Here's an update on my fabulous life as a married man.
These days, when things are "good", it is only relatively so. "Good" means my wife is not being actively and openly hostile towards me. "Good" means my wife has thrown something into a pot to make a delicious dinner, and has actually done some laundry. It might even mean a few minutes of mercy sex! (Three week gaps seem to be the norm now.)
But then, out of the blue, things will turn bad.
This latest time was supposedly because...
For years now, my wife has been trying to drug me. This has continued even though with therapy and a new attitude and expectations, my behavior has generally and considerably improved. It has been a long, long time since, in a fit of extreme frustration, I have shouted loudly at my wife or the kids. I'm not perfect, of course. There are still times I am grumpy or sigh or get sarcastic, but I'm better and continue to get better. Still, I had to use a bargaining chip with my wife to keep the family together and told her I'd ask my therapist for an M.D. who could give me a medication. I did. We went to visit him. He realized I wasn't going to feel free to talk with my wife in the room, so he sent her out. He didn't give me much time. He prescribed a med. So, he wasn't telling me I should take that med, but he was making it possible for me to take it.
My wife picked it up from the pharmacy as fast as she could.
I read what the med mainly treats. I don't have those symptoms. I read what the side effects were. I don't want those. So, I pocketed the med and didn't take a single dose, but rather continued to "improve" my behavior. (I'm not really sure 'no longer caring' is an improvement for a married father, but that is the approach I took.)
My wife was pleased with me. She told me she noticed my improved behavior, and I let her believe I was taking the med.
Of course the refill time came around, and she asked if I was going to get a refill. I told her I would handle it.
A few more weeks down the line, now, she wanted clear, committal answers from me about whether or not I was refilling the med and taking it. I wasn't smart or fast enough to handle the situation better. She questioned my masculinity. I finally told her I'd never taken a single dose.
THAT is what started the last bad period. She was, and is, furious. Except when she's asleep, she has constantly been hostile towards me and verbally attacking me. I've tried to engage as little as possible. I've asked her what was more important, that I improve my behavior or that I be drugged? She knows she loses that one, so she's switched it to repeating over and over again that I lied to/deliberately deceived her, and has started to say I haven't gotten any better (unfortunately for her, I've kept all of her messages where she was praising my improved behavior). She has told me she can't trust me about anything about this, she has been insisting I answer direct yes-or-no questions about all sorts of things including whether or not I've ever had a physical or emotional affair during the time we've been together (absolutely not). She says she can't trust that I'm actually going to therapy, that she can't trust that I don't have STDs, that she can't trust I actually got a vasectomy... on and on it goes. She's declared our marriage will be sexless. I managed not to retort with sarcasm asking how that would actually be much of a change.
Reasoning with her is ineffective.
I really hate spending my time reading her angry, immature, delusional, belittling messages and having to respond to some of them. Too much of my life is being wasted doing that.
I've said we should resume going to family therapy. She was sour on that idea. Hey, I'd rather not go, either, but that's like saying I don't want to go to the ER. I'd rather not have been in an accident in the first place. She recently went and saw a therapist herself a grand total of one time, probably just so we could tell a social worker she was getting help after Strike Two.
I've pointed out to her that she recently told me she was going to start taking her meds as prescribed, rather than sporadically, and I'd assumed before that she already had been. So where does she get off being so upset that my behavior has improved without a med?
I'll tell you how.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Tom Leykis Doesn't Really Know All That Much About Religion
But then neither do a lot of religious people.
Tom Leykis is an Atheist. He makes no pretense of being Agnostic or anything like that. He states that there is no God, not that there might not be a God. He does admit his Atheism is a belief, but he falsely claims he doesn't try to get people to adopt his belief system.
The first two hours of his Thursday, January 8 show was the topic "Religion: Stupid". It was inspired, it sounds like, by the Islamist terrorist attacks that just happened in France.
1) His lumping of all religions together is like someone lumping all audio content shows (radio, podcasts, etc.) together and saying something like "Stephanie Miller did something terrible, so all audio content shows are stupid!" If Leykis wants to debate whether philosophical naturalism or a belief that there is a supernatural existence makes more sense, that's one thing, or debating the benefit of religious community, or ritual, or whatever, fine. But to lump all "religions" (by which he seems to mean anything that isn't Atheism or Agnosticism), which are highly diverse in beliefs, practices, and historical behavior, and then demand that someone has to defend them all, is an invalid exercise. I'm not obligated to defend belief systems and practices that are often exactly opposite of mine.
2) He repeats the common falsehood that there has been more death and destruction in the name of religion than anything else. First of all, "religion" is too broad a term. See #1. I know he doesn't consider Atheism a religion and since Atheistic rulers have been the biggest mass murders in history, then no religion can be.
Tom Leykis is an Atheist. He makes no pretense of being Agnostic or anything like that. He states that there is no God, not that there might not be a God. He does admit his Atheism is a belief, but he falsely claims he doesn't try to get people to adopt his belief system.
The first two hours of his Thursday, January 8 show was the topic "Religion: Stupid". It was inspired, it sounds like, by the Islamist terrorist attacks that just happened in France.
1) His lumping of all religions together is like someone lumping all audio content shows (radio, podcasts, etc.) together and saying something like "Stephanie Miller did something terrible, so all audio content shows are stupid!" If Leykis wants to debate whether philosophical naturalism or a belief that there is a supernatural existence makes more sense, that's one thing, or debating the benefit of religious community, or ritual, or whatever, fine. But to lump all "religions" (by which he seems to mean anything that isn't Atheism or Agnosticism), which are highly diverse in beliefs, practices, and historical behavior, and then demand that someone has to defend them all, is an invalid exercise. I'm not obligated to defend belief systems and practices that are often exactly opposite of mine.
2) He repeats the common falsehood that there has been more death and destruction in the name of religion than anything else. First of all, "religion" is too broad a term. See #1. I know he doesn't consider Atheism a religion and since Atheistic rulers have been the biggest mass murders in history, then no religion can be.
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
I Want You to Want Me
"Glen" has Dr. Laura's e-mail of the day:
Much longer than me.
And I thought once every three weeks, which is our frequency these days, was bad!
I identify with this man very much. That is very much how I feel.
That is where we differ. Yes, I'd want sex. No, I would not want another relationship - ever. I'm a loyal guy anyway, so I'm not going to ever jump ship because some other woman comes along. I may jump ship, but the only way I'd ever get into another relationship is if I would be a kept man. Otherwise, I do not want the risks or all of the trouble.
My wife has recently switched her depression medications. She made it clear that the only reason she was going to switch was to get some sex drive back and regain her ability to have a orgasm. From the way she said it and the words she used it was very clear that she doesn't care about sex and it doesn't bother her that she hasn't wanted sex or had orgasms. She isn't switching for her benefit, she is switching for mine. However, in saying that, she mostly removes the benefit to me, and so it defeats the purpose.
Sad.
I repeatedly and explicitly told her to take whatever medication was best for her. I don't want her back on the medication she was on when she last tried to kill herself quickly (as opposed to slowly, which she does by what she does and doesn't do in daily life).
This is all crap I specifically did NOT want to deal with, which is why I made it clear I wanted to only date-for-marriage someone who was healthy. It's too bad I trusted people to be honest rather than being suspicious and demanding records.
I have been married for 27 years.
Much longer than me.
And the time is coming up quickly on the one year anniversary since my wife and I have had sex.
And I thought once every three weeks, which is our frequency these days, was bad!
I totally accept 100% of the blame for this. You see...I stopped asking to have sex. Since then...nothing.
What I came to realize is that my wife has no interest in me sexually. And at this point the most un-appealing thing to me is to be with someone who is not interested.
I identify with this man very much. That is very much how I feel.
I can't imagine ever being intimate with my wife again. It's kind of sad...funny...frustrating...that the one person in this world I find more attractive than anyone else, doesn't want to be intimate with me.He goes on to say:
All I think about is being with someone else. In fact it is kind of like hating your job. I was always taught to keep the bad job until something else comes along. I guess I am waiting for that something/someone better to come along.
That is where we differ. Yes, I'd want sex. No, I would not want another relationship - ever. I'm a loyal guy anyway, so I'm not going to ever jump ship because some other woman comes along. I may jump ship, but the only way I'd ever get into another relationship is if I would be a kept man. Otherwise, I do not want the risks or all of the trouble.
My wife has recently switched her depression medications. She made it clear that the only reason she was going to switch was to get some sex drive back and regain her ability to have a orgasm. From the way she said it and the words she used it was very clear that she doesn't care about sex and it doesn't bother her that she hasn't wanted sex or had orgasms. She isn't switching for her benefit, she is switching for mine. However, in saying that, she mostly removes the benefit to me, and so it defeats the purpose.
Sad.
I repeatedly and explicitly told her to take whatever medication was best for her. I don't want her back on the medication she was on when she last tried to kill herself quickly (as opposed to slowly, which she does by what she does and doesn't do in daily life).
This is all crap I specifically did NOT want to deal with, which is why I made it clear I wanted to only date-for-marriage someone who was healthy. It's too bad I trusted people to be honest rather than being suspicious and demanding records.
Monday, January 05, 2015
Does It Ring True?
Professor Mike Adams, who I think is generally awesome when it comes to his columns and cleverness and his work fighting back against Leftist fascism in academia, has a column today comparing shacking up to marriage, with the title "The Ring Makes All the Difference". It plugs a book by Glenn Stanton called The Ring Makes All the Difference. He then goes on to list "ill effects" of shacking up.
Before we start, I want to make it clear that I think shacking up is a horrible idea. However, I'm at the point where I think marrying usually isn't a good idea, either.
Before we start, I want to make it clear that I think shacking up is a horrible idea. However, I'm at the point where I think marrying usually isn't a good idea, either.
In marriages, male-female ratios of violence are roughly equal – with women and men just as likely to initiate violence against their spouses. However, in cohabiting relationships, men are far more likely to initiate violence.Uh, so what do you mean? Getting married makes women just as violent as men?
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Will Tom Ride Off Into the Sunset?
Although I disagree with him on certain very important fundamentals about life, the universe, and everything, I have long said that Tom Leykis is an excellent talk show host and there are many things about which he is right and makes a lot of sense. I admire what he has been doing with his venture, the New Normal, and especially what he's been doing with his flagship program, The Tom Leykis Show.
He clearly enjoys doing his show, but he does not want it to be some hobby he pays for. He wants his business to be profitable, and he's set a rapidly-approaching deadline to make it happen. He's even made it possible for his listeners and other observers to know how close he is to reaching his goal by earlier announcing a minimum number of subscriptions he needs to secure and giving updates on how many more need to be secured to reach that goal.
A certain amount of transparency is one of the things that makes his venture different from terrestrial radio.
If his goal is not reached and he isn't able to wave a profit statement in the air and mock the big radio companies who are billions of dollars in debt, his announced plans are basically to stop producing his show and to spend more time enjoying life in other ways. He's been fiscally responsible enough and had a lucrative enough contract when he worked for corporate radio that he can afford to do that.
He clearly enjoys doing his show, but he does not want it to be some hobby he pays for. He wants his business to be profitable, and he's set a rapidly-approaching deadline to make it happen. He's even made it possible for his listeners and other observers to know how close he is to reaching his goal by earlier announcing a minimum number of subscriptions he needs to secure and giving updates on how many more need to be secured to reach that goal.
A certain amount of transparency is one of the things that makes his venture different from terrestrial radio.
If his goal is not reached and he isn't able to wave a profit statement in the air and mock the big radio companies who are billions of dollars in debt, his announced plans are basically to stop producing his show and to spend more time enjoying life in other ways. He's been fiscally responsible enough and had a lucrative enough contract when he worked for corporate radio that he can afford to do that.
Monday, December 08, 2014
Crunching Some Numbers
The biggest deficiency in my overall fiscal responsibility has been not having a formal budget. I realize this is a big, big deficiency, but I've always been in the habit of not using credit cards that charge fees, always paying off credit cards so as to accrue no interest, paying bills on time, saving for the future, etc.
When I first was working full-time, I had enough to cover my expenses and put some money away in a Roth IRA, but I realized I needed to earn more, and since I wasn't getting any traction in entering my goal career, I took a job my university degree allowed me to take because it was a university degree, not because of what I'd studied. I was able to do that while still keeping my other job, but on a part-time basis. I hadn't expected to be able to keep my old job, so that was "extra" money. For the first time since becoming an adult, I no longer had to worry about money. Yet, I was still frugal. In addition to contributing to my Roth IRA, I had paid off my car early and saved up roughly one year's gross salary. Heck, I was working too much to spend the money anyway.
And then I got married and paid for most of the wedding and a honeymoon.
And then my part-time job ended.
And then we had kids.
When I first was working full-time, I had enough to cover my expenses and put some money away in a Roth IRA, but I realized I needed to earn more, and since I wasn't getting any traction in entering my goal career, I took a job my university degree allowed me to take because it was a university degree, not because of what I'd studied. I was able to do that while still keeping my other job, but on a part-time basis. I hadn't expected to be able to keep my old job, so that was "extra" money. For the first time since becoming an adult, I no longer had to worry about money. Yet, I was still frugal. In addition to contributing to my Roth IRA, I had paid off my car early and saved up roughly one year's gross salary. Heck, I was working too much to spend the money anyway.
And then I got married and paid for most of the wedding and a honeymoon.
And then my part-time job ended.
And then we had kids.
Tuesday, December 02, 2014
Strike Two
Time for an update on what's been going on with my marriage. If you've been to this blog multiple times before, you might be fine skipping the background.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Are These Double Standards or Not?
I'll get back to blogging about my marriage and life sooner or later. For now, it is time for another entry dealing with things said by my favorite (and I'm NOT being sarcastic - she's awesome) talk show host.
Recently, a woman called Dr. Laura to ask about having an open or polyamorous marriage or relationship. Dr. Laura asked if the woman's boyfriend of husband was asking for it, but that got shot down immediately by the woman saying it was what she wanted. This was clearly a Clueless Caller type #2 from my Dr. Laura Show Bingo.
Actually, I think Dr. Laura was very gentle with the woman, while still making it clear that since typical marriage vows include "forsaking all others", having sex with anyone other than your spouse (even with your spouse participating, present, or your spouse's permission) is a violation of the "sacred" vows. The caller probably had a specific third person in mind, but I don't recall she indicated whether the third person was a woman or a man. Since Dr. Laura doesn't believe bisexuality exists, if the caller had mentioned it was a woman, Dr. Laura would have told her she's a lesbian. Anyway, so the part of the vows (assuming someone even says them) including "forsaking all others" mandates sexual exclusivity. I agree with that. Here's where the possible double standard comes in. Most people who say that vow also vow "until death do us part", but Dr. Laura apparently considers that vow less sacred, at least if the married couple has no minor children together. See #15 on the Bingo sheet.
This previous entry (see #7 and #11) touches on these issues.
The other possible double standard comes with how people meet the person they're dating. Dr. Laura is, how should I put it, less than impressed with online dating/matchmaking services. She flat-out tells people not to use them. A caller toward the end of the second hour on Thursday, 11/20/2014, had been dating a guy for only a month after finding him through a dating website. Let me repeat: only a month. Dr. Laura told her it was mandatory she meet his friends and/or relatives before having another date with him. And yes, while Dr. Laura advises people looking to date (which means for Dr. Laura someone looking to get married) tell the people they respect and admire in their life, whose judgment they trust that they want to be formally introduced to quality people. The possible double standard is that I've never heard her tell someone who met their date at work, or at the gym, or anywhere else that didn't involve first making contact online, that they had to meet their date's family or friends by one month in.
I agree that, if you're looking for a spouse, it is very important verify the person is who they represent themselves to be, and it is important to meet their loved ones or anyone else who is going to be a regular part of their life and see the interpersonal dynamics at work. Meeting someone through an online connection doesn't make it more or less necessary.
So... what do you think? Are these double standards? Are there logical explanations for them not being double standards? Again, I agree with the underlying principles of the importance of monogamy and really knowing who a person is.
Recently, a woman called Dr. Laura to ask about having an open or polyamorous marriage or relationship. Dr. Laura asked if the woman's boyfriend of husband was asking for it, but that got shot down immediately by the woman saying it was what she wanted. This was clearly a Clueless Caller type #2 from my Dr. Laura Show Bingo.
Actually, I think Dr. Laura was very gentle with the woman, while still making it clear that since typical marriage vows include "forsaking all others", having sex with anyone other than your spouse (even with your spouse participating, present, or your spouse's permission) is a violation of the "sacred" vows. The caller probably had a specific third person in mind, but I don't recall she indicated whether the third person was a woman or a man. Since Dr. Laura doesn't believe bisexuality exists, if the caller had mentioned it was a woman, Dr. Laura would have told her she's a lesbian. Anyway, so the part of the vows (assuming someone even says them) including "forsaking all others" mandates sexual exclusivity. I agree with that. Here's where the possible double standard comes in. Most people who say that vow also vow "until death do us part", but Dr. Laura apparently considers that vow less sacred, at least if the married couple has no minor children together. See #15 on the Bingo sheet.
This previous entry (see #7 and #11) touches on these issues.
The other possible double standard comes with how people meet the person they're dating. Dr. Laura is, how should I put it, less than impressed with online dating/matchmaking services. She flat-out tells people not to use them. A caller toward the end of the second hour on Thursday, 11/20/2014, had been dating a guy for only a month after finding him through a dating website. Let me repeat: only a month. Dr. Laura told her it was mandatory she meet his friends and/or relatives before having another date with him. And yes, while Dr. Laura advises people looking to date (which means for Dr. Laura someone looking to get married) tell the people they respect and admire in their life, whose judgment they trust that they want to be formally introduced to quality people. The possible double standard is that I've never heard her tell someone who met their date at work, or at the gym, or anywhere else that didn't involve first making contact online, that they had to meet their date's family or friends by one month in.
I agree that, if you're looking for a spouse, it is very important verify the person is who they represent themselves to be, and it is important to meet their loved ones or anyone else who is going to be a regular part of their life and see the interpersonal dynamics at work. Meeting someone through an online connection doesn't make it more or less necessary.
So... what do you think? Are these double standards? Are there logical explanations for them not being double standards? Again, I agree with the underlying principles of the importance of monogamy and really knowing who a person is.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Haven't I Seen This Before?
There is so very much to tell you, dear reader.
For now, I'll leave it at this:
My wife is talking exactly like a textbook American Wife About To File For Divorce. Of course I'm busting my ass trying to make things better and hoping like crazy that divorce doesn't happen, because I don't want to shuttle my kids back and forth and I do not want to pay for two households for the rest of my life. Right now, she says she wants what basically amounts to a co-parenting roommate situation. Of course, you and I know what she wants can change for the worst at any moment, for no reason other than a hormone being released into her system. It's like strongly suspecting you know the awful end of a movie or video and hoping you're wrong and watching exactly what you don't want to happen, happen - in slow motion.
I am now more strongly on the side of encouraging most men to join the marriage strike.
Go back and read past entries (the "Me" tab might help) to understand some of the issues involved.
For now, I'll leave it at this:
My wife is talking exactly like a textbook American Wife About To File For Divorce. Of course I'm busting my ass trying to make things better and hoping like crazy that divorce doesn't happen, because I don't want to shuttle my kids back and forth and I do not want to pay for two households for the rest of my life. Right now, she says she wants what basically amounts to a co-parenting roommate situation. Of course, you and I know what she wants can change for the worst at any moment, for no reason other than a hormone being released into her system. It's like strongly suspecting you know the awful end of a movie or video and hoping you're wrong and watching exactly what you don't want to happen, happen - in slow motion.
I am now more strongly on the side of encouraging most men to join the marriage strike.
Go back and read past entries (the "Me" tab might help) to understand some of the issues involved.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
A Shack-Up Honey Calls My Favorite Talk Show Host
Upfront: 1) I love Dr. Laura's show, books, website, and Facebook page, and I almost always agree with her and recognize that she's helped millions people. 2) I agree shacking up is bad and I strongly advise against it.
Almost 32 minutes into the third hour of her show on Tuesday, Dr. Laura took a call from a woman who said she is in an eight-year relationship and they've been "living together" for three, and she described her relationship as great all around and in glowing terms, even using the words "respect" and "sacrifice", but she was saying he deflects talk of marriage with "it isn't the right time".
(I wonder if that woman can explain why she even wants to bother to get married in honest terms that doesn't involve a series of parties in which she'll be the focus or community property. But I digress.)
This prompted Dr. Laura to tear into her about shacking up. "In my day, that wouldn't have flown." Well, right, there were a lot fewer people shacking up back then, but women also had fewer real choices in life. A sexual harassment lawsuit also wouldn't have flown, for example. Dr. Laura talked about how she shouldn't "hump him, clean for him, and be his companion unless he's willing to lay down his life" for her.
Almost 32 minutes into the third hour of her show on Tuesday, Dr. Laura took a call from a woman who said she is in an eight-year relationship and they've been "living together" for three, and she described her relationship as great all around and in glowing terms, even using the words "respect" and "sacrifice", but she was saying he deflects talk of marriage with "it isn't the right time".
(I wonder if that woman can explain why she even wants to bother to get married in honest terms that doesn't involve a series of parties in which she'll be the focus or community property. But I digress.)
This prompted Dr. Laura to tear into her about shacking up. "In my day, that wouldn't have flown." Well, right, there were a lot fewer people shacking up back then, but women also had fewer real choices in life. A sexual harassment lawsuit also wouldn't have flown, for example. Dr. Laura talked about how she shouldn't "hump him, clean for him, and be his companion unless he's willing to lay down his life" for her.
Wednesday, November 05, 2014
The Back Door and Sexual Orientation
If you can't tell from the title, his entry is going to deal with some very "adult" topics.
So my favorite female talk show host I frequently write about on this blog, whose show and books and website and Facebook page I think are generally great, took a call in her third hour on Monday's show from a wife concerned because her husband of seven years wants her to use a "strap-on" on him.
Both the caller and the host went right to "He might be gay," with the host advising that the caller go through his computer with him to see what's on there.
I think a little more nuanced approach was in order.
So my favorite female talk show host I frequently write about on this blog, whose show and books and website and Facebook page I think are generally great, took a call in her third hour on Monday's show from a wife concerned because her husband of seven years wants her to use a "strap-on" on him.
Both the caller and the host went right to "He might be gay," with the host advising that the caller go through his computer with him to see what's on there.
I think a little more nuanced approach was in order.
Monday, October 20, 2014
My Wife Wants to Know Where the Money Went
Last year, we got a little money from the sale of a property.
Now, we're "struggling" with a lack of cash. I use the quotation marks because we have several accounts intended as various retirement accounts to which I've been contributing. Some experts say "pay yourself ten percent first" and we're doing more than that as far as putting money into those accounts.
I bring in more than the average income for where we live.
But we are struggling to pay off our credit cards every month so we don't get charged interest or fees (which we've successfully avoided, as usual).
So where did the money go? Well, we've had higher than "usual" expenses for the last 18 months or so. My wife and I listed some of them to each other. The one thing she didn't bring up that I'm not going to bring up is... HER MEDICAL EXPENSES. Which... is... one... reason.. why... it... is... such... a... problem... that... she... wasn't... honest... with... me... before... we... married... and... kept... lying... at... least... until... earlier... this... year... long... after... we... brought... children... into... this... mess.
Now, my wife has access to all of our accounts. She can see this stuff for herself.
Our vehicles are not new, and so they require a lot of upkeep (but at least there are no payments). Her dog is quite expensive with the vet visits, many of which could be prevented if my wife took care of her own dog. There's therapists. Yes, multiple. There was a problem with the house (the house she loved so much when it was time to buy but now admits was a mistake) and that problem had to be corrected and THAT took the biggest chunk of the money. The insurance company didn't help, but after they dropped by for a visit they did demand some tree trimming - $$$. The electric bill for the house is ridiculous because of inefficiencies. We spent more on gasoline, since some of her family moved further away and it was important for her to visit her family and mine with the kids so that she would have help with them.
Paying other people to look after our kids in ways that my wife was supposed to is also very expensive. Some of the money went to cable and other expensive entertainment we no longer buy. There was a trip out of state (complete with our kids) for a funeral, a trip in the state, and more recently, airline tickets we can't use right now that will cost us to change or cancel and the leftover money we don't get back but can theoretically use in the future. Right. There have been HUNDREDS of dollars spent on our kids' birthday parties, and let's not forget Christmas! There are new activities and sports for the kids, we each "need" iPads. We've also "needed" replacement iPads after unfortunate effects of gravity.
I also started up monthly payments into an additional insurance/retirement thing that benefits my wife and kids, not me in the slightest. Maybe I shouldn't have done that!
And maybe if my wife prepared meals more than once every week or three, we'd spend less money on fast food.
So yeah... where did the money go?
Now, we're "struggling" with a lack of cash. I use the quotation marks because we have several accounts intended as various retirement accounts to which I've been contributing. Some experts say "pay yourself ten percent first" and we're doing more than that as far as putting money into those accounts.
I bring in more than the average income for where we live.
But we are struggling to pay off our credit cards every month so we don't get charged interest or fees (which we've successfully avoided, as usual).
So where did the money go? Well, we've had higher than "usual" expenses for the last 18 months or so. My wife and I listed some of them to each other. The one thing she didn't bring up that I'm not going to bring up is... HER MEDICAL EXPENSES. Which... is... one... reason.. why... it... is... such... a... problem... that... she... wasn't... honest... with... me... before... we... married... and... kept... lying... at... least... until... earlier... this... year... long... after... we... brought... children... into... this... mess.
Now, my wife has access to all of our accounts. She can see this stuff for herself.
Our vehicles are not new, and so they require a lot of upkeep (but at least there are no payments). Her dog is quite expensive with the vet visits, many of which could be prevented if my wife took care of her own dog. There's therapists. Yes, multiple. There was a problem with the house (the house she loved so much when it was time to buy but now admits was a mistake) and that problem had to be corrected and THAT took the biggest chunk of the money. The insurance company didn't help, but after they dropped by for a visit they did demand some tree trimming - $$$. The electric bill for the house is ridiculous because of inefficiencies. We spent more on gasoline, since some of her family moved further away and it was important for her to visit her family and mine with the kids so that she would have help with them.
Paying other people to look after our kids in ways that my wife was supposed to is also very expensive. Some of the money went to cable and other expensive entertainment we no longer buy. There was a trip out of state (complete with our kids) for a funeral, a trip in the state, and more recently, airline tickets we can't use right now that will cost us to change or cancel and the leftover money we don't get back but can theoretically use in the future. Right. There have been HUNDREDS of dollars spent on our kids' birthday parties, and let's not forget Christmas! There are new activities and sports for the kids, we each "need" iPads. We've also "needed" replacement iPads after unfortunate effects of gravity.
I also started up monthly payments into an additional insurance/retirement thing that benefits my wife and kids, not me in the slightest. Maybe I shouldn't have done that!
And maybe if my wife prepared meals more than once every week or three, we'd spend less money on fast food.
So yeah... where did the money go?
Thursday, October 16, 2014
It's Deja Vu All Over Again
I dislike when talk radio broadcasts and/or their subsequent podcasts do not make it clear (or even hide the fact) that they are rebroadcasts.
I get that some might not do it because it hurts ratings. After all, if someone has already heard that segment, hour, or entire show, they might not listen to it again. I've caught myself listening until there's a call I remember and then I stop, so that tactic has worked on me. However, when they'll clearly note it is a "best of" sometimes, but not other times, I wonder why they can do it those sometimes and then they don't do it that other time.
I subscribe to Dennis Prager's podcasts and Dr. Laura's podcasts. I can listen to Prager live for free, but I don't have satellite radio so listening to Dr. Laura is another matter. I listen to every NEW hour of Dr. Laura. So when a "best of" is noted in the podcast listings, I don't brother to listen. I can see why Dr. Laura might want me to listen to the same hours again, since she does do "in-show" commercials. The breaks are cut out of the podcasts and I'd fast forward through them anyway. They get my subscription money either way. Sometimes the "best of" shows are labeled as such (both in text and in the introductory audio itself), and sometimes, annoyingly, they aren't. Dennis Prager's "best of" and guest hosting hours are always labeled as such. The topics of the hours are also listed, so I can decide if I want to bother to download them or not in the first place. Since they get my money anyway and Prager does NOT do "in-show" commercials and the podcasts cut out the breaks, it doesn't make a difference to them.
I try to listen to Michael Medved if my schedule permits and the topic of the hour interests me. Often his "best of" shows are NOT labeled, and again, that's annoying but at least I'm not paying to hear him. I also listen to Tom Leykis for free, again, if the topic interests me. I NEVER listen the last Wednesday of the year when he has that ridiculous "Ask a Mexican" guy on. That guy is NOT Mexican, as far as I know. If you're born in the USA, you're an American. That guy calls himself a Mexican anyway, then breaks out the fake accent for certain words, and last I heard, kept talking about Orange County as being some horribly racist place (so racist most of the "minority" populations keep growing there). So there's three hours I never hear.
Stand to Reason has free podcasts (STR is listener-supported) of its weekly show. Usually, if the broadcast show is a repeat or a lecture the host made elsewhere rather than the talk show, they won't bother to put it out as a podcast, and that's great by me. STR also lists the topics of the podcast and where in the podcast they start. VERY convenient.
I've fallen way behind on Bible Answer Man podcasts, which are free (listener-supported) and are made of the broadcast talk show. Again, they list the topics and so there have been episodes I haven't bothered to download. However, if I recall correctly, the text describing the podcasts doesn't usually note when it is a duplicate (because the broadcast was a rebroadcast).
The bottom line is that I wish all broadcasts of podcasts of radio/audio talk shows would make it clear before I bother to listen or download if they're a best of. If I missed the original, I just might listen.
I get that some might not do it because it hurts ratings. After all, if someone has already heard that segment, hour, or entire show, they might not listen to it again. I've caught myself listening until there's a call I remember and then I stop, so that tactic has worked on me. However, when they'll clearly note it is a "best of" sometimes, but not other times, I wonder why they can do it those sometimes and then they don't do it that other time.
I subscribe to Dennis Prager's podcasts and Dr. Laura's podcasts. I can listen to Prager live for free, but I don't have satellite radio so listening to Dr. Laura is another matter. I listen to every NEW hour of Dr. Laura. So when a "best of" is noted in the podcast listings, I don't brother to listen. I can see why Dr. Laura might want me to listen to the same hours again, since she does do "in-show" commercials. The breaks are cut out of the podcasts and I'd fast forward through them anyway. They get my subscription money either way. Sometimes the "best of" shows are labeled as such (both in text and in the introductory audio itself), and sometimes, annoyingly, they aren't. Dennis Prager's "best of" and guest hosting hours are always labeled as such. The topics of the hours are also listed, so I can decide if I want to bother to download them or not in the first place. Since they get my money anyway and Prager does NOT do "in-show" commercials and the podcasts cut out the breaks, it doesn't make a difference to them.
I try to listen to Michael Medved if my schedule permits and the topic of the hour interests me. Often his "best of" shows are NOT labeled, and again, that's annoying but at least I'm not paying to hear him. I also listen to Tom Leykis for free, again, if the topic interests me. I NEVER listen the last Wednesday of the year when he has that ridiculous "Ask a Mexican" guy on. That guy is NOT Mexican, as far as I know. If you're born in the USA, you're an American. That guy calls himself a Mexican anyway, then breaks out the fake accent for certain words, and last I heard, kept talking about Orange County as being some horribly racist place (so racist most of the "minority" populations keep growing there). So there's three hours I never hear.
Stand to Reason has free podcasts (STR is listener-supported) of its weekly show. Usually, if the broadcast show is a repeat or a lecture the host made elsewhere rather than the talk show, they won't bother to put it out as a podcast, and that's great by me. STR also lists the topics of the podcast and where in the podcast they start. VERY convenient.
I've fallen way behind on Bible Answer Man podcasts, which are free (listener-supported) and are made of the broadcast talk show. Again, they list the topics and so there have been episodes I haven't bothered to download. However, if I recall correctly, the text describing the podcasts doesn't usually note when it is a duplicate (because the broadcast was a rebroadcast).
The bottom line is that I wish all broadcasts of podcasts of radio/audio talk shows would make it clear before I bother to listen or download if they're a best of. If I missed the original, I just might listen.
Monday, October 06, 2014
Tying the Hands of Parents Behind Their Backs
If you're looking to have as little government involvement in your life, then you have another reason to NOT have children.
Having children means the government will have a foot in the door of your home. Even if you avoid government schools and send your kids to private school or you homeschool them, all it takes is for someone to report being concerned about your children to get the government involved in your home, even if there is not even a hint of abuse or neglect of your children. It can be someone in your extended family. It could be some stranger in the parking lot of a supermarket. It could be a neighbor.
Even if the police or social workers, after getting into your private life, determine everything is fine for your kids, there will now be a file and a record of them having gotten involved, and you're on your way to losing the benefit of the doubt.
The recent high-profile case of a National Football League player apparently repeatedly striking his young son with a switch is an extreme case. I'm not talking about something as extreme as that. How about a light swat in the tush with an open hand? Some people consider that abuse.
So there's the...
Having children means the government will have a foot in the door of your home. Even if you avoid government schools and send your kids to private school or you homeschool them, all it takes is for someone to report being concerned about your children to get the government involved in your home, even if there is not even a hint of abuse or neglect of your children. It can be someone in your extended family. It could be some stranger in the parking lot of a supermarket. It could be a neighbor.
Even if the police or social workers, after getting into your private life, determine everything is fine for your kids, there will now be a file and a record of them having gotten involved, and you're on your way to losing the benefit of the doubt.
The recent high-profile case of a National Football League player apparently repeatedly striking his young son with a switch is an extreme case. I'm not talking about something as extreme as that. How about a light swat in the tush with an open hand? Some people consider that abuse.
So there's the...
Thursday, October 02, 2014
When the Chickens Come Home to Choke
Warning: this entry deals explicitly with adult matters such as masturbation and marital sexuality.
Monday, September 29, 2014
Opening the Vent
According to the always-reliable Wikipedia, I, by myself, make a little more than the statewide median family income, which is more than the median household income. I’m not sure what constitutes a "family" vs. a "household", but there you go. It's even better when comparing to the medians for my city. Aside from a mortgage on my wife's part, neither of us came to the marriage with debt. Yet here we are, struggling financially. What I mean by that is we're not saving as much for retirement as I think we should and we have almost no spare liquid funds unless we want to cash in some of our retirement investments, which I don't think would be a good idea. We're not currently giving to our church. We had a vacation (the first "real" one in quite some time) planned but we had to cancel/postpone it and now we're trying to deal with losing some of the money we already put into it.
So when my wife informed me we were finally, after months of her writing an e-mail to set something up, going to be meeting with someone from our church, I thought back to that e-mail, and due to that I figured this meeting was mostly going to be about finances and what disability aid or programs they knew about, since my wife is disabled (even though she was able to work full-time before we married). I felt kind of silly seeking help from others when I make more the median for our city, but I agreed to go anyway.
I ended up wishing it had been about money.
I should have been tipped off that the meeting wasn't quite going to be what I thought, since the night before, my wife actually gave a slight indication that she was looking forward to sex, and it had only been a week since the last session.
In the meeting were the woman to whom she wrote, and two men. One of the men I recognized as someone who does things like give the "sex talk" session of the church's premarital counseling (which we'd been through), during which he tells the couples considering or planning marriage that marital lovemaking is given to us to enjoy in many ways and many places. Basically, he's there to tell people that sex is allowed once they're married, and it doesn't have to be the missionary position.
But back to the meeting. In the meeting, we focused on:
Let's go over each of those.
So when my wife informed me we were finally, after months of her writing an e-mail to set something up, going to be meeting with someone from our church, I thought back to that e-mail, and due to that I figured this meeting was mostly going to be about finances and what disability aid or programs they knew about, since my wife is disabled (even though she was able to work full-time before we married). I felt kind of silly seeking help from others when I make more the median for our city, but I agreed to go anyway.
I ended up wishing it had been about money.
I should have been tipped off that the meeting wasn't quite going to be what I thought, since the night before, my wife actually gave a slight indication that she was looking forward to sex, and it had only been a week since the last session.
In the meeting were the woman to whom she wrote, and two men. One of the men I recognized as someone who does things like give the "sex talk" session of the church's premarital counseling (which we'd been through), during which he tells the couples considering or planning marriage that marital lovemaking is given to us to enjoy in many ways and many places. Basically, he's there to tell people that sex is allowed once they're married, and it doesn't have to be the missionary position.
But back to the meeting. In the meeting, we focused on:
- That my son loses his temper, like I do, and I should be open to being drugged and having my son drugged.
- That my daughter is a messy hoarder, like I am.
- That our house is a mess and we could use some help having it organized and cleaned.
Let's go over each of those.
Monday, September 22, 2014
The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow
Things were pretty bleak when I wrote this.
Things are slightly better now, although our home is slipping back into a mess.
The main reason things are better is that I'm paying a significant amount of money for others to take over more responsibilities we'd originally planned for my wife to handle. This expense was unplanned. It has done a number on our finances, which means we will suffer in the future as a result, and we're going without certain wants right now, but for the time being things are better as far as our needs.
I think back to when I was single and I was continuously building up my liquid savings, fully funding my Roth IRA, etc. Whenever an "emergency" came up like significant car work, I didn't have to worry about it. I knew I could pay it. I rented an apartment back then, and I know that if I had just stayed that course, I could have bought a nice (not big, but big enough for a single guy) in a nice area at the bottom the market, maybe paying cash for half of the price (which is no small feat in the greater Los Angeles area). When this sort of thing is what you daydream about, you know you've screwed yourself.
More "good news" is that we went only one week between having sex, instead of two or three. I remember when we felt bad for my wife's sister and her husband because we found out that they were only doing it once per week. That was back in the early days of our marriage, when my wife knew she had to keep me around long enough to get pregnant.
The recent sex was Clinton-style. I'd wanted to enjoy my wife's body, caress her, bring pleasure to her, etc., but I wasn't about to turn down my "reward" for good behavior. Yup. It's like that. If I'm not jumping through the hoops just right, I get punished with withheld sex. If I do things just right, my wife might engage in the chore of actually having some form of sex with me. She actually did a pretty good job (no pun intended), even though she avoided some things she knows I like that she used to do.
Hey single guys! You, too, can have a life like this. Just legally sign over half of everything you'll ever earn and pay for a series of huge parties where your wife gets to play the queen.
Things are slightly better now, although our home is slipping back into a mess.
The main reason things are better is that I'm paying a significant amount of money for others to take over more responsibilities we'd originally planned for my wife to handle. This expense was unplanned. It has done a number on our finances, which means we will suffer in the future as a result, and we're going without certain wants right now, but for the time being things are better as far as our needs.
I think back to when I was single and I was continuously building up my liquid savings, fully funding my Roth IRA, etc. Whenever an "emergency" came up like significant car work, I didn't have to worry about it. I knew I could pay it. I rented an apartment back then, and I know that if I had just stayed that course, I could have bought a nice (not big, but big enough for a single guy) in a nice area at the bottom the market, maybe paying cash for half of the price (which is no small feat in the greater Los Angeles area). When this sort of thing is what you daydream about, you know you've screwed yourself.
More "good news" is that we went only one week between having sex, instead of two or three. I remember when we felt bad for my wife's sister and her husband because we found out that they were only doing it once per week. That was back in the early days of our marriage, when my wife knew she had to keep me around long enough to get pregnant.
The recent sex was Clinton-style. I'd wanted to enjoy my wife's body, caress her, bring pleasure to her, etc., but I wasn't about to turn down my "reward" for good behavior. Yup. It's like that. If I'm not jumping through the hoops just right, I get punished with withheld sex. If I do things just right, my wife might engage in the chore of actually having some form of sex with me. She actually did a pretty good job (no pun intended), even though she avoided some things she knows I like that she used to do.
Hey single guys! You, too, can have a life like this. Just legally sign over half of everything you'll ever earn and pay for a series of huge parties where your wife gets to play the queen.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Boyfriends and Husbands
I'll start off with my usual disclaimer about Dr. Laura: I love her show (obviously, since I listen to every minute of it), I think she's awesome, and I think she's done and continues to do a whole lot of good for people.
I think I've written about this element of her approach before, but I can't look it up right now. I was listening to a call that I think was on yesterday's show that prompted these thoughts (again).
The well-being of children is obviously the highest priority of Dr. Laura. For example, unless someone is abusive, Dr. Laura recommends people with minor children stick out an unhappy marriage and put on a polite, even pleasant front for the kids, until the kids are grown. Sometimes, she stresses how important the marital vows are, and why they make a marriage different from a shack-up or mere girlfriend/boyfriend relationship, but other times the vows don't seem to matter much, like when a marriage doesn't involve minor children. In situations like that, she may say "You made a mistake. Go home to your mother." and divorce is the recommendation. So, as long as we're not talking about abuse, she'll tell people to stick it out if there are minor children when there are problems she'd otherwise tell people should prompt them to leave.
That's relevant to the topic I wanted to focus on:
Guys viewing "adult" media.
She usually tells as worried wife and mother that it is not a problem, or at least no big deal, if her husband is viewing material depicting (adult) women or men with women, as long as the husband isn't neglecting her or his responsibilities, and that just about all men do it. (Dr. Laura has a large evangelical audience, and viewing such material is frequently depicted as extremely harmful and dangerous in evangelical circles, so I picture shocked women all over North America, most of them gluttons, gossips, and greedy - about which the Bible definitely has something to say even if evangelical preachers would rather spend the time knocking "adult" media.)
However, I've noticed her advice is usually very different if the worried woman is not yet married to the man in question. For example, a young woman called and said her long-term boyfriend had a "collection" of pictures on his phone, and Dr. Laura told her to run. In this particular case, I'd chalk it up to their ages, or to Dr. Laura saving the guy from having a whiny girlfriend/wife, if Dr. Laura hadn't added that she feels sorry for any woman who marries the guy. She tends to describe unmarried guys doing this as having a serious character flaw, while she takes a completely different tone to husbands doing this.
I don't think it is just a matter of what Dr. Laura had for breakfast. She's usually very consistent.
It was not implied that the pictures on the phone are of women the boyfriend knew, but it seemed to me the girlfriend was saying this was stuff he's collected surfing online. Dr. Laura is especially averse to guys having naked pictures of past sexual partners, especially in digital format. I won't belabor why.
Giving Dr. Laura a generous assumption of consistency and the benefit of the doubt would indicate to me that she thinks those husbands are creeps but wants their marriages to be pleasant and so she never attacks the character of those guys when their wives call. The other possibility I see, cynically, and I think I've brought this up here before, is that the principle being applied is that a married man and earned/bought the "right" to enjoy seeing nude women and the visual/auditory stimulation of sex - that men should "pay for sex" and if they have, then they are entitled to it, and if they haven't, they shouldn't get any semblance of it. Thus, husbands (who've paid for sex) should be able to view the material without their wife even complaining about it, while a boyfriend, who hasn't paid (as much) for sex, should be dumped.
Maybe we'll get a commentary offering clarification? Dr. Laura has great commentaries, and any time she gives additional insight to approach, I learn something.
I think I've written about this element of her approach before, but I can't look it up right now. I was listening to a call that I think was on yesterday's show that prompted these thoughts (again).
The well-being of children is obviously the highest priority of Dr. Laura. For example, unless someone is abusive, Dr. Laura recommends people with minor children stick out an unhappy marriage and put on a polite, even pleasant front for the kids, until the kids are grown. Sometimes, she stresses how important the marital vows are, and why they make a marriage different from a shack-up or mere girlfriend/boyfriend relationship, but other times the vows don't seem to matter much, like when a marriage doesn't involve minor children. In situations like that, she may say "You made a mistake. Go home to your mother." and divorce is the recommendation. So, as long as we're not talking about abuse, she'll tell people to stick it out if there are minor children when there are problems she'd otherwise tell people should prompt them to leave.
That's relevant to the topic I wanted to focus on:
Guys viewing "adult" media.
She usually tells as worried wife and mother that it is not a problem, or at least no big deal, if her husband is viewing material depicting (adult) women or men with women, as long as the husband isn't neglecting her or his responsibilities, and that just about all men do it. (Dr. Laura has a large evangelical audience, and viewing such material is frequently depicted as extremely harmful and dangerous in evangelical circles, so I picture shocked women all over North America, most of them gluttons, gossips, and greedy - about which the Bible definitely has something to say even if evangelical preachers would rather spend the time knocking "adult" media.)
However, I've noticed her advice is usually very different if the worried woman is not yet married to the man in question. For example, a young woman called and said her long-term boyfriend had a "collection" of pictures on his phone, and Dr. Laura told her to run. In this particular case, I'd chalk it up to their ages, or to Dr. Laura saving the guy from having a whiny girlfriend/wife, if Dr. Laura hadn't added that she feels sorry for any woman who marries the guy. She tends to describe unmarried guys doing this as having a serious character flaw, while she takes a completely different tone to husbands doing this.
I don't think it is just a matter of what Dr. Laura had for breakfast. She's usually very consistent.
It was not implied that the pictures on the phone are of women the boyfriend knew, but it seemed to me the girlfriend was saying this was stuff he's collected surfing online. Dr. Laura is especially averse to guys having naked pictures of past sexual partners, especially in digital format. I won't belabor why.
Giving Dr. Laura a generous assumption of consistency and the benefit of the doubt would indicate to me that she thinks those husbands are creeps but wants their marriages to be pleasant and so she never attacks the character of those guys when their wives call. The other possibility I see, cynically, and I think I've brought this up here before, is that the principle being applied is that a married man and earned/bought the "right" to enjoy seeing nude women and the visual/auditory stimulation of sex - that men should "pay for sex" and if they have, then they are entitled to it, and if they haven't, they shouldn't get any semblance of it. Thus, husbands (who've paid for sex) should be able to view the material without their wife even complaining about it, while a boyfriend, who hasn't paid (as much) for sex, should be dumped.
Maybe we'll get a commentary offering clarification? Dr. Laura has great commentaries, and any time she gives additional insight to approach, I learn something.
Tuesday, September 09, 2014
Marriage is Still Vastly Popular
Tom Leykis keeps repeating that the 2010 U.S. Census showed that for the first time ever in the Census, there are more unmarried adults than married adults.
I’ve heard before that there are now more unmarried “households” than married, which would be significantly different than what Leykis is saying, because each married household would have TWO adults, and many of the unmarried households would have just one adult, meaning that married adults would still significantly outnumber unmarried people.
But... either way, what does it mean? Tom focuses on it to point out that 1) marriage is dead (and I agree that it very well may be dying) and 2) more and more people are thinking/acting like him.
Well hold on there a minute.
Tom advocates not only not marrying, but not having children, not living with anyone else, and not being in an exclusive relationship at all. People who are sticking to that are a tiny percentage of the population.
The overwhelming majority percentage of Americans will get married at least once. Even most of those who never have a marriage ceremony will shack up or otherwise share quarters and/or have children.
Even ardent fans of Leykis will call in an admit that they "fell off the wagon", especially when his show wasn't being distributed live because he was waiting for his contract with CBS Radio to run out (and was getting paid). They got into relationships, many marrying, many having children.
So again, let's assume he's right – there are now more PEOPLE unmarried than people married, rather than it applying to households and not individuals.
Why would change be in effect?
1) People are getting married later. Rather than marrying at 17, 18, 19, 20, people are getting married at 25, 30, and 35. So there are more unmarried 25 year-olds than there used to be. BUT THESE PEOPLE ARE STILL MARRYING.
2) Widows/widowers are living longer. BUT THESE PEOPLE WERE MARRIED and many of them seek to get married again.
3) People are divorcing earlier, living longer after divorce, or waiting longer before entering into another marriage after a divorce. THESE PEOPLE WERE MARRIED and many of them seek to get married again.
4) More people are living in what are essentially commonlaw marriages, which is definitely not what Leykis would advise.
5) Marriage strikers/MGTOW/Leykis 101 Students who are deliberately avoiding marriage.
I'm also curious as to whether the Census classified people whose spouse is in prison, hospitalized, or temporarily working elsewhere/deployed as "single" or "unmarried" (as I know some statistics have) or correctly counted them as married?
Married people OR married households STILL make up almost as much of the population as all of bachelors/bachelorettes/spinsters, same-sex, divorce, single parent, divorced, widowed, and marriage strikers COMBINED.
Now, maybe there is an ongoing trend and marriage rates/lengths will decline significantly. Leykis seems to think so. The other day he was citing polling of “Millennials” and their attitudes towards marriage, and that they don't think it is so important. I can believe that, and it is not surprising they also think there can be marriages without a bride or without a groom. It's part of the same issue. However, as those people age, most will marry and have children, and even those who don't will see other people do it, and a whole lot of them will change their opinions about the significance of marriage and what marriage is and isn't.
Please don't misunderstand me. I’m not saying everyone should marry and raise children. I'm certainly not saying that the legal realities of marriage today are good or beneficial for men (and even many marriage advocates will admit that marriage is for the benefit of children and women, not for men). I'm not denying that demographics are changing. And personally, for reasons I think I've explained in other postings, if I had to do it over again I can't say I would get married. What I AM saying is that statistics are funny things. The way Leykis talks, you'd think that there majority of people are now thinking and living like him (or at least, how he advocates because he has been married himself, but now advises against it). Clearly, that's not the case. All you have to do is look around. Almost all women have either been married or want to marry (or, at least have a wedding). An overwhelming majority of men alive now who've never been married will get married, enthusiastically or reluctantly.
[Bumped up because of news in September 2014 that stated this statistic again]
I’ve heard before that there are now more unmarried “households” than married, which would be significantly different than what Leykis is saying, because each married household would have TWO adults, and many of the unmarried households would have just one adult, meaning that married adults would still significantly outnumber unmarried people.
But... either way, what does it mean? Tom focuses on it to point out that 1) marriage is dead (and I agree that it very well may be dying) and 2) more and more people are thinking/acting like him.
Well hold on there a minute.
Tom advocates not only not marrying, but not having children, not living with anyone else, and not being in an exclusive relationship at all. People who are sticking to that are a tiny percentage of the population.
The overwhelming majority percentage of Americans will get married at least once. Even most of those who never have a marriage ceremony will shack up or otherwise share quarters and/or have children.
Even ardent fans of Leykis will call in an admit that they "fell off the wagon", especially when his show wasn't being distributed live because he was waiting for his contract with CBS Radio to run out (and was getting paid). They got into relationships, many marrying, many having children.
So again, let's assume he's right – there are now more PEOPLE unmarried than people married, rather than it applying to households and not individuals.
Why would change be in effect?
1) People are getting married later. Rather than marrying at 17, 18, 19, 20, people are getting married at 25, 30, and 35. So there are more unmarried 25 year-olds than there used to be. BUT THESE PEOPLE ARE STILL MARRYING.
2) Widows/widowers are living longer. BUT THESE PEOPLE WERE MARRIED and many of them seek to get married again.
3) People are divorcing earlier, living longer after divorce, or waiting longer before entering into another marriage after a divorce. THESE PEOPLE WERE MARRIED and many of them seek to get married again.
4) More people are living in what are essentially commonlaw marriages, which is definitely not what Leykis would advise.
5) Marriage strikers/MGTOW/Leykis 101 Students who are deliberately avoiding marriage.
I'm also curious as to whether the Census classified people whose spouse is in prison, hospitalized, or temporarily working elsewhere/deployed as "single" or "unmarried" (as I know some statistics have) or correctly counted them as married?
Married people OR married households STILL make up almost as much of the population as all of bachelors/bachelorettes/spinsters, same-sex, divorce, single parent, divorced, widowed, and marriage strikers COMBINED.
Now, maybe there is an ongoing trend and marriage rates/lengths will decline significantly. Leykis seems to think so. The other day he was citing polling of “Millennials” and their attitudes towards marriage, and that they don't think it is so important. I can believe that, and it is not surprising they also think there can be marriages without a bride or without a groom. It's part of the same issue. However, as those people age, most will marry and have children, and even those who don't will see other people do it, and a whole lot of them will change their opinions about the significance of marriage and what marriage is and isn't.
Please don't misunderstand me. I’m not saying everyone should marry and raise children. I'm certainly not saying that the legal realities of marriage today are good or beneficial for men (and even many marriage advocates will admit that marriage is for the benefit of children and women, not for men). I'm not denying that demographics are changing. And personally, for reasons I think I've explained in other postings, if I had to do it over again I can't say I would get married. What I AM saying is that statistics are funny things. The way Leykis talks, you'd think that there majority of people are now thinking and living like him (or at least, how he advocates because he has been married himself, but now advises against it). Clearly, that's not the case. All you have to do is look around. Almost all women have either been married or want to marry (or, at least have a wedding). An overwhelming majority of men alive now who've never been married will get married, enthusiastically or reluctantly.
[Bumped up because of news in September 2014 that stated this statistic again]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)