Mom Wants Adult Daughter to Clean Up

Moving out does not mean the end of hearing "clean your room" from your mother. WORRIED MOM IN OREGON wrote in to Dear Abby:

My 35-year-old daughter, "Rhonda," is intelligent and creative, but her house is a disaster.

Why would someone expect someone's house to be clean and orderly because they are intelligent and creative? If anything, creative people are more likely to have a mess.

There are clothes, books, magazines, etc. piled on every surface. Dishes are stacked on her bed; socks and paper litter the floor.

While unmarried, and thus, living alone, I had my clothes, books, magazines, papers, and more piled everywhere, and my laundry in a pile. However, I never kept dirty dishes around, because I didn't want to attract bugs. Now that I'm married, I have my own room (with a closed door) dedicated to my disorganized stuff. The rest of our house is less cluttered but rarely ready to appear as a good example in a magazine. We have young'uns.

How can she feel good living like this?

Maybe she doesn't. It isn't really a problem unless there is a fire hazard or an actual health hazard - or if she is in dispair. Not everyone likes to entertain others in their home, and they don't mind living in clutter or disorganization.

Rhonda is caring and attractive, but she rarely dates.

Maybe she does "date" and you just don't know because she goes on booty calls and doesn't feel like telling you. Maybe she doesn't want to date. If she does want to date, maybe this is one way of keeping herself from bringing someone home, though from what I hear, a very messy place doesn't always stop someone from bringing their dates home.

Could her mess be a symptom of something more serious?

Sure. But so could pristine order and cleanliness.

Abby, I'm worried about my daughter's chances for future happiness, but I have no idea how to help her.

You have not indicated she is unhappy, and I'm sure you would have cited other evidence of her being unhappy if you had it. Maybe she has more important things to do than pick up everything and organize it, especially if she is the only person living there.

Dear Abby responded:

If you're the kind of mother who always picked up after her children, then this is only more of the same. If your daughter's disorderliness is something new, then it might be a symptom of depression or some other emotional problem.

All true.

When you say you are concerned about Rhonda's chances for future happiness, do you mean you're worried that she's 35 and still single? Not every woman needs a man to complete her.

Also very true. Well, as a follower of Christ I would say every woman AND man needs Christ, and He's a man, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Have a heart-to-heart talk with your daughter and explain your concerns. You won't find out what's going on in her head until you do.

If she expresses a desire for things to be different, you can try hiring a professional organizer and then a maid to come in once every week or two. However, at 35, old habits die hard, and things will likely get disorganized again, even if the place is "clean". And that is also something for any potential husband to keep in mind. This woman can't be relied on to keep a clean, orderly house. Marrying her means either cleaning up yourself, or paying for someone else to do it - or living like that.

Sixteen Will Get You Twenty?

That's an old saying about the risks of going after "jailbait" when it comes to sex. But take a look at this:

A high school athletic trainer was placed on three years probation and ordered to perform 240 hours of community service today for having an unlawful sexual relationship with a high school student.

Harold Adam Johnson, 24, San Juan Capistrano, pleaded guilty earlier this month to six counts involving sexual contact with a minor.

He admitted he engaged in a consensual affair – including sex acts in his San Juan Capistrano home and in his car – with a student he met while working as an athletic trainer at Tustin High School in 2008.

Johnson worked at the school for about a year and worked with several athletes in different sports until he resigned in November 2008 while he was under investigation.

Superior Court Judge Gregory W. Jones accepted Johnson's guilty pleas and reduced all felony counts to misdemeanors over the objections of Deputy District Attorney Nikki Buracchio.

Buracchio contended that Johnson should sustain felony convictions, arguing that Johnson took advantage of his position of trust and engaged in a continuous course of unlawful conduct over a lengthy period of time.

Jones, however, said misdemeanor convictions were appropriate because the sexual contact was consensual, the student was 16 and 17 during the course of conduct and was a willing participant who had engaged in some deception to maintain the relationship.

The judge noted that Johnson is a college graduate on his way to a productive life and is not likely to re-offend.

Jones also said that the age of consent in most states for sexual activity is 16.

Wow. Outrageous. A slap on the wrist.

But guess what? I changed the story a little bit. I changed the perp's name and references to the perp's gender, and I removed references to the student's gender. The perp in this case was actually Hope Ashley Jacoby and the victim was a boy. Does that change anything? What if I told you that people tend to find Jacoby attractive? The paper won't even name the boy, which is strange considering the actions and words of hte judge.

I want to look at a few quotes from Larry Welborn's Orange County Register article.

She admitted she engaged in a consensual affair - including sex acts in her San Juan Capistrano home and in her car - with a male student she met while working as an athletic trainer at Tustin High School in 2008.

So can minors consent to sex with adults many years older, or not? Sure, they can consent to abortion without so much as parental notification, but haven't we always heard that minors can't consent to sex?

Jones, however, said misdemeanor convictions were appropriate because the sexual contact was consensual, the male student was 16 and 17 during the course of conduct and was a willing participant who had engaged in some deception to maintain the relationship.

I see. I would be very interested if this judge would apply the same statements if he deals with a similar case where the sexes are reversed.

The judge noted that Jacoby is a college graduate on her way to a productive life and is not likely to re-offend.

Huh? I wonder on what that is based? And plenty of college grads on their way to a productive life do things that warrant prison time.

Jones also said that the age of consent in most states for sexual activity is 16.

So what? California has medical marijuana laws, and other states don't. Different states have different laws. For example, if my wife were to divorce me after ten years, California law would give her alimony for life. I couldn't appeal to the laws of another state to avoid this. This was in California, and is subject to California laws.

Manny of the people commenting on the article on the website are livid, rightfully pointing out that there is a double standard. This woman abused her position of authority. While it is tempting for some to say "lucky boy!", the law must be applied equally, right? Sure, I just wrote about my consensual relationship with an older woman, but I was 19 when that started – it was all legal.

This kid was not old enough to deal with the possibilities of STDs, pregnancy, child support, and the emotional issues.

It looks to me like there was a vagina and/or beauty discount here as far as her punishment and what her record will be. Even if you think this was no big deal and shouldn't be a crime - do you also say that about guys who have sex with underage girls?

My First MILF

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Bachelor and Bachelorette Franchise is Not About Matchmaking

And so passes another finale for a season of "The Bachelorette". My wife watches.

If you don't want the show spoiled for you, come back to this blog entry later.

Natalie Finn has this story for E! Online, corporate sibling to ABC. This is the one quote I picked out:

Here's a lesson to remember, girls - as nice as one man's 8-pack may be, go with the guy who thinks you're a genius.

Just as men looking for a wife need to see past the well-placed molecules to evaluate character traits of women, women need to do the same when it comes to men. If she looks well enough, she just might be able to find the guy with the 8-pack who also thinks she is a genius.

Back to the show.

So both (or three) dudes were ready to propose to her, and one actually did, and she accepted.

Are they still together? Will they be in another six months? This franchise has a terrible track record, as do most imitators/variations. I wrote about this previously. Everything I wrote still applies. How much time are these people really spending with each other, and over the course of how many weeks?

I understand that as a straight married male, this show isn't targeted towards me. But c'mon, ladies, do you watch thinking there's a good chance that these people are going to find lasting love with each other?

Girl Power That I Can Cheer

Kudos to an 11-year old heroine! (I did spell that right, didn't I?) Denisee Salazar of the Orange County Register brings us a story from Anaheim with an almost-perfect ending.

The incident occurred at 10:30 a.m. Monday at the park in the 2100 block of South Haster Street while the [three year old] boy was at the playground playing with his 11-year-old sister and 12-year-old cousin. Their mothers were watching over them, said Anaheim police Sgt. Rick Martinez.

Great - getting the kids away from the TV and out where they can play and exercise - and not putting them in some day orphanage. So far, so good.

The boy was sliding down a slide when a man grabbed him and then ran northbound through the park carrying him, Martinez said.

Scary stuff. What kind of horrors were awaiting this child? Ah, but this is where the story gets good...

The child's sister caught up to the man, kicked him in the leg, and threw dirt in his face.

YES!!! Now there's a sister who deserves some respect from her siblings.

The man dropped the boy and ran northbound across Orangewood Avenue, then westbound and across Haster Street, Martinez said. Another man, possibly an accomplice, ran behind him.

The man was nearly hit by a truck as he ran across Orangewood, Martinez said.

Ah - darn it. If only that driver had sped up a little, the cops wouldn't still be looking for this creep.

Going Intergenerational and Blending Families

Let’s check in on relationship problems via an advice column, shall we? "Non-Cougar in Calif." wrote in to Dear Margo:

I am 29. My love is 55.

Okay.

We were friends first, and then it turned into a real relationship.

Let me guess... you are an "old soul"? Of course you were friends first, but only because you were attracted to him and he was to you. If you hadn't been attracted to him in the first place, he would have ended up in the "only a friend" zone, never to get out.

When we met, it was supposed to be "Friends with Benefits," but as the years went by we developed feelings for each other, which led to a relationship.

Funny how that happens. See - "friends first" - right.

I have a 5-year-old and he has a 16-year-old.

Oh heck no. Wrong! You should both be focusing on raising your children.

I've said that maybe I want more children, and he has said he’s open to it.

As "guy" as my first language, let me translate what he means: "I don't want more children, but I want to keep fornicating with you, so I will not give you a definite 'no' because this way, you'll keep fornicating with me."

But with our huge age difference, I am questioning it. What are your thoughts?

Raise your child. You'll be 42 when you child is raised. If you want to adopt then, find a man closer to your age who always wanted to adopt, marry him, and adopt. It is a bad idea to get pregnant by a 55-year-old guy who has a 16-year-old and doesn't want more kids. When you also consider that you already have your own child to raise... forget it.

I speak from some experience when dealing with age differences and prior kids in dating, although in my case she was the only one with a kid (who was, like this case, 16), and was the older one in the relationship. Throughout my rebellious time, I had relationships and flings with a few older women. One of those pairings had the same age spread as the letter-writer's, though I was 19 and she was 45. It is even more problematic at those ages, and with the male being the younger partner.

Mind you, I didn't know this woman was 45 at first.

In the days before most people had their pictures online, there were these dial-up electronic bulletin board services – some of them for a hobby or interest, and others for socializing. This one was for socializing in my metropolitan area, and you'd see someone's first name, their age, their gender, and their sexual orientation. I started talking with, among other people and usually in a "group setting”, a woman I thought was 29. It was never dirty, mind you, even when it got flirty. Just joking around and talking about whatever. When I took a serious look at her stats again, she was listed as 39, and I wondered why I had started chatting up someone so much older than me, not remembering that the stat previously said 29. Why all of this happened this way and how I eventually found out she was 45 is rather a boring story and not important to this post. The two important things to remember is that when I got heavily involved with her, I thought she was 39, and she later told me she was 45 after some math didn't make sense to me.

Originally, she had thought maybe I would be good for her daughter. But her daughter was a troubled brat. And shewasn't interested in me anyway. So, the elder woman of the house began to flirt with me big time. Dysfunction much?

Me, I was wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Wrong for getting involved with a much older woman, wrong for getting involved with a mother with a minor child, and wrong for fornicating. Not to excuse my sins, but rather explain a little bit... I was almost completely inexperienced with dating, naïve, felt affection-deprived, and had an inferiority complex. I was ill-equipped to resist the flirtations of a (very) experienced, available older woman, even if this was before the whole "MILF" thing made it to pop culture. I was also living on my own, away from my family, by myself. That makes messin' around really easy.

We carried on for a year and a half. We didn't keep it a secret. Our friends and family and even a lot of our coworkers at our respective workplaces knew. We struggled from time to time with the age difference and the morality of the whole thing. It fell apart after her daughter gave birth. Grandma did't want to deal with the drama of her new-mother daughter fighting with her, and ditching me gave them one less thing to fight about. About 7 or 8 months later, I stumbled cluelessly into another relationship with a woman who was only two years older than me. Grandma later found some new 18 or 19-year-old guy for a while, and we were on friendly but distant terms until we lost contact after moves.

It wasn't all bad. We didn't really fight with each other, as we were too busy defending our relationship to others. She fed me well – meaning home cooked meals that helped me to lose weight. Between those and the – ahem – regular exercise (minimum three times a week, every week), I didn't even have to try to lose weight – it just happened. I slimmed down to an ideal weight. She showed how to behave with more confidence, and she gave me a makeover so I wouldn't look so much like the nerd I am. I was certainly not as bad off as I would have been if I had "fallen in love" with her daughter instead.

But out of all the things wrong about that relationship, at least we didn't marry, as that would have been a mockery, and I didn't get her pregnant. That would have been horrible for the child. Also, I didn't have a child to expose to a situation that was really all about having sex without marriage or a realistic hope of getting married and having it work.

Thank God for His mercy and forgiveness.

What is Wrong With This Picture?

It's another bright and sunny day in Santa Ana, California. Denisse Salazar of the Orange County Register has this article of interest.

Susie Young Kim, 37, was shot and killed just after 1 a.m. April 10 at 17th Street and Grand Avenue near a Food 4 Less supermarket in Santa Ana after a 30-minute [high speed] pursuit through Buena Park, Anaheim, Fullerton and Santa Ana.

That saved us the expense of having her go through the court and correctional systems, right? Well, keep reading.

Kim's 13-month-old daughter, who was in a car seat in the back seat of the black Toyota sedan she was driving, was unharmed. She was taken to Orangewood Children's Home and then placed under the care of her grandparents and father.

Thank God. How evil of her to put her child in that situation.

But guess what? Susie Young Kim's parents have filed a claim against the city!

The claim was filed June 24 by attorney Dale K. Galipo on behalf of Kim's parents, Yung Kim and Nancy Kim, and on behalf of her daughter, Angelica Kim Contreras, and the estate of Susie Young Kim.

That's what we call nerve. Audacity.

The claim asks for $20 million in damages, including for funeral expenses, legal costs, severe emotional distress, survival and punitive damages.

And what about Susie Young Kim's responsibility in all of this?

The claim alleges that the Santa Ana Police Department's officers involved in the incident "used excessive deadly force, which resulted in the death of Susie Young Kim."

Why have the officers never used excessive force against me? Oh, that's right. Because I don't put myself in that position. I don't drive like a maniac and refuse to pull over.

It goes on to say that the officers involved also "knowingly endangered the passenger child by using unnecessary deadly force and negligently handling the vehicle pursuit."

Susie Young Kim endangered the child, if the newspaper has it right.

Galipo said that based on his independent investigation to date, the officer fired from the side and there were no bullet holes to the front of the windshield.

Which might have been what spared the child.

After the incident, Buena Park police Sgt. Bill Kohanek said officers saw a car seat in the back seat and broadcast that over police radio, but he also said it's not uncommon for officers to miss transmissions.

I've driven many times with a car seat that didn't have a child in it. Especially at 1am.

Santa Ana has 45 days to respond to the claim. After that, a lawsuit can be filed. Galipo said they intend to file a lawsuit unless the city wants to reach a settlement.

Ka-ching!!! Blood money.

Galipo said it's unclear why Kim did not immediately stop when a Buena Park police officer tried to pull her over.

Oh, of course it is. I'm sure she had a perfectly good reason not to stop. Everyone does that with a 13-month-old in the car. At 1am.

I'm so sick of people who commit crimes (or the people who raised them) getting seven figure paydays at taxpayer expense.

Hey Yung Kim and Nancy Kim – how about a formal public apology for the actions of your daughter? You know, some day, that child is going to find out what her mother did. Poor thing... that child is the real victim in all of this, and her mother is mostly to blame, if the newspaper's report has it right.

Another Example of a Serial Killer in Training

...or two serial killers. Brought to you by the Associated Press.

A New York City teenager has admitted that she failed to let a kitten out of an oven after a friend put the animal inside and left it to roast to death.

Fluffy is now Crispy.

Authorities say Cherry and a 14-year-old friend ransacked a Bronx apartment before putting the cat in the oven, where it cried and scratched before dying.

And yet there are guys out there whould be stupid enough to intentionally not only marry these gals, but impregnate them.

In-Law Situation - What Is Your Take?

Someone (a wife and mother of more than one child) who shall remain anonymous left me this comment:

Let me get your opinion here: My husband's sister got knocked up and gave the baby up about 2.5 years ago. Six months later, she got married to a fellow (not the baby daddy) and is now pregnant again.

These in-laws would like to [move] to my state to be close to my husband and I so that they can "utilize" me as daycare while they finish their degrees and work beyond full time. I was very clear that I think a child should be raised by its parents. My husband, however, stepped in to say "we" (which is to say ME) would do whatever we could to help them out.

Sure sometimes there are extenuating circumstances, but, I gave up college and worked around my husbands college and work when we had our first.

It's not like either one is close to graduation, we're taking years. My husband and I are thinking about having one more child ourselves.

...I'm not wrong here, am I? You put your wife and kids and their needs before others, even relatives, don't you? You encourage people to make the necessary sacrifices, you don't make it easy to abandon their kids, right? Or am I just being stingy and persnickety? I've been changing diapers for about 7 years straight now - I can barely muster up the love to wipe my own kids bums ... and I'm pretty sure I'll be expected to be cheap if not free labor. My time isn't valued. I feel whiny. Sorry...they haven't moved yet and probably can't afford to (unless they were to move in with us for a while), so it's all hypothetical.

What do you think?

I wrote back privately, but I'll share some of my thoughts here...

Ultimately I defer to how these things are settled in your family. I'll give you MY opinion though, even though my opinion should mean squat within the walls of your home.

These in-laws would like to my state to be close to my husband and I so that they can "utilize" me as daycare while they finish their degrees and work beyond full time.

This MIGHT be okay... IF... you had the time (reading your blog, I think you have enough on your plate) AND they would PAY you for it. So, essentially, it would be a home-based business.

I was very clear that I think a child should be raised by its parents. My husband, however, stepped in to say "we" (which is to say ME) would do whatever we could to help them out.

Sounds to me that he is putting his sister and his charitable feelings - as well as intentioned as they may be - over the needs of his family. "Leave and cleave". His wife and kids should take the higher priority.

Sure sometimes there are extenuating circumstances, but, I gave up college and worked around my husbands college and work when we had our first.

EXACTLY. You have made good choices and should be further burdened by the choices of others. Now, of course family helps each other out and in cases like this family babysits from time to time, but not regularly.

I'm not wrong here, am I?

No, you are not.

You put your wife and kids and their needs before others, even relatives, don't you? You encourage people to make the necessary sacrifices, you don't make it easy to abandon their kids, right?

Yes. Yes. Have I mentioned before that my MIL keeps pressuring my wife to leave our child with her overnight? Have I mentioned my wife has refused to cater to her mother's wishes, even to let her babysit for a few hours during the day, because MIL is an active alcoholic? MIL would stop bitching if my wife simply said, "okay!" But we just can't take the risk.

Tell your husband that you feel for them, but you need to put taking care of him and your children over making it easier for his sister. They have made their choices... and you two have made yours. Aren't there grandparents who could get involved? Childless relatives/friends who would like to have the fun of looking after kids without the ultimate responsibility?

The bottom line for your husband should be that you are his wife. You are the one in his bed. Tell him that you were hoping to have more time and energy to focus on practicing the art of lovemaking, and it will be difficult to do that if you have to take on this unecessary burden.

Family should step in when something unplanned happens... some sort of accident or illness or something that someone did not bring upon themselves. Your SIL's situation in entirely her own doing.

She wrote back, explaining that the other options (other relatives) I mentioned are a no-go and why.

You know how I feel about this. Any more advice???

Parenthood by Proxy

I attended a baby shower over the weekend. These things should NOT be co-ed, but I might have had to go anyway, because it was for my sister-in-law and her husband as they anticipate the arrival of their first child. One couple in attendance brought their two-month-old adorable child. Absolutely precious.

What made me even happier to see this child was that her parents tried so hard for so long to get pregnant this time around, and that was AFTER trying hard to get pregnant, carrying a child to term, and then discovering upon birth that the child had a problem that prevented the baby from living more than a couple of weeks. Very sad.

So seeing them with this healthy baby was great.

Then my heart sank as the mother explained to my MIL that she's going back to work very soon and has found a day orphanage for her two-month-old.

Her husband is a good earner. I'm sure they could make it with her staying at home. Or with him staying at home.

Why try so hard to make a kid and carry that child around for nine moths so that you can see the child essentially only weekends? Grade school will come soon enough. Why not enjoy your child during the infant and toddler years?

I feel like I am missing out when I am away from my child. I'm thankful my wife gets to spend as much time with her as she does, and thankful my wife was willing to have this arrangement.

Why do people allow themselves to believe that hired help is better for their child than they are? Clearly, some new parents choose daycare when they have other realistic options. And most everyone else using daycare who "must" choose it "must" choose it becausae a series of previous choices in which they could have chosen differently.

To all you SAHMs and SAMDs - GOOD FOR YOU!!!

For the Sake of the Kids

Divorce and out-of-wedlock parenting have become so commonplace that it is now shocking heresy to take the position I'm taking. "WENDY" IN WASHINGTON wrote in to Dear Abby:

If someone is in an "unhappy" marriage with kids, is it a good idea or bad thing to wait until the kids are adults before considering divorce?

I tend to agree with Dr. Laura on this – put the kids first. Stick together and behave as though you love the person. Model a peaceful, cooperative home for your children. Don't take any bait to engage in fighting. Who is to say things will not work out in the mean time? Plus, this gives you more power to protect your children and control what kind of home they'll continue to have than if you divorced. You don't want your kids exposed to different honeys your spouse would have in the place if you weren't living together.

The exception, which I shouldn't even need to point out, is when danger is involved. In that case, take the kids and go – preferably to your parents so they kids will have both a male and female role model.

One of the risks in these cases is that the higher earner (in most cases, the husband) will be ensuring that he will be financially obligated to his wife for life. In California, ten years of marriage can obligate a man to pay alimony for life. The "guy solidarity" side of me wonders if it would be possible to legally separate but still live in the home in such situations. I know there are such things as post-nuptial agreements. This is another reason to have a pre-nup in the first place, though I think it is possible for a court to ignore it.

Ultimately for me, the needs of the children take priority, even if that means a guy will have to be paying money to life to some harlot shrew who was nothing but trouble to him for most of their time together. I would like to see the divorce laws changed - but whether they are changed or not, kids still need their parents.

Dear Abby replied:

I have heard from children of dysfunctional couples saying that although their parents didn't fight openly, they could feel the tension between their parents and would have grown up emotionally healthier if their parents had separated.

How do those children know that? It is easy to imagine that your parents wouldn't be fighting with each other and therefore things would be better (not to mention two sets of gifts received for each occasion), but I'm thinking these children didn't think about the possible (and likely) negatives of divorce. Their parents could still be fighting for years after a divorce, using the children as pawns, and exposing their children to unsavory dates.

It would be nice if everyone could by happy and have their ideal marriage. Dealing with a difficult person is not fun, especially when it is day in and day out in your own home. I know. I was once engaged to a woman who had a key to my place and I realized I needed to end it when I would approach my door, realize that she was inside, and be disappointed that she was. But once you choose to become a parent, you have obligations that take precedence over your wants.
Yet another reason to choose your spouse wisely and treat your spouse kindly.

Did You Knock Up Alison Le Anne Ebert?

If so, pal, then I just want to know what the hell you were thinking. Ruben Vives reports on an LATimes.com blog about her alleged wrongdoings.

A 35-year-old Cypress mother of three was arrested for allegedly leaving her two children home alone in a house filled knee-high with trash, bugs and maggots, authorities said today.

Police found the children Tuesday living in "deplorable" conditions, said Sgt. Tom Bruce of the Cypress Police Department.

Oh, come on. How bad could it have been?

"Frozen bugs were inside the refrigerator and the toilets were overflowing with human feces," Bruce said.

Yeah, that's pretty bad. As messy as I ever was, I drew the line at freezing bugs. (Seriously, I was messy in the sense of letting mail and clothes pile up, but I never left food around or let bugs stick around.)

But hey, maybe she was out there working in a desperate attempt to afford better living conditions? Read on...

Their mother, Alison Le Anne Ebert, turned herself in to police, allegedly telling officers she had been smoking marijuana at "some dude's house," was addicted to methamphetamine and felt lazy and depressed.

Sounds like a party. Now why would someone feel lazy and depressed after engaging in those activities?

When officers arrived, they found two girls, ages 9 and 11, inside the home, Bruce said.

The two girls were placed under the care of Orange County Child Protective Services, Bruce said, adding that a third child, a 15-year-old girl who had been staying at a relative's home, also was taken into protective custody.

But come on - was it really that bad there?

City code enforcement officers deemed the house uninhabitable.

Okay, yes, I guess it was really bad.

I'm thinking perhaps the 15-year-old or the relative she was staying with made the tip-off call. If not, I'd like to know why the relative didn't do anything.

Ebert, who earns "two thumbs down", has three kids and there's no mention of a husband, ex-husband, or even a shack up. At least one guy (possibly three guys – or more if she had miscarriages or abortions) not only thought this woman was sex partner material, but didn't take enough precautions to prevent knocking her up.

Okay, so you made some mistakes, guy.

But did you have to leave your kid(s) with her to let them exist in those conditions?

I'm in no way letting her off the hook, but c'mon fellas... let's be a little more careful with our genetic material and our offspring, shall we? I pray to God those kids get the help they need. I would be very interesting in knowing the status of the biodads and whether or not they sought custody or visitation, and how the courts ruled if they did.

I'm sure there will be more about this in tomorrow's paper. Or maybe not. The newsroom is shrinking daily.

What Could Have Been

"If you decide not to choose you still have made a choice." – Neil Peart, "Freewill"

I heard Dr. Laura make a good point on her show recently to a caller who kept questioning herself regarding whether or not she missed out on something because she married young.

Dr. Laura put the questions the caller had to rest: Yes, she did miss out on some things. But that is true of any choice. We have to make choices, and when we do, we unavoidably are choosing to miss out on something else. But often, you have also been able to experience some good things you wouldn't have otherwise.

The woman who married young is thinking that she missed on some things she would have liked, perhaps such things as getting to know other men, spending more time with friends, perhaps getting more education or more career advancement, and traveling. As Dr. Laura pointed out, she likely missed out on some bad things, too – maybe getting dumped by guys who mislead her, STDs, unplanned and unwed pregnancies, etc.

Some would try to convince you that you didn't miss out on anything, but I think Dr. Laura has it right. All of us miss out on some things - good and bad - by the choices we make. You can't take back a choice, either, though you can, in some cases, change the direction in which you are going.

This caller said she had a great husband and was happy with him, so it wasn't her expressing regret over having not married as well as she could have.

That’s something I wanted to write about.

One of the cruel truths (to women, anyway) about our society and human nature is that women "lose value" as they get older and men tend to gain value, at least when it comes to dating, sex, marriage, etc. Clearly, women, like men, tend to gain value with experience as employees, friends, parents, grandparents, leaders, etc. But when it comes to marrying, women do face a pressure in their choices that men do not.

Please do not hate me for writing the truth here, ladies. I'm not one of those guys who only finds 19-year-olds attractive. In my rebellious years, long before my wife came into my life, I fell in love (lust?) with a much older woman while still a teenager, and subsequently dated women significantly older than me as well as dating women around my age and few years younger. Why? Well, that’s another blog entry. But in general, established men who are looking for women – whether merely for sex or for marriage – prefer younger, hotter women. That is the way men are wired. We are visual creatures, and the less sagging, gray hair, blemishes, scarring, wrinkling, etc. there is, the better. (I'm talking in attracting someone to begin with – we know these things are natural for our wives as we grow old together). Women know this, too, which is why some of them don't try as hard to keep up their appearance once they get the guy to sign on the dotted line. Practically speaking, there is the issue of fertility and what the kids will look like. So, women do tend to "lose value" in this area as they get older.

In general, the more money, power, or fame a man has, the more women there are who will accept his invitations, advances, and proposals. Since men tend to get more of these as they age, they tend to "gain value" as they get older. Sure, women like a man sporting a full head of hair, a six pack, and the ability to get erect at any time – but most will choose the "good provider" over the stud when it comes to marriage. The nerds who couldn't get a date in high school, if they play their cards right, will have their endless pick of hot young women long before the 20-year reunion.

So, what does all of this mean? A woman can do very well by marrying young. She runs the risk of not being able to rely on her husband as a "good provider" if she waits until she's in her 30s to marry, unless she is willing to marry a man in his 50s or older. Financially successful 30-something or 40-something men can get 20-something women to marry them. For this reason, a wife in her 30s or older who likes her husband or at least finds him tolerable but wants to live a wealthier life is probably not going to be able to find a wealthier man by divorcing her husband. However, women (like men), tend to make better choices with experience. So it becomes a balancing act in terms of when you have enough experience to make the right decisions vs. who you are attracting.

What will I be teaching my daughter? Don't get serious before age 25. But if she wants to marry and have children, she should be looking for a husband before the turns 30, because it may take a while to find him and it will take a while to make sure he's right for her.

Men face their own pressure in deciding to marry that women do not. With divorce, community property, alimony, child support, child custody, domestic violence, and abortion realities being what they are, a man can literally be placing his life in a woman's hands by marrying her. She can legally have someone kill his children in her womb without so much as telling him. She can easily send him to jail. She can leave him and collect some of his paycheck for the rest of her life, even if she was nothing by a hindrance to his career. She can assault him and get away with it. She can keep him from seeing his kids. She can obligate him to raise her lover's children.

If you are someone who wants to get married, keep these realities in mind as motivation to "choose wisely and treat kindly", as Dr. Laura says. If you think you have found your spouse, then you should be able to answer "YES!" to the following question: Is this the best you'll ever be able to do?

Like I said, men who seek to be husbands and fathers understand that we all get older, and that means his wife will get older. And while his ability to provide will likely increase and her youth will slip away, a wife becomes more and more valuable to her husband as she learns more about fulfilling his needs - as his best friend, his comforter, his partner, and his lover - and establishes a history of doing so. True love trumps lust.

Wary of What She Wears

Dear Abby got a letter from a guy about how his steady dresses. TRYING TO LOOSEN UP IN NORTH CAROLINA wrote:

I have been involved with "Barbie" for about six months. She's everything I ever wanted in a mate. We have a similar sense of humor, and our goals and ambitions are almost identical. Our values match, too

Sounds great, although six months is not long enough to be sure about these things.

except for one: My sense of propriety seems to be a stumbling block.

Abby, Barbie wears sheer tops and no bra. She doesn't usually wear any undergarments, either, even when she's in a fairly short skirt.

Hey, I'm an admirer of the female form, but this would be way too much for me.

Barbie says I've got hang-ups, and I don't necessarily disagree. How can I deal with this?

There's a reason she’s dressing like that. Either she is trying to tempt you (unless, of course, you are already fornicating) or she is trying to get lustful attention from other guys. Either way, it is a bad sign. She could be insecure.

Dear Abby responded:

If she cares about you, she will compromise. That's how you "deal with it."

Actually, if she cares about being with him more than she wants to show herself off, she will compromise. Note that she attracted him while dressing like this. It wasn't enough of a problem for him to prevent him from asking her out on date after date.

I don't think people dating each other should "control" each other. He can stop going out with her, and can explain why. It is up to her if she wants to change or not.

Legally, I think women (and men, for that matter) should have significant freedom in how they dress in public. But just because a woman can dress a certain way doesn't mean she should. And while it is up to a man to discipline his thoughts, it is that much harder to do so when a woman's "goodies" are right there in our face.

Ladies, when you are dating, there's nothing wrong with wearing something that flatters your figure (I'm a sucker for tight jeans) – but that doesn't mean actually displaying your flesh so that everyone can see if the carpet matches the drapes (or if there are hardwood floors) or the coloring of your areola.

Later, being married with kids does make it harder to "dress sexy", but you shouldn't give it up entirely, either. Just don't mislead people into thinking you are advertising for a husband when you already have one.

Ripe Melons

Inspired by my own comments in an earlier post, and comments written by someone else on this other blog I regularly read, I'm taking this moment to write about something that makes me happy... something I like... something I enjoy...

BOOBS!

I've offered this disclaimer before and I'm offering it again: I'm talking about sex, what I find to be sexy, turn-ons, etc. If this is a problem for you, skip this entry. I'm a happily married man, so if I get all hot and bothered, I can find a satisfying resolution without engaging in sin. I know not everyone is in the same situation.

On with the show.

Ladies, treating you in a way that makes you feel special often involves a lot of planning, shopping, spending, and talking on the part of your man. Gifts, flowers, cards, sweets, jewelry, spa treatments, dinner at a table service fine dining establishment... stuff like that.

Conversely, you can make your man feel special by simply thrusting your naked breasts into his face.

Am I a boob man? I wouldn't say that. I love every bit of a woman's body – particularly my wife's. But I would be lying if I denied that my wife's ample boobs, hidden as they were in a bra and top, didn't help attract me to her. I also noticed her small waist and bare midriff, her beautiful smile, long hair, etc.

My wife does have breasts on the larger side of the scale.

But women with small breasts can be extremely attractive, too. Men have varying tastes. Yeah, bigger breasts get more attention because... well, something that is there gets more attention than something that isn't.

Some men prefer smaller natural breasts over larger breasts with implants in them. Yet almost all of these men will still like their wife's breasts if they do have implants because they were reconstructed after a cancer battle or some accident – because for husbands, it is more about the woman sporting the breasts, not the flesh itself.

Ladies - if you are a wife, do not hide those beautiful marvels of nature (or, modern medicine) from your hubby. You may not consider them anything special, but he likely does. So what if they don't look like those of an enhanced 19-year-old bikini model, who has never breast fed, in a retouched photo with professional lighting and makeup? Thrust them out proudly – with confidence and playfulness. Cup them. Run your hands over them. Place his hands on them and move his hands over them. Stick a nipple in his mouth.

Let him revel in your splendor.

If you get pleasant physical sensations from any of this (women apparently have different levels of sensitivity in their breasts), let him know how good it feels. If it is just like touching any other part of your body... well, know that he likes it even it you'd feel the same if he was kissing your forearm.

If they have any size to them, they can also be used to stimulate his penis, including to the point of orgasm. The easiest way is pushing them together around his lubricated organ and going from there - varying from you being the passive person or the active mover. Extra points if you can manage to involve your mouth into this maneuver.

I've long appreciated and admired breasts. It probably started when I was breastfed as an infant. I have a vague memory of being breastfed as one of my earliest memories. I will forever be notorious in my family for an incident recorded on audio tape of me describing a drawing I had made of my mother earlier that day in pre-school. "These are her eyes, this is her mouth, these are her boobies..."

"Very observant little boy," my father can be heard noting.

Yes, males of all ages stare at boobs. A lot of us haven't developed the skill of averting our gaze for politeness, purity, or any other good reason, such as avoiding walking into a wall. Of course I notice if a woman has a nice set, but I try to focus on my wife, and her nice set even if she isn't with me at the moment. Heck, I've always been a little shy anyway, so I've never been the type to gawk or leer at another live person (that is, unless we're talking about my wife, or one of the women with whom I was fornicating in my rebellious bachelor years), and I've never seen a stripper or topless dancer perform in person, even rejecting attempts to take me to a "club" on the night of my bachelor party.

I do like the sight of breasts, though.

Boys, like men, are visual creatures. From what I can tell, my pre-pubescent and pubescent quest to find the pleasantly revealing sight of a good pair - such as those in bikini tops, or bras - was not unusual. Finding a depiction of actual nakedness was a rare treat. This involved media such as television, film, and print (no Interwebs back then), artwork, swimming, and beachgoing. (Note that this is how a lot of boys find porn in the home.) This was a matter I tried to hide, or do surreptitiously, certainly with a bit of shame and my conscience weighing on me. I had the idea that I wasn't supposed to see naked breasts or stare at them even if they were somewhat covered, even though this was precisely how so much entertainment or advertising was designed, or how some women intentionally dressed. Ah, so confusing for a growing boy, especially before I knew what masturbation was.

Well, I'm a husband now, and it isn't a sin to enjoy what God gave my wife. Good ol' Solomon even has passages in the Bible encouraging me to enjoy them. Even when we are clothed, I like embracing her from behind and lifting them in my hands, kissing her on her neck, maybe getting a glimpse of her cleavage from over her shoulder.

And wives, it isn't a sin for your husband to enjoy what God or one of his helpers (plastic surgeon) has given you.

So put your body to good, clean, fun use, and don't hide your breasts during lovemaking, or neglect the ways they can be used to enhance lovemaking.

Isn't it great that they can feed your babies and make your husband happy? Wonderful things.

Ringing Up a Problem

Here's another woman upset about getting jewelry. FEELING "USED" IN PENNSYLVANIA is "deeply hurt" - she wrote:

My boyfriend, "Paul," and I have been dating for four years.

That's a bit of a long time for someone who is looking to get married.

He has recently started talking about purchasing an engagement ring for me. Paul is well-off, although very frugal, which is how he accumulated most of his wealth.

Well, it is how he has retained wealth.

Paul has been searching online sites for a used ring. He says he "doesn't want to waste his money on a new engagement ring when he can buy a used one." This from a man who didn't think twice about spending thousands of dollars to buy his son a brand-new car or a brand-new boat for himself.

Hmmm. Doesn't sound so frugal to me. But notice that vehicles are functional items that deteriorate over time – such as with mechanical failures that can weaken their level of safety - in ways that jewelry does not. So, he could have had practical reasons for buying new vehicles.

Am I wrong to feel I'm only worth a used engagement ring?

Feelings are one thing, but you are wrong to think you are only worth any ring, no matter how big or new.

This is the most precious gift he could give me -- a sign of our love and commitment -- and I would cherish it forever.

Really? That's the most precious gift he could give you – the ring, and not what it symbolizes?

When a woman's man wants to buy her a piece of jewelry, I can't think of many instances where she should complain about that. If she were to buy him tickets to the big game, he should not complain if they aren't the best, most expensive seats in the venue.

Dear Abby responded:

There's a difference between frugal and just plain cheap. That Paul would tell you he considers buying you a new engagement ring is a WASTE shows insensitivity to your feelings.

It is a waste if he can get the right ring used.

Would he also prefer that your wedding gown come from a thrift store?

There's nothing wrong with that, per se. Used does not always mean something will be in bad shape.

She knows he is frugal. Is she going to feel this way about gifts, vacation, dinners, etc. throughout their marriage? Maybe they aren't right for each other. If it is really that important to her, she can find a man who will enthusiastically shell out top dollar for a brand new ring.

I had my wife's ring made to order. She gave me very loose guidelines about what she preferred – she did not go shopping with me. She tells me all of the time that she loves it, and she tells me that even after finding the documents (she insisted on organizing my files) showing I had paid about one-third the retail value of the ring, because I bought it wholesale. She is happy I saved money on the ring. But we are talking about a woman who found a beautiful wedding dress for an unheard of low price and was happy to save the money, wore the dress proudly, and told people how inexpensive it was.