The Horse is Out of the Barn and the Robot is Out of the Box

Grab some popcorn and some tea and peruse the panicked, hysterical shrieking of the controlling women and their enablers who can't stand the idea that more and more men will be enjoying robots that essentially amount to advanced dolls and sex toys. [This entry is bumped up because it is as relevant as ever.]

Technology is always going to be applied to sex, if there is any way it can be. This is human nature.

Sex dolls and sex robots or whatever you want to call them will never be effectively banned. Aside from the fact that prohibiting the private ownership and use of personal objects isn't practical, how exactly do you ban these things without banning a bunch of other things? How do you define a sex robot or a sex doll? Some men will stick their penises in knotholes in a plank of wood. Are you going to ban planks of wood? No. So, are you going to ban all robots? All dolls? All sex toys or masturbation aids? Any three-dimensional representation of a person?

Despite the futility, some women (and the men who enable them) are trying to ban these elaborate masturbatory aids.

Oh No! Men Enjoying Technology!

I'd probably like most of what Barak Lurie has to say on his weekly radio show. I've never heard it. I'm thinking the vast majority of people in the greater Los Angeles radio market haven't either. That's not a knock on him, but it's just the reality of weekend AM talk radio, especially any English station in this market not named KFI. He was fortunate enough to get on Dennis Prager's national daily show today (Wednesday, October 2, 2019), during the Male-Female Hour, to promote his book Rise of the Sex Machines. [This entry has been bumped up.]

Like Prager, Lurie sells marriage and parenting. These guys want you to get married and crank out babies. They see doing those things as an obligation. Doesn't that sound appealing?

So they are worried about "sex machines", meaning sexbots or sex robots, as if the only choice a man has is being in a marriage with a woman, or having a sexbot, and if we warn against the latter, men will be forced into the former.

Right off of the bat, Lurie said it's much easier not to have a relationship. Exactly! Why make life more difficult if you don't have to???

Prager, for his part, started off saying he was worried about sexbots and he mentioned incels. Again, incels are involuntarily celibate (unmarried). Robots/dolls could disappear and incels would still exist. Most incels don't have one. Very few do.

Prager went to say that loneliness is an epidemic and that the only cures are traditional. However, it is possible to be unmarried and childfree, and not be lonely. As Dr. Laura tells the children of older adults who are worried about those older adults being lonely: Loneliness is a choice.

They didn't ignore the part women are playing in this. Prager said that feminism today means disdain for men. But he quickly went back to saying that he was raised to believe that "being a man" meant taking care of a family, and that getting married was the most important thing to do.

That was a long time ago, sir. And just because someone raised you that way doesn't make it right, especially today.

Lurie did cite that relationships today are considered minefields, false allegations of rape, me too, and all of that. He lamented that the Japanese view children (realistically, I note) as liabilities and that it makes no sense to have children, but Lurie thinks having children is a duty. How nice!

Closer to the end of the hour, Prager said that "winner men" will still seek women instead of sex machines. Sure, if he defines winners as those who seek marriage, but that's circular. The fact is, there are men who are successful, healthy, attractive, and having great lives who are not seeking women, at least not to marry, live with, or to join in an exclusive relationship. Winner men have the most to lose by signing that terrible state contract and engaging in that conflated cultural train wreck.

It says a lot that these guys think men might eschew women because of the availability of sex dolls, including that they think men will perceive that women have less to offer as overall positives in a man's life than a robot. They can't stop progress, so if they're worried, perhaps the answer is working on changing the things that are getting men to avoid marriage (and no, it isn't dolls, robots, or pixels).

Cult of the Cubicle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Dr. Laura Modifies Her Show

Call-in talk shows, especially those relying on drivers for a good chunk of their audience, are dealing with generations who are not making as many phone calls in general. Tom Leykis dealt with this problem on his live show.

In recent weeks, Dr. Laura was telling listeners she had open lines on a daily or almost daily basis, something I can't recall hearing on her show before. Heading into the Memorial Day weekend, she announced this past Friday that, rather than restricting calls to those she'd begin with "How may I help you?" that were strictly about moral dilemmas and relationships (how to handle a mean coworker, what parent is to do about their troubled teen, should the caller keep dating this person) with the occasional "Just want to tell you that you've helped me so much", she would open it up to broader, seemingly apolitical topics. "What do you want to chat about?" became the opening of each call.

It's really a contrast from just a few months ago, when she'd say "No more calls today about your husband cheating on you or your adult kid being a snowflake who won't move out", which further narrowed the acceptable calls.

Rather than resuming the previous, long-term format after the holiday on Tuesday, she kept the newly adjusted format going.

Another huge, simultaneous change, is that she's being softer and more mellow in her voice and tone. Whether this is due to market research, a lack of calls (people being afraid to be chewed up and spit out), or some good thing in her personal life, I don't know. But the result seems to be positive. A majority of listeners commenting like the show better this way, and I agree it is easier on the ears.

If our culture moves further and further away from phone calls to other ways of communicating, Dr. Laura might have to, reluctant as she may be, incorporate some live social media involvement in her show. Calls and letters from listeners are great, but adapting to more might be necessary.

I hope her show is around as long as she has said she wants it to be.

Good Luck Finding Someone, Snooping Lady

I'll start off  again with my usual disclaimer about Dr. Laura: I love her show (obviously, since I listen to every minute of it), I think she's awesome, and I think she's done and continues to do a whole lot of good for people.

In the first hour of yesterday's (Tuesday, July 17, 2018) show, Dr. Laura gave answers to a woman who'd called in that seem very confusing when considering answers she's given to other women who had similar concerns. This was about the woman being concerned that the man she's with views "adult media". As I've pointed out before, her answers are different to women who are married-with-kids than to women who aren't married. I don't recall what her answers have been to women who were married and childless.

This call came about 31 minutes or so into the podcast of the first hour.

Ten months into a relationship, this caller went on a getaway with her boyfriend. As she was looking at pictures of the trip (which I inferred meant it happened AFTER the vacation), the caller saw some "pornography" on her boyfriend's phone. So she later returned to looking through his phone in order to see if she could find more.

This time, Dr. Laura didn't bother to ask what she asks married-with-kids women:

Tom Leykis is on Farewell Tour

Although Tom Leykis insists his decision to end his show came early this year, after he got sick and some fans got snarky, he also insists that was very low on list of reasons and keeps saying his fans "tested" him by dragging their feet on (re)subscribing in 2017. They did reach 1,900 subscriptions like he demanded in order to return in 2018, but apparently it wasn't fast enough for him, despite it being before his deadline. So he's "back for 2018" but only as long as the show is generating enough revenue to break even or better. He'll no longer beg for subscriptions (which is entirely understandable given how much time and effort it took last year), other than mentioning that the show will end its run when the subscriptions fall to a level that won't cover expenses. He's also said the library of past shows will be available to subscribers after the end of the show's run as long as subscriptions cover those expenses.

He's admitted he thought he could be dying when he was sick. I think that has more to do with his decision to end the show than he's indicated. He knows he's got less life to live than he's already lived, at least chronologically, and the fact is, like anyone else, he could die tomorrow. I'm sure he wants to travel and party and relax and not be obligated (by his own word) to do 12+ hours of live shows every week (and all of the related work, which we don't hear)  when he can't be certain he's got many years of good health left. As I said before, even though he hasn't said so, he probably got a little bit excited last year at the thought of starting another chapter in his life if the subscriptions didn't reach 1,900, which would have meant January 2, 2018 would have been the end of his show.

Dr. Laura and the Dilemma of Facebook

[This is from July 2013, but I'm bumping it up because it is relevant.]

While I'm a huge fan of Dr. Laura Schlessinger and her media offerings, and agree with her on many important things, I do have my quibbles with what she tells listeners/callers. Many of those quibbles have to do with technology.

Dr. Laura started off her show yesterday talking about social media, and what not to put on your Facebook page (you know, pictures of you getting drunk… stuff like that). She again took the opportunity to say that people shouldn’t have personal Facebook pages. If her listeners didn’t, however, they wouldn’t be able to comment on her show’s Facebook page, which daily solicits comments on various topics.

What Dr. Laura may not know, because she makes it clear she doesn’t have a personal Facebook page, is that people can adjust their settings so that their Facebook pages are completely private. And yeah, I know there may be an occasional breech by a hacker, or an error on the part of Facebook, or one of those annoying deliberate overhaul of the settings Facebook seems to do every few months and it might “default” people into having things “public” that they want private. Even so, people can be limited about what they put into their Facebook to begin with.

In the third hour, she got a call from parent asking when a child should be allowed to be on social media. Dr. Laura said "18". She said it doesn't hurt the child to NOT be on social media.

I disagree. It can definitely hurt the child, because if someone isn’t familiar with current, commonly used ubiquitous technologies, it could be limiting to everything from their education, to keeping up on current events, their access to information, their employment, and their careers.

Dr. Laura said that if it hurts not having it, then every generation before this one would have been damaged. She has often said previously “I didn’t have an iPad or smart phone when I was growing up. Somehow I survived.”

This can be said about ANY technology or innovation when it comes to previous generations, from television to radio to automobiles to telephones to bicycles to public libraries to spears with sharpened stones as tips.

Technology is a tool. It can be used for good or ill. Humanity moves on, and if people are not going to avail themselves of widely used technologies, they can be left behind.

Think about this. The typical modern office uses desktop and/or laptop computers and usually smart phones and tablets as well. A business or most other organizations are going to have websites and quite often a dynamic presence in social networking services. If you were hiring someone for a job in such an office, all other things being equal about two candidates for the job, are you going to hire an Amish person who has no previous experience even with anything electrical, or the person who knows how to use social networking to the benefit of the office’s mission?

Even looking for a job has changed. Back “in the day”, Dr. Laura would have had to pound the pavement to submit applications, after finding job listings in newspapers. If someone stuck to that now, they’d be very limited compared to the person who can find AND apply for jobs anywhere in the world from their own home.

Yes, some people reveal too much online or do stupid or evil things with social networking. But did you know that, unless you have purchased your home in a revocable trust (something most people don’t do) it isn’t hard for people to find out where you live? That can be dangerous. So do we all go live in caves?

Parents should allow their kids to have a limited, monitored presence on social media so that the kids can learn how it works and what it can do. One of the benefits for me is that I have had edifying conversations with people I would not have otherwise met. A parent may worry that their kid will seek a work-around to subvert the monitoring by their parents, but if that’s the child’s mindset, they’re probably going to use social media anyway through a library or their friend’s house and there’s a bigger problem going on anyway.

ADDITION October 26, 2016: There's nothing wrong with adults already established or retired from their careers having Facebook accounts, either. Facebook is, basically, a web organization tool, bringing together many things that used to be offered by different services and tying them together. It can help small businesses, it can help families and friends stay in touch, and it can help people stay organized, Nobody has to place any private information there for public consumption. Dr. Laura will tell people to pick up the phone and call people or drive to see them in person. There is not always possible, and on Facebook a group of people can be engaged in a way that simply wouldn't be possible in-person. Facebook and  other online tools should not replace in-person interaction. But they can augment them and "extend" them in beneficial ways. Technology marches on, like it or not.


I've written about Dr. Laura and technology before, here, here, here, here, and here.

Why I Listen To and Retweet Tom Leykis

Tom Leykis ridicules my faith and any faith that includes theism or anything supernatural. He thinks people like me are not smart. He dismisses many of the moral convictions I hold. He promotes abortion (and has paid for multiple elective abortions himself), even telling guys how to effectively prompt a woman to have an elective abortion if she's knocked up and he was at least one of the guys having intercourse with her. (To be fair, he encourages guys to avoid conceiving in the first place through vasectomies and condom use, although not abstinence). He sometimes bashes political figures and media personalities I respect and admire. Some of his political soapboxing frustrates me. I'm aging out of his target demographic.

And yet, I'm a regular listener.

Why? Many reasons. Here they are, in no particular order:

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.

My Unmarried Peer Doesn't Have to Deal With Marital Therapy

When people try to convince men to act against their own best interest and get legally "married" (the USA no longer has marriage licenses, but rather "any two of-age people who aren't in this contract with someone else and aren't closely related" contracts), they cite a bunch perks or benefits or conditions that are either false or iffy promises, or things men can easily get now without being married.

But what about all of the crap you have to do, put up with, and pay for because of being married?


Case in point: Marital Therapy.

If you're dating someone, they might try to get you to go to therapy or counseling with them, but you can decline and say that since they're obviously not satisfied with the relationship, they can simply stop seeing you. If you're running game, and thus only making booty calls, it would be ridiculous for her to suggest couples counseling.

Technically, we're going to family therapy, not specifically marriage therapy.  But there are times  when we go without the kids and it is just the two of us.

This last time that we did that, I was (correctly, it turned out) not looking forward to it. My intuition is getting better. Based on my wife's behavior lately, I had nothing to worry about. She'd already asked that we go on a date after the session. That's a good sign, right? And she's seemed happy with me, in that she hasn't been hostile toward me. The most recent target of her dissatisfaction was her brother and his wife, so that kept the focus off me. As far as I knew, there was nothing bothering her about me lately other than the usual stuff.

I, on the other hand, could go on and about things that should be different, but my general policy, especially when it comes to my wife, is not to bother expressing anything less than positive or neutral - complaining of talking about being hurt or neglected or whatever, if it isn't going to ultimately bring about positive change, is to be avoided, because it will just make things worse for me.

I kept my mouth shut this time. It isn't like I had a real choice.

We spent the first half of the session talking about the kids. Then we got to me and how I need to change, blindsiding me. My wife's latest proposal is a about half a day weekly during which I do not access my phone or tablet. Why? Well, really, it is just to mess with me and control me. However, since that doesn't sound right, it is presented to be so that I'm a more attentive, involved husband and father.

The problem with this is that it confuses the cart and horse. I'm often using those devices because I'm not doing other things. If everyone else in the family is happily engaged in other activities, I'll occupy myself with the devices. I never neglect anyone in the family. My wife and kids know they can always come to me to engage with me or request something from me, as evidenced by the fact that they constantly do.

I don't watch TV on a television screen. I'm getting less and less time on the family desktop. I need to be accessible and constantly informed for my career. The way I keep up with my friends I hardly ever see in person any more is through social networking. I go places "virtually" now instead of going to places in-person. These devices are also how I write and make notes both personal and professional. They also keep me from falling asleep.

So would it be better if I was carrying around a dumb phone, newspapers, magazines, books, a notepad, a calendar, an address book, and all of the other things these devices replaced?

My guess is that this will turn out like so many other similar ideas my wife comes up with: she'll be busy on the desktop or playing games on her tablet, and sending me out to do errands. It is most likely NOT going to turn into some great quality time with the whole family together. One of the reasons I readily agreed for my wife to be a stay-at-home-mom was so that she could organize family things with and without me involved. This is one of the many areas where I'm being asked to change because she's especially limited (due to things I was deceived about before).

I don't neglect my wife or kids. The electronics use is almost always "filling in the gaps" with moments here and there, allowing me to be more personally and professionally productive. What's the harm in that? I know the retort - "Then why not go without for half a day every week?" Because there is no harm in using them. It is just one more thing where I'm being asked to change and she doesn't have to change at all.

My wife is trying to feel like a better mother not by actually being a better mother, but by telling me to do something she thinks will make me a better father.

So, I was sitting there, trying not to let on that I was not happy about this session, and dreading that I was now going to take my wife out on a date afterwards (knowing full well that no form of lovemaking was going to follow). I was well aware that I wouldn't be spending my time and money doing this if I wasn't married. And  then our time was up, but before the therapist could say so, and I could clearly see that our time was up, the therapist asked me if I had anything to talk about. Really? In the ten second left?!? Oh sure, here let me plunge my wife into a horrible mood with no hope of any benefit coming out of it... yeah, sure, right at the end of the session, right?

No thanks.

Don't worry. I'll still hand over my credit card.

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.

Does It Make a Difference Where Someone Finds Their Co-Adulterer?

I have to wonder if this was Dr. Laura's bias against online communications, especially when it comes to relationships, impacting the way she handled the last call she took on yesterday's show.

It was from a woman who has a three year old with her husband, saying she found her husband's info in the data hack of a certain website that requires pay for attempting to facilitate adultery.

"I have no advice for you." said our hostess.

That wasn't true. After all, she went on to give her advice. Perhaps Dr. Laura should have said "Things are going to be a mess no matter what."? There are some callers she refuses to give advice to because they're in the mess they're in because they didn't follow her teachings (even if they'd never heard of her before).

Before we were given any more details, Dr. Laura declared the caller's  husband to be a "louse".

Now, with most other women who call in and find out that their husbands are having an affair (this caller was saying that she had evidence he was looking to have one), Dr. Laura will ask them what kind of a wife they've been, and try to discern if the husband is a generally bad man or is a good man who made an immoral choice after his wife neglected him, because in the latter case the wife has the power to motivate her husband to vanquish the other woman and become faithful.

But instead of going into that line of discussion, Dr. Laura pronounced the caller's husband a louse. Based on all of my years of listening and reading, I'm thinking it was because he sought out an affair using a website.


The woman subsequently went on to say that she'd discovered an affair when she was eight moths pregnant, and that's another one of Dr Laura's hot buttons. She's much harder on husbands who cheat while their wives are pregnant than, say, when their kid is a year old, because then Dr. Laura says the woman's focus on the child to exclusion of her husband's needs was a problem.

Dr. Laura has also previously said that even if the couple splits up, as long as he's been an otherwise good father (aside from the major sin of cheating on the child's mother), he should be in the child's life as much as possible.



But in this case, Dr. Laura said "Go home to mom and have him visit. One of these days he's going to give you AIDS. You can't afford to risk this."

Well, yeah, that's possible when a husband cheats with a neighbor, too, so why is the advice different now? Again, perhaps it is a bias against use of technology, as she went on to say:

"He's on websites trolling for sex. He's a real piece of s---."

Trolling for adultery in the workplace cafeteria is OK?

In contrast to when she tells wives to give their straying husbands great sex, she said:

"He's not going to stay with you if you're not going to do him, and you'd be stupid to have sex with him... You can't have sex with him ever again."

Then she went on to tell the caller to get away from her husband and try to get him to sign away his parental rights.

So guys, you should never cheat. But the lesson here seems to be that if you are going to cheat, don't meet the person using a website or app.

Seriously, let's be clear here. People who used that website were wrong on many levels, in addition to committing adultery or attempting to. They were wasting money on something that is easy to get for free.

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.

Checking the Teen's Phone

Does your child's privacy extend to their phone usage, even if you are paying for the phone? GETTING GRIEF IN GRANTS PASS, ORE. wrote into Dear Abby:

Like most 16-year-old girls, I have a cell phone. My father pays for it and I'm grateful that he does, even though I live with my mom and he's a two-hour drive away. He has been paying for it for a year and a half.

Every month when I visit him he demands to see my phone. Then he looks through my messages and photos. There's nothing "bad" on my phone, but I feel my personal space is being invaded.

It's not your personal space. He's paying for it, and anything sent by or to someone else is potentially public. It's a broken home and he's not able to be there as much as he should, so this is one way he can check up on what's going on.

What can I do to get my dad to respect my privacy?

Turn 18 and pay for your own phone.

I feel he wants to control my life.

The phone you use is not your life.

I want my own space.

I can understand the sentiment. I was fiercely protective of my privacy and "ownership" of my room probably before I was a teen. There were many reasons for this. I had younger siblings who would meddle with my stuff, "borrow" things from me, etc. I'm a tad (or more) obsessive about things, including a collecting hobby I had, and notes I've written for as long as I can remember. I didn't want any of my pieces or notes accidentally thrown out, or misplaced, etc. But beyond that, I wanted my privacy while I changed (which happened a lot, since I was a swimmer) and I definitely wanted my privacy while I masturbated, especially when I was using print material to aid in that.

But the reality was, my parents owned the home, and the space was only mine on a temporary basis. They could have scoured everything in my room, and they would have been right to do so if I gave them any reason to.

When someone says, "I want my space" in this kind of context, it means they want their space to have sex. The letter writer wants to have sex without her dad finding out about it. Someone who tells a love interest "I want my space" is silently adding ..."to have sex other people" to that statement.

Dear Abby responded:

I'm sure your father means well, but his attempt at "supervision" when you visit him seems heavy-handed.

He's her father. Maybe he has good reason to be "heavy-handed".

The first thing you should do is discuss your feelings with your mother.

Oh yeah, let's pit the parents against each other even more.

Sorry. His phone, his rules.

Back in the stone ages when I was a teen living at home, mobile phones were an expensive rarity and our computers were in a common room. Today, a lot of teens have cameras, smart phones, and other networked computing devices and DVD players. Parents need to be aware of what their teen is viewing and doing with these.