Pants on the Ground, Socks on the Floor

Dr. Laura once took a call from a wife who was complaining about her husband leaving his socks on the floor. Later, she heard from a widow who would give anything to find that her husband was alive and with her, leaving his socks on the floor. So this "news blurb" from The Onion caught my eye:

The Best Thing That Ever Happened to Area Man Yelling at Him About Socks

Is a Mature Man Hard to Find?

Okay, I'm a little late with this one, but if you haven't seen it yet, you should check out this recent column from Dennis Prager, "Is America Still Making Men?"

If you are unfamiliar with Prager, he's a longtime radio host and author with a style that is usually polite and gentle, but firm. But the usual critics will dismiss him the same way they dismiss Michael Savage. Their loss. Prager airs live the same time Rush Limbaugh does, and while Limbaugh focuses on partisan politics, satire, and getting a rise out of the Left, Prager focuses a little less on partisan politics but is still decidely conservative, often talking about the larger issues behind current events. Regular topics of Prager's include religion (he's Jewish), happiness, and the differences between the sexes. Gender issues is what he wrote about in this column, hence the title.

What is a man (as opposed to a boy)? The traditional understanding was that a man is he who takes responsibility for others -- for his family, his community and his country -- and, of course, for himself. A man stood for ideals and values higher than himself. He conducted himself with dignity. And he was strong.

Anakin Niceguy may have something to say about that. Of course, all boys, provided they don't die, grow up to be men. But they don't all grow up to be mature, well-adjusted men. And no, I don't confuse apathy and letting women walk all over you as being mature and well-adjusted.

When I was a boy in the 1950s, without anyone expressly defining it, I knew what a man was supposed to be.

Oops. Dennis mentioned the 1950s. Certain people automatically insist that someone who speaks fondly about any aspect of the 1950s supports wife beatings, racist lynchings, witch hunts, and must want to kill all the gays, too. Yes, I actually found a blog entry trying (and failing) to counter this very column by Prager that took that route.

I wonder how many boys are told to "be a man" today; and if they were, would they have a clue as to what that meant? It would appear that for millions of American boys, this has not been the reality for decades. Many families and society as a whole seem to have forgotten boys need to be made into men.

He goes on to list nine main reasons, and there's a lot of truth in what he says.

Check it out.

Do Not Touch

Some guys have sworn off looking for wife. I say, don't give up hope! Here is a good word from a woman who is newly back on the market - something she recently wrote on a social networking site:

I want to apologize to all my friends for my temporary insanity. I tried to go off my medicine that controls my anxiety, ocd, anger, and depression. I guess I didn't realize I was such a bitch!!!!

If that isn't enough, then perhaps you'll like being a pseudo-father to her kids. They have different fathers - maybe you can persuade her to add a new kid that has your DNA?

In all seriousness, at least she did apologize. Still wouldn't want to live like that.

Yeah, ladies, I know there are plenty of bad male specimens, too. Feel free to share what you've seen and experienced. I often thank God that my wife is not typical.

Easy-To-Spot Red Flags

Some people are afraid of "losing" time they have invested in pursuit of someone else. But in some cases, there are easy-to-spot red flags that can save you a lot of time, money, energy, and emotion.

Some red flags are easier to spot than others. Some red flags are really more like yellow flags - you should talk over with your love interest – perhaps there's a misperception, or a temporary one-time condition that will soon be alleviated. Other red flags mean you should avoid that person, or at least avoid committing to that person – but then some of you aren't looking for commitment in the first place, so some of the red flags are going to be different.

Here are some easy-to-spot red flags.

Red Flag: What's in the Mail? You can tell a lot - good and bad - by what mail she has sitting around out in the open. Past-due bills? Catalogues from high-end stores? Parking/traffic tickets? Court/legal documents? Stuff from political/religious/nonprofit groups that have priorities incompatible with yours? N.O.W.?

Red Flag: This is kind of a subset of the one above. She subscribes to or regularly purchases wedding/bridal magazines. If you're looking for a wife, you might mistake this for a good thing, because you think it means she is marriage-minded. However, all these magazines indicate is that she is wedding minded. There's a huge difference. These magazines feed the idea that the wedding is all about her – not the two of you joining together before God. While these magazines may offer some money-saving tips, they rely on advertising – advertising from businesses that depend on you spending as much on your wedding and related festivities as possible. There is an exception to this red flag: She has a job that is related to weddings/wedding planning.

Red Flag: She kisses the dog. The bad news with this one is that by the time you see her do this, you have likely swapped germs with her – and thus, Fido, too. You may have heard that the mouth of dogs are "cleaner" than the mouths of humans. Even if that was true, they carry some different germs – germs you don’t need. Dogs stick their noses in iffy places. They lick themselves. The other day, my own dog (the dog came with my wife) ate some human feces (long story). One of the chicks on this season of "The Bachelor" lets her dog lick her lips. No thanks.

Red Flag: She has more than two cats. Isn't this one self explanatory? If not, just trust me on this one.

Red Flag: She always orders the most expensive things on the menu, but never makes a credible move to pay or split the cost. She sees you as an ATM. Exception: She lives in father or brother's house and doesn't really earn her own income, seeing has how she's always working in the family store or taking care of her nieces, nephews, or younger siblings/cousins and doing household chores. Still, she should at least refrain from always ordering the most expensive item.

Red Flag: You walk out of a restaurant where you had free soft drink refills and she requests driving through the fast food lane across the parking lot because she wants to order a soft drink. One of my ex-girlfriends did this. Plus, I don’t think there was a meal she ordered that she didn't send back for one reason or another. She had "issues". I had "issues", too, as evidenced by the fact that I kept seeing her as long as I did.

Red Flag: She drives a car that is beyond her means. Either she got some poor sucker to buy it for her, or she is paying high monthly payments on it, which means YOU will be paying for it. Exception: She won it on a game show.

Red Flag: Bad or hyper gag reflex. This is only a problem if you like receiving oral sex.

Red Flag: Her female relatives, especially the ones who are married/older, are all dumpy/fat. You can tell by the pictures she has on display. This indicates that your wedding cake will kick off a weight-gain cycle. Exception: You like that idea.

Red Flag: She has no female friends - all her friends are male. Most of those guys want into her pants. The ones who really are gay will likely be cutting you down behind your back. Yes, women can be difficult. But if she can't develop a friendship with at least one female outside of her family, it isn't a good sign.

Red Flag: Her place is a mess. Look, she knew you (or somebody else) was going to be back at her place that evening. She straightened up her place as much as she could with the time she had. If her place is a mess, your place together will be a bigger mess – unless you are fine with picking up after her as well as yourself. I'm not talking about the place being lived in. I'm talking about the place being a mess, dirty, dusty, or unsanitary.

So – what other easy-to-spot red flags can you name? They don't have to be universal. They could just be red flags for you. Ladies - can you think of some you'd tell your brothers or sons?

Marriage Means More Money For Men?

It's being reported all over the news that men get an "economic boost" from marriage. See this story from Associated Press writer David Crary. Let's take a look.

The changes, summarized in a Pew Research Center report being released Tuesday, reflect the proliferation of working wives over the past 40 years - a period in which American women outpaced men in both education and earnings growth.

Ah. So if a man has a wife who is out there fighting in the corporate world, he'll be better off financially. What they don't tell you is that your wife will be too tired or too upset about something at the office to make love, strangers will be raising your children (and you'll be paying for them to do it), and you'll be paying more in taxes. But hey, you'll have more money! And if she earns more than you do, she'll likely have more resentment for you and less respect.

A larger share of today's men, compared with their 1970 counterparts, are married to women whose education and income exceed their own, and a larger share of women are married to men with less education and income.

Well, yes, but the majority of women still marry men who earn more than they do.

One barometer is median household income — which rose 60 percent between 1970 and 2007 for married men, married women and unmarried women, but only 16 percent for unmarried men, according to the Pew data.

Ah-ha! Clearly an example of sexism against unmarried men, right? Actually, unmarried men were already earning more before. So this is married men playing catch-up.

In 1970, according to the report, 28 percent of wives in this age range had husbands who were better educated than they were, outnumbering the 20 percent whose husbands had less education. By 2007, these patterns had reversed — 19 percent of wives had husbands with more education, compared with 28 percent whose husbands had less education.

Academia is more hostile to men now, and a man is expected to go out and support himself and his family, which often means dropping out of school. It is more socially acceptable for a woman to live with her parents, or go to school to find herself while her husband works.

Only 4 percent of husbands had wives who earned more than they did in 1970, compared with 22 percent in 2007.

If I were a wagerin' man, I'd bet that the wives who earned more were more likely to be unattractive/overweight than the wives who earned less/nothing. The higher the income of the husband, the more physically attractive the wife is likely to be. These are generalities to be sure, but you see this verified everywhere.

Here comes the tired old comparison – you knew it would be included:

According to 2009 Census Bureau figures, women with full-time jobs earned salaries equal to 77.9 percent of what men earned, compared with 52 percent in 1970.

Women, as a group, earn less than men, as a group. This is true. But men are more likely to die on the job. Men and women often do DIFFERENT JOBS. Men are naturally more aggressive and work more hours, so they may earn more in commission-based jobs, and are more likely to ask for larger raises more often. When you compare men and women who are doing the same kind, level, quality, and quantity of work, with the same amount of experience – there is little to no gap.

The Pew researchers noted that the economic downturn is reinforcing the gender reversal trends, with men losing jobs more often than women.

Yup. I won't expect NOW to fret about this.

The Pew report found that unmarried women in 2007 had higher household incomes than their 1970 counterparts at each level of education, while unmarried men without post-secondary education lost ground because their real earnings decreased and they didn't have a wife's wages to offset that decline.

Unmarried men with college degrees made income gains of 15 percent, but were outpaced by the 28 percent gains of unmarried women with degrees.

I'd like to know about married men who are the sole breadwinners, and how they are doing compared to 1970.

So the lesson of this report is that women are earning more than before, so when a man marries one of these women, they have a higher household income. Duh.

What these reports don't mention is that men who earn more than their wives will lose some of that in the event of divorce, more if there are children. For a husband who is the sole income earner, even if he is earning more than his unmarried counterpart, the fact is – half of that is his wife's, and more if she leaves and takes the kids.

I do believe that the average man is much better off if he marries the right woman than if he stays unmarried – a woman who is fiscally responsible and shrewd when it comes to shopping and spending; one who offers helpful feedback about professional matters and helps her husband with networking. If she cooks, and he'd otherwise eat out, it is even better. But a married man is likely paying for all sorts of things an unmarried man isn't.

Also, something the report touched on was a drop in the percentages of households that are married. People are waiting longer to marry, giving men a chance to establish themselves and earn more before marrying. So of course the guy who marries at 32 is earning more than the guy who married at 19 and had to forgo certain educational and professional opportunities. It is easier for an unmarried man to continue his education, network over lunch and after-hours social events, work longer hours and extra days, relocate, take a new position, etc.

From what I've read, studies show married men in general – so not just the ones marrying career women – do earn more than unmarried men. But as I already pointed out, that income is not his to do with it as he pleases. Also, perhaps it is the men who earn more or have the potential to earn more who get married. As was said over at The Opine Editorials:

As a married man, I'd like to believe that marriage does make someone [wealthier], as many studies report. But I do have to wonder if the correlation is entirely one-directional, or if [wealthier] people or people with [more earning potential] are more likely to get married in the first place? I mean, all other things being equal, who is attracted to and wants to marry someone who is [poor]? While we can get averages, we can't compare me, a married father at my age, to me at the same age having never been married or a father. We can't compare John Doe #1, unmarried and childless at his age, to John Doe #1, same age, married and with children

Ultimately, though, even if marriage could be proven to be a cause of men earning more, there are unmarried men who maintain they'd rather have a lower income than get married. They can do just fine with a lower income, and enjoy the freedom of being able to work less and spend their free time doing whatever they want to do.

Thank God For Martin Luther King, Jr.

When it comes to MLK, I don't hear a lot of the usual whiners complaining about how a Christian minister was getting too involved politics, and thus "violating the separation of church and state".

Looks Matter More in the City

Melissa Mahony reports on LiveScience.com on a study that seems to confirm what Tom Leykis said on his radio show, back when he had one. They lead off the story this way:

For women, looks may matter more if they live in the city than in rural areas, a new study finds.

There's more competition in the city.

Any attractive woman who is category 4 wants to attract the wealthiest/most powerful/most famous man she can get, and these types tend to move to a city. More bidders = driving the price up. But, like I said, there's also more competition. So being beautiful isn’t enough. You have to be more beautiful.

The most highly attractive women tend to not only move to a city, but they move to Los Angeles, Dallas, or Miami – climates where they can flaunt their bodies pretty much year-round, and where there are plenty of wealthy men.

The researchers suggest with higher population densities, cities offer more potential friends and sexual partners, allowing city folks to be choosier and so theoretically able to select the cream of the crop to associate with.

Exactly. Less attractive women do best in places like Alaska, where women are more scarce. As the article points out, if you're out in a rural area, your social circles and family tend to know your business, you're more likely to know everyone else who lives nearby, and often your selection of sex partners is limited by those realities - in addition to mere numbers. In the city, a person can more easily have a casual sexual encounter with a stranger, never to meet again, without any friends of family knowing about it. This is why guys in category 4 are advised by people like Leykis to get off the farm and into the city.

Though the study is based on women, the researchers suspect similar results would hold for men, with their physical appeal also impacting their personal lives more so in cities where a more "free market" of relationships exists.

Taller men have an advantage, but what matters more in attracting the hottest women is money, power, and fame. (Superhot women who don't care so much about these things are rare.) Women who don't want to admit they are in category 4, and other women, will claim what matters is "security and confidence" - which just happen to come with... money, power, and fame. Taller men, by the way, tend to make more money - all other things being equal. There are famous people who aren't confident. Hollywood is full of them, and you can tell, to, because their insecurities are part of what kills their relationships.

The study indicated these city women are happy. So if they left a rural area for the city, they either found what they were looking for they learned they really wanted something else, and found that instead.

Basically, a superhot country gal who wants a superrich hubby needs to get to a large city and cash in her chips by age 25. After 25, the pool of superrich men who would choose her starts to shrink, since there are younger women these guys can target.

Not A Normal Topic of Mine

In SoCal, the whole Jay Leno/Conan O’Brien/"The Tonight Show" (TTS) thing is being treated as a huge deal. Skip the next 3 paragraphs if you are familiar with the situation.

In case you are unfamiliar with the situation – almost six years ago, NBC promised Conan O'Brien, hosting the after-TSS, "Late Night", TTS in 2009. This was to keep him from bolting to another network to set up a competing show. ("Late Night" was the show David Letterman started up and hosted for many years before leaving for CBS.... after he lost out on getting TTS and regular guest host Jay Leno got it instead.) The problem was, Jay Leno is a notorious workaholic and didn't want to give up regular TV work.

So NBC gave him a 10pm show that was essentially a redressed TTS (monologue, sketch/bit, and interviews). This kept Leno from going to a competing network when his contract finally expired, which would have been a while after Conan took over TTS. It also was much cheaper for the network to do this show than buy five hours of drama shows a week.

Networks don't own all of their stations, and the other station owners were complaining about the drop in ratings for their local 11pm news broadcasts as a result of a talk show at 10pm rather than an hourlong drama. So now NBC has announced plans to move Leno back to 11:35 and move the TTS/Conan to midnight or five minutes later. Leno has agreed. Conan has said NO WAY.



It's a huge mess. Not only because of the lower ratings for the local news – the TV industry was worried by the loss of five hours of drama. Those shows keep a lot of people working.

But the thing is, even with those five hours taken up by Leno, NBC is STILL showing THE SAME EPISODES of dramas twice a week, like "Law & Order: SVU". Leno didn't kill five hours of drama. Advertisers tightening their belts did. Now I wonder what they'll fill in the time with… more repeats? New magazines?

Now that Conan has said "NO" things are going to get really interesting. There's a clause in his contract that gives him something like $40,000,000 if he is removed from TTS. I don't know if that includes the show being pushed back to midnight or later, or if he has veto power over changing the time of the show. Whatever – yeah, it sucks that he had to move his whole family from coast to coast (and it sucks for NBC that they had to build a whole new studio) – but he's going to be just fine. He'll leave for another network if he has to, where they will pay him $$$ and promote the heck out hime. If that happens, the NBC's failure will be complete, to paraphrase Darth Vader. They will have made all of those changes, blown all of that money, and messed with "The Tonight Show" only to have the very result they were hoping to avoid when they made their plans six years ago – a net loss all around.

Conan has been handling the situation with class and humor.

NBC should grovel at his feet and apologize and commit to keeping him in the same place, same time.

I like Jay Leno. They should give him half an hour earlier in the night, like at 8:30 or 9, or 9:30 and use the show to preview "The Tonight Show". Compensate for the reduction in time by giving Leno a weekend show, too, like on Sunday nights.

It is just going to be really strange if Conan leaves and Jay is given TSS again. The only way they should start that up is to open up with a skit in which Jay wakes up in bed next to a Suzanne Pleshette look-alike, or – even better - Bob Newhart.

Love the One You're With

I don't really know what happened between Kate Gosselin and her ex-husband Jon. I know that they made a lot of babies and then stuck them on TV in a regular "reality" show. I generally think inviting TV crews to follow your minor kids around or portray your marriage on an ongoing basis is a bad idea. The Duggars might be an exception.

From what was portrayed through their TV and has been portrayed in the gossip media – which often is a poor reflection of truth – Kate wasn't the warmest or most respectful wife, and Jon has been acting poorly for a while.

What I did notice is that now that she is divorced, Kate has acquired hair extensions so that she has "long hair" again.

Why do women do this? Why do they go back to long hair, dressing nicely, and hit the gym after divorce? The cynical answer is that they are "back on the market" and want to get the attention of the highest bidder they can. When they are married, they don't feel like they need to try because they already have a guy, and if he wants to leave, he'll probably get penalized for doing so. This isn't a ringing endorsement for marriage, ladies. Why can't women like this look nice for their husbands?

Maybe Jon was always a creep and she was deliberately trying to turn him off and knew they were heading for divorce and so didn't want to bother. But there are probably cases out there where making an effort to attract her husband would prevent a woman from going through a divorce in the first place.

Same goes for that type of guy who will do things for his second wife he wouldn't do for his first wife. By romancing and listening to his first wife, he may be able to keep the marriage fun and healthy, and thus keep his first wife.

No matter how she does herself up now, guys should avoid Kate Gosselin, at least until all of those eight kids are grown. It doesn't matter how nice her hair gets. And Jon should concentrate on his kids and not be bringing more drama and turmoil into their lives. And no, I'm under no delusion that my opinion matters to – or will even be read by – either of them.

Libel is Fun

And you can largely get away with it when your target is famous.

I could make a full-time hobby out of countering erroneous attacks on Dr. Laura that can be easily found in the blogosphere. I guess that goes to show just how pervasive she is. (Some of her critics are going to think I just called her a pervert.)

Why do I care at all? Because I enjoy her stuff, and by following her advice I have made my life better and my family's life has been better. I hate to see her libeled because so much of her message is important. As I've said before (see HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE for some examples), I do have some mostly minor quibbles with her, but for the most part, she is right and effective, so much so that she bugs the crap out of some people.

"Kate", wrote about The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands in this blog entry about books she read in 2009:

There were a lot of duh! forehead-slapping statements in it, like how one should treat their spouse nicely if they want niceness in return.

Yes, that concept should be obvious to people, but a lot of wives haven't been acting that way. Other women want to act that way as wives or when they become wives, and the book tells them how, since they aren't getting the message elsewhere.

So when I checked, there were a couple of comments of note:

"~~Silk" wrote:

Dr. Laura is a pompous ass.

I don't find her to be one. But I don't think either of us have met her in person, so how do either of us really know?

She's nasty to her callers, rigid, unsympathetic, and a total hypocrite.

Hypocrite? I have seen that applied to Dr. Laura so many times, yet I can't recall one instance in which is was applied correctly. Click through to The Playful Walrus and scroll down to see a write up on hypocrisy.

As far as being "rigid" – I wonder what this person means by that? Unless we're completely dysfunctional to the point of actual insanity, we're all rigid about some things. Where is she rigid when she should be more flexible? In telling women to protect their minor children? Where are the examples???

Then there's Dr. Laura's tone – she has precious few moments to get the point across to the callers. This is radio, not a private uninterrupted therapy session. If she'd let them, a lot of her callers would ramble on repeating themselves and talking in circles and making endless excuses for their own bad doings.

Not to mention stupid.

Stupid? How so? This is not explained. If she is stupid, she's managed to do quite well for herself on a consistent basis despite being stupid.

She's into her shtick for the money that controversy and nastiness brings.

Interesting guess.

She has made some major mistakes in her own life, and I could respect her if she admitted her mistakes and said she'd learned from them, but instead, she lies and claims it all never happened.

I have no idea what this person is talking about, even with the person's link to a nasty libel site (talk about the pot calling the kettle black!) She's repeatedly admitted mistakes, and has warned others not to make them. And she gets called a hypocrite (wrongly) as a result.

"Kate" then added:

I had heard about the nude photos.

I don't get why people bring that up, as if it means anything other than Dr. Laura made mistakes when she was a "feminista", from which she learned some important lessons. I hope these people are consistent and thus dismiss any comments about anything offered by anyone who has ever been photographed nude.

I just don't get how a female radio personality with a career of her own can bash women for choosing to work outside the home.

Kate, she doesn't bash women for choosing to work outside the home. She bashes women who neglect their husband and children. They aren't necessarily one in the same. She praises Stay-At-Home-Moms. Praising SAHMS need not mean bashing others. That's the false thinking too many people in society have bought into where, if one person gets a trophy, everyone has to get a trophy.

I figured the Marriage book would be more balanced than the Husbands book, but they were both pretty much focused on blaming women for not catering to their husbands.

Actually, Dr. Laura rightly points out that women have more power – for good or ill - when it comes to personal relationships and family dynamics. Men legally, financially, and socially cede a lot of power to their wives when they marry.

Meanwhile, over at this discussion forum, someone complained about getting a Dr. Laura book as a gift. Some of the responses have been interesting.

"Big Gay Sam" lied:

That woman gives me gas. Her take on gay people?

"Homosexuals are a mistake of nature."

That's not what she said.

"RachelJ" wrote:

I haven't read the book, but excerpts. Dr. Laura suggsts to avoid getting cheated on to be "your husband's best girlfriend" i.e. making sexy phone calls to him at work, get "dressed up" when he comes home, always wear lipstick, that kind of crap.

If this woman is married, I feel sorry for her husband. He made a poor choice if he was looking for a woman who would care about his desires.

Even the title suggests that men are as dumb as dogs and can be trained and easily manipulated and women are the grand manipulators.

Men are easily to please. That is the point.

I love it that while she's giving all this advice about staying home and taking care of your family (ONLY) that she is the ultimate working woman on the radio, writing books on book tour. How in the world is she "taking care of" her husband?

This tired charge is again repeated subsequently by "aslapintheface" – completely ignorant of the reality of how Dr. Laura structured her life and her book publicity. But I guess people want to hold on to their mean thoughts because it gives them, in their minds, and excuse not to deal with the truth of what Dr. Laura says.

We all know Dr. Laura's real "crimes" that upset most of her mouth-foaming critics:

1. Many years back, she referred to the homosexual orientation as a biological error.
She did not call homosexual PEOPLE mistakes or errors. She did not say they were CHOOSING to be homosexual. She was not disparaging anyone. She treats her callers who are homosexual with respect, and advises concerned family members to accept their homosexual relatives.

2. She notes that men and women are different, and says that children do best being raised within a marriage where a husband and wife model a loving relationship.

3. She notes that abortion kills an innocent human being.
She advises adoption. Actually, she advises avoiding intercourse when unprepared to be a parent, but adoption if one has failed in that.

4. She tells parents to put the needs of minor children before their own wants, including that they should raise their children themselves.

5. She notes that men have rights and feelings, too, and wives should behave accordingly, just a husband should care about his wife.

If you click on my Dr. Laura tag, you'll see I’ve written up a lot on stuff like this already.

Health Thyself

I'm sorry, but every time I see an ad for "Merrill Lynch Wealth Management" I have to laugh. Merrill Lynch is one of those companies that couldn't manage it own wealth, and so it ended up being bought up by Bank of America under the cloud of tax bailouts.

I laugh, but there are a lot of former employees who probably aren't laughing. Managers failed at their duties, and investors failed at their duty to known in what they were investing. And, of course, people were greedy in occupying houses they couldn't afford on the hope that the real estate market would keep skyrocketing.

A New Year Is Here

You don't have to wait for the New Year to make positive changes in your life, though a lot of people do. With that in mind, I urge you, dear reader, and myself (I'm writing to myself as much as anyone), to examine yourself.

What are your priorities? What is important in life? Are you spending your time, money, and energy accordingly? Do your thoughts, utterances, and actions make things better?

Are you happy?

Being happy, for the most part, is a choice. Perspective and a change in attitude make an enormous difference.

If you are married, what are you doing to make your spouse's life better? If you want to get married, what are you doing to prepare yourself to be a spouse?

We all have room for improvement. I have quite a bit. What are we doing about it?

Are you letting life wash over you, or are you using your God-given resources to reach your goals, thereby helping others? All good goals help others, even if indirectly. Making a lot of money means you did something for other people that they found to be of value - enough value to pay you a lot of money.

Romancing your spouse, exercising, eating better, cutting wasteful spending, getting informed and active in the community and in elections, learning something new that is fun and useful, removing toxic people from our lives... there are so many ways we can make things better.

God (or, if you are an atheist - nature) and our Constitution, even as much as our Constitution has been ignored, allow us to have a lot of control over our lives. Let's not squander that freedom.

I pray this New Year is a good one for you, and I pray that I am a better person this year. Some of you have blogs I find helpful in that they make me think and give me someone else's perspective. I hope I do the same for you. Thanks for reading!

Did You Knock Up Juana Perez Valencia?

Nineteen-year-old Juana Perez Valencia, of Anaheim, has been charged with one felony count of murder after her newborn baby girl was found dead. Gerrick Kennedy reports in this LATimes.com blog entry.

Valencia is believed to have given birth to the infant Dec. 22 in the restroom of Sombrero’s Mexican restaurant in Stanton. The baby, apparently healthy at birth and weighing 6.3 pounds, was found in a plastic bag in a trash bin behind the restaurant.

So very sad.

Under California’s "safe surrender" law, a parent or legal guardian can confidentially surrender an infant 3 days old or younger to any hospital emergency room or fire station. No prosecution is sought against those who safely surrender a newborn.

And, I'll add - there are no strings attached. You don't even have to answer questions or identify yourself.

Women have more choices than ever before to avoid being responsible for a living baby:

--Various kinds of adoption
--Safe Surrender
--Various forms of abortion, including pills that induce early abortions
--Many different contraceptive pharmaceuticals and devices
--Tubal ligation
--Hysterectomy
--Oophorectomy (removal of the ovaries)
--Choosing not to engage in intercourse at any given moment

Yet, this stuff is still happening all of the time. It just goes to show you that no matter how many options there are (not all of which I think are okay, but they are there and legal), some people will still choose to do the wrong thing and the illegal thing.

We can't excuse this behavior based on hormones, unless we are prepared to grant men with high testosterone levels passes on rape. That babies can't speak up for themselves like rape victims should not make a difference. In both cases, we are talking about violating someone else's rights. Clearly, she was desperate – but only because of her prior choices. She had many months to deal with this situation.

With more choices comes more responsibility. I say we should be even harder on this sort of crime given the legality of abortion (which I consider murder in most cases). Sadly, the opposite tends to be true. Thanks in part to the "right" to abortion, some people don't see post-partum infanticide the same as murder of say, a 15-year-old.

I know women who fume with rage when they here stories like this one, because they would love to be able to experience pregnancy and childbirth, and have been unable to do so, some of them even with expensive and troublesome treatments and procedures.

But regardless of what anyone else wants – that was an innocent human being that was murdered.

Finally – as my title suggests – I want to know what waste of human potential, what sorry example of manhood, figured it was a good idea to impregnate a young woman who was not suitable to be a mother and had not taken enough precaution to avoid pregnancy? Let's not forget there is some guy out there who messed up big time. Yes, guys lose a lot of power once the sperm leaves their body, and almost all subsequent choices are up to the female from that point on – but he did have that choice. For decency's sake – if you won't stop fornicating, at least try to choose a woman who can handle the situation, and wear a good condom – better yet, get a vasectomy.

Shoe is on the Other Foot

I often read or hear complaints from husbands that their wives have little or no interest in sex, even after being a "lot of fun" leading up to the wedding. In this instance, the show is on the other foot. "Iceberg’s Wife" wrote in to Dear Margo:

My husband of 16 years is a nice guy and a good father. We rarely argue and, in fact, get along companionably.

Good.

The problem is that six months into our marriage he lost interest in sex.

And you still made babies with him?

I keep myself attractive and initiate sex often, but he is rarely in the mood.

Maybe he doesn't want you to initiate. Some guys are funny that way. Me, I wouldn't mind if my wife initiated every single time (except that I know she wants me to initiate some times). As far as keeping yourself attractive – maybe there is something (cutting your hair off) that you did to turn him off. Still, a normal, healthy heterosexual husband would not be holding out on you like this.

Throughout the course of our marriage, we have gone through dry spells that have lasted for months and even years. Sometimes things will improve for a week or two and then go back to draught.

I have told him repeatedly that this is important to me.

That alone should prompt him to act. It would be the loving thing to do (same goes when the sexes are reversed). My basic rule with this is that the married couple should go by the higher sex drive between the two. It shouldn't be a chore. The exception is when someone really does have a drive that is so hyper that obligations - such as paying the bills and parenting - suffer as a result. But hey, if you can do it three times a day and still maintain a life - GOOD FOR YOU.

He doesn't think sex is a big deal and says he just doesn't have the drive. I know he can raise the flagpole - he just doesn’t want to do anything about it. He does not feel that he needs to see a doctor or therapist.

So really, there is nothing you can do to get him to participate.

Would I be putting my happiness before that of my children’s if I left, as they adore their father? Is lack of sex a good enough reason to leave a marriage?

You should leave – after the younger of your two children is 18. Your husband has broken his marital vows in a big way, and life is too short to go without sex when you clearly signed up for it. Now, you may not find a suitable replacement. So there's a small chance you will be giving up something (a "nice guy" you otherwise get along with) without gaining what you seek. But I think the odds are greater than you would be able to find a suitable husband who would enjoy meeting your sexual needs.

Why he is breaking the vows doesn't matter if he won't work on it, but it is still fun to speculate. It could be one or more of the following:

1. She is delusional; she has become quite hideous/nagging after getting him to "sign on the dotted line". This is unlikely.
2. She is leaving something out – perhaps that he didn't want to have children. Also not likely, but he could simply hate her.
3. He is a closeted homosexual, and she is his beard.
4. He has psychological/emotional problems that were amplified once she became his wife/mother of his children. Perhaps he prefers "the whore" instead of "the Madonna"? I would include a porn habit in this category.
5. Despite his apparent ability to get an erection, perhaps there is a physiological problem.
6. He's getting it elsewhere. This is also unlikely, as guys who do that still tend to take it from the wife when it is offered.

I'd say #3 and #4 are the most likely reasons.

One of my common statements here is that marriage isn't for everyone. This sounds like a guy who shouldn't have gotten married, and that he mislead this woman. As I wrote above, he is breaking the marital vows.

With few exceptions, married people should never turn down sex with their spouse. You may not be in the right mood at first, you may not think it is the best time, maybe your spouse isn't looking their best or you aren't feeling like your best... but SO WHAT? Isn't it fun anyway???

Surprise Weddings Are Generally Not Cool

But in some cases, they may be the best thing.

Several years back, there was a "live" television special on a major broadcast network during which women surprised their guys with a surprise wedding. The guys supposedly didn't know – each woman explained the situation to the audience while the guy was in some isolation chamber, and then he was thrust out in front of a live audience, glaring lights, and television cameras, and presented with what amounts to an immediate ultimatum. I suppose that is better than finding yourself on the show of Connie Chung's husband or the former mayor of Cincinnati. I'm not sure how this was all supposed to work out from a legal standpoint – I would imagine if the guys actually wanted to get married and weren't just doing it for show, the couples obtained marriage licenses after the fact.

If I recall correctly, it was only women surprising men – not a single instance of a man surprising a woman with a let's go now wedding.

I would like to know how those couples are doing now.

I bring this up now because of this Associated Press story (complete with photo):

A woman in a wedding gown surprised her fiance by greeting him at a Texas airport along with a justice of the peace.

Robyn Moore and William Acosta exchanged vows Monday at Corpus Christi International Airport after he got off a plane arriving from Toledo, Ohio.

I don't know about you, but riding in a cramped commercial jetline usually doesn't put me in the romantic mood – with one exception. At the end of our last trip without a child with us, I decided to take advantage of the fact that my wife was wearing a short skirt and... let my fingers do the walking. Sure, there was some guy napping next to us, but we were subtle about it, making good use of blankets. My wife found it to be a major turn-on. Certainly made the flight more pleasant. I recommend this for married couples. But I digress.

Acosta, who was wearing jeans and a sweater, says he was speechless and thrilled by the wedding Moore planned.

What else was he going to say? Make a negative scene in the middle of the airport? Actually, it might not be a bad place to dump someone if they are abusive - lots of security, and no tolerance for threats.

But here's the important info:

The couple got a marriage license last week and planned to tie the knot this month, at a site to be determined.

In this case, it sounds like they were both actually planning to get married, which can make this move a very nice one for him. He didn't have to deal with all of the stress of a big ceremony and all of the lead-up, although she still gets to be the center of attention (even in the news) and I would expect that they'll still have a reception later, so they don't miss out on a party and still may get a lot of gifts. Not a bad idea, and a lot less expensive.

I wish them well.

In other cases, like the ones with the TV show, it isn't a good sign if a woman has to trick, badger, nag, beg, or manipulate her guy into marrying her. (If any of those couples secretly were already set to get married, but decided to trick TV producers into paying for their wedding and wedding video, then good for them.) Even with all of our feminist changes in our culture, men are still expected to pursue. It's nature. If a guy wants to marry you, he'll ask. He'll make it happen. If he already is unenthusiastic about being with you, that's a horrible way to go into marriage. Besides - it robs you of the challenge relished by so many Category 4 gals of breaking his spirit and driving him to despair from the heights of joy and optimism. It is much more fun when you can point out to him that he was eager to marry you. The look on his face as he tries to silently reconcile that fact with his misery should be priceless.

I would have like to have seen one of those guys on the TV show risk the boos of the audience and all of the TV talk-show and magazine trashing he would have received – by explaining exactly why he wasn't going to get married. The director of the show probably wouldn't have let him talk very long.

Smell the Roses With Each Other

I always appreciate it when women commentators note the struggles of today's man, especially when it comes to marriage, and offer solutions other than simply "Shut up, bring home the money, buy her flowers, and stop wanting sex!" Dr. Laura rightly points out to women who reject their husbands that they are passing up a good time for themselves, too. Well here's a recent column from Janice Shaw Crouse talking about stress and marital happiness.

Every time I write about marriage, I hear from readers who lament their sexless marriages. The comments are all from men, and they tell of years, sometimes decades, of living together without love, affection, or sexual intimacy.

Unmarried guys hear these accounts, too, and it doesn't encourage them to get married. Hearing guys who got married 40+ years ago, and thus have no clue what it is like today, tell them marriage is great doesn't mitigate this.

Such responses have come so often that I've taken note and relate them to the social science research that reveals even younger couples are increasingly under so much stress that a noticeable number of them are "too tired" for marital intimacy.

So much of our society has told women they need to have careers and children, and that they can do it at the same time. Add in all of the other things, and of course women are tired. Governments dependent on income taxes and businesses relying on more spending (and nonprofits wanting donations) are not going to encourage anyone to drop an income-earning job. Husbands are expected to take on more of work inside the home, in addition of whatever extra time he's putting in at the workplace trying to get ahead. So of course both of them get tired. Largely gone are the day when a man could walk to his job in the same town he lived in, put in a standard work day, and be done - and earn enough to support a family.

Crouse points out that it takes a conscious commitment to keep the marriage healthy. That is part of our marital vows to each other. It is more than simply promising not to have sex with other people. It is about looking after each other.

In other words, though lovemaking may seem like a luxury good that can be deferred without consequences, nothing could be further from the truth. Couples err when they allow the temporary absence of intimacy — during the stressful times that are sure to come — to become the norm of their lives. Those couples that become preoccupied with those things that are considered "necessary" find their existence increasingly dull and their relationship increasingly strained. Ironically, the things that seem so "necessary" at the time often turn out to be of little consequence in the long run.

Exactly. Why, exactly do we do the things we do? Because we think we are supposed to? Have we overextended ourselves? We have if we don't have time for each other. I didn't get married and become a father primarily so that I could spend all of my time and money keeping up appearances. I got married so that I could be a husband to my wife, not a roommate. I became a father so that I could parent a child, not be their mere babysitter and driver and ATM.

Arrested Twice in One Day

Jeffrey Gallo, 32, of Fullerton, California had a bad day recently.

First, he was arrested on suspicion of aggravated assault and domestic violence. Barbara Giasone of The Orange County Register picks up the story.

The incident began at 3 a.m. when Jeffrey Gallo, 32, reportedly argued with his male partner in the 2200 block of Deerpark Drive, said Lt. Craig Brower said.

The partner took off in the vehicle Gallo had been driving.

Then Gallo jumped into a second car and collided with the partner – sending the first car into a tree, police said.

Sounds like true love.

So eight hours later, after being released on bond, he came back to get some belonging from the car in the impound lot.

He allegedly told officers his aunt was the registered owner and had signed a release for Gallo to pick up the car.

But police found the actual registered owner, Brower said, who told an officer she had never signed a release.

Gallo was arrested again, this time on suspicion of forgery, and taken to jail for the second time, Brower said.

They should have booked him and released him to see if he could pull off a hat trick.

If you click through and scroll down, you can find some funny comments from the peanut gallery. Some of the best comments get censored, though.

Mr. Gallo: Get your act together. Part of that will be not obsessing about or getting violent with lovers. If someone drives you that crazy, they aren't right for you.

UPDATE (10am 12/16/2009 PST): I checked earlier this morning, and although I could still see the story listed on the paper's website, the links to the story do not work. I wonder if there is some special reason why?

CRI Back on SoCal Airwaves

To update something I wrote about in September – apparently, as of December, the Bible Answer Man program is back on KKLA 99.5 FM. Instead of an hour-long show at 3pm, it starts at 3:30pm and is half an hour. My guess is that half hour is condensed down from the daily hour-long show. Frank Pastore's show has returned to starting at 4pm.

I caught the start of the broadcast this past Friday. The first thing Hank did is ask for money.

I sure do miss the days when the broadcast would regularly have two co-hosts, usually a combination of Ron Rhodes, Elliot Miller, Ken Samples, and Paul Carden. Friday’s show would be a tape of the late founder, Walter Martin. It was nice to get perspectives from two different people.

Don't Shake the Baby

Yes, there are some great stepfathers out there. Statistically, however, a mother of a minor child who marries (or dates) is raising the risk that her child will be abused or murdered. Mothers of minor children should be wary of the guys willing to date them, and especially so of a guy willing to marry them when they are pregnant with another man's child. Here's another example. Robert J. Lopez reports at LATimes.com on the murder of a 2-month-old.

Santa Monica police have arrested a man in connection with the suspected shaking death of his 2-month-old stepdaughter, authorities said today.

How does a guy have a 2-month-old stepdaughter? He married a woman he knew was pregnant with another guy's baby or just gave birth to another guy's baby? In most cases, that indicates a guy is messed up or otherwise undesirable. Looks like he may have proven that.

Donald Hillman, 33, was arrested Monday by Santa Monica Police Department detectives in North Hollywood, authorities said.

Unless the news reports are missing something, it wasn't like this guy was "trapped" into being a father when he didn't want to be. And no, I'm not saying guys who are have a right to be violent. My point is that he actively, knowingly chose to take on this role, despite the apparent fact that he couldn't handle it. He didn't have to marry the child's mother. He had no legal, social, or moral obligation to do that. If she was conceiving children with someone else less than a year before, how well does he really know her?

Where did the child's mother find this guy? Did she have any indication about how violent he is? I don't see any mention of her in the news.

There were times I was very frustrated dealing with my screaming infants. Males literally have a different natural reaction to screaming babies than women do. But I'd rather pull out my own hair than hurt a baby.

I pray for justice and for some good to somehow come out of this. God has performed larger miracles.

These Studies are Really Pissing Me Off

There's a study that claims to reveal who the angriest Americans are. Here's the article by Andrea Thompson, senior writer at LiveScience.com.

Anger is more likely among the young, those with children at home, and the less educated, a new study finds.

My immediate thoughts...

Young people have raging hormones, less immediate control over their lives (as in, less money and experience), and less experience in dealing with their emotions. Maybe they haven't had time to get to a professional yet who can prescribe emotion-quelling meds to them.

Those with children at home have less sleep, more battles with someone living under the same roof, and more of a stake in the future, and thus are more likely to get angry (and let others know about it) about things that will cause the childless to shrug.

The less educated may be upset about having fewer options.

A national survey of 1,800 Americans aged 18 and older questioned participants on how and when they feel angry in order to build "a broader social portrait of anger in the United States," said study researcher Scott Schieman, now at the University of Toronto.

I'd be interested in a larger sampling.

While anger is a normal human emotion, it could be detrimental if you hold on to it too long. And those who express their anger might actually live longer than those who keep it bottled in, one study found.

The important thing is to find a healthy outlet, as well as to appropriately express anger at things that deserve it.

For one, people under 30 experienced anger of all forms or intensities more frequently than did older adults. This was mainly due to the fact that young people are more likely to be affected by three core stressors that can trigger angry feelings, Schieman said:

* Time pressures
* Economic hardship
* Interpersonal conflict at the workplace

Yup.

Schieman's findings will be detailed in a chapter of the forthcoming International Handbook of Anger, to be released in January 2010.

Now that should be an interesting read. When you buy your copy, try not to throw it at the bookstore clerk.

I'm glad this article doesn't try to say that all anger is bad, because it isn't. In some cases, people who are angry should be asking those who aren't, "Why aren't you angry?" Followers of Christ should note that Jesus demonstrated righteous and appropriate anger, as recorded in the Bible.