I Don't Like It When My Wife Makes That Promise

This is one of those times when I feel like some ungrateful murmurer, because I've been blessed so much but I'm going to grip anyway.


Some marriage-minded counselors and advice dispensers tell wives to tease their husbands, indicating what she's going to do later when they're alone, in private. This is supposed to be a turn on, and supposed to get the man to hurry home from where he is like a trained seal.

For me, it is a turn off. Why? More often than not... probably nine times out of ten, when my wife promises me sex at a specified later time (later that same day, or the next day), often while rejecting me at the moment, it doesn't end up happening. Something gets in the way, such as getting to the point in the day when I'm facing six hours of sleep or less, and since I'm already tired, she defers, claiming it to be for my own good. Or, believe or not, it is because she wants me to shave right before, and she doesn't want me to shave at that moment because she wants my shave to be closer for whatever will follow later (work or personal). Or because it is that time of the month. Or because she isn't feeling well. Or because, sleep and sex deprived, I'm grouchy and that turns her off.

The promise of getting it later is not done in a flirty way. My wife gave up flirting a long time ago, claiming she doesn't know how. It's more like scheduling a meeting.

So, her use of that tactic is a diversion rather than priming the pump.

Now I'm going to get into some details of what happened between us the other night in bed, so if you don't want to read that, you are warned. It isn't too graphic.

Why Some Husbands Start Hanging Out in Sports Bars

Overall, things really aren't bad in my life, and things are actually good for the most part in my marriage. At least, that's my perception. Maybe I'm delusional. Consider...

In a previous posting, I mentioned how I committed my wife. They didn't see a reason to keep her past the 72-hour hold, so out she came. She even joked about the experience. I couldn't laugh about it.

We discussed what needed to change about our lives to avoid getting to this point again.

And then I realized I had made a tactical error by not being the one to be hospitalized first. All of the changes we discussed are going to make things easier for her, but many of them are going to make things more difficult for me. As it was, before all of this happened, my father had expressed concern that I was going to wind up in an emergency room, as he did right before my mother gave birth to their third child.

We've put some of the changes into practice. Others we haven't. For example, we're still in the process of finding a marriage counselor (she wasn't happy with the one we went to last year). I'm not really sure what a marriage counselor can do.

The marriage counselor can't make my wife's physical condition, which I was mislead about, get better.

The marriage counselor can't find more time. In fact, the counseling is going to mean out time will be even more taxed.

Perhaps we're going to pick the kind of marriage counselor who is going to tell me to take on even more of a load? What am I going to do? Explicity say in front of my wife and the counselor that I've been a victim of fraud, and there's nothing I can do about it now because I don't want my kids to have a broken home, and after my kids are grown, the laws & courts would ---- me over too much for me to want to initiate divorce, seeing as how I will have been the sole income earner and we will be long past the magical ten-year mark?

The other day, my wife was looking for a home video and she was struck by how nice her breasts used to be. Actually, they've never been spectacular, but I was fine with that. Breastfeeding and a lot of pumping and starving herself (not while pregnant or breastfeeding, thankfully) took a mighty toll on her breasts. So now, or the first time, she's talking about getting implants/enchancement surgery sometime in the vague future. Geez. Look, I'm the kind of guy who still wears glasses because I'm too cheap to pay for laser eye surgery. I pointed that out to her. If I haven't spent the money on that, why would I want to spend the money on fake boobs? I also told her I was fine with the way she is. Really, what's been my alternative? Tell her she needs to have her breasts done and thereby further reduce the frequency of my access to her body? I also asked her who she is trying to attract. She already has me. She insists it is for her own image. I cited what Dr. Laura says... it is OK if it is to "fix something that was broken", not to turn perfectly fine B or C cups into something larger.

The rest of this is about marital sex, if you don't want to read, don't click through.

And How Was YOUR Thanksgiving?

You may or may not recall this blog entry from a little over a month ago.

To make a long story short, I later found out she didn't much recall that weekend. After fighting with me and insisting I get therapy "or else," a little pill-popping fixed her right up. Or rather, it seemed to.

That terrible time was a giant red flag that should have brought life to a halt so that everything could get sorted out.

I don't have the energy to go into a long tale right now, but over the long holiday weekend, my wife tried to kill herself - or at least was desperately trying to get some attention/help. Based on some of her other actions during the crisis, I can't quite buy the "it was just for attention" thing, and yet if she had wanted to kill herself earlier in the week, she could have without being stopped.

I managed to drive her to the hospital myself and get her committed. At first, she blew up my phone with angry text after angry text about what a horrible, hateful person I am and what a terrible wife and mother's she's been, and how our marriage is over and how I picked the wrong woman to marry. Every 50th text or so would be something like "Can't you see I need you most at a time like this?" Mind you, this was both while I was in the room and when I was home gathering some of her stuff. But when I'd try to hug her or hold her hand, she'd push me away.

After a day of being there, she was getting better, and the next day she was like the woman I fell in love with and married. Or maybe she just knew that all she had to do was refrain from doing anything in front of the staff and then they'd have to let her out.

Where does this story wind up? Well, that will have to come later. As will something my in-laws told me that they really should have told me a lot earlier. Like, before I married into their family and made babies. But one thing's for sure... it was a Thanksgiving holiday I'll never forget.

Yes, I'm Still Alive

There is so much I could have blogged since my last posting, whether from stuff pulled from online sources or depressing you with accounts of my personal life. I'm not giving up on this blog. I still have much to say.

Things are rather bad at the moment in my marriage. While I admit, and have admitted to my wife my bad actions, she is focusing on mine and ignoring hers. I have held my tongue about so much and tried to be a good husband and father during this dark time, but I don't think she has held back at all. She has been cruel, disrespectful, and ungrateful and has stopped bothering to be a wife or mother. Clearly she's depressed, but she's not handling it. I have no idea how many pills she popping for how many different symptoms at this point, but I have reason to believe she just decided to resume or up her dosage of antidepressant. Don't know if that will help. Based on the medications she has herself on alone, I don't expect her to live a long life. Add in some of her behavior (letting herself lose more and more weight, for example... she's starting to look like a concentration camp prisoner on the History Channel) which will also kill her young, and it is a double whammy.

Geez, there is so much I would go back and tell myself during the time I making plans to marry her...

...about how many medications and treatments she was on.
...about how we would not be able to rely on her family.
...about how she would never, ever get over the fact that I was not a virgin.
...about how her being a virgin has less to do with virtue than it does with libido (see "medications").
...about how her idea of being a stay-at-home-mom was going to be too literal too much of the time.
...about how I will never be allowed to screw up without her harping on it and lecturing me for hours when I should be getting sleep, insisting I get therapy, and equating my behavior with her mother's alcoholism.
...about how sacrificing my savings, professional dreams, personal freedom, social time, hobbies, etc. would be met not with thanks and ongoing appreciation but with contempt and a demand I sacrifice more.

In other words, I would have told myself not to get married. When a marriage-and-family minded, churchgoing, somewhat-conservative Christian can't, in good conscience, endorse marriage, then we're a doomed culture.

Oh, I know... it has to be with the right person. The problem is, she's the "rightest" person by far. I doubt there was anyone else out there more right for me as a wife, and while I do have my faults, I'm not difficult to live with or high-maintenance. She has so many good qualities. If it doesn't work between us, it can't work for all that many people.

She's now threatening to take the kids and leave me. You'd laugh if you found out what tipped off this latest round. I've apologized, I've suggested ways I can prevent it from happening again, and after hours of her harping, I have agreed that I will go to counseling for me (not couples, as we did for something like three sessions before she realized we didn't have the problem she thought we did.) Her reactions have less to do with me than they to do with her brain chemistry, apparently, and whatever she's carrying over from her childhood. I have no idea how ME going a counselor is going to help. It is appearing to me like she married me under false pretenses, but I'm not going to leave her, at least not as long as the kids are minors. We have a long way to go. So what... I'm going to go to a counselor and tell him that my wife is cruel to me, married me under false pretenses, and that I'm not going to leave her... then what? I refuse to be medicated for reacting normally to this. Actually, I'm not going to tell him the false pretenses part if there is any chance that will ever be passed along to her, even if only as him getting her in there with me and insisting I tell her that. I just won't do it. I know she can't take back the things she's said to me... I will never forget them. Being a man, however, I can still do my "marital duty" should this latest crap smooth over... there's no way she'll be able to do the same if I speak all of my mind, and I really don't want to further degrade the conditions my kids are living in.

Speaking of that, I suppose I could be using this time to clean up the mess that his place has become in the last several days. Or, maybe I could get married and my wife could take care of the home while I earn income? Oh, right, supposedly I already did that.


Hmmm. I had only planned to come here and write a short note, but I've unloaded a little, haven't I?

Men Want Sex More Than Women

That men want sex more than women is a demonstrable and undeniable fact of life.

I'm talking about men as a group and women as a group. That has to be stated, because whenever anyone says that men want sex more than women, there'll usually be someone who says, "Nuh-uh! I want it more than my husband!" Yes, there are some women who want sex more than some men, but overall, men as a group want sex more than women as a group.

There are some people who deny this to be the case. Most of these people have come to cling to this false belief have done so after years and years of being brainwashed in graduate programs, or believing someone who has.

But facts are stubborn things.

The fact is, the overwhelming majority of customers for one of the world's oldest professions are men. Even most customers for male prositutes are other men.

Formal or informal polygamy is much more common than polyandry, and I suspect the fact I'm writing about has something to do with that in addition to the realities of social/political/religious inequalities between the sexes favoring men, the importance of a man believing his wife's child is biological offspring, or the fact that one man with three women can easily poduce three children in nine month's time but one woman with three men is much more likely to produce only one child in the same amount of time.

Worldly women know that they can have have sex any day they want to with no money or effort - not necessarily with a great partner, but with any number of grown men. But even the most skilled male seducer or pick-up artist knows he has to make certain efforts, follow cerstain steps, or spend some amount of money to have a good chance of having sex on any given day.

Guys, for the most part, are still expected to do the pursuing, whatever form that may take. It could be buying a drink, and it could be proposing marriage. One reason why is supply & demand. Men "demand" sex more than women supply sex... because men want sex more than women.

Dr. Drew Pinsky, no misogynist or conservative idealogue, notes that unlike with male homosexual couples, sex often (not always) fades away and ceases for long-term female homosexual couples.

You can argue that other factors come into play... morals, that sex costs women more when it comes to physical risks and emotional results... or something else. But that doesn't change the fact that, whatever those factors are, it all cashes out as men wanting sex more than women.

Why men want sex more than women and the implications of this fact for imporant and not-so-important matters of life is something I can write about later.

This is Exactly Why I Didn't Want This

I haven't had time to blog, in no small part because my wife has undergone a couple of surgeries and I'm helping her recover from them, because I love her and because it is my obligation as a spouse.

I beg your forgiveness if I sound like a jerk and unromatic as I vent here. I refuse to vent to her because I don't want to do anything that I know will hurt her feelings.

It’s Simple

Like most men, it really doesn't take much to keep me happy and satisfied. As long as my stomach is full, my testicles are empty, I have some time to myself, I have some guy time, I get to church fairly regularly, I can hug and kiss my wife and kids, I'm not being nagged, and I am being respected… life is good.

I don't need the latest electronics, motor vehicles, or expensive clothes.

I don't need season tickets for sporting events.

I don't need to travel. I don't need expensive food or food that is complicated to prepare. I can even buy and make my food myself. I don’t need to party. I don't need to use tobacco or to smoke anything. I don't need booze or gambling. There's no television show I just have to watch.

I do not get much guy time these days, and haven't for a long time. That's a problem. That may change soon. I hope it does.

Crime is Down Which Should Be Surprising, Given That..

Report after report indicates that crime, especially violent crime, is down in recent years. The economy is terrible, and yet crime is down. There goes the common Leftist idea that that poverty causes crime (it is more likely that crime increases poverty, actually). Crime was also low during the Great Depression.

But some common ideas frequently promoted by social conservatives (and I can be considered a social conservative on most issues) also have to be questioned:

We are told that:

1. Unmarried men are more prone to violent crime because marriage tames men.

and

2. Viewing "adult" material makes men more disrespectful and violent towards women (at least, that's what some ugly stupid b---- told me... kidding... just kidding) and increases crime.

And yet...

A. We have more unmarried men than ever before. That is because of and increase in:  1) divorce, 2) shacking up, 3) men who never marry, 4) and the age at which men first marry.

B. Free/almost-free easily-accessed adult material of all sorts is ubiquitous and sources that are happy about that and dismayed by that both agree more and more people are viewing it.

C. Crime rates are down significantly.

Can anyone explain how all three of these things can be simultaneously true? Are we really to believe that crime rates would be down even more if A and B were not true... if all of the adult material went away and 21-year-old guys who aren't even Mormons or Baptists were getting married and staying married? And how can that be proven?

It is possible, even likely, that correlations have been blamed when other correlations are really the issue? For example, maybe being unmarried doesn't make a man more likely to commit violent crime - maybe committing violent crime makes a man less likely to attract and keep a wife? Of course, there are plenty of married men who commit violent crime and plenty of women who stick with violent men.

I have heard that more adult material actually correlates to a decrease in rape, which would help explain a drop in the violent crime rate.

Are the crime rates all cooked?

Can it all be attributed to "three strikes" getting the most active and violent criminals off the streets?

I'm beginning to suspect Sociology is nothing but a bunch of snake oil and that nobody really knows anything, and that any study dealing with sociological issues can be interpreted any conflicting way.  As Dennis Prager (a social conservative who does not buy the "smut causes crime" line) says, either studies confirm common sense or they are wrong.

What say you???

Dealing With a Bratty Wife

Anyone have any advice of how to deal with a bratty (or bitchy, or whatever you want to call it) wife? It isn't so much that she's being a brat to me (she is, somewhat). It is that she's been bratty towards others, needlessly antagonizing them when they don't do what she wants, when she wants, how she wants. Example... she wanted her brother to babysit. He declined. She started ripping into him about what a loser she thinks he is, point out that she went to college, graduated, got her career going, and doesn't abuse alcohol or pot or illegal drugs (she just loads up on coffee, candy/sugar, and has multiple prescription pills she pops), while he is unemployed, has no college education, and has abused substances... but we still trust him to watch our kids for short amounts of time.

I gently asked if her treatment of her brother was going to make it more or less likely he will want to babysit for us in the future.

I'd like to apologize to her brother and others she's been acting this way towards lately, but I have a strong belief in marital unity and not going behind your spouse's back, and all of that. Besides, she should be the one apologizing, right? Do I encourage her to do so?

My wife has been especially stressed out because of a series of things, but currently it is about an impending surgery. But... dealing with stressful things is part of life and no excuse to antagonize people.

Any tips or suggestions about what to say/do towards her or the people she's antagonized?

Please don't say sex. I can't sleep with her brother. But seriously, sex doesn't relax her or put her in a better mood. It does relax me and put me in a better mood, though. And yes, I do realize I could have avoided dealing with a bratty wife by marrying someone else or not marrying at all. But here we are.

If I Was Abdul Arian's Family, I'd Be Ashamed

This is back in the news, so I'm bumping it up...

I'm so sick of the families of people CAUGHT ON CAMERA apparently committing crimes subsequently suing TAXPAYERS (via suing local government) after their after family member is shot and killed by cops.

I don't think there should be any right to be protected from death while you are committing a crime.

Have some semblance of shame and rebuff the ambulance chasers when they come calling. I know you want to blame everyone else and get a payout, but the blame appears to fall squarely on your departed loved one, and maybe a little with YOU. That may sound harsh, but so is endangering ME and then suing ME. If anything, YOU should be charged for the cost of the whole pursuit.

This guy, if authorities are to be believed, called 9-1-1 while he was being followed by the police and driving erratically, and told the dispatcher he HAD A GUN, and now his family is suing after he does all of that and acts like he is going to shoot officer, and the police defended themselves and innocent bystanders.

Warning... although the camera is far away, you see the guy's last moments of life...



The family has filed a claim for something like $120,000,000.00. Really? Have they no shame???

Everything Changes

One of the reasons to have ceremonies is to mark that something is changing. The wedding ceremony is no exception. Getting married changes everything.

Don't misunderstand.

I'm not saying that getting married will make someone mature or adopt better behaviors.

Getting married, if nothing else, changes your legal and financial status. Usually, it changes your social status. People like me also think entering into holy matrimony is a spiritual change.

I suspect that with some guys, especially those shacking up, the thinking is that getting married won't really change anything, except that there will be an expectation of sexual exclusivity, which presumably had been in place already.

By law, power shifts upon marriage, especially if a groom is earning more than his bride (as most do) and cares about his hard-earned money. Because of that shift in power, along with other aspects, it is quite often the case that everything will change.

The guy who expects that life will continue much as it did before is likely in for a rude awakening.

McCarthyism: Don't Date Single Moms

She was hot in Playboy, I have to give her that. But she a woman with a minor kid, and commentators as diverse as Tom Leykis and Dr. Laura Schlessinger agree that dating a woman with a minor child is a bad idea. McCarthy has provided a good example why. Suzy Byrne reports:


"It's a trap!" A booby trap!

(Christopher Polk/Getty Images for NBCUniversal)

Jim Carrey has fired back at Jenny McCarthy, who said on "The Howard Stern Show" Monday that her ex-boyfriend basically turned his back on her autistic 10-year-old son Evan after their five-year relationship came to an end in 2010.

Carrey did not adopt the child, correct? Granted, he did make the mistake of dating a woman with a minor child and thus bonding with the child, but the child has a father.

"I will always do what I believe is in the best interest of Evan's well being," the actor said in a statement. "It's unfortunate that Evan's privacy is not being considered. I love Evan very much and will miss him always."

That was so good I suspect it was written by a publicist. Give that person a raise.

McCarthy, 39, revealed that Carrey, 50, chooses to no longer see Evan and it's been very difficult for her son to not have the "Dumb and Dumber" star in his life.


Some of the comments after the article are right-on. I realize it is the nature of Stern's show to get people to talk trash about their exes and say things about their personal life that they shouldn't, but McCarthy has a habit of using her son in her attention whoring. Some celebrities successfully protect their children - she uses her child for publicity and to strike out at an ex-lover. Carrey shouldn't have gotten involved with her in the first place, but she also made a mistake in having her son bond with her boyfriend. Most romantic relationships don't last, and the odds are even more bleak when the two adults who have chaotic pasts and big egos, and are in different stages of their lives. She should have known she was setting her son up for heartbreak. (She's dating an athlete now... the cycle repeats.)

Finally, I have to wonder how many medical professionals have been professionally hurt, and how many children have gotten severely ill because of her hyping of BS information about vaccines? She's one celeb who should be... singled out.

I'm Alive, Just Busy

Much to write. Little time. Life continues to be good in general. Talk with you soon. Thanks for reading.

The Church of Dear Abby?

SOMEWHERE IN THE U.S.A. wrote into Dear Abby:

My son came out of the closet last year.

I love him dearly and we're a close family. His brothers and sisters also accept and love him.

My husband and I are now struggling because we're not sure how God really views gays and lesbians.

To listen to some religious people, my son will go to hell.

I can't believe that God would create a person to be this way, then turn His back on him.

I tried reading the Bible, but the wording was hard to understand.

I don't want to talk to my pastor about it because, even though I have accepted my son for who he is, I still have trouble talking to people about it because I'm not sure how they'll react. Do you believe a gay person will go to heaven?

According to the Bible, sex is for marriage, and marriage unites a man and woman. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. There are many other sins. We all sin. We've all fallen short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death. Jesus Christ provides reconciliation, dying for our sins in our place, exxchanging our sin for His righteousness so that followers of Christ have enternal fellowship with a holy God. Ultimately, it isn't about someone's feelings or whether or not they engage in homosexual behavior. Is Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior? Have they repented so that they say His will is right, even when it conflicts with their own feelings and desires?

Dear Abby responded:

I believe that entrance to heaven is based upon a person's character, not his or her sexual orientation.

Today, because of modern scientific studies, we know more about homosexuality than was known when the Bible was written, and that sexual orientation is not a "choice."

The bottom line is to be loving and polite towards your son. Being loving does not mean you have to abandon your moral convictions and beliefs; being loving should be part of your beliefs and morality. If he demands that you approve of his behavior and you don’t approve of it, say something like "I won’t let this come between us. Please show me the same love and respect."Behavior is a choice, and nobody knows more than the ultimate Author of the Bible.If it is based on our character, none of us make it. Jesus Christ's character is the only pefect human character. Dear Abby is basing her belief on... what... exactly?This is exactly the thing you should talk to your pastor about. Dear Abby doesn't determine who goes to heaven – God does.It's called... Bible study. There's no shortage of good information on how to read the Bible, even if you go to a church that doesn't teach it (if so, find a different church). It isn't like any other book you might find. There are many literary styles used, after all. Check out the resources listed on this page, and you might want to read this booklet.You are making the assumption that God created someone to be that way, and that God turns His back on people who go to Hell."Some religious people" You can find "some religious people" to say anything. "Some religious people" say that if you send them money, you will automatically get a hundreds of times as much money back. People can say all sorts of wrong things. Some religious people have people hand over their little daughters to be raped Some religious people fly airliners into skyscrapers. That someone claims to be "religious" tells me nothing about them.As people, since they are. But why would anyone write in to Dear Abby for insight into God?That's great. And it is great that you have other children to continue the family line, if you care about that.I'm sorry. Not that he came out of the closet, but that he identifies as a homosexual. That obviously isn't easy for him or for you.

K-E Diet For Brides

Thank you, Good Morning America, for this article.
Here's another example of some women being so obsessed with their Special Day that they take an extreme measure to drop weight quickly. I wonder how many of these women have spent more time thinking about their wedding dress than they have about how to be a good wife? I wonder how many of these women prepared for their wedding day in more meaningful ways, such as thoroughly discussing important issues faced by married couples? How many have financially prepared for marriage?

How many of these women are shacking up with heir husband-to-be? How many have children with him? How many of these women are going to gain the weight back, and then some, almost as fast as they lost it?

No matter. What really matters is fitting in to that really expensive white dress for that Special Day.

Brides-to-be looking to shed that final 10, 15 or 20 pounds in order to fit into their dream wedding gown have taken a controversial approach to crash dieting that involves inserting a feeding tube into their noses for up to 10 days for a quick fix to rapid weight loss.

The K-E diet, which boasts promises of shedding 20 pounds in 10 days, is an increasingly popular alternative to ordinary calorie-counting programs. The program has dieters inserting a feeding tube into their nose that runs to the stomach. They're fed a constant slow drip of protein and fat, mixed with water, which contains zero carbohydrates and totals 800 calories a day.

I bet this looks really good at the rehearsal dinner.

Di Pietro says patients are under a doctor's supervision, although they're not hospitalized during the dieting process. Instead, they carry the food solution with them, in a bag, like a purse, keeping the tube in their nose for 10 days straight. Di Pietro says there are few side effects.

"The main side effects are bad breath; there is some constipation because there is no fiber in the food," he said.

Bet that makes for some fun on the wedding night.

Dr. Di Pietro charges $1,500 for the 10-day plan, and says the before-and-after pictures sell themselves.

Who cares about cost? Most women marry men who earn more than they do. So it is going to be his bill to pay.

My ultimate point is this: too many women focus too much on the wedding in ratio to the marriage itself. I do believe weddings should be lovely celebrations of holy matrimony. But I am thankful to this day that my wife was a reasonable bride.

The Future of Audio Talk Shows?

An interesting development in media happened a week ago. After over three years of waiting for his contract to end (getting paid nicely... he has the same agent as Howard Stern), Tom Leykis resumed his eponymous show, but he's doing it online.

As he points out, technology is progressing such so that new cars, new handheld devices, and home entertainment centers will be able to get live streaming audio from the Internet just like they do from AM, FM, and satellites. This means his potential will grow and his actual audience may grow as well.

His show was in very high demand last Monday and it was crashing web servers with all of the demand. Those trying to access his show might have had trouble doing so.

A fits his personality, he owns the whole operation (his company also streams audio for music and other things) and is not limited by bosses or the FCC or Canadia watchdogs, so he speaks very frankly (including what he thinks about various people in radio) and will use any language doing so - as will his callers. His show is targeted towards males, especially young, unmarried, unchurched males... and the women who want to know what these males are thinking. It is unlike any talk radio you'll hear. Leykis even says it isn't radio, since radio is an appliace. It is live streaming audio. The closest thing it can be compared to is satellite radio's Howard Stern (Leykis shares an agent with Stern, and praises Stern) and podcaster Adam Carolla (sounds like there's no love lost between Adam and Tom) - both themselves refugees from terrestrial radio. Leykis skillfully, bluntly, and often humorously spouts his opinions on current events, pop culture icons, radio hosts, politicians, monetary policy, investing, workplace culture, women, sex, relationships... just about anything. Anyone living on a steady diet of right-wing talk radio, syndicated or local newstalk, religious broadcasting, or bland, politically-correct public or otherwise Leftist radio may find Leykis' audio content disconcerting or a breath of fresh air, depending on their perspective. Just one example - if a caller asks for the call to be ended "Whitney Houston style", he (someone working for him, actually) will play a sample of one of her songs followed by the sound of someone drowning. If you think that's in poor taste, stick around for someone to ask to be "taken out Andrea Yates style".

Leykis does sell advertising time, but so far the ad breaks are short and he also hopes to get revenue from subscriptions that grant people access to podcasts of the show, including the ability to pick and choose which hours they want to listen to, when they want to listen to them... and high quality live audio. Otherwise, people can listen to the live stream for free (like here), or hear it while it repeats constantly until the next live broadcast.

As more of this happens with "radio" and "television", I will be curious to see if the traditional legacy broadcast stations and networks survive. It is so easy to order content on-demand now, and watch it with a portable appliance. My mother has dropped cable and satellite television companies and simply has her big screen hooked up to a computer so she can watch Netflix and DVDs. The shows to which I listen that run on terrestrial or satellite radio I usually listen to via an online stream or podcast.

As I've written over and over again, I think Leykis misses the mark on some important things. But he does have a show many will find entertaining and helpful, and I do think he gets a lot right when it comes to how males are treated and how guys can protect themselves.

ON MY SHIFT IN OHIO: Look Up "Anita Hill"

"ON MY SHIFT IN OHIO" wrote in to Dear Abby:

I'm a 27-year-old professional who works long hours at a hospital.

She probably doesn't remember Anita Hill, because she is too young.

Dating isn't easy for me, so I decided to try an online service.

That's understandable, given the hours.

My first time online I recognized a co-worker I see on a regular basis and have always exchanged smiles with, but don't know personally. I wrote him a message just to say hi.

BZZZZZT WRONG! Well, since you're female and most of HR is female, you have nothing to worry about. But you shouldn't have done that.

I didn't say I was interested in him. I never heard back from him.

He's trying not to get fired and sued.

Since I sent that message he has checked my profile several times.

He shouldn't do that. He's risking his job, his finances, and putting your employer at risk.

But when he sees me in the hallways, he turns red and now just gives me half-smiles.

He should ignore you completely.

I was waiting at the elevator with him the other day, but he was so embarrassed by the silence that I bailed and took the stairs.

That was merciful of you.

He continues to smile, but I'm not sure what to say to him the next time I see him.

Nothing. Do not interact with him at all. Unless you want to get him fired and score some money from suing your employer.

I think it's rude that he didn't reply to my message -- even with a "See you around!" -- but I'm too embarrassed to do or say anything when I encounter him.

Yeah, well, welcome to the world creating by laws, courts, lawsuits, and employer policies. Never mind that people have met their spouses on the job. Now, whether or not a man keeps his job or an employer has to pay out is entirely up to the whims of a woman. Man A can say X, Y, and Z to a woman and get fired. Man B can say the exact same thing to the exact same woman and get laid. It is all up to her whims. It doesn't matter if you wouldn't get the man fired or sue your employer - the fact is, you can. And some women do. Besides, you might become one of those women if you dated him and then he dumped you. It is just too risky for men. This is what we're doing to our brothers and sons, as well as our sisters and daughters who would, in the past, find a good husband on the job.

Men used to say X, Y, and Z to each other and there was no problem. Now, if a woman overhears them saying that to each other, they can get fired.

Dear Abby responded:

The next time you run into him in the hall, just say hello. If he has any manners at all, he'll return your greeting and it may melt the ice.

Easy for you to say, DA. You don't have a penis (as far as I know). It's not about manners. It is about survival. Enjoy the world that lawyers, juries, "sensitive" men, and anti-male feminists (not all feminists are anti-male) have created. It's great, isn't it?

Our Long National Nightmare is Almost Over

I have very serious disagreements with Tom Leykis, as I have detailed on this blog before. However, I often enjoyed his "Tom Leykis" talk show and he was a skilled talk show host.

This coming Monday, his contract obligations fulfilled, Leykis returns to performing his signature show, albeit over the Internet rather than terrestrial broadcast/legacy radio. He will have much more freedom and control. April 2 at 3pm Pacific Daylight Time, he's back.

If you have a penis, this show is designed for you. If you are a woman who wants to know how and what many men really think, you should especially listen to his "Leykis 101" which initially runs on Thursdays.

Mom and Dad on a Date Night

My wife and I haven't been getting regular date nights. The last date night we had was months ago. She mentioned that we should go on one. I agree.

Here are the ways we've previously had date nights:

1. Dropping off the kids with my wife's sister and brother-in-law for a few hours.

This is temporarily becoming less of an option, and is going to get worse before it gets better. Maybe it will be a good possibilty again later this year.

2. We go to vist my family and they watch the kids.

When traffic is good, we live about 45-60 minutes from my family... Because my wife insisted on living close to her family.... Most of whom we can't have babysitting the kids.

And what will we talk about on date nights?

Well, have you ever noticed that some people with minor children only seem to talk about their children?

Do you know why?

Because that is all they are doing with their life... raising the children.

I'm either going to be talking about work, the kids, or something on talk radio. My wife is either going to be talking about the kids, couponing, or some way she is accumulating points to covert into gift cards or free stuff we need.

There's nothing new to talk with each other about. We see each other every day. We're not off on adventures apart from each other that we need to fill each other in on.

When we were dating, we were getting to know each other and plan things, so there was that to talk about. And we could talk about the adventures we were having together.

We know each other now, and we're not going on any adventures.

Oh, sure, there are thoughts and interests I don't talk about with my wife. I'm not going to start, either, because it would only cause trouble. I'm not just talking about sexual stuff, but Dennis Prager, who does a weekly apolitical "Male/Female Hour" on this radio show that he calls "the most honest discussion" on terrestrial radio about male-female issues. One recent hour was "Husbands: Do you hide part of your sexual nature from your wife?" Prager urges husbands to be honest and open about their sexual nature, and for wives to accept normal male sexuality, even if they don't fully understand it. This brings true intimacy.

Prager tells the story of how he and a male friend used to exercise together, and how they'd watch the women and point them out to each other and make comments to each other. Prager mentioned something about watching the women at the venue to this man's wife, and she replied, in all seriousness, as though it was just Prager doing that because she "knew" her husband didn't look at other women. Prager said he still has an indentation on his shin where his buddy kicked him under the table as a sign not to correct his wife. According to Dennis, after that, he vowed to himself not to marry a woman with whom he couldn't be honest about his sexual nature.

Sure, ther are some wives - some of them called in during that hour - who will be OK and will even figure out which other women in view will catch their husband's eyes and calmly share the moment with him. "Wow, look at her. She has the kind of hairstyle you like, too." They aren't bothered because they know it is natural on his part and that it doesn't mean he loves or desires her (his wife) any less.

From what I can tell, the women who are prepared to handle something like that are definitely in the minority. Most women aren't prepared to have a husband who is honest about his natural tendency to look at women with this figure or that figure, that kind of walk or this kind of walk, this kind of clothing or that kind of clothing, nor many of his fantasies about what he wants to do with his wife.

If a husband is truly honest and open, the odds are against it paying off.

It might pay off, and he and his wife will be closer as a result and have more fun together as a result.

It is more likely to upset his wife, and perhaps it may do so in a way that will always be there... if even just under the surface, ready to boil over, and sometimes doing just that. It could be more ammunition in fights, and may even be the last straw, setting the man on the course to be shamed before friends and family and the religious congregation, divorced, and visiting his children.

My wife and her sisters are the jealous, territorial type, no doubt because of their father's philandering and their mother's reaction.

So... we'll need to have a date night soon... somehow. And I'd better make a list of subjects to file away in my head so that I don't get accused of withdrawing.

Overall, Things Are Good

Dinner with the in-laws went well enough. My mother-in-law and father-in-law showed up sober. My father-in-law and I didn't say much, just sat. MIL caught up with the kids, and my wife cooked. We ate dinner, talked a bit about how everyone is doing as we ate, and then in-laws left.

Earlier, my wife and told me her plan of taking her mother in another room and telling her that, from now on, if she takes one drink while we are around her, we will leave (usually, this will mean leaving their house). Anyone else can drink, but not my MIL. I told my wife that was not realistic, and since we know when she's going to get out of hand, we know when to leave. The problems have been when we've been in other locations where it isn't so easy to leave quickly without being rude to innocent people.

And then I learned a lesson I should have already learned:

Do not question. There's no point being anything but enthusiastically supportive of my wife's plans and decisions pertaining to her mother's drinking. Because I doubted the effectiveness and motivation of her plan, my wife got angry enough to once again liken my fornicating long before I knew she existed to her mother's drinking.

I have made this connection on this blog before. In my wife's mind, my not being a virgin when we married (very few men are, at that age), is all tied in to her father's adultery and her mother's drinking.

Warning: Gripe Session Ahead!

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?

One of the stresses on the family for this entire calendar year so far has been the distance between my wife and her parents, which is especially irritating since perhaps the most important factor in why we live where we do rather than closer to my family and most of my work is because we are close in proximity to her parents.

More or less every week or two since we married, my wife and I have visited her parents. Her mother loves to have everyone over and to cook for everyone. Every birthday needed to be celebrated there, and if that meant celebrating a birthday twice, then so be it.

Once we had kids, I appreciated having my in-laws (mostly brothers and sisters) take the kids off of my hands for a while.

We continued to go the in-laws' even after the disastrous trip last year. But then, just after Christmas, my wife and the kids joined the rest of her family at the home of a family friend for party. I wasn't there; I was working. I was not avoiding the party, I was expected to work.

My mother-in-law planted herself in a spot and stayed there as my father-in-law continued to supply her with drink after drink, meaning my MIL was not much company. If this had been at their home, my wife would have packed up the kids and returned home. But because they were at someone else's house per that family's invitation, my wife and the kids stayed there.

That meant they got to see grandma, nearly passed out drunk, being dragged to the car by a strong son-in-law.

My father-in-law, in between posting picture after picture on Facebook (always of sexy, scantily-clad 20-something females), supposedly to get his photography business off the ground, "explained" to us that my MIL was not drunk, just tired for working herself so hard. He stopped short of trying to sell us a bridge, however.

The result is that none of us have seen the in-laws at all this year. My wife stopped taking their calls, and they stopped calling. The kids have been asking when we're going to go there again. My wife responds with "I don't know."

I appreciate my wife's desire to protect our kids. We have always agreed that our kids will never be left alone with her parents. I have questioned her reaction to this latest episode, reasoning that we can keep sticking to our plan: calling one of her siblings to see if MIL is drinking before we go there, and leaving if we see things going the wrong way. Her mother has distinct stages of inebriation, so we always have warning. Still, I'd rather her err on the side of protecting our kids than wanting to please her parents.

We currently have plans for her parents to come visit us in our home, as the air needs to be cleared somewhat before a pending family event that my wife does not want to miss.

This is one of those things I wish I had understood better and thought about more befoe committing to this marriage, and certainly before agreeing to buy the house that we did.

Give Your Breath Away

Dr. Laura linked to this article, "5 Reasons to Make Some Noise in the Bedroom", in her daily list of recommended articles. I wonder if she noticed or cared that the author is an "open marriage" advocate, or if she figures "all truth is God’s truth" and questionable sources can still provide worthwhile reading? The author says what I've referred to as "aural sex" can be a matter of health.

Breathing deeply can increase pleasure. It can also keep the fun from ending too soon. Use your breath to regulate the speed of what’s going on. Speed it up to help get you in the mood, and slow it down to prolong the activities.

It's good to use everything we can, right?

It means your partner knows that you are enjoying it.

YES! That’s very important for me to know, anyway.

It keeps you in the moment. If you spend all of your time in bed thinking about keeping quiet so you don't sound "weird,” you’ll miss all of the fun. But, if instead of worrying about how noisy you are, you simply let the sounds fall where, when, and how they may, you can stay present and enjoy all of the presents your partner is gifting you.

We know from other areas of life that thinking about breathing and being deliberate about breathing can impact our physical and mental state.

It shows intimacy. If you can tell your partner what you want in bed, it means you feel close enough to him or her to be comfortable doing that.

I need to work on that. See below.

It means you’re comfortable with your sexuality. Letting it all out is only possible when you feel good about yourself and what you're doing, which is how everyone should feel when it comes to sex.

Here's where I get personal...

I Am Not Dr. Laura Schlessinger

Someone found my blog by searching for...

Dr. Laura fat people

...and then left a couple of comments after my post listing many of the people Dr. Laura Schlessinger has pissed off. I did not publish both comments because one of them contained profanity. To be fair to "Trisha", I will repost both comments here, in their (almost) entirety:

This was obviously written by Dr. Laura herself because I find it VERY hard to believe that anyone could be as c--t-like as her...specially when I read the parts defending her talking trash about fat people and single mothers who decide to take responsibility by raising their children, instead of pushing them off on people who could potentially molest, beat them or end up being a drug addict in which case the child/ren would be much worse off than being with some dreadful...single mom (gasp)!

And...

And by the way, Dr. Laura, I know this won't end up on this blog but I just wanted you to read what a piece of trash I and many think you are.

I am clearly not Dr. Laura. I do not have a Doctorate. I've never identified as Jewish. I'm a follower of Christ. I have a penis and testicles (I 'm not absolutely certain, but it is reasonable to presume Dr. Laura doesn't), I do not have a radio show, and I have more than one child. I have also disagreed with Dr. Laura about some things (mostly minor things and her bias against technology). So clearly, I'm not her. She has her own blog and fancy website and would have no reason to write this blog.

Trisha... bitter, fat, foulmouthed, paranoid, and condemning children to fatherless lives is no way to go through life, and it must suck for the child(ren) to have only one parent, and one who is in such a state.

Having been fat myself, Dr. Laura is right. Fat people, in general, are fat because they eat too much and move too little. There's nothing wrong with that she says about that.

As far as adoption... there are adoptive parents who are good parents. Women can avoid being single mothers by using the many forms of contraception available, or even better, saving sex (or at least intercourse) for a good, compatible man who is willing and able to be a husband and father (choose wisely). Marrying such a man and treating him well (treat kindly) may still result in a woman being a widowed mother. However, Dr. Laura makes a distinction between "widowed, divorced, never married". In the event a woman finds herself without a good husband and pregnant, then yes, there's adoption.

Lashing out at Dr. Laura doesn't change the fact that people have made some poor choices in their lives, and if other people learn not to make those same poor choices, we'll all be better off.

Why Do I Care So Much?

This is another entry in which I discuss marital lovemaking. If you don't want to read about this subject, or read about it as it pertains to my marriage, consider yourself warned.

Good News From the Doctor

About six months ago, my doctor told me my cholesterol was way too high and offered me the choice of medication or trying to lower it through other means.

I told him I'd hold off on the medication.

I did some basic research on what I should and should not be eating if I wanted to lower my cholesterol level.

My wife does most of the grocery shopping in our family, so I gave her a list of things to buy that would help - I only included in the list things I would actually eat. I was honest with myself.

Well, it worked.

I recently went back to my doctor and the latest lab report shows I lowered my level by 50 points. I also dropped a few pounds without getting any more exercise. Actually, I probably got less.

The one thing I really miss is cheese. I love just about any kind of cheese... sharp cheddar, soft cheeses, goat cheese, spicy cheese... argh.... Oh well. I still have a little cheese here and there, but it isn't a regular part of my diet anymore.

It probably helped that we haven't been to my wife's parents' place in two months, not only because of the tasty dinners my MIL prepares, but the appetizer snacks my FIL always puts out while dinner is being made.

Why haven't we seen them in two months, despite living about 15 minutes away from them? That'll have to wait for another update.

How are you??? Any current health/fitness success stories to share?

Good Intentions

I have this friend I'll call Charlie who has been a friend since something like the second grade. Actually, it wasn't until sixth grade that we got to be good friends, and after we were graduated from high school we've stayed in contact more through e-mail and social networking than anything else, but every few years we've had dinner or whatever.

Recently, he sent me a message that made me think of this:


My wife had a very good idea the last time we saw Charlie in person. She wanted to set him up with a friend of hers. Charlie and this friend have compatible careers and faith. My wife's friend is attractive and has never been married. (My wife can't figure out why, I point out that my wife has never dated her friend.)

Charlie, however, isn't open to dating. He told me he really thinks he's supposed to be with a certain woman I'll call Chrissy. Many years back, Charlie, who thinks of himself as a good Christian man, "married" Chrissy and moved her and her kids into his place. I wrote "married" because Chrissy was still legally married to the father of her children, supposedly just for benefit purposes.

Wouldn't you know it? After a few years, Chrissy ended up taking her kids and reuniting with their father, who was still her legal husband. Charlie refused to move on. Mind you, Charlie had been legally married before in a marriage that didn't last long because his wife, who was about ten years older than we are, was a control freak who couldn't handle the fact that Charlie threw her a surprise birthday party. That ended that marriage.

But back to the situation with Chrissy

So Chrissy and the kids left because Charlie was tired of divided loyalties, and Chrissy later moved out on her husband again without coming back to Charlie, but that hasn't stopped Charlie from referring to her kids, who have a father, as his kids, travelling to see them, having them come for visits, etc... and for keeping his heart fixated on Chrissy (who is NOT some beautiful prize, mind you).

But wait... it gets better.

One of Chrissy's daughter had a friend I'll call Allison who a bad home life, so Chrissy took her in. When Charlie was returning one of Chrissy's kids to her, he met Allison. Since he treated Chrissy's kids like his own, he agreed to treat Allison like one of his own (he has no biological or adopted kids of his own). Allison has referred to him as dad ever since.

Allison went back to her parents, and Charlie and Allison kept in contact. Charlie went to visit and Allison and her parents. They later sent Allison to visit Charlie. Allison didn't want to go back home, but she did after she and Charlie talked about the possibilities, and Charlie sent a letter to her parents asking if he could take care of Charlie. Her parents sent her back to Charlie.

Charlie wrote to me and told me that he has "assumed custody" of Allison.

I wrote back a blunt reponse, part of which is below:

What do you think the average (not YOU, the average) social worker, police officer, prosecutor, judge, jury member, or TV news viewer would think if they heard that a single heterosexual man... “assumed custody” of an unrelated, troubled 16-year-old girl whose family lives halfway across the country?

And...

What does “assumed custody” mean? Is there a legal contract? Official sanction from state/local governments? Approval from a licensed social worker?

There's a reason people legally marry and build a nest before raising children or foster parenting. As you noted, it is hard being a single parent. (It is hard enough being a married parent.) You can’t provide Allison with enough supervision, especially given her background, and she’s at high risk to end up pregnant within the next couple of years.

Charlie has not responded, and it has been a while. The age of consent in our state is 18, by the way. I'm pretty sure Charlie was a virgin until well after high school, and he may just not have a grasp on the reality of the situation.

I do not believe his intentions are for ill, but as the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I would not be the least surprised if Allison has or develops a crush on Charlie, or if her parents were to screw him over. Charlie wants to stay connected to Chrissy and play the hero, and that is what he's doing here. For whatever reason, he doesn't want healthy, available women. He wants projects. The problem is, this a very risky situation and I can't think of any professional advice-giver saying this is a good idea. Dr. Laura would name which chapters in her book Ten Stupid Things Men Do to Mess Up Their Lives Charlie is doing. He has given no idication that his parents or sister, or anyone else, has told him this is a bad idea.

I pray this doesn't end up a train wreck.

It's The Middle of February

Here we are again. It's another Valentine's Day.

The Playful Walrus has an annual reminder.

Fortunately for me, my wife likes to celebrate a different day, as one of our anniversaries falls close to February 14.

It's my year to plan, but my wife made plans already for the both of us that preclude us from doing anything too big. Looks like it's going to be restricted to a nice dinner out without the kids.

What are you doing or what did you do, if anything?

Did One Fly Out of the Cuckold's Nest?

We can read about a small, perhaps even temporary victory for victims of paternity fraud, in this ABC News report from Christina Ng.

A man who discovered that the daughter he raised was not really his can sue the biological father for $190,000 -the estimated cost of raising her for 15 years - the Connecticut State Supreme Court has ruled.

Good for the court!

Eric Fischer saw the red flags. When his youngest daughter was born, his wife Pamela Tournier's close friend and business partner Richard Zollino rode home in the limo with the new parents. For the next 15 years, Zollino was omnipresent at the girl's musical recitals as well as her eighth grade graduation. And his youngest daughter did not look like his other two daughters, including one from a previous marriage.

Fischer decided to confirm what he already suspected. He "surreptitiously obtained" a hair sample from his daughter and sent it to lab with his own DNA sample and in October 2006, he received the results that "excluded the possibility that he was the younger daughter's father," according to a court document.

Fischer confronted his wife and they divorced in 2007.

The couple's separation agreement only listed the couple's elder daughter as issue of the marriage and Tournier testified that she believed the agreement was fair and that "she believed [Zollino] was the younger daughter's father and that he had provided the younger daughter with support since and would continue to do so," according to the court document.

I have to wonder how the marriage was otherwise?

Zollino submitted a DNA sample and it was confirmed that he was the girl's father.

He was the sperm donor. Her father is the man who raised her.

In 2008, Fischer filed a lawsuit against [Zollino] seeking damages on claims of nondisclosure, misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

A lower court ruled against Fischer, saying that he "had held himself out to be the younger daughter's father, that he had caused her to rely on him to meet her financial and emotional needs, and that revealing her true parentage after she had been led to believe for her whole life that [Fisher] was her father, would be detrimental to her emotional well-being."

Well hey, that happened anyway, didn’t it? Why can’t the courts quietly and secretly award damages along with an order that the truth not be told to the child under penalty of violating the court order? He held himself out to be the girl's father because he was defrauded. A fraud victim does not lose his or her right to seek recourse just because they were duped. They have to be duped in the first place for the fraud to take place.

Cruel Taunts

Once upon a time in a land far, far away... OK, well, actually several years ago in the OC, there was an 18-year-old who at least dabbled in cocaine and she got in a fight with at least one of her parents, took their expensive sports car for a late-night high-speed drive, and got herself mangled and killed in the process. Thankfully, she did not kill anyone else.

The responding law enforcement agency documented the accident scene, including taking pictures.

Some unprofessional members of that agency leaked the pictures.

Those pictures have found no small audience online. That's bad enough.

Unfortunately, some people took to cyberbullying by sending and delivering the photos to the deceased's family.

The family has just now reached a settlement. It is too bad that taxpayers, or an insurance company hired by taxpayers, are paying for this settlement.

I've deliberately been vague about this. You really don't need to search for the pictures.

The deceased suffered for her bad choices.

Shame on those who leaked the photos.

Shame on those who have bullied the family.

Now, Bark Like a Seal

Some people who have shacked up for years and have kids plan these elaborate weddings, complete with a white dress. And have you seen any of those elaborate flash-mob-dancing wedding proposals?

Yeah, well, it is getting worse.

Teresa Watanabe reports at LATimes.com about a high school senior named Alex Hom asking a freshman by the name of Brooke Drury to the winter formal dance. This is at South Pasadena High School in California. That city is often referred to as Mayberry, yet is home to a lot of Hollywood people (some famous actors have attended that public high school, including at least one Oscar winner I can think of.) So if it can happen there, it can happen anywhere, as evidenced by the rest of the article.

So he rounded up more than 20 friends, supplied them with red roses, choreographed a dance routine and wrote out his plea on signs. Then he had a friend bring Brooke, blindfolded, to a spot on campus for the big production.

"I thought, this is my senior year and I gotta go out with a bang," Alex said.

He's not the only student elevating the art of the school dance invitation.

Students are folding the question into homemade fortune cookies, tucking it into pinatas, knitting it into scarves, spelling it out with pepperoni on pizza and orange chicken on fried rice.

There are animal-themed invitations, using live puppies and turtles as messengers.

Ugh.

Camille Santos, Van Nuys High's student body vice president, recalled one student who dressed up as a knight and got a friend to dress up as a dragon to "attack" his prospective date. Then he rode onto the scene on the back of another friend dressed as a steed, "slayed" the dragon and popped the question.

"We live in a generation where flashy is good, bigger is better," said Camille, whose boyfriend placed his invitation to prom two years ago inside a rhinestone-studded fortune cookie box after dinner at a Chinese restaurant.

"We want to be seen. We want the world to know how romantic we are."

TMW. Too much work. Especially for a high school dance. This is stuff you do for a wife. If a guy does this kind of thing and she doesn't react well, he could easily be accused of being a stalker or a sexual harasser.

I won't even get into the potential problem of a 12th grader (who can often be 18 years old) taking a 9th grader (who can often be 13 years old) on a date. That's nothing new. Way back in the Dark Ages when I was in high school there were those girls who went to all of the formal dances starting in their freshman year, asked by seniors. But a senior asking them used to be impressive enough.

There's a line between being endearing and romantic and being narcissistic or beta.

Yeah, the kids in the article had some cute ideas.

But the larger issue I see with this trend towards more showy and elaborate schemes for not just marriage proposals but now high school dates is that it is a reaction to the flip side, which is the prevalence of casual and promiscuous sex. Today, guys can get sex from many girls for little or no effort and no strings attached. So the more hoops guys are made to jump through to go the traditional route, the more guys will go the other way instead. Aside from getting to see lots of hits for their online video, how many of these guys have more fun on the evening in question than the guy who just shows up at an after party, not having spent any time or money on the event at all?

Yes, men tend to value things for which we work, but if we perceive the escalating requirements are frivolous or simply about feeding egos, we may bow out. We'll work by saving up money, dating a woman to get to know her, and buying an expensive ring, but if we have to hire some Broadway director and choreographer to ask a question, something is very, very wrong.

Why We Have the Death Penalty

I've probably heard all of the arguments against the death penalty. I understand some people have good reasons for opposing the death penalty in California.

However, I am so convinced that Manling Tsang Williams deserves to be executed that I would not hesitate to strap her down and push the buttons myself. Lethal injection is too good for her.

She has shamed the Tsang family and doesn't deserve the Williams name.

Haven't heard of her? No Lifetime Original Movie will be made about her.

From the Whittier Daily News comes this report from Brian Day. Whittier and Rowland Heights are communities east of Los Angeles, in eastern Los Angeles County.

A judge sentenced Manling Tsang Williams to death Thursday for smothering her two young children with a pillow and slashing her husband to death with a sword in the family's Rowland Heights home in 2007.

2007. She should be dead already. Neal Williams, the man to whom she had made vows, was 27. Their sons were 7 and 3.

A jury convicted Manling Williams of three counts of first-degree murder in 2010, along with the special allegations of using weapons and lying in wait. After one jury was unable to agree on whether to sentence her to death or life imprisonment, a second penalty phase jury recommended last year that she be put to death.

Please tell me that the people who were siding with the life sentence were hoping it would make it easier for another prisoner to beat her to death.

"The evidence is compelling that the defendant, for selfish reasons, murdered her own two children," [Judge] Martinez said.

Her motivation, Martinez said, was a "narcissistic, selfish and adolescent" desire to start a new life with another man, free from the hindrances of family life.

In the months before the murders, Manling Williams had reconnected through the Internet with an old friend and began a relationship with him.

The judge pointed out that Manling Williams had numerous family members who would have taken in the children, should she have decided to abandon them.

She could have left them with Neal, who worked at Disneyland, by the way. He helped bring happiness to strangers.

After smothering Devon and Ian in their bunk bed, "The defendant savagely, brutally and viciously attacked her husband with a katana sword," Martinez said.

Neal Williams was stabbed and slashed more than 97 times in the attack, investigators said.

"In the final moments of life, Neal begged the defendant for help," the judge said.

Don't try to tell me lethal injection is "cruel and unusual" punishment. It is too good for her.

Defense attorneys Tom Althaus and Haydeh Takasugi argued for their client's life to be spared.

Althaus told the court that the killings were not calculated executions, but a "sudden mistake."

This is exactly why I couldn't be a defense attorney.

"There's no basis for the prosecution's contention that these murders were planned," Althaus said, adding that Manling Williams was in a state of "extreme mental and emotional disturbance" when she killed her husband and sons.

Neal was no doubt in a state of extreme mental and emotional disturbance and physical disturbance but he didn't murder anyone. And yes, there is a basis for the contention that these murders were planned - at least the second and third ones. Unless she's a giant octupus and killed everyone simultaneously.

Mitigating factors also included a difficult upbringing and no previous history of violence, he said.

Who didn't have a difficult upbringing? So she assassinated the character of her family. Great. Let's say it is all true. She should have THANKED Neal every day for being her parenther in a BETTER life. No previous history of violence... that's a good one. How many husbands and kids did she have before?

Althaus acknowledged that his client had had an extra-marital affair, but disputed the prosecution's assertion that the affair formed a motive for the crime.

A tramp as well as a murderer.

Out of more than 700 California death row inmates, fewer than two dozen of them are women, and none has been among the 13 prisoners executed since the death penalty was restored in 1976.

This is an outrage. Those vicious murderers are sitting there with shelter, health care, meals, running water, security protection, recreation, communication with others, and so many other things. We should execute at least one a week until Death Row is vacant.

Martinez said that the evidence showed that Manling Williams had planned the killings two months in advance, and immediately began trying to conceal her guilt afterward.

She wore latex gloves as she attacked her husband, he said.

Testimony indicated it takes five to 10 minutes for a person to die by suffocation, meaning that Manling Williams had at least five minutes to contemplate her actions while killing one of her children before killing her other son in the same manner, Martinez said.

"She clearly had time to reflect on what she was doing," he said.

Following the killings, the judge said, Manling Williams typed up a note indicating that Neal Williams had killed the children and himself, she disposed of bloody clothing and returned home before screaming to neighbors that someone had killed her family.

While being interviewed by detectives after the discovery of the bodies, "For hours, she feigned grief, sadness and bewilderment," Martinez said.

It was only after being confronted by investigators with a bloody cigarette box that was found in her car that Manling Williams broke down and admitted the murders, Martinez said.

Neal married the wrong woman. That was his biggest mistake.

Being Stealthy

This is probably more than you ever wanted to know about anyone.

I have mentioned my paruresis before.

Actually, it is difficult for me to use the toilet in a public or unfamiliar restroom, and even harder for me to use a urinal. I think is part of larger OCD problems on my part. Even without OCD, I'm very much a creature of habit in many areas of my life.

After the wake-up urination session, I can often hold it the for the rest of the day, and typically do hold it for at least 14 hours.

But there are rare times when I just have to use a restroom when & where I'd rather not. That happened recently, and it occurred me that for me, a "successful" (least stressful) trip to the a restroom for me goes like this:

Nobody sees me go in.


Nobody else is in there when I am.


There no sign anyone else has been there recently except for the janitor.


Nobody comes in during my time there.


Nobody sees me leave.

The worst thing is when I'm standing at the urinal trying to start taking a leak when someone walks into the restroom. Sometimes I zip up, flush, and wash my hands as if I actually used the urinal, even though I didn't.

This doesn't stop me from living life, mind you. I've never hestitated to travel or visit anywhere because of this. I always wondered how I was going to handle potty training the kids, but it worked out, somehow.

Just wanted to share.

Advice to a Middle-Aged Woman Re-entering the Dating Pool

It's titled "Jumping Back In" but is there still water in the pool? "Bella" wrote in to Dear Margo:

After a marriage of 20-some years, I am about to dive into the middle-aged dating pool.

Oh boy, is she in for some fun.

I suspect it will be very different the second time around, but part of me thinks it may be just like picking up where I left off.

The first one is right for two reasons: 1) the rules have changed, and 2) you've spent up one of a woman's most valuable dating assets - your youth.

Friends tell me, however, that it’s a whole new ballgame and difficult.

Yup!

Dear Mago metions baggage, then ends with:

But … chins up. The men you will be seeing are just as nervous as you are, and I’m here to tell you that you will get the hang of it.

Dear Margo is either oblivious, delusional, or didn't have the heart to tell this woman the truth. Some of the people commenting did, though.

There are two big questions that the letter writer should have answered by including the information:

1) What are you looking for in general? Free dinners and entertainment? Another marriage? Steady companionship? Sex? If she's getting alimony, she may not want to get remarried if she values the steady money over marriage.

2) Are you willing to try men significantly younger or older than you?

Almost all of the successful, desirable, dating heterosexual men around near her age are divorced or on a marriage strike and dating younger women. If she wants to marry or even date a man near her age, she's probably going to have to be open to dating men who can't afford to pay for her to have nice dinners and entertainment, never mind financially support her if they marry. If she wants those things, she will almost certainly have to go with a significantly older man. If she just wants companionship and doesn't care if the guy is "of modest means", then it isn't so much of a problem.

She'll also find it isn't a problem to get sex if that is all she wants, but it will be easiest to to be on the "A" list with guys who are younger (since women their age are dating older men) or significantly older. Guys around her age will probably have her on the "B" list.

Speaking of sex... there's no short supply of younger, hotter women than her willing to have casual sex with the men she'll want to date. Most men these days expect it by the third date, if not before, and a lot of women consider themselves rejected if he doesn't try for it by then (if those women aren't taking the initiative themselves).

Those are the brutal, harsh realities.

If she wants to marry a successful man near her age who would make a good husband, her best hope is going to be to find a divorced man whose wife threw away a perfectly good husband, yet he hasn't been turned off to marriage. If he has no minor children, that will be the best scenario. He'll likely be paying alimony to his ex-wife, though. (If he was widowed, she won't have an ex to deal with it all.) To snag such a man, she's going to have to compete against those younger women I wrote about above. The does not mean she has to jump into bed with him – if he thinks sex is for marriage or only for steady, exclusive relationships, he'll appreciate it if she keeps that boundary in place. She should play up her advantages over those younger women (if she has them) – a better understanding of how to keep a man happy (did she learn from her ended marriage?), better earning ability, more experience in social graces, etc.

Enjoy!

Sheesh... after I wrote all of this I remembered having written something like this before. Previously:

A Question for the Ages

An Unmarried Woman

She Might Have to Go Older or Younger

Is It OK For Her to Ask For a Date?

Dear Abby Uses a Bad Argument

"INNOCENT TEEN IN MICHIGAN" wrote in to Dear Abby:

I have been dating "Kyle" for more than six months, but I have loved him for more than two years.

Well, we already know she's a teen, so I'm taking the idea that she's "loved him" for 18 months longer than she's been "dating" him with a grain of salt.

I always thought we had a wonderful relationship and that Kyle was a sweet, innocent guy.

Sounds great! Everything's going great then, right?

Well, he just confided to me that he has an Internet porn addiction!

There are some problems here. The first one is that he said something to you. The second is that he either 1) believes that there is such thing as an addiction to porn or 2) thinks you believe there is such a thing or he wants you to believe there is such a thing.

Anything pleasurable or exciting can become "addictive". But I'll only believe porn addiction is real in cases where someone goes through withdrawal symptoms akin to those suffered by nicotine or heroin addicts (provided he is still allowed sexual release).

He has a habit. It's probably just a phase and he'll grow out of it...

Don't Try This at Home (or Wherever There's a Road)

Angel Jennings reports at LATimes.com:

A teen in the Sacramento suburb of Natomas sustained life-threatening injuries after being run over by a car while lying in the street, authorities said.

Did he trip? Had he been assaulted and left in the street?

The 16-year-old was in the middle of the road wearing headphones about 7 p.m. Tuesday when the Chevy ran him over on Regginald Way and Taylor Street, Fox40 News in Sacramento reported.

The driver, apparently not an illegal alien with no license and no insurance, actually stopped and called the police! Yay! No charges have been filed against the driver, who is probably traumatized.

The teen was being treated at a hospital for critical injuries considered life-threatening.

As far as I can tell, there are three possibilities here:

1. The teen is a potential Darwin Award candidate who was simply being stupid.

2. The teen was intentionally trying to commit suicide.

3. The teen was assaulted and left in the street, or suffered some sort of medical issue such as seizure, and fell down in the street (though the text of the article probably would have mentioned something about that).

It's a terrible situation no matter what, but I somehow feel numbers 1 and 2 are worse, and at first glance, I was sure it was #1.

If it was 1 or 2, then you know what we need? A National Office of Not Being Human Roadkill, perhaps with a Czar or Secretary cabinet position. We can tax gasoline even more to pay for it, and then when those revenues take a dip, we can raise incomes taxes to keep such a necessary office and the people who've been retired from it for 40 years fully funded. We'll have public service announcements, printed warnings, education programs, and we'll have to teach in our schools about prominent people in history who have been hit by cars. Or maybe not.

Adoption is a Beautiful Thing

Do you know where your children are?

DEADLOCKED IN NEW JERSEY wrote in to Dear Abby:

My husband and I have been married 11 years.

So far, so good.

We went through eight years of fertility treatments before having our twins.

Hmmm.

When they were a year old, we discovered I was pregnant with our third child.

Surprise!

We have two embryos left and need to decide what to do. We either use them or destroy them.

Those embryos are human beings. Think about it this way: "We have two toddlers left. Do we raise them, or do we destroy them?" Fortunately, adoption is a more realistic option when it comes to children who are still embryos.

I think we need to give the embryos the chance they were meant to have. However, my husband is concerned only with the financial side of it as we have been living on one salary and things are tight.

Gee, better hope you don't get sick, if your husband puts money ahead of human life.

My heart aches over this.

If only there was some way people having trouble conceiving becoming parents that didn't involve creating more embryos than they were both willing to give a reasonable chance at living.

Do I do what I believe is right and stand by my religious and moral beliefs, and take the chance my husband will resent me for the rest of our marriage?

Guys, think about this. She can go ahead and have those children implanted whether he likes it (or knows about it) or not, and he can be held financially responsible for them. She can adopt them out, and he can still end up financially responsible for them. I say men should not donate sperm and should be very cautious about banking it for themselves, and that applies here as well. He needed to give his sperm (unless they used donor sperm) for this to happen. Which also brings up the point that even if they did use donated sperm (or some creep at the lab decided to secretly use his own sperm) and her husband doesn't want more children, he can still be held financially accountable by a court. All it takes is one judge.

But I digressed. What she is apparently talking about is going ahead and having them implanted over his objections. She should not do that. What she should do is donate them. I was happy to see Dear Abby give information about doing just that:

Your embryos could be donated for embryo adoption by a couple who have been unable to conceive, and who would love to raise them. For more information, you should contact an attorney who specializes in family formation, or contact the Snowflakes Frozen Embryo Adoption and Donation Program. Its phone number is 714-693-5437 and its website is www.nightlight.org.

Thank you, Dear Abby!

Unfortunately, it seems that some people in the fertility/reproductive assistance business want to increase their "success" rates, and so they will create more children than will be given a reasonable chance at life, pick the most promising embryos (discarding or experimenting on the others - killing them either way), implant multiple embryos, and selectively kill any that make it to the fetal stage that might have a medical problem or are the weakest if "too many" of them have made it to that stage. Too many parents don't need much arm twisting to go along with any of that. The result? Innocent human beings are being killed by other human beings, and even those who aren't killed are being treated like commodities.

Ladies, if you spend your twenties and early thirties partying and having sex with bad boys you wouldn't want to be the (financial) father of your children, or you spend that time getting graduate degrees and climbing the corporate ladder... rather than learning what kind of man would make a good husband and dating and then marrying such a man... so that you find yourself marrying in your mid or late thirties, expect that your're going to have trouble conceiving.

I realize it is emotionally easy for me to discourage or be cautious about fertility treatments, IVF, third-party reproduction, etc., since my wife and I conceived the children we wanted to have, without aid, in two months and in three months, and those children have survived. But that it is easy for me to write does not make what I write false or wrong. I value human life. I also appreciate that I was conceived in a loving act of passion rather than in lab equipment and stuck in a freezer. Even if a child was conceived in rape, it is better for an adoptive set of parents to give someone else's biological offspring a good life rather than killing their own biological children in an attempt to have a biological connection to the children they end up raising.

Party Like It's 2008?

Sometimes I like to say, "the more things change, the more they get back to the way they were before". That applies to talk radio in the Los Angeles market.

Today, local talk radio station KABC* AM 790 is looking more like 2008 than it has since... 2008. That is because Doug McIntyre is back on morning drive and Larry Elder is back on afternoon drive.

I was happy when I heard the new schedule. I like T-Rae, McIntyre's new co-host. I will miss her as the news anchor during John & Ken on KFI, but then I will probably be listening to Larry Elder more than J&K, so it kind of evens out.

I'm so glad Larry has been moved from the 9am-noon slot. I would listen to him when Dennis Prager was a repeat or had a guest host, which meant I didn't hear him much. Now I'll be able to listen to Limbaugh as my back-up to Prager.

While I will likely pick Elder over John & Ken, I will still want to know what J&K are talking about since I like their analysis of local and state government, and criminal defense attorneys and their clients. But if I have to, I can podcast them (not that I have much time to listen). So when Elder is on break I will check out J&K. The drawback to Elder being in the 3-6pm slot is that I'll hear less of Frank Pastore on KKLA 99.5 FM. When J&K were on break or talking about something I didn't care about, I would listen to Pastore.

Getting back to the 5am-9am show... I'm glad there will be a real alternative to that "baby-seller" Bill Handel, who has the time slot at T-Rae's previous station. I've been listening to Handel more as a default, and while there is much I enjoy about Handel's show, I often enjoy his show more when he has fill-in hosts. Usually, with the shows I listen to regularly, I don't listen to fill-in hosts. The exception is when Rush Limbaugh has Walter E. William filling in – I will choose Williams over just about anything else. But Williams guest hosts about once a year, as he just did during the holiday break.

Speaking of the holiday break, with Dr. Laura running "best of", I didn't need to listen to those podcasts, and some of the other shows to which I listen were running repeats or had guest hosts at least part of the last few weeks, so I was able to catch up somewhat on the Bible Answer Man podcasts and a more specialized podcast I won't name for the sake of my semi-anonymity.

As far as the Los Angeles area radio market weekday schedule, this is how things are looking for me...

5-9am Bill Handel on KFI and McIntyre/T-Rae on KABC

9am-Noon Dennis Prager on Townhall.com or KRLA, with Rush Limbaugh on KFI as a backup.

Noon-3pm Michael Medved on Townhall.com or KRLA, with Sean Hannity on KABC as a backup.

3pm-7pm Larry Elder on KABC (until 6), John&Ken on KFI as a backup, and Frank Pastore 4pm-7pm as a backup.

If Tom Leykis comes back to terrestrial radio in April or later, I'll be interested to see where and when, and how I'll end up actually reacting with my listening habits.


*Don't let the call letters "KABC" fool you. KABC used to be an ABC radio station, and still carries ABC Network news, but after Disney bought ABC, eventually Disney spun off some of their radio ownings to Citadel, which then went bankrupt, and now the Citadel stuff ended up with Cumulus. But I'm guessing the call lettes "KCUM" are either taken or not allowed by the FCC, for reasons any 13-year-old boy can tell you if you don't find it readily apparent. Anyway, KABC AM is not to be confused with local ABC owned-and-operated KABC-TV Channel 7.