Another calendar year is winding down to a close. Have you made
resolutions for 2018? Resolutions can be made at any time. You don't
need to wait for an arbitrary calendar date. I read somewhere that if
you can keep a new habit for 21 days, you're likely to keep it going.
It can also be helpful to make incremental changes. For example, if you
want to walk more, don't think you need to start walking a certain long
distance every day. Start with something and then add to it a little at a time.
But this entry is not about resolutions.
It is simply taking a moment to think about the year ending and think about the year ahead.
New
Years Eve and New Years Day have become popular proposal days, and
there are people who pick December 31 as their day to get married.
Guys, DO NOT fall into that trap!
As for me, I have kept active on Twitter
and I plan to keep active on this blog, because I find it therapeutic
and if I can help just one man have a better life, and to be better, than it will be worth it (in addition to how it helps me).
There
were some big things that happened this year. My wife's sibling and
in-law, who'd been living with us rent-free for almost two years, were
kicked out by my wife because my wife didn't think they were helping out
enough and didn't like their attitudes. We had to hospitalize one of our kids
in a psych ward (they were only there temporarily, but long enough) and
we're still dealing with finding the best therapy. There was at least
one other big change on which I might elaborate later.
I'm not
planning big changes for 2018. I plan to keep working and I plan to keep
trying to keep my wife from going off the rails again and keep tending
to my kids. Save for a concert I have tickets to already, I have nothing
planned for me that will be fun. I'll be happy if life doesn't get much worse.
A few notes about media from this past year. Hugh Hefner died,
as I predicted he would (two other people I predicted would die in 2017
haven't - yet). Some people tried to tie Hefner in to all of the men
doing everything from sending unsolicited crotch shots
to sexual harassment to rape in the entertainment industry. At the
other end of the spectrum, the head of a Protestant ministry, the
Christian Research Institute, left Protestantism for Eastern Orthodoxy
while staying put at the ministry, which I consider to be a bad move on
his part (not necessarily joining the EOC, but keeping his position in a
Protestant ministry). Then there was Tom Leykis continuing to pass
along his astute observations on the unfolding demise of the corporate
terrestrial radio industry while threatening to end his own Internet-based show unless he got enough subscribers by the end of the year.
Do you have observations for 2017? Plans or predictions for 2018? I always welcome comments. I hope you have a great 2018.
A look at the world from a sometimes sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek, decidedly American male perspective. Lately, this blog has been mostly about gender issues, dating, marriage, divorce, sex, and parenting via analyzing talk radio, advice columns, news stories, religion, and pop culture in general. I often challenge common platitudes, arguments. and subcultural elements perpetuated by fellow Evangelicals, social conservatives. Read at your own risk.
Thursday, December 28, 2017
Thursday, December 21, 2017
How Things Go in Marriage
At least mine, anyway, and probably a lot of other husbands.
Scenario 1:
Wife: I'd like you to make more of the decisions.
Me: [consults with my wife, makes a decision]
Wife: You don't listen to me!
Me: I did listen to you. We didn't agree. I made the decision.
Scenario 2:
Wife: I want to do X, Y, and Z.
Me: Let's think about this for a bit.
Wife: I REALLY WANT TO DO X, Y, and Z NOW!
Me: What if M, N, and O happen as a result? I don't want to deal with that. That wouldn't be good.
Wife: You're so negative! Why do you have to crap on everything I want to do?!? This is the best thing to do!
Wife: [Does X, Y, and Z.]
M,N, and O are the result.
Wife: I didn't know it was going to be like this! This bums me out so much. I wish we'd never done X, Y, and Z. HELP ME!!!
REPEAT with different things in the X, Y, and Z spots.
If you want to share scenarios, please comment with yours.
Scenario 1:
Wife: I'd like you to make more of the decisions.
Me: [consults with my wife, makes a decision]
Wife: You don't listen to me!
Me: I did listen to you. We didn't agree. I made the decision.
Scenario 2:
Wife: I want to do X, Y, and Z.
Me: Let's think about this for a bit.
Wife: I REALLY WANT TO DO X, Y, and Z NOW!
Me: What if M, N, and O happen as a result? I don't want to deal with that. That wouldn't be good.
Wife: You're so negative! Why do you have to crap on everything I want to do?!? This is the best thing to do!
Wife: [Does X, Y, and Z.]
M,N, and O are the result.
Wife: I didn't know it was going to be like this! This bums me out so much. I wish we'd never done X, Y, and Z. HELP ME!!!
REPEAT with different things in the X, Y, and Z spots.
If you want to share scenarios, please comment with yours.
Monday, December 18, 2017
What Women Like
Today's example of what women like - like so much they will have intercourse with such men, apparently without effective contraception - comes from a recent Dear Abby column:
I have a 14-year-old daughter I have raised alone. Her father has never been in her life, nor has he been in the lives of his other children with other women. He has a long history of criminal behavior and mental illness.Note that the guy being described has obviously had sex with many women, women who don't use contraception effectively.
Will There Be a Tom Leykis Cliffhanger? - UPDATED
As has happened in some years past, at least as recently as 2014, Tom Leykis,
who evaluates his business goals on a calendar year basis, is warning
his listeners that his live audio call-in show will end at the turn of
the year unless the finances are favorable. Extremely transparent in
comparison to so many other entertainers, he's insisting that unless he
has 1,900 subscribers
by the end of the year (and it is important to note the shows at the
end of the year will be repeats due to the holidays), this version of
his show, which started in early 2012,
will end, with a final live show in early January to say goodbye. And
as Leykis says, his word is his bond. As of this writing, he has nearly
1,800 subscribers. Unless the pace of subscriptions and renewals picks
up, his live shows this year will end without it being clear if the goal
will be met.
If you're not familiar with Leykis' business, you should be. And you should care what happens with it.
If you're not familiar with Leykis' business, you should be. And you should care what happens with it.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Go Watch Your Musicals, Ladies
UPDATE: I'm bumping this up on June 15, 2012 because today Dr. Laura covered this topic again and asked for comments on Facebook (even though grown men are not supposed to use Facebook, right?) about how playing video games is turning men into pathetic worms. Or something like that. I haven't listened to her commentary on today's show yet. I'll likely have more to say about this soon, based on the comments left on Facebook. -K
UPDATE AGAIN 12/14/2017: Bumping this up again because she again told a caller to toss out her 16 year-old son's video game system (and remove the network entirely from his life). You know what guys that age are likely to do if you do that, given their newfound free time? Knock up girlfriends.
Dr. Laura is back from vacation and the first segment of today's show already got me going. If you click on my Dr. Laura tag you'll see that there's a lot I like about her and her show and I think she does a lot of good. But one of the areas in which I think she's off the mark is "video games". I've written about this before.
I think it was her second call of the day... a wife had called, dragging her husband along, telling Dr. Laura that they have disagreed since they got married (about a year and half ago, if I recall correctly) about the husband playing video games. Dr. Laura did NOT ask the wife if she knew about the guy's game playing when she married him.
Instead, she insisted that the guy needed to choose between the video games and his wife. She repeatedly said that he looks like a "boy", and "adolescent". She would not listen to anything he had to say, nor when his wife tried to interject something. She called it "childish", a "turn-off" and said it didn’t matter what his accomplishments were, that he needed to give up the games.
From there, she went to break and when she came back, she emphasized her point again. Finally, just before she took another call, she threw in a mention that women should not overlook it before marriage and then turn around and make an issue of it once married. (My guess is that she'd advise women not to marry these guys.) I wish she would have drilled the wife on that one. I think it is a rotten thing to do to marry someone and then make an issue out of your spouse's recreational activity.
As I wrote before, I don't play video games. I don't even play those games on social networking sites, or solitaire, or any of the other games found in desktop and handheld computers. But I still fail to see what the big deal is about this. Some people like watching movies. Some people like watching TV shows, including sports. Some people like playing video games. I fail to see why one is worse than the others. I get that Dr. Laura is not into them, but she's wrong on this one.
There are a lot of things, I’m sure, that the husband could cite about his wife's behavior that guys would find a turn-off, even though he married her knowing about them. Dr. Laura had kicked off the show talking about how she had taken time off to go sailing and how much fun it was. There are people who would find that to be silly or childish. But so what? They don't have to go sailing. And Dr. Laura doesn't need to play games, and neither does this guy's wife.
At least people are able to play video games together, and he's right there in the home so that his wife can approach him if she wants to. I hope that guy rewards his wife for dragging him into that trap by picking up a solitary hobby that takes him out of the house or into the garage and away from his wife… so that she begs him to go back to playing video games.
I personally know two grown men who are game designers, and they are mature and make a good living. It's honest work. And they target their games to adults - not with "adult" content, mind you, but they do not talk down to children. I hadn't even thought about them, though, when I started writing this. I was simply thinking about players.
Don't like your husband playing games? Go watch a musical, or scrapbook, or whatever.
UPDATE AGAIN 12/14/2017: Bumping this up again because she again told a caller to toss out her 16 year-old son's video game system (and remove the network entirely from his life). You know what guys that age are likely to do if you do that, given their newfound free time? Knock up girlfriends.
Dr. Laura is back from vacation and the first segment of today's show already got me going. If you click on my Dr. Laura tag you'll see that there's a lot I like about her and her show and I think she does a lot of good. But one of the areas in which I think she's off the mark is "video games". I've written about this before.
I think it was her second call of the day... a wife had called, dragging her husband along, telling Dr. Laura that they have disagreed since they got married (about a year and half ago, if I recall correctly) about the husband playing video games. Dr. Laura did NOT ask the wife if she knew about the guy's game playing when she married him.
Instead, she insisted that the guy needed to choose between the video games and his wife. She repeatedly said that he looks like a "boy", and "adolescent". She would not listen to anything he had to say, nor when his wife tried to interject something. She called it "childish", a "turn-off" and said it didn’t matter what his accomplishments were, that he needed to give up the games.
From there, she went to break and when she came back, she emphasized her point again. Finally, just before she took another call, she threw in a mention that women should not overlook it before marriage and then turn around and make an issue of it once married. (My guess is that she'd advise women not to marry these guys.) I wish she would have drilled the wife on that one. I think it is a rotten thing to do to marry someone and then make an issue out of your spouse's recreational activity.
As I wrote before, I don't play video games. I don't even play those games on social networking sites, or solitaire, or any of the other games found in desktop and handheld computers. But I still fail to see what the big deal is about this. Some people like watching movies. Some people like watching TV shows, including sports. Some people like playing video games. I fail to see why one is worse than the others. I get that Dr. Laura is not into them, but she's wrong on this one.
There are a lot of things, I’m sure, that the husband could cite about his wife's behavior that guys would find a turn-off, even though he married her knowing about them. Dr. Laura had kicked off the show talking about how she had taken time off to go sailing and how much fun it was. There are people who would find that to be silly or childish. But so what? They don't have to go sailing. And Dr. Laura doesn't need to play games, and neither does this guy's wife.
At least people are able to play video games together, and he's right there in the home so that his wife can approach him if she wants to. I hope that guy rewards his wife for dragging him into that trap by picking up a solitary hobby that takes him out of the house or into the garage and away from his wife… so that she begs him to go back to playing video games.
I personally know two grown men who are game designers, and they are mature and make a good living. It's honest work. And they target their games to adults - not with "adult" content, mind you, but they do not talk down to children. I hadn't even thought about them, though, when I started writing this. I was simply thinking about players.
Don't like your husband playing games? Go watch a musical, or scrapbook, or whatever.
Monday, November 20, 2017
Do You Have a Commitment?
Ladies, after listening closely to Dr. Laura for many, many years, I know how to tell if you have are in a committed relationship. Some of you think you're in a committed relationship, but you're really not. I've tried to keep this as simple as possible.
Do You Have a Commitment?
Do You Have a Commitment?
Monday, November 06, 2017
On Spreadsheets and Owing Sex
Much attention was recently paid to a posting by a frigid wife of a spreadsheet her husband made detailing their lack of a sex life and the lame excuses she provided in rejecting him.
In response, many people have circulated this flowchart:
Of course this is not something presented from a Biblical perspective. In the Biblical worldview, married people (uh, that's a man and a woman, for you youngsters who have been robbed of a good understanding of marriage) belong to each other. Sexually rejecting your spouse is denying something they are owed, and is religious grounds for divorce, and used to be legal grounds for divorce, back when you actually needed a reason. Marriages weren't considered valid unless they has been consummated with intercourse.
We can agree that a wife (or woman, since we as a society now want to shame slut-shamers) does not owe anyone sex. However, we should also agree that in the very same sense, no man owes a woman...
love
respect
his seat
his coat
his arm
a dance
a prom
a phone call
protection
help with heavy objects
automotive maintenance and repair
romance
dinner
a movie
a ride
the storefront side of the sidewalk
conversation
attention
flowers
jewelry
sweets
a wedding
a baby
birthday cards
birthday presents
anniversary cards
anniversary presents
Valentine's Day cards
Valentine's Day presents
tax money
Let's make sure we establish that and it will be a wonderful world of men and women not being pleasant towards each other.
Most likely, the woman who posted that spreadsheet her husband had made rarely, if ever, rejected a nice session of fornication with him. Before they married, she represented herself as enjoying sex and wanting to have regular/frequent sex with him. If he was a bad lover or somehow deficient in their relationship in a way that turned her off, why wasn't he alerted? She was able to function just fine then. Now that he has signed a legal contract giving him certain financial obligations to her, she rejects him. Is this just a coincidence?
Many unmarried men, especially ones who are divorced, find that many women seem to be willing and eager to have sex - lots of it - with them, even if they don't spend much (if any) time, money, or effort into romancing them or "setting the mood" or jumping through hoops. This is true even if those women have children, jobs, and maintain their own homes. These women really seem to enjoy the sex, too. Why do so many wives, meaning women who are legally entitled to one man's earnings, have so much less interest in sex? Is this just a coincidence?
Even stupid men eventually follow the rewards.
A strong inculcating of conservative religious notions about sexuality will tell a man that fornication is wrong. However, at some point, more and more men will be willing to be celibate or an occasional fornicator than a rejected husband, because becoming a husband means taking on very serious risks and obligations and if the rewards aren't there, fewer men are going to do it, no matter how much their churches tell them women deserve husbands.
On the personal front, it has been a while since I wrote this series. Things have gotten worse. Mercy sex is now once per week if I am lucky. Two week+ intervals are being imposed more, and that's just part of the problem. Recently we spent a little time with a married couple I admire that we do not get to see that often. I have been friends with them for a long time now, long before I met my wife. The husband was one of my groomsmen. After the visit, they wrote to me with their concerns. Their concerns matched those of my father (who has been telling me to consider divorce) and line up with what our therapist has said to me. All of them urge me to find relaxing, fun time for myself, but I just don't see how I can without further shortchanging my children, who have already been screwed by having the parents they do.
I hope somebody out there is learning important lessons from all of this.
Thursday, November 02, 2017
Your Child, Your Choice, Your Responsibility
The mommy wars never end. Michael Medved, as I type, has Erica Komisar on his show, who has a book out about the importance of mothers being with their children from birth to age three. Of course there are women calling up complaining about the fact that children benefit from actually being with their mother. They'd rather not hear the truth, apparently. And others are complaining that their employer doesn't facilitate this.
There are thee issues here.
1) It is YOUR responsibility to plan things so that if you have children, they will have their mother* with them. Your choice, remember? With choice comes responsibility. Daycare is almost always voluntary and a bad choice. If you're not cut out to be a mother, don't become one. If you don't have a marriage that allows for you to mother your own children, don't have them.
2) It is not a legitimate role of government to compel employers to provide daycare or maternity leave or any other of these accommodations parents want.
3) Employers should be free to run their businesses as they want. If they want to give mothers paid time off to raise their children, fine, but expecting all employers to offer it is an attitude of entitlement.
There are thee issues here.
1) It is YOUR responsibility to plan things so that if you have children, they will have their mother* with them. Your choice, remember? With choice comes responsibility. Daycare is almost always voluntary and a bad choice. If you're not cut out to be a mother, don't become one. If you don't have a marriage that allows for you to mother your own children, don't have them.
2) It is not a legitimate role of government to compel employers to provide daycare or maternity leave or any other of these accommodations parents want.
3) Employers should be free to run their businesses as they want. If they want to give mothers paid time off to raise their children, fine, but expecting all employers to offer it is an attitude of entitlement.
A Free Man Calls Dr. Laura
As you know if you read this blog, I'm married, and I'm a father, having had children with my wife. I got married because I wanted to, and I have children because I wanted to.*
On yesterday's (Wednesday, November 1, 2017) Dr. Laura Program, which I love, I think it was the first call that she took that had me wanting to scream.
The caller was a man of about 30 years of age, who has a girlfriend who is 29. He's never wanted children. The girlfriend indicated she has wanted children, but was willing to not have children for the right relationship.
On yesterday's (Wednesday, November 1, 2017) Dr. Laura Program, which I love, I think it was the first call that she took that had me wanting to scream.
The caller was a man of about 30 years of age, who has a girlfriend who is 29. He's never wanted children. The girlfriend indicated she has wanted children, but was willing to not have children for the right relationship.
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Hugh Hefner and Hysteria
After a long and storied life, Hugh Hefner passed, and everyone seemed to have something to say about him. Those who had mostly negative things to say about him fell into two basic categories: self-proclaimed feminists who are misandrists, and people with a religious conviction that sex and nudity are for monogamous heterosexual marriage and anything that goes against that is some of the worst stuff ever.
While some critics puffed up their essays with big words, if you watched closely and read between the lines, what really upset people about Hefner more than anything else was that he and/or his media exposed or glaringly reinforced some truths people didn’t want to admit:
1) Men can get sexually aroused strictly from the visual, and static, two-dimensional visuals at that.
2) Men want to see women naked more more than woman want to see men naked.
3) Men are willing to pay to see women naked.
4) Women, even the girl next door, are willing to sell their sexuality for money.
5) Men want sex more than women.
6) Women are their most visually attractive in their late teens/early 20s.
While some critics puffed up their essays with big words, if you watched closely and read between the lines, what really upset people about Hefner more than anything else was that he and/or his media exposed or glaringly reinforced some truths people didn’t want to admit:
1) Men can get sexually aroused strictly from the visual, and static, two-dimensional visuals at that.
2) Men want to see women naked more more than woman want to see men naked.
3) Men are willing to pay to see women naked.
4) Women, even the girl next door, are willing to sell their sexuality for money.
5) Men want sex more than women.
6) Women are their most visually attractive in their late teens/early 20s.
Hugh Hefner's biggest "crime" was making glamour nudes of the world's most beautiful women accessible to the masses, especially men, even if they were poor, whereas in the past, only the rich could see such women. He catered to the tastes of grown men, without trying to accommodate women and children or let women dictate what men should enjoy. Playboy allowed men to see nude women (albeit only pictorial representations) without having to sign a state marriage contract. These are his real sins in the minds of so many, whether they want to admit it or not. Some of the men speaking out are trying to appease their wives or pastors.
Regarding truth number 2, notice that while Playgirl and similar offerings became a thing, their popularity was only a tiny fraction of that of Playboy, and much of that interest came from homosexual men.
Regarding truth number 2, notice that while Playgirl and similar offerings became a thing, their popularity was only a tiny fraction of that of Playboy, and much of that interest came from homosexual men.
The critics, especially the religion-based ones, make it sound like Hefner was one of the worst things that ever happened to the world, because his magazine and associated media had young, beautiful, nude women and because he surrounded himself with young, beautiful women. He did far more damage with some of his political involvements and some of the messages conveyed in text, but people want to focus on the fact that his magazine featured women in their birthday suits.
Do the critics really think that if Hugh Hefner never existed, media, and society in general, wouldn’t be like it is today? While critics and fans alike try to paint Hefner as a pioneering pornographer, if he hadn’t done it, someone else would have. He saw a demand and cultural trends, and he capitalized on them.
Below are some of the reactions published online in response to Hefner’s death.
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
Video Games, Employment, and Marriage
Matt Walsh posted this Daily Wire story by Paul Bois to knock men for supposedly "playing video games instead of finding jobs"/
A new study shows that young males would rather sit on their rears while playing "Grand Theft Auto" than look for long, steady work.Oh really now?
According to research from economists from Princeton, the University of Rochester and the University of Chicago, non-college educated men are rejecting full-time employment and spending as much as 40 hours a week playing video games.I'm sure there are some who did this. But how many have been looking hard for work, aren't finding it, and are enjoying a little entertainment with their free time? What are those guys supposed to do? Oh, I know... they're supposed to be lackeys to women.
The University of Chicago's Erik Hurst, an economist at the Booth School of Business, confirms that happiness, at least for now, has gone up among this group of people.This is when the misandrists say that happiness shouldn't be a goal.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Why Health Matters in Relationships - Part 2
In the first installment from a couple of years ago, I wrote about why health matters in relationships, and a small part of what I wrote was this:
The kids. What genetic problems have our kids inherited, including mental illness? What did her conditions and the medications do during her pregnancies? Our kids are not lacking in their appearances and they are highly intelligent, but I'm bracing for mental illness to be diagnosed and when their behavior is problematic I wonder if they've been impacted by medication. My wife could no longer physically control the kids from an early age so discipline became a problem. Also, the kids literally watched their mother lose touch with reality and behave in ways that they'll probably be talking about in therapy for the rest of their lives.Since then, the fit has really hit the shan, bigly.
Tuesday, October 03, 2017
Someone Please Call and Ask This
I want to hear a call like this to Dave Ramsey or any conservative and/or business/financial commentator who will answer questions/give advice through call-in show. Dave Ramsey is ideal because he gives financial advice and is popular in conservative religious circles:
I want to know your thoughts about this pending deal because I’m getting cold feet.
I have a friend with whom I’ve had what amounts to a weekend hobby for a few years. We often get together a couple of nights in a week, too. My buddy wants to take it to the next level, though, with papers and everything. He wants to form a partnership and register it with the state.
Although there’s nothing in the written contract that penalizes either of us for working with others, my potential partner expects I will put all of time and resources into the partnership, and said there'd be Hell to pay if I even thought of doing a side project with someone else and the partnership would be over.
With the people who've prepared like we have, who hire a consultant like we have, there's about a 40% failure rate of these ventures. Failure would mean not only would half of the assets go to my partner, but I would have to pay my partner’s attorney fees, and I would be obligated to pay money to my partner based on the length of the partnership; if the partnership had lasted ten years or more, I’d be making payments in perpetuity.
There is the possibility that products would be created within the partnership that could be liabilities and financial drains for 18-25 years; I would be expected to cover those costs, including more than necessary if manage to earn a high income. There is a possibility, but by no means a certainty, that the products will provide me with some nominal income late in my life.
Even though there is an expectation that we would not work outside of the partnership, many people who’ve entered into these agreements have done that anyway, and like I said, there is no penalty for doing so. If my partner incurs a liability with someone else, I would be obligated to pay for it for 18-25 years.
Finally, my partner has indicated that soon into the partnership, I will be the person solely responsible for bringing in revenue; my partner plans to provide intangible contributions, such as encouragement, but would not be penalized at all for not doing so. Even without bringing in any revenue, my partner would still get at least half of the assets in the event the partnership ended.
Do you think this is a good deal for me?
Of course those of you who read this blog know exactly what I'm talking about. From a purely financial perspective, it would be insane to tell someone this is a good partnership to enter.
I want to know your thoughts about this pending deal because I’m getting cold feet.
I have a friend with whom I’ve had what amounts to a weekend hobby for a few years. We often get together a couple of nights in a week, too. My buddy wants to take it to the next level, though, with papers and everything. He wants to form a partnership and register it with the state.
Although there’s nothing in the written contract that penalizes either of us for working with others, my potential partner expects I will put all of time and resources into the partnership, and said there'd be Hell to pay if I even thought of doing a side project with someone else and the partnership would be over.
With the people who've prepared like we have, who hire a consultant like we have, there's about a 40% failure rate of these ventures. Failure would mean not only would half of the assets go to my partner, but I would have to pay my partner’s attorney fees, and I would be obligated to pay money to my partner based on the length of the partnership; if the partnership had lasted ten years or more, I’d be making payments in perpetuity.
There is the possibility that products would be created within the partnership that could be liabilities and financial drains for 18-25 years; I would be expected to cover those costs, including more than necessary if manage to earn a high income. There is a possibility, but by no means a certainty, that the products will provide me with some nominal income late in my life.
Even though there is an expectation that we would not work outside of the partnership, many people who’ve entered into these agreements have done that anyway, and like I said, there is no penalty for doing so. If my partner incurs a liability with someone else, I would be obligated to pay for it for 18-25 years.
Finally, my partner has indicated that soon into the partnership, I will be the person solely responsible for bringing in revenue; my partner plans to provide intangible contributions, such as encouragement, but would not be penalized at all for not doing so. Even without bringing in any revenue, my partner would still get at least half of the assets in the event the partnership ended.
Do you think this is a good deal for me?
Of course those of you who read this blog know exactly what I'm talking about. From a purely financial perspective, it would be insane to tell someone this is a good partnership to enter.
Saturday, September 23, 2017
Revisiting My Series on the Claim Married Men Get More Sex
[Bumped up from December 2016] I wrote a seven-part series for this blog that ran in February and March of 2010. A lot has happened since then. I have done more reflection, I've had significant life experiences since then, I have learned much more about my wife, and so I thought it would be a good time to revisit what I wrote back then.
From Part One:
From Part One:
We've been having quick, rather vanilla/repetitive/almost clinical, once-a-week, mostly one-sided sessions for quite a while now, usually involving her waking me up from a dead sleep (I don't get enough sleep as it is), though not as creatively as she could. That means we've been doing it 4-5 times a month (and usually not taking her to climax, which I really, really like doing). There's no way we've averaged 9.94 times a month when considering the whole marriage.Geez, I thought I had it bad then. It's been more like once every three weeks now, although my wife has just agreed to try to get it up to three times per week. The problem is, after everything that's happened and the things she's said repeatedly, including recently, and done, it is difficult for me to be turned on to her. Sex is a burden and chore for her and she deliberately avoids orgasms except for rare times. Yes, I'm still physically attracted to her and want to enjoy her body and treat her well, but treating her well seems to be leaving her alone, and emotionally it's a mess. Like just about every other plan to which she agrees, the plan to at least make out more often will probably be dropped quickly.
Verdict: I am currently one of the people who can say I got more sex while unmarried than married.
Labels:
fornication,
lovemaking,
marriage,
sex,
unmarried,
what men want
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
Why the Meaning Behind Words Matters
As I’ve written many times before, I’m a big fan of Dr. Laura and agree with most of what she says.
One thing I appreciate is that she tends not to buy into the hysteria regarding “adult media” that so many other conservative, “marriage-and-family” advocates have. Primarily, that means when a wife calls, upset that her husband likes looking at pixels depicting nude women or even women in sexual situations, Dr. Laura usually tells the caller to get over it as long as it is depicting human adults, isn’t gay male material, isn’t something like BDSM or some other fetish, and the husband isn’t neglecting his obligations (such as rejecting his wife to go and masturbate to porn).
On yesterday’s (September 11, 2017) show, the first or one of the first calls was from a woman who found out that her husband was looking at “teen porn”. Unfortunately, despite the fact that 18 and 19-year-olds are teens, and many people older than that pretend to be teens in mainstream media as well as adult, Dr. Laura immediately condemned the husband, raised the subject of “kiddie” stuff and told the woman to leave her husband and take the husband’s computer to have it checked by police. When the caller pointed out that 18 and 19-year-olds are teens, Dr. Laura said that a year or two doesn’t make a difference.
When Dr. Laura tells wives to get over the fact that their husband views adult media, what exactly does she think most of that media depicting “women, women with men” features? In most cases, it isn’t women the same age as the husband or the wife. Most of those women in general adult media (as opposed to “granny” or “MILF” stuff) are under 30 years of age, many of them 18-25. Playboy has always featured women who were as young as 18 and 19 (and, the fact is, at least once they had a female under the age of 18).
Your average regulation heterosexual man is going to find women under the age of 25 to be most attractive. I’m talking about from a purely visual, casual perspective. Of course he’s going to find the woman he loves and who loves him to be highly attractive. And truth be told, if most women had to rate men solely on the performance of their penises, most would prefer guys under the age of 25. It’s simple biology.
In other words, Dr. Laura might have told a woman to leave her husband, the father of her child, and invite police to search his computer over the kind of stuff that can be found in Playboy.
One thing I appreciate is that she tends not to buy into the hysteria regarding “adult media” that so many other conservative, “marriage-and-family” advocates have. Primarily, that means when a wife calls, upset that her husband likes looking at pixels depicting nude women or even women in sexual situations, Dr. Laura usually tells the caller to get over it as long as it is depicting human adults, isn’t gay male material, isn’t something like BDSM or some other fetish, and the husband isn’t neglecting his obligations (such as rejecting his wife to go and masturbate to porn).
On yesterday’s (September 11, 2017) show, the first or one of the first calls was from a woman who found out that her husband was looking at “teen porn”. Unfortunately, despite the fact that 18 and 19-year-olds are teens, and many people older than that pretend to be teens in mainstream media as well as adult, Dr. Laura immediately condemned the husband, raised the subject of “kiddie” stuff and told the woman to leave her husband and take the husband’s computer to have it checked by police. When the caller pointed out that 18 and 19-year-olds are teens, Dr. Laura said that a year or two doesn’t make a difference.
When Dr. Laura tells wives to get over the fact that their husband views adult media, what exactly does she think most of that media depicting “women, women with men” features? In most cases, it isn’t women the same age as the husband or the wife. Most of those women in general adult media (as opposed to “granny” or “MILF” stuff) are under 30 years of age, many of them 18-25. Playboy has always featured women who were as young as 18 and 19 (and, the fact is, at least once they had a female under the age of 18).
Your average regulation heterosexual man is going to find women under the age of 25 to be most attractive. I’m talking about from a purely visual, casual perspective. Of course he’s going to find the woman he loves and who loves him to be highly attractive. And truth be told, if most women had to rate men solely on the performance of their penises, most would prefer guys under the age of 25. It’s simple biology.
In other words, Dr. Laura might have told a woman to leave her husband, the father of her child, and invite police to search his computer over the kind of stuff that can be found in Playboy.
Tuesday, September 05, 2017
Could There Have Been Another?
Recently, I heard that in marrying the wrong person, there was someone you probably passed over who was the right person.
So I'm going to put that to the test that by looking at my own life.
So I'm going to put that to the test that by looking at my own life.
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
A Flaw in Tom Leykis’ Logic
It's been almost ten years since I published what is below the fold. It still stands up.
You're not going to find a better talk show host than Tom Leykis when the topics are the radio and television industries. He's also brilliant when it comes to personal finance and money management, entrepreneurship, motivation, and how to avoid marriage, avoid relationships, and how a man can "get more tail for less money".
One of the areas he falls short in, however, is when he blasts Christianity or a general belief in God. He's a lifelong atheist. But there are atheists out there far more knowledgeable and willing to debate much more seriously than Leykis. So when he tries to goad people to call up and argue with him about God, it isn't surprising that it doesn't "work". He tried having a semi-regular segment to his show called Ask the Atheist, but he dropped it for lack of calls (his audience is different now that his show is streamed online rather than on terrestrial broadcast radio), and today he tried (and failed) to do an unofficial Ask the Atheist hour by saying Hurricane Harvey is proof there is no God. There are many, many, many, many, many serious essays on natural disasters/suffering and the existence of God that Leykis could critique during his show, or he could have a Christian apologist on his show if he was really interested in a serious discussion. Instead, he's inviting his listeners to call in, most whom are primarily interested in how to fornicate with as little trouble as possible. If anyone does try to take the position of Theism or even Deism, Leykis resorts to the tactic of essentially repeating "Sez who?!? and "Not so!!!" and all sorts of sleight of word, redirection, etc. Most of what he does is to provide an entertaining show, but this appears to be an attempt at an ego boost or confirmation bias. Whatever the case, he isn't open to serious discussion on the topic. If he was, it might actually be a more successful segment to the show.
But let's get to what I wrote ten years ago.
You're not going to find a better talk show host than Tom Leykis when the topics are the radio and television industries. He's also brilliant when it comes to personal finance and money management, entrepreneurship, motivation, and how to avoid marriage, avoid relationships, and how a man can "get more tail for less money".
One of the areas he falls short in, however, is when he blasts Christianity or a general belief in God. He's a lifelong atheist. But there are atheists out there far more knowledgeable and willing to debate much more seriously than Leykis. So when he tries to goad people to call up and argue with him about God, it isn't surprising that it doesn't "work". He tried having a semi-regular segment to his show called Ask the Atheist, but he dropped it for lack of calls (his audience is different now that his show is streamed online rather than on terrestrial broadcast radio), and today he tried (and failed) to do an unofficial Ask the Atheist hour by saying Hurricane Harvey is proof there is no God. There are many, many, many, many, many serious essays on natural disasters/suffering and the existence of God that Leykis could critique during his show, or he could have a Christian apologist on his show if he was really interested in a serious discussion. Instead, he's inviting his listeners to call in, most whom are primarily interested in how to fornicate with as little trouble as possible. If anyone does try to take the position of Theism or even Deism, Leykis resorts to the tactic of essentially repeating "Sez who?!? and "Not so!!!" and all sorts of sleight of word, redirection, etc. Most of what he does is to provide an entertaining show, but this appears to be an attempt at an ego boost or confirmation bias. Whatever the case, he isn't open to serious discussion on the topic. If he was, it might actually be a more successful segment to the show.
But let's get to what I wrote ten years ago.
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Life Has Changed - Get Over It
About a year and half ago, someone named Ankush Bahuguna had something published at a site I wasn't familiar with, mensxp.com under the title of "Why Modern Relationships Are Falling Apart So Easily Today".
Unconditional love is an interesting term. Most people don't really mean it when they use it, and some people who do are being foolish. For example, a woman who "loves" her husband after her rapes her child and remains unrepentant is sick.
We're not prepared. We're not prepared for the sacrifices, for the compromises, for the unconditional love.A lot of people aren't prepared. But some people are unwilling to make the sacrifices, the compromises, and to put in all of the effort, because they do not see the potential benefits to be worth it. In many cases, they are right.
Unconditional love is an interesting term. Most people don't really mean it when they use it, and some people who do are being foolish. For example, a woman who "loves" her husband after her rapes her child and remains unrepentant is sick.
We're not ready to invest all that it takes to make a relationship work.Right, a lot of people aren't, and one reason is that there is no assurance it will actually work. Someone can choose wisely, treat kindly, and still get screwed over because the other person can suffer, for example, a brain trauma that changes their attitude and moods.
We want everything easy.A lot of people do. Other people are willing to work hard, but for many men, there is no benefit to work hard for a relationship with a woman, especially not a marriage. For these men, it isn't that they want things easy; they don't want them unnecessarily and unreasonably difficult or disadvantageous.
We're quitters.If someone is hitting their head against a wall, they should quit.
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Bad Boys Are So Much Fun - Until They Murder Your Kid
It's a good thing "safe and legal" abortion prevents this stuff from happening, as promised. Oops. It didn't. Alene Tchekmedyian had the unenviable task of reporting at the Los Angeles Times on a couple of baby murderers.
One of the "crazy" things Dr. Laura tells people on her show as often as she can is that they should not bring their new lovers around their minor kids. People think that's ridiculous advice, but stories like this are Exhibit A as to why I agree with her. Children are far more likely to be abused by their parent's new lover.
When you read on, it becomes clear this "mother" was choosing her new gina tingles by a bad boy over her own child.
Brandon Jerel Williams, 27, was sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison after he was found guilty of first-degree murder, torture and assault on a child causing death, according to the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office.Some guy thought it was a good idea to stick it in Wilson and impregnate her. Good job there, buddy. Now, the question is, does he even know he got her pregnant? Did he care? Did he fight for custody? Since he's not even mentioned in the article, my guess is that he's completely out of the picture. But, it is the Los Angeles Times so that might not be so.
His 23-year-old girlfriend, Rosie Lee Wilson, was convicted of second-degree murder and child abuse and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.
Prosecutors said the fatal beating occurred Aug. 21, 2014, when Wilson left her son with Williams, her live-in boyfriend.
One of the "crazy" things Dr. Laura tells people on her show as often as she can is that they should not bring their new lovers around their minor kids. People think that's ridiculous advice, but stories like this are Exhibit A as to why I agree with her. Children are far more likely to be abused by their parent's new lover.
When you read on, it becomes clear this "mother" was choosing her new gina tingles by a bad boy over her own child.
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
You Can't Argue With Crazy
I previously wrote this about why health matters in relationships.
Among the various health issues my wife deals with is mental illness. I'm aware that mental illness can range from controlled and relatively mild to completely debilitating. It can also range from "everything is fine right now" to "I'm going to try to kill myself". One of the problems is, there isn't always a way to know when things have shifted until the person is dead or you have to act to prevent them from killing themselves.
Recently my wife and I had a disagreement, and in my frustration, when the children weren't there to hear, I yelled about how I think one of the kids is getting unfairly neglected.
Whenever I yell, everything is diverted. We're no longer going to address what the disagreement is, it is going to be about how terrible I am for yelling. My wife and one of our kids are both extremely good at diverting, although they usually use different tactics. My wife's blanket defense is usually invisible health problems. Yes, she has real health problems. That I can't see how they are limiting her at the moment makes it harder for me to best handle situations. She can cite these problems whether or not they are actually interfering at the moment.
Between her health problems and focusing on my tone or volume of voice, she's always able to avoid changing her behavior. It is always about how I need to change my behavior. So, I end up being worse off having communicated my disagreement or desire, and it is better for me not to have said anything at all. I've been a slow learner when it comes to this.
Among the various health issues my wife deals with is mental illness. I'm aware that mental illness can range from controlled and relatively mild to completely debilitating. It can also range from "everything is fine right now" to "I'm going to try to kill myself". One of the problems is, there isn't always a way to know when things have shifted until the person is dead or you have to act to prevent them from killing themselves.
Recently my wife and I had a disagreement, and in my frustration, when the children weren't there to hear, I yelled about how I think one of the kids is getting unfairly neglected.
Whenever I yell, everything is diverted. We're no longer going to address what the disagreement is, it is going to be about how terrible I am for yelling. My wife and one of our kids are both extremely good at diverting, although they usually use different tactics. My wife's blanket defense is usually invisible health problems. Yes, she has real health problems. That I can't see how they are limiting her at the moment makes it harder for me to best handle situations. She can cite these problems whether or not they are actually interfering at the moment.
Between her health problems and focusing on my tone or volume of voice, she's always able to avoid changing her behavior. It is always about how I need to change my behavior. So, I end up being worse off having communicated my disagreement or desire, and it is better for me not to have said anything at all. I've been a slow learner when it comes to this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
