company because of claimed crimes (Traffickinghub/Mickelwait/JDF).

Here's what honest messaging from them would look like.

"We don't like porn, or we like it but wish we didn't."

"Our religions are against nudity in media, erotic images, and sexy dancing, so we try to stop others from being involved with these things."

"Compulsive porn viewing is a common sign someone has problems with compulsive tendencies."

But they want to get people to stop watching all adult media, or at least feel really bad about it, or donate money to them, and they know that if they were honest about that, their messages would only motivate some of the people in their own small religious circles.

So what they do is try to correlate negative indicators with "using porn" in a way that tries to get people to believe that porn caused these bad things.

Quite frequently, they try to portray things true of (even common with) media in general, business in general, organizations in general, or even humanity in general to be unique problems with porn, stripping, etc.

Example: "She's only doing this because she needs money."

Well, yeah, isn't that why almost everyone works a job?

There are countless other examples.

Unfortunately, they push panic on the gullible.

No, Being Interesting Isn’t Enough

There’s an author who is apparently niche-famous in polyamory circles and quite prolific on at least one online question-and-answer service. He writes well. Let’s call him “Mo.”

Mo frequently bashes anyone who’d label themselves (or be labeled by him) as “incel,” “MRA,” “MGTOW,” “redpill,” or “Manosphere,” and their talking points.

The older I get, the less I accept most labels as concrete. “What do you mean by that?” is a very helpful question. “Incel,” strictly speaking, means “involuntarily celibate.” How can someone be blamed for something that’s involuntary? Well, the term “incel” has come to mean, in common usage, a lot more than simply being involuntarily celibate. But there are people, including men, who are involuntarily celibate who do not behave in ways or think in ways Mo cites as so detestable.

Mo often writes that all those other guys (and probably many more outside of those labels) are wrong when they say a man needs to be rich, powerful, famous, tall, built, very handsome, and/or play games to get women. He says what a man needs to be is interesting. Mo is interesting, you see. Those other guys aren’t. Or their uncouth behavior or offensive beliefs override their level of interesting. (Leonardo DiCaprio must be really interesting, right?)

Here’s the problem. There is usually an enormous disconnect between what Mo and the other men are talking about.

What is meant by “get women” (or whatever phrase one might use)?

In Mo’s case, it is “have sex with a woman who doesn’t expect exclusivity from me or much of anything else, nor will she be exclusive with me.” Mo wouldn’t mind, in fact it might turn him on, if his wife bangs 100 men in one night, none of them him. In turn, there are at least two or three other women Mo is apparently banging on a regular basis, or at least when he can see them. Mo engages in orgies and apparently his relationships are all open (polyamory doesn’t automatically mean an open relationship).

We know what Mo looks like. And he readily admits to being poor.

It’s a good thing Mo has no interest in monogamy. Because if he did, he’d quickly find out that being “interesting” (and what he might think of as enlightened) would not be enough. His choices in available women would be quite limited. (I’m curious as to how many women he was actually able to get before he became niche-famous.)

But because he lives as though he doesn’t mind if any of the women he’s banging, even his wife, bang other people, they are willing to use him as a dildo. Heck, he even lets them beat him for jollies.

If he’s to be believed, and I have no reason to doubt him, he hasn’t been monogamous since literally his first sexual experience, since it was with multiple people.

Mo wants multiple women sexual partners, which, if we’re being honest most men want but are willing to at least attempt to suppress. But that’s where the common ground ends. The men he’s saying are wrong about women AREN’T INTERESTED IN THE SAME POOL OF WOMEN AS MO.

Mo doesn’t want monogamy.

Mo doesn’t want to have kids.

Mo doesn’t want to be a provider.

Mo doesn’t want to be what most women think of as husband material.

Mo doesn’t want to be what most women think of as boyfriend material.

Mo doesn’t want a woman most men would consider wife material.

Mo doesn’t want what most men would consider girlfriend material.

None of those women expect Mo to protect them, provide for them, fulfill all of their sexual needs, fulfill all of their romantic needs, father/raise children, build wealth for retirement, eventually be grandpa, or any of that sort of thing. He’s basically a dildo that gets passed around between multiple women, though he presents it as more meaningful or deep than that. 

“Sounds great to me,” you might think. Except these women aren’t really what you’d want. Nor are they what the men Mo mocks want. 

These men he mocks want a classic “girl next door” type of woman, not a “girl from the street corner” type, even if the street corner is online. Some want virgins; Mo will not date/have sex with a virgin, as he’s stated many times.

They want a woman to be THE woman in their life: their girlfriend, and maybe their wife and the mother of their children. They don’t went her to be the village tramp.

If one were to leave the other, it would be a significant life event and cause much difficulty, whereas if Mo “left” any of his lovers, they might have to find another man to beat them - consensually, of course, so that makes it OK, or something - or they could simply do with one less lover or beater.

These women the guys are seeking wouldn’t be flirting with or spending social time with other men, and the men wouldn’t be flirting with or spending social time with other women - at least not without the spouses also there. Mo calls this very standard condition of monogamous marriages controlling and abusive, because it means telling someone else (your spouse) who they can’t spend time with.

It’s a big disconnect. 

What Mo is doing is like responding to people who say, “It’s hard to find a true, close, enduring friendship” with “No it’s not! I just made a friend on Facebook by being interesting!” It’s like saying to someone who wants to grow their own food homesteading that they can drive through at Krispy Kreme and get a doughnut.

He’s never been in a monogamous situation. Never had a woman to himself, never pledged himself to one woman. He’s never had to financially support a woman on an ongoing basis, as far as I can tell.

Conversely, many of the men who would be labeled as “Manosphere” or “redpill” and the like have been “traditionally” married and may still be married. Tom Leykis, who I’d guess Mo would have significant disdain for despite overlaps in their politics and sexual behaviors, was, last I knew, married and divorced four times.

What these men are encountering is a situation in which they are being held to ridiculous standards and obligations to so much as get a date or two, let alone have a serious relationship.

These men are dismissed for not being at least six feet tall, earning at least six figures, not having a six-pack (toned abs) and/or not having a penis at least six inches in length. If any one of those criteria isn’t met or surpassed, these men are passed over, no matter how interesting they are, unless the men are wealthy, famous, or powerful.

A woman who wants a man to be her lifelong wallet, bodyguard, sperm supplier, etc. isn’t going to find a man who is “interesting” to be enough; not unless he’s meeting all those other criteria. 

Rather than mock these men and claim I have the answer because I’m interesting, I try to help them with the truth:

1) Odds are, they won’t have a lasting, happy marriage with what they’d consider a great wife. Almost no man will find that these days, but if they are determined to try, they should look for certain criteria, avoid certain things, and they should take certain steps. 

2) Running game works.

For either of those, being “interesting” isn’t sufficient. 

I’m here to help other men, not mock them. I’m not superior to them. I’ve simply observed and processed a wide spectrum of relationship advice and real-life relationships. I know what it’s like to be “traditionally” married, I know what it’s like to be in serious monogamous relationships, I know what “works” as far as running game, because I dated before I knew about it and then I later dated implementing some of it.

The Priorities of the Professional #Traffickinghub Crusaders

I used to fall for the kind of talking points regurgitated by the professional #Traffickinghub crusaders. Starting decades ago, I was on-board with their alarmism, their insistence that we are/were in a crisis. I've been closely observing the current personalities involved for many years now. [This was originally posted in June 2022.]

On the surface, it seems like the professional #Traffickinghub crusaders are extremely concerned about assault (rape, molestation, etc.). After all, that's one of the reasons for "trafficking."

But when they consistently ignore or refuse to focus on actual cases of rape and molestation at churches, schools, daycares, and other places, and instead take every opportunity to bash adult media, when they constantly use social media services to get attention and donations when those very services have had exponentially more of the very things these crusaders claim necessitates shutting down a porn site and criminally prosecuting its executives, things don't make sense until you consider that perhaps their goal isn't addressing assault, but rather amassing donations by attacking adult media.

It's been years since the "#Traffickinghub" campaign started, and their petition has been online. YEARS. What has happened with all of that time, up until this posting?

• PornHub removed unverified videos (such as those uploaded by users like your neighbor, often videos pirated from other users or websites) and will only allow videos posted by verified producers. Of course the professional Traffickinghub crusaders consider this a victory.
• Credit card companies no longer allow PornHub viewers to pay for their porn (and thereby pay performers) using their credit cards. Of course this has been seen as another victory by the crusaders, although they shifted to complaining that the credit cards are still involved through the ads on PornHub.
• Laila Mickelwait, who was touted as Director of Abolition at Exodus Cry, started something called the Justice Defense Fund.
  
• Laila Mickelwait has gotten a lot of attention from certain journalists and certain government hearings.
• Laila Mickelwait/Justice Defense Fund, Exodus Cry, and other organizations have continued to rake in donations.
• Laila Mickelwait has gotten social media mentions each time someone has signed her petition.
• Laila Mickelwait has broadened from focusing on PornHub to more adult media sites.
  
• PornHub is still online.
• PornHub executives haven't been arrested or charged with any crimes.
• People are still being raped and molested. I'm not aware of a single incident of any such crime being stopped by professional Traffickinghub crusaders.
  
• Videos of rapes, molestation, and "revenge porn" are still all over the Internet. I'm not aware of a single incident of any such crime being stopped by professional Traffickinghub crusaders.
• Performers have been inconvenienced and deprived of money.
• A man went on a mass murder spree at a massage business, and told investigators what sounds like Traffickinghub talking points.
  

Why, it's almost like this is all about lining the pockets and stroking the egos of a few people who have a religious objection to adult media, and not actually helping anyone else.

Laila Mickelwait constantly asserts that PornHub is a "crime scene" full of rape videos (despite the fact that they only have videos from verified producers), tries to harass advertisers and credit card companies, and even tries to get search engines to pretend that PornHub doesn't exist.

Why, considering social media platforms, churches, schools, and other adult websites have an exponentially more serious problem than PornHub ever did? Might it be because PornHub is the most popular and well-known porn site? Might it be that the goal is getting donations, especially from churchgoers and social media users?

It all makes more sense when considering that Exodus Cry's roots are in churches that have a negative fixation on adult media, often to the point of preaching against it more than sloth, envy, greed, gluttony, and gossip combined.

Dennis Prager Latest Talker to Cut Back

Dennis Prager has become the latest longtime talk radio host to cut back.

Starting next week, his weekday nationally syndicated terrestrial broadcast program, and no doubt the pay podcast version of the same, will drop from three hours to two.

The publicized explanation is that Dennis wants more time to work on multiple books he wants to complete.

It hasn’t been unusual for him to take entire days off to work on a book, or for him to skip the last hour or entire days for travel or other activities, with a “Best of” recording or guest host taking his place. For a while he was also doing his third hour with a cohost.

I have no idea if he’s cutting back on the Dennis and Julie podcast or his fireside chats.

While I’m sure Dennis does want to complete more books, I wouldn’t be surprised if another reason for this change is to allow Salem or anyone else paying him to avoid paying him more with his new contract, or even to lower his pay.

Dennis notes he will be starting both hours at the top of the hour rather than six or seven minutes in, saying this will constitute a full radio hour more of content over the course of the week, meaning his listeners will only be losing four radio hours per week, not five. Shifting to :00 from :07 will mean losing the top of the hour news/traffic/weather many of his stations have. I will be curious to see if the ads are shifted to the other breaks. The length of the podcast hours will reveal this. 

Dennis is also announcing he’ll be doing a monthly chat with subscribers to his higher tier subscription, Pragertopia Plus. 

Dennis has had four dedicated hours each week: Ultimate Issues (Hour 3 Tuesdays), Male-Female (Hour 2 Wednesdays), Happiness (Hour 2 Fridays), and Open Lines (Hour 3 Fridays).

My guess is he’ll keep all four. Ultimate Issues will move to Hour 2 and his Friday program will start with the Happiness Hour.

It has never appeared to me that Dennis has had any trouble filling three hours five days per week. He can monologue, he has no shortage of guests, and I’ve never gotten the impression he’s struggled to get callers.

Though I vehemently disagree with him on his pathological pushing of marriage, I usually find his program a worthwhile listen, so I see losing 4-5 hours of it per week to be a negative. At least he’s still alive and on the air.

The Incredibly Shrinking Michael Medved Show

I used to listen to the Michael Medved Show as much as I could on live radio, and then the paid podcast when he was dropped by Salem for Gorka.

I eventually stopped allowing that subscription to renew, and very rarely would catch that show live via the home station’s (AM 770 KTTH Seattle) website. Supposedly it was also syndicated, by another company other than Salem.

Last month, that station announced that as of the turn of the year, it was going to air the national Guy Benson show in the the slot Medved had (Noon-3pm Pacific).

As of this posting, I don’t know if there is any radio station carrying Medved’s show. I can’t find any listed on the show’s website.

It looks to me like the program for now is strictly Internet, and people can listen live (for free, I guess.... I'm not sure) or pay for the podcast, which is simply a recorded version of the live program.

This change didn't cause much buzz. As far as I can tell the same basic article, essentially "copy pasta" from the station's press release, was carried in a few places, with someone erroneously implying Medved had still been syndicated by Salem. Nobody has bothered to update Medved's Wikipedia page since August 2023 (as of this posting).

It's been a few years since Tom Leykis gave up doing this live, call-in Internet program because not enough people were paying to subscribe (Leykis is strictly podcast now, when he feels like recording). I don't know what Medved's situation is as far as the program's finances. More people are used to listening online now, so online programs might have a better go than Leykis did.

There are multiple national shows airing live Noon - 3pm Pacific. Medved's now-former home station apparently has a deal with Fox, which carries the Benson show. Not that a show has to air live, but it's better if it does. A couple of other things were going against Medved: age and his criticisms of Trump and various other Republicans as well as conservatives. His target audience no doubt preferred he spend more time pointing out the flaws of the Democrats and the Left.

I'd be interested in the inside scoop as far as the Medved Show's finances, reach, and if he retained any staff or if that staff stayed with the station or went somewhere else entirely. What are his plans? Will he keep the show going even if it costs him money instead of paying him? Having a website, live stream, phone lines, a screener, a producer, and a podcast archive costs money. Is he the kind of guy who wants to (or feels he needs to) work until the day he dies, or does he plan to retire?

There were many times I enjoyed his analysis and perspective over the years. I found his movie reviews worthwhile, too. His history programs played when he was out were the only long-since-recorded talk radio to which I'd listen. And of course he regularly had "Disagreement Day" and guests with whom he differed. He was a big presence in talk radio for decades. But I hadn't listened to his program much since I dropped that podcast subscription.

Whatever is or is not going on with him, I wish him well.

Stop Child Abusers

Child abuse happens everywhere, regardless of demographics. What's worse, some child abuse is captured on video and uploaded online for perverts to enjoy.

That's one reason I implore people not to waste their time, money, and energy trying to stop CONSENTING ADULTS from making erotica and CONSENTING ADULTS from viewing erotica. All of those resources should be directed at preventing child abuse (and the abuse of adults) and locking up those who perpetrate it.

Don't Fall For the Fundraising Ploy

Let's look at the legal/political and cultural track record of the "religious right," shall we? Mind you, I'm in agreement with Evangelical Protestants when it comes to theology, and, in a lot of respects, how to live. The "religious right" tends to be comprised of people who identify as some variation of Christian or what are seen as related faiths, including Mormonism, and some Jews, mostly Orthodox and some Conservatives, who are politically active and try to align their political positions with their faith.

They've had a little success with restrictions on abortion, but essentially elective abortion has been broadly legal for 47 years, and many ardent pro-life religious conservatives are saying they just want it to go back to the states, which means just about anyone who wants an abortion will still be able to get one even if it is taken away from the federal level.

They've also had some success with limiting sex ed in public schools. That's a battle that continues.

I don't know if there is any area where they've had more success than religious freedom, but they haven't gotten everything they've wanted and, if we're honest, this wasn't just their cause; there has been broad public support, including from many people who aren't religious, for some basic religious freedom; it's an enumerated Constitutional right.

That's a small list of victories. The list of legislative and cultural failures is far longer.

As much noise as they made about these things, these people were not able to stop:

• Sex, violence, raunchiness, and anti-Christian themes in music, video games, and media in general


• Widespread acceptance and use of sexual toys and aids (and yes, they did try)


• Mainstreaming of sexy lingerie (Victoria's Secret shops in malls, complete with easily visible ads and displays?)


• Decriminalization and widespread acceptance/destigmatization of fornication


• Decriminalization and widespread acceptance/destigmatization of unmarried cohabitation


• Legitimizing and widespread acceptance of out-of-wedlock parenting


• Widespread acceptance and practicing of casual sex, booty calls, hooking up, friends-with-benefits


• Women in more military roles


• "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for LGBTQ people in the military


• Replacement of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" with further acceptance


• Adoption of domestic partnership laws for same-sex couples


• Legalization and widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage


• Adoptions by same-sex couples


• Reproductive technologies and programs such as surrogate gestation, in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, egg donation, freezing embryos
  
  
• "Death with dignity" options for assisted suicide


• Increasing acceptance of transgenderism, genderfluidity, nonbinary identity, gender nonconforming, and increasing legal protections thereof


• Gay-Straight Alliances and similar organizations in schools


• Sex week at colleges


• LGBTQ representation in media and theme park events


• LGBTQ pride representation by large companies with prominent brands


• Gambling (lotteries, casinos, etc.)


• Increasing marijuana legalization


• Barring of creationism/intelligent design in public schools


• Denial of public education vouchers

Try as they did, they also weren't able to prevent Bill Clinton from getting elected (defeating Reagan's former VP and incumbent President George H. W. Bush) and re-elected, prevent Obama from getting elected (defeating a ticket with Sarah Palin) and re-elected, prevent Trump from getting the GOP nomination, nor the election of Joe Biden, nor have they been able to stop the House and Senate, over the recent decades, from going Democratic some of the time. 

So what makes them think their latest push will work?

The push I'm talking about is a recent call by a few elected Republicans followed by dutiful columnists, to try to "fight" "porn". It's especially ridiculous considering there is very little agreement on what would constitute victory (what does fight really mean) and what counts as the kind of porn that must be fought.

Facebook is a Front Row Seat to a Train Wreck

[Bumped up.] Human memory is one thing.


Being able to have written/video/photographic evidence is another.

Yesterday, I noticed a couple of high school classmates of mine indicating on Facebook that they are each going through divorces. I thought back to previous updates from them and how I'd like to juxtapose them with their current updates. There's gotta be a blog or website that does this already, right? Feel free to leave the URL in the comments (always feel free to comment). And yes, I'm well aware the same could be said for this blog, in terms of comparing old entries to current entries.

Facebook can be a great chronicler to show men that present-day legal-social marriage is, in a majority* of cases, a disaster.


Thanks to Facebook and the tendency for some people to overshare, we can pull the "highlights" into a condensed timeline that depicts:


1) The lovey-dovey joint selfies. Aren't they such a cute couple?!?
2) The Very Important Engagement Photos
3) The Even More Important Wedding Date Announcement - be sure to save the date!!!
4) HER Big Day! Awwww, they're so happy!!! It's amazing what spending tens of thousands of dollars can look like.
5) The Honeymoon Period - we'll see memes posted about the profound nature of marriage and how he's her soul mate.
[There may be pregnancy test, ultrasound, and baby photos scattered throughout, but ideally they'd be here.]
6) The inevitable clear, explicit tweets disrespecting and badmouthing her husband --OR-- the cryptic vague use of memes that indicate all is not well.
7) She changes her name back and starts a seemingly endless series of jabs at her (now ex, or soon to be ex) husband, the man she couldn't wait to marry. She may also post pleas for help moving, a place to stay, etc., and may also share photos of her new boyfriend, who is either a bad-boy or is obviously wealthier than her husband.


Facebook is also handy to document that many women butch up and blimp up after getting him to sign that legal contract. Even my wife pointed out how, when a friend of mine married, it wasn't even 24 hours later before his new bride chopped off her hair. There will be fewer pictures that include her that she'll post, or fewer that include a good view of her whole body. She might post cartoons and memes about how hard it is for a married woman to avoid letting herself go.


*Guys, here are the facts:

The divorce rate for first marriages, which is much lower than second/third/etc. marriages, is 40%. Much more than 10% of the marriages that last until at least one of them dies are miserable marriages most, or a significant amount of the time. That means the odds are that getting married will mean either getting divorced or being miserable. Yes, there ARE people who beat those odds, but there's no way to guarantee you'll be one of them.

Very few of today's women are prepared and willing to be a good wife to a man who is looking for someone to take care of the home and raise children. Dr. Laura tells women to inform their husbands that, despite whatever agreements they had, they will be staying home to raise the children; that they will budget to do with less income and since they won't have the stress of working outside the home, they will have the time and energy to be attentive mothers who take the children for nice outings, prepare homemade meals, and have lots of great sex with their husbands. Now, don't get me wrong... I think children should be raised by a loving parent instead of hired help and I agree this is how things should be, but how many women actually end up behaving that way? The husband gets trashed because they can't buy things or take as nice vacations living on his income alone; the kid gets stuck in a corner with a TV and/or a tablet; the meals either don't get prepared ("You have two hands, do it yourself!") or are microwave fare; the sex isn't going to be often enough or be all that good, because she doesn't want it as much as he does and she no longer has an incentive to pretend to be as into it as he is. Again, there ARE exceptions. If you're a woman who truly does raise your own kids and you take care of the man who is providing you with a roof over your head and paying your bills, then you're awesome. You're also a very rare species.

Where Was Kermit the Frog?

Tom Leykis spent the first two hours of his three hour show yesterday telling listeners they need to financially support his show. I pictured one of those PBS pledge drives of my childhood, with Kermit the Frog telling us why we should send in money. Of course there's a huge difference.

A Few Quick Notes

I finally got active on a Twitter account to accompany this blog. I'm here: http://www.twitter.com/TunaSafeDolphin

I'm following a bunch of MGTOW and MRA accounts as well as a lot of accounts ministering to marriages and families and  advocating people marry, and hysterical anti-porn accounts. Those last categories I follow mainly for laughs and blog/tweet fodder. You know, like when an account tweets out that people shouldn't watch porn 'cuz human trafficking, and I can tweet back and ask if people should avoid wearing clothes for the same reason (human trafficking in the garment industry).

On the plus side, my wife has been in a good mood lately and has been verbally (text, mostly) expressing her appreciation of what I do. No, it hasn't meant more or better sex - we're averaging about once every two weeks these days. She did have some of her medication adjusted recently so it is likely related to that. Our family therapist has been urging her to get individual therapy, which she has resisted even though it is clear she needs it because it has become apparent that she's letting her mother's alcoholism during her childhood have significant negative influences over her interactions with me and our kids. She did see our family therapist alone for a session and had been planning to do it again. But since it has only been one session my guess is that the improvement is due to her medication.

On the sad side is that she has suffered a series of concussions lately just doing normal things around the house. She's not even 40 and I figure between the recent and past concussions, the medications, her history of mental illness, and some other factors, I shouldn't be surprised if she demonstrates significant cognitive impairment within a few years. I'm bracing to sit her down with our family therapist sometime soon and ask her to seriously consider her preferences would be if/when 1) she can no longer drive the kids to school, which is her most significant contribution to the family these days; 2) can no longer be left alone in our own home (not that her preferences will be accommodated, but I figure it would be good to know them); and also having her document her wishes for end-of-life care, funeral preferences, and what should happen with her body. Of course, with that last one, everyone should do that because none of us is guaranteed another day, no matter our age or health.

Itches and Scratch

The obsession in Evangelical circles about "porn" makes me cringe, because so many bad arguments are used, which discredit "our" side, and the disproportionate focus on it. I recently sat through a sermon (unfortunately one of my young kids was with me) from someone who was not the church's pastor, but had been doing a sermon series on "first things" when it comes to following Christ. This was supposed to be a sermon on Satan and his tactics. Yes, doctrine holds that Satan is a real, spiritual (not physical) being who interacts with human beings.

Despite supposedly being about Satan, it was more about porn than anything else. One must wonder what Satan was doing before the advent of photography.

Yahoo E-mail Grab

You may or may not be aware that Yahoo! has "recycled" e-mail addresses that were not used for what the company considered to be too long. It had been at least several months since I last accessed an e-mail account I set up for this blog, and so when I went to check on it... POOF... it was gone, along with all of the e-mail messages I had been sent and that I had sent. Gee, thanks Yahoo. Then again, I didn't pay for that account, but still... I would have at least liked to have retrieved the messages. Surely there is some way Yahoo could have set it up to say that they were making the address available again, but if I entered the previous password I would be able to retrieve my messages for the next seven days. Or something.

Blogging, E-mail, Pony Express?

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?

Why Would a Grown Man Have a Facebook Account?

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.

Shame on You For Reading This

Well, not really.

Some people express feelings of guilt for the amount of time they spend in front of a computer screen or staring into a screen on their phone. They think they should be spending more time doing "something else". The problem is, the people who wonder if they're spending too much time online, Facebooking or whatever, are probably not the people who are. The people who are spending too much time are among the people who don't even question it.

I don't think spending time on those things is necessarily bad; often, it is beneficial. Someone might look at the amount of time I spend in front of a computer monitor or using a smart phone, but I am, in no particular order...

1) working
2) checking the news (legit news... not what the latest teen pop guy is doing)
3) involved in a hobby (like this blog) or entertainment
4) keeping in touch with family and friends
5) paying bills, making orders, and doing research about possible purchases
6) writing love letters to my wife

So, the amount of time I spend "online" has to be compared to the amount of time I would be spending watching TV, reading newspapers and magazines, talking on the phone, writing letters, running errands, and doing mail if I couldn't do these things online. In fact, using a this technology may reduce the amount of time spent doing the things that take me away from family or other obligations.

Online technology has also brought enourmous benefits in terms of productity and quality of life. As I type, there are people confirming that their loved ones in Japan are still alive thanks to social networking.

Now, if you're spending two hours a day doing Farmville, and your time working or being with family is suffering as a result, then that's a problem.

Right now, if it weren't for Facebook, Twitter, and e-mail, I would have almost zero contact with my friends. That's a problem either way - I should see my friends more often. But right now, I'm not. So, would it be better to have no contact with them, or limited contact that still allows me to keep up on what is going on in their lives?

If you're finding yourself spending too much time reading status updates on Facebook, I highly suggest creating groups/lists of "friends" - one for current coworkers/professional colleagues, another for classmates, etc. One of the things I did was create one that would only be people I just "had" to keep updated with... family, close friends, and contacts through whom I could expect to be reasonably informed about what was going on in certain social circles. That has saved a lot of time for me, because most days I only read the status updates from that that last list. No need to "defriend" anyone. They'll have no idea you aren't reading their status updates, other than that you never comment on anything they do except when you are tagged.

What say you???

Study: Some Say OK 2 B Online During Sex

Computer security firm PC Tools late Wednesday released a study showing that nearly a quarter of US residents think it is fine to be "plugged in" to the Internet during sex.

Well, yeah – for many of the them, it is the online way they have any sex:

a/s/l?

r u alone?

wut r u wearing?

send pic?

Like that.

Some 79 percent of people in the United States keep files on personal computers that they don't want family members, co-workers, employers, or friends to see, according to the survey.

Like receipts.

Nearly half of those surveyed said they would be embarrassed if friends or relatives saw certain files on their computers or smartphones.

Their balance sheets?

Seriously, though, there are times when we need to be unplugged, such as most of the instances when are making love to our spouse, when our kid needs to talk with us, and during our family dinner.

Don’t Use Grandma's Computer to See Skin

GRANDMA ON ALERT wrote in to Dear Abby:

My daughter and 12-year-old grandson "Patrick" visit me on Sundays. Patrick watches TV in my office.

Kids should not be watching TV without the adults knowing what they are watching.

I was recently looking at the history on my Web browser after he had been there, and I noticed that Patrick had been visiting free porn sites and chat rooms on my computer.

What I said about TV applies even more to computers. You must be certain nobody else could have accessed the computer to be sure.

I am disappointed that he has been looking at pornography and that he has put my computer at risk for viruses, etc.

Risks can come from any place online. Surely you have protective software, right?

As far as the porn – what are we talking about? Pictures? Videos? Women? Men and women having vanilla sex? Betty White with Larry King? While people shouldn't be supplying any of that to minors, you shouldn't be too concerned that he sought it out unless it is some illegal or extreme stuff. The fact is, the vast majority of adult men these days through the age of 55 viewed Playboy-style pictures, R-rated sex/nudity movie scenes, and even porn films/video when they were 12 or not much older and most of them grew up to be normal, healthy, productive members of society – many of them have great marriages. Just because the material doesn’t appeal to you doesn't mean it will kill him.

These days, 12-year-old boys are getting sent pictures of their classmates on cell phones and in e-mails, or are even seeing or doing worse in-person (sometimes with their teacher). Really, the most dangerous thing he did was visit chat rooms, if he wasn’t careful about what he said in those chat rooms.

Should I talk to his parents?

If you're fairly certain it was him, tell them the nature of the sites he visited. And explain that as a result, he won’t be allowed to use your computer unsupervised.

To him?

Take him over to computer - just he two of you - and bring up all of the websites. Then, scream at him about how evil he is and how the human body and sex are dirty and how wrong he is to enjoy seeing that stuff. Tell him he's going to turn into a woman-hating murderer and grow hair on his palms and his testicles are going to painfully, loudly pop.

Actually, don't so that.

Seriously, no need to talk with him – don’t listen to Dear Abby on that one. Yes, he wronged you by misusing your property, but his parents should handle it. There's no reason to get him to associate sex with grandma.

Dr. Laura Blames Technology When Users at Fault

I like Dr. Laura. I understand why she does her show the way she does. I find it entertaining radio. I listen. Also, I agree with almost everything she says. I particularly like to hear calls from people who clearly have no idea who they are calling, and they get shocked that she doesn’t give them some touchy-feely New Age answer-du-jour, but rather a cold dose of reality.

I know, I know. Some people hate her because she doesn’t spend half an hour coddling the feelings of each caller.

Or they hate her because she thinks of marriage as holy matrimony and thinks that sex is best saved for marriage. Or they hate her because she thinks they ought not to slaughter their own babies. Or they hate her because she encourages parents to raise their own children. Or they hate her because she encourages husbands and wives to tend to each others’ needs. Or they hate her because she thinks we should kill terrorists before they kill us. Radical positions, I know. I don’t have a problem with any of these.

Every once in a while, though, I think she is completely wrong about something.

Today, I heard Dr. Laura bash/summarily dismiss MySpace.com as being “juvenile”.

Now, I understand that she’s had at least one really bad experience with MySpace. Her deployed paratrooper son’s MySpace page (or at least a page that claimed to be his) gained negative attention when it displayed offensive material. I don’t know what the ultimate conclusion was – whether or not he put the material there or someone else did. Let’s assume for the sake of this argument that someone else put it there against his will.

So what?

We’ve had harmful impersonators, frauds, and identity thieves around for a lot longer than MySpace.

MySpace isn’t the problem. MySpace is nothing more than a convenient collection of online features - many of which previously existed and were typical - in one place. MySpace is a web space host, an e-mail host, a photo album host, a search engine, etc. combined. Dr. Laura has her own website that takes e-mail. It isn’t at MySpace, but most people can’t hire a professional to design and run their own website. MySpace does it for them. Hence, the popularity.

I see “the Internet” get blamed for a lot of problems when it is really nothing more than a street corner, a post office, a library, a TV, and a store. Freaks, criminals, immature people, and liars hang out in those places, too. Saying that they "met on the Internet" is like saying "they met on the street corner". Do you stop using the streets?

Predators existed before chat rooms. While online communications have given them the ability to communicate with the children of strangers and show them inappropriate material from the comfort of their own homes, things like MySpace are hardly the problem. The problem is the evil predator.

There are ways to avoid having your child preyed upon online. Keep communication devices, such as networked computers, in common areas of the home. Don’t let them be home alone. Make sure they have enough sense not to go somewhere without an adult to meet someone they’ve never met. In the event they are home alone, make sure they have enough sense not to allow someone to come over. Don’t let them hang out unsupervised in the homes of kids who don’t have enough sense in these areas. You can protect yourself from those who prey on adults by using some common sense. Always meet someone new in a safe public place until you know enough about them to be in private with them.

Sure, people can put up a false front online, but they can do that in person, too. You think meeting someone (even regularly) in a bar, a club, a restaurant, a class, or even a church really reveals the totality of who they are as a person? No way. You learn who they are by spending time with them in different situations, communicating, meeting their friends and family, etc.
It’s okay for adults to meet each other online. What’s not okay is letting yourself believe that chatting, e-mailing, sharing pictures/audio/video is the equivalent of a face-to-face relationship. It’s not. Meet online, and if there appears to be potential, move along to actually spending time together. Otherwise, you are pen pals and nothing more.

Then there are the reports that try to shock us by telling us how many “sex offenders” are on MySpace (or in a given neighborhood). There are many who have cell phones and postage stamps, too. Run for the hills!

Seriously, though, yes, it is good thing to know who the rapists, flashers, and child molesters are so we can avoid them, and to keep them from contacting children. But the term “sex offender” includes much, much more than that. Homosexuals were legally sex offenders not long ago. It’s illegal in some places to have sex toys. I’m not really concerned that streetwalkers or their customers will be contacting my children via MySpace. Having (consensual) sex with a 17-year-old, no matter what your age, can get you labeled as a sex offender in some places, even though the public schools will hand them a condom and teach them how to use it. I’m not condoning fornicating with underage persons or with anyone, for that matter. Just making the point that there is a difference between someone who rapes seven-year-olds and an 18-year-old guy who fornicates with the 17-year-old.

Getting back to Dr Laura – the call that prompted her comments was from a young woman who was upset about comments her boyfriend made before he was her boyfriend on another woman’s online picture, calling her beautiful. Dr. Laura said that her boyfriend was being juvenile. Really? Having told other women in the past that they look beautiful or that they look good in a picture is juvenile? I don’t think Dr. Laura was thinking clearly at that point - I think her emotions were clouding her thinking.

She did say something during the call that was more to the heart of the matter – the youth (and not-so-youth) culture these days that promotes immodesty and promiscuous “hooking up” and glorifies partying and posting evidence of your partying online. That’s a cultural problem, not a problem with MySpace.

Dr. Laura’s line of reasoning could be used to scrap the Internet entirely, phones, and even cars. After all, while the pill was an accelerant of the sexual revolution, the automobile was the real start of the fornication culture we’re now in.

Don’t blame the technology. Don’t shoot the messenger. It’s the people. And although it is true that online communications have now allowed freaky perverts to network around the world, it also allows those who seek to protect and nurture children and uplift culture to network as well.

Like I wrote at the start of this post - I like Dr. Laura. That's why I hate to see her lessen her credibility with a growing number of people who now use sites like MySpace the way people were using ISP-provided websites ten years ago. She needs to promote the cautious and positive use of technology, not the broadbrush dismissal of it.