It is amazing how my wife "just happens" to pick fights or lays out a long list of complaints about me and/or makes demands about how I need to change (things I never do to her, by the way) a couple of hours before we're due to have sex. Yes, due to have sex. Oh, I wanted sex the days/nights before, but she kept putting it off. Yes, men, get married, and you too can schedule sex, but be prepared for that flight to be canceled. Scheduling makes it all the more easy for a wife to figure out ways to avoid sex with you.
It's funny, all of the women I fornicated with in my wayward youth seemed to want to have sex with me. They're the ones who initiated it into our relationship to begin with, and if we'd subsequently spent any amount of time together in private and did not have some form of sex, they would be concerned and want to know what was wrong.
It is times like this I can't regret having fornicated, because if I hadn't, I'd be damn near suicidal at this point thinking I must be completely repulsive and a terrible lover.
Yes, all of you guys who aren't married but haven't ruled it out of your future - you too can sign a legal document that will: 1) obligate you to give up more than half of everything you'll ever earn and make lifetime payments to a woman who will hate you; 2) automatically assign you paternity of any children she has, even if she conceived them with some genetic basket case while you were working your ass off at the office, and 3) give her default status as your beneficiary and the person who can make decisions for you should you become incapacitated. In return, the law guarantees you... uh... the responsibility of making decisions for her should she become incapacitated. What a deal! What are you waiting for??? You must be some immature boy or immoral cad to not want that!
Oh, by the way, the thing that apparently (who really knows with such irrational creatures) set her off this time? I kid you not, she is upset I did not perjure myself to get out of jury duty because it might... might... interfere with her social plans for a day - social plans I was key to facilitate in the first place by begging like a dog for a favor I can't possibly repay. I did it to make her happy. How ironic is that?
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Thursday, December 05, 2013
Questions For Dr. Laura Schlessinger (and others) - 3
Please read the essential introduction to this series.
4) In an era where women now have full access to every area of educational, training, and professional life, earning income, investing, banking, credit, and financial management, and women are able and expected to move out of their family home and pay their own way through unmarried life, why should a man be required, let alone expected, to always pay for a date (unless she cooks a meal for him)? If your response is "men value what they pay for" are you saying women value things other people pay for, but not what they pay for? If you say "in nature, the male demonstrates", why are we to adhere to that aspect of nature but not so many others? Why is her time more valuable than his?
5) You have said that a man should not be dating unless he is prepared to financially support a wife and children. You have also said that dating is to discern if someone is a match to marry. Does this mean that people who will not ever marry should never go on dates, even with people of like mind? Does this mean that men who will never be in a position to support a wife and children should never go on dates, even with women who will not be having children (or have grown children) and who plan to continue to support themselves? It now takes most men at least until their late 20s to be in a position to support a wife and children (if they ever will be). Should he never date at all before that, even to learn what kind of person he gets along with, or for mere entertainment?
6) You say a man should not be having sex with a woman without marrying her or at least being engaged with a ring and date. How did you arrive at that conclusion? If you cite the possibility of conception, does this mean it is OK for a man to have sex with a woman outside of marriage if at least one of them is incapable of having children?
7) You only find strict monogamy acceptable – for example, that having a one-night-threesome is an absolute no. I agree that married monogamy is what is moral. My primary basis for this is the Christian Bible. What is the basis of your rule? If you cite marital vows, what if "forsaking all others" wasn't one of their vows, or wasn't vowed with the meaning of excluding all sexual contact with anyone else?
8) You sometimes ask how a man explains it to the father of the woman with whom he's fornicating. Yet you never ask how she explains it to his mother. Why should an explanation be needed in one case but not the other?
9) With your principle (and mine) of reserving sex for marriage and that men should be the income earners, your touting of community property, use of the term "unpaid whore" for women who shack up, your suggestion that unmarried women get $250 for each session of sex, your statements that "you're not even making him pay for dinner" and "you girls are giving it away for free", and your insistence that men pay for almost all dates, aren't you saying that men should pay for sex? Doesn't that imply that women do not enjoy sex and should only engage in it as a means for material gain? Doesn't that imply that men shouldn't care whether a woman enjoys sex or not? After all, are we to care if our hired help likes their tasks or not? You (like many others) refer to mutual consented fornication as a man using a woman, but never say they are using each other or she is also using him. Why is that? If a woman who shacks up is an unpaid whore, why doesn't that make a married woman a paid whore? Why do you call them unpaid when, in some cases, he is paying all of her expenses and buying her gifts over and above that?
10) I agree that sex is for marriage and that shacking up is a bad idea. Here is a question I have for just about anyone: How is a man supposed to know about what kind of a mother or sexual partner a woman will be before he "lays down his life" for her? People aren't always consistent, so a someone being generally reasonable about most things in life and willing to negotiate and being compatible through dating/courtship and planning a wedding doesn’t necessarily mean they will be generally reasonable when it comes to parenting or willing to negotiate about sexual issues. Some hangups and quirks will not be discovered until actually having sex or actually living together.
11) You have said shacking up can’t involve any commitment, regardless of the explicitly stated mutual agreements of those involved, even if they have children together, because marriage is what makes the relationship committed. Thus, a caller has no right to complain about what the shack up honey is doing. You have also said that if someone has married, thus making public vows and signing legal documents, they have no obligation to work through marital problems if they have no children. For example, you tell women who call you with a problem in their marriage to leave and go home to their mother, So is marriage the commitment or is having children the commitment? Or does a commitment only exist if they have married and had children? With wide cultural acceptance of no-fault divorce at the will of only one of the spouses, is marriage actually a commitment to anything other than having a community property financial partnership? Also, do no other vows, promises, or stated commitments in any area of life have any moral weight unless they include a legal contract? For example, if someone said they were going to do something useful for your sailing hobby, do you really have no moral right to call him on it if he doesn’t, because he never signed a legal contract?
4) In an era where women now have full access to every area of educational, training, and professional life, earning income, investing, banking, credit, and financial management, and women are able and expected to move out of their family home and pay their own way through unmarried life, why should a man be required, let alone expected, to always pay for a date (unless she cooks a meal for him)? If your response is "men value what they pay for" are you saying women value things other people pay for, but not what they pay for? If you say "in nature, the male demonstrates", why are we to adhere to that aspect of nature but not so many others? Why is her time more valuable than his?
5) You have said that a man should not be dating unless he is prepared to financially support a wife and children. You have also said that dating is to discern if someone is a match to marry. Does this mean that people who will not ever marry should never go on dates, even with people of like mind? Does this mean that men who will never be in a position to support a wife and children should never go on dates, even with women who will not be having children (or have grown children) and who plan to continue to support themselves? It now takes most men at least until their late 20s to be in a position to support a wife and children (if they ever will be). Should he never date at all before that, even to learn what kind of person he gets along with, or for mere entertainment?
6) You say a man should not be having sex with a woman without marrying her or at least being engaged with a ring and date. How did you arrive at that conclusion? If you cite the possibility of conception, does this mean it is OK for a man to have sex with a woman outside of marriage if at least one of them is incapable of having children?
7) You only find strict monogamy acceptable – for example, that having a one-night-threesome is an absolute no. I agree that married monogamy is what is moral. My primary basis for this is the Christian Bible. What is the basis of your rule? If you cite marital vows, what if "forsaking all others" wasn't one of their vows, or wasn't vowed with the meaning of excluding all sexual contact with anyone else?
8) You sometimes ask how a man explains it to the father of the woman with whom he's fornicating. Yet you never ask how she explains it to his mother. Why should an explanation be needed in one case but not the other?
9) With your principle (and mine) of reserving sex for marriage and that men should be the income earners, your touting of community property, use of the term "unpaid whore" for women who shack up, your suggestion that unmarried women get $250 for each session of sex, your statements that "you're not even making him pay for dinner" and "you girls are giving it away for free", and your insistence that men pay for almost all dates, aren't you saying that men should pay for sex? Doesn't that imply that women do not enjoy sex and should only engage in it as a means for material gain? Doesn't that imply that men shouldn't care whether a woman enjoys sex or not? After all, are we to care if our hired help likes their tasks or not? You (like many others) refer to mutual consented fornication as a man using a woman, but never say they are using each other or she is also using him. Why is that? If a woman who shacks up is an unpaid whore, why doesn't that make a married woman a paid whore? Why do you call them unpaid when, in some cases, he is paying all of her expenses and buying her gifts over and above that?
10) I agree that sex is for marriage and that shacking up is a bad idea. Here is a question I have for just about anyone: How is a man supposed to know about what kind of a mother or sexual partner a woman will be before he "lays down his life" for her? People aren't always consistent, so a someone being generally reasonable about most things in life and willing to negotiate and being compatible through dating/courtship and planning a wedding doesn’t necessarily mean they will be generally reasonable when it comes to parenting or willing to negotiate about sexual issues. Some hangups and quirks will not be discovered until actually having sex or actually living together.
11) You have said shacking up can’t involve any commitment, regardless of the explicitly stated mutual agreements of those involved, even if they have children together, because marriage is what makes the relationship committed. Thus, a caller has no right to complain about what the shack up honey is doing. You have also said that if someone has married, thus making public vows and signing legal documents, they have no obligation to work through marital problems if they have no children. For example, you tell women who call you with a problem in their marriage to leave and go home to their mother, So is marriage the commitment or is having children the commitment? Or does a commitment only exist if they have married and had children? With wide cultural acceptance of no-fault divorce at the will of only one of the spouses, is marriage actually a commitment to anything other than having a community property financial partnership? Also, do no other vows, promises, or stated commitments in any area of life have any moral weight unless they include a legal contract? For example, if someone said they were going to do something useful for your sailing hobby, do you really have no moral right to call him on it if he doesn’t, because he never signed a legal contract?
Wednesday, December 04, 2013
A Generational Divide
I interrupt my series of questions for Dr. Laura with examples from yesterday's show that might explain some of the questions in the series.
The Call of the Day yesterday was from the first hour:
Shane (caller, female): I'm calling about a dating situation. I've been seeing someone for a little over a month. I've developed feelings for him. I'm definitely not ready to be a relationship him, because I don't trust him enough to have sex with him yet. I find myself-
Laura [Interrupting]: Shane, stop. You're not even ashamed of what you just said.
The Call of the Day yesterday was from the first hour:
Shane (caller, female): I'm calling about a dating situation. I've been seeing someone for a little over a month. I've developed feelings for him. I'm definitely not ready to be a relationship him, because I don't trust him enough to have sex with him yet. I find myself-
Laura [Interrupting]: Shane, stop. You're not even ashamed of what you just said.
Questions For Dr. Laura Schlessinger - 2
Read the introduction to this series here.
3) Along the same lines as question #1, what exactly are you expecting fathers to do when setting right their teen children, their daughter's boyfriend, etc.? Yes, a father can beat his chest, flex his muscles, clean his guns, talk in a loud, commanding voice, give stern looks, get in someone's face, etc. But if push literally comes to shove, the father faces arrest for child abuse and/or assault. Fathers are obligated to provide for their children. They can’t kick them out. They can't physically restrain them. They can't slap sense into them. They can't refuse to take care of them. The authorities will side with the teen, and so will many wives and the other parents. Young males today know this. So while they may not want their girlfriend's father yelling in their face, they know if her father touches them, he (they boyfriend) will own the father.
This macho dad stuff may have worked back "in the day" in certain places, but these days, a husband/father has no power if the others involved do not "let" him have any. I wish fathers still had the kind of power you tell them to act like they have. They don't. Not legally, anyway. This is the world we've created.
If you have answers to ANY of these questions, or you want to make a comment, please do.
3) Along the same lines as question #1, what exactly are you expecting fathers to do when setting right their teen children, their daughter's boyfriend, etc.? Yes, a father can beat his chest, flex his muscles, clean his guns, talk in a loud, commanding voice, give stern looks, get in someone's face, etc. But if push literally comes to shove, the father faces arrest for child abuse and/or assault. Fathers are obligated to provide for their children. They can’t kick them out. They can't physically restrain them. They can't slap sense into them. They can't refuse to take care of them. The authorities will side with the teen, and so will many wives and the other parents. Young males today know this. So while they may not want their girlfriend's father yelling in their face, they know if her father touches them, he (they boyfriend) will own the father.
This macho dad stuff may have worked back "in the day" in certain places, but these days, a husband/father has no power if the others involved do not "let" him have any. I wish fathers still had the kind of power you tell them to act like they have. They don't. Not legally, anyway. This is the world we've created.
If you have answers to ANY of these questions, or you want to make a comment, please do.
Tuesday, December 03, 2013
Questions For Dr. Laura Schlessinger - 1
If you read this blog, you know that I love the Dr. Laura Schlessinger Show, and I think Dr. Laura is great, and I agree with her almost all of the time and I think she’s doing a heckuva lot of good. She's made my life better, she's helped me be a better person, and she's done the same for many, many people.
It is because I am such a fan of her show, books, etc. that I know what she says well enough that I can have these questions for her (unlike people who have no clue and mockingly ask questions). These questions are not intended to be traps. I am not playing "gotcha". I'd really like to know if there are answers. It is difficult to give commentary and take calls for 3 hours per day, 5 days per week, plus everything else she does and to never misspeak or never put things in a way that could have been put better or never misunderstand what a caller has said.
I value consistency, basing things on principles, values, etc., and Dr. Laura is almost always consistent and clear about principles. Maybe there is some principle or bit of knowledge I am not seeing that would clear up my questions. Maybe she will give clarification on her show in a commentary, since she doesn’t take questions like this as calls – she only deals with a supposedly real-life situation faced by the caller. I think answering these questions would make her show even better because I'm probably not the only listener who has these questions.
I was going to do one long posting of all the questions, but that would take too long, I couldn't wait any longer, and people tend to skip over lost walls of text anyway, so I've decided to turn this into a series, starting with what was probably the original question I wanted to ask anyway:
It is because I am such a fan of her show, books, etc. that I know what she says well enough that I can have these questions for her (unlike people who have no clue and mockingly ask questions). These questions are not intended to be traps. I am not playing "gotcha". I'd really like to know if there are answers. It is difficult to give commentary and take calls for 3 hours per day, 5 days per week, plus everything else she does and to never misspeak or never put things in a way that could have been put better or never misunderstand what a caller has said.
I value consistency, basing things on principles, values, etc., and Dr. Laura is almost always consistent and clear about principles. Maybe there is some principle or bit of knowledge I am not seeing that would clear up my questions. Maybe she will give clarification on her show in a commentary, since she doesn’t take questions like this as calls – she only deals with a supposedly real-life situation faced by the caller. I think answering these questions would make her show even better because I'm probably not the only listener who has these questions.
I was going to do one long posting of all the questions, but that would take too long, I couldn't wait any longer, and people tend to skip over lost walls of text anyway, so I've decided to turn this into a series, starting with what was probably the original question I wanted to ask anyway:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)