Dear Abby Gets a Letter From Dear John

Here's another look at a Dear Abby letter. WANTS TO MAKE PEACE WITH THE PAST IN WISCONSIN wrote:

I am a 31-year-old man. I have been seeing a wonderful woman for about seven months, and it's starting to get serious. I need advice, though, on how much we should tell each other about our sexual histories.

This is yet another problem people avoid when they save sex for marriage.

Seven years ago, the end of a romantic relationship sent me into a deep depression. I spiraled downward for a long time, during which I engaged the services of prostitutes.

I want to now how actual prostitutes – like the ones on street corners and in brothels, as opposed to women who put out for any guy who buys them a nice meal – stay in business these days. Really... it isn't that hard for guys to get casual sex these days, if that is all they want. Sure, if a guy has really particular tastes and a fetish and thus it is difficult for him to easily find a woman who will fit that, or if he's rich or famous and he wants her to go away after the deed and not hang around, I can see why a guy would hire a prostitute. But are there really enough guys in those situations?

Finally, with the help of my family and a therapist, I was able to take medication and recover from the depression. I was later tested for STDs and was lucky not to have contracted any.

Well, those outcomes are better than the alternatives.

I am not implying that I'm not responsible for what I did at the time. I'm ashamed of the situations in which I placed myself.

That's good.

Abby, should I tell my girlfriend about this at some point as our relationship progresses, possibly toward marriage? If so, how much detail should I give her?

I think you have more of a responsibility to tell her about the depression than the details of your past fornication. As long as she knows you are not a virgin, and that you dealt with depression by seeking casual sex, that should be enough. Beyond that, you are asking for trouble.

Turns out that my advice isn't much different from Dear Abby's.

When it comes to sexual history, you can be honest with her, but you really have no way of verifying if she is honest with you in return. It is best to pay close attention to what she is doing in the here and now - what kind of person she is today, instead of being fixated on her past encounters. (However, if a woman has had "had her fun" and is jaded towards sex, she should make that clear to the guy before he signs on the dotted line... most guys don't want to be married to a woman who sighs during lovemaking and says something like, "Okay... if you want to... I've been there and done that and I'm tired of it.")

Ideally, I think before an engagement is finalized with a set date, the potential spouses should learn about each other's medical, financial, legal, and educational histories – anything where there is a record or paper trail, or anything that could be a significant factor in their life together. Things like credit ratings, psychotic episodes, and a driving record can be a big deal. As far as sexual history, who a person has a past with is only important if that person is still in the picture somehow.

The idea of going to a hooker - someone for whom sex is work - has never appealed to me. Even today, as a faithful married man, I'm not much into having my wife do something for my enjoyment if she doesn't get some level of enjoyment out of it herself (even if that enjoyment is the pleasure of pleasing her spouse).

Some Tips on What to Do With His Tip

Here's a great discussion for you ladies, especially you Christian wives (The website is a Christian one), who want some tips on your OS technique.

Yes, this is an important matter to me, as you can tell by how often I write about it. Spouses should enthusiastically pursue various forms of lovemaking. I really think that there are times in our lives when we should treat it like a hobby.

Husbands can also find lots of good information there to make things better for the wife... just not on that thread.

I don't spend enough time on that site. Oh, and I'm a lurker there so far, so I have not written any of the things in any of the discussions there.

It's Prom Time Again

After dispensing advice to a nanny whose charge is emotionally neglected by her parent, Dear Abby brings us this in a recent edition.

UNDECIDED TEEN wrote, making me glad high school is a distance memory:

I'm a junior in high school and have never had any romantic experience.

Too many people perpetuate the idea that this is a problem. I sure thought it was. I had limited "romantic experience" and thought it wasn't enough. Kids are bombarded with the idea in media that everyone at that age is supposed to be in a relationship, or at least "getting some". Really, they should be focusing on their studies, hobbies, friends, and, as much as they don't want to – family. After all, they'll soon be out of the home. Any "dating" should be in supervised groups.

It wasn't a big deal when I was a freshman, but now as the prom approaches, I'm starting to get anxious about the possibility of being dateless.

Ah, yes. The prom is everything. Magazines and websites targeted towards girls this age, funded by advertisers, place a lot of emphasis on the importance of having a perfectly romantic (= expensive) prom.

My friend "Terri" says you don't have to have a date, but I am still skeptical.

Your friend is right. Heck, you don't have to go the prom at all.

Although it might be fun going with Terri and other friends, who am I supposed to share a slow dance with? I'd feel awkward sitting there while everyone else danced. And I would feel uncomfortable if a guy I didn't know asked me to dance.

I'm against fornication because it leads to dancing.

I love that joke.

Unless this girl has a moral objection to dancing, she should get over it. How else is ever going to meet and spend time with the all-important gay male friends? Seriously, she sounds painfully shy. She needs to know that a dance, as long as it isn't freakdancing, is just a dance. And if he tries anything, she should firmly assert boundaries, with a well-placed knee if needed.

Dear Abby finished her response with:

Unless you're willing to take some risks and put yourself out there, you will never get any romantic experience.

Yes. While some young women these days are way too immodest and aggressive, there are a small minority that put up every indication that they don't want any romantic male attention, claiming that God will make it happen. I notice these girls do lift the food to their own mouths though, somehow not trusting God to feed them the same way they are "trusting" God to bring them a husband.

This girl doesn't sound like she falls into either of those categories. She's simply shy, maybe because she hasn't had wholesome positive reinforcement, and perhaps has been focused on her studies. She needs female friends or relatives to show her how to handle these things in a way that will not be too uncomfortable for her, and some frank talk from some males in the family about that the guys are likely thinking.

I was very shy myself. It was a huge deal for me to approach a girl. It made it easier if she was a flirt or at least placed herself in a situation where it was easier to approach her. I had prom dates for both my junior and senior years, though, so I didn't need to approach anyone at the prom – I just had to make the initial approach of arranging for the date.

As for the horny boys who have gotten the idea from the media that the prom means guaranteed sex as long as they spend a lot of money, it is best for them to be disabused of that notion as early as possible, or it will cost them for years. It will be just as easy (if not easier) for them to hook up at an after-prom party without ever going to the prom itself. No need to shell out all of that cash and endure the hassle.

I do discourage underage sex as a matter of principle, but I don't think the boys who are going to do it should make the added mistake of wasting their money doing something they aren't really interested in doing.

Still More Reactions to Dr. Laura’s Latest Book

I came across a couple of blog entries of note. Over at Out of the Boondocks, we get more of the same stuff I analyzed here and here.

First, she tries to discount Dr. Laura by playing the "hypocrite" card, telling is to find in all by googling it. Then she moves on to previous work by Dr. Laura.

One of her books "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands" pretty much compares men to house pets...So to say that he has simple needs, and if I should meet them I will make him completely happy and faithful to me is a tad condescending to both of us, no?

What she is apparently saying is that her husband's needs are not simple. Notice this gives her an excuse not to meet them. And, why bother – even if she does meet her husband's needs, he'll still be unhappy and unfaithful. Sounds like great marriage material.

She touts a woman who greets her man with a kiss, tends to the kids without complaint, and does not challenge his ideas.

Does she really say that mothers should never complain to their husbands about tending to the kids nor challenge his ideas? I never got that impression, and I listen much more than this blogger.

On to her newest book, titled "In Praise of Stay at Home Moms". I think it's a little misleading. It should read, "Outright Bashing Working Moms and their Life Choices". Now, I will not claim to have read the book.

But you do know how it should be titled, eh?

But from the quotes, I can see that she's still touting her 1950's agenda.

Yes, you see, parents rasing their own kids and having roles is something that should be relegated to the past and only took place in the 1950s.

She goes on to criticize comments made by "SAHMs" on the blog entry on which she is basing her reaction.

Some of these ladies bring God into it (which I don't find relevant in a society where we all have a different idea of God.

What if we do? So what? We all have a different idea of lots of things – right and wrong, law, fairness, etc. - doesn't mean we can't invoke them.

Really, now, if you want to make an argument, you'll need to come to the table with more than that).

What is more than God? And what if they are only appealing to other theists? Very few people claim to be atheists. So appealing to God is actually a very good idea.

Others bring in the economy (which not everyone seems to have a grip on how it really works).

You mean – like living within your means, including planning, saving, and insuring – will allow a family to get by on one income while the kids are too young for school?

And a few just bring in their own personal preference (good for them for sticking up for their ideals).

I see – so it is good for them if it is something they personally prefer... unless their person preference involves devotion to God.

Oh, and please don't feel sorry for my son for going to daycare (a quote from the good Dr, "My heart hurts for what these women miss and what their children miss from them."). He's a happy little kid.

When I was a kid, my best friend was killed in an accident. I'm a happy guy. Does that mean it was a good thing that my friend was killed in an accident? Your kid is probably very aware of your feelings, and doesn't want to upset you. However, he probably would have preferred his mother's care over that of a stranger.

Then there's this blog entry, where the writer is "outraged" at Dr. Laura. As it turns out, though, it seems to be a lot of strawmen that are upsetting her. Notice her use of "no" and "all", when Dr. Laura does not say things that way. And, there's the usual "what about dads staying home" question, and the charge that Dr. Laura didn't stay home for her son.

Sheesh. Is there anyone blogging out there challenging Dr. Laura on things she has actually said or written? Why do so many bash her for NOT saying something, when in actuality, she has said it but they just haven't heard her say it? And if praising SAHMs is an automatic trashing of other women, then I guess we can't ever offer praise for just about anything, but someone will always be left out.

One Reason We Leave the Nest and Build Our Own

EXPECTANT MOM IN WISCONSIN wrote in to Dear Abby:

I am a 30-year-old woman with a baby due in June.

There is no mention whatsoever in the letter about a sperm donor, one-night-stand, boyfriend, ex-husband, or anything. It is as if this baby just appeared out of nowhere.

This will be my parents' first grandchild, and they are over the moon.

I have a full-time job, but I live with them because I go to school part-time.

So far, so good – I mean, if you're not going to adopt the child out to a wife-husband couple, that is.

After paying tuition and other bills, I can't afford to live on my own. Moving out is not an option right now.

That's one of the reasons why it is good to conceive your children within marriage.

The problem is my father's drinking...I mentioned to my mother tonight that if he thinks I will let him hold my child after he's been drinking, he has another think coming.

Well, at least you have some sense.

I love my dad, but I have to be a responsible parent, and that means putting my child's welfare first.

Well, yes, except for the daddy-and-marriage thing.

How do I tell him that his drinking will affect his role as a grandparent?

"Dad, I love you very much, I appreciate your generosity and hospitality, and I want you to enjoy your grandchild, but I will not let you hold the child or supervise the child when you've been drinking." He probably won't listen, but you retain control over the child anyway. The worst thing he can do in that case is throw you out. Either way, he doesn't hold that child while he is drunk.

And look at what Dear Abby said:

You tell him in plain English, preferably in the morning while he's still sober, and do not allow yourself to be dissuaded.

Exactly.

We live a short drive from my wife's parents. Her mother used to ask us repeatedly, and "ask" our child (really meant for our ears) when we were going to let our child stay overnight with her. The answer, as my wife has told her mother repeatedly, is never. My mother-in-law is a wonderful, delightful, loving person and a very capable caregiver. When she is sober. Unfortunately, we're never sure when she's going to hit the bottle, and we know my father-in-law "can't" stop her. She has missed some very important family events because she’s been passed out from the booze. (And my wife, who knew from the start I would drink wine from time to time, won't let me keep wine in our house because she was so scarred by her mother's abuse of alcohol... but that's another story for another blog entry, one I hope I get to write before my family's history of heart problems does me in.)

I guess I'm blessed with not having the substance addiction/abuse tendency, myself. I don’t think I've ever been drunk, because I simply haven't ever had much to drink at all. Now, if I was as good about what I ate...

Say Something Sooner

This recent Dear Margo installment features a longsuffering woman, who put herself into a bad situation. Yes, this is a about sex. You are warned.

F.R. wrote:

My partner and I have been together for 26 years.

Nothing else in the letter implies that the writer is homosexual, and Dear Margo responds as though this is a woman writing about a man. So I will, too.

After a messy divorce, he said he didn’t need a piece of paper to tell him whom to love.

Well, no, he didn't. Was there any ceremony? Any public vow before God, family, and everyone? While avoiding the "piece of paper" (which some people are literally marching in the streets over) might free him (and you) from certain legal obligations, what about the ceremony itself? Oh well, the important thing to this letter is how long they have been together.

A few months ago I finally got up the nerve to tell him how dissatisfying our sex life has been.

The implication, taking into account all of the letter, is that it has always been. Twenty-six years is a long time to let this problem go, especially if she has been faking it all of this time.

I asked him if he wanted to tell me anything, and he said he had not been aware that there was a problem.

That's not unusual. It is easier to tell if a man has been satisfied than it is to determine if a woman has. The guy will often squirt stuff, fall asleep, or be agreeable to all sorts of demands.

He knew I was inexperienced, because I told him.

Okay, well, that was a loooooong time ago. After all of this time, you have some experience, no?

Since our "talk," we have not had sex.

Of course not. He's been thinking everything has been fine all of this time, and now you tell him he's been doing it wrong since the first Reagan Administration.

I wanted things to get better, not worse.

Did you tell him exactly what you wanted and needed, or did you simply tell him he's been doing it wrong all of this time?

He is not abusive and supports our son in every way. My family all love him. I just see our relationship disappearing!

How soon before your son is out of the house? Then you can go your own ways. You've destroyed the guy, and it might not be possible to restore the situation.

Dear Margo thinks the guy might be a homosexual. Uh, oooookay.

Here's the thing, ladies. Your man, unless he's a jerk, wants to please you, especially in bed (or wherever else you make out). Never fake an orgasm. To him, it is the same thing as saying "I love you" when it isn't true. My deal with my wife is that she never fakes an orgasm. If she just isn't going to get there for whatever reason, she tells me so. (Every woman is different in this aspect – some can only seem to handle one orgasm, some are "satisfied" without having one every session, and others area prone to multiples of varying intensities.) She also gives me suggestions. This is very important. We are not mind readers. Encouragement and positive reinforcement work wonders.

Here are some handy words and phrases you can use right in the middle of everything:

Ooooooh
Aaaaaah
Mmmmm
"That’s good. Keep doing that."
"Right here."
"I need you to ____"
"It would be so nice if you would _____"
"Harder."
"Gently"
"Faster"
"Slower"
"It's such a turn on when you ___"
"I need you inside me right now."
"Try painting the alphabet with your tongue."

As the guy, one thing I've found handy is to ask, "Is there anything else I can do for you right now?" Sometimes I wonder if my wife has ever thought of replying, "Take out the trash." Of course, the question is a little silly in using the phrase "for you" as I enjoy it all at least as much as she does, even if I am presumably doing it for her pleasure. But that question, or some variation, works, as long as the woman is willing to be honest about what she needs and wants.

From what I've seen in the Bible and nature, God wants husbands and wives to please each other in this way - to enjoy what He has created. So don't be reserved when you are alone with your spouse.

More Reaction to Dr. Laura's Book Publicity

Wow. I am so blessed to have the wife that I do, who is my girlfriend and who is my daughter's mom and the Queen of our home. I am reminded of that simply by looking around for more reaction to Dr. Laura's media appearances promoting her latest book. My previous post on this is here. But now there's more.

http://becki325.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/this-can-not-be-real/
Prompted by a posting on WSJ's "The Juggle" "becki" checks in.

She finds some of Dr. Laura's comments "disturbing", even after waiting a week to post about she was so "riled up":

"When your husband comes home, wrap your body around him at the door and look at his eyes. What people need to learn is that it's not about the drudgery of housework — it's about being at home for all of those incredible moments that make your life more valuable than the person who replaced you at work."

This is not even worth a comment, but COME ON. If you are home all day with the kids, I am sure your disposition will not be ammenable to the above statement.

I don’t get it. When I come home, my wife cheers, wraps her body around me at the door, and looks into my eyes, tells me how much she missed me, and kisses me. So, is the housework at our place magically easier, taking care of our child magically easier, am I some sort of supernaturally hunky dude, or is my wife Supermom? Which is it?

"For everything in life, you have to make a priority list. This must be done. If we truly believe in something and cherish it, we find a way to make it happen. Women go from making seven-figure salaries to staying at home, and things just start to be less important."

Right, so I guess paying the mortgage becomes "less important".

Yes, that's what Dr. Laura says. Don't pay your mortgage.

No, actually, she advises people not buy things (or take out loans) that they can't afford. Or do downsize. You can't afford it if it keeps you from raising your own kids, because it costs you a lot more than money.

And hey, what about those of us who WANT to work because we LIKE OUR JOBS? What would Dr. Laura say to that?

From what I know from listening to/reading her, it would be that you should go ahead and work, if you enjoy that more than raising kids. But don't have kids if you're not going to raise them or have a husband who can raise them. You can't raise them if you aren't with them.

Yes, you have choices to make. Choices mean picking some things and not others. I can want both "A" and "non-A", but I can't have both at the same time in the same way.

Over at second blog from someone else who is also "riled up", we get this:

"I recommend that during the first three years, the mom should be at home because all of the research shows that the person whose body you come out of and whose breast you suck at, at that stage, really needs to be the mom - unless she's incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. After that, flip a coin."

First of all, let me say that I am so so so thankful that I have wonderful family and friends who are generous, kind, loving, good examples and caretakers for my daughter.

That shouldn't be their responsibility. They should take care of any kids they have. Once their kids are grown, they have done their part in that area.

I do not worry about her care because I know she is in a loving environment.

Better than a day orphanage, to be sure.

I really hope you are not calling me incompetent, irrelevant or immaterial since I'm not home with my child right now.

Read again. She's saying that your daughter is better off with you unless you are incompetent. She didn't say you are incompetent.

You think that all mommies should stay home

Not true. She thinks mothers should raise their own kids (or have a husband who does it) and make her husband and child(ren) her priority. If a mom can work and still 1) make sure that her child is with her or her husband; 2) see to it that the home is taken care of – either by her husband or hired help if not herself; and 3) be a good wife to her husband, then that works. Use some imagination.

and from what I get of the story (could be wrong), I'm missing out?

Yes, you are. I know I'm missing out when I'm away from my child.

Guess I should have gone on to get my PhD (and gone into debt for more schooling, but I digress) to fully let myself know what I was missing.

If this is a reference to what Dr. Laura did – she raised her own son.

You think I don't know I'm missing out? You think I take this lightly? You think I don't cry at work, in the car, and at home sometimes?

She doesn't say that. You might have mistakenly believed you haven't had a choice in the matter – that is what she's been telling women. And her book is about praising mothers who raise their own children. That's it.

In apparent agony, the blogger goes on to credit God with having her away from her kid - twice. It's very sad. She also goes on to call on Dr. Laura to do something about the mythical "pay inequality" and housing prices.

"Tina" chimed in on her blog.

She praised "SAHMs" but then goes on to write...

Seriously, I know that I could not do it. I can BARELY survive the weekend with my children. Poor Dr. Laura would probably shake her head at the selfishness of me. But honestly, it's not that I can't stay home with my kids. I don't want to. I truly don't believe that I would offer my kids the best version of me if I was at home all the time.

Sad. What if your husband were to say the same thing about spending every night with you? Nevertheless, if it is true, then how about having your husband home raising the kids?

Honestly, I know a SAHM who seriously barely smiles. She never has ANYTHING good to say about being at home. I never knew her to be a working woman necessarily but she pretty much seems miserable. She complains about all the things that are supposedly so fulfilling about being a SAHM.

I could say the same thing about some husbands I know being with their wives. Does that mean that marriage can't be happy?

Is she so happy because she is a SAHM?

Sounds like a miserable person who shouldn't have had kids to begin with. Still, she can choose to be happy.

There is incredible value offered to children who have Moms who stay at home to be their Moms full time. However, there is incredible value for these kids whose Moms choose to work.

Hmmm, I wonder if husbands could try that on their wives? "Honey, there's value in me consistently doing something other than being around you, so you can find someone else to talk with or to take out the trash." If you married a jerk, maybe you'd be happy with that. But if your husband is a decent person, you want him there. Your kids want their parents.

Over at "Mama Candy! For single mama overachieving chicks!", touting itself as "A place to go when you want to talk about everything FABULOUS from smashing open the corporate glass ceiling,to single parenting and life after ex.", we get more fodder.

So first of all, Dr. Laura can SUCK IT!

Great way to start analysis. The language gets worse. Maybe her kids are better off with strangers.

She's been pretty much anti-single mother as long as I've know of her existence, and she has now released a new book strongly urging all mothers to stay at home.

Wrong. It simply praises "SAHMs" and gives tips on being or becoming one. She doesn't say ALL mothers should stay at home. I've never heard her say she is against single mothers. She's against making babies out of wedlock with the wrong man, or driving the right man away after making babies with him, or deliberately conceiving a child who will not have a father raising him. She encourages pregnant women who will not have a husband in the picture to give the baby up for adoption.

Um, hate to break it to ya, I DON'T HAVE A HUSBAND!

And who chose to make a baby with the wrong man?

The blogger then goes on to reprint a news item from two years ago saying Dr. Laura's adult son was being investigated by his employer. Not sure what that has to do with Dr. Laura praising SAHMs. But the blogger tries to make a connection...

Gee, guess staying at home didn't help your kid after all, now did it?

Where does she say that people raised by SAHMs will never ever make mistakes? She doesn't. But study after study does show that children raised without a father are more likely to cause trouble and get into trouble. And, last I checked, her son is still with that employer. Regardless, what Dr. Laura is teaching in this area is true, regardless of any mistakes she or any other member of her family has or hasn't made.

Finally, she goes on to mock Dr. Laura's doctorate. So predictable.

I noticed something in surveying the anti-Dr. Laura bloggers (I have not linked to all of them). Some of them stated that they praise their own mothers for having been SAHMs and think SAHMs are great. That's exactly what Dr. Laura’s book is about. Yet the bloggers go on to either defend their choices not to give their own children that gift, or claim they don't have a choice.

In general, much of the criticism I found out there about Dr. Laura or her advice to women is made as though they are unaware that Dr. Laura also advises men to be dedicated husbands and fathers, to live up to their obligations, to put their family first, etc. For example, she does tell male callers that there are some hobbies or some jobs or some dreams of theirs that they have to either abandon to set aside for now, because they have a wife and kids.

Clearly, her advice is first and foremost concerned with the well being of children. That's a good thing, even when it means adults have to set aside some of the things they want.

Sounds Like a Guy to Avoid

This is the second letter from a Dear Margo column that provided fodder for me yesterday. CONFUSED IN PLATTEVILLE wrote:

I am worried about a friend at work. She was married to a man who abused her. Two kids later, she divorced him. Then she met another man. She loves him and wants to marry and have a baby. The problem is that he is very controlling.

If you read the letter, it looks like he is actually controlling. This is opposed to the kind of "controlling" that some women call men when we:

--Expect our significant other to appropriately respect us, especially when it involves woman maintaining the same level of boundaries involving the opposite sex that she demands we maintain in our dealings with the opposite sex

--Say "no" to something a woman asks of us, especially when we refuse to enter into losing situations

--Maintain control over our own earnings (unmarried, so we're not talking community property)
That is not an extensive list, of course.

The guy sounds very insecure. But she is going to keep picking guys like that unless she figures out why she is doing it in the first place. Maybe it is what she was raised with, and so what she knows and finds "comfortable".

She was expecting a diamond on her birthday, but was disappointed.

Now that is not controlling, nor abusive.

He told her they will get married when he "gets all of his ducks in a row."

Neither is that.

A couple of us have decided that he hasn't even found his ducks yet.

So, she should stop seeing him. She has volunteered to see him and keep seeing him.

He's been in other relationships where he's out the door at the mention of marriage.

Has he ever given any indication that he actually wants to get married? And why would she want to marry someone like this??? She's better off that he hasn't asked and she hasn't accepted!

Now she thinks she may be pregnant! We’re afraid that if she tells him he will go nuts.

Why would he do that? Did she lie about being monogamous or using contraception? Regardless, if she is pregnant, she has boosted her chances that she'll be the victim of violence. She needs to get away from this guy.

Should we tell her what we are thinking?

Yes. But she won't listen.

Dear Margo gets it right when she replies:

This guy is nuts already … and I have a few doubts about your friend, as well.

Exactly.

If she is pregnant and he dumps her, remind your friend that he is responsible, by law, for child support.

How about giving the kid up for adoption? She can start making that possible by filing charges against him for any assault, property destruction, threats, etc. that he does actually commit. That way, she can show in court that he's likely to be an unfit parent, should he want custody or visitation.

Wouldn't it be a kicker if the woman in question filed sexual harassment complaints against her coworkers if they tell her what they think of this guy? "Hostile work environment."

Nice guys who are single but looking see situations like this, not realizing that something is wrong with the woman, and they see that jerks get women. And some of those nice guys stop being so nice. Meanwhile, this scary guy can keep getting women to "sleep" with him. He may not have much motivation to change as long as they do and as long as he doesn't run into trouble with the law.

Succeeding Can Lose You Friends

It can hurt to recognize that a friendship is over. LOSING THE "FOREVER" IN BFF wrote in to Dear Margo:

I'm 21 years old and will be graduating with my bachelor's degree in chemistry, with plans to go for a master's, then a Ph.D.

Good for you!

I have a ring and a date from a wonderful man I have been with for four years.

Okay... so you've been dating while young and in school. Your relationship is likely not going to be the same once you are both done with school, and it sounds like you are going to be busy with school for a few more years. Are you going to have time to be a spouse? Anyway, that's not really want this letter was about.

I was very close to the same two girls throughout grade school and high school; now I can’t stand to be around either of them.

That happens. Nowhere is it written that your best friends at one phase of your life are going to be your best friends through all phases of your life. In the past, you had geography and age in common, and when you were a kid, that's a lot. But you're now at the age where priorities, values, and morals make more of a difference, because you are more freedom over your own life.

One drinks to excess at least three nights a week and always wants to "hang out" at gross backyard keg parties.

Drinking and partying is not bad per se, as long as your friend isn't forsaking obligations. Drinking to excess is a problem. But this isn't your scene anyway.

The other dates a deplorable stoner who treats her like a dog and brags about how much money he makes pushing drugs to the local teens.

Not the kind of people you need to hang with.

Not surprisingly, all they do is whine and cry to me about all their problems, and then try to find problems with my life.

They want sympathy – it feels good and it is easier for them than making good decisions.

I don't return their calls anymore and have no desire to speak with them. So now they leave me messages all day, drive by and "drop in" if they see my car, and try to guilt trip me about being a terrible person for "throwing away" so many years of friendship.

They are the ones throwing it away as much as you. And some things aren't worth keeping.

I used to try getting them together for lunch dates, movies and other non-boozing and drug-using things, but they always said I was no fun.

Drop them. They are losers. You have more important things to deal with. If you want to help someone, go to a shelter and help there. Those are people seeking help.

Margo pretty much agreed.

This reminds me a bit about what I wrote here.

Of course we should stick by our friends when they have suffered setbacks in life – illness, injury, death, job loss, divorce, heartbreak, etc. But when they are making their own lives miserable as a chosen lifestyle and they don't want to change, they become akin to vampires. Especially when you have a spouse or kids depending on you, it is best to cut them out of your life.

In this case, she may find that her "friends" may actively try to subvert her education and her relationship, because the more she moves forward in those areas, the more she is going to be different from them.

Sexless Marriage, But Live-In Adult Child Is Getting Some

Another Dear Abby column brings us a marital nightmare and a parenting problem.

FREEZING IN SOUTH CAROLINA wrote:

My wife, "Helene," refuses to speak to me for days or even weeks.

Hmmm. Has it always been like this? Is this the way she is, or are you doing something to prompt this? Of course, with some people, this would be a relief!

When I try to find out why or talk to her, she ignores me.

Once you have asked her what is wrong, and she doesn't respond, you have done your due diligence. Go about your business. Same goes for when women say "NOTHING!!!" when we ask them what is wrong. We know you are lying ladies, but it isn't worth playing the game. You'll either let us know eventually (very likely) or not.

She has moved into another bedroom, which has become her own little domain. She refuses to have sex or even watch TV with me.

No! NOT THE JOINT TV VIEWING!!! How could she be so cruel???

Okay, well, she's breaking her marital vows. Are you earning all or most of the income? If so, is she refusing to accept your financial provisions? Does she stop you from doing chores around the house, like taking out the trash? Probably not. Interesting how that works. She's not disgusted or angry enough with you to stop you from holding up your vows to her.

I have no reason to believe Helene is cheating, and I am certainly not cheating on her.

Unfaithfulness isn't just physically fornicating with a side-honey. It is failing to be faithful to your spouse. And that is what is going on here. The question is if it is two people who are being unfaithful, or one.

We are raising my son from a previous marriage, and sometimes I wonder if this is what is bugging her.

Oh. Ooooooh. Yeah, could be. She probably thinks you pick him over her. She may see the woman you used to make love to every time she looks at him, mingled with your features. Another example of how it is best to wait until your children are grown before you get into another relationship.

Dear Abby responded:

As much as you love your wife, I hope you realize that her behavior is both passive-aggressive and abusive.

Well, yes, assuming this guy isn't a maniac. In which case she should vacate the place and take the kid with her, or call the cops and have him removed.

But let's assume this guy is your regular husband and dad, and simply picked wrong, or she has suffered some trauma she doesn't want to reveal or deal with. In his letter, he says that his kid considers her to be a mom. So, he should try to keep them all together and the atmosphere as pleasant as possible until the kid is grown. It's rotten for him, but it would be best for the kid. Feel free to move on after that, though you'll have to pay dearly to do so. Such is marriage law in America.

On to the second letter.

DAD IN DISTRESS wrote:

Our 23-year-old daughter, "Kristy," lives at home.

Why? Has she ever lived on her own?

She works full time and goes to school, but lives here with free room and board, cable TV, etc. She has been seeing a man for a month and now is spending two or three nights a week at "his place."

I am not unreasonable or naive, but I feel that because Kristy is living under my roof, she should live by my rules, which do not include sleeping over at some man's house after only one month of dating.

Yes. The options are: live by your rules, or move out and support herself.

To top it off, we have never met him, although we have asked several times to be introduced.

Do you really care to meet the guy who is fornicating with your daughter while she lives on your dime? It has only been a month. Chances are, they won't last. Why bother?

Am I being unreasonable?

No.

My wife throws up her hands and says, "What can we do?"

You can let her run her own life, which includes paying her own way and keeping her own place. Time for her to leave the nest.

Dear Abby pretty much agreed.

So, the husband, who should be getting some lovin' isn't... meanwhile, in another family, a grown child who should be respecting her parents' rules is gettin' some - outside of marriage. Not good.

SAHMs, Dr. Laura, and the Today Show

As was entirely predictable, Dr. Laura's appearance on the Today Show this morning has already prompted fits in the blogosphere. She's promoting her new book, which simply praises "stay at home" moms. But of course, she's not a perfect person, so other imperfect people can automatically ignore the merits of her statements as they blog away by citing some past mess-up on her part. There are some people out there who actually deal with the substance of her statements. You can find one here, and I left a comment.

Over at the Pursuit of Harpyness, there is an extensive analysis (and some vicious reader comments), but I wanted to deal with a few statements here. My analysis is based on what I have heard and read from Dr. Laura – I can’t actually speak for her, of course.

There it is again, the old trope that working mother = neglectful mother. Obviously if you worked and did not neglect your child, then logic dictates that other women can do the same thing.

Yes, that's true. Dr. Laura does say it is possible for women to earn income in some way and still give their child the attention they need. This is not in conflict with her ideal, however, that a husband earn the income, a mother tend to the young'uns as the pimary caretaker, and that through that division of labor, the children will get time with both parents and the husband and wife will have enough time and energy for each other.

You can't do something if you are not there. In Dr. Laura's case, she worked in a capacity where she could have her son with her.

Part of a marriage! I see! So single moms need not apply to your hallowed world filled with SAHMs? Because it’s kind of hard to leave the workplace if you don’t have a partner with their own income.

And who chose to make a baby without a committed and capable man? You see, Dr. Laura's encouraging of mothering does not come in a vacuum. She also advises that women save babymaking for marriage, that they choose their husband wisely, and that men not propose marriage until they are financially able to take care of a wife and any kids they want to have. That includes earning enough to save, invest, and insure – in case the husband gets killed by a robber (who are more likely to be guys raised without their own father). Choosing wisely and treating kindly, as Dr. Laura advises, greatly reduces the chances of divorce. Even so, there is something called... alimony and child support. And I strongly recommend pre-nups to make sure that the person who puts a career on hold will be provided for in the event the other person leaves.

And those gay folk? They can get married in a few places, but my guess is Schlessinger wouldn’t be in favor of any lesbian SAHMs.

Whether two women or two men can get a marriage license or not, she advises that children should have both a mother and a father (you know, the kind of coupling it takes to conceive a child in the first place), living together in a peaceful, stable marriage. A homosexual man can be a great person, but he can't be a mother, even with another homosexual man.

Underpinning all of this is this assumption that men are always the principal breadwinner,

Most women marry men who earn more than they do, and want him to continue to do so. Many of these women do not respect a husband who doesn't.

and that he has enough of an income that the wife doesn't need to take a job,

Yes, you see getting married and conceiving children are almost always voluntary actions, and Dr. Laura advises men to only marry and make babies if they are capable of providing financially.

never mind whether or not she wants one.

We all have choices to make. A man who wants a career that will keep him on the move from city to city and working 6-7 days a week, 14 hours a day, should not get married and have kids. If a woman wants a career and children, unless it is the kind of career where she can have her kids with her and interacting with her, she should be willing to let her husband stay home and still be able to respect him.

Why bother having kids if you are going to have strangers raise them? It's not like we are living in the days where you had them so you could have help on your farm. It's not like we don't have many contraceptive options, including tubal ligation.

From what I can tell, Dr. Laura esteems the ability of women to mother and the importance of her doing so more than a lot of other women in media today. It is a shame so many women think they are easily replaceable as caregivers to their own children.

More Men Losing Jobs

Greg Burns wrote in the Los Angeles Times that men are suffering the brunt of layoffs.

To a much greater extent than in past recessions, men are bearing the brunt.

In December 2007, when the economy started tanking, unemployment ran nearly even at 4.4% for men and 4.3% for women. In February, that tally had shot up to 8.8% for men and 7.3% for women, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The 1.5-point spread is historic and likely to widen as the overall numbers keep soaring, said Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan in Flint. "I don't see it turning yet."

I'm sure Obama will get right on this and other issues disproportionately hurting men by creating a Commission on Men and Boys. I'm so confident he will I'm going to hold my breath.

Here I go...

...

Okay, so I decided that wasn't a good idea.

A bona fide "man-cession" invites all sorts of social theories: Maybe women are cheaper to keep on the payroll because they tend to make less. Maybe women are better communicators, which helps shield them from the ax. Maybe women feel they have more to prove, so they get retained for trying harder.

Such sexism! Such stereotypes!

Since 1981, women have earned far more bachelor's degrees, collecting 135 for every 100 awarded to men, Perry said. At the master's level, the "degree gap" is an even wider 150 to 100.

So much for the patriarchy.

Counting farm labor and the self-employed, working men outnumber women by about 10 million. It's not 50-50, but it's moving that way.

Ah! And here was I just about to suggest women should take over paying for dates.

All that higher education and the economic devastation of traditional male strongholds won't make much difference in cracking a "really prevalent" glass ceiling, said Jenny Hoobler, an assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago's College of Business Administration.

"As far as leadership, it doesn't translate," Hoobler said. "Women don't ascend to the top ranks."

Oooh, so that evil patriarchy does exist! What else could explain this? Certainly not the articles we've read on women taking more time off, women deciding to place family before their careers (which I applaud, if they want a family), or women sabotaging each other.

Seriously, the bottom line is that there are more men in the workforce, so more men are losing their jobs. Likewise, the "wage gap" that is touted as favoring men is almost entirely explainable without sexism.

Part of the Problem

I'm taking this opportunity to remind any reader of this blog that I am a sinner. In my words, thoughts, and deeds, I often miss the mark big time, falling shorter from the holiness of God than a stepladder at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is from reaching the Moon.

When analyzing things here, I often pass judgment on the ideas and actions of others. This is not to say I don't mess up – I don't want to give the impression that I think I couldn't be torn apart in a similar fashion. But I am not the standard, and while I often will refer to my own experience, I do not hold myself up as the standard. There is an objective right and wrong, and we should all strive (myself included) to do right and not wrong.

As a follower of Christ, I am convinced that my sins are forgiven and that I fellowship with Him. I throw myself upon the mercy of God, knowing I can never "make up" for all of the wrong I have done and all of the right I have failed to do. The bad news is that I have committed moral crimes against God, and there should be punishment for moral crimes. I have been part of the problem. The Good News is that Jesus is my Lord and Savior – and He provides the solution. His solutions are bigger than all of the problems, thank God.

Staking an Exclusive Claim

This appears to be advice from EHarmony.com. I found it here.

"Annie, MN" asked:

Is it foolish for me to continue dating a man who is still seeing another woman?

No. It is foolish to fornicate with him, but not date him per se. Unless people are engaged, they should be open to dating others.

He has been completely honest about his involvement with both of us.

Now how do you know that? He has told you he's seeing another woman. That doesn't mean he's being honest about what they are doing, what he's told her, what his feelings are for her, and whether or not there are yet others he is seeing.

He may be telling you the whole and complete truth, he may not. You don't know for sure. You are assuming, dreaming, hoping, or wishing.

We have only dated a few months but I am ready to date him exclusively.

Why? Do you mean to tell me that if another guy came around who seemed he could be everything you've been looking for, and he asked you out to do something you've always wanted to do, you'd tell him "no"?

You don't really know this guy, and he's not ready to date you exclusively, so why not date others and see what happens? Most men are more likely to ask for exclusivity when they have a reason to. Your lack of interest in dating others (or, perhaps, the lack of interest others have in dating you?) doesn't give him much reason to pledge exclusivity in order to get it.

Only stop dating others if you know you could marry him and he appears to be getting ready to propose marriage to you.

Of course, that's assuming you are looking for a husband, and are dating a man who is looking for a wife. We don't really have a lot of information to work with, though EHarmony does tend to be marriage-focused. We don't know your ages. I'm assuming you are both established and have no minor children. (If you are not established, you should not be seriously dating... just dating for fun.) If you are just looking for a sex partner, the answers may be different.

As I may have mentioned before, what I believe is the ideal (and what I will advise my kids) is that they focus on getting financially/professionally established (and learn who they are), and under the age of 25, their dating should be casual – a way to discover what kind of person they best interact with and enjoy. After that, if they are marriage-and-family-oriented, they should date more seriously, as in letting their dates know early on that they are dating to find a spouse. The moment they realize that someone they are dating would not be the right spouse for them, they should stop spending their time dating that person (and stop bonding that way with the person). Only when engagement is looming should all others be forsaken.

In the response:

It is also normal to expect that while you are getting to know someone and deciding if they are right for you, they will also be dating others and making decisions about who is right for them.

Like I said.

Part of the process of choosing a person to pursue is gauging their interest in you.

You want someone for whom you have passion, but you want them to have passion for you, too.

You mention in your letter that you've been dating this man for "several months." I believe this is more than enough time for him to decide if he wants to pursue you or the other woman he is seeing.

Maybe he enjoys spending time with both of them (and any others) and likes things the way they are?

I would suggest that you politely ask him whether he is ready to commit to an exclusive relationship with you.

I don't think it is been long enough. If neither one of them has seen any red flags and they are both attracted (in every sense of the word) to each other, they should keep seeing each other even if they are not ready for engagement yet. But if there is a red flag, or a fundamental incompatibility, stop seeing him.