The Latest Shark Attack on Dr. Laura Schlessinger

I used to listen to Howard Stern. I've read his books. I've seen his movie. We even have at least one mutual friend. Listening to his show allowed me to listen to other shows, because of the 20-minute marathon commercial breaks. When he left terrestrial radio for satellite, I figured I would keep up on his show by reading recaps on the fan sites, as I wasn't motivated to pay for radio. Turns out the overwhelming majority of his listeners weren't motivated to pay for radio, either. Turns out I wasn't motivated enough to even read the recaps. In my life, just as in the larger pop culture, Stern's relevance has become a faint shadow of what it had been.

In my case, it can probably chalked up to maturing. Nationally, it is not just his move to pay radio, but also TV shows like Jersey Shore and other "reality" shows essentially doing his show on television. Stern's stuff is very funny to adolescent boys, at least the first few times they hear it. When he was a struggling father and long-married husband who made fun of others for getting drunk, and fought with his boss, people could identify with him. But that all changed. I most enjoyed Robin Quivers' news, and I'm a sucker for parody,so I enjoyed those aspects of the show even as I vehemently disagreed with some of the things Stern said or some of his tone.

There is radio for which I'm willing to pay. I started paying so I could get Dr. Laura’s podcasts, just before she announced she was changing the nature of and base for her show by moving to pay radio.

If you haven't heard yet, Howard Stern's prankster fans did a shark attack on Dr. Laura's show yesterday, apparently trashing the second and third hour so horribly that they weren't podcasted (at least not when I downloaded the first hour). They called with bogus calls, made cryptic and not-so cryptic references to Stern's show, and called Dr. Laura Anglo-Saxon words you can't hear on terrestrial radio because the FCC will fine the broadcaster into oblivion.

Stern has loyal, hardcore fans who, living with their parents and collecting checks from the government, have nothing better to do with their time than play toadie for the bully. If they can get their rude verbal assaults rebroadcast on Stern's show as Stern points out what his toadies did to another show, it is the highlight of their year. If Stern doesn't explicity organize and direct these assaults, he certainly encourages them.

There's no winning this sort of thing. Dr. Laura is on the air fewer hours of the day than Stern. Her show is about helping people, not tearing down others. Her listeners are busy working, loving their spouses, and raising their kids. Stern's toadies (a small subset of his listeners) have a lot of free time, stunted emotional development, and a fixation on insults and offensive disruption.

I'm not sure if there is a way to get Stern to stop attacking Dr. Laura on the air, and thus getting the toadies to stop. Has he made a specific demand? I haven't been playing close attention to Stern for many years now, but based on what he used to say and what scant scraps I've read more recently, my guess is that he attacks Dr. Laura because she teaches things like "It's wrong to kill an innocent human being for any reason other than self-defense", her propogating the ideal of saving sex for marriage, and for her past problems with the content of Stern's show and movie, especially now that she has done what he did – moved to satellite to avoid attacks on advertisers. Stern probably feels like she either should have stuck up for him during his battles in the past or shut up about her battles now.

But there is a difference. Stern's show, and related problems, had to do with pushing racy content for titillation. Dr. Laura's show, and related problems, had to do with instilling morals and ethics. If Stern truly can't see the difference, then he has a serious problem.

I'm interested in seeing how Dr. Laura handles this major shark attack. Is there a way to resolve it without a face-to-face broadcasted meeting between Dr. Laura and Howard Stern? Would Dr. Laura agree to such a thing? I wonder what their "bosses" at Sirius XM think about all of this?

Don't Assume Monogamy

ScienceDaily.com reports on a study out of Oregon State University that, in a significant number of couples, there is either a false belief by one partner that there was a monogamy agreement, or amnesia on the part of the other parther regarding that agreement.

A new study of 434 young heterosexual couples ages 18-25 found that, in 40 percent of couples, only one partner says the couple agreed to be sexually exclusive. The other partner said there was no agreement.

And in those 40 percent, was the partner who believed there was a monogamy agreement always the female? We're not told.

Okay, first of all, 434 couples is a small sample.

Second, consider the ages.

I've said many times before that I believe sex is for the marriage, so strictly speaking, the unmarried couples should be "non-ogamous" in terms of having sex. But I also deal in reality. And the reality is, nobody should ever assume they are in a monogamous relationship unless it has been clearly discussed and there is a mutual agreement that it will be monogamous. Even then, people lie. But don't assume monogamy just because you're having sex, or going steady, or using the "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" label, or you're expecting, or shacking up.

Sexually active or not, most people should not be in exclusive relationships at that age. They should be focusing on education and career and they should be dating many people to learn more about themselves and others.

The results are in a forthcoming article published online in the Journal of Sex Research.

That's gotta be good reading.

Even among those who agreed they had an explicit agreement to be monogamous, almost 30 percent had broken the agreement, with at least one partner having had sex outside the relationship.

And here's something to keep in mind- you're not really monogamous if you do threesomes, swinging, or swapping. Or if you have sex with someone else who is a stripper. Or someone else while on vacation, or drunk.

The couples surveyed included both married and non-married couples. Interestingly, couples with children were less likely to have a monogamy agreement in place.

That's because one person is more likely to just assume it goes without saying.

Married couples were no more likely to have an explicit monogamy agreement in place than other couples.

Uhm, what about "forsaking all others"? Married people should demand monogamy. They should also provide monogamy- not "non-ogamy".

Men and women literally hear and think differently, so it is not surprising that one partner in a relationship might have assumptions that the other does not. Some women also have this script for their lives, and as long as the person one of these women has cast as her man doesn't say or do something in front of her that explicitly contradicts that script, she just assumes everything is like she hoped it would be. Monogamy may be part of that script. But guys should not be fooled into believing that just about all women demand monogamy in order to keep providing sex. For many women, the opposite is true. If she suspects a guy is having sex with other women, she tries to win him over by being "better" – being more sexually available and adventurous. She wants a man that she believes other women want. Some of these women are the ones who lose interest once a guy really does commit to them. This is one reason why unmarried guys who are sexually active, when asked by a woman "What are you doing this weekend?", should answer "having sex". This will drive away a woman who is looking for marriage and family, and it will prompt other women to be the person with whom he is having the sex.

The New Book is Out

The Playful Walrus asks, "Where's the Civility For Dr. Laura?"

So much for toning down the rhetoric and refraining from spewing vitriol. Dr. Laura Schlessinger has a new book out, which means she's promoting that book. And that means shrill, shrieking, and demonstrably false attacks on Dr. Laura by the logically-impaired couch potatoes, neglectful "mothers", and feminized guys out there who are upset that she's appearing on their usually Lefty-feminist televisions.

Go read the the whole thing. It is a quite a defense of Dr. Laura. Anyone else catch her on TV? Anyone else catching her new show? I've heard every minute so far. Anyone have the new book?

Still have a lot to say, just not as much time to say it. Stay tuned for more blog posts in the coming days.

Finishing a Sentence

Sometimes, a couple will be together for years, and when they break up, it is supposedly because the guy didn't want to get married. But then not too long after that breakup, the guy will be engaged to someone else.

Why? Well, it could be that when the guy said, "I don't want to get married", he was not finishing the sentence. If he had, it would have been "I don't want to get married... to you." Or, it could be that he doesn't want to get married, but he's willing to "go along" with the idea and even actually get married rather than having that woman move on to someone else. Either way, it isn't exactly an ego booster to the first woman.

I thought about that when I saw this Associated Press story with the headline "Hugh Hefner's Ex Not Happy About His Engagement".

She plays it off as concern for him, though.

Hugh Hefner's ex-girlfriend Holly Madison tells Life & Style magazine she's not OK with his engagement plans.

She says the 84-year-old Playboy magazine founder is "making a hasty decision" by getting engaged to 24-year-old Playmate Crystal Harris.

Madison tells Life & Style she arranged a meeting with the couple after reading on Twitter that Hefner had proposed.

Here comesthe real point to all of this:

The meeting was filmed for her "Holly's World" reality show on the E! cable television channel.

All of this "news" about what Holly thinks is really about getting publicity for the television show. Hey, Madison turned her stint in the harem into an ongoing TV career. She's no dummy, and knows how to get attention. Good for her for making a living.

Madison says she wished the couple the best but told them Harris had better not do Hefner wrong or she'll "kick her butt."

Oh, please. As my mother's uncle used to say when my mother told him that the young women he was dating only wanted him for one thing - he wanted them for one thing, too, so it was a fair trade. He knows what he is doing, and she knows what she is doing. We can scoff and talk about how wrong it is all we want, but in a strange way, I think it could actually be better if they did marry rather than continue together unmarried, especially if they don't make a show of not being monogamous to each other.

The 31-year-old Madison and Hefner dated for six years until their breakup in 2008 because she wanted to get married and he didn't.

Yup. He probably still doesn't want to get married, but he knows what a pre-nup is, he knows what a lawyer is, and he offers her jewelry and a special party to keep her around longer.

This would be the third marriage for Hefner. He divorced another Playmate last year.

That doesn’t really tell the whole story. He was legally married to Kimberly Conrad, but the marriage had really ended many years ago. She and their son (I don't remember if they had other children together) lived on adjacent property. I actually saw the three of them together when the kid was a little kid. They were doing the family thing at a family venue.

Hefner is enjoying what money, fame, and his business has allowed him to enjoy. Call it wrong, call it disgusting, but these women freely choose to do these things, for any number of reasons. Hef, please, please, please do not get her pregnant.

Some Things Are Better Not Said

I'm glad I subscribed to the paid side of Dr. Laura's website. I did so right before she announced she was going to leave terrestrial radio. Thankfully, this subscription has allowed me to hear every hour of her show by downloading the podcasts, which is especially helpful since I don't have satellite radio.

The show has changed a bit since debuting as satellite-based on January 3. I like the new, less restrained tone even more and there's more content – something like 12 more minutes per hour. The format is a little more wide, as in addition to people calling with their moral dilemmas, Dr. Laura will raise a topic on the broadcast or earlier via Facebook or e-mail, and take calls on that topic as well.

As usual, I agree with her on most things, and just about anything that's really important. But again, I'm going to talk about something on which we might have some level of disagreement.

Dr. Laura has repeatedly supported women who have called in who have wanted to have breast augmentation/enhancement surgery after they've had an accident, disease, or season of breastfeeding that has impacted their breasts to the point that... the woman wants a surgical enhacement. The key thing here is that the woman has wanted it.

Contrast that with a call from the first hour this past Friday, the first call of the day. A woman's breasts were signficantly changed through breastfeeding and the change has been a turn-off for her husband. Dr. Laura ripped into the husband (who wasn't on the phone as the wife made the call), and a lot of people might agree. Isn't it terrible that he's turned off by something that resulted from the nourishment of his children and bonding his children to their mother?

Well... it is terrible that he told his wife that he was turned off because of this. That was stupid on his part.

Yeah, in a perfect world, he would not be turned off. But aside from some sort of therapy or ongoing conditioning, men generally can't control what turns them on and turns them off. Perhaps what the husband should have done is kept his mouth shut, made excuses for any dysfunction she noticed, and sought a therapist who could help him. Maybe she'd be upset by a sense that he was not being open and honest with her, but it is better than telling her he's turned off by something about her that she can't change without surgery.

Let's be precise about what we're talking about. He didn't say he didn't want to be with her, or that he no longer loved her, or anything like that. He was foolishly forthcoming about something that changed.

Of course I was attracted to my wife, in part, because of her physical beauty, including her body, including her breasts. I would not have married her without being physically attracted to her. But I did not marry her on that basis alone. I married her knowing that I could and would still love her even if, God forbid, something happened that disfigured her. Breastfeeding changed and reduced her breasts, to be sure. I wish it wasn't so. And while I recognize that breastfeeding was a great thing, that thought does not sexually arouse me. Thankfully, I am not turned off, either, by the change.

Some men report being turned off, or fear they will be turned off, by pregnancy or by watching their child emerge from their wife's vagina. I did not find either a turn off. I thought pregnancy made my wife even more beautiful (and her breasts even better, too). Watching my children emerge from her vagina, I was in awe, and felt this intense bonding to my wife. But that's me. It may be something some men don't want to see. And my wife didn't get fat when pregnant. She got... pregnant.

Husbands and wives, over the course of a decades-long marriage, are likely going to be turned off by certain things that happen to their spouses that the spouse may not be able to do anything about, at least without taking extraordinary measures. The important thing is working through that and being there, in every right way, for each other. (Sometimes, that involves not saying something.) The only way to avoid getting older is to die. I;d rather have my wife with me. I'd rather have my kids than to have my wife's body the way it was before carrying, birthing, and feeding them. I'd rather have money for other purposes than spending it on breast surgery. And I'd rather encourage her to give me access to her breasts than say anything that would make her less likely to do so!

Ladies, gentlemen.... your experiences and thoughts?

A Very Desperate OC Housewife

I've been keeping too busy to blog a lot lately. But there has been so much to write about. Sean Emery has the Orange County Register story:

A 36-year-old Lake Forest woman was arrested Friday on suspicion of having sex with a 13-year-old boy who authorities say she met in Maryland after the two cultivated an online relationship.

There are plenty of 13-year-olds in Orange County. I wonder if she has any local victims?

Rachel Ann Hicks first befriended the boy while playing X-Box Live online in September, and the two began trading phone calls, texts and e-mails, including sexually explicit images and movies, Orange County Sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino said.

Now, to be sure, there are some 13-year-old boys who would think this was the greatest thing that could ever happen to them. That still doesn't make it right. There's no way he could have legitimately consented to this, and even if he thoroughly enjoyed the experience, it has no doubt messed with his mind, at the least. It could have downright traumatized him. Plus, she could have given him an infection.

But the story gets "better"...

While visiting family members in Florida over the Thanksgiving holiday, Hicks, a married mother of three, drove to the boy's home in Maryland and "engaged in sexual activity" with him, Amormino said.

I wonder how she explained to her family where she was going? She's a married mother of three. Where did she find the time to do all of this game-playing and grooming of victims? And where were this boy's parents? Did he use a cover story about being with a friend?

She was taken into custody at her Lake Forest home Friday afternoon, and is being held without bail on suspicion of rape, child molestation and sexual solicitation of a minor, Amormino said.

Hicks admitted to having a relationship with at least one other underage boy in California, Amormino said, and authorities are searching for additional victims.

"She flew to Florida and drove to Maryland, so apparently there are no boundaries," Amormino said.

Yeah, {if guilty) she's pretty desperate.

I know there is at least one judge out there who would assign a requirement to pay child support to the rape victim, if a baby was produced from this. I also wonder if the great state of California will give her half of the marital assets, and alimony, should her marriage end? I'm assuming child custody will go to her husband (who could also be required to pay child support if she births a child from this). Will she have to pay child support to her hubby? Will she get the same amount of prison time a man would if the sexes were reversed?

Are You Right For Each Other?

You know the story. Two people are searching for love, and one day... BAM... it hits them like a lightning bolt. They find each other; she finds... the one. He finds the woman of his dreams. They have a beautiful, perfect wedding and they live happily ever after in wedded bliss. Bringing up certain topics during dating or the engagement will ruin this scenario. Financial planning, pre-nups, and frank talks about reality are so unromantic, right? Who needs them when you're in looooooooove?

Well, a generally happy lifelong marriage is possible, if two people are prepared to be spouses and they are right for each other. But how do they know they are? Feelings are great, but feelings aren’t always based on reality. God (or, as some of my readers believe, atoms interacting in strictly natural, normal processes over billions of years) has given us minds and the ability to discern. We should use our discernment to make wise choices.

There’s a British family law firm that is promoting a compatibility quiz for couples planning a life together. It’s a good idea. Check out this Reuters story by Paul Casciato.

Partner Ruth Bross compared taking the quiz to the kind of considerations and research an employer might make before hiring someone.

People put far more research and rational evaluation into their job seeking or even car buying. But I consider choosing a spouse to be the third most important decision a person can make. (The second is whether or not to raise children, and I think if one decides to do that, it necessitates finding the right, willing spouse. The most important decision a person can make is to either become a follower of Christ or reject Christ, but that is my religious bent.)

"No one who is truly committed to a relationship will ever mind making the full and frank disclosure that is asked of them; if they do, you might like to ask yourself why," she said in an emailed statement containing the quiz.

Definitely. Don't fall for the "Don’t you trust me?" line, or "Why do you care so much about money?" The fact is, if the other person trusts you, isn't using you for your money, and is a secure person, they should have no problem with a process like this.

Check out all of the particulars after the jump.

Another Six Months?

These women who are having sex without commitment who then want commitment from the guy who is used to having casual sex with them keep writing in to the advice columns, oblivious to reality.

"Antsy Regarding my Future" wrote in to Dear Margo:

I am 25 years old, and my boyfriend is 37.

Good for him.

We’ve been dating for a year and a half.

That's good.

I want to move in with him so we can take the relationship to the next level, but I think he is afraid of commitment.

Shacking up is a bad idea all around. But I love the "afraid of commitment" allegation. The question is, to what would he be committing? Shacking up is not a commitment. But when the "afraid of commitment" charge is applied to marriage, then legally (and as such, the only commitment that can be enforced by the authorities), the commitment in question is this:

1. He, being the person who earns more, will be obligated to pay you money should he leave or you leave, regardless of the reason. In some places, he will be required to pay you money for life if you leave him after just ten years.

2. Half of everything acquired during the marriage will be yours, even if you never have kids but quit your job, hinder his career, and don't lift a finger around the house.

3. He will assume financial responsibility for any child born to you during the marriage, even if you made that child with the person for whom you leave him.

Call that "afraid of commitment" if you want, but it seems strange to present someone with a legal agreement that puts them at considerable risk with no guaranteed upside, especially when that person is getting just about everything they want already, and then if they are hestitant to sign that agreement, call them "afraid of commitment".

He says he wants marriage and kids one day, but he's already 37 and doesn't seem to be making any moves in those directions.

This wouldn’t be a problem if you were dating other people, too, which you should be doing.

He wants me to wait six more months and then revisit the topic.

I bet he doesn't want you to wait six more months before having sex again, and I bet you won't.

I love him and want to be with him, but six months is a long time to wait when there isn’t even a guarantee that he would be willing to let me move in then.

Your choice is this: 1) Keep enjoying his company as he's been offering it; or 2) Stop seeing him. Take your pick.

Also, I am not from this state and would not stay here if it weren’t for him.

So you've agreed to live somewhere you don't want to live just for someone you are dating? You know, part of the condition of picking my wife was whether or not she would agree to live in the basic geographic area I wanted to live. There could have been great women in other states and staying in other states, but they couldn't be my wife if we lived in different states. If you really don't want to be there, go where you want to be and find someone who is there or willing to move there.

What should I do?

Keep wishing until your eggs are all gone. That's a good idea, right?

Dear Margo responded:

What is the hurry, my dear?

Hurry? She's old enough and they've been dating long enough for a proposal. And if they're going to have kids, they'd better get started soon. He's getting kind of old to start.

The ideal situation (for you) would be for him to be the one wishing to hurry things up.

Yeah, but that's not the reality of the situation. It would be ideal if he had a six-pack and billion of dollars, too.

His reluctance may be uncertainty, a desire to live alone or some foreknowledge that you are not "the one."

It could also be that whether he just wants sex, or whether he really does want marriage and kids, shacking up is detrimental to both goals.

He Has Her Right Where He Wants Her

Ain't liberation great? LOVES MY NEIGHBOR wrote in to Dear Abby:

My neighbor "Marlon" and I have been "friends with benefits" for almost two years. We hang out every day and our kids are friends. We talk about everything. Really, we are best friends. We have attempted to hide our affair from our children (8 years old and under) and from our exes. Many of our friends know, but it is never discussed.

Chances are, your kids have heard or have figured it out.

My problem is, Marlon recently mentioned that he wants to find a "good woman." It upset me because I'm in love with him.

Whose fault is that? Why would he marry you, since he already gets what he wants from you?

At the same time, he makes no effort to meet anyone.

That you know about. That’s his business. But you’re taking it as a sign of hope. He may even be telling you that because it keeps you where he wants you.

He is always with me -- when you'd think he'd be out trying to meet women.

Guys can meet women 24/7 these days. Does he have a job? He could be having sex there.

Although we agreed to be "FWBs," I don't want to be Marlon's security blanket.

Your choices are to 1) Keep things as they are (although he may change things; 2) Drop him from your life; 3) Drop the benefits and see if he still wants to be "friends". Most likely, he won’t.

How do I let him know I want more?

You're not going to get it. But you can come right out and tell him that you want more. He will either 1) Tell you whatever he needs to in order to keep the "benefits" going, or 2) Drop you, fearing you'll try to get pregnant or are becoming TMW (too much work). He's not going to say, "Okay, since that is what you want, I will agree to it." He no doubt enjoys sex with you, but you do not have the one and only magic vagina.

It comes down to this, since morality doesn't seem to be a concern to you. Do you prefer things as they are now, or would you rather not have the "benefits" and quite possibly the "friendship"? Those are the real choices under your control, as long as he is willing to keep the current arrangement. If he isn't, then you won't have a choice.

I know this from personal experience. In my wayward days, women with whom I had friendships would make themselves available to me for sex and I would fornicate with them with no intention of it going beyond what was essentially a FWB situation. I never lied to them or made false promises. I didn't need to. Many women aren't down with that, but enough are. And I was not going to ever let the relationship become more serious than that, because I knew I couldn't marry those women and have a good, lasting marriage - some of that time I thought I might want to remain unmarried anyway - and so there was no point to increasing the social commitment. It wasn't a  matter of "I can't marry them because they're willing to have casual sex" - it was the age differences or other realities that precluded marriage. But they were willing to have sex, and so was I.

Relationships can certainly go from more commitment to less, such as when people break up but still hook up from time to time, but other than the initial "uphill" arc (dates, steady, couple, engagement, marriage) it can almost never go from something like a booty call or FWB to a sustained girlfriend/boyfriend or marital situation. Permit me a crude, crass analogy. If you're getting access to a recreational facility for $40 to $0 a session for months or years, and then suddenly the cost skyrockets to half of your earnings, are you going to pay that higher charge, or are you going to go to another recreational facility that is charging $40 or less? But if you were paying half of your salary for daily access, and that ends... but every once in a while you are invited back for a night at $40 or less, you might take that offer.

Dear Abby responded:

Revisit the subject with Marlon and ask him how many "good women" he thinks he can handle, because he already has one.

Doesn't that depend entirely on someone's definition of good? My guess is Marlon's definition is quite different than Dear Abby's. I would also say Marlon isn't beinga good man, just like I wasn't being a good man.

It couldn't hurt to mention that you are in love with him and have taken your relationship seriously.

Yes, it could, if she likes his company. If he wanted it to be more, he would tell her.

If one woman isn't enough for him, you will have to start looking for a good man -- one who won't monopolize your time and take you for granted.

BINGO!

Please understand that if Marlon is serious about looking elsewhere for someone to settle down with, you cannot invest any more time or emotion in him.

Maybe she shouldn’t anyway.

I would tell Marlon if all he wants is sex, he shouldn't be having sex with a mother of minor children. Also, I would tell him not to take away time he should be spending with his kids, who have a broken home already, and risk making half-siblings they'll have to deal with. I would say the same thing to the letter-writer about her seeing men.

It's Looking Like a Better Year

For most of the weekend, it looked like the new year was going to start off on a dismal note. For quite a while, the sexual frequency was down to once a week. Several weeks back, I started getting what I would call "mercy oral" – very mechanical, very "going through the motions" – once during the week as well. Hey, that's better than nothing, but I really enjoy my wife's body and seeing, touching, and tasting her, and especially pleasing her, and I wasn't getting to do that during the week.

Christmas weekend, because of everything my wife wanted to get done, I didn't even get our usual weekend session. If it was anything, it was the mercy oral, like during the week.

This definitely had an impact on my mood. I get irritable.

I told my wife this weekend that it had been too long since I'd seen her naked, too long since I'd tasted her. Unfortunately, she was menstruating. I'm still willing to do what I can for her, but she is generally against doing anything down there while menstruating. So, we had skipped the week before and then there was this.

New Year's Eve was a non-event. We went over to the in-laws' to exchange Christmas gifts (because we hadn't seen them since before Christmas) and have a meal. The brother and sister who had fought with them weren't there, and no mention was made of Christmas Eve. But we left to return home long before midnight, as the get-together was never meant as a NYE get-together.

NYE used to be a big deal in my life. I can remember it being a huge deal going as far back as I can remember. There were a couple of years I was asleep at midnight because I had to show up at a job at 4, 5, or 6am, but otherwise it was a big deal. I know we celebrated big time when my wife was pregnant with our first child, because we knew our life was going to be different after the birth. It seems like the last few years, though, it hasn't been an event for us. I would have planned something had I realized we were not going to be at the in-laws'.

So, having written all of that, why is it looking like a better year?

Last night, as I was turning in for the night, my wife joined me. I knew something was up, because she had already given me the mercy oral the night before. Turns out that one of her New Year's resolutions was to send me off to sleep with, as she put it, a smile on my face every night. Yes, it was another night of mercy oral, but that is certainly better than nothing. I can't remember the last time we had sexual contact two nights in a row. It was probably the last time we were trying to make a baby. I expect that sometime within the next couple of days, I will regain access to her body.

This is one resolution I hope she keeps! I will do my best to help her by initiating as often as possible. If this resolution is kept, it can have a huge impact on our marriage. Who knows, maybe she will let me take her to climax more than once every week or two?

Dear Abby Defends Attention Whores

DOIN' WHAT COMES NATURALLY wrote in to Dear Abby:

When a man meets a woman wearing a low-cut dress or blouse, is it rude to momentarily glance down (not stare) at her cleavage?

It isn't rude to her. That is exactly why she wore it - to get attention. Now, there may have been one or two people in particular whose attention she was trying to get, and as such, she may be uncomfortable with you taking a look. But tough toenails for her. She doesn't get to pick and choose if she goes out in public like that.

It may be rude to your wife, depending on how obvious you are about it.

Most men find this a natural, unavoidable impulse.

True. This is the way our biology is wired.

Dear Abby gets gender partisan:

It may be a "natural, unavoidable impulse," but gentlemen have learned to control their impulses.

And ladies know exactly how they are dressing.

I'm surprised you haven't heard the phrase, "My eyes are up here."

I would suggest completely ignoring any woman who behaves this way. She is an attention whore, and wants attention so that she can then insult or hurt others. Ignoring women like this drives them even crazier than they already are, but you should do it for your own protection.

What other possible reason, other than to draw attention to her breasts, would a woman display her cleavage to strangers in public? Women, if you're going to dress this way, the appropriate response when you notice a man noticing that you've dressed this way is to smile.

I had a girlfriend who was sporting DDs (beautiful... just glorious marvels of nature), and she wasn't overweight in the slightest... she had the perfect body as far as I was concerned, but like most very attractive women, she didn't see herself that way. She was a teacher, teaching middle schoolers at first. She dressed very conservatively, and yet heard from some of the girls that they thought she was purposely showing off. Nothing could have been further from the truth. That is not what is going on this letter to Dear Abby. Anyway, my girlfriend asked me about calling up boys to the front of the room to do work on the board, and it there was a problem with that. I told her at that age, boys are "at full attention" quite often, even if there is no present visual stimulation. But with her there, it must have been going on constantly. She took my advice... best not to have the students get out of their seats.