Translating Happy Hubby Talk

[Bumped up.] Recently I considered what I'm sure I've realized before... that many men who say how great and wonderful marriage is either had no game as bachelors or felt guilt about fornicating. A lot of them are, and always have been, nerds. They couldn't get laid when they were younger, but once some woman figured that she'd better cash in her aging chips and look for "security" and a "good provider" (someone who'd actually be able to pay her way through life) and that she could settle for a nerd because he would have a dependable high salary and probably wouldn't whore around.

Why Some Men Refuse to Interact With Women in the Workplace

In some places in America, sexual harassment laws and polices have gotten so absurd we may look back someday and laugh at our own stupidity. But it isn't funny for people who have to deal with the problems now. It isn't funny for grade school boys who get labeled harassers for hugging grade school girls. [This was posted here in May 2012. It is even more relevant than ever.]


As with so many other things that involve the government, the cure is worse than the problems.

Imagine three workplaces:

1) A workplace where interaction between coworkers is dull and strained, with little socialization; everyone is fearful of acting naturally.

2) A predominantly male workplace where men talk and bond freely about things like the latest leading lady in the movies and how hot she is, and where women get asked out for dates, and everyone jokes.

3) A predominantly female workplace where women talk and bond freely about things like the latest leading male in the movies, a star male athlete and his physique, PMS, a jerk of an ex, and everyone jokes.

Now, I know those are just three examples and do not exhaust the spectrum, but who really prefers the first option?

Here's where we are in the workplace in some states:

A regular customer comes in, chats with a favorite employee, and hugs that employee before leaving. A different employee, who was on the other side of the room, files a complaint for a "hostile work environment". The customer and the first employee are barred from hugging again.

That is the world that has been created. Normal, harmless (even beneficial) human behavior that has gone on forever in the workplace is now banned. It isn’t by employer choice, really. Since I believe in property rights and freedom of association, I think business owners should generally be able to hire, fire, promote, or demote anyone or any or no reason, and set the tone of the workplace to their liking. Under that policy, if they create a workplace someone finds hostile, that person can take their services or business elsewhere. Guess who loses? The business owner, if that was a good customer or employee. But employers have lost or are losing the freedom to set the terms and conditions and tone in their own workplace, due to laws and court decisions about sexual harassment.

It’s another way trial lawyers and stupid juries are doing some harm. It is another way the Left takes the fun and joy out of life. Yes, this is a Leftist issue. Sexual harassment is something that has been the drumbeat of Leftist feminists. Leftist feminism was, to borrow from El Rushbo, largely about getting less attractive women greater access to the mainstream, and “hostile environment” sexual harassment is their way of punishing men they find unattractive. That is evidenced by the fact that two people can say the exact same thing ("that's a nice blouse") to the same woman in the same tone, and the male who says it is punished while the lesbian who said it isn't. It is also about forcing all workplaces to cater to female sensitivities, even if there are 100 men there and 1 woman. The people who investigate allegations are usually, guess what, women. Leftist women. And men are more prone to violate restrictions because we're visual creatures, we want sex more than women, and we're expected to do the pursuing.

Policy and law about quid quo pro isn't as ridiculous, but even with that, I tend to prefer property rights and freedom of association. If your boss asks for sexual favors, it is time to find a new place to work, if you don’t want to do your boss.

The Left loves to convince people they are victims, and this is just one more way they can be victims.

I know that discrimination and a bad work environment do hurt some people. None of this is to say I think assault, exposure, stalking, or slander/libel should be legal, nor that I think quid pro quo or creating a hostile work environment is morally acceptable. I have a mother, a daughter, sisters, and a wife. I don't want them treated crudely and rudely. However, I'd like to think they all know how to hold their own against rude jerks. But I'm also a man and I have a father, a brother, and a son, and I don't want any of them screwed over with ridiculous laws and polices stacked against men.

Creating a workplace in which nobody will ever be offended in regards to their sex, body, love life, sexual orientation, or delusions about "gender identity" is not possible. I can only conclude that stringent laws and standards regarding "hostile work environment" in regards to sexual harassment are those that everyone knows will not be followed or met most of the time, and are meant to give women an edge over men and to punish employers and reward trial lawyers and government bureaucrats. Employers subject employees to laughable prevention training for the sake of liability issues, though sometimes it doesn’t matter if everyone's been through training – the employer will still get nailed and have to pay out large sums of money.

Why does sexual harassment get special status? If an employee eats bacon in a lunchroom, is that dietary harassment to someone trying to avoid pork products for weight loss, health, or religions reasons? What about if I eat a big, beefy hamburger in front of a devout Hindu? Or if a vegan tells me how wrong I am for eating meat?

Why has the workplace had to conform to female sensitivities, rather than how things used to be when a woman entered a male-dominated workplace or profession: the thickening of her skin, and often sharp wit on her part that disarmed rude men and charmed others? I've personally known women who broke glass ceilings with no help of quotas or sexual harassment polices – they succeeded because they were outstanding employees who knew how to deal with people as adults.

If I invite someone to my home and I want to be a good host, I’ll strive not to offend them. But since when has there been a right to never be offended anywhere, especially if you are a member of a group favored by the Left? (Nobody cares about offending heterosexual white Christian males.)

Why couldn't I run a workplace the way I’d like? As it happens, I would choose to have a policy against quid pro quo harassment and I would have a fairly high standard for decorum. But that should be my choice, not something determined externally and imposed upon me.

What say you?

*****

UPDATE: Post "#MeToo", some men are refusing to mentor or even hire women, or women who are at all attractive. It's sad, but it is an understandable reaction. Saying "Just don't be a jerk" expresses a nice sentiment, but one that doesn't deal with reality. Men could act within the rules of today, only to find in 10 or 20 years that they're being attacked because their behavior or the words they used have since been deemed problematic.

Why Running Game Works

Running game helps you get what you want for as little cost (money, time, effort, freedom, etc.) as possible. It works.

But why does it work?

Running game works because of how women are.

Boys are often told they need to jump though all sorts of hoops, be successful, hard workers, good earners, romantic, generous, sensitive, sweet, strong, chivalrous... on and on and on... to get a woman. But it's just not true.

How do we know it's not true?

One extreme way of knowing it's not true is that there are women who are sexually attracted to men in prison for being serial killers or for raping children.

A far more common way of knowing it's not true is that we all know young, attractive women who are or were with unreliable jerks and deadbeats; many of them allowed those guys to knock them up. Ever hear women talk about their ex husbands, ex boyfriends, baby daddies, and what terrible guys they are? Those are the guys who turned them on so much, they were willing to have intercourse and do all sorts of other sex acts with them.

The proof is in what women do, not in what they say they want.

There's a very small percentage of men that many women will immediately want to have sex with based solely on his body and face. Many of those men are gay. Other than that, it's about how you carry yourself and what she thinks you can do for her.

Prager U Gets it Right on Some Career Advice

Prager U doesn't always get it right. After all, they've posted multiple videos trying to trick men into thinking what we now call marriage is actually a good thing for them.

But they got this one right.

I have encouraged you to Know Thyself. This, below, is also great advice, especially in conjunction with knowing thyself.. It's "Career Success and the Proximity Principle" featuring author Ken Coleman. The video is below, but I'll include much of the transcript below. And, if for some reason, the YouTube embed isn't working, try this link.

Proof of Evil

 

Be warned: This contains reports indicating extreme and murderous child abuse.

Disclaimer: I’m dealing with a news report. I am not responsible for errors and omissions in that news report. I don’t claim any direct knowledge of the people or events described below. The mother’s last name is spelled two ways in the article.

I frequently post on X (Twitter) links to stories of terrible things happening to parents because they’re parents, and terrible things happening to children, often at the hands of their parents. This story warrants an entire blog post.

This article is from Will Conybeare at KTLA, and given how things have been going there, he might have been let go since he wrote it.

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services is being sued over the death of a 14-month-old who attorneys say was subjected to prolonged abuse at the hands of two Long Beach residents with past criminal convictions who had the infant placed in their care.

The taxpayers of LA county will be paying any judgement or settlement, along with attorneys fees.

An investigation into the case of the child, identified initially at Tilly S., began on Nov. 7, 2025, when officers with the Long Beach Police Department were dispatched to Miller Children’s Hospital after the toddler was found unresponsive and with signs of trauma. The girl, just over the age of one, was placed on life support but died from her injuries three days later.

On Nov. 25, 2025, two people — Alfredo Muñoz Jr. and Kelly Anelalani Muñoz — were arrested in connection with the infant’s death after detectives found she had suffered extensive ongoing abuse from them, and that her death was the result of that abuse. The couple was charged on Dec. 2 with one count each of murder, torture and assault on a child causing death.

At least there is a criminal case against the alleged abusers. No lawsuit against them? Well, their pockets probably aren’t that deep, unlike Joe Taxpayer.

Alfredo Muñoz Jr. is Tilly’s biological father, and Kelly Muñoz her stepmother; Tilly’s biological mother, Alexis Servin, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, relinquished custody for personal reasons, her attorney Brian Claypool said.

So Tilly’s mother had “personal reasons” to give up custody. Gee, what do you think those could be? What are the odds she wouldn’t be available because she was going to be working in the International Space Station? In my opinion, if I had to guess, the guess would be she was either too messed up to care for a child or she didn’t want to bother.

However, Alexis’ parents — Tilly’s grandparents — were “ready and willing” to care for the infant.

The people who raised Alexis?

Here come the blood boiling details.

Lawyers say that an autopsy of Tilly, who was “under the care, custody and control of the L.A. Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) at all relevant times,” revealed she endured prolonged abuse that led to injuries including acute blunt head trauma with skull fractures, multiple hemorrhages, a severe spinal cord injury and multiple skeletal fractures. Skeletal findings included healing fractures of multiple ribs, the femur and the tibia that were sustained weeks prior to Tilly’s death.

“The autopsy report confirms Tilly’s death was the result of the combination, severity, distribution, and differing ages of these injuries indicate repetitive inflicted trauma,” the complaint states, adding that Tilly’s official cause of death was found to be a catastrophic brain injury, cerebral edema, brainstem compression, and hypoxic-ischemic injury.

Is there any sane person who’d say it would be unjust to have a public lynching of the murderers?

Legal representatives for Alexis Severin, in the wake of the 14-month-old’s death — one that was described as “tragic” by L.A. County District Attorney Nathan Hochman — are now pointing the blame at DCFS, alleging the department should have known that Alfredo Muñoz Jr. and Kelly Muñoz posed “an extreme and foreseeable danger to any child placed in their care.”

That’s a fair accusation, as we’ll see. But unless Alexis is alleging Alfredo forced Tilly’s conception on her, keep in mind that Alexis was in position to know Alfredo wasn’t a good man, yet allowed him to knock her up. And again, why couldn’t she have/keep custody? Doesn’t Alexis have any blame in this?

Both Alfredo Jr., 41, and Kelly, 34, had prior felony convictions for willful cruelty to a child from a 2021 case. The former was described in the complaint as having an “extensive” criminal history dating back decades:

Alexis didn’t know any of that? Really? And it sounds like Alfredo and Kelly were together for years. How did Alexis get into the mix? Did she choose to let an evil, married man stick it in her and knock her up? He was a father already, and according to a letter the article quotes, considered unable to care for the children he already had. What a turn on! What woman can resist that???

• 1999: Muñoz was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, a felony, and sentenced in 2000 to five years in the California Youth Authority 
• 2006: Muñoz was convicted of possessing a switchblade knife, a misdemeanor, and sentenced to 30 days in a county jail
• 2009: Muñoz was charged with three misdemeanors (use/being under the influence of a controlled substance, resisting arrest and providing false information to an officer) and two infractions (operating a bicycle in the dark on a highway and not having reflectors on the bicycle pedals) — all were dropped except the resisting arrest charge, for which he was sentenced to a year of summary probation
• 2010: Muñoz was convicted of felony possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to three years of formal probation; he violated his parole in 2012 and was sent to a county jail for 16 months
• 2012: Muñoz was convicted in federal court of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 41 months in federal prison followed by three years of supervised release. He was also required to go to outpatient substance abuse treatment
• April 2016: Muñoz was convicted of carrying a dirk or dagger, a felony, and sentenced to three years of probation. He violated the terms of his probation in 2017, for which he spent two years in state prison
• July 2016: Muñoz had a misdemeanor petty theft dismissed in furtherance of justice
• 2021: Muñoz was charged with two felony counts of willful cruelty to a child resulting in possible injury or death and felony possession of a firearm by a narcotic addict. He was only convicted of one count of willful cruelty to a child resulting in possible injury or death and sentenced to four years in state prison

Was Alfredo let out early? Or did “time served” get him out in time to knock up Alexis? Or was he allowed conjugal visits? Anything’s possible in California. Notice his light sentence for a serious crime after being a repeat criminal.

Kelly Muñoz has three prior convictions, the complaint states:

• 2012: Muñoz was convicted of possessing drug paraphernalia and sentenced to 44 days in jail
• 2013: Muñoz was convicted of methamphetamine possession and sentenced to three years of summary probation, five days of community service and a $150 fine
• 2021: Muñoz was charged on the same day as Alfredo Muñoz Jr. with two counts of willful cruelty to a child resulting in possible injury or death; she was convicted on one count and the other count was dismissed. She was sentenced to 90 days in jail and five years of formal probation

Delightful people.

The complaint states that Tilly was placed with the Muñozes not long after Alfredo Jr. had been released from his four-year sentence for willful cruelty to a child.

Again, if that’s true, when and how did he knock up Alexis? Or did he knock her up the moment he got out and nine months later, “not long,” a newborn was given up by her mother? 

“Tilly Servin’s death was caused by the failures of DCFS and the County of Los Angeles,” the complaint adds.

The “dad” and his wife had something to do with it. But again, they don’t have deep pockets.

Were the grandparents seriously shady, or did DCFS simply have such a preference for biological parent bonds that they preferred giving the girl to a convicted child abuser?

Well, there you have it. Hopefully other inmates will do their thing and carry out prison justice.

Maybe someone from DCFS will be fired. They’re probably severely overworked and constrained. But it sure looks like taxpayers are going to be, once again, soaked. I know there are millions of people in that county, but it seems like there’s always a kid being tortured to death and authorities knew about it before they are murdered.

And to bring this back to what I blog about most: How many women have allowed that guy to knock them up? How many women have polished his knob? He’s apparently what turns some women on.

Ponder that.

Women Have Options Now

 

People lamenting the the fact that a smaller percentage of Americans are married now than ever before often will ask what has changed to bring this about.

Life has changed, indeed.

One thing that has changed:

Women have options now.

Do you want to change that?

Most people don’t.

It wasn’t all that long ago that women didn’t have full access to higher education, or the workplace, or financial services. Government was smaller with much less or no “social safety net” provided by government. Women who were abused by their husband had few places, if any, to escape and the social pressure, often from their own parents and siblings, was to stay with or go back to her husband. Being divorced could mean destitution and being ostracized.

A woman’s realistic options were:

• Marry young and pop out/raise children, keep the home, maybe work in her husband’s business/the family farm, and be dependent on her husband 
• Depend on her father, uncle, or brother, helping to raise their children and/or working in their business
• Be a teacher or secretary, which they might be expected to give up if they married 
• Be a prostitute 
• Be a nun 

Of course there were some outliers, but those options were what most women faced.

Women can now thrive without ever marrying. Women can decide to leave a marriage and nobody can stop them. They’ll even be applauded and can take half of the wealth with them and get ongoing payments. They can have government take care of them if they don’t take care of themselves. They can have their own residence.

Many women really don’t want to be wife to a husband. Many women don’t want to be mothers. In the past, many women like that were pressured into taking on a husband and having children. Now that they have options, many women opt to NOT marry. That’s just one reason marriage rates are down.

I’m glad women have options, although I want government much smaller and for private charity to handle the legitimate needs of those who need help. And women having options means lower marriage rates. I don’t see that as a problem, as long as women aren’t intentionally depriving a child of their father.

Do you agree? Disagree? Your comments are welcomes, as always.

Don't Date Women With Minor Children

The most popular entry on this blog, and it's not even close, is this entry warning men against dating single mothers.

It gets a lot of traffic and has received hundreds of comments (including from widowed mothers, who really need to read THIS.)

As is to be expected, a lot of angry comments came from single mothers. Others admitted what I wrote was true, even if they didn't like it. Nobody, though, demonstrated what I wrote to be false. That's because it is reality, like it or not.

I want to revisit the issue. Guys: If you're going to bother dating (or seeing for personal reasons) women, don't date women with minor children or dependent adult children or grown children living at home. They could be divorced women, widowed women, women who never bothered to marry. And if they're married or in a relationship, no matter what they say about that relationship, it's not good to go there. So don't mess with mothers of minor or somehow dependent children. And if you're with one and don't have a kid with her, get out!

Maybe you think that eliminates too many women, but it really doesn't, especially if you're sticking to women in their twenties, which you can do no matter how old you are, if you play your cards right. Also, there are more and more women older than that who are childfree. "Fertility" rates are down.

Oh No! Men Enjoying Technology!

I'd probably like most of what Barak Lurie has to say on his weekly radio show. I've never heard it. I'm thinking the vast majority of people in the greater Los Angeles radio market haven't either. That's not a knock on him, but it's just the reality of weekend AM talk radio, especially any English station in this market not named KFI. He was fortunate enough to get on Dennis Prager's national daily show today (Wednesday, October 2, 2019), during the Male-Female Hour, to promote his book Rise of the Sex Machines. [This entry has been bumped up.]

Like Prager, Lurie sells marriage and parenting. These guys want you to get married and crank out babies. They see doing those things as an obligation. Doesn't that sound appealing?

So they are worried about "sex machines", meaning sexbots or sex robots, as if the only choice a man has is being in a marriage with a woman, or having a sexbot, and if we warn against the latter, men will be forced into the former.

Right off of the bat, Lurie said it's much easier not to have a relationship. Exactly! Why make life more difficult if you don't have to???

Prager, for his part, started off saying he was worried about sexbots and he mentioned incels. Again, incels are involuntarily celibate (unmarried). Robots/dolls could disappear and incels would still exist. Most incels don't have one. Very few do.

Prager went to say that loneliness is an epidemic and that the only cures are traditional. However, it is possible to be unmarried and childfree, and not be lonely. As Dr. Laura tells the children of older adults who are worried about those older adults being lonely: Loneliness is a choice.

They didn't ignore the part women are playing in this. Prager said that feminism today means disdain for men. But he quickly went back to saying that he was raised to believe that "being a man" meant taking care of a family, and that getting married was the most important thing to do.

That was a long time ago, sir. And just because someone raised you that way doesn't make it right, especially today.

Lurie did cite that relationships today are considered minefields, false allegations of rape, me too, and all of that. He lamented that the Japanese view children (realistically, I note) as liabilities and that it makes no sense to have children, but Lurie thinks having children is a duty. How nice!

Closer to the end of the hour, Prager said that "winner men" will still seek women instead of sex machines. Sure, if he defines winners as those who seek marriage, but that's circular. The fact is, there are men who are successful, healthy, attractive, and having great lives who are not seeking women, at least not to marry, live with, or to join in an exclusive relationship. Winner men have the most to lose by signing that terrible state contract and engaging in that conflated cultural train wreck.

It says a lot that these guys think men might eschew women because of the availability of sex dolls, including that they think men will perceive that women have less to offer as overall positives in a man's life than a robot. They can't stop progress, so if they're worried, perhaps the answer is working on changing the things that are getting men to avoid marriage (and no, it isn't dolls, robots, or pixels).

Why Wait?

Dr. Laura's blog was updated with an entry with the title "Why Wait to Have Sex?"

People who engage in sex before or within the first few weeks of dating have lower levels of relationship satisfaction, communication and stability than those who wait longer.

The claim here is the first few weeks. So, a month in is good?

Why?

Because people who wait are so happy to be having sex that that they'll accept a lot of crap.

Because casual sex is lust over love. Without a foundation, the excitement of the passion wanes, and the relationship crumbles.

Not if they enjoy the sex a lot and are compatible. They have both "lust" and love after a while.

Most women want the first time they have sex with a man to be mind-blowing, special and something that brings them closer together.

Men want that, too.

However, there is no love or commitment early on in a relationship, so none of those needs are met.

That doesn't follow. People can have mind-blowing, special sex that brings them closer together without love and commitment.

I find it remarkable how many women would not entrust their apartment keys to a guy they just met (even if it’s just to water their plants) and yet, give no thought to exposing themselves to STDs and unplanned pregnancies.

If they have your keys, they can steal from you for a while without you even knowing. They can squat in your place and it can be a long ordeal to get them out. Some women actually enjoy sex, and don't see it as something a man does to them, but something they do with a man. But yes, STD tests, contraception, and vasectomies can be great things, and some people having sex on a first, second, or third date use those.

Contrary to what you see in the movies, people simultaneously orgasming 20 minutes after meeting each other rarely happens in real life.

Most married people don't experience simultaneous orgasms, either.

First-date sex is usually awkward, and it runs on his timeline — if you get my drift.

So now it's two dates in, rather than a month.

Also, some guys gladly engage in cunnilingus, fingering, etc. until she has at least one orgasm. Even on a first date.

Plus, there isn’t that much warm-up because there isn’t that much caring to give you a warm-up.

How would Dr. Laura know this? And again, the experience of many people goes against this.

Nothing has changed in the double standard. The more sexual partners a guy has had, the less he thinks of women and the sex he has with them. Guys know that the quicker they can get you to bed, the less wifey material you are. You may be humping for a few years or even shacking up, but there’s no true emotional bond.

Except for the millions of people for whom that hasn't been the case. There are couples who seem to have great marriages lasting decades who had sex on the first date. Everyone knows someone like that. I do.

Dr. Laura will tell female callers who've had unmarried sex "He's telling all of his friends he did!" These days, SHE probably told his friends. And hers. Like it or not, times have changed.

Men don’t value what they don’t have to work hard for.

How hard did most men have to work for their mother's love? And yet they value it tremendously.

If you want a healthy relationship, you should charge a high price for sex - the price being attention, care and commitment.

For Dr. Laura, a "commitment" means having a terrible state contract, joint finances, monogamy, and a bunch of other things that must all be together. In her mind, people can be together for ten years with the same goals and treating each other well, and it's not a commitment unless they have a state license and joint finances. Also, people shouldn't marry until after being together regularly for two yeas. There's a lot of room between a month and two or three years.

While she doesn't admit it, Dr. Laura borrows from materialism and religion for her secular program.

Materialism says men should pay - literally pay - for sex, because of supply and demand. This is why Dr. Laura says an unmarried man having sex is "getting sex for free." He hasn't signed over at least half of his income to the woman with whom he's having sex.

Religion: "This Scripture or this Prophet says unmarried sex is wrong."

She struggles to explain why people should save sex for marriage without citing either of those.

She didn't bring up abortion. Like STDs, unwanted pregnancies are a risk with sex. From a purely rational perspective, people should avoid sex if they aren't prepared for, or haven't taken steps to prevent, unwanted conception, spreading STDs, or catching unwanted feelings.

I'm not here to tell you to have sex before you marry, much less sex a few dates in. (Many of you will do it anyway.)

But I am here to tell you there's no way you should sign a terrible state contract unless you have experienced sexual compatibility and chemistry with that person, unless both of you don't care about sex (and you can't really be sure they don't). Actually, you shouldn't sign the terrible state contract regardless. But you shouldn't make vows, a joint residence, joint finances, or children with someone unless you know they can fulfill you in that way.

So, stay free.

Defending Your Decision Not to Have (More ) Children

Being a Free Man can be entirely ethical and moral. In fact, Free Men are morally superior to most husbands.

But what about when someone claims you you have an obligation to have (more) children? (This is usually paired with "...so you need to get married.") The claim that you have an obligation to have children is usually some variation of "Society needs children to continue."

That's true. Without new children, society would eventually end.

Also...

Society needs abundant, clean, freshwater to continue. Does that mean you are obligated to drill wells or be a waterworks engineer?

Society needs food to continue. Are you obligated to even have a single fruit or vegetable growing in a garden?

While there are homesteaders who do farm and have wells and also have lots of children, I can't think of anyone who has even attempted to make the argument that every person is obligated to produce freshwater or grow agricultural commodities.

Society needs people working. You can work more if you're not parenting. But you're under no obligation to do more than it takes to provide for yourself, plus a little more for giving, if you are able to do so. (The giving is mostly to help those who truly aren't able.) You have no obligation to have children. Other people will make children. That's clear.

You might choose to stay in a religion or cult that tells you that in order to be a member, you need to try to make children. You might choose to marry someone you know is expecting to have and raise children. Then you'd be obligated, unless you left. But there's no blanket obligation.

We have to do something in order to have children. Our default status is to be childfree.

Then there is another attempt that goes something like, "Children are like flowers. How can you have too many? I like my children."

That's good for them, as long as one of the older ones doesn't molest the younger ones and then the family goes on a "reality" show that ignores that. Children are people. You know people you like a lot, and people you don't like, maybe even people you can't stand. The same can be true of children. And people who generally don't like a lot of people probably aren't going to like having to raise people. Childfree people can pick the people they have in their life. Parents are pretty much stuck with their child, who could be a sociopath.

There is no blanket obligation to have children. For many people, it is irresponsible for them to do so. Get a vasectomy, guys.

Why Isn't There Running Game Advice For Husbands?

You may have noticed that my series of posts here about Running Game are addressed to men who aren't married and aren't in supposedly exclusive relationships.

That's because running game explains how to have more fun for less cost and hassle, and is very much about using and retaining power and freedom.

Husbands don't have power.

Husbands don't have freedom.

Husbands have signed away more than half of their income.
Husbands can only have fun when the wife is willing.

The wedding is game over.

I mean, if your wife agrees to an open marriage (or, you cheat, which I generally think is a terrible idea) you can run game. Your wife can even help you do it. But what are the odds of that? Or it lasting? There are also wives who let their husband have some semblance of power and freedom, but that's entirely voluntary on her part and can be rescinded at any time. It's like allowing a dog to go to the ends of a very long leash. He's still on a leash.

There are self-styled gurus, usually authors and/or vloggers/bloggers, who purport to teach husbands how to lead their wife or get what they want from their wife. Ultimately, though, she doesn't have to go along with any of it, and unlike when a man is free, he’s either stuck with her or she’s going to destroy him using family law. If some wives choose to go along with the program, great! But legally/financially and socially, she has the power. This is one reason why most marriages fail. Most women find the reality a turn-off.

If you're not married, don't marry. But if you are married, the best you can hope for is your wife voluntarily letting you take charge and get what you want.

Is There An Obligation to Complete A Date?

A video when viral, with a woman saying she met with a man for a first date, and after seeing her, hugging her, and spending a very short amount of time with her, he asked her to step outside of the restaurant they’d just entered and he cancelled the date. According to her, he said he wasn’t feeling it.

She concluded the video by seeming to blame being overweight.

Maybe that was it, although I’ve seen claims she has pictures on her account that make it clear she’s big, so he had to have known before. Pictures can do that but still be misleading, though.

There’s so much I don’t know that matters to whether he did the right thing or not. The video isn’t long enough to begin to answer several questions.

Maybe it was something she was wearing, her makeup, her hair, or something she said or did? Maybe the hug? Just like some women do, there are guys who pay very close attention to EVERYTHING and are very particular about red flags, turn offs, etc. It could be as simple as she didn’t let him open the door of the restaurant for her. Maybe she was texting. Maybe she’d just been dropped off in front of him by her teen child he didn’t know existed.

It’s also possible the guy had some sort of mental or emotional problem.

He was almost certainly being honest when he said he wasn’t feeling it. If he thought there was a possibility of that changing, he would have likely continued with the date.

So many people say he should have continued with the date.

I tend to disagree, but overall context matters.

First, though, is the question: If he was obligated to continue the date, what exactly does that mean? Was he obligated to share a meal with her on his dime, being polite, friendly, engaged in a conversation, and going at a reasonable pace, and then wishing her well when they were both done and the check was paid?

If I was the guy and had done things the way I was raised, I would have treated her to a good time as best as I could for a first date but not have done anything to lead her on (like kissing her or giving her compliments that weren’t sincere), made sure she got home safely, and after considering it for a couple of days to make sure, I would have given her sincere compliments and the “But…” and let her know it wasn’t going to be a match. Who knows? Maybe she would beat me to it.

Conversely, a man who is running game well would have avoided a meal date entirely. If they were instead meeting for drinks, and he was running game, yes, he should have ended it like that if he didn’t find her attractive. (The video appears to have been made immediately after the aborted date, and it appears it was still very much daylight outside, which isn’t recommended when running game.)

But there are questions.

Who set up the date? Traditionally, men ask for the date. But maybe she asked? If she asked, there is little question he had no obligation to go through with it even after meeting up.

There’s more of an obligation if he was the one who asked her out. But this is a bit of a game. Men are expected, most of the time, to ask, even when it’s clear they both want to meet up.

Did she communicate any expectations for this date? Was she expecting him to take her somewhere else after the meal or whatever? Had she indicated she expected sex? (Yes, some women do that.)

These are, essentially and presumably, strangers. He might have had a feeling he was somehow being set up or taken for his wallet, his DNA, false accusations, whatever.

Men are still generally expected to pay for dates. And time is money. It could be argued he was being responsible to abort the date. I guess we might say that consent to meet up for the possibility of a date isn’t consent to go through with it. His body/time/money, his choice. Can’t consent be revoked at any time?

Plenty of fat women get dates, get boyfriends, get married. True, they don’t have the same options women do if they’re not fat. That’s just a fact of life. Just like how short men don’t have the same options as taller men (but we all have more control over our weight than our height.) But there are fat women who marry, and even some, probably, who are happily married. My advice to this woman, if she keeps getting rejected because of the fat, is to find out how other fat women got what she wants. That might not be possible, if all the men she wants are attracting women they prefer more than her. She might have to “settle,” which is already what most women who lock in with a guy think they’re doing.

Or, lose the weight. I know that’s extremely difficult for some people, and there will still be guys who’ll reject her because she USED to be fat (it leaves marks and loose skin, there’s a likelihood she’ll get fat again). But it will improve her dating position, her employment position, and likely her health.

Can you imagine if a man posted a video like that? Complaining that a woman who’d met him for a first date quickly aborted the date? Especially if he finished it tearfully attributing it to his fat?

I saw a woman claim women don’t act like how the man acted. But women do allow a guy to pay for the date knowing she doesn’t want him, send him on his way without so much as a kiss, and then plenty of those women will text a bad boy to come over and hook up.

Dating, especially if you’re looking for “the one,” is extremely tough. It’s much less of a problem for someone who is running game.

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. 

A Lack of Marriageable Women

Dr. Laura says everyone wants to be married, or at least be with someone, and in her world, that's the same thing. Something is wrong with people who don't. But she also has said the qualities a woman must have to be marriageable and has chastised men for marrying women who don't have these qualities.

This will especially help you if you call her up and she wants to know why you're not married, or not marrying the latest woman in your life.

These things disqualify a woman from being wife material according to Dr. Laura.

Out of the Age Range - If she is 27 or under, she's automatically not wife material yet. If she's more than ten years or more younger (or older... probably fewer years older) than you, she's out of the age range. A woman who is over 40 should not be having children.This will eliminate literally most women.

Has Minor Children - Single mothers, divorced mothers, and almost as much when it comes to widowed mothers, are to raise their children, who've already suffered a loss or a broken home. They shouldn't bring their new lovers around their children, and that precludes marriage until the children are grown. Many women 28 or older have children (though fewer than in the past). This will eliminate another significant percentage of women from consideration.