Protect Children By Parenting Your Children

"Protect Children Not Porn" is a false dichotomy.

It is expressed on services like Twitter/X as #ProtectChildrenNotPorn by the usual antiporn crusader would-be censors and the people who make a living grifting off of them, who try to make life as difficult for people who make, sell, and watch any erotica.

Groups like Exodus Cry (originating from an Evangelical church), Justice Defense Fund (which is basically Laila Mickelwait, who was with Exodus Cry but might not be anymore for some still unexplained reason), National Center on Sexual Exploitation (which is a rebrand of Morality in Media) and Fight the New Drug (which insists it is NOT a Mormon organization, and we know Mormons have never tried to conceal their motives and operations before) know that very few people will support a religious crusade trying to ban all pornography, but their core supporters want that. So these groups try to fool people with campaigns that claim to be secular campaigns about children and women being abused. 

Except that we know their campaigns are really about attacking the freedom of consenting adults to make and watch erotica.

How?

1) They claim that porn websites must be shut down if rogue users violated the terms of service by uploading illegal video content, claiming that such content victimizes women and children. But these same people have never called for shutting down churches (or their Mormon equivalents) when staff is is caught making or distributing such material, or actually, personally assaulting a woman or a child. They don't even pressure banks/credit card companies to stop processing payments to/for those churches.

2) They use social media that has far more illegal videos on it than any of the porn sites they target, and they know this.

3) They have attacked OnlyFans, one of the best services for ensuring the women participating are consenting, are indeed women and not girls, and that the people viewing their explicit material are adults (they charge!).  

One of them, let's just call her Mayla Ficklewaste, has let her toddler play with her phone, even though Mayla constantly searches out illegal videos, frequently visits porn sites, and the child was able to access X/Twitter, which has rape and snuff videos. Anyone can upload anything to X/Twitter right now. PornHub only has verified uploads. Guess which service this MF attacks?

It's a RUSE.

It's a SHAKEDOWN.

It's a FUNDRAISING PLOY.

They're NEVER going to ban porn, but they'll keep collecting money from scared, insecure, gullible people who are counting on them to do so. All they can do is shake down what other people have earned, and make life difficult for models and performers. Likewise, they tell the broader public that they simply want these restrictions, but that's a lie. Their crusade would continue.

They haven't prevented one person from being abducted, enslaved, or assaulted. But Laila sure has gotten lots of attention, fed her ego, and lined her pockets.

It is not "defending porn" or "protecting porn" to value freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and free enterprise.

It is not defending porn or protecting porn, and certainly not attacking children, to point out that "leaders" in these "movements" are hypocritical, two-faced, and fleecing the gullible.

They say there's nothing stopping children from viewing porn websites. There is "nothing stopping" kids from walking into traffic, or taking an automobile a joyride, or setting themselves on fire, or burning down their residence.

Except that there is. It is called...

P A R E N T I N G

That's why I use the hashtag #ParentYourChildren

These crusaders are such bad parents that they want the whole world to change for the sake of what they don't want their kid seeing.

Here's what people can do to parent their own child.

1) Don't give your a child a networked phone or tablet. If you do, have controls and monitors on it.

2) Keep any other device that can access online content in common areas of your home, where it will be supervised. Controls can also be used on these.

3) Don't let your children go without your supervision to any residence that doesn't follow these practices.

Would You Get on That Airplane?

Dr. Laura often gets calls from people who have a minor child and these parents are engaged, in a relationship, dating, etc., or considering it. Dr. Laura will tell them that marriages in which there's a stepchild (that's what their child would be to their spouse) have a 70 percent divorce rate, and that the rest of the marriages aren't all happy ones. She says this to discourage them from bringing more chaos and conflict into their child's life; to tell them that their minor children shouldn't even know they are dating. Indeed, if they've married or shacked up, whatever the child is doing that the parent doesn't like will be attributed to this fact, even if children in intact homes do the same thing.

Concerned for the child(ren), she drives the point home by asking "Would you go on an airplane if it had a 70 percent chance of having a terrible crash?"

Of course the answer is no.

But what's the divorce rate for first marriages without stepchildren?

What Is A Real Man?

A real man is any human being who is:
1. Male

2. 18 years of age or older
3. Not fictional

Whether a man does or doesn't do any certain things you or anyone else likes or doesn't like has ZERO determination over whether he is a real man or not.

Does Living Together Mean Doom?

Dr. Laura makes it sound like your marriage is doomed if you two cohabitate (“shack up”) with each other before you two marry. Well, chances are, it IS doomed, because it’s marriage and most marriages fail. Anyway, she also makes it sound like you won’t get married if you cohabitate while unmarried.

She’s highly likely to be basing that on very old data. But let’s grant that current data indicates “couples who cohabitated before marriage divorce at a higher rate than couples who didn’t cohabitate before marriage.” I don’t even know how anyone could word the second point. “Couples who cohabitate are less likely to marry than couples who don’t” is clearly not the case. Most couples don’t marry. Most people who marry had been a part of a different coupling multiple times before they ever married.

It’s possible to say AN INDIVIDUAL who shacks up tends to marry later or never marry in comparison than those who don’t. 

If the data takes couples who have plans to marry and tracks them over time, and sees that those who cohabitated before marrying had a higher rate of never marrying than those who didn’t cohabitate before marrying, that would be something. But since we don’t know the control group being used for the claim “couples who cohabitated unmarried were less likely to marry,” it’s a suspect claim. It’s far easier to make the first claim, as that is objectively, to some extent, observable: they married. They either lived together before they married or they didn’t. And over a certain amount of time, they either divorced or they didn’t. 

But what even counts as cohabitation? Even married people who didn’t officially share an address might have frequently spent days, weeks, even months in the same place. Back in my youth, I often spent 3-4 nights per week at my girlfriend’s place. I had my own place. I never claimed a girlfriend’s address as mine. Does that count? What if they spend almost every night together, some at his place and some at hers?

Keep in mind divorce is just one way a marriage can be terrible. A marriage can be legally intact but awful. Dr. Laura would claim the data also shows the quality of the marriage is better for couples who didn’t first shack up, but I’m not so sure. It could be that couples who didn’t cohabitate before marriage are less likely to be honest - with a sociologist or even themselves - if their marriage is crappy, and that could be for religious reasons, among other explanations.

Here’s the reality today whether anyone likes it or not:

-Most couples who marry cohabitated. (Twisting Dr. Laura’s tactic on its head, we can say shacking up leads to marriage, since most people who married shacked up.)

-Most people won’t marry someone they didn’t cohabitate with first.

-There are couples who’ve been together for decades, including officially or unofficially living together, who’ve never had even a courthouse wedding.

-There are people who’ve been married for decades who lived together before they married.

-If you want to be in either of those groups, there are things you can do to make it more likely.

One of the “dirty secrets” of the data Dr. Laura is using is that it lumps all unmarried cohabitation together, including people who never intended to marry or be permanent in the first place, and people who “fell into” living together. Data that separates out independently established, stable people who PLANNED out their cohabitation in advance, discussed and sincerely agreed about goals, intentions, rules, etc, and had a high level of general compatibility will show much better results.

Maybe you don’t want to marry.

Maybe you do.

Either way, cohabitation will be more likely and even may most likely work out if:

-It’s thoroughly planned out ahead of time, with sincere, honest, realistic discussions and agreement about goals, timelines, intentions, rules, etc. (Dr. Laura says there are no rules, but she doesn’t get to decide that for you.)

-It is done out of mutual intention, not incrementalism or “falling into it”, and an informed, experienced desire to live with each other, not out of desperation or zombie relationship escalators.

-You’re both responsible, established, independent adults who can generally handle life well and are fundamentally compatible.

Dr. Laura claims the intentions are different in shacking up, and that it is to avoid commitment. She was a trained, licensed, experienced therapist but she is not a mind reader. She doesn’t know what a caller she’s been talking with for 20 seconds really intended, and she certainly doesn’t know what their partner, who isn’t on the call, intended. She can make an experienced guess. Sometimes. 

Most of her listeners probably have no idea she did “everything” wrong. She shacked up for years with an older man who was a married father when she took up with him. She got pregnant at least once. And yet they subsequently married (as he had, she had been married before) and stayed married for decades, until he died. It apparently worked out for them. Although she’d say they beat the odds, if you could ever discuss it with her (she’d never let such a discussion about herself make it to air). If she’d discuss it and be honest about it, she’d probably say there was much misery because of how things started. 

I am compelled by my conscience not to end this post without stressing that  I think most men should avoid shacking up/cohabitating. It’s almost as bad as marrying. It’s costly and puts you at risks, shifting much of your power to her, and you can get kicked out of your own home. But if you’re going to do it, there are ways, as I explained, that make it more likely to work out. 

Minimize Hostility

Most women don't like men.

There are some who genuinely like men.

But for the most part, most women don't like men, even if they like what men can do for them.

Even women who like and appreciate what men can do for them might grow entitled, demanding, and  then resentful.

Contempt and disrespect pervade.

What men do is never enough. Women in "committed" relationships think they settled.

Many men simply don't grasp this. For example, most heterosexual men are physically attracted to a wide variety of women, and like seeing a woman's genitals, even if he doesn't know her. Conversely, most women don't even like their own husband's penis and don't care to see it. There's a good chance even your newlywed wife isn't physically attracted to you.

Consider gays and lesbians. Most gay men, who have no interest in women sexually, do not hate women. In fact, they often have women as best friends. But a lot of lesbians openly hate men. Because they aren't attracted to any men, they have no reason to pretend to like them.

For most of human history, women depended on men directly. That's no longer the case. Women can earn money in white collar or service jobs, and have full access to financial services, asset ownership, etc. Gun ownership can physically protect her.

Even though women no longer need men, there are still "kept" women, far more than men. But even many kept women grow to despise and resent the men who provide their lifestyle.

There are women who prefer male bosses and/or like hanging around men. But that's not necessarily because they like men. In some cases it is because women are so bad to each other or because these women believe they can manipulate these men.

Perhaps nothing is more amusing to a woman than when a man gets hurt or injured.

 

Pay attention to how women talk about men in spaces and platforms that cater to women. Notice the advertisements that effectively appeal to women, and how men are usually portrayed as helpless, pathetic, stupid, ignorant, annoying, disgusting, etc.

In addition, women who appreciate men or at least their man can be poisoned by their mother, sisters, friends, media, etc. into being hostile.

What's my point?

My point is DO NOT BURDEN WOMEN. Respect their independence and autonomy. Stay free. Do not enter into a terrible state contract with someone who, chances are, isn't attracted to you and doesn't like you, or at least soon won't.


She Feels Differently Than You

The Sight of Human Skin Doesn't Harm Human Brains

Cathy Reisenwitz has a video and an excellent written commentary about adult media.

A 2020 study showed that ~70% of people watch low amounts of porn with no discernible negative ramifications. Around a quarter of people watch a lot of porn with no measurable downside. And around ~5% of people watch a lot of porn, and it seems to cause or exacerbate problems for them.

Five percent. You can find five percent of people for whom watching a lot of sports is problematic. The problem isn't what they're watching. Compulsive/problematic media viewing is a symptom of a problem. Porn isn't the problem.

Problematic porn consumers are more likely than average to show symptoms of hypersexuality, depression, boredom, and low self-esteem. They’re likely not getting their basic psychological needs met.

They have problems. And they watch porn. Porn isn't the cause.

And this study builds on other research showing that feeling guilty about watching porn is a high predictor of having a “porn addiction.”

"Porn addiction" isn't a scientific term. It's a term used by salespeople and the people they've duped, and people who are trying to shift blame for their problems.

In fact, another study showed that men who look at porn more often who are in relationships have more sex with their partners. Women who look at porn more often have more partnered sex whether or not they’re in relationship, have better sex, and have more sexual flexibility.

Antiporn crusaders count viewing porn itself as misogyny and violence against women, so of course they dispute these findings.

Porn use is associated with decreases in violence against women. Men who look at more porn are actually less sexist than men who look at less of it.

This sort of thing never dissuades the antiporn crusaders. 

Every study I’m aware of that purports to show that porn is harmful either: 

1. Fails to correct for the fact that people who feel ashamed of themselves for watching porn are far more likely to report “problematic” porn use, regardless of how much they watch or how it’s otherwise impacting their lives

2. Misrepresents MRI results to show spurious findings

3. Fails to establish causation. People already at risk of becoming sexual abusers are more likely to watch a lot of violent porn. But there’s no evidence that watching a lot of violent porn causes the average person to be more likely to perpetrate sexual violence. In fact, there’s a lot of evidence in the opposite direction.

4. Mislabels porn

5. Is otherwise shown to be faulty. 

 

When you hear of studies that claim to show adult media as physically or mentally harmful, you should keep in mind that there is an abundance and extreme variety of porn, so studies focusing on one particular kind may not be indicative of anything else. Also, such studies usually don't control for masturbation. There's also the very basic consideration that apparent correlation doesn't establish causation.

There are many studies on "both sides," but most people can't sort through the details of studies. Think carefully. Porn is, usually, depictions of nudity and sexuality. Do you really think depictions of human beings in their natural state or engaged in reproductive behavior would be physically or mentally harmful to the observer? How exactly would that make any sense from either a naturalistic, evolutionary perspective, or if you believe in some form of Divine creationism? Wouldn't that mean having sex with your spouse with the lights on would be harmful?

Reisenwitz's commentary is definitely worth a read, and touches on religion. I note that Jesus is never quoted as telling any woman to cover up. Instead, He told his followers to pluck out their own eye or cut off their own hand if they have a problem. Antiporn crusaders claim to be concerned about abuse of women and children but many of them never say one word about churches where women and children have been raped. What do you think Jesus finds more disturbing: an erotic performance on video, or a member of the clergy raping a congregant?

Dennis Prager talks about panics pushed by the Left. These antiporn crusades are a panic pushed largely from the Right (and also from the Left by certain misandrists).

We Are Not Going Back

During the first hour of Dennis Prager's Monday, August 19, 2019 show, toward the end of that first hour, he said he "doesn't understand" waiting to marry until establishing or gaining success in your career (succeeding professionally/financially). He claims it isn't rational, and it isn't what people did in history. "Why can't you work on your career while married?" he asked. [This entry is bumped up, and some details of my life might have changed since.]

He says things like this because he is a marriage-seller and because he has no idea what it is like to be a young person today, trying to make their way in this world. He's made it clear that he buys into the idea that man isn't really a man unless he takes on the burden of supporting a wife and children, as if women still don't have access to employment, property ownership, and personal finance. 1) If someone is working on career success, marriage, especially with children, is an enormous disadvantage. Even putting aside the emotional drama and turmoil a wife and family can bring, a spouse and children put a demand on time; there will be days you'll be late for work, or have to leave early, or not be able to work at all due to family matters. You'll get calls and texts that demand your immediate attention, taking you away from whatever you're supposed to be doing. Also, these days, establishing yourself in a career often means long and odd hours, extra days, networking at lunch and happy hours, business travel, moving, and changing employers. None of these are friendly to family.

Running Game - Slumpbusters

If you're not running game like a well-oiled machine yet, or you took a break, or you're in slump, you might benefit from one or more slumpbusters.

A slumpbuster means hooking up with a woman you wouldn't have as part of your regular bullpen. Maybe she's too old, maybe she's too fat or too skinny or otherwise less attractive to you, maybe she's not enthusiastic or skilled enough. But she's willing to hook up. If some affection is better than no affection to you, that's what a slumpbuster gives you.

However, slumpbusters also help because they "prime the pump." Somehow, some way, the fact that you're active at all helps bring other women to you. It's just one of those mysteries of reality.

Managing Danger

Many years ago, a significant earthquake hit where I was, and without even thinking about it I was under an extremely sturdy table as fast as I could get there. I didn't even have to think about it, because I had thought about it many times before.

Thinking ahead and paying attention can help protect you.

"What if...?" can help you.

How many people get into accidents while driving because they weren't paying attention? How many accidents have been narrowly avoided because someone was paying attention? We count on other drivers driving safely and following the rules of the road, but sometimes they won't or can't: They have have a medical problem, they're drunk, they're fighting with a passenger, they're distracted, their vehicle has a mechanical failure, they're angry or set on committing a crime, a pedestrian/animal/other object gets in their way, etc.

Driving or anywhere else...

How to Keep Your Friends Free - Prevention

I have a habit of writing some really long entries, but I'm going to try to post some things as series instead, to keep them from getting too long. With that in mind, I'm starting a series about how Free Men can keep their friends free. Even if you're not a Free Man, you can use some of these tactics to help other men stay free.

The best way to help other men stay free is through PREVENTION. Helping them from getting into a mess in the first place is the ideal. It's best to do things proactively and prophylacticly, BEFORE he gets into an exclusive relationship.

Here's how.

• Point out to each Free Man (especially young men) in your life why he doesn't want to climb down that ladder, down into that pit in which a woman will have more and more control over his life.
  
  
• Point out that legal marriage is a bad deal for most men, most marriages fail, and men can have happy, full, productive lives without ever legally marrying.
   
• When these guys aren't in "exclusive" relationships, point out the benefits to them of being a Free Man and why they wouldn't want to give that up.
  
  
• When he's doing something he enjoys, with or without you, point out how he either wouldn't be able to do it or do it the way he wants, or it would cost him a lot more, if he was tied down to a woman, especially with kids.
  
  
• Point out that being a Free Man is our default state, and even marriage-sellers say marriage is hard work and takes a lot of compromise and sacrifice. 
  
  
• Point out to him how a newlywed woman butches up and blimps up. There will be examples in his life and in media.
  
  
• Point out that women use sex as a loss leader and do "bait and switch" all of the time. They are on their "best behavior" during early dating because they are trying to lock him in. Things will never be better with a woman than the first 3 to 6 months. 
  
  
• Point out examples of men suffering because they gave up their freedom and autonomy. They can be men you know or men in the news. Point out the beaten dogs, the emasculated guys, the ones whose balls are in their purse of the woman who owns him. Point out when guys waste their lives arguing with a woman. Point out the men who've been or are being put through the wringer in divorce.
  
  
• Point out that a Free Man gets to control his own calendar/social schedule, and how his money is spent.
  
  
• Point out that he doesn't need a girlfriend, and he certainly doesn't need a wife.
  
  
• Encourage him to avoid dating just one woman, and to avoid giving a woman the impression he's only dating her, and to avoid seeing any given woman more than once per week.
  
  
• Debunk the misleading marriage-selling statements he might hear, like the one about the sex in marriage being more frequent and better.
  
  
• Discuss Red Flags with him.
  
  
• If a woman he's dating is giving him grief, is too much work, or possessive, point out that there are plenty of other women and he doesn't have to date her.
  
  
• Frequently get together, whether at home or wherever else, to enjoy doing things as Free Men.
  
  
• Share with him the tactics you find helpful for staying a Free Man. For example, encourage vasectomies. Encourage having a holiday season game plan.
  

Of course, you can send him whatever entries and pages from this blog you find helpful.

If you have other tips you think should be added, comment below.

This entry turned out to be long anyway, and it might get longer still. In the next installment of this series, I plan to write about what to do when he's getting into an "exclusive" relationship or already is, and might be heading for the marriage trap.

UPDATE: Here's the Intervention entry in this series.

UPDATE: Here's the Recovery entry in this series.

A Running List of Reasons Given By My Wife

This will be a running list, in no particular order, of reasons or excuses my wife (and maybe yours!) gives to NOT make love or have sex. As I've written in other entries, we're down to about once every three weeks, and usually it's a mercy session.

Some of these reasons might be legitimate some of the time; I'll grant that. But cumulatively, it is rather sad, given that this is supposed to be a mutually enjoyable "gift from the Lord" that is supposed to be a major benefit to marriage that, in turns, strengthens marriage and is good for our health and all of the other stuff.

Now, I know how the world works. The average man wants sex more than the average woman, and the same holds true for our little microcosm: I want sex more than my wife. Traditionally, on a societal level, this has either been handled through official polygny or through mistresses, concubines, or prostitution. Or, even if monogamous, there has been an agreement, whether tacit or explicit, that marriage is an exchange. The wife has agreed to sex as often as the husband wants it (in addition to cooking and making sure the household chores are done) because he's protecting her, providing for her, and keeping the children in line (even with just the threat of what'll happen when Dad comes home). This agreement seems to have been abandoned for the most part, which is one reason why most men shouldn't bother to marry. I'm fulfilling my end of the bargain, however.

I'm sure there are some snarky types out there who will read these and tell me that if I was a more considerate and all-around better lover, I wouldn't hear these excuses so often. See, that's what I'd believe, too, if I didn't have the experiences of my wayward youth. I know it isn't me. And I have solicited her thoughts and feelings during neutral times (away from lovemaking situations) about what I can do to make things easier and more enjoyable for her. The bottom line is that, whether because of her medications or some other reason, she doesn't like sex much. She pretended to be craving sexual affection before we married, and still somewhat until we had our children, because she wanted the guarantee of my financial support. Once she had it, she no longer had to pretend. She will not say it that way, but that's the harsh truth. (And it is the harsh truth for a lot of men. I suspect the real reason prostitutes are put down is because they deliver when they're paid and paid women who don't deliver hate that.)

Same goes for "You should be romancing her. I bet you're not taking her out on dates like you did before you married!" Hey, I've tried. She shoots down dates, she doesn't want flowers, and she doesn't want me drawing a nice bath for her.

Feel free to add your own reasons or excuses in the comments, even if you're a woman whose husband is rejecting her.

Since this is a running list it will be updated and bumped up from time to time, and I'll elaborate on some excuses.

When A Wife Rejects Her Husband

A lot of husbands and now-ex-husbands know the pain of a sexually rejecting wife. By "rejecting" I mean at least one of the following:

1. Refusing to have sex at all.

2. Only agreeing to sex infrequently. "Infrequently" is a relative term. If they were having some form of sex every day for years and now she only agrees to sex once per week even though no changes in their life would prevent her from agreeing more frequently, that's rejection. Other husbands WISH they could get it once per week. They might get it once a month or a couple of times per year.

3. Reducing sexual options to a bare minimum. This could mean rejecting acts she used to do, especially if she did them before they had kids or before they married. It could be consistently restricting sex to intercourse or manual sex even though he has told her he wants to other other common sex acts. It could be her impersonating a corpse (when she knows her husband isn't into that sort of thing). 

4. Transforming her appearance and/or changing her behavior in ways that will kill his attraction. Significant weight gain; shortening her hair and/or changing her hair style/color to something he doesn't like; always wearing frumpy clothes when she used to wear sexy vestments; poor grooming/hygiene; cruel, belittling, or disrespectful statements (when he isn't into that sort of thing); expressing her general dislike of sex when she previously at least pretended to enjoy it - these are all forms of rejection, make no mistake about it. 

Motivations Against Adult Media

I don't like it when people aren't honest and upfront about their motivations. I'm much more likely to deal with a salesperson who is honest than one that is pretending to do something out of the pure goodness of their heart or claiming a dire disaster will happen to me if I don't buy from them. [This entry has been bumped up.]

You see this sort of thing all of the time. People say they want to "legalize hemp" for medical marijuana or because practical products made from hemp are so much better than using petroleum. But once recreational pot is legalized these people seem to disappear. Or the "Indian gaming" pushes that say it'll be nothing like Las Vegas, and then once the laws are passed they run ads calling themselves the "shortcut to Vegas!"

This happens constantly when people talk about adult media. So many of the complaints are really about media, masturbation, male sexual nature, the nature of sex, etc. but people choose to only apply their complaint to adult media.

Some people breathlessly pronounce that if you watch "porn" you will become addicted, become impotent, rot your brain, and become a serial mass rapist-murderer. That, THEY CLAIM, is why they constantly warn people and call for restrictions ranging from censor/spyware they're selling to incarcerating people for making or watching video of adults having sex or pretending to. They dupe politicians into passing declarations that such material is a "public health crisis" even though it isn't, and offer a “cure” in the form of a book or “rehab” they’re selling. Or stickers and t-shirts.

Let's get honest about why people freak out about porn.

Organizations of Which to Be Wary

Recently, a certain fraternal organization started within the last few years and its leader have been getting trashed online. I had been wary and a bit suspicious of the organization and its leader, even though he was saying many things with which I was agreeing. There were a few things he was saying and doing, and the tone he was taking, that made me suspicious. [This has been bumped up from January 2022. They are now supposedly offering a health care plan of sorts. What could go wrong?]

In no particular order, and subject to being revised and expanded, here are some signs you should be skeptical/cautious of joining or associating with an organization: