Two Calls in the Same Hour of Dr. Laura

I found the proximity of these two calls especially interesting. To be clear, they might not have actually been handled mere minutes apart, as the presentation of the program would imply, because 1) Dr. Laura does take some calls off-air, to be recorded for use in the program, and 2) previously aired calls are rerun. And both of these things happen unannounced, letting listeners believe this is all happening live.

May 13, 2025, Hour 2.

“Diane” called, age 70, married 37 years. We’re never told how old her husband is; we’re left to assume he’s about the same age.

In the last year, her husband has said he “doesn’t like” their sex life, it’s “too traditional”, and he’s “much more kinky”, wants “more exciting sex” and wants a girlfriend on the outside of their marriage.

Diane suggested she could do “some of” the things he wants to do, but since he knows she isn’t into it, he doesn’t want it with her. He doesn’t think it’s natural for her.

“He wants acknowledgment from another woman.”

Dr. Laura asked Diane if she’s willing to stay married to someone who’ll have sex outside of the marriage.

Diane was unsure, but of course Dr. Laura pushed for a decision. She does this even though it would be easy to give Diane both advice for staying as well as advice for if she is going to leave.

Dr Laura said that, if all this time of being married, they hadn’t done anything kinky, then it would be out of his nature, too.

Huh??? That’s dung. He could have very well struggled to contain his desires and feelings for 37-plus years. Dr. Laura knows that! But she just wants to beat up on the guy.

Dr. Laura goes on to say he’s at a point in his life he just wants to go out to play, and this is why men go to a prostitute or watch porn; so they don’t have to satisfy a woman.

Where did she get that? There was no indication from the call the caller isn’t satisfied, that her husband doesn’t want to satisfy her, and that he won’t want to satisfy any other woman he’s with. But Dr. Laura repeated it. She hasn’t talked with the husband at all and yet she made this assertion. The husband even said he wanted someone who was into it, so at least his claim is that he cares about the woman’s enjoyment.

Diane said her husband wants S & M.

She also said he’s been a good husband.

Dr. Laura, who has deemed many men who’ve done all sorts of things “good husbands” overall, said “Good husbands are not defined by the behaviors you just described to me.” First, no, Diane was referring to other behaviors. If she had tried describing all of those good husband behaviors at the start of the call or at any other time, Dr. Laura would have stopped her, perhaps with the uberannoying “WOO HOO!!! WOO HOO!! Diane’s husband has treated her well for decades, apparently. Two, talking about his desires isn’t being a good husband? No, if you maintain he’s just supposed to never talk with his wife about his desires. But isn’t it better he talked about his true feelings with his wife instead of simply sneaking out to cheat, hiding it from her?

Diane said she is “torn” because otherwise she loves the marriage. Kudos for Dr. Laura for not going on a long side rant about the word “torn.” I guess she was too focused on badmouthing Diane’s husband.

“Why do you want to stay with a guy who doesn’t want to sexually fulfill you and make love, he wants sicko sex?” Who said he doesn’t want to fulfill her? This is a contrarian assertion by Dr. Laura.

Diane said he says he wants to make love with her and have crazy sex otherwise.

In an attempt to distract the listeners from the fact she’d been messing up, Dr . Laura pivoted to saying she feels sorry for the caller for even debating it. That’s something Dr. Laura does when she’s losing - pivots to disapproval and shaming. She’s the great Dr. Laura, so her feeling differently from the caller is supposed to either change the caller’s position or make the caller feel lowly.

Dr. Laura called it a fact that Diane’s husband going to bring home STDs. See, since it’s “not a religious show,” it’s hard for Dr. Laura to say what exactly would be wrong with this arrangement if Diane was OK with it. Her husband could have had a vasectomy and “I’m Dr. Laura, and I don’t like it” doesn’t seem to be working, so the STD card gets played.

The problem with that is: This isn’t secret. He’s talking with his wife about it. There have been studies showing that people who are upfront about these things are LESS likely to spread STDs, because they get tested regularly and take precautions.

Then Dr. Laura mocked the idea that Diane’s husband would be able to separate out making love with her and getting kinky with someone else. What does that even mean? That he’d still try to get his wife to do S & M? I highly doubt that. Most men are very good at compartmentalization. Dr. Laura knows this! But she ditched that in an attempt to convince Diane and listeners that, somehow, it would be a problem. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn’t. The alternative is guaranteed to be a problem: he’s either going to leave or be resentful.

Dr. Laura continued by asserting the caller won’t be horny for her husband. How does Dr. Laura know? On the contrary, maybe the caller would get off on it?

When Dr. Laura said women Diane’s age want to maintain the nest, the caller elaborated on that and mentioned being alone. Dr. Laura said “you’re never alone” because of friends, family, activities, etc. Um, what does she tell people who don’t want to marry? “You’ll be alone.” 

Case in point, she went on to say that the husband’s other lovers won’t care to be there when he’s dying (right after calling him a “sh!t” and “creepy.”) Yet again, Dr. Laura doesn’t know that. It happens more often than she’d ever want to admit: a lover who isn’t their spouse and never was a spouse being there as a husband is dying. I can think of someone I knew in such a situation, off the top of my head. I know Dr. Laura, instead of admitting she is asserting something that might not be true, would pivot to calling that strange or disrespectful. And who’s to say his wife will be there when he’s dying? She might die before or she might have divorced him for reasons unrelated to his desires.

Dr. Laura asks if she knew he was into S & M while dating. Diane said she knew he was into “kinky stuff like threesomes.”

Dr. Laura likened it to knowingly marrying a serial killer. I mean really. A guy wanting some sexual adventure has her thinking about murder. Oooookaaay.

Dr. Laura went on with her often-repeated “this is why I do this on radio, so that other women will be warned.” Right, that’s it. Not at all that it pays much more and if she’s in a room with a client/patient she can’t mute them, put them on hold, or hang up on them.

For sure, ladies, don’t marry a man who’d ever want a threesome, or sex with another woman, or an open marriage, or swinging, or BDSM, or whatever. (Spoiler: Almost all men who don’t have a low libido want at least one thing you’d find a turnoff or unacceptable, and even if he genuinely doesn’t at age 28, he might at age 48 or 68. So be sure to avoid this by never marrying.)

Society doesn’t say Diane’s husband’s desires are wrong. Some religions say they’re wrong. But again, the program “isn’t a religious program.” Most of society would say it’d be wrong for him to pursue his desires without his wife’s permission or at least making sure she is informed. Most of society would support him divorcing her to pursue his desires, or never having married.

Do with that reality what you will.

Dr. Laura has made it clear over the decades she is completely opposed to anything but monogamy in marriage. I can’t ever recall her articulating why, though, other than “you took vows to forsake all others,” which isn’t always true. However, I’m certain she has praised callers, letter writers, and others who’ve have been polyamorous, or swingers, or in an open marriage, or have done threesomes, or some other similar things: she just didn’t know the person she was praising had experience with those things, because it wasn’t the topic at hand.

*****

The other call during the same hour was from “Benjamin.”

Benjamin was married for 25 years and he and his wife were both virgins when they married.

He said their sexual relationship had been “tenuous” throughout their marriage because his libido is much more active than hers.

Dr. Laura didn’t jump in and point out that it’s normal for husbands to want sex more often than their wife, so he continued, saying three or four years ago, he said to his wife that had he known they’d be fighting back and forth about this he doesn’t know he would have entered into the relationship.

Notice that this is another example of how men are NOT supposed to be honest or share their feelings. They’re supposed to just shut up and keep being a butler and bank account.

Dr. Laura asked him about watching sex scenes in movies and whether he was doing all of the really exciting things the male characters were doing. Huh??? What does she think the characters are doing in these movies? And she knows they’re fiction, right?

Ben didn’t really say. He probably had no clue what she was talking about: romantic dinner? Passionate kisses? Sneaking out in the morning?

He said for him it was a matter of frequency and satisfaction.

Apparently based just on that, Dr. Laura said “Well that made you a crappy lover.” A good lover is primarily concerned with her satisfaction, not yours.

Uh, he didn’t say only his satisfaction. Also, what if Ben’s wife is a lesbian, or into a kink? Dr. Laura didn’t know anything relevant, unless Ben wrote a letter, in which case that should have been mentioned. Notice she didn’t tell the other caller, Diane, to be focused on her husband’s satisfaction.

Dr. Laura then went on to say the wife likely didn’t know much about her own body, even though the opposite could be true: she might have masturbated a lot before marriage to avoid having sex; she might be masturbating a lot now.

Dr. Laura went on to tell Ben that “probably you’re terrible at it and she has never gained an appreciation for it.”

Poor Ben. He has no way of knowing if he’s bad at it. For Dr. Laura to quickly assert that based on next to nothing is not OK. It’s a common tactic women use against men who say their marital sex life isn’t good. It’s been used against me. Except I know from experience that isn’t the problem. Dr. Laura KNOWS there are many wives who don’t have the same libido she apparently had (which had her doing things she now pretends never happened); many wives aren’t sexually attracted to their husbands. She wrote an entire book that’s mostly about that!!!

Anyway, she went on to tell Ben he and his wife should go to a sex therapist together.

Hmm. I’m guessing Ben and his wife were VERY religious and might still be. What are the odds they’re going to go to a sex therapist?

Dr. Laura continued, saying “Or you’re going to be divorced.”

What is she basing that on? It’s been 25 years. They made it this far. She then asserted again that Ben is a bad lover and turned his wife off. She wants to send him a “tape” of the conversation to play for his wife. Oh, no. No no no.

Now, it’s possible Ben is a bad lover. Sex is a learned skill, and he hasn’t had much opportunity to learn. But it’s also possible his wife simply has little interest in having sex with him or anyone else at all, and it has nothing to do with anything he did or didn’t do. She might have what Dr. Laura would call “trowma” or maybe she has hangups.

Poor Ben. He’s likely never going to experience a good sex life.

Well, there you have it. Two more examples among countless examples of why it’s better to avoid marriage in the first place.

. 

Dennis Prager Discussed Virginity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She Likely Doesn’t Exist

  

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

1. Has a low, especially 0 body count

2. Will be a good, enthusiastic lover

3. Is willing and prepared to be a good wife

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

5. Is attractive to him

6. Is attracted to him

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Many Other Husbands Live Like This?

This past Friday, June 17, 2022, during Hour 3 of the Dr. Laura Program, she took a call from a man who has been married for over 30 years. He and his wife have no kids. 

He has been very frustrated because they only have sex once every month or two, and his wife has never had much sexual passion. They've seen therapists, doctors, pastors, etc. about this.

They married in their mid-twenties and had waited until they married to have sex. Actually, they waited even longer because she was "too tired" on their wedding night.

Dr. Laura gave him what regular listeners would expect her to give him: the choice to either stay and accept it, or leave. 

He said he won't leave, because of his vows.

This call was important for multiple reasons:

1) "Waiting" for marriage is not risk-free. While some people claim they are waiting for moral or religious reasons, some people wait because they aren't interested in having sex, at least not with the person they are marrying. Even people who display some passion before marrying, even engaging in various forms of sex and frequently at that, might pull back after marrying (or having children). But at least in those cases, their spouse knows they are capable of sexually satisfying them.

2) Contrary to what marriage sellers imply and encourage people to infer, there are married men who are extremely dissatisfied with their marital sex life.

3) People who save sex for marriage tend to be the type of person to stay in the marriage even if they're miserable (and they are also the type to say they're not miserable even though they are).

4) Unless they believe otherwise, clergy need to make it clear that, at some point, willful sexual neglect is unfaithfulness or abandonment to the point of a breaking of the vows and releases the other spouse.

This guy is going to go his whole life never having experienced a good sex life.

He bought into "sex is for marriage" without realizing that the Bible (which is likely THE or at least AN authority for his belief system) never says people need to get a terrible marriage contract from a secular state, nor does it specify what makes someone married, but most importantly to his situation, it never specifies that all sexual acts are forbidden before marriage. There may have been ways he could have avoided this situation.

Even after waiting for months/years, it can be understandable that someone is too tired to do anything on the evening after the wedding, although that's an argument for small, simple weddings. Then this poor sap probably thought she just needed some time, or that he was doing things wrong. Nobody wants to admit they made a huge mistake while they are probably still paying off the wedding or sending out thank you cards. As time slipped by, he was deeper and deeper into the mess, not wanting to admit his mistake or be branded with "divorced" or "annulled," wondering if he is undesirable, not wanting to hire lawyers and go to court, probably being told by some he just needs to be more romantic and understanding, and doing more around the home (remember, no kids). That poor man.

Although Dr. Laura didn't bring it up in this call, what she might have told his wife if she had been the one to make the call is she should choose one of the following for her husband:

1) Masturbate to porn
2) Divorce her

3) Frequent prostitutes

4) Have a mistress

My guess is that is wife would reject any of those. If she found him masturbating and/or viewing porn, she'd probably play the martyr and justify mistreating him.

Gee, you unmarried guys, why haven't you rushed to sign a terrible state contract with a woman???

Stay free, men!

Waiting For Marriage is Good But Not Risk Free

[This post is from December 12, 2012. I'm bumping it up because it is still relevant.]

When I last updated here, I wrote this. I'll probably explain things more later, but for now, things are OK. I'm alive, she's alive, the kids are alive.

On yesterday's Dr. Laura Schlessinger program (which I listen to every minute of, because she's great), she opened by talking about the risks of fornication (without using that word) and why, statistically, saving sex for marriage (marrying as a virgin) is good. On her Facebook page, a question was asked of readers (even though she regularly says people should not have personal Facebook pages... they have to be on Facebook to respond on Facebook... but I digress.) Her opening commentary said sexual bonding short-circuits decision-making. But if that's true before marriage, it has to be true after marriage, too.

Then, appealing to data, she said

Compared to the early sex group* those who waited for marriage:
Rated relationship stability higher
Rated relationship satisfaction higher
Rated sexual quality higher
Rated communication higher

*A month of less after meeting/dating. There is a sizable gap between those couples and couples who waited for marriage. I wonder how couples who waited, say, three months or six months would compare?


How was this data collected? How were the questions asked? Were they asked as a couple, face to face with the person collecting the data? Was the "less than a month" or "married" question asked before the others? I suspect couples who waited for marriage, especially if they realize what is being studied, and even more so if done face-to-face and in front of each other, will overstate positives because they are financially, legally, socially, and often religiously invested and don't want to admit to others and especially themselves if they are unhappy with their marriages or something in their marriages. Some of these people may be of the mindset that "speaking it makes it so" and if they believe, as Dennis Prager does, that happiness is a choice and a moral obligation, they have even more incentive to claim things are great. Wouldn't they sound selfish and ungrateful to their spouse and God if they said things weren't going well?

What does it mean when people who've never had sex with anyone else rate the sexual quality of their relationship higher? They have nothing with which to compare it! Now, ignorance may be bliss if they want to stay married for life, but that's hardly an effective statistic to cite to any rational unmarried person about why saving sex for marriage is better: "If your married sex life ends up dull, you'll have no idea how much better it could be!!! Isn't that great?!?"

As with all sociology, correlation does not prove causation, nor the direction of causation, and we can't compare the same people to both circumstances, because they are only in one. For all we know, these same "saved it for marriage" couples would say the same things about their relationships if they had, instead, started having sex with each other right away and got married the same time along in the relationship, especially if they did not buy into a belief that sex is for marriage.

Dr. Laura ended the commentary by saying  "there are a lot of benefits, and no downs".

Really?

I wrote the letter below to her, and I doubt it is going to show up on her website, so here goes...
*****

I now believe sex is for marriage and that the world would be a better place if everyone reserved sex for their one and only spouse, and if widowed, again reserved sex for their next spouse.

But we who believe this should NOT:

1. Overpromise. Just about anyone who believes what we do is very religious or at least socially conservative, and the message we send is that if someone just saves sex for marriage and marries within the same faith, things will generally be great and the sex life will be great. The statistics often cited (including by you) are usually based on self-reporting, which I find dubious. The married-as-virgin people have nothing to compare their relationship to and no idea how things would be for them if they hadn’t married, or married as virgins. Even if accurate, as you recognize, statistics are generalizations. There are many unmarried people having lot of sex and are happy with their sex lives and lives in general, and many married people who are getting little or no sex and are unhappy.

2. Deny there are tradeoffs. Yes, there are. Every day we save sex for marriage is another day we don't enjoy sex, for example, and plenty of people, including women, do find sex outside of marriage enjoyable and it has many of the same benefits married sex does. It is very easy for those of us who are married and having sex to tell those who aren't "You should wait." Many of them see it like we're enjoying a nice meal while they are standing around with growling stomachs and we're telling them "Don't eat that junk food! Wait and MAYBE you'll be seated at that gourmet restaurant." They're hungry NOW, and while they might sit alone listening to good reasons to save sex for marriage, things look very different while sharing a passionate moment with someone they love.

3. Deny or ignore the risks. a) Almost anyone who believes sex is only for marriage also believes divorce is only permissible (and even then, still to be avoided if possible) if there is abandonment or abuse (including adultery and addictions). They may think they are marrying a virtuous, strong person because they are marrying a virgin, only to find they've married someone who has a low sex drive or other physiological problem, a psychological aversion to sex, or is homosexual. b) While people often stay in bad or mismatched relationships too long because they are having sex, there are also people who marry too young, too quickly, or the wrong person because they have a natural yearning for sex and want to be able to say they saved sex for marriage. [After I wrote this and sent this, I got to the 40-minute mark in the 2nd hour of the podcast and she got a call from a woman whose son was marrying too quickly/young/to the wrong person precisely because they were saving sex for marriage, illustrating my point.] c) Sexual incompatibility, especially when these incompatibilities can't be reconciled[1] or one spouse refuses to try to reconcile them. Although YOU wouldn't tell them to, they then think they are compelled by the same religious community and beliefs (including that divorce is shameful) to suffer and struggle through such a marriage.

4. Ignore that we've created a culture in which it takes longer to become established, independent adults and for men to earn enough to provide for a family, while at the same time making it easier to have unmarried sex without unwanted physical or social consequences. In Jewish culture 2,000 years ago, people married a lot younger, usually to someone they'd known all their lives and were pledged to marry, and unmarried sex, casual or otherwise, wasn't so easy to have and keep private as it is now.

Personal disclosure: I married a virgin, even though I did not require that in a wife. I now believe she was able to maintain her commitment to save sex for marriage due to the many medications she takes, as I discovered after we'd married, despite (or perhaps because of) making it clear I didn't want to marry someone who was chronically ill or constantly treating illness. After marrying, there was one situation after another that could be cited as interfering with our love life, and by the time I realized this was the way things were always going to be, we had children. I have crunched the numbers and even with rounding off to the benefit of marriage, I am one of those people who had a more active sex life (as wrong as it was) when I was unmarried, with no pregnancies that I'm aware of, and no STDs, confident I do not have any children from those relationships. If I hadn't had those relationships, I would be more anxious/bitter in my marriage because I would have to live with knowing that I'd never know what it is like to have an enthusiastic lover who wants sex enough to initiate and what it was like to do some rather common things my wife won't do with me. Thanks to you, I at least get some "mercy action" between the times she is willing to actually get naked , let me make love to HER, and have intercourse, but it emotionally feels like me masturbating, only while adding a chore to her day, which makes it less enjoyable to me than masturbation.

I appreciate all you do to encourage everyone to lead better lives. If we're honest about saving sex for marriage, we'll maintain credibility and avoid prompting general disillusionment with people who do not share so many of the positive results of saving sex for marriage.

***** [End of letter]
[1]Off the top of my head, some basic sexual incompatibilities married couples may experience include: 1) Who "may" initiate and how. 2) Who takes the lead 3) Positions for intercourse 4) Whether or not sexy talk is allowed, and just how explicit/which words to use. 5) Use of sex toys or common items household items (whipped cream?) 6) Lights on vs lights off. 7) Role playing
8) Who climaxes when
9) General limitations (examples: Once something has her natural lubrication on it, her mouth will not touch it, or he will refuse to kiss her on the lips if she has gone down on him.)
10) Cunnilingus? Fellatio?
11) Very soft and gentle and slow, or rougher?
12) Frequency
13) Morning, afternoon, or night?
Now, I know there are people reading this who are saying to themselves "They should just talk it over." That only works with someone who is willing to try, or willing to do it to please their spouse (without indicating to their spouse they find it a chore, thereby ruining it for their spouse). I've made it clear on this blog that I love cunnilingus. But what if a woman who more or less needed either that or a vibrator to orgasm married a man who said both of those things were "of the devil"? How likely is he to be talked into providing those things to her?   In my case, my wife has never ever suggested something I've turned down, while she has turned down several things, or has volunteered after the fact, even though she should have been able to tell I enjoyed it, that it, at best, does nothing for her.

A Success Story

Let's get something straight right away. I'm still of the conviction that sex is for marriage.

Today’s Dr. Laura Show e-mail of the day comes from "Kelly" and is titled "Waiting Made It Better". I don't know if that’s Kelly's title or the title given to the letter by Dr. Laura or someone on her staff.

When my husband and I began dating, we were in our forties. Unfortunately, in our age group, sex is an expectation of even the most casual of dating.

That's an expectation of any age group from 16 years-old on up.

I knew I had a keeper when at the very beginning of our relationship, he agreed to wait until our wedding night!

Many women "knew they had a keeper" due to a similar agreement, only to find out that they married a man who has little to no interest in having/ability to have sex with her or women in general. This could be due to impotence, or trauma, hormonal problems, or a disorder, or only having attraction to children or males or inanimate objects. And then what? Well, many people who insist only having sex in marriage also insist on not divorcing. So you they find themselves enduring a lack of this kind of affection for the rest of their lives. That is more tolerable if someone is paying your way through life, but for men, it is less so.

This was made all the sweeter as we had both previously been married so we knew what comforts and pleasure we were missing.

So it isn't like they were curious and pent-up virgins. It's one thing to "wait" when you've had it as a regular part of your life before. It is another thing to wait when you've never had it, and we shouldn't pretend it is the same thing.

We celebrated our 5 year wedding anniversary this past Valentine's Day.

That's smart on his part - getting married on February 14. It cuts down by one the number of "special days" he has to make a big deal about. He gets even more points if he Kelly's birthday is December 25. If you're going to get married, guys, find a woman whose birthday is either 2/14 or 12/25 and get married on the other date.

We have a marriage that is not only passionate and getting more so each year, but we have peace in our home and the loving, trusting, never-going-to-leave-you-no-matter-what relationship we've always dreamed of.

If she's implying that he's:

• loving
• trustworthy
• never going to leave her no matter what

...because he was willing to wait, well, that isn't necessarily the case, as many women who married men who waited with them can testify. Also, "never-going-to-leave-you-no-matter-what" can be a very a problematic attitude. I made vows to my wife, but if she gets to strike three as far as risking harm my children, than I pray I have the guts to leave her.

Getting back to the title of the letter and her comment that "this was made all the sweeter". The fact is, we don't know. We have no idea what it would be like if they hadn't waited. She might be just as happy with everything now. And yes, things might have been not as good. We don’t know. What we do know is that for that amount of time, which they are never getting back, they weren't enjoying sex. We make these claims, implicitly or explicitly to younger generations that if they just wait, things will be great. It isn't necessarily so. There are real people out there who waited and have found things are not great - they may be awful. I'm glad things are great for Kelly and her husband, and wish them a long and happy life together, but it doesn't always so the same for everyone, and they're only five years in anyway and things could be very different in another five years. We can still make the case that waiting is the right thing to do without fostering unrealistic expectations that will leave some people confused and bitter.

Letter Writer Didn't Get It

The woman who sent this recent E-mail of the Day to Dr. Laura misread/ignored a very important word said (written) by a man. Hard to believe, I know. I have no idea if Dr. Laura (who is on vacation) actually read this letter herself or not.

I know exactly where the man being quoted is coming from. Whether you, dear reader, agree or not, the man is operating under the very common understanding that men want sex, and women want attention, a bill-payer (at least to buy dinner/entertainment/gifts while dating), a bodyguard, a chauffeur, and a stronger/taller person to do her bidding.

The woman who sent the letter starts off:

Dr. Laura,

It's soooo hard being a woman who is waiting out there.

By "waiting" she means not having sex until married.

When the rest of the women give it up for free, the men won't even give me a chance.

The phrase "for free" implies she expects to get paid for sex. "Without commitment" might be a better phrase, but I could quibble with that one, too. She's right, though, that smart or even just lazy men are going to seek the path of least resistance to getting whatever it is they want.

Then again she might not be attractive.

Dad Guarded the Girl

Someone calling herself Margo wrote in to Dr. Laura about "Today's Loose Women".

I am e-mailing you to let you know there are still some women who do have morals and standards.

I am 22 years old. I have been married to my boyfriend/husband for 3 years now and have a beautiful baby girl. (No Shacking up!!!)

Wow, she made it all the way to nineteen without shacking up! And although she doesn't explicitly state it in her letter, she implies she also saved sex for marriage, which means she held out until the grand old age of nineteen. Wow, what willpower!

Seriously, good for her. She could have jumped in the sack at twelve. Yes, it is good that she waited until marriage. But I do find it a little humorous when someone who married at 19 or 18 or 16 tells people in their late twenties or early thirties "Hey, I waited to have sex!"

When I was younger and just starting to date (at age 16) the rule given by my dad was any young man who asked me out had to be interviewed by him (my father) before I was allowed to leave the house.

Good for him.

I soon realized when I was asked out by a stranger who I could tell only wanted sex, not friendship or courtship , and really would not want to come meet my dad. I told him that he would have to come over first and have a chat with my dad before I could go. He said never mind and went on his way.

Actually, those guys should have asked you out by asking you to let them know how to contact your dad. It would have lowered your guard. If a girl doesn't have a father around or has a bad relationship with her father, that is helpful to his quest. If she does have a father who would want to meet him, he can study the mannerisms of the girl's father at get a better idea of how to go about his quest, because she is likely to be attracted if her date mimics some of those mannerisms, and she may not realize why. Devious, eh?

Anyway, I wish Margo a long and happy life with her hubby and 85 kids. And a lot of good lovemaking.

The Past is Still Present

I was an adult for 13 years before I proposed to my wife, but mentioning anything that happened in most of that time frame is a potential minefield, because if it can be in any way connected to a girlfriend or fling (like a trip I took somewhere), my wife may shut down, making it very clear she is angry with me, or remind me how stupid I was to not stay a virgin like she did.

Virginity is big deal to her, even more than I realized before we married. She was adamant that it wasn't a problem that I wasn't a virgin, but she was in denial. She knew she wanted to be a virgin bride as long as she could remember - before she had her spiritual awakening - largely because she knew her mother had been one when she married. On the other side of the coin is her father's infidelity of many years ago. Mix these things together and push it together with my days of being a very bad boy, and you get a corrosive brew.

Although I would never say it to her, I have reason to be glad I had those experiences. Again, I'm not going to say that sex with someone other than a spouse is morally acceptable. But if I hadn't had those experiences, I would be quite bitter about the current lack of frequency, or some of the limitations my wife places on our lovemaking. Because I did have those experiences, the thought that "I'll never know what that is like unless I can pester her into changing her mind" is not there. I would be upset that I had waited all of those years, only to find out that I was going to miss out even though I married. That's not godly thinking, to be sure, but it is an honest confession about my feelings. It probably isn't godly to tell someone that things are okay and then continue to hold that sin over their heads, either.

This all came up again because we're going to a wedding this weekend. The bride has been a friend for almost a decade, and we've been looking forward to her wedding. I used to work with this friend. Someone who will be at this wedding is someone else I used to work with; a woman with whom I had a short fling. The fling was stupid on my part on many levels, including that we worked together, though in that aspect I had a written communication from her indicating that she had been the aggressor and that I had been well behaved.

There was one positive aspect to the relationship. I've noticed that about all of my relationships – that there was something positive that resulted even though the overall situation was wrong.

It was a very casual thing – so casual I didn't care when she dumped me. The fling was her way helping her to move on from a long-term dead-end relationship. She's now married, and I don't have feelings for her as I barely had them to begin with.

My wife has known all along that this woman, with whom she has never communicated, is going to be at the wedding. But yesterday, something reminded her about this reality. And the frost descended into the room. I could tell she was angry. My wife told me that I could go to the wedding by myself. It's not going to be a small wedding. We don't have to interact with this woman and her husband.

There were three things I thought about after that. 1) Is she going to be like this all week? What about after the wedding? 2) Everyone "in the know" would know exactly why my wife didn't show. They wouldn't know all of the details or the full extent, but based on past events they'd know it was because she was there. 3) I once had brunch at an exclusive restaurant with a girlfriend and some people who had invited us to the brunch. That's not unusual, but the people who invited us were my ex-fiancée, her husband, and his parents. My girlfriend was fully aware that I had had sex with my ex-fiancée. I'm sure the husband was aware of that fact, too. And yet there we were, enjoying brunch as a group, everyone having a nice time.

From an objective standpoint, my wife is much more attractive than this woman. That would be true even if the woman hadn't packed on the pounds after getting married. If we were invited to a wedding for one of my wife’s friends and an ex-boyfriend of hers was going to be there (and she crossed the line with at a couple guys, but didn’t have intercourse), and I knew I was much more attractive than him, I would show up standing tall and with a huge smile on my face and my wife on my arm. It is sad that my wife is fixating on my sin from many years ago and that it would diminish her enthusiasm for our friend's wedding to the point where she would consider not going.

What are your thoughts? Have you been through something like this? Is it therapy time?

Alcoholism, Infidelity – Part II

This blog entry is the last part (for now) of a short series dealing with my gripes. You can read the introduction here. You can read the first part of this gripe (the entry immediately prior to this one) here. I wrote about the things I'm thankful for about my wife and our marriage in this entry.

My wife knew she wanted to save her virginity for marriage before she even knew what that meant. She was told her mother married her father (as his second wife) as a virgin, and so she wanted to marry as a virgin. She grew up pretty much being a churchgoing "good girl", and when she was born-again as a college student, she had all the more resolve to marry as a virgin. In this regard, save for her mother, she is the black sheep of her family.

She knew from date one that I was not a virgin.

Marrying a virgin wasn't one of her requirements in a spouse, nor was it one of mine. Yes, both of us actually had a list of requirements in what we needed in a spouse, and it was very helpful. Actually, all other things being equal, I probably would have chosen a woman with a little experience over a virgin, for several reasons - one of them being that... I was not a virgin. While I admire moral resolve and appreciate my wife saving herself for marriage, whether or not my wife was a virgin was not important to me in the same way that, say, having common goals was. My wife was (and is) very attractive, and she never lived in the boonies, so I know she must have had many opportunities to have sex. So I knew that her virginity meant one of two things: 1) She had strong determination and self control; 2) She was not very horny. I suspected it was #1. Makeout sessions later confirmed my guess. But I'm getting off-track.

On that first date, after she confirmed through her questioning that I was not a virgin, I told her if that if it was going to be a problem that I was not a virgin, we should call it a night, move on, and save ourselves a lot of trouble. She quickly said it wouldn’t be a problem.

If I knew then what I know now, I would have told her at the end of the date to seriously reconsider the issue about not expecting her husband to be a virgin. Obviously, her emphasis on being a virgin meant certain things that had implications for how she was going to view her husband, based on his history. The past doesn't change, after all, and so again, there's nothing I can (or could) do about the past. I need to deal with the present in planning for the future.

My past experiences and her father's infidelity (and the infidelity on the part of her revered maternal grandmother) have been somehow connected in her mind. That's my explanation for some of her actions and some of her requests of me - plus, she has told me that "if they could cheat, anyone can cheat". Also, my MIL didn't "allow" any talk of her husband's first wife, even though he had two children with her. MIL could talk about her ex-boyfriend, though.

My wife's explanation for her postnuptial behavior, which goes against her "it's not a problem" assurance, is that she had no idea that once she experienced the intimacy of sex herself, her feelings would change. She said she didn’t know it was going to be this way until after she experienced it herself. Thus, things that didn’t bother her before now bother her – that's her explanation for the change in her attitude that she admits to having.

The attitude change has manifested itself in various ways. She distrusts me almost as though I have behaved like her father. She wants me to report to her any contact (e-mails, instant messages, etc.) I have with anyone I dated, no matter how mundane, as I remained friendly with most of them – which she knew early in our dating. She insisted I drop all contact forever with one of them. There is one anomaly to this, where my wife is supportive of ongoing communication with my ex-fiancee and her husband. Usually that means the once-in-a-blue-moon phone conversation that takes place in front of my wife, as we all like to talk with each other. I suppose our ongoing contact with my wife’s most serious boyfriend from the past (whose penis she handled many times... they were together for years) has something to do with this, as she probably feels obligated towards some "fairness" in this area. Probably because of her feelings, I have let contact with all other past dates die off. While I know that a lot of people don't keep in contact, the thing is I was friends or somewhat friendly with a lot of these women before we started to date, and our partings were amicable.

She insisted I destroy "life drawings" (nude, in case you are not clued in) I had made with a longtime girlfriend as my model. (I was a de facto art major in college for a couple of years). She does not want me having lunch with female coworkers, saying that many affairs start exactly that way. There have been a lot of little things here and there where this attitude has reared its head.

I can’t see myself ever cheating on her, though I will be careful not to let my guard down anyway. I'm the kind of guy who enjoys pointing to my wedding ring, is quick to bring up my wife (positively) in conversation, and doesn't want to look at an adulterer when I look in the mirror.

The ironic thing I believe she is the one in our marriage more likely to cheat:

1) I honestly believe she is much more attractive to men in general than I am to women in general.
2) My experiences have revealed me to be a very loyal guy to the women I was with in the past without a commitment, and I take my vows extremely seriously.
3) Her family has the history of infidelity, not mine. As far as I know, nobody in my family (parents, siblings, grandparents, uncles, aunts) has ever cheated.
4) The curiosity factor isn't there as much for me, due to my past experiences.
5) She is the one who is in a house with bedrooms, showers, etc. much of the day without me around, complete with visits from people like repairmen.
6) I have more to lose.

I don't know... maybe all of that doesn't matter because I was not loyal to what at the time was my unknown-to-me future wife. Maybe, statistically, I am the one more likely to cheat because she exercised more self control before marriage than I did. Regardless, I'd rather jump in front of a truck than cheat.

I have to believe that things would be different in our own marriage if her father had never strayed in his. Her father, past infidelity and alcoholism-enabling aside, is the sweetest guy. The infidelity is far back in the past now - his mother-in-law died and my mother-in-law, with her mother gone, finally cleaved to her husband, which she should have been doing since their wedding. MIL, by the way, is great - when she is sober. We simply can't count on her to be sober, unfortunately.

Lovemaking before I go to sleep is often not what it should be or doesn't happen often enough because, as I explained in my other gripes, I'm getting far too little sleep to begin with. My wife has never rejected me, but the routine is that we put the kids to bed, she puts me to bed, and then she stays up a few hours later. She doesn't want to change her sleep patterns to match mine, and I don't begrudge her that time alone at night, since she is otherwise always looking after the kids, and sometimes me as well. Unfortunately, because of our different sleep hours, we don't cuddle or spoon as we sleep. Ironically, (or is it paradoxically?) I did cuddle and spoon when I would stay overnight with the women I was involved with in my bachelor days.

Having me "nap" and then getting to it when she is ready to go to sleep (and I have had some rest) doesn't work, because her orgasms tend to fend off sleep much the same why mine (like most men), ease me into sleep. She has never outright rejected me (bless her), but she does worry that I won't get enough sleep, often bidding me goodnight with an insistence that I get some sleep and a suggestion that we do something the next day – even though the next day's schedule is often going to be the same. I suppose I could fix this (my end of it, not her worries that I'm not getting enough sleep) by being more demanding. I actually believe I would lose weight easier if I was occupying my mouth with my wife more, so there's an added plus to letting me spend more time bringing pleasure to her.

Two other relatively minor sex items:

1) My wife shot down using food/sweets (think whip cream, chocolate syrup, etc.) in our lovemaking. She says she doesn't want to associate those things with sex. I don't understand why she would have that reservation. Wouldn't that make eating those foods even more enjoyable? Hmmm, now that I think about it, maybe she thinks it would cause me to eat more stuff like that and gain more weight? But it seemed like it was about her, not me, and she already eats sweets without gaining weight. Maybe she's just really clever it that regard; finding a way of shooting it down without saying "you don't need any more calories." Part of my attitude towards marital lovemaking is that anything is fair game and should be tried at least once if a) the spouse consents; b) it doesn’t involve any other person or animal; c) it can be done in relative privacy so as not to be immodest in front of others; d) it isn't harmful. Experimentation and "mixing it up" are good. Not every session needs to be epic or follow the same pattern or have the same tone or pacing. Sometimes, it is just play; other times, an intense expression of passion. So, I would like to use this as playful thing, but she doesn't.

2) My wife "took something off of the menu". While we did make it to our wedding night as far as maintaining her virginity in the physical sense, things did get too naughty leading up to that. She did something that has to do with fellatio - something I really liked a lot. Although she claims she never did it (or fellatio in general) before, she did it three times with me - each time of her own initiative, each of the three times she performed fellatio on me prior to the wedding. Since the wedding, she has been "unable" to do that particular thing again - and I know, because I've asked and we've talked about it. Thankfully, she has not stopped fellatio in general. Perhaps she is feeling guilty for having done it while we were engaged, though she has no problem (thank God!) enjoying cunnilingus as I do that on her - even though that happened before we married as well - nor the fellatio in general. To my wife's credit, she discussed this with her mother (how many mothers and daughters discuss the finer points of fellatio? But then my wife's parents were forthright about where babies grow from the earliest ages of their children) and my wife says is willing to work on it... just not right now for temporary reasons I'm not going to get into. Unfortunately, this thing is strong turn-on for me.

Hey, maybe all of my other gripes would bother me a lot less as long at that one thing was restored to the menu. ;-)

Well, there you have it. My gripes. As you can tell, things are generally great, considering these are what I have for gripes. I mean, other some other husbands, by their accounts, are living in hell, while I am usually happy.

Maybe I can make things even better? What do you think? Do you see a need for my wife in all of this that I am not meeting? If I can make things better or me, then that will be good. If I can make things better for her, than that would be better. Like I said, I know she could gripe about a bunch of flaws of mine. I try to praise and thank her several times a day, and she does the same to me. For the most part, I do feel appreciated.