When Worldviews Strain Friendships

I have a friend who has left his wife and his daughter for a younger honey.

I should explain the extent of the friendship.

We had a common interest (essentially a hobby, not anything deep) starting when we were teenagers that lasts to this day. We met and kept in touch because of that common interest, hanging out together doing activities more or less related to that interest. Since we were not in school together and didn't live too close to each other, it wasn’t like there was the issue of making sure we were in the same sorts of cliques.

We became friends about the time we were both establishing our distance from families of origin, so it wasn't like we hung out with each other's families. It wasn't a problem that I became full-time university student and he didn't go to college at all.

He eventually found a woman he wanted to marry. She lived out of town. We (his friends) told him that he didn't need to leave town to be with this woman, but he insisted – the plan at the time, at least from what he said, was to eventually move back to town together. It never happened. He moved to where she was to shack up with her (not something I would do) and eventually marry her. I attended the wedding with my girlfriend at the time, and there had even been some talk about me being one of the groomsmen, but that didn't turn out to be necessary.

They had a daughter. They had actively sought to get pregnant (they had no qualms about using contraception).

I visited their city (by then I was unattached again) and crashed at their place for a few nights. He was one of my (many) groomsmen when I married, and his daughter was a flower girl. They gave us a great wedding present. They also let us crash at their place for a night when we visited their new city to which they'd moved.

It is when you do things like get married and have kids that rubber meets the road when it comes to your worldview. My friend and I do not share the same worldview. We don’t believe the same things about God, the Bible, life, and death. We don't share political views. We don't make the same lifestyle choices – and when you’re in your relatively carefree bachelor days, as long as nobody is terminally ill or engaging in crime, such differences don’t really matter all that much. I can be friends with him even though he would never want to go to church with me. I can be friends with him even if he votes in direct contrast to every vote I make. Nor does he make our friendship contingent on me agreeing with him.

But when you talk marriage, children, family (or even crime) – you are talking about how you treat other people.

I had refused to get married unless I found the right woman. "Right woman" didn't mean "I'm attracted to her, she's attracted to me, and what more do we need?" It meant we were fundamentally compatible – our goals, our priorities, or personalities, our lifestyles, etc. We were attracted to each other in body, soul, and spirit.

I also knew that once I married, it was no longer between me and God. It was between me, my wife, and God – not in that order. Likewise, when we decided to have a child, we knew that our lives could never be the same because our priority for at least 18 years would have to be that child (and any siblings – with the clock being reset with each kid).

I'm convinced that, absent actual danger, I should stay with my wife no matter how miserable my marriage gets (thankfully, it is great), at least until our youngest child is 18, and I should model a peaceful and loving home to them, even if I don’t feel like it. That's because my children should come before my personal happiness. And should things go sour, I can probably help make them better with such an attitude and commitment.

Which takes me back to my friend. I don't know his wife's side of the story. All I know is what he tells me. And he tells me that his marriage was hell from "I do". If that's true, I suspect things were bad before, but he chose to ignore them and get married anyway. I would attribute part of that to the fact that he never established himself, always living with a woman – first his mother up through most of his 20s, and then with the woman he ended up marrying (his mother getting remarried and moving, forcing him to find new living arrangements, was probably a factor in him moving in with the woman he did). His jobs never lasted more than a few years, and most of them were McJobs anyway. It seemed like he would inevitably go from being excited about the latest job to being thoroughly disillusioned, usually burning bridges at the end. Mind you, he does have some real talent. He's just never made a living using it, usually trying to get a "day job" so he can keep toying in his off-hours with his talent.

And even though his marriage was "hell" from "I do" (something I had no idea about), he went on to intentionally impregnate her. He chose to make a baby within that marriage.

About a year ago, I started noticing a change in him. Since we lived in different cities, it was hard to get the real picture. He denied having an affair, but did say there were some problems in his marriage. I would expect there would be, with him going from job to job and pissing money away on a vice and wanting to spend time and money on a pet project of his that never seemed to go anywhere. His wife was probably thinking, "Either do it right or give it up and stop wasting time and money." Plus, there was the matter of moving to that new city, taking her away from her family and not getting any closer to his.

Finally, several months ago, he announced that he was leaving his wife and returning to town. He claimed that things were just too dysfunctional and that it was causing his daughter to act out. He tried to leave with his daughter, but his wife prevented him from doing so by calling the authorities. So, he left without his daughter. He left a job for a possible job, which he got, but it didn’t last due to the recession. He was able to crash at a place owned by his mother. His wife and child returned to where her family lives.

We've discussed things since his move back to town. I urged him to at least go live near his daughter. He hates that city too much, he said. I also told him that even if he is sure he will not get back together with his wife, he should avoid dating and especially getting into another relationship, because he isn't going to make the best decisions in that area right now.

Well, after I put the pieces together, I realized he had been having an affair with someone in town for about the past year. He finally came clean about that. He swears his marriage was dead long ago, and that he and his wife didn’t even share a room for the past few years, and that his new young thing wasn't the reason for him leaving his wife. He says that, without this new young thing, he would likely be dead - another example of how his worth is tied up in the woman in his life instead of seeing himself as a child of God.

Even granting all of that – he chose to make a baby with his wife, and I believe he has an obligation to his child, even if he feels that his wife broke their vows long ago.

We discussed things more, with me urging him again to go live near his daughter because she needs her father. He can probably get a real career in that city by using his connections. He doesn’t want to pull his new honey away from her family. He ended the discussion by saying that his daughter would understand and that he refuses to live in that city. So, the bottom line is that he ditched his daughter for the new honey, or that he hates that city more than he loves his daughter. He doesn't have a job or family or housing keeping him here (his mother lost her rental property she was letting him use). He isn't willing to pull his new honey away from her family but he’s letting being here for her pull him away from his daughter. Oh, his daughter will understand alright. She will understand that her daddy left her – and if what he says about his wife and her family is true, he left her with people who have serious problems.

Out of all of the mistakes I have made in my life, thank God I haven't made this one.

I can't help but think part of the reason he fails to see how much his daughter needs him is that he really wasn’t raised with his own father.

And now he's told me that "when the time is right" he will have more children with this new young honey. I pointed out to him that this young girl got involved with a married father who is broke and jobless, and that doesn't bode too well. Of course, he refuses to see the problem there – of course she fell for him, and to imply this may have been due to something being wrong with her is an insult to his ego, so it is ignored.

I want to kick him in the crotch until I'm sure he will not be complicating his daughter's life with any half-siblings that get to live with her father while she doesn't get to. I wonder if his estranged wife will be giving his daughter half-siblings, or exposing her to a bunch of men coming in and out of her life? Why would my friend consider making more children when he isn't able to care for the one he already has?

The situation makes me sick.

And it is an example of how it is easy to have "diverse" friends when life is about having fun and maybe studying or starting a career, but the conflicts in worldviews make it harder to maintain those friendships when spouses and children and innocent people are getting hurt, and when you speak out about it you are met with cries of being judgmental.

It is easy for me to say my friend is doing a bad thing. I have a happy marriage and it is easy for me to go home to my wife and child (in no small part, I'm convinced, because of what I did differently than my friend). But I can't imagine I would ever abandon my daughter no matter what my wife did.

I am someone's daddy. That comes before a job, before good sex, before ego stroking, before preferring to live one place as opposed to another. You may have also heard the saying "bros before hos" (what do women say – chicks before dicks?). Well, I put the well-being of a child ahead of patting a friend on the back and saying, "whatever makes you feel good."

Young Female Doesn't Want a Big Wedding

Yet another recent Dear Abby column caught my eye. RELUCTANT BRIDE IN NORTH CAROLINA wrote:

I am 21 and have been with a great guy, "Albert," who's 20, for more than a year.

Strike one. You're both too young for a serious, exclusive relationship.

We're engaged to be married

Strike two! Uh, we're not in the eighteenth century anymore. People live into their 70s and beyond. People are rarely established before their later 20s. The odds are against your marriage lasting (unless they are strong Evangelicals or Mormons living within an Evangelical or Mormon community – which is disproven by what comes next...)

and live together in a condo we recently bought.

Strike THREE! Shacking up together and making a major joint purchase together. Yuck. Now you've really lowered your odds.

We both work full time and support ourselves comfortably.

Okay. Good. Are you both finished with school? What college degrees do you have? Are have you let playing house take up your time?

While I would love to marry Albert, I feel we are young and I see no need to rush into it.

Then why are you engaged? You just wanted a nice ring? Or you couldn't say "no"? Either way, it shows you are not ready to be a good wife.

Things are wonderful between us, but I'm not really looking forward to a wedding.

Have you always been an atypical woman, or is something wrong here? Odds are on the latter.

Albert wants a formal wedding with family in attendance.

Why bother with tradition when you're already living as though you're married?

He says his parents and other family members would be upset if we eloped and
would have trouble forgiving him.

That's because he's still a boy. Otherwise, it would be about what the two of you want, not what his family wants.

Dear Abby responded:

What you should do is talk with your clergyperson.

Ah yes. A clergyperson who will be okay with the fact that they are shacking up? Church of the Redacted Bible?

Get out. Don't date for a while, and then start dating different people casually, not getting serious with any of them, at least for a couple of years. You're not ready to be married yet, and you shouldn't be engaged.

Valentine's Day Is Not Enjoyable For Most Men

A reminder from The Playful Walrus.

Risky Business: Workplace Romances

Ellen Wulfhorst has this Reuters story about an office romance survey for CareerBuilder.com.

Forty percent of U.S. workers have dated an office colleague, with 31 percent of them going on to marriage, according to a survey released on Tuesday.

Coworkers may have a lot in common, and they spend a lot of time together. In the past, it was natural to find your spouse on-the-job, and I've known many people who have done that.

However, in the post-Anita Hill era, it is VERY risky (especially for a heterosexual man) to date a coworker. It is so risky that it is stupid to do so.

Those eyeing a co-worker was skewed between the sexes, with 14 percent of men but just 5 percent of women saying they would like to date a colleague.

Probably because most women would only date someone earning more than themselves, which limits the choices.

Of those who dated a co-worker in the last year, a third said it was someone with a more senior position in the company. Of those, 42 percent have dated their boss, said.

Those bosses are idiots – that is, if they care about their jobs at all.

Since men are usually (and expected to be) the initiators, sexual harassment laws and polices are designed to punish less attractive men. They are arbitrarily applied based on the subjective feelings of the person approached. Two male coworkers could say the exact same thing to a woman, and if she likes one, but not the other, the one she doesn't like could get fired for saying the exact same thing as the guy who doesn't get fired. When it boils down to "he said/she said", guess who is favored by the female-dominated Human Resources staff?

Welcoming women to all levels of the workplace was generally a good thing. Unfortunately, instead of asking women (the newcomers) to adopt to the workplace cultures that had long been established according to male standards and tendencies, everyone had to readjust to things being set by feminine standards and sensitivities, emasculating men.

Am I saying I would like some creep being lewd towards my mother, sister, wife, or daughter? Of course not. But I would hope that the women in my life could handle themselves like adults instead of running to someone else to make things right and comfortable for them. When I was a kid, my parents taught me how to deal with other kids who said or did things I didn't like - it was usually along the lines of "ignore them" or "have a good comeback".

I find the very phrase "sexual harassment" curious. We don't talk about (much less have training about) "nutritional harassment" when a vegetarian chides someone for eating meat. If sexual harassment is to be condemned in the workplace, shouldn't all forms of harassment be prevented and punished? And if it is wrong because it makes someone uncomfortable, then I want to know if anyone is allowed to object to having to take sexual harassment prevention training on the grounds that the training sessions make them uncomfortable? Why is that person's discomfort any less valid? I suppose the fact that we have the phrase "sexual harassment" is just another example of how sex is different and not just another activity or body function (like how guys will pay to see a woman strip, but who pays to see a steak slowly unveiled and waved around)?

Hedonist male-targeting radio talk show host Tom Leykis reacts to sexual harassment issues in the workplace by advising his listeners not to interact with female coworkers any more than strictly necessary, not saying one word more to them than absolutely essential to get the job done. No small talk, no compliments, no joking, no greetings, no socializing. How boring things would be if everyone followed that rule. But having a boring workplace is preferable to being fired. Leykis can work that way due to the nature of his work. Most of us would have a very difficult time doing that.

Aside from sexual harassment issues (not to mention charges of favoritism), there's another reason to avoid dipping your pen in company ink. Most relationships do not last as romances, and the fallout from a breakup, even if it isn't nasty, can be tough to deal with – not just for the participants, but for their coworkers. Also, some (potential) spouses have a hard time dealing with the idea that their spouse is working with someone they used to date.

People don't always think things through, so I expect workplace romances will continue to happen. But I will tell any guy who listens to to me to avoid them.

Sister of Dumped Wife Vents to Dear Abby

HURTING FOR MY SISTER wrote:

A few months ago, my sister's husband of 20 years suddenly left her for a 23-year-old girl.

I'm generally against a spouse leaving another spouse. However, in some cases, the spouse being left already "left" – if not by geographical abandonment, then by some other form of abandonment or unfaithfulness, such as an affair, abuse, addiction, or physical "abandonment". But we're not given more information, so we don't know.

He is living openly with her, even though he is still married to my sister.

Not the best way to handle things. It is possible he doesn't want to deal with the financial implications of divorce, but if the marriage is over and there is no hope of reconciliation, then a divorce is needed. The wife can file.

What is most disturbing is some members of his family are openly supporting this affair.

Some people put blood connections over all morality and automatically side with family members. That could be what is going on here. Or maybe the writer is automatically siding with her sister. If her sister was a horrible wife (and horrible to her in-laws), then maybe these people have some reason to be supportive of the errant husband.

Are those people ignorant or just plain evil?

You wrote in to Dear Abby to ask a question like that? Let's see - the economy is not so good, so infidelity isn't okay. (I learned in the 1990s that it is okay - if the economy is good.)

Not only are we given no details about the marital dynamics, we're not told if there are minor (or any) children. Probably not, or they likely would have been mentioned. If there were children, maybe he was staying in a miserable marriage for their sake until they were adults? (Maybe the wife was always closer to her sister than her husband?) Or maybe this was a man who suffered a bad wife for as long as he could and finally had enough, wanting to experience his sexuality? Or maybe he’s just always been a creep. If so, why did this writer's sister marry him?

Like I said - I don’t support spousal abandonment. I also don't support fornication, or mocking marriage by staying married while shacking up with someone else. But there are two people in that marriage – and likely, both share some blame. The question is – does he deserve almost all of the blame, or just a slight majority? Because if it is just a slight majority, then there are things the wife can do to attract him back – if she still wants – even though she doesn't have the youth of the hussy.

If a woman chooses wisely and treats kindly, it is very unlikely that her husband is going to run off. Granted, some men "need" a young woman, and every woman grows older. Those men are not marriage material.

As for the hussy - if she is interested in marriage, it doesn't bode well for her that she is shacking up - with a married man no less - who is older than her and either was a bad husband or picked a bad wife (or both!). My guess is that she either didn't have a father in her life or had a really bad one. If she does think she wants marriage, she probably believes that she has the magic vagina that will keep this man from leaving her like he did his wife. Of course, if it was mostly a matter of the wife being a shrew, then perhaps he will stay with her if she treats him right. But considering the circumstances, I just don't see that happening.

Be Up Front About Purity Commitment

Yesterday I revisited part of a Dear Abby column from a few months back. Today I look at another part of that same column.

DEE IN SAN DIEGO wrote:

I am a sophomore in high school, and I need help with something. I am a die-hard Christian who strongly believes in the whole "no sex before marriage" deal.

Great. I hope it is really due to your faith and not some hormonal abnormality or psychological problem. If it really is because of your faith and convictions, than good for you.

All my old boyfriends have tried to take advantage of me.

Take advantage? You mean like you were asleep or drunk? Engaging in an activity that is mutually enjoyable and/or mutually sinful is not taking advantage of you, in and of itself. And you are only, what, 15, 16 years old? Why have you had ANY boyfriends, let alone multiple boyfriends?

When I say I am saving myself for true love, they always dump me.

Which is why they shouldn't have been your boyfriends to begin with – only your dates. And they are doing the right thing by dumping you. You are not what they want. Why should they waste your time, emotion, and energy? So they can pay for your entertainment and meals ad buy you gifts?

Do I tell the guy straight out that he's not getting any, or do I just wait until the subject comes up and casually mention it?

Tell him straight out ASAP. If he primarily wants sex or feels like it is a necessary thing for him, he may leave and you will not waste each other's time. If he's an idiot, he will spend a lot of time trying to change your mind or break down your resolve when he could be off getting serviced by easy girls. If you're an idiot, you will give in to him and he will get what he thought he wanted, only to realize that taking someone's virginity means dealing with someone who is inexperienced (and thus, less fun when what you really care about is fornication) in bed, and then that you'll always try to stay connected to him, long after you have broken up, because he was your first.

My wife told me on our first date. I was glad she did.

Dear Abby responded:

I see no reason to announce upon meeting someone that he "won't be getting any."

Maybe you think females should be able to get free entertainment, meals, and gifts under false pretenses. Or maybe you a re just delusional or ignorant about what these guys want.

Give the person a chance to know you, and while that is happening, avoid situations where you are alone and tempted.

Oh, so a horny teen male is going to change his mind about what he wants because she is so special? Look, if someone I barely knew said they wanted to take me for a drive in my car because it would be fun, and I really didn't want to consent to that, what sense does it make to hang out with that person who is fixated on that, in hopes that they would see other aspects of me?

Think about it. Why does a guy date a 15 or 16-year-old girl? Unless he's looking for a "beard" to cover up his homosexual feelings, or is part of a religious group where everyone tends to marry by 19, then he primarily wants to fornicate. Oh, he may be shy, lack confidence, or not really know how to get the situation there, but that’s what we wants. Otherwise, he would be focusing on his studies and perhaps a job, filling up his time with sports and hobbies. He can get companionship from his male friends. You really think guys that age want to go to a school dance to dance, or go watch chick flicks, and listen to some girl ramble on about her silly friends, or how hard she finds trigonometry?

She should be hanging out with other purity-pledge females and males in groups, in public or at least with a responsible adult keeping watch – if she wants to "date". Otherwise, she should be focusing on her studies and hobbies.

Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow

A recent Dear Abby consisted of letters responding to a column from this past November that I'm sure I wanted to address at some point, so I'm taking the opportunity to do that.

SHORT AND TRENDY IN WEST TEXAS wrote:

How do I make my husband understand that how I cut my hair has nothing to do with him?

Actually, it does. Men are visual creatures. We get turned on, in part, by appearances. We need to get turned on to function sexually, unless we have an implanted pump. We aren't like women, who can use a lubricant if self-lubrication isn't forthcoming.

I am 30 years old, and I have a full-time job and three kids who are involved in everything.

Ah. I see. Maybe she doesn't care whether or not her husband gets turned on because she doesn’t have the time or energy for lovemaking. Doesn't her husband work? Why is she working full-time if she is a wife and has three kids to raise? Liberation?

Because I am always on the go, I need a hairdo that is easy to manage and cute, so I ended up getting my hair cut short. I love it. It makes me feel younger, cuter and trendy.

When my husband and I started dating, I used to have long, thick hair -- but I was not aware that keeping my hair long was "part of the deal."

Should it have been stated in a pre-nup?

Isn't it MY hair?

It's your hair as much as his paycheck is his and his penis is his. If he wanted to take a lower-paying job because he enjoyed it more, should he respond to your objections with "It’s my job."? You pulled a bait and switch.

Too many women are utterly unconcerned about what their husbands want, yet he is supposed to cater to all of her wants – and he is supposed to know them without her explicitly telling him. How many women do you know who have changed (cut short, usually) their hair soon after he signed on the dotted line? Yes, there are men who strongly prefer short hair. They date women with short hair. If they first noticed you with long hair and dated you with long hair, they expect you're going to stick with the long hair.

Dear Abby responded:

You cut your hair "purposely to go against what he wants"? I wouldn't call your husband selfish. I would call him controlling.

Okay, so then husbands should be able to groom themselves - or not - any way they want that's different than when dating, or their wives are controlling? And maybe she has a history of doing other unnecessary things knowingly against his wishes.

You are no longer the carefree girl you were when you were dating. You are a woman with real responsibilities. And it's time for your husband to grow up, too.

Husbands could say the same thing about romancing their wives. You want flowers or chocolates or a nice dinner out? Too bad! We're not "carefree" daters any more.

She needs to put her husband and children before her work.

Here are the letters from the other day.

BEN IN HUNTSVILLE, ALA wrote:

I, too, like my wife's hair long, and I see nothing wrong with urging her to keep it that way. Personally, I hate shaving and have suggested to my wife that I might like to grow a beard. She said, "No way," so I keep shaving.

Oh, but that’s different, because husbands are supposed to do what their wives want.

LONG HAIR NO MORE IN COLORADO SPRINGS wrote:

I had long hair when my husband and I first were married. It was his desire that I keep it long, but as time went on it became a big hassle with the daily grind. Finally I told him that if he wanted my hair long, he would be the one taking care of it. So for one week my husband got up at 5 in the morning to wash it, dry it and style it. At the end of the week he told me, "Honey, you can do whatever you want with your hair."

Nice. How about you also go to work for your husband, mow the law, fix the car, and move the heavy objects? How was it that you were able to have long hair before you married? It smacks of "I got him to sign on the dotted line, now I don't need to try anymore."

J.B. IN WINNSBORO, S.C. wrote:

I had the same problem with my husband. My response to him was if he wanted long hair, then he should grow HIS out. He hasn't bothered me about it since.

Probably because he found a woman with long hair.

Geez. It isn't like these men are asking these women for something unusual or unnatural. Ladies, you can’t help getting older. You can't help the sagging and the wrinkling and all of the other things that come with age without surgery. But you can keep you hair long.

Women like these, believe it or not, are a significant factor in why some men have called a marriage strike. If they are unwilling to keep doing something so simple to keep their husbands happy, it doesn't bode well for husbands.

Nervous About Tests?

Imagine if your whole life really did rest on the results of a test. Alan Zarembo of the Los Angeles Times had an article on how DNA testing is revealing lies and secrets, including adoptions and paternity fraud.

In one case, two brothers were surprised to discover they had different fathers. They confronted their elderly mother, who denied the most obvious possibilities -- that she had been unfaithful to her husband, the man they had always known as Dad, or that one son was adopted.

Perhaps she was raped. Or maybe she is an adulterer and a liar.

How many of us are not our fathers' children?

The question has fascinated researchers as a window into the gap between a society's stated values and its behavior. A 2005 analysis of 17 studies -- based on blood and DNA tests of various groups -- concluded that the answer varies depending on country and culture. But the average rate is 4%.

Some studies show as high as 20%. But even at 4%, that means one in twenty-five kids are assigned to a man who isn't really the father and wasn't given the choice.

Breaking the news falls to genetic counselors, who often must balance competing ethical imperatives.

How ethical is being complicit in hiding the truth from a victim?

Ana Morales, a genetic counselor at the University of Miami, recalled the case of a child diagnosed with a type of albinism that can be accompanied by lung and kidney disease.

The mother "told me she was having an affair," Morales said.

"She said she would be in physical danger [if her husband found out]. He had threatened her if she was unfaithful."

Morales did not tell him.

If she was truly scared that he would be violent, she wouldn't have had the affair in the first place. If she wasn't scared enough to refrain from adultery, then the counselor should not be too scared to tell the guy he is a chump who is being defrauded. The adulterous woman can go to a shelter. She shouldn't be with a man who is violent anyway. Where is the proof that he is violent?

But withholding the information means that the woman's husband lives with the false belief that he is a carrier of a genetic disorder.

That sort of information is far from benign, said Dr. Wayne Grody, a UCLA geneticist. It could convince him to give up on the idea of having children. And in the event that the wife becomes pregnant by her husband, perpetuating the lie could require unnecessary prenatal testing.

"Why would you expose the next fetus to the risk of amniocentesis?" Grody asked.

To protect a woman's prerogative to cheat, of course.

DNA testing for newborns should be mandatory unless there is a sworn statement of it being against both "parents'" conscience (religion). If the DNA matches, assign paternity to the man. If it doesn't, give the man the choice of denying paternity.

Men can now get DNA testing kits and find out for themselves. Ah, how sweet it is. Unfortunately, even if he finds out that his wife is cheater and a liar, in most places and in most cases, he'll still have to pay her alimony and pay child support for another man's child should there be a divorce – even if she is the one to file.

Michigan Charges Unmarried ‘Fathers’ for Delivery

What's up in Michigan?

The state of Michigan is giving a father a choice: pay the medical cost of his daughter's birth or marry the girl's mother.

I can tell you right now which would cost him less.

Gary Johnson was billed $3,800 for the birth of his daughter JaeLyn, The Flint Journal reported in Sunday online editions.

And how much was she billed? Unless this was rape, having a baby was her decision as much as his - more, given all of the post-conception options women have.

Johnson is not married to the child's mother, Rebecca Witt.

Assuming the child is biologically his, this means they were fornicating. Sounds like they are shacking up, too.

The Michigan Legislature amended the state's paternity act five years ago to waive birthing costs for a father, if he married the child's mother. A year later, Witt gave birth to JaeLyn. The state paid for the hospital costs because Witt was on Medicaid at the time and is now trying to recover the money.

So married people get to pass along the costs to everyone else?

Jack Battles, the Genesee County Friend of the Court, said the law is an incentive to maintain the sanctity of marriage.

"It's totally up to them," said Battles, whose office enforces paternity rulings, child support and other aspects of family law. Until Johnson can produce a marriage license, "they have to pay."

Sounds like he has to pay. If they are not married, and he is billed, she is not being ordered to pay.

Johnson and Witt said they want to marry eventually, but Witt said she wants her marriage date to be her choice.

"I don't think anybody should tell me when to get married," said Witt. "I would like to have a nice wedding, and I can wait for it."

Your child needs married parents. You forfeited your moral right to a nice wedding on a date of your leisure when you got knocked up and then kept the child instead of adopting the child out.

Johnson said he understood the state wants to promote marriage for parents but he respects Witt's position. "It's a woman's dream to have the best wedding she can have," he said.

We all want something. But when we drag kids into it, our wants need to wait behind their needs.

Engagement Ring Pressure

Michelle works for a Los Angeles-based talk radio station, specifically the morning drive program. She has a blog on the station's official website, and I wanted to share some of her comments from a recent entry. I couldn't detect a permalink, but the entry is currently found here.

Michelle recently accepted a marriage proposal, and shows uncommon sense about engagement ring and sympathy for her intended.

Here's the thing. From the get go, when we got serious, I told him I was not one of those girls who would insist on a big, fat ring. I originally wanted to use my grandmother’s first engagement ring, a tiny diamond set in a classic band of white gold. Unfortunately, that got stolen when my home was broken into when we first got our home...Other than that ring, a ring really didn’t even come into play much, it wouldn't have bothered me even if I didn’t get one for an engagement, a wedding band alone would have been fine if that's what we chose to do.

I wish more women were like her in this regard.

So I told him, when, and if the time comes, don't stress about it. You know me, you know the person I am, don't stress out about it.

He should have taken her at his word, and her opinion should have been more important than anyone else's on the matter. But he let other people get to him.

Well, apparently, he wasn't stressing until a bunch of people at his work made him question his choice by saying

'Oh no, you can't buy THAT ring, you have to buy a big diamond.'

To those people, I would have asked, "Why?"

"No, you have to spend at least $2000 or she's going to be upset!"

Why, is she a prostitute?

'What will people think about that ring? All her friends are going to be looking at it and judging you!'

That is one of the worst. Who cares what they think, if that is the way they are?

Then he started looking into it and was bombarded with the whole idiotic business that's been set up to suck men into the ridiculous notion that you have to spend at least two month's salary on a ring to prove to your girlfriend that you love her.

That's a marketing slogan and has no basis in reality. We are not obligated to listen to it. If a woman thinks a guy should have spent more on the ring and tells him so, he should run away from her as fast as he can.

In my personal opinion, any woman (or man) who is 'upset' with any engagement ring or other jewelry that their significant other buys them for any reason because it’s not 'big enough' or the 'clarity' isn't right, isn't anything but a shallow materialistic gold digging moron who cares nothing about the real meaning of love...If your personal worth is tied to a piece of jewelry, there's something wrong with you...All of you girls who want big, flashy rings, are missing out on some VERY good men out there, so think twice about what's REALLY important.

She should print that on t-shirts and sell them. He got the ring at a Costco, and she's happy about it.

Now, from what she wrote, it sounds like they have been shacking up, which I'm convinced is wrong and makes the odds less favorable to their marriage being a lasting, happy one. But on the plus side, she does not let materialism or the herd mentality turn her into a ungrateful little girl. Instead, she's happy about the ring. Good for her!

My wife was happy to figure out, when she was going through bank records, that I'd purchased the ring I presented when I proposed for about a third of the retail price. That kind of sensible frugality on her part is one of the reasons I proposed.

Side note to any guys planning to pop the question: In some states, it may be advantageous to avoid doing so on her birthday, Valentine's Day, Christmas, an "anniversary", or any day that can be construed as a gift-giving day. This may prevent her from being able to keep/sell the ring should she divorce you or leave you before the wedding, and compel her to return it to you. If that doesn't sound like a romantic consideration… well, it isn't very romantic to go through divorce, either, and have her profit at your expense on top of that. The matter will only come into play should there be a divorce – so she shouldn't have an objection unless she is planning to divorce you. Or, if she insists on shopping for the ring with you, or to get it on one of those gift-giving days, make sure she pays for it with her money and she can have as big of a ring as she wants and do whatever she wants to with it. Should you give her the ring unconnected to any other gift-giving occasion, a court may see her possession of it as being conditional to your impending marriage. Should she leave you before the marriage or divorce you, it may be easier to get it back.

Phone Calls and Dining Out

A couple of recent Dear Abby situations caught my eye.

Okay, this guy never explicitly says what he's looking for, but from what he did write, it sounds like he is looking for a relationship. That makes a difference.

HURT IN VERMONT wrote in to talk about a date:

One night I was at her place when she received a phone call. Trish made it short and sweet and hung up. A few minutes later, I asked who it was, and she told me it was her boss.

Unless you are paying the phone bill, it really isn't your business who calls her. Keep in mind, though, that if you were on a date with her, she shouldn't be taking any calls, especially if you are paying for the date. But you are in her home, and it is her phone.

Abby, I know how she answers the phone when it's her boss -- and it wasn't him. When I said, "That was NOT your boss," she admitted it was one of her boss's clients, but said nothing was going on between them.

When I first met Trish, she mentioned that a client had come in one day, had wine and cheese, then leaned over and kissed her. It's the same guy that called -- and he's married.

Her mistake was not telling you from the start that it is none of your business. By the way, that works the other way, too. If she asked you who you were talking with on the phone, it would be perfectly okay to tell her that it is none of her business. Can't handle that? Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I don't think she has cheated, but she lied to my face.

She didn't handle the situation right and she is flirting with a married man. Is that relationship material to you?

My first instinct is to dump her, but I love her.

So what if you love her? You're paranoid and she is a liar who flirts with a married man. I can't believe this is in his 40s and writing like this to Dear Abby. What's wrong with him? I would be shocked if he was raised with a father in his home and a faithful mother.

Dear Abby responded:

Are you and Trish in a committed relationship? If not, you had no right to question her about who was calling.

Even then... as long as it is her phone, paid for by her, he should not question it. If he can't trust her, they shouldn't be together.

That said, a person who would lie to you once would lie to you twice.

Yes.

She may not be having a physical affair, but something is going on or she wouldn't have tried to mislead you about who was on the phone.

Maybe he freaks out over nothing and she didn't want to deal with that? If so, she should dump him.

SOLO IN SHERMAN, TEXAS wrote:

Is it proper for a married woman to go out to eat alone when her husband refuses to take her?

Why does he refuse to take her? Is he a hermit? Is he embarrassed to be around her? Is he hoping she'll cook, instead, or is he willing to cook? Is money tight? We don't know.

Absolutely, if she can afford to pay for it and there is enough pet food in the doghouse.

[Emphasis mine.] Wow, did I find an example in Dear Abby where the woman was given the same response a man would have been given? Good!

In the Lion's Den?

I've read about XXX Church (which reaches out to porn workers and users) before, and I haven't seen red flags in regard to their teachings or tactics, but then I haven't looked too hard. They did a great job of getting themselves portrayed well in a place that can be somewhat hostile to their message – an LATimes.com blog. Blogger Richard Abowitz caught up with them at the annual Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas.

Notice that when the blogger asks Gross if he thinks the porn workers and fans are going to Hell, he replies:

It is not my call to make. I screw up everyday in the things I do, and I am not a porn star. And I don't feel better than someone who is in porn.

Later, he says:

You can't blame the dark for being dark, you need to blame the light for not shining on the dark.

I hope their ministry is being used by God to bear good fruit, and that they are able to be "in, but not of" in this case.

A Dispute in Bed

Time to check in with Dear Abby again. CREATURE OF HABIT wrote:

My boyfriend and I have a wonderful relationship, but there is one big problem. I don't like to share blankets at bedtime. The truth is, I like to sleep comfortably with my blankets tucked all around.

Well that won't be a problem until you are married, right? So you are trying to work this all out before you get married? If so, that's very good, thinking ahead like that.

I have honestly tried sharing, but I can't sleep that way or even get comfortable.

Wait, you tried sharing? You mean you are fornicating or shacking up?

My boyfriend thinks I'm weird and that I don't like being close to him at night. Isn't sharing a bed enough?

More than enough.

Dear Abby wrote back:

Getting enough sleep is important for maintaining one's health, and studies show that people aren't getting enough of it these days. Try explaining this to him, along with the fact that intimacy is what happens BEFORE you hit the sheets.

Hmmm. I wonder what Abby would say if this was a guy writing in to explain why he doesn't like to cuddle after sex, but instead takes off and goes home? Somehow, I doubt it would be "intimacy is what happens BEFORE you hit the sheets."

If it is really that big of a deal to either one of them, then they shouldn't get married to each other. They've already lowered their odds of staying together anyway.

As a general rule, never marry someone if you can finish this sentence with a "red flag" or a "can’t stand" or a "deeal breaker" or anything that you couldn't happily live with the rest of your life without complaining or being resentful: "I love everything about him/her and everything is great between us, except _______."

These people apparently like fornicating with each other. That's different from sleeping in the same bed or being married, and they should not marry each other solely based on mutual enjoyment of their fornication or some other compatibilities if there are any significant areas where they are incompatible.

AOL Piece on Attracting Men

The Biblical Manhood blog has been updated after a vacation, and called my attention to this AOL piece on how women can be more attractive to men. No, it is mostly NOT about physical appearance.

Of "neediness", it says:

Relentlessly saying, "I miss you," throwing (not so) silent temper tantrums when you don't have his full attention and feeling an insatiable desire for his approval are all classic needy behaviors.

Those are not good. Yes, most men love being the hero. But you can let him do that without being needy.

One of the pieces of advice I disagree with is "Trash Your Perfect Man List". Keep the list. Just do not make the boundaries impossibly narrow. Unless there is some odd, specific need, requiring that the man be exactly 6'2" is too narrow. If you are 5'7", anything from 5'9" upward should be okay. If you insist that he is earning six figures or more, then you’d better be under 30, attractive, and not overweight. I recommend that men and women come up with a list of what they need in a spouse, and what they'd like, but don’t need. What they'd like would be an extra bonus. What they need is non-negotiable. For example, I knew that if I was going to marry, I needed to marry a follower of Christ. I would have liked it if she had the same musical tastes as me. If you find someone who meets all of our needs in a spouse, you are being too narrow if you reject them in hopes of finding someone who also meets what you would like. If, however, you have multiple prospects who meet your needs, then of course you persue most strongly the one who meets more of what you'd like.

The writer also advises that you "Drop Your Story":

There are the basic facts (education, politics, spirituality) and there's the various ways in which you label yourself: I'm bad with money. I'm unattractive. I'm too old. When you drop your story and allow yourself to be simply who you are right now, you instantly become more alive, more engaged and more irresistible.

I can see the point being made, as we should put out best foot forward, but do not hide who you are. Rather than hiding that you are bad with money, why not improve your financial behaviors? If you hide anything significant about yourself, you are setting yourself up to have an angry man on your hands who will hold back from putting all of himself into the relationship.

As the BM blog notes, there are comments on the website by women essentially insisting that they should be able to be self-centered nags exhibiting serious personality flaws and still be taken care of by the perfect man. Those women can't possibly have happy husbands, and the ones with unhappy husbands may not care, but the fact is, their lives would be so much better if they started being kind and caring towards the needs of their husbands.

One Guy Who Should Not Marry

He wrote in to Dear Abby.

SENSITIVE GUY, MILWAUKEE wrote:

(First of all, you know there is a problem if he signed his letter that way.)

I am a 24-year-old male who has been in a relationship with a great woman, "Hayley," for three years.

Strike one! 21 is too young to get into a long-term relationship. He should have spent this time (aside from establishing himself professionally) dating different women to learn as much as possible about what he likes and doesn’t like and the kind of woman with whom he interacts best.

She has excellent qualities, a good job, she's super loving and would be a wonderful wife someday.

Great. But this guy's terminology makes me think we was raised without a father, and is suffering as a result.

My family loves Hayley -- but my buddies don't, and it is causing me to have mixed feelings.

Maybe your friends can see something you don't. Or maybe you've surrounded yourself with jerks for friends (and your friends tend to be a reflection on you, by the way).

Some days I love her, but on others I want to break up. Then I think of how fantastic our lives would be together. It's weird, because Hayley doesn't change her personality -- it's totally my issue.

Clearly, you aren't ready to be in a long-term relationship, and you probably stunted your growth by getting into this one at age 21. I would guess that it is his first relationship - that she's the only girl who ever paid attention to him.

I'm scared that if I break up with her it could be the worst mistake of my life, and I'll regret it.

If she is really as great and stable as you say she is, then she deserves someone better than you, and you should stop being selfish and stop wasting her time. If you are "meant to be" it will happen whether you break up now or not. People do get back together, after all.

Dear Abby gets it right when she replies:

Hayley may make a wonderful wife someday, but from your letter, YOU are nowhere near ready for marriage. Mature love doesn't blow hot and cold, and the feelings you finally experience for the woman you marry won't be dictated by the impression she makes on your buddies.

If Haley is mature, she will thank this guy for his honesty if he levels with her and breaks it off, and will take steps to distance herself from him, evaluate why she got into and stayed in a relationship with him in the first place, and add what she's learned from this experience to her decision making process, hopefully avoiding making some of the same mistakes again.

Or, if she is immature or insecure, she could plead with him to "redeem" the relationship, pressuring him to propose marriage (with the help of his family), get involved in planning the big party so much that she doesn't have to deal with the problems in the relationship, and marry the guy. Soon after that, they will likely start arguing a lot over the time he spends with his buddies. She might intentionally get pregnant, thinking that will help get things to her liking. That cycle may repeat any number of times, and then she may or may not divorce him.

Hopefully, Haley will go the first route.

New Magazine Targets Successful Singles

Alana Semuels of the Los Angeles Times reports on a new magazine for unmarried people.

Now this 65-year-old divorcé is trying to help other unmarried people embrace their lifestyle and shed the stereotype that they're lonely bachelors or cat-loving old maids.

There are some men and women like that. There are people who are unhappily unmarried. There are people who are unhappily married. And yes, there are people who are happily married. Some people are happy people, whether they are unmarried or married. Some people are miserable either way (and should not subject someone else to themselves).

A serial entrepreneur, Wright recently launched Singular, a Los Angeles magazine for singles that doles out advice, travel suggestions and profiles of unmarried people who travel to Tonga, collect vintage sex manuals and play polo when not performing acupuncture.

It is a lot easier to travel and buy stuff when you're not supporting other people (aside from taxes), and your not accountable to anyone for your free time (save God).

Call it a reflection of our times -- or a response to them -- Wright's new enterprise might strike a chord with the growing number of Americans who choose to marry later or not at all. About 42% of people over the age of 18 are single, according to the Census Bureau, and the proportion of one-person households increased to 26% in 2005 from 17% in 1970.

Even people who want to marry should wait until after 25. There are a lot of people between the ages of 18 and 25. People are also living long as divorced or widowed. That contibutes to the number of "singles".

The magazine, which launched in September, comes at a time when the stigma around staying single is disappearing, said David Popenoe, director of the National Marriage Project.

There's nothing inherently wrong with being unmarried.

Some Smug Marrieds, as fictional character Bridget Jones calls them, didn't get the memo. They still barrage singles with questions about why they haven't married and suggestions about how to find a date, said Bella DePaulo, a social scientist and author of "Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After."

Which is wrong. If you're happily married, live like it, and your unmarried friends who also want to be happily married will ask you for your advice or help if they want it. Those who don't want to marry don't need you tell them otherwise, any more than they should tell you how to become unmarried.

"We're creating a community of people who want to have their best life now," Calvert said from a plush red chair in the airy Westside living room that serves as the magazine's headquarters. She lives upstairs, with her parrot and three cats.

Three cats? Hmmm. While it may not be a problem to have that many cats, more often then not I say there's a "cat cycle"… someone is lonely, so they get a cat. That automatically reduces the number of people who would partner with them, which may, in turn, prompt the acquisition of another cat. So on and so forth. If you are an umarried woman, and want to get married, and have the impulse to add a third or fourth cat to your home, let it pass. Instead, think about what you are doing that is keeping you from attracting and keeping the right spouse.

Still, the website highlights the strange paradox of gathering singles together. While Singular emphasizes the idea that romantic relationships are not essential for happiness, it also facilitates dating and meet-ups.

Are you saying that the magazine has a financial interest in keeping reader single? Perhaps. In which case, I would be wary of partnering advice from it. But it could still be useful to unmarried people, because finding a partner is not their sole interest, or perhaps an interest of theirs at all.

A few matchmakers even crashed the party to find potential clients.

"Everybody wants love, attention and affection," said one matchmaker, Dianne Bennett, who runs millionaires-matchmaker.com. "People do want relationships."

Bennett has a financial interest in her assertion. Some people cant get those things without giving up being unmarried. Some people value their freedom more than those things.

It Doesn't Have to Be Intercourse to Be Cheating

Sally Law has a piece (so to speak) at LiveScience.com about what is and isn't "cheating" with a generation raised post-Clinton/Lewinsky.

In 2005, the federal government released a study that found more than 50 percent of American teenagers had engaged in oral sex; furthermore, they considered oral sex a less-significant substitution for intercourse.

While it doesn't carry the risk of pregnancy, it is enough to spread STDs and cause emotional bonding. There are also women who do try to get pregnant by transferring fluids from one location to another.

A recent study conducted by the University of Northern Iowa and Pennsylvania State University finds that undergraduates in relationships hold their significant others to a stricter definition of sex than they hold themselves.

Geography can also have something to do with it. For example, some American women don't "count" sexual activity they engage in while in Mexico. Or at a bachelorette party.

"Men believe that when women have sex it is not just a pleasure-seeking behavior but an emotional experience, so it is very threatening," Donin says. "And I believe that on some very basic level, men still see women as their property."

No more than women see men as their property or see themselves as entitled to the earnings of a man.

All of this makes the future of relationships seem pretty dismal - which, according to The New York Times, isn't a problem, as relationships are becoming a thing of the past, anyway.

The more generations raised without both their mother and father actually raising them instead of both working full time outside of the home, the less we'll have people who can related to each other well. Also, men have been portrayed as the enemy of women for so long. Finally, we're a society that thinks we have a right to slaughter our own offspring for our own, often selfish, reasons. Those things don’t bode well for relationships.

"Hooking up is a casual sexual encounter with no expectation of future emotional commitment. Think of it as a one-night stand with someone you know," writes Charles M. Blow in a Dec. 13 article. "Under [this] new model, you hook up a few times and, if you really like the person, you might consider going on a date."

That's what the woman might be thinking, but a true male player will simply move on to other women once a woman he's seeing starts making demands of his money and non-sexual time.

Just don't hook up behind your boyfriend's back. That's cheating. Maybe.

Sheesh. I understand that people make promises to each other, and that when someone specifically says they are going to be monogamous with their partner, they are breaking their word if they aren’t. But really – what is the big deal about breaking your word if you are already fornicating? Fornicating isn't wrong, but breaking your word is? Why be faithful to another flawed human being when you aren't faithful to God? Why respect someone else when you don’t respect yourself? If were talking the "rules of the world", the mistake comes in promising to be monogamous in the first place. Players should never promise such a thing. They can let her delude herself into thinking they are monogamous.

The healthiest thing, though, is to save sex for marriage. And yes, for these purposes, any contact with each other's genitals or anal cavity is sex. Even in Cancun. Even at a bachelorette party in Cancun.

My Letter to Dr. Laura

Okay, here is pretty much what I wrote to Dr. Laura, and what she read on the air today (Wednesday 12/10) to start her first hour and go on a long rant for the rest of the opening segment. I say "pretty much" because there might be slight variations in the actual letter, since I had only saved part of the text in my computer and added the intro and conclusion that she read on the air when I pasted the meat of the letter to her e-mail window, and might have done some insignificant edits.


I got an unsolicited e-mail from a childcare provider in my city. Here's my reply:

I don't know you. You may be the best in your business. But you can't replace my child's mother.

One of the main reasons I got married was so that a stranger would not raise my child. My wife takes care of our child, thank you very much. Sure, it means we don't have a tiny bit more of income (after the higher taxes and other expenses we'd have to pay), but I figure my little girl is best with her own mother. My wife is an R.N. Now she has just two patients.

Some people would call me lucky because I can afford to have my wife take care of our child and home. But it wasn't luck. It was a lot of hard work and patience. There were a lot of things I didn't buy along the way, a lot of drinks I didn't gulp, I lot of vacations I didn't take. I didn't make babies out of wedlock. I didn't shack up. I didn't marry the wrong person just to take a relationship "to the next level". I stayed unmarried and childless until I found the right woman - a woman who also lived within her means. Then I married her. Before getting her pregnant.

In the mean time, I didn't get drunk, I didn't do drugs, I didn't gamble away my money. I didn't buy stuff I couldn't afford. I drove cars that weren't sexy. I worked at a job starting in high school, I completed college, I ended up working a full time job, a part-time job, and a freelance gig for five years before dropping the part-time job.

My wife finished college in four years despite significant challenges and then workedher butt off and was very careful with her money. She didn't make babies. She waitedto find the right man to be her husband.

Sure, we owe it all to God. God could take it all away tomorrow.

But it isn't luck.

And we don't use day orphanages. Thank God.

Thanks Dr. Laura. Thanks for helping me so see how blessed I am to have a loving wife who is my girlfriend and who is her kid's mom.

I am my kid's dad.

OMG!!! Dr. Laura Read My Letter On-Air

Just a few moments ago, Dr. Laura read my e-mailed letter on-air to open her show. If she places it on her website, I will link to it. Otherwise, I will past the text here later.

That was quite a rush.

I have had something I wrote read on a top-rated national radio program before, but this time, I was actually listening. Better yet, my wife was listening (the letter was largely about her) and she called me to express her excitement.

Second Notice on Your Vehicle's Factory Warranty

I'm impressed.

Somebody out there is so concerned that the factory warranty on my vehicle may be expiring, that they've taken the trouble to track down a mobile phone number I never gave the dealer or the factory, to repeatedly call me from different phone numbers in different area codes with a recording warning me that this is the second notice that the warranty may be expiring.

Mind you, I've never heard nor seen the first notice to this mythical expiration of the factory warranty on my "vehicle". But they sure are persistent in calling me with the second notice... over and over and over again.

I thought I was special, until I found out that these friendly recorded voices were cheating on me by calling others with the same message, too.

Oh well... at least I have my friend in Nigeria, whose millions of dollars will console me once I get them transferred to me. And my British Lottery winnings.

A Reminder of Why Caution is Needed

Here’s a reminder of one reason why people should be extremely cautious about relationships, especially marriage. AP medical writer Lindsey Tanner reports that one in five young adults has a personality disorder. (To steal a joke from a comic, if four of your friends are normal, then it is you.)

Almost one in five young American adults has a personality disorder that interferes with everyday life, and even more abuse alcohol or drugs, researchers reported Monday in the most extensive study of its kind.

The disorders include problems such as obsessive or compulsive tendencies and anti-social behavior that can sometimes lead to violence. The study also found that fewer than 25 percent of college-aged Americans with mental problems get treatment.

And even if they do get treatment, it doesn’t mean they’ll stick with treatment or that it will be effective, or without significant negative side effects.

One expert said personality disorders may be overdiagnosed.

Certainly a possibility, but then if their brain was subjected to unnecessary psychotropic drugs while it was developing, then that is a problem in and of itself.

But others said the results were not surprising since previous, less rigorous evidence has suggested mental problems are common on college campuses and elsewhere.

And that’s just the staff! Heh.

Counting substance abuse, the study found that nearly half of young people surveyed have some sort of psychiatric condition, including students and non-students.

Personality disorders were the second most common problem behind drug or alcohol abuse as a single category. The disorders include obsessive, anti-social and paranoid behaviors that are not mere quirks but actually interfere with ordinary functioning.

Happy dating, everyone!

I notice that the article did not report a gender discrepancy or parity. I wonder.

I know I'm risking the ire of many commenters and fellow bloggers - because these people get difficult when you suggest that they may... get difficult - but unless you want a lot of unnecessary drama and difficulty in your life, I would suggest never committing to anyone until you've been around them enough and in a variety of situations to be sure they don't have a problem like this that is a negative factor in their life, or it will be a problem in your life, too. This is one reason why I now suggest that before marrying, couples visit their doctors with each other, including any mental health professionals, and discuss past and existing problems openly. Please consider that a lot of these problems may be passed down to offspring. If you really think that these people are entitled to a relationship, ease your conscience by realizing that there are other people in the world who can provide them with one. There's no reason you should feel obligated to share your body, your heart, your bed, your home, your money, or your credit with someone with a personality disorder.

Sister Concerned About Brother, Mother

Just in time for Thanksgiving comes this Dear Abby column.

DESPERATE SIS IN ILLINOIS wrote:

I'm concerned about my 37-year-old brother, "Ricky," who still lives at home with our mother.

You know, it is one thing if you leave home after high school or college and then have to move back in temporarily for some reason, or if your parent or parent(s) need to move in with you after you have established your own place. But never leaving is usually a problem. I know someone who is on track to be in this situation – should his mother still be alive when he is 37.

Ricky is good-looking, never married and has never really had a girlfriend.

This is presented as though either Ricky has some sort of socialization problem or his mother is preventing him from forming relationships with others. Since he never left home, it really doesn't matter if he is good looking. What woman with any choice is going to choose a man who has never left home? Now, what could be going on is that Ricky may going out and fornicating without getting into relationships. Think "booty call." Perhaps he likes the financial security he has with his living arrangements, and he gets his physical release with no strings attached. It is entirely possible, especially if he is good-looking.

Our father passed away four years ago, and since then our mother has become dependent on Ricky for everything.

Is she really, or is she just emotionally needy? I can believe she is actually dependent on him if her husband always did everything for her and she married before ever establishing herself as an individual in the first place. That's one reason people should not marry too young.

Neither one has any friends outside the family.

Usually not a good sign.

I try to get my brother to come out and meet people and have some fun, but he generally declines.

Maybe he feels overshadowed by you, or maybe he isn't in to your crowd.

If he does agree to come, Mother comes with him.

Maybe he wants to get her out, too. But yeah, it would be good if he could go places without her. And maybe he does. Like, say late at night.

They almost act like a married couple.

Yeah, well, there’s the rub, so to speak. As I said before, Ricky may be a player. Heck, he could be a closeted (at least to you) homosexual. Or he could have little or no interest in sex (there are a small minority of men out there like that), or not interested in relationships/marriage. There's even the possibility that Ricky and Mother are more like a married couple than you'd want to ever think about. As bizarre as that sounds, that isn't unheard of, not even in a Dear Abby column. And if we’re a society that says "love" is the determining factor in making a relationship right or not, then who is to say that would be wrong? It's not like your mother is going to have more children, after all.

Dear Abby responded:

Start by having a frank talk with your brother and asking him if he likes living his life this way. There has to be a reason why a good-looking, 37-year-old man has never had a girlfriend. Maybe he doesn't want one.

I’m glad she offers that possibility.

After that, it's time to have a chat with your mother. I don't know how old she is, but one would think that she might like to "play" with people her own age.

How about asking her what she is doing to prepare her son to be independent? After all, chances are he's going to outlive her.

If she doesn't, then MYOB.

Now there's some good advice.

Going Down Until the End

I'm going to graphically discuss issues surrounding particular sex acts. If that is a problem for you, skip this entry.

I'm a married man and if I get all hot and bothered, I can fulfill my desires in a godly way, so for me it isn’t a problem to discuss this. But if it will be a problem for you to read, then move on. Lovemaking is a normal and healthy part of holy matrimony, and I don't see why I shouldn't be able to write frankly about aspects of that here.

You have been warned...


I read something written by a woman who claimed that most men didn't care or couldn't tell the difference where they ejaculated – mouth, hand, vagina, etc. It was part of a thread topic discussing fellatio and how it should be finished. She was apparently basing this on things men had written, since she is not a man and couldn't possibly know what it feels like to receive fellatio.

I can tell the difference. I find it hard to believe that most men can’t, even if they say they can't. Notice that men often say things to keep the peace. Regardless, she went on to write that men don’t have to put up with the equivalent in dealing with a sticky substance emitted from their wife. True. But women don't have to put up with monthly mood swings, either, or "Not now, I’m on my period." Yes, there are differences between men and women.

Women have probably used her statement - or similar statements from other people giving advice - to avoid or restrict fellatio.

And that’s okay. People shouldn’t do what they don’t want to do, right? I mean, her husband can decide he doesn't want to take out the trash, or lift that piece of furniture, or take her out to that nice restaurant, or any number of other things. But is that any way to love each other? Never doing anything unless it is your idea and what you are eager to do?

You may be reading this and thinking, "Oh, how trivial!" Well, perhaps for some. For others it isn't. The more restrictions and inhibitions placed on marital lovemaking, the more we miss out on some experience with our spouse.

I hope I'm not surprising you, but most guys enjoy receiving fellatio immensely, and a good percentage of those men enjoy ejaculating during fellatio, and a good percentage of those enjoy it if she consumes the ejaculate. Obviously, you don’t really have to swallow. You can easily fake it without him realizing (jumping up and running to the bathroom isn’t fooling anyone). Use your imagination here or look it up online.

When a man ejaculates, it is usually a moment of supersensitivity. I have felt the difference between it happening in fellatio and having the fellatio end just before. No, it doesn't feel the same in her hand, or waving in the air. The difference in feeling is huge for me. The swallowing aspect is mostly psychological, to be sure – as I suspect it is when a woman says she enjoys the feel of his ejaculation inside her in intercourse. But swallowing isn't a necessary part of completing fellatio with ejaculation. It is just the least messy, and like I said, psychologically stimulating for some men.

Sure, most women do not naturally enjoy the taste and texture of ejaculate. Some don't let on to that, some pretend to like it, and some learn to like it. Do you think the first time we smelled your natural vaginal odor, we thought "Well, that’s just like vanilla"? No way. But I learned to love it – to crave it – because it is a sign of my wife’s pleasure and it is something that is part of her. I enjoy cunnilingus so much I would continue to do it even if my wife were to never give me fellatio ever again. I told her that if she ever decides to kill me, to please do it by smothering me this way.

Not everyone is going to like everything, but if you’re married, why not try working on doing as much as you can to experience as much as you can with your spouse, provided it isn't harmful or immoral? If you're not yet married, consider that sex involves a lot of tastes, smells, and textures – and a lot of trust and often persistence. If you think you may have a problem with those, seek counseling or consider not marrying.

And isn’t that part of the "risk" one undertakes when they marry, especially if they have saved sex for marriage? Your partner may have turn-ons and likes and dislikes and turn-offs that are not entirely compatible with yours. Hopefully, love, commitment, and selflessness will help the couple to come up with solutions that are satisfying to both. You have genitals that fit together, and many ways of pleasing one another.

For those who have not saved sex for marriage, or at least certain sex acts, there should already be some idea of those things. Someone who makes those mistakes should not make another one by taking one or more of those things out of their repertoire once married. If you were physically able to do something before you married, you are physically able to do it once married, and ceasing to do so is a nasty form of "bait and switch".

A man who can’t tell the difference between ejaculating in your mouth, hand, vagina, or wherever would also be unable to tell the difference between ejaculating in your vagina and that of another woman. Does that make both the same? Of course not. It doesn’t make the latter okay, either, but if he isn't getting what he wants from his wife, it makes it more likely.

I do not excuse adultery, but I'm sure some such affairs or flings could have been avoided if the spouse who was cheated on had been willing to accomodate reasonable desires of their spouse.

That's just one guy's perspective. Feel free, as always, to chime in.

Homeless People

I've been hearing an ad on radio saying that nearly half of all homeless people in Los Angeles - or maybe it was southern California or the entire state or nation – are women or children.

This was apparently said to evoke sympathetic feelings and concern in the listener.

The implication, of course, is that it isn't as bad that grown men are homeless. It is far worse that women and children are homeless. I won’t hold my breath waiting for feminists to decry this sexism. Say, speaking of feminists, wasn't abortion supposed to prevent children from being homeless?

Of course, if "nearly half" of homeless people are women or children, that means that there are more homeless men than women and children combined. And how many homeless parents have just one child? In other words, the loss of a home can put one man, and one woman, but several children out on the streets, adding to the numbers. Frankly, I’m surprised that homeless men outnumber the homeless women and children. It just goes to show you that our overall system is less favorable to men. I won’t hold my breath waiting for feminists to shed a tear over this.

Before I go further, I want to note that these statistics usually include people most people don't consider homeless – people living in someone else's home. They could be living in a room, a garage, or sleeping on the couch, or whatever. They have a roof over their heads. Or they are in shelters. Even the "truly" homeless often have shelter of some sort or a vehicle. I've seen places where "homeless" people live in a structure and have (stolen) electricity and access to running water.

To be sure, homelessness is a bad thing - even though there are some homeless people who disagree. When someone is homeless, it means they have to stay on someone else's property, with or without their permission. But to try to get us riled up about it by noting that women are homeless, too, is the wrong way to go about it. Children should have a stable place to live, and if that means taking them away from a parent, then so be it. Women, though, if they're going to have to be taken seriously as equals, have to take the good with the bad.

It is not surprising that men make up the majority of the homeless. If there is a domestic dispute and the police get involved, men are the ones more often forced from the home. There are many more shelters for abused women than abused men. Historically, more men have served as military personnel in war zones and have suffered mental illness in part or in whole because of that experience, and the mentally ill have to be allowed their freedom, including their freedom to be homeless. Our social structure is still set up so that money flows from men to women. Men are more likely than women to go to prison, and end up homeless afterwards. And my guess is that men are more likely to choose to be homeless (yes, there are people who choose that), because women have more of a nesting instinct while men may be more adventurous and more comfortable "living off the land."

A woman who chooses a husband wisely and treats him kindly is unlikely to find herself homeless. Good husband material will earn enough and be conscientious enough to provide for her and any children they have should something happen to him. I would be curious to know how many homeless women 1) waited until marriage to have children, and 2) used to be married to a good man and treated him well. My guess is that those numbers would be extremely low.

No veteran should be homeless unless he or she wants to be. We owe them.

My guess is that teen runaways and orphans become a huge part of the homeless population, and there are things we can do to prevent that.

The solutions mostly involve strong families and private charity. Clearly government hasn't been doing such a good job. Organized, expert charities work best – simply handing cash to a homeless person likely won't change anything.

And we should not forget that men make up the majority of the homeless.

Lovemaking vs. Fornication

In an earlier entry, I posed this question:

“If you believe there is nothing wrong with sex outside of the marriage, living together, or having children out of wedlock, why should a man get married? What does he get from being married that he can’t get otherwise?”

Nobody has come forward, at least so far, to argue that cohabitation, fornication, and having children out of wedlock is okay and that a man should get married. Maybe that’s a function of my traffic. More likely, though, it is because it is very hard to argue that, under current societal conditions, a man has an advantage in getting married if it is okay for him to do all of those things without being married.

I posed the question because there are people who try to avoid admitting that those things are in any way wrong, and maintain that men should marry. But they are hard-pressed to explain why a man should marry, because if they cite the things a woman brings to the relationship, that can be countered with “Yes, but many women provide that in a relationship without being married.”

Fornication and cohabitation are detrimental to men, in my understanding, and are morally wrong. It is bad for children to be raised out of wedlock, and so it is wrong for men to put children in that situation. That’s what I believe. So I have more reason to argue that a man should marry – if he wants to have sex and be a father and live with a woman.

However, there is a dirty little secret that many men don’t want to admit, one that gives even men who do not see those things as wrong a reason to get married. (Whether it outweighs all of the reasons for them not get married is another subject.)

This dirty little secret is: Sex is Better With Someone We Love

Yes, most guys, unlike most women, can have sex without getting emotionally attached to the other person, or convincing ourselves that it means anything more than getting off. Guys tend to be visually stimulated, so if we like what we see, we get erect and can easily achieve orgasm. She doesn’t have to be our wife, she doesn’t have to be someone we love, she doesn’t even have to be real. She can be a really mean person. It doesn’t matter, as long as all we want is sexual release.

Most guys will readily admit to this from their personal feelings and their conversations with other guys. I, unfortunately, happen to know it from experience. Although I am now convinced that sex is for marriage and that sex with anyone but your spouse is a sin, I didn’t always behave that way.

Although I had what most people (including me) consider great parents, I was not raised in what I would call a Christian home. Based on what my parents did and did not teach me and societal influences, I was preoccupied with the idea that sex outside of marriage was wrong because of the possibility of spreading STDs or conceiving a child out of wedlock. It didn’t sink in to me that I belonged to God; that sex is also an emotional and spiritual act, and that fornicating would have a negative impact on me for the rest of my life, even if there were no babies made, even if there were no diseases transmitted. Bonding with the wrong women, and spending time, money, and energy foolishly were also consequences of such behavior, or the pursuit of it.

What I needed to know was that the right people would still want to be with me even if I bucked the trends and stayed chaste. What I needed to know was that being chaste would not make me less of a man, and would not be “wasting” my youth and the body God gave me. What I needed to know was that God’s rules didn’t change just because our culture made saving sex for marriage more difficult through increased stimulation, fewer impediments, and later marriages. What I needed to know was that fornicating would hinder my enjoyment of lovemaking.

As someone who has fornicated with women I loved, women I didn’t love, and then got married, I know from my own experience that sex is better with someone I love, and more so within marriage. It is better yet when I want to conceive a child than when I’m worrying that I will.

Now, this is not to say that a guy will enjoy sex more with a wife who passively and quietly remains motionless during lovemaking, who gives off signals that she’d rather be doing anything else, and who declines doing anything that might make the experience more enjoyable for either or both of them... instead of some nubile bikini model stranger who will do will do just about anything in bed without even having to be asked. If God were to say, “Okay – you’re choice: sex with a cold wife or an enthusiastic stranger – either will be okay”, most men would choose the enthusiastic stranger. But I found the very same sex acts to be more enjoyable with a woman I loved and even more so with my wife than I did with a woman I was just dating – because I was making love God’s way to my wife, not simply trying to impress someone else or get my rocks off.

I suppose that some people, especially guys, would cite guilt or some psychological hang-up to explain the difference in my experiences. But I really don’t think that made the difference. It might have been a factor, but I had pretty much dulled my conscience in this regard by the time I figured that, as long as I was going to fornicate, I wasn’t going to compound the situation by becoming attached to the wrong woman while doing it. Yes, while my morality should have driven me towards chastity, instead I became more callous and to stop letting myself get attached to a woman with whom I would not have a future (which, by the way, made those women want me all the more). I was mad at God back then. It wasn’t like I was sleeping around. It was still pretty much one woman at a time, but that was bad enough and damaging enough and doesn’t make my behavior excusable.

The guys who are players, hedonists, and the like out there may grant that it is true that sex is better within love and commitment than without, but they may still maintain that even casual sex is better than no sex, and the tradeoffs of marriage or some other sort of commitment or emotional bond are too great. I could agree...if I was an atheist or otherwise believed we were nothing more than advanced monkeys comprised of nothing but matter. But I believe we are more than just physical beings. We’re spiritual beings as well. The costs of doing things our own way instead of God’s way are too great. (And let’s never confuse doing things a feminist’s way or a woman’s way with doing things God’s way.)

Today’s Christian man should not hurry to the altar just because he has a desire for sex or for sex with a woman he loves. He should only go to the altar if he wants to be a husband, is reasonably prepared to be a husband, and has found the right woman to be his wife. While I can’t excuse either wrong, I think it is much more of a problem to marry the wrong woman or marry at all if that is not what is right for you than to fornicate. Fortunately, those aren’t the only options – as often as they are chosen. A man can marry the right woman at the right time, and a man can be a faithful follower of Christ and be unmarried.

Saying “sex is better if you’re in love” will not be enough to discourage a guy who isn’t in love to abstain from casual sex, especially when it is thrown at him. Such a guy will gladly take the casual sex until the next time he “finds love”. As men, we need to be honest with the younger males who look up to us. Yes, sex is fun, and yes, there are females who are willing to fornicate with you, but you’re better off submitting to God instead of debasing yourself, and doing so with someone else.

My advice to wives is to make your husband one of those men who can honestly say that sex is better and more frequent within marriage. Is there something you know he likes, but you aren’t really excited by it? As long as it doesn’t hurt or isn’t clearly against the Bible (such as involving another person or being publicly immodest), go ahead and do it anyway. If your husband can honestly talk of the benefits of marriage in this regard, he will be more effective in persuading younger males that saving sex for marriage is for the best. The more men who believe that, the better off women will be, too.

If you are an unmarried woman who cares about promoting marriage, especially because you desire to marry, you can also help in this regard by not fornicating.

Twelve Year Old Worried About Superficiality

PLAIN OLD ME IN NORTH CAROLINA writes into Dear Abby:

I am a 12-year-old, and I'm not pretty.

Most twelve-year-olds think this about themselves. Quite often, they are wrong. But guess what? Some of the women considered most beautiful today will tell you that they thought they were ugly at age twelve, or that others thought they were ugly. You have a lot of growing left to do.

I just started seventh grade, and I have noticed that people date each other based completely on looks.

Seventh graders shouldn’t be dating, unless you are talking about spending time with each other’s families pretty much like you would someone you were "just friends" with.

Many adults date each other completely on looks, too, by the way.

I think that's superficial, and I wouldn't want to date someone just because of it.

Superficial? How deep do you expect twelve year olds to be when it comes to dating? They should be focusing on school and hobbies.

People are passed over because of their looks who may actually be nice people inside.

That’s going to happen all through life. I’m not saying it is right – I’m saying that’s just the way it is. You can decide not to pass someone up because of their looks. But you can’t keep someone else from passing you up because of your looks.

The fact is, more attractive people have some things easier in life. Especially women. We do a disservice to our youth when we lie about that. This girl may blossom into a very attractive woman (heck she could already be a pretty girl). There are things she can do to make that more likely. While genes play a large role, they aren’t the only things at work. Diet, exercise, dental care, grooming, poise, attitude, the ability to flirt; knowing which clothing, hair style, and makeup applications flatter her most… those can all help.

She needs to learn about herself, though, and what she wants to do with her life, because that will determine what kind of man, if any, she wants to attract and keep, and that will determine how she socializes.

Most of all, she should be focusing on her studies, hobbies, and interpersonal skills at that age. It can seem like “everyone” is dating, but they aren’t and most of those that are shouldn’t be.

Fathers, let your daughters know they are valuable for more than just their appearance – that they can get attention from males without exposing themselves.

Dear Abby responds:

Good looks can be an asset.

Darn right.

However, before you put yourself down anymore about what you inherited from your parents, it's important that you give yourself a reality check. Their appearance didn't prevent them from finding each other attractive and falling in love.

You’re assuming she isn’t the result of a drunken one night stand.

Also, it takes some people longer to mature into their final "product" than it does others. In other words, the way you look now at age 12 isn't necessarily the way you will look by the middle or end of your teens.

That’s what I said. That reminds me. Social networking sites reveal some very interesting results of time. Some of the girls that had the run of the school because they were considered pretty ain't so pretty anymore, and some of the girls who didn't turn heads now do.

That's why it is so important to develop your personality and your mind, so you will have tools for success later in life.

Even the most beautiful women should know a few things so that they don’t end up destitute when they age. If your plan is to marry rich, it is still possible for him to spend all of the money and die or have it all taken away due to crime or bad investments, and then what would you do? We have many examples of people who have made tens of millions of dollars who later went broke. She should learn to be a happy and productive person own her own. If she wants a relationship and finds one, great.

Silence

Well, the silence on my previous post is deafening. Nobody wanted to take a crack at it? Or have I scared everyone away?