Opening the Vent

According to the always-reliable Wikipedia, I, by myself, make a little more than the statewide median family income, which is more than the median household income.  I’m not sure what constitutes a "family" vs. a "household", but there you go. It's even better when comparing to the medians for my city. Aside from a mortgage on my wife's part, neither of us came to the marriage with debt. Yet here we are, struggling financially. What I mean by that is we're not saving as much for retirement as I think we should and we have almost no spare liquid funds unless we want to cash in some of our retirement investments, which I don't think would be a good idea. We're not currently giving to our church. We had a vacation (the first "real" one in quite some time) planned but we had to cancel/postpone it and now we're trying to deal with losing some of the money we already put into it.

So when my wife informed me we were finally, after months of her writing an e-mail to set something up, going to be meeting with someone from our church, I thought back to that e-mail, and due to that I figured this meeting was mostly going to be about finances and what disability aid or programs they knew about, since my wife is disabled (even though she was able to work full-time before we married). I felt kind of silly seeking help from others when I make more the median for our city, but I agreed to go anyway.

I ended up wishing it had been about money.

I should have been tipped off that the meeting wasn't quite going to be what I thought, since the night before, my wife actually gave a slight indication that she was looking forward to sex, and it had only been a week since the last session.

In the meeting were the woman to whom she wrote, and two men. One of the men I recognized as someone who does things like give the "sex talk" session of the church's premarital counseling (which we'd been through), during which he tells the couples considering or planning marriage that marital lovemaking is given to us to enjoy in many ways and many places. Basically, he's there to tell people that sex is allowed once they're married, and it doesn't have to be the missionary position.

But back to the meeting. In the meeting, we focused on:

• That my son loses his temper, like I do, and I should be open to being drugged and having my son drugged.
• That my daughter is a messy hoarder, like I am.
• That our house is a mess and we could use some help having it organized and cleaned.

I felt like I'd been ambushed.

Let's go over each of those.

The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow

Things were pretty bleak when I wrote this.

Things are slightly better now, although our home is slipping back into a mess.

The main reason things are better is that I'm paying a significant amount of money for others to take over more responsibilities we'd originally planned for my wife to handle. This expense was unplanned. It has done a number on our finances, which means we will suffer in the future as a result, and we're going without certain wants right now, but for the time being things are better as far as our needs.

I think back to when I was single and I was continuously building up my liquid savings, fully funding my Roth IRA, etc. Whenever an "emergency" came up like significant car work, I didn't have to worry about it. I knew I could pay it. I rented an apartment back then, and I know that if I had just stayed that course, I could have bought a nice (not big, but big enough for a single guy) in a nice area at the bottom the market, maybe paying cash for half of the price (which is no small feat in the greater Los Angeles area). When this sort of thing is what you daydream about, you know you've screwed yourself.

More "good news" is that we went only one week between having sex, instead of two or three. I remember when we felt bad for my wife's sister and her husband because we found out that they were only doing it once per week. That was back in the early days of our marriage, when my wife knew she had to keep me around long enough to get pregnant.

The recent sex was Clinton-style. I'd wanted to enjoy my wife's body, caress her, bring pleasure to her, etc., but I wasn't about to turn down my "reward" for good behavior. Yup. It's like that. If I'm not jumping through the hoops just right, I get punished with withheld sex. If I do things just right, my wife might engage in the chore of actually having some form of sex with me. She actually did a pretty good job (no pun intended), even though she avoided some things she knows I like that she used to do.

Hey single guys! You, too, can have a life like this. Just legally sign over half of everything you'll ever earn and pay for a series of huge parties where your wife gets to play the queen.

Boyfriends and Husbands

I'll start off with my usual disclaimer about Dr. Laura: I love her show (obviously, since I listen to every minute of it), I think she's awesome, and I think she's done and continues to do a whole lot of good for people.

I think I've written about this element of her approach before, but I can't look it up right now. I was listening to a call that I think was on yesterday's show that prompted these thoughts (again).

The well-being of children is obviously the highest priority of Dr. Laura. For example, unless someone is abusive, Dr. Laura recommends people with minor children stick out an unhappy marriage and put on a polite, even pleasant front for the kids, until the kids are grown. Sometimes, she stresses how important the marital vows are, and why they make a marriage different from a shack-up or mere girlfriend/boyfriend relationship, but other times the vows don't seem to matter much, like when a marriage doesn't involve minor children. In situations like that, she may say "You made a mistake. Go home to your mother." and divorce is the recommendation. So, as long as we're not talking about abuse, she'll tell people to stick it out if there are minor children when there are problems she'd otherwise tell people should prompt them to leave.

That's relevant to the topic I wanted to focus on:

Guys viewing "adult" media.

She usually tells as worried wife and mother that it is not a problem, or at least no big deal, if her husband is viewing material depicting (adult) women or men with women, as long as the husband isn't neglecting her or his responsibilities, and that just about all men do it. (Dr. Laura has a large evangelical audience, and viewing such material is frequently depicted as extremely harmful and dangerous in evangelical circles, so I picture shocked women all over North America, most of them gluttons, gossips, and greedy - about which the Bible definitely has something to say even if evangelical preachers would rather spend the time knocking "adult" media.)


However, I've noticed her advice is usually very different if the worried woman is not yet married to the man in question. For example, a young woman called and said her long-term boyfriend had a "collection" of pictures on his phone, and Dr. Laura told her to run. In this particular case, I'd chalk it up to their ages, or to Dr. Laura saving the guy from having a whiny girlfriend/wife, if Dr. Laura hadn't added that she feels sorry for any woman who marries the guy. She tends to describe unmarried guys doing this as having a serious character flaw, while she takes a completely different tone to husbands doing this.

I don't think it is just a matter of what Dr. Laura had for breakfast. She's usually very consistent.




It was not implied that the pictures on the phone are of women the boyfriend knew, but it seemed to me the girlfriend was saying this was stuff he's collected surfing online. Dr. Laura is especially averse to guys having naked pictures of past sexual partners, especially in digital format. I won't belabor why.


Giving Dr. Laura a generous assumption of consistency and the benefit of the doubt would indicate to me that she thinks those husbands are creeps but wants their marriages to be pleasant and so she never attacks the character of those guys when their wives call. The other possibility I see, cynically, and I think I've brought this up here before, is that the principle being applied is that a married man and earned/bought the "right" to enjoy seeing nude women and the visual/auditory stimulation of sex - that men should  "pay for sex" and if they have, then they are entitled to it, and if they haven't, they shouldn't get any semblance of it. Thus, husbands (who've paid  for sex) should be able to view the material without their wife even complaining about it, while a boyfriend, who hasn't paid (as much) for sex, should be dumped.

Maybe we'll get a commentary offering clarification? Dr. Laura has great commentaries, and any time she gives additional insight to approach, I learn something.

Marriage is Still Vastly Popular

Tom Leykis keeps repeating that the 2010 U.S. Census showed that for the first time ever in the Census, there are more unmarried adults than married adults.

I’ve heard before that there are now more unmarried “households” than married, which would be significantly different than what Leykis is saying, because each married household would have TWO adults, and many of the unmarried households would have just one adult, meaning that married adults would still significantly outnumber unmarried people.

But... either way, what does it mean? Tom focuses on it to point out that 1) marriage is dead (and I agree that it very well may be dying) and 2) more and more people are thinking/acting like him.

Well hold on there a minute.

Tom advocates not only not marrying, but not having children, not living with anyone else, and not being in an exclusive relationship at all. People who are sticking to that are a tiny percentage of the population.

The overwhelming majority percentage of Americans will get married at least once. Even most of those who never have a marriage ceremony will shack up or otherwise share quarters and/or have children.

Even ardent fans of Leykis will call in an admit that they "fell off the wagon", especially when his show wasn't being distributed live because he was waiting for his contract with CBS Radio to run out (and was getting paid). They got into relationships, many marrying, many having children.

So again, let's assume he's right – there are now more PEOPLE unmarried than people married, rather than it applying to households and not individuals.

Why would change be in effect?

1) People are getting married later. Rather than marrying at 17, 18, 19, 20, people are getting married at 25, 30, and 35. So there are more unmarried 25 year-olds than there used to be. BUT THESE PEOPLE ARE STILL MARRYING.

2) Widows/widowers are living longer. BUT THESE PEOPLE WERE MARRIED and many of them seek to get married again.

3) People are divorcing earlier, living longer after divorce, or waiting longer before entering into another marriage after a divorce. THESE PEOPLE WERE MARRIED and many of them seek to get married again.

4) More people are living in what are essentially commonlaw marriages, which is definitely not what Leykis would advise.

5) Marriage strikers/MGTOW/Leykis 101 Students who are deliberately avoiding marriage.

I'm also curious as to whether the Census classified people whose spouse is in prison, hospitalized, or temporarily working elsewhere/deployed as "single" or "unmarried" (as I know some statistics have) or correctly counted them as married?

Married people OR married households STILL make up almost as much of the population as all of bachelors/bachelorettes/spinsters, same-sex, divorce, single parent, divorced, widowed, and marriage strikers COMBINED.

Now, maybe there is an ongoing trend and marriage rates/lengths will decline significantly. Leykis seems to think so. The other day he was citing polling of “Millennials” and their attitudes towards marriage, and that they don't think it is so important. I can believe that, and it is not surprising they also think there can be marriages without a bride or without a groom. It's part of the same issue. However, as those people age, most will marry and have children, and even those who don't will see other people do it, and a whole lot of them will change their opinions about the significance of marriage and what marriage is and isn't.

Please don't misunderstand me. I’m not saying everyone should marry and raise children. I'm certainly not saying that the legal realities of marriage today are good or beneficial for men (and even many marriage advocates will admit that marriage is for the benefit of children and women, not for men). I'm not denying that demographics are changing. And personally, for reasons I think I've explained in other postings, if I had to do it over again I can't say I would get married. What I AM saying is that statistics are funny things. The way Leykis talks, you'd think that there majority of people are now thinking and living like him (or at least, how he advocates because he has been married himself, but now advises against it). Clearly, that's not the case. All you have to do is look around. Almost all women have either been married or want to marry (or, at least have a wedding).  An overwhelming majority of men alive now who've never been married will get married, enthusiastically or reluctantly.

[Bumped up because of news in September 2014 that stated this statistic again]

Not Treating In Kind

My wife and I are likely entering a new phase in our lives. For the time being, another one of her responsibilities has been delegated to hired help, at great expense, which should, in theory, give her more time and energy.

Of course I'm NOT talking about lovemaking. Being a good husband, I have not seriously considered having someone else fulfill her responsibility in that regard.

We've had sex exactly twice in the last five weeks, unenthusiastic on her part, and clearly what she considers an act of mercy for me.

She still wants to cuddle, which we do in the family room, after the kids are in bed for the night.

I know that, like many women, she wants to cuddle without it leading to sex, because you know, why would you want to have sex with your husband? So that's what I do. It does not lead to sex at any other time or any other benefit beyond the cuddling itself.

When I'm feeling rejected/neglected sexually, I'm less inclined to otherwise be physically affectionate with her. I keep hugs and kisses to a minimum frequency and duration, because I feel emotionally distant from her.

I suppose the experts would tell me I should be doing the opposite - I should be being more affectionate, because 1) it will help and 2) I should take what I can get. I struggle for a good analogy, but to me, it's like someone has told you they don't like you (sexual rejection) so why would you make an effort to talk with that person more? I don't want to be an annoyance or burden on anyone. To me, when it comes to spouses, physical affection is all part of the same package, a continuum, and if you don't want to travel that part of the circle, we shouldn't be traveling on the circle at all. If you're going to tell me I'm not good enough to be served my dinner in your restaurant, I'm not going to order drinks in your bar. If you don't give a crap about what my needs are, knowing I have them, why should I give a crap about what you want?

She texted me while I was working and asked if we could cuddle tonight. Now, if I treated her like she treats me, my response could be:

1) Telling her we should wait for tomorrow night or another night, and then orchestrating events so it won't happen that night.

2) Telling her "I don't feel like it."

3) Telling her she did X wrong and so I'm not going to.

4) Agree, but make sure my body language and participation are as cold/distant/motionless as possible.


But how did I react?

I quickly and simply agreed.

This is going to eat into my sleep time, which is already too short.

These days, I feel like I have a beautiful friend living with me as a roommate, but one whose bills I'm paying and whose bills I'll be obligated to pay for rest of my life no matter how she behaves and even if she kicks me out of my own home.

Romantic, eh?