There are many reasons why a man may want to avoid marriage, avoid shacking up, and even avoid an exclusive relationship entirely. Another one just occurred to me. If a woman turns up dead or goes missing, who is the first suspect? Almost always, it is going to be her husband or boyfriend.
This is understandable, and no man should get away with committing a crime against a woman. Nor do I want to minimize the fact that a woman was raped and murdered – both despicable crimes.
But this guy spent TWENTY SEVEN YEARS in prison for the rape and murder of his girlfriend; DNA evidence now has cleared him. How did he end up a suspect in the first place? Probably because of his being her boyfriend.
While these cases may be rare, they DO happen.
Especially with women who are mentally unstable, or have shady friends, violent exes, or shadowy pasts, this something that can happen.
If she kills herself, decides to disappear, or gets killed by someone she pissed off before she met you, in addition to suffering through the pain of the crime, YOU can end up going to prison for life.
Of course, the risk is small enough that this is a minor concern compared to other reasons a man might want to stay single. But for this guy, three decades are lost.
I wonder how much taxpayer money he’s going to get for this?
Never enter a relationship lightly.
Oh - and this is also another risk of fornicating with someone you don't know. If, God forbid, she is murdered, the DNA trail can lead right back to you... even if all you did was engage in consensual sex.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Misplaced Resentment
Who are these guys who get resentful towards a woman they impregnate?
I’m not excusing women who poke holes in condoms, or retrieve the contents of a condom, or who obtain sperm through oral sex with the intent to insert it into their vagina. Using subterfuge to get pregnant is inexcusable, and women who do such things are selfish and intentionally trying to conceive a child with a man who doesn't want one.
I’m talking about guys who voluntarily take a risk and then lash out at their partner-in-risk when the consequences they hoped against come about.
Unless your sperm count is zero, guys, there’s a chance she’s going to get pregnant if you are fornicating. Condoms aren’t always effective. If you are really so concerned, and yet still decide to fornicate, get a vasectomy.
Some guys complain that women voluntary “take” their sperm, allow it to combine with their egg, and grow a baby without their permission. Permission? Huh? Okay I get that women have contraceptive and abortive options, but conception (once the sperm is inside her) and pregnancy is a natural and passive - not a willful and active – process. The woman isn't intentionally doing anything once you have deposited your sperm, either condom or no condom.
When you fornicate with a woman, you are willingly taking that risk.
There are many obligations that come with being a party to a pregnancy. A man really should think that through before taking that risk.
I’m sure there are guys who don’t want to get a vasectomy in case they want to get married and have kids someday. Such men should consider that if they want to do that, fornicating is counterproductive to doing those things well and being happy in those roles. Especially if they are doing it with a woman they don’t really know or care about.
I’m not excusing women who poke holes in condoms, or retrieve the contents of a condom, or who obtain sperm through oral sex with the intent to insert it into their vagina. Using subterfuge to get pregnant is inexcusable, and women who do such things are selfish and intentionally trying to conceive a child with a man who doesn't want one.
I’m talking about guys who voluntarily take a risk and then lash out at their partner-in-risk when the consequences they hoped against come about.
Unless your sperm count is zero, guys, there’s a chance she’s going to get pregnant if you are fornicating. Condoms aren’t always effective. If you are really so concerned, and yet still decide to fornicate, get a vasectomy.
Some guys complain that women voluntary “take” their sperm, allow it to combine with their egg, and grow a baby without their permission. Permission? Huh? Okay I get that women have contraceptive and abortive options, but conception (once the sperm is inside her) and pregnancy is a natural and passive - not a willful and active – process. The woman isn't intentionally doing anything once you have deposited your sperm, either condom or no condom.
When you fornicate with a woman, you are willingly taking that risk.
There are many obligations that come with being a party to a pregnancy. A man really should think that through before taking that risk.
I’m sure there are guys who don’t want to get a vasectomy in case they want to get married and have kids someday. Such men should consider that if they want to do that, fornicating is counterproductive to doing those things well and being happy in those roles. Especially if they are doing it with a woman they don’t really know or care about.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Lady, Drop the Fat
Reality is sometimes harsh. This is one of those cases. Here is the honest truth from a guy. I’m not your father, brother, son, coworker, husband, boyfriend, or some other guy who has to be delicate or even dishonest in what I say in an attempt to avoid hurting your feelings or starting an argument.
Here it is: Losing the extra weight is the single most effective thing you can do to attract more/higher quality men.
Don’t believe me? Want to deny it? Look around you. Check out that People magazine and that red carpet coverage on television. How many successful, rich, famous, powerful, or gorgeous men do you see with fat or obese women? They are very rare, and in almost every case, they got together long ago, when she was in shape or he didn’t have two pennies to rub together. If he is a decent man, he is staying faithful to her. Otherwise, there’s a good chance he’s getting some on the side. Yes, there are some “cubby chasers” out there, even ones with some level of success. But they are considered the odd and rare exception. Most men who “chubby chase” do so because they believe (correctly or incorrectly) that women in better shape can attract a man more preferable than him, or it is a fetish.
It’s no use protesting that men are shallow. Shallow or not, this is the way it is. You can see it everywhere you go. As Tom Leykis correctly observes (and I don't always agree with the guy to be sure), “The size of the diamond is inversely proportional to the size of the finger wearing it.”
Is there a double standard? You bet there is. Men aren’t judged the same way. Sure, women like hardbodies and most would prefer a man who doesn’t have a spare tire, a potbelly, or a “keg” and does have six-pack. But women, in general, are much more likely to accept a man who is overweight or even obese if he can provide some level of financial security or at least access to a lifestyle of fame or wealth she craves. On the flip side, there’s a double-standard against men when it comes to material achievement/earning. Women aren’t held to that same standard.
But just as it is practical for a woman (especially one that wants to have children) to seek a man who can provide for her, and it isn’t necessarily “golddigging” - there are practical and legitimate reasons for men to seek out women who aren’t overweight – and it isn’t necessarily “being shallow”.
Keep in mind, I’m not talking about ten pounds here. I’m talking about fat, if not obese.
1) A man has to get physically aroused for there to be sexual intercourse. Most men are turned off by extra fat, or at least not turned on by a body carrying it. Men are very visual creatures, and liked to be turned on by a woman’s body. Women, if not naturally aroused, can use lube. Men need to get aroused to function.
2) Most men prefer an enthusiastic lover (if he likes you to play dead, or always wants to restrict your movement each time, there may be something wrong). Women who are in shape are more agile, flexible, and more likely to have endurance.
3) Most men prefer a healthy partner, especially if they are looking for a wife and a mother to their child. Obesity and even just being fat can bring many health problems and higher health and insurance costs.
4) The heavier the woman, the less likely contraceptive pills will be enough of a dosage to be effective.
5) Heavier people eat more (with very rare exceptions). Who is paying for that food?
6) In some cases, weight problems are a sign of mental or character problems – a lack of will-power, a lack of self-respect, a lack of concern about one’s health, compulsive behaviors, depression, etc. Sometimes, the weight seems to scream “don’t touch me.”
7) While it is easier to say “I don’t care what other people think”, the reality is that a man with a fit woman by his side, all other things being equal, is seen in a better light by others (both men and women) than a man who has an overweight woman by his side.
8) Obesity in parents makes obesity in their children more likely, and growing up is tough enough already.
If you’re in a relationship, especially a marriage, and have gotten fat during that relationship, it IS a problem. Your man might not say anything for fear of getting into a fight, hurting your feelings, or being punished in some way. So I am saying it here.
Baby weight should not still be around five years later. My own wife snapped right back into shape. I couldn’t believe it. I do not think it is so easy for all women, or even most. But it is possible. It shouldn’t take years, anyway.
Aging is unavoidable. Becoming overweight is not. And yet, the joke that “wedding cake” is the most fattening food out there rings all too true with too many men. When I was single and I would see these women who would start gaining weight immediately after getting married (often chopping off their hair, too), I thought it made a very poor “witness” for marriage. It didn’t make me want to get married, that’s for sure. It screams “Ha ha! I have your signature on the contract and now I don’t care if I look good for you!!!” I mean, really… what if the husband came home and said “I took a demotion at work today, because I don’t feel like working as hard anymore”?
Before I wrap up and subject myself to angry comments, I want bring up a few more points.
It doesn’t really matter what was considered beautiful 300 years ago or in some remote tribal village. We don’t live in an age and place where famines are a real threat and fat is a sign of being in a family rich enough to be able to sit around all day instead of working in the fields.
I’m not advocating the twiggy or “boy” look. Fashion models are usually chosen by gay men and other women, not straight men, so they are a poor indication of what straight men find attractive. But you can’t dismiss the women in magazines like Playboy. Playboy has done extensive research into what men find attractive. We can argue all day long about which came first - the media portrayals of the ideal female form or the tastes of men – but men do like that. I would like to insert the exception here that most men prefer natural breasts in reality, though breast implants can make for some good pictures. And yes, we know those photos have been retouched a million times, and she’s wearing body makeup and has special lighting and all of that. But the overall look is an ideal that most men have. None of those women are fat.
I’m not advocating women starve themselves. Women should get to a healthy weight by eating less and moving more.
I don’t personally go for the muscular or boy look. I like my women with curves, but there is a difference from simply being curvy and being fat. I had girlfriends with extra weight. I have had extra weight myself most of my post-pubescent life (though I’ve had times when I was down to an ideal weight). I’m not excusing my own fat. I know that people (especially women, but it does happen to guys, too) get treated differently for being overweight, and that sucks and in most cases, it shouldn’t happen. But it does. And coupled with the advantage in attracting men, there is good reason to drop the fat. If for nothing else, do it for your own health and happiness. While the “fat acceptance” people can scream all they want, I’ve never, ever heard of anyone who has lost extra weight who has regretted it – well, maybe the aspiring actor who used to get “chef” parts in commercials, but that is very rare. I know my life is better when I’m in shape.
All of the above being said, I can tell you guys like me would rather have a fat sweetie than a bikini model bitch.
However, we’ll go after bikini model sweeties most of all.
Here it is: Losing the extra weight is the single most effective thing you can do to attract more/higher quality men.
Don’t believe me? Want to deny it? Look around you. Check out that People magazine and that red carpet coverage on television. How many successful, rich, famous, powerful, or gorgeous men do you see with fat or obese women? They are very rare, and in almost every case, they got together long ago, when she was in shape or he didn’t have two pennies to rub together. If he is a decent man, he is staying faithful to her. Otherwise, there’s a good chance he’s getting some on the side. Yes, there are some “cubby chasers” out there, even ones with some level of success. But they are considered the odd and rare exception. Most men who “chubby chase” do so because they believe (correctly or incorrectly) that women in better shape can attract a man more preferable than him, or it is a fetish.
It’s no use protesting that men are shallow. Shallow or not, this is the way it is. You can see it everywhere you go. As Tom Leykis correctly observes (and I don't always agree with the guy to be sure), “The size of the diamond is inversely proportional to the size of the finger wearing it.”
Is there a double standard? You bet there is. Men aren’t judged the same way. Sure, women like hardbodies and most would prefer a man who doesn’t have a spare tire, a potbelly, or a “keg” and does have six-pack. But women, in general, are much more likely to accept a man who is overweight or even obese if he can provide some level of financial security or at least access to a lifestyle of fame or wealth she craves. On the flip side, there’s a double-standard against men when it comes to material achievement/earning. Women aren’t held to that same standard.
But just as it is practical for a woman (especially one that wants to have children) to seek a man who can provide for her, and it isn’t necessarily “golddigging” - there are practical and legitimate reasons for men to seek out women who aren’t overweight – and it isn’t necessarily “being shallow”.
Keep in mind, I’m not talking about ten pounds here. I’m talking about fat, if not obese.
1) A man has to get physically aroused for there to be sexual intercourse. Most men are turned off by extra fat, or at least not turned on by a body carrying it. Men are very visual creatures, and liked to be turned on by a woman’s body. Women, if not naturally aroused, can use lube. Men need to get aroused to function.
2) Most men prefer an enthusiastic lover (if he likes you to play dead, or always wants to restrict your movement each time, there may be something wrong). Women who are in shape are more agile, flexible, and more likely to have endurance.
3) Most men prefer a healthy partner, especially if they are looking for a wife and a mother to their child. Obesity and even just being fat can bring many health problems and higher health and insurance costs.
4) The heavier the woman, the less likely contraceptive pills will be enough of a dosage to be effective.
5) Heavier people eat more (with very rare exceptions). Who is paying for that food?
6) In some cases, weight problems are a sign of mental or character problems – a lack of will-power, a lack of self-respect, a lack of concern about one’s health, compulsive behaviors, depression, etc. Sometimes, the weight seems to scream “don’t touch me.”
7) While it is easier to say “I don’t care what other people think”, the reality is that a man with a fit woman by his side, all other things being equal, is seen in a better light by others (both men and women) than a man who has an overweight woman by his side.
8) Obesity in parents makes obesity in their children more likely, and growing up is tough enough already.
If you’re in a relationship, especially a marriage, and have gotten fat during that relationship, it IS a problem. Your man might not say anything for fear of getting into a fight, hurting your feelings, or being punished in some way. So I am saying it here.
Baby weight should not still be around five years later. My own wife snapped right back into shape. I couldn’t believe it. I do not think it is so easy for all women, or even most. But it is possible. It shouldn’t take years, anyway.
Aging is unavoidable. Becoming overweight is not. And yet, the joke that “wedding cake” is the most fattening food out there rings all too true with too many men. When I was single and I would see these women who would start gaining weight immediately after getting married (often chopping off their hair, too), I thought it made a very poor “witness” for marriage. It didn’t make me want to get married, that’s for sure. It screams “Ha ha! I have your signature on the contract and now I don’t care if I look good for you!!!” I mean, really… what if the husband came home and said “I took a demotion at work today, because I don’t feel like working as hard anymore”?
Before I wrap up and subject myself to angry comments, I want bring up a few more points.
It doesn’t really matter what was considered beautiful 300 years ago or in some remote tribal village. We don’t live in an age and place where famines are a real threat and fat is a sign of being in a family rich enough to be able to sit around all day instead of working in the fields.
I’m not advocating the twiggy or “boy” look. Fashion models are usually chosen by gay men and other women, not straight men, so they are a poor indication of what straight men find attractive. But you can’t dismiss the women in magazines like Playboy. Playboy has done extensive research into what men find attractive. We can argue all day long about which came first - the media portrayals of the ideal female form or the tastes of men – but men do like that. I would like to insert the exception here that most men prefer natural breasts in reality, though breast implants can make for some good pictures. And yes, we know those photos have been retouched a million times, and she’s wearing body makeup and has special lighting and all of that. But the overall look is an ideal that most men have. None of those women are fat.
I’m not advocating women starve themselves. Women should get to a healthy weight by eating less and moving more.
I don’t personally go for the muscular or boy look. I like my women with curves, but there is a difference from simply being curvy and being fat. I had girlfriends with extra weight. I have had extra weight myself most of my post-pubescent life (though I’ve had times when I was down to an ideal weight). I’m not excusing my own fat. I know that people (especially women, but it does happen to guys, too) get treated differently for being overweight, and that sucks and in most cases, it shouldn’t happen. But it does. And coupled with the advantage in attracting men, there is good reason to drop the fat. If for nothing else, do it for your own health and happiness. While the “fat acceptance” people can scream all they want, I’ve never, ever heard of anyone who has lost extra weight who has regretted it – well, maybe the aspiring actor who used to get “chef” parts in commercials, but that is very rare. I know my life is better when I’m in shape.
All of the above being said, I can tell you guys like me would rather have a fat sweetie than a bikini model bitch.
However, we’ll go after bikini model sweeties most of all.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Leykis on Abortion and Fornication
The hour of the Tom Leykis Show that is on right now as I type features Leykis claiming that anyone who fornicates should be willing to have/encourage someone to have an abortion. He ridicules people who disagree. He maintains that any opposition to abortion must be based on the Bible, and since the Bible also warns against fornication (sex outside of marriage), anyone who would not have an abortion or encourage their partner to have an abortion should also be against fornication and not engage in it.
Granting his assertions, hasn't he ever heard the commonsense "Two wrongs do not make a right?" I can understand the frustration he has in the concept that there could be a woman who would be willing to fornicate with him, but wouldn't be willing to have an abortion if she subsequently became pregnant, thereby legally obligating Leykis (or any other guy) to financial fatherhood when he doesn't want that nor social fatherhood. But sometimes, people do things they believe are wrong - like the person who fornicates even though they don't think it is really moral to do so. It does not follow that they should then engage in what they consider to be another wrong, especially one that they consider much more serious - abortion. Abortion also brings certain risks for women.
So he maintains that people who go against their beliefs once, should go ahead and go against their beliefs again with a completely different action. He makes no distinction between the severity of the wrongs. It's like saying that someone who lies about being rich should then go out and rob a bank so they will be rich, since they lied about being rich, and lying is wrong.
But it is also possible that there are people out there who do not think fornication is wrong at all, or wrong in all circumstances, and still would not have an abortion - for moral reasons or any number of other reasons.
There are people out there who get their morality apart from the Bible. There are people out there, even atheists (like Leykis) who would not have an abortion.
It is absurd to chalk it all up to the Bible.
It is also absurd insist that people can never ever violate their own beliefs without completely forsaking them in every area. People violate their beliefs all of the time without abandoning their belief system entirely.
Granting his assertions, hasn't he ever heard the commonsense "Two wrongs do not make a right?" I can understand the frustration he has in the concept that there could be a woman who would be willing to fornicate with him, but wouldn't be willing to have an abortion if she subsequently became pregnant, thereby legally obligating Leykis (or any other guy) to financial fatherhood when he doesn't want that nor social fatherhood. But sometimes, people do things they believe are wrong - like the person who fornicates even though they don't think it is really moral to do so. It does not follow that they should then engage in what they consider to be another wrong, especially one that they consider much more serious - abortion. Abortion also brings certain risks for women.
So he maintains that people who go against their beliefs once, should go ahead and go against their beliefs again with a completely different action. He makes no distinction between the severity of the wrongs. It's like saying that someone who lies about being rich should then go out and rob a bank so they will be rich, since they lied about being rich, and lying is wrong.
But it is also possible that there are people out there who do not think fornication is wrong at all, or wrong in all circumstances, and still would not have an abortion - for moral reasons or any number of other reasons.
There are people out there who get their morality apart from the Bible. There are people out there, even atheists (like Leykis) who would not have an abortion.
It is absurd to chalk it all up to the Bible.
It is also absurd insist that people can never ever violate their own beliefs without completely forsaking them in every area. People violate their beliefs all of the time without abandoning their belief system entirely.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Divorce Rings and Other Helpful Rings
As if women need another excuse to buy jewelry, a recent Dear Abby alerted me to the existence of divorce rings. Never mind that a wedding ring is meant to be a symbol of binding and endless love, hence a ring (circle). I like the idea of divorce rings. It helps a guy have a better idea right off of the bat in terms of what he’s dealing with. Before I go further, let me make it clear that I know there are decent, attractive, well-adjusted, intelligent women out there who are divorced. But almost all divorced women made a mistake in marrying the man they did. Either that, or she didn’t treat him right. Either way, it’s not a thing of which to be proud.
Also, a divorced woman is more likely to have a hostile attitude towards men, especially if she is wearing a divorce ring. Women are more likely to file for divorce than men, and divorce is more likely with each subsequent marriage - so a man who is looking for a lifelong partner should view a woman wearing a divorce ring with caution, lest he end up being the next guy to pay alimony to her.
I should at least comment on the Dear Abby letter from DIVORCING AND LOVING IT IN NORTH CAROLINA:
Sounds like you two didn’t have a lot of time to learn about yourselves and live before you married, And then, instead of bonding with each other and enjoying lots of marital lovemaking, you got pregnant at 21. That’s a lot of stress for a young couple.
Good for you.
The best was this:
That’s hilarious. I’d say adultery and domestic violence promote divorce a lot more than wearing a ring.
Independence, eh? Not if you are accepting alimony.
Dear Abby’s response is prettying much right on.
But let me get back to rings. How about some other rings that will be helpful? I suggest these:
“I get really bad PMS” rings.
“I have PTSD” rings.
“I have severe mental or emotional problems” rings.
“I just want you to buy my dinner and drinks for me and my friends; I’ll never sleep with you or marry you” rings.
“I’ve got kids” rings.
“I don’t use contraception effectively and even poke holes in condoms” rings.
“I’m a relentless nag” rings.
“I have huge debt and really bad credit” rings (made of tinfoil).
In all fairness, men could wear these:
“I just want sex” rings.
“I’m a compulsive liar and cheater” rings.
“I’m completely insensitive” rings.
“I’m paying child support, and if you marry me, you’ll be paying it, too” rings.
"I’m supposed to be paying child support, but I’m not” rings.
“I’m not really sure how many kids I have running around out there” rings.
“My career will always come first” rings.
Actually, this reminds of an idea I have for “I’m Still a Bachelor” parties, where men can get together to celebrate one of their friends who has never married. But that’s for another time.
Also, a divorced woman is more likely to have a hostile attitude towards men, especially if she is wearing a divorce ring. Women are more likely to file for divorce than men, and divorce is more likely with each subsequent marriage - so a man who is looking for a lifelong partner should view a woman wearing a divorce ring with caution, lest he end up being the next guy to pay alimony to her.
I should at least comment on the Dear Abby letter from DIVORCING AND LOVING IT IN NORTH CAROLINA:
I am a 45-year-old woman with two daughters, ages 20 and 23. I married my high school sweetheart, "Cooper."
Sounds like you two didn’t have a lot of time to learn about yourselves and live before you married, And then, instead of bonding with each other and enjoying lots of marital lovemaking, you got pregnant at 21. That’s a lot of stress for a young couple.
I had heard rumors that Cooper had strayed from time to time, but had no evidence to back it up, and, of course, he denied it.
I went by my husband's office one day to surprise him, and his new secretary informed me that Cooper had just taken his wife to lunch at a local bistro! I went right over there and found them whispering, kissing and feeding each other. I did not make a scene.
Good for you.
When Cooper arrived home that evening, I confronted him. He tried to deny it. I called him a liar and he slapped me! (A first.) He moved out that night, and I filed for divorce.He sounds like a real prize, treating you that. You’re probably better off without him.
The best was this:
Cooper and his parents are livid! They say I am poking fun at him and accuse me of "promoting divorce."
That’s hilarious. I’d say adultery and domestic violence promote divorce a lot more than wearing a ring.
The ring is different in design, beautiful, makes me feel good and shows my independence.
Independence, eh? Not if you are accepting alimony.
Dear Abby’s response is prettying much right on.
But let me get back to rings. How about some other rings that will be helpful? I suggest these:
“I get really bad PMS” rings.
“I have PTSD” rings.
“I have severe mental or emotional problems” rings.
“I just want you to buy my dinner and drinks for me and my friends; I’ll never sleep with you or marry you” rings.
“I’ve got kids” rings.
“I don’t use contraception effectively and even poke holes in condoms” rings.
“I’m a relentless nag” rings.
“I have huge debt and really bad credit” rings (made of tinfoil).
In all fairness, men could wear these:
“I just want sex” rings.
“I’m a compulsive liar and cheater” rings.
“I’m completely insensitive” rings.
“I’m paying child support, and if you marry me, you’ll be paying it, too” rings.
"I’m supposed to be paying child support, but I’m not” rings.
“I’m not really sure how many kids I have running around out there” rings.
“My career will always come first” rings.
Actually, this reminds of an idea I have for “I’m Still a Bachelor” parties, where men can get together to celebrate one of their friends who has never married. But that’s for another time.
Monday, April 21, 2008
EHarmony.com Gets Slammed By Christians, Conservatives
Many atheists, Leftists, swingers, cheaters, players, depressed people, people who have been divorced several times, and homosexuals are upset at EHarmony for not being geared towards serving them, or, in the case of the atheists and Leftists – purely because EHarmony.com was founded by someone who previously associated closely with Focus on the Family.
Now, an outcry from Christians and Conservatives has caused EHarmony.com to pull an advice piece dealing with one night stands. The piece was called “Navigating the One Night Stand” and was found here: http://advice.eharmony.com/?page=articles/view&AID=1961
There’s also anger over this piece:The Girl’s Guide to Camping at Your Boyfriend’s Place, originally found here: http://advice.eharmony.com/?page=articles/view&AID=1969
According to Dr. Warren, one of the reasons he founded EHarmony.com was to lower the divorce rate and strengthen marriages. I think that is a good goal. Based on what he’s written, I can reasonably conclude that Dr. Warren is against one night stands and fornication in general – and believes that saving sex for marriage strengthens marriage. Let me say right now that I agree.
Having said that, if EHarmony.com is going to reach out to serve people who do not follow Biblical morality, there are areas where they can still offer advice to people in situations that they shouldn’t be in n the first place. However, when doing so, they should be careful about their tone and guide the reader to material that will explain why and how to avoid such situations in the first place, for the sake of increasing the chances of having a strong, happy marriage. To me, it is like a doctor treating an STD. Someone shouldn’t have an STD to begin with, but once they have it, they should be treated.
Now, let me go through the first article.
One night stands are often the goal for those who just want sex and nothing more. But they aren’t the target audience of EHarmony.com.
Guys should keep a cell phone so that they can claim they got a call and have to go. Great excuse for not spooning.
What a mess.
Moving on to the second piece - The Girl’s Guide to Camping at Your Boyfriend’s Place:
It looks like EHarmony may be facing some of the same problems that happen to musical acts who start out appealing to a Christian audience and then try to go mainstream. One problem is losing their moral compass. The other problem, even if they don't lose their compass, is accusations of "selling out" by some of the original audience.
If EHarmony does things right, they can bring Christian principles to the mainstream practice, thereby strengthening marriage.
Now, an outcry from Christians and Conservatives has caused EHarmony.com to pull an advice piece dealing with one night stands. The piece was called “Navigating the One Night Stand” and was found here: http://advice.eharmony.com/?page=articles/view&AID=1961
There’s also anger over this piece:The Girl’s Guide to Camping at Your Boyfriend’s Place, originally found here: http://advice.eharmony.com/?page=articles/view&AID=1969
According to Dr. Warren, one of the reasons he founded EHarmony.com was to lower the divorce rate and strengthen marriages. I think that is a good goal. Based on what he’s written, I can reasonably conclude that Dr. Warren is against one night stands and fornication in general – and believes that saving sex for marriage strengthens marriage. Let me say right now that I agree.
Having said that, if EHarmony.com is going to reach out to serve people who do not follow Biblical morality, there are areas where they can still offer advice to people in situations that they shouldn’t be in n the first place. However, when doing so, they should be careful about their tone and guide the reader to material that will explain why and how to avoid such situations in the first place, for the sake of increasing the chances of having a strong, happy marriage. To me, it is like a doctor treating an STD. Someone shouldn’t have an STD to begin with, but once they have it, they should be treated.
Now, let me go through the first article.
So you’re a swinging single and you’ve had a one-night stand.Bad move, if you are marriage-minded. It’s like going through a fast-food drive-through on the way to a seven-course gourmet meal at the best restaurant in town.
What’s the etiquette for establishing boundaries, calling the day after and getting out without hurting feelings?Feelings are likely to be hurt no matter what. But I do agree with minimizing the damage.
While most of us are looking for that special someone to spend our lives with, the single life dictates that sometimes the opportunity for companionship presents itself in the form of a one-night stand.This is part of what gets people riled up, but it is reality. Some people are weak, and they mess up. Yes, “mess up”. It is definitely a mistake, if you are EHarmony’s target market of someone looking for lasting love. In that case, you should just say "no".
One night stands are often the goal for those who just want sex and nothing more. But they aren’t the target audience of EHarmony.com.
While a one-time roll in the hay isn’t exactly emotionally fulfilling, sex in any form can be relaxing, enjoyable, and fun.While this is true, the tone could have been a lot better. Some sins are fun, at least in the moment. That doesn’t mean they aren’t damaging to your soul and risky for your body.
So maybe it’s closing time and you haven’t found Mr. or Ms. Right.Kind of hard to do in a bar or a club anyway. But if you’re in this situation, that’s when you GO HOME and get some sleep. But players take note of advice like this... the advice is a one night stand is okay as long as you haven't found the right person. Players read advice like that, and they resolve to NOT be Mr. or Mrs. Right, because that person has to wait for sex, while a jerk doesn't. Why? Because someone doesn't want to be seen by a potential marital partner as being morally loose, even though that it is exactly what they are. I write from experience.
If you are up for it, you can enjoy a romp with Mr. or Ms. Right-for-the-night. But when you find yourself in a position to get lucky, you should heed a few rendezvous rules to ensure a seamless one-night-only performance.How about “take a cold shower instead”?
Be Up FrontFine by whom? Legally? Yes. Morally? No. At least not in this case. And short-term happiness isn't the same thing as long-term, especially in this case.
As consenting adults, it’s absolutely fine for both of you to do what makes you happy.
The key is to make your intentions clear with your date and call it what it is: sex with no strings attached.Oh, come on now. If you’re going to tell someone how to score a one night stand, at least give good advice. (Hmmm, was this actually a clever attempt to make one night stands more difficult?) There are many women out there who engage in one night stands, but very few of those do so without the “plausible deniability” of the unspoken hope that it could lead to something more. Most women still need an “excuse” to do such things, and one major one is “I thought we had something special starting.” Another is “I was drinking.”
Once both of you have appropriate expectations, you can appreciate the spontaneous lovin’ for what it’s worth.What is the street value these days?
Do the Safety DanceHow do you even know it is your date’s real name?
Keep a cell phone with you, and if you can, tell your friends where you will be and your date’s name.
Guys should keep a cell phone so that they can claim they got a call and have to go. Great excuse for not spooning.
Further, always use protection. Without the risk of sounding like a high school health teacher, protect yourself from STDs and pregnancy every single time to avoid lingering consequences.Condoms are not 100% effective, nor do they prevent the transmission of all STDs.
Don’t Spend the NightDon't even if invited. Get out of there.
Unless invited, don’t sleep over.
Snoozing together is too official, and it should be reserved for an established relationship.Too official? But having a stranger inside you is unofficial?
Gather up your belongings and make a respectful exit.There’s nothing respectful about any of this.
Don’t try to leave a trail of personal “bread crumbs,” such as a wallet, a purse—or, worse, your unmentionables—as a gateway for a second meeting.Any guy who finds a one night stand’s stuff in his place should throw it away, and if she asks if he has it, he should say no. It is a trick. She'll never make that mistake with you again.
Hanging around implies desperation, pegging you as the sad Clingy Clarissa or Hopeless Harry.Uh, giving it up on the first date doesn't imply desperation?
Don’t CallThis is good advice for players, but bad advice for someone who is trying to adhere to morality. Such a person should call and apologize, and let things cool off before considering seeing that person again.
One-nighters need not call or check up on the whereabouts of the person they shared the evening with. Acting as if your near-anonymous night of passion was a first date will just confuse sex with love.
Keep Your Mouth Shut Don’t crow about your conquest or the amazing time you had with this lover to your friends like an adolescent.Good advice. Guys often tell their buddies that they "hit it". Women, however, will tell their friends exactly what went on in very detailed descriptions. Nobody should talk, except in a prayer for forgiveness.
One-night stands might solicit spontaneity and liberation, but you ought to know enough not to participate in short affairs unless you are capable of the detachment they require.If you are, there may be something wrong with you.
If you have the ability to live in the moment and not demand a long-term relationship afterward, then you are golden.Golden to players. You shouldn’t be fornicating in the first place.
What a mess.
Moving on to the second piece - The Girl’s Guide to Camping at Your Boyfriend’s Place:
You’ve met a great guy on eHarmony and so far things are going well. The two of you are going out, spending time together, and once in a while you’re probably crashing at his place. Here’s your guide to looking great by using what you’ve got.By crashing, you’d better mean the non-fornicating kind.
When you find yourself wearing his T-shirts and sometimes even using his toothbrush (ew), it’s tempting to ask him if you can stash some stuff at his house. However, there’s always a chance that this will come off as if you are moving too fast–as if you want to move in after knowing each other only a few weeks.There should be NO stashing unless marriage is pending in the next few weeks.
It looks like EHarmony may be facing some of the same problems that happen to musical acts who start out appealing to a Christian audience and then try to go mainstream. One problem is losing their moral compass. The other problem, even if they don't lose their compass, is accusations of "selling out" by some of the original audience.
If EHarmony does things right, they can bring Christian principles to the mainstream practice, thereby strengthening marriage.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Leveling the Playing Field: Domestic Violence Response
This entry is part of a series.
The introduction is here.
The first two suggestions are here, on paternity determinations, are here.
Suggestions three and four, dealing with child support, are here.
Suggestions five and six, dealing with pre-nups and alimony, are here.
7. Domestic violence response equality. We can’t ignore or dismiss domestic violence against men (perpetrated by women) anymore. If women have shelters, men should have shelters. If a woman assaults a man, she should be arrested, just as a man should be if he assaults a woman. When the police respond to a domestic disturbance call and they determine a man and woman assaulted each other, BOTH should be removed. Domestic violence is NOT okay, even if you have a vagina or PMS
I'll be posting my suggestions at some other time for how men can protect themselves in the current culture, since the seven suggestions I have offered in this series for making things more equal under the law are unlikely to be implemented any time soon.
The introduction is here.
The first two suggestions are here, on paternity determinations, are here.
Suggestions three and four, dealing with child support, are here.
Suggestions five and six, dealing with pre-nups and alimony, are here.
7. Domestic violence response equality. We can’t ignore or dismiss domestic violence against men (perpetrated by women) anymore. If women have shelters, men should have shelters. If a woman assaults a man, she should be arrested, just as a man should be if he assaults a woman. When the police respond to a domestic disturbance call and they determine a man and woman assaulted each other, BOTH should be removed. Domestic violence is NOT okay, even if you have a vagina or PMS
I'll be posting my suggestions at some other time for how men can protect themselves in the current culture, since the seven suggestions I have offered in this series for making things more equal under the law are unlikely to be implemented any time soon.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Leveling the Playing Field: Pre-Nups and Alimony Reform
This entry is part of a series. The introduction is here. The first two suggestions are here. The second two suggestions are here.
5. Signed informed consent or customized pre-nuptial agreement as standard. I know there are people (mostly women) who say that pre-nups are unromantic and planning to fail. But we buy insurance for all sorts of things we hope don’t happen, and the fact is, the courts already have a pre-nup for you. You might as well be encouraged to come up with your own before a marriage license is issued. Like the first suggestion, if this was standard and automatic, one spouse could not accuse the other of being “insulting”. People who complain that a spouse who insists on a pre-nup is selfish or materialistic are themselves those things, or they would be happy to sign a personalized pre-nup and prove they aren’t marrying for money. For quickie weddings, there could be a simply form to sign that lists some of the major legal consequences of marrying without a personalized pre-nup, or that makes the marriage contingent on a post-nup agreement to be filed in the near future.
6. Alimony reform. Tied in with the previous suggestion – alimony should no longer be standard just because one spouse earns more than the other. We live in a day and age in which women have equal access to the workplace, property ownership, and investing. A woman demanding alimony should have to show a prior promise to a certain level of support (“We’re getting married now, I don’t want you to work…”) – hence one of the important reasons to have a customized pre-nup. Why should women who continue along the same career path as before they got married get any alimony in the event of a divorce, unless that was specified in the pre-nup? Notice that this would work both ways – Federline wouldn’t be able to mooch off of Spears. Also, in states like California, ten years or more of marriage mean lifetime alimony as long as the receiving spouse (usually a woman) doesn’t remarry. This discourages remarriage and is especially silly when the receiving spouse is living with someone who pays her bills.
I have at least one more suggestion, and of course, my suggestions for men, but those will be posted in a subsequent entry.
5. Signed informed consent or customized pre-nuptial agreement as standard. I know there are people (mostly women) who say that pre-nups are unromantic and planning to fail. But we buy insurance for all sorts of things we hope don’t happen, and the fact is, the courts already have a pre-nup for you. You might as well be encouraged to come up with your own before a marriage license is issued. Like the first suggestion, if this was standard and automatic, one spouse could not accuse the other of being “insulting”. People who complain that a spouse who insists on a pre-nup is selfish or materialistic are themselves those things, or they would be happy to sign a personalized pre-nup and prove they aren’t marrying for money. For quickie weddings, there could be a simply form to sign that lists some of the major legal consequences of marrying without a personalized pre-nup, or that makes the marriage contingent on a post-nup agreement to be filed in the near future.
6. Alimony reform. Tied in with the previous suggestion – alimony should no longer be standard just because one spouse earns more than the other. We live in a day and age in which women have equal access to the workplace, property ownership, and investing. A woman demanding alimony should have to show a prior promise to a certain level of support (“We’re getting married now, I don’t want you to work…”) – hence one of the important reasons to have a customized pre-nup. Why should women who continue along the same career path as before they got married get any alimony in the event of a divorce, unless that was specified in the pre-nup? Notice that this would work both ways – Federline wouldn’t be able to mooch off of Spears. Also, in states like California, ten years or more of marriage mean lifetime alimony as long as the receiving spouse (usually a woman) doesn’t remarry. This discourages remarriage and is especially silly when the receiving spouse is living with someone who pays her bills.
I have at least one more suggestion, and of course, my suggestions for men, but those will be posted in a subsequent entry.
Leveling the Playing Field: Child Support
This entry is part of a series. The introduction is here. The first two suggestions are here.
Suggestions:
3. Opting out of fatherhood after intercourse. Child Support Compliance offices have been established by local governments, distinct from their District Attorney and County Counsel offices. As long as they are going to have this bureaucracy, why not allow men to publicly register with them, pre-conception, as not wanting to be fathers? Women can check the registry before they choose whether or not to risk getting pregnant by such a man. Then she will be assuming the risks of financial obligations to any child she chooses to birth and keep. Currently, the moment even a single sperm leaves a man’s body, he loses all ability to avoid the legal responsibility of being a father. Women, however, not only have many forms of contraception they can use, but pills that cause early abortions, surgical abortion, and even “safe surrender” of a newborn with no strings attached. Why shouldn’t men also have a post-ejaculation choice? If we are a pro-choice society, shouldn’t men also have a choice, just as women do? Any man who fails to register as not wanting to be a father would retain the obligation to financially support any offspring he produces.
4. Child support standardization. Speaking of child support – if it really is about meeting the child’s needs, then why isn’t it standardized based on half of the cost of raising a child? Who are we fooling when a wealthy person is paying five or six figures a month for a child’s support? No child needs that amount of money, barring some sort of unusual medical condition. That is really going to the lifestyle of the custodial parent. My father, married to my mother, used to make it clear that if he ever won the lottery, we would not be living a lavish lifestyle. No court could have forced otherwise. Yet if he had won and my mother divorced him, the court could have forced him to give me a lavish lifestyle. What kind of sense does that make? I should note, that, conversely, a man should still have to support his offspring’s needs even if he has a lower-than-average income – this standardization would work both ways. Since it is about the “needs of the child” (or so we’re told) the man's income level shouldn’t make a difference.
More suggestions in subsequent posts, as well as my advice to my fellow men given how things are now.
Suggestions:
3. Opting out of fatherhood after intercourse. Child Support Compliance offices have been established by local governments, distinct from their District Attorney and County Counsel offices. As long as they are going to have this bureaucracy, why not allow men to publicly register with them, pre-conception, as not wanting to be fathers? Women can check the registry before they choose whether or not to risk getting pregnant by such a man. Then she will be assuming the risks of financial obligations to any child she chooses to birth and keep. Currently, the moment even a single sperm leaves a man’s body, he loses all ability to avoid the legal responsibility of being a father. Women, however, not only have many forms of contraception they can use, but pills that cause early abortions, surgical abortion, and even “safe surrender” of a newborn with no strings attached. Why shouldn’t men also have a post-ejaculation choice? If we are a pro-choice society, shouldn’t men also have a choice, just as women do? Any man who fails to register as not wanting to be a father would retain the obligation to financially support any offspring he produces.
4. Child support standardization. Speaking of child support – if it really is about meeting the child’s needs, then why isn’t it standardized based on half of the cost of raising a child? Who are we fooling when a wealthy person is paying five or six figures a month for a child’s support? No child needs that amount of money, barring some sort of unusual medical condition. That is really going to the lifestyle of the custodial parent. My father, married to my mother, used to make it clear that if he ever won the lottery, we would not be living a lavish lifestyle. No court could have forced otherwise. Yet if he had won and my mother divorced him, the court could have forced him to give me a lavish lifestyle. What kind of sense does that make? I should note, that, conversely, a man should still have to support his offspring’s needs even if he has a lower-than-average income – this standardization would work both ways. Since it is about the “needs of the child” (or so we’re told) the man's income level shouldn’t make a difference.
More suggestions in subsequent posts, as well as my advice to my fellow men given how things are now.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
FLDS Women
FLDS women (from the polygamous compound where the children were taken away) appeared in the media today to defend their cult... uh, I mean religion. Actually, it is a cult, by both theological definition (because it claims to be a religion that it isn't) and sociological definition.
It's the sociological that I'm going to focus on.
The women said they were free to leave the cult property at any time, but that they didn't want to.
Of course they didn't want to.
First of all, it would mean never being able to be with their children again. They'd be leaving the only life they've ever known.
But there are psychological factors at work besides that. They've been raised since birth to believe that:
1. They would be leaving the only true church, thus turning their backs on God.
2. They would be evil and lost people if they left.
3. The outside world is thoroughly evil and dangerous and would corrupt them.
4. They would be of no use (other than for evil) and unable to make a living in the evil outside world. I mean really- how much education have they had? How much job training?
These women believe they'd wither away without their busbands, and would be lost souls without their church leaders.
So, while they were perhaps free to leave (and perhaps they weren't after all - how do we really know?), they have been conditioned since birth to be severly averse to doing so.
Such is one of the problems with cults.
And where are all the boys? With polygamy as the FLDS practice, there is only room for so many men. After all, how is a man going to have multiple wives to himself if there are roughly the same men and women? So some boys get cast out, and I fear, worse. I wonder how many male births are "stillborn"?
Sad stuff.
It's the sociological that I'm going to focus on.
The women said they were free to leave the cult property at any time, but that they didn't want to.
Of course they didn't want to.
First of all, it would mean never being able to be with their children again. They'd be leaving the only life they've ever known.
But there are psychological factors at work besides that. They've been raised since birth to believe that:
1. They would be leaving the only true church, thus turning their backs on God.
2. They would be evil and lost people if they left.
3. The outside world is thoroughly evil and dangerous and would corrupt them.
4. They would be of no use (other than for evil) and unable to make a living in the evil outside world. I mean really- how much education have they had? How much job training?
These women believe they'd wither away without their busbands, and would be lost souls without their church leaders.
So, while they were perhaps free to leave (and perhaps they weren't after all - how do we really know?), they have been conditioned since birth to be severly averse to doing so.
Such is one of the problems with cults.
And where are all the boys? With polygamy as the FLDS practice, there is only room for so many men. After all, how is a man going to have multiple wives to himself if there are roughly the same men and women? So some boys get cast out, and I fear, worse. I wonder how many male births are "stillborn"?
Sad stuff.
Leveling the Playing Field: Paternity Tests and Assignment
This entry is part of a series. The introduction is here.
Suggestions:
1. Automatic paternity tests for all newborns. There is no doubt who the mother is. There should be no doubt who the father is. Some men would rather not know if a child born to their wife or shack-up honey or girlfriend isn’t theirs, but this should be standard so that women can’t get “insulted” by the guy on whom they are trying to pin the responsibility. About 1 in 10 children are not the biological child of the guy who thinks he’s the father. That is significant. In the case of a married couple, the husband should then have a brief amount of time to decide if he will accept responsibility or divorce his wife.
2. No default judgment on paternity. Perhaps the need for this would be eliminated with the first suggestion, but the way things are now: a mother seeking state support is asked to name a man as father to their child, so that the state can be reimbursed, or she may be seeking direct child support; the state (via the county, usually) then sends a notice to the address provided by the woman, which may or may not be the address where the guy currently resides. If he doesn’t respond, TAG! He’s the father, at least financially. While the authorities couldn’t bother to verify the man’s current address before, or that he’s even really the sperm donor, it will definitely track him down, or someone with a similar name, and start forcibly garnishing his paycheck. I say: no proof of being the sperm donor, no responsibility. If this is a drain on the state, perhaps the state shouldn’t be giving handouts to people in the first place.
Suggestions:
1. Automatic paternity tests for all newborns. There is no doubt who the mother is. There should be no doubt who the father is. Some men would rather not know if a child born to their wife or shack-up honey or girlfriend isn’t theirs, but this should be standard so that women can’t get “insulted” by the guy on whom they are trying to pin the responsibility. About 1 in 10 children are not the biological child of the guy who thinks he’s the father. That is significant. In the case of a married couple, the husband should then have a brief amount of time to decide if he will accept responsibility or divorce his wife.
2. No default judgment on paternity. Perhaps the need for this would be eliminated with the first suggestion, but the way things are now: a mother seeking state support is asked to name a man as father to their child, so that the state can be reimbursed, or she may be seeking direct child support; the state (via the county, usually) then sends a notice to the address provided by the woman, which may or may not be the address where the guy currently resides. If he doesn’t respond, TAG! He’s the father, at least financially. While the authorities couldn’t bother to verify the man’s current address before, or that he’s even really the sperm donor, it will definitely track him down, or someone with a similar name, and start forcibly garnishing his paycheck. I say: no proof of being the sperm donor, no responsibility. If this is a drain on the state, perhaps the state shouldn’t be giving handouts to people in the first place.
Leveling the Playing Field: Introduction
I don’t want to shock anyone, but men and women are different.
Can women meet and surpass the performance of men in many jobs and academic contests? Definitely. Should they be treated equally under the law? Sure, as much as possible. But they often aren’t, because certain laws and courts favor women, especially when combined with cultural reality. Men and women are different physically – women can get pregnant, and men can’t. Thus, maternity of a child is never in doubt, while paternity can be. It is also possible for a male to walk out on his child by simply walking away, while a female carrying the child can’t walk away unless she gets an abortion or gives the kid up at birth. In most places, men are legally and financially responsible for a child born to their wife, regardless of conception. She could have gotten pregnant buy the guy's mortal enemy. Most women marry men who earn more than they do, and there is an even greater disparity, on average, between a husband and a wife, because after a woman marries a man who earns more than she does, she may cut back on working for income or stop entirely even if they do not become parents.
This reality makes divorce more costly for men than it does for women, especially where there is no-fault divorce.
There are men who are deciding not to marry and not to father children because of these realities - in addition to the men who are genuinely reluctant to commit for hedonistic reasons.
Due the fact that men and women are different, we’ll probably never arrive at a perfectly level playing field. But there are things that can be done to make things more fair.
I’m not talking about rolling back feminist gains in access, protections, and equal rights. Feminism has been good in that it has given women real options in life. It has been bad when it has attacked femininity and the roles of wife and mother, and tried to portray normal masculinity as bad and men as the enemy of women. I also recognize abortion as murder except in certain cases of self-defense.
I’m also not saying that women have it easy, or that all women use the system to an unfair advantage.
What I am saying is that men generally do have a disadvantage now in our legal system when it comes to marriage and parenting, and there are changes that can be made in family law that can help to erase that disadvantage. You should care about this stuff if you believe in fairness or simply have a male family member or friend (including yourself, of course) you don’t want to see treated unfairly. Yes, I know life isn’t fair, but our governmental system supposedly attempts to create equal access to legal protections for individuals, personal responsibility, and letting individuals enjoy or suffer the consequences of their own actions.
I will be making some subsequent posts that suggest some changes. Please check back and chime in. I’m especially open to reading alternatives.
Can women meet and surpass the performance of men in many jobs and academic contests? Definitely. Should they be treated equally under the law? Sure, as much as possible. But they often aren’t, because certain laws and courts favor women, especially when combined with cultural reality. Men and women are different physically – women can get pregnant, and men can’t. Thus, maternity of a child is never in doubt, while paternity can be. It is also possible for a male to walk out on his child by simply walking away, while a female carrying the child can’t walk away unless she gets an abortion or gives the kid up at birth. In most places, men are legally and financially responsible for a child born to their wife, regardless of conception. She could have gotten pregnant buy the guy's mortal enemy. Most women marry men who earn more than they do, and there is an even greater disparity, on average, between a husband and a wife, because after a woman marries a man who earns more than she does, she may cut back on working for income or stop entirely even if they do not become parents.
This reality makes divorce more costly for men than it does for women, especially where there is no-fault divorce.
There are men who are deciding not to marry and not to father children because of these realities - in addition to the men who are genuinely reluctant to commit for hedonistic reasons.
Due the fact that men and women are different, we’ll probably never arrive at a perfectly level playing field. But there are things that can be done to make things more fair.
I’m not talking about rolling back feminist gains in access, protections, and equal rights. Feminism has been good in that it has given women real options in life. It has been bad when it has attacked femininity and the roles of wife and mother, and tried to portray normal masculinity as bad and men as the enemy of women. I also recognize abortion as murder except in certain cases of self-defense.
I’m also not saying that women have it easy, or that all women use the system to an unfair advantage.
What I am saying is that men generally do have a disadvantage now in our legal system when it comes to marriage and parenting, and there are changes that can be made in family law that can help to erase that disadvantage. You should care about this stuff if you believe in fairness or simply have a male family member or friend (including yourself, of course) you don’t want to see treated unfairly. Yes, I know life isn’t fair, but our governmental system supposedly attempts to create equal access to legal protections for individuals, personal responsibility, and letting individuals enjoy or suffer the consequences of their own actions.
I will be making some subsequent posts that suggest some changes. Please check back and chime in. I’m especially open to reading alternatives.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Beware the Prom
It’s that time of the year again. Magazines like Seventeen thrive on this. It’s prom season. Yes, it’s that ritual that, like high school in general, has been amazingly overblown by a media fixation. Kids are conditioned to believe that missing the prom would be missing out on an important rite of passage, and that this is an event that requires spending to the hilt. Only a loser would miss it and not go “in style”, right? Not going will cause a lifetime of regret!
For many girls prom is like practicing for their wedding – they pick out a special dress, they have a guy spend a lot of money on them and dance with them, and they get treated like a princess. It’s all about them. Only, this time, unlike their wedding, there are a bunch of other girls also going through the same thing. Just like weddings, many guys go along with it thinking there will be sex when it is over.
Don’t believe this is really all about the girls?
--How much media targeted at teenaged boys focuses on the prom?
--When do boys ever like getting dressed up for a social event?
--What boy spends a significant amount of time picking out something to wear to the prom?
--What boy looks forward to dancing in a formal with school officials monitoring?
I rest my case. This is all about the girls. The same girls who are already having a huge deal made about them at their Bat Mitzvah, Quinceanera, and Sweet Sixteen parties. Heck, the hot girls, barring effective parental objection, get to go to the prom four years in a row.
Hey, that’s fine. But teenaged girls can work now, just the same as boys. So perhaps the girls should be covering the costs of prom?
Boys should really think long and hard about whether or not they want to go the prom, especially if they will be paying. Perhaps they've accepted it as "something you do." But they shouldn't. Gay boys may want to go to make a statement by dancing together - that's still shocking and bold in some places, apparently. But as for straight boys… if they don’t really want to, they shouldn’t. It’s really not all it is cracked up to be, at least not for boys. If they are going because they think it will lead to sex, well, they’re better off just showing up at one of the after-parties.
Of course, if a boy is in a relationship, it will be hard for him to avoid going. However, high school boys really shouldn’t be in relationships in the first place. They should be focusing on their studies, sports, and hobbies, and casually dating around to help them learn more about themselves and what kind of girls they like and interact with well. Being in a relationship in high school is too stifling and subject to too much distracting drama.
I don’t condone fornication. I especially don’t condone fornicating with someone under the age of consent, or when you are a high school student who can ill afford to risk being a parent. However, if a boy is going to indulge his hormones, he should at least protect himself and his wallet as much as possible. So, to those boys I offer this:
1) Try to avoid going to the prom. Go to an afterparty instead.
2) If you must go, try to get her to pay (they really want to go, and just might be desperate enough to pay),... or go stag.
3) Make sure you have “protection” and that you can use it effectively.
4) If she ever says “no”, “don’t”, or “stop”, stop immediately, regardless of what she is doing, and leave. Do not continue, do not sit there to "talk". Get the heck out of there and pray she doesn't make up a false accusation.
5) Do not be surprised if she gets psycho on you afterwards, rumors are circulated about you, you come down with something painful, or you get a “guess what, I’m pregnant” call over the summer.
Kathy M. Kristof gives tips in the Los Angeles Times about cutting prom costs.
Is it really worth it? I don’t think so.
Men need to stick up for boys and come up with an alternative to prom or perhaps a reciprocal celebration. Kind of like how “Steak and BJ Day” is the reciprocal to Valentine’s Day. The difference is, though, that S&BJ Day is perfectly fine for married men, but like I said, I wouldn’t want to encourage fornication, especially in teens. Hmmm… maybe a day where the guys get to use the latest gaming consoles on the biggest televisions, while the girls do barbecue for them? And no talking about the relationship or where it is "going."
For many girls prom is like practicing for their wedding – they pick out a special dress, they have a guy spend a lot of money on them and dance with them, and they get treated like a princess. It’s all about them. Only, this time, unlike their wedding, there are a bunch of other girls also going through the same thing. Just like weddings, many guys go along with it thinking there will be sex when it is over.
Don’t believe this is really all about the girls?
--How much media targeted at teenaged boys focuses on the prom?
--When do boys ever like getting dressed up for a social event?
--What boy spends a significant amount of time picking out something to wear to the prom?
--What boy looks forward to dancing in a formal with school officials monitoring?
I rest my case. This is all about the girls. The same girls who are already having a huge deal made about them at their Bat Mitzvah, Quinceanera, and Sweet Sixteen parties. Heck, the hot girls, barring effective parental objection, get to go to the prom four years in a row.
Hey, that’s fine. But teenaged girls can work now, just the same as boys. So perhaps the girls should be covering the costs of prom?
Boys should really think long and hard about whether or not they want to go the prom, especially if they will be paying. Perhaps they've accepted it as "something you do." But they shouldn't. Gay boys may want to go to make a statement by dancing together - that's still shocking and bold in some places, apparently. But as for straight boys… if they don’t really want to, they shouldn’t. It’s really not all it is cracked up to be, at least not for boys. If they are going because they think it will lead to sex, well, they’re better off just showing up at one of the after-parties.
Of course, if a boy is in a relationship, it will be hard for him to avoid going. However, high school boys really shouldn’t be in relationships in the first place. They should be focusing on their studies, sports, and hobbies, and casually dating around to help them learn more about themselves and what kind of girls they like and interact with well. Being in a relationship in high school is too stifling and subject to too much distracting drama.
I don’t condone fornication. I especially don’t condone fornicating with someone under the age of consent, or when you are a high school student who can ill afford to risk being a parent. However, if a boy is going to indulge his hormones, he should at least protect himself and his wallet as much as possible. So, to those boys I offer this:
1) Try to avoid going to the prom. Go to an afterparty instead.
2) If you must go, try to get her to pay (they really want to go, and just might be desperate enough to pay),... or go stag.
3) Make sure you have “protection” and that you can use it effectively.
4) If she ever says “no”, “don’t”, or “stop”, stop immediately, regardless of what she is doing, and leave. Do not continue, do not sit there to "talk". Get the heck out of there and pray she doesn't make up a false accusation.
5) Do not be surprised if she gets psycho on you afterwards, rumors are circulated about you, you come down with something painful, or you get a “guess what, I’m pregnant” call over the summer.
Kathy M. Kristof gives tips in the Los Angeles Times about cutting prom costs.
David Lee, 18, figures he'll spend $400 to $450 to participate in an annual rite of spring -- the senior prom. And he's only half of the equation.
While Lee picks up the tab for the prom, dinner and limo, his date is likely to shell out an equal amount for her dress, hair and makeup. That makes the couple's senior prom roughly a $1,000 evening.
Is it really worth it? I don’t think so.
Lee says he's tried to cut costs at proms and other formal and semiformal events. The problem, he says, is that the girls call the shots: where to eat, what limo to rent, where to go afterward. "Our dates, who don't have the burden of paying for it, usually make the bulk of the decisions."Then simply let her pay. Grow some testicles. If you pay, you call the shots. If she wants to call the shots, she pays. What's the worse that can happen? She dumps you? Fine. Aren't you going off to different colleges in a few months anyway?
The girls don't exactly dictate, he adds, but "their opinions weigh heavily on what we decide to do."
Men need to stick up for boys and come up with an alternative to prom or perhaps a reciprocal celebration. Kind of like how “Steak and BJ Day” is the reciprocal to Valentine’s Day. The difference is, though, that S&BJ Day is perfectly fine for married men, but like I said, I wouldn’t want to encourage fornication, especially in teens. Hmmm… maybe a day where the guys get to use the latest gaming consoles on the biggest televisions, while the girls do barbecue for them? And no talking about the relationship or where it is "going."
When Messed Up People Become Inappropriately Attached
Sadly, I write from experience.
FLUMMOXED AND SAD wrote in to Dear Margo:
Meeting online is NOT the same as meeting in person. It can facilitate meeting in person, but it isn't the same as doing it. I say this as someone who has made pen pals online. Yes, there is a kind of interaction there, but do not confuse it with an in-person relationship.
So you have a pen pal that you fornicate with.
Interesting. What does that say about you that it takes someone who is at a distance and interacts with you mostly through controlled communications for you to feel safe?
Sounds like you are the “nice guy” who she gets to do things for her while she goes out with other guys, who aren’t so nice. Like the guy who knocked her up.
Ugh. She has no right to tell you what to do – only the right to tell you under what conditions she’ll continue to carry on with you. She is essentially a pen pal, and for you to get so hung up on her shows that something is wrong with you.
Yuck. See what I mean? And it is possible for a friendship to be inappropriate even if there is nothing sexual. It's called... using, or abusing.
So you want to be the guy who lives by the insecurities of a pen pal? What’s wrong with you?!? Either she keeps picking bad men or she is experiencing the same difficulties everyone faces in personal relationships, and is blowing it out of proportion. Either way, you’re subjecting yourself to drama you don’t need with someone who has relationship problems, just like you do.
Dear Margo replies:
YES. He needs some therapy.
Right. Both men and women tend to lump the other sex together as one monster, and that’s not right. People should be treated as individuals. That does not mean you ignore the realities of human behavior, though.
Good advice. Perhaps what we need are fewer relationship experts who try to make relationships work when they are based on the signifcant flaws of the participants. We need more experts willing to say "You should not get involved with someone else until you deal with this problem in yourself."
FLUMMOXED AND SAD wrote in to Dear Margo:
Last February I met an amazing woman online.
Meeting online is NOT the same as meeting in person. It can facilitate meeting in person, but it isn't the same as doing it. I say this as someone who has made pen pals online. Yes, there is a kind of interaction there, but do not confuse it with an in-person relationship.
We have been talking ever since, and we have met. On those occasions, we
have been intimate.
So you have a pen pal that you fornicate with.
In many ways I feel I've found someone with whom I feel safe.
Interesting. What does that say about you that it takes someone who is at a distance and interacts with you mostly through controlled communications for you to feel safe?
However, I have always had many friends of the opposite sex.Which translates to: One of us is not attracted to the other (that is, if they are not fornicating).
Recently, my best one, who lives locally, has been dealing with some personal issues. As a friend, I was spending time with her, babysitting for her and listening to her without the judgment she was receiving from her family.
Sounds like you are the “nice guy” who she gets to do things for her while she goes out with other guys, who aren’t so nice. Like the guy who knocked her up.
The problem is that I have been open about my friendships and what I do on a
day-to-day basis. Now the woman I love is feeling betrayed, which has put a dent
in my long-distance relationship with the woman I feel a complete love for.
Ugh. She has no right to tell you what to do – only the right to tell you under what conditions she’ll continue to carry on with you. She is essentially a pen pal, and for you to get so hung up on her shows that something is wrong with you.
Now I am trying to make her feel comfortable with a friendship that has never been inappropriate or intimate. She says she just needs time. In the meantime, I have become a recluse from my other friendships because I don't want to withhold information from the woman I love.
Yuck. See what I mean? And it is possible for a friendship to be inappropriate even if there is nothing sexual. It's called... using, or abusing.
She has been betrayed so often by other men, and I don't want to be that guy.
So you want to be the guy who lives by the insecurities of a pen pal? What’s wrong with you?!? Either she keeps picking bad men or she is experiencing the same difficulties everyone faces in personal relationships, and is blowing it out of proportion. Either way, you’re subjecting yourself to drama you don’t need with someone who has relationship problems, just like you do.
Dear Margo replies:
I don't think there's anything you can do; maybe a therapist could help.
YES. He needs some therapy.
You are having to tread lightly because of her past hurts. What she needs to understand is that you are not these men; you are you.
Right. Both men and women tend to lump the other sex together as one monster, and that’s not right. People should be treated as individuals. That does not mean you ignore the realities of human behavior, though.
I would strongly recommend that you not let any woman dictate your outside friendships; it is neurotic, a form of control and certainly a sign of insecurity.
Good advice. Perhaps what we need are fewer relationship experts who try to make relationships work when they are based on the signifcant flaws of the participants. We need more experts willing to say "You should not get involved with someone else until you deal with this problem in yourself."
Friday, April 11, 2008
How's That Working For You?
I caught a little of the Dr. Phil show today. Not by choice, mind you.
What I saw was a segment where he was trying to embarass some guy who, from what I could tell, gives advice on how to bed women. Dr. Phil was bashing the man's marketing techniques, and the man pointed out that he's marketing to men who just want casual .
Again, I only saw a little of this, and I was mercifully distracted, so I may not be entirely accurate in the material I'm working with in this blog entry.
There was also a buffer man-on-the-street interview where some young male was talking about how he misrepresents himself ("I'm making a movie" or "I'm a photographer") to get women into bed.
Now, I know Dr. Phil's market is women - particularly women watching daytime television. But c'mon... I have to wonder if, at all during this particular edition, Dr. Phil ever pointed out that these guys wouldn't be getting anywhere if there weren't women willing to jump right into bed with such guys?
To put it bluntly - any woman who fornicates with some guy just because he claims to be someone of means pretty much asks to be lied to. I mean, how is gold-digging and tiness any less shameful than lying about your job?
Yes, these guys are not shining examples of character, but neither are the women who reward their tactics.
I've said it before - let the marriage-minded mix with the marriage-minded, and the "only hedonim" people mix with other people of the same ilk, and everything will be fine. Well, not really, but is better than when someone who just wants and someone who is looking for a marriage partner try to make things work. They are wasting each other's time, money, and emotions.
What I saw was a segment where he was trying to embarass some guy who, from what I could tell, gives advice on how to bed women. Dr. Phil was bashing the man's marketing techniques, and the man pointed out that he's marketing to men who just want casual .
Again, I only saw a little of this, and I was mercifully distracted, so I may not be entirely accurate in the material I'm working with in this blog entry.
There was also a buffer man-on-the-street interview where some young male was talking about how he misrepresents himself ("I'm making a movie" or "I'm a photographer") to get women into bed.
Now, I know Dr. Phil's market is women - particularly women watching daytime television. But c'mon... I have to wonder if, at all during this particular edition, Dr. Phil ever pointed out that these guys wouldn't be getting anywhere if there weren't women willing to jump right into bed with such guys?
To put it bluntly - any woman who fornicates with some guy just because he claims to be someone of means pretty much asks to be lied to. I mean, how is gold-digging and tiness any less shameful than lying about your job?
Yes, these guys are not shining examples of character, but neither are the women who reward their tactics.
I've said it before - let the marriage-minded mix with the marriage-minded, and the "only hedonim" people mix with other people of the same ilk, and everything will be fine. Well, not really, but is better than when someone who just wants and someone who is looking for a marriage partner try to make things work. They are wasting each other's time, money, and emotions.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Researchers Think Hot Woman + Less Hot Guy Works Best
Most less-hot guys seem to like this combo, too.
Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer, reports on “Why Beautiful Women Marry Less Attractive Men”
Research? Like, oh, say, looking out a window???
That’s a little general. Some women want a man who can provide for her and their children. Some women want a man with money, power, or fame because they are materialistic, lazy, and hungry for attention. Some women want other things.
If you’re just looking for sex, it is never going to be better than the first three months. Not unless you marry someone who continues to be enthusiastic about making love late into the marriage, willing to practice, practice, practice and try new things.
If you want kids, you know your kids will have an easier time in life if they are good-looking (only really good looking people who have been good-looking their entire lives deny this), and they are more likely to be good-looking if your spouse is good-looking.
Hmmm, well, if we’re talking about whether someone is fat or not (eating, exercise), that’s another dimension. People want their partners to take care of themselves. Men literally can’t function sexually if they’re not turned on, and physical beauty is often a large part of that. If a woman is relying on her husband to provide for her, she has an interest in his health, because the healthier he is, the easier it will for him to provide.
Marriage should not be sibling rivalry. It should be two people looking out for each other and trying to bring joyful conditions to the life of the other.
It would be worth noting how they ended up together. If a man marries a less attractive woman because she “accidentally” got pregnant while they had a drunken encounter, or because she was sexually enthusiastic or talented or eager and that changed after she had her wedding cake, then the guy is likely to be unsupportive because of resentment.
Maybe. But most men know either explicitly or in the back of their minds that even ugly men can get really hot wives if they are rich, powerful, or famous.
Repeating the obvious.
I'll let the women in on a little "secret". Yes, men care about physical beauty. Yes, there is a wider range of that than media portrayals might lead one to believe. But men will quickly tire of even the most attractive woman if she is a shrew, a nag, irresponsible, unkind, or cold. Quality men who are looking for a relationship (not casual fornication) will prefer a plain looking woman over such "beauties" if she is kind; supportive; enthusiastic, playful, and eager when it comes to lovemaking; and has other good qualities. Such a woman will become more attractive to a good man than any centerfold.
Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer, reports on “Why Beautiful Women Marry Less Attractive Men”
New research reveals couples in which the wife is better looking than her husband are more positive and supportive than other match-ups.
Research? Like, oh, say, looking out a window???
The reason, researchers suspect, is that men place great value on beauty, whereas women are more interested in having a supportive husband.
That’s a little general. Some women want a man who can provide for her and their children. Some women want a man with money, power, or fame because they are materialistic, lazy, and hungry for attention. Some women want other things.
Past research has shown that individuals with comparable stunning looks are attracted to each other and once they hook up they report greater relationship
satisfaction. These studies, however, are mainly based on new couples, showing that absolute beauty is important in the earliest stages of couple-hood, said lead researcher James McNulty of the University of Tennessee.
If you’re just looking for sex, it is never going to be better than the first three months. Not unless you marry someone who continues to be enthusiastic about making love late into the marriage, willing to practice, practice, practice and try new things.
But the role of physical attractiveness in well-established partnerships, such as marriage, is somewhat of a mystery.
The new study, published in the February issue of the Journal of Family Psychology, reveals looks continue to matter beyond that initial attraction, though in a different way.
If you want kids, you know your kids will have an easier time in life if they are good-looking (only really good looking people who have been good-looking their entire lives deny this), and they are more likely to be good-looking if your spouse is good-looking.
Researchers videotaped as each spouse discussed with their partner a personal problem for 10 minutes. The tapes were analyzed for whether partners were supportive of spouses' issues, which included goals to eat healthier, to land a new job and to exercise more often.
Hmmm, well, if we’re talking about whether someone is fat or not (eating, exercise), that’s another dimension. People want their partners to take care of themselves. Men literally can’t function sexually if they’re not turned on, and physical beauty is often a large part of that. If a woman is relying on her husband to provide for her, she has an interest in his health, because the healthier he is, the easier it will for him to provide.
"A negative husband would've said, 'This is your problem, you deal with it,'" McNulty said, "versus 'Hey, I'm here for you; what do you want me to do?; how can I help you?'"
Marriage should not be sibling rivalry. It should be two people looking out for each other and trying to bring joyful conditions to the life of the other.
Overall, wives and husbands behaved more positively when the woman was better looking. The finding "seems very reasonable," said Dan Ariely, a professor of behavioral economics at MIT's Program in Media Arts and Sciences and Sloan School of Management. "Men are very sensitive to women's attractiveness. Women seem to be sensitive to men's height and salary," said Ariely, who was not involved in the recent study.
In couples with more attractive husbands, both partners were less supportive of one another. McNulty suggests wives mirror, in some ways, the level of support they get from husbands.
It would be worth noting how they ended up together. If a man marries a less attractive woman because she “accidentally” got pregnant while they had a drunken encounter, or because she was sexually enthusiastic or talented or eager and that changed after she had her wedding cake, then the guy is likely to be unsupportive because of resentment.
"The husband who's less physically attractive than his wife is getting something more than maybe he can expect to get," McNulty told LiveScience. "He's getting something better than he's providing at that level. So he's going to work hard to maintain that relationship."
Maybe. But most men know either explicitly or in the back of their minds that even ugly men can get really hot wives if they are rich, powerful, or famous.
Physical attractiveness of husbands is not as important to women, the researchers suggest. Rather, wives are looking for supportive husbands, they say.
Repeating the obvious.
I'll let the women in on a little "secret". Yes, men care about physical beauty. Yes, there is a wider range of that than media portrayals might lead one to believe. But men will quickly tire of even the most attractive woman if she is a shrew, a nag, irresponsible, unkind, or cold. Quality men who are looking for a relationship (not casual fornication) will prefer a plain looking woman over such "beauties" if she is kind; supportive; enthusiastic, playful, and eager when it comes to lovemaking; and has other good qualities. Such a woman will become more attractive to a good man than any centerfold.
Dear Margo Advises a Man How to Deal With Mrs. Robinson
DESPERATE writes in to Dear Margo:
She may be a little too young to be mature enough for commitment.
Shacking up is a very bad idea.
Uh-oh. Being close to your parents can be a good thing. But will she be closer to her mom than you if you ever married – you know, assuming you’d be stupid enough to marry her even though she’d move in without being married? Married couples need to “leave” their parents and “cleave” to each other.
The better thing would have been to give her up for adoption, because 1) married adults could have given her a better homes; 2) she clearly regrets missing out on her younger years, as we’ll see, and; 3) she makes bad decisions, as we’ll see.
And she knows about that because??? You told her? Mistake. Her daughter told her? That is none of her business – your trust was betrayed. I know it is common for a lot of girls to do this with their girlfriends, sisters, and mothers, but it isn’t right.
Do you really want to be with a young woman whose mother does such things? Think about that carefully, because this woman was her main role model, raising her alone. And I know something about this, because I was once infatuated with a girl, who it turns out wanted to be “just friends”, but her mother took up an interest in me.
That's because you are lazy and "getting some" regularly. Maybe she isn’t right for you, but you can't see that because you're thinking with your penis.
She should be told what her mother did. What if it happens with the next guy, and the next guy?
Dear Margo responds:
Yeah, notice that Margo agreed to your qualifications. You should move on, and you should tell the girl why.
I am a 32-year-old man. After a string of older women, I have happily, though uncharacteristically, been dating a woman eight years my junior for about a year.
She may be a little too young to be mature enough for commitment.
I am deeply in love with her, and we have been seriously discussing moving in together.
Shacking up is a very bad idea.
She is unusually close to her mother and sings her praises every chance she gets.
Uh-oh. Being close to your parents can be a good thing. But will she be closer to her mom than you if you ever married – you know, assuming you’d be stupid enough to marry her even though she’d move in without being married? Married couples need to “leave” their parents and “cleave” to each other.
Her mother gave birth to her at 16 years of age and still managed to give her a pretty good future, even as a single mom.
The better thing would have been to give her up for adoption, because 1) married adults could have given her a better homes; 2) she clearly regrets missing out on her younger years, as we’ll see, and; 3) she makes bad decisions, as we’ll see.
Unfortunately, her mother has made some obvious passes at me. It started with affectionate behavior and light flirtation, which included playful allusions to my former lovers and how they were her age rather than her daughter's.
And she knows about that because??? You told her? Mistake. Her daughter told her? That is none of her business – your trust was betrayed. I know it is common for a lot of girls to do this with their girlfriends, sisters, and mothers, but it isn’t right.
Do you really want to be with a young woman whose mother does such things? Think about that carefully, because this woman was her main role model, raising her alone. And I know something about this, because I was once infatuated with a girl, who it turns out wanted to be “just friends”, but her mother took up an interest in me.
Part of me is thinking "bail out," but I don't want to lose my girl.
That's because you are lazy and "getting some" regularly. Maybe she isn’t right for you, but you can't see that because you're thinking with your penis.
I also want to avoid damaging her relationship with her mother if at all possible.Too bad her mother isn't as concerned.
She should be told what her mother did. What if it happens with the next guy, and the next guy?
Dear Margo responds:
Here's what you do to keep your girlfriend and not blow the whistle on her mother:
Yeah, notice that Margo agreed to your qualifications. You should move on, and you should tell the girl why.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Study: Men Create More Housework For Women
The fun just never stops.
How is it possible for both of those sentences to be true? Do they mean to tell us that what unmarried men can do in an hour every week, it takes married women seven hours to do? Is it possible that the husbands are interfering, thus causing an hour's worth of chores to expand to seven?
Why, how dare you make such an observation, you sexist pig!
Well, duh!
Some of the reduction on the part of the women may have to do with technology. Either that, or they're saying that what it takes women 9 hours to do, men can do in seven.
Wait. I thought you said in the second sentence that men were saving and hour of housework every week by getting married. If both are having to do more housework than when unmarried, there’s yet another argument for staying unmarried – one that works on either sex.
Which is just one of the many reasons some men have gone on a marriage strike.
Very interesting.
Hey, when are we going to see a study about how much more a married man must earn to cover living expenses – mortgage/rent, utilities, insurance, medical bills, clothing, furniture, entertainment, travel and transportation, food, birthday/anniversary/holiday and romantic gifts (including the ones bought for him), gifts for parties and showers he doesn’t want to attend, etc.?
I’m old-school. I’m happy to go out and earn to provide for my family so that my wife can take care of me, our children, and our home. I even help out around the house. But I should not be expected to divide chores evenly with my wife – those are her job. That is why she doesn’t earn income outside of the home.
*Update - radio talk show host Tom Leykis is covering this study this (5pm PST) hour. He chalks up the one hour/seven hour disparity to "six hours of her nagging you to do the chores". He also cites all of the things most women no longer have to do (car maintenance, for example) if they are married.
**Update #2 - Does the study take into account that married people tend to move into bigger homes, and thus there is more housework? It really is strange that single men, who the study says do a lot of housework, drop an hour when they marry and single women, who do less housework, add seven hours when they marry. Do they mean to imply that single women are slobs until they have someone living with them?
Having a husband creates an extra seven hours of housework each week for women, according to a new study. For men, tying the knot saves an hour of weekly chores.
How is it possible for both of those sentences to be true? Do they mean to tell us that what unmarried men can do in an hour every week, it takes married women seven hours to do? Is it possible that the husbands are interfering, thus causing an hour's worth of chores to expand to seven?
"It's a well-known pattern," said lead researcher Frank Stafford, an economist at University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research. "Men tend to work more outside the home, while women take on more of the household labor."
Why, how dare you make such an observation, you sexist pig!
He points out individual differences among households exist. But in general, marriage means more housework for women and less for men. "And the situation gets worse for women when they have children," Stafford said.
Well, duh!
Overall, times are a' changing in the American home. In 1976, women busied
themselves with 26 weekly hours of sweeping-and-dusting work, compared with 17 hours in 2005. Men are pitching in more, more than doubling their housework
hours from six in 1976 to 13 in 2005.
Some of the reduction on the part of the women may have to do with technology. Either that, or they're saying that what it takes women 9 hours to do, men can do in seven.
Stafford analyzed time-diaries and questionnaires from a nationally representative sample of men and women over a 10-year period between 1996 and 2005. The federally-funded study showed that, compared with the single life, marriage meant more housework for both men and women.
Wait. I thought you said in the second sentence that men were saving and hour of housework every week by getting married. If both are having to do more housework than when unmarried, there’s yet another argument for staying unmarried – one that works on either sex.
"Marriage is no longer a man's path to less housework," Stafford said.
Which is just one of the many reasons some men have gone on a marriage strike.
Single guys worked the hardest around the house, trumping all age groups of married men.
Very interesting.
Hey, when are we going to see a study about how much more a married man must earn to cover living expenses – mortgage/rent, utilities, insurance, medical bills, clothing, furniture, entertainment, travel and transportation, food, birthday/anniversary/holiday and romantic gifts (including the ones bought for him), gifts for parties and showers he doesn’t want to attend, etc.?
I’m old-school. I’m happy to go out and earn to provide for my family so that my wife can take care of me, our children, and our home. I even help out around the house. But I should not be expected to divide chores evenly with my wife – those are her job. That is why she doesn’t earn income outside of the home.
*Update - radio talk show host Tom Leykis is covering this study this (5pm PST) hour. He chalks up the one hour/seven hour disparity to "six hours of her nagging you to do the chores". He also cites all of the things most women no longer have to do (car maintenance, for example) if they are married.
**Update #2 - Does the study take into account that married people tend to move into bigger homes, and thus there is more housework? It really is strange that single men, who the study says do a lot of housework, drop an hour when they marry and single women, who do less housework, add seven hours when they marry. Do they mean to imply that single women are slobs until they have someone living with them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)