Tom Leykis Has Transitioned

No, not like that.

As he announced he would a month ago, he has ended his live call-in audio show. He last had a regular radio show in 2009, started up this Internet-based call-in audio show in 2012 after his contact with the radio company (and the accompanying paychecks) ended. While that show was placed into subscription podcast format after in ran live on the stream (on which it would be repeated) for free, now Leykis is specifically doing a podcast for paid subscribers, who can also access the content from 2012 onward.

This means he's no longer doing a live, appointment show. It gives him far more flexibility, while trading away caller participation.

While the call-in show generated enough revenue through subscriptions, advertisements, and other ways to more than cover costs (sans a healthy paycheck for Leykis), it is possible he'll make more money from his new podcast format.

How so, given that he won't have as large of an audience for advertisers to reach?

Don't Date Single Mothers - Here is Why

[This is this blog's most popular post. I think it holds up well and is highly relevant in today's world. PLEASE NOTE: If you want to comment, do so here because this entry already had hundreds of comments.]

Not of all of these reasons apply to everyone. Some men are dating for sex, others are dating for marriage and sex, for example. Also, “single mother” can mean different things*.

Men, especially men with game, have a choice in women. Some women have children, some don’t. Unless you’re a pedophile, it is extremely unlikely that a woman with a child has anything to offer that’s of benefit to you that a woman without a child lacks. Conversely, here are the downsides of dating a single mother, in no particular order:

1) The kid(s) will always come first for her, and that’s the way it should be. A woman without a child has much more freedom to be available for you. An unmarried mother should put her child(ren) first. The child is already dealing with not having a mother and father married to each other and living together, and needs parental attention. That child does not need to compete with you, and you don’t need to compete with that child. Even if you were to marry her, the child(ren) will always come first, whereas being with a childless woman means YOU come first. Having children in the mix complicates EVERYTHING!

2) Most relationships end. So you’d bond with her children and then you (and the children) would have to endure the pain of losing or restricting that bond with each other. That’s bad enough for you, but you should not be a party to putting a child through that.

3) Being around the child(ren) exposes you to false charges of abuse. If the child likes you, if you’re nice to the child, that’s no insurance against false accusations. It probably makes you MORE of a target. These children are more likely to have mental and emotional problems. Social workers know that children in these situations are more likely to be abused by their mother’s lovers, so they’ll be more likely to believe you are a culprit. Even if you are ultimately cleared of false accusations, the mere accusation can ruin your life. This reason alone should eliminate single mothers from your consideration.

4) You WILL have to pay more than if you date a childless woman. First it will start off with having to pay for babysitters, and then she will want to have “dates” on which the child(ren) will come along. So not only will you not be getting sex, but you’re going to have to hang out at Chuck E. Cheese’s AND pay for the child’s meals and entertainment. Depending on what is happening with the child’s biological father, how much time the child spends around you, paying for the child, and buying gifts for the child (think birthdays, Christmas, etc.), you can end up getting tagged for child support. All it takes is some judge or government official picking YOU to pay for the child’s needs rather than taxpayers. Finally, if you marry her, you will DEFINITELY be paying more.

5) A woman who has given birth can’t ever have a body close to what she had before carrying a child. This is not saying that having a child isn’t worth it, but this is not about YOU having a child. That child is hers, not yours. Her body was changed by something that is of no benefit to you.

6) You don’t want to be a father. She has demonstrated already that she doesn’t know how to effectively use contraception OR otherwise doesn’t make good choices because she made children with the wrong guy (most likely)*, and has demonstrated that she WANTS to be a mother as she kept the child. Once a woman is a mother, she is less reluctant to avoid pregnancy. She may WANT her child(ren) to have a sibling, and you don’t want to end up being Daddy. It doesn’t matter what she says as far as “I don’t want another child” or “I can’t get pregnant” or “I’m using contraception” or “I wouldn’t ask anything of you.” Women lie or change their minds about this sort of thing all of time**, and even if she doesn’t, a court can make you be Daddy, financially anyway.

7) You don’t want to be divorced. Especially since women are more likely to file for divorce, marrying a divorced woman means you are more likely to end up divorced from her. Second marriages have a higher failure rate than first marriage. Marrying a woman with minor children gives you about a 70% chance of getting divorced. And that's legal divorce. Some people stay legally married, but miserable.

8) You don’t want to deal with the child’s father. Even if you’re just dating her and don’t want to get married, if the father(s) of the child(ren) is/are in the picture, that is likely going to be even more of a hassle for you. Even if a biodad isn't in the picture right now, he can always resurface and wreak havoc unless he's dead.

As you can see, whether you’re just looking for sex or you actually do want to get married (= legally obligating yourself to give at least half of everything you’ll ever earn to a woman, being held legally/financially responsible for any children she births during the marriage whether they are yours or not), you should avoid single mothers. This is written to protect men (and, somewhat, children). None of this is to say single mothers are bad people and certainly not to say all women do the things I listed. Some do, and men should protect themselves.


*Women are “single mothers” for different reasons. While the term should be reserved for never-married mothers, it can also refer to divorced mothers and widowed mothers. Unless she was widowed because her husband was killed through no fault of his own (as opposed to guys who committed suicide, or had unhealthy lives, or were involved in crime), she picked the wrong man and/or treated him like crap. A few single mothers used a sperm donor, and those women think men are not important. [SINCE I HAVE RECEIVED MULTIPLE COMMENTS ON THIS, please see what I wrote here about WIDOWED MOTHERS.]

**Never trust a woman’s claims she can’t/doesn’t want to get pregnant (unless, of course, you WANT to have children with her). Assume she is fertile and will want to have a baby.

[This entry gets a lot of traffic, relative to my other entries. It must resonate with someone. PLEASE NOTE: If you want to comment, do so here because this entry already had hundreds of comments.]

Here's how to exit a relationship with a single mother if you're already in one.

Did Her Needs Change?

This entry is going to explicitly cover some sexual topics. So don't read it if that bothers you.

Not Booked

Someone commenting here reminded me of something I was thinking about the other day.

Wasn't Tom Leykis' book supposed to be released this month? It was going to be about Leykis 101, which essentially teaches men how to get more sex for less money.

It's placeholder has disappeared from Amazon.

I haven't heard the book mentioned on the show lately.

Tom's live, free, call-in show is about to end, but he does plan to start podcasting for paid subscribers.

At this point, it wouldn't be all that difficult for an avid listener to publish a well-organized and annotated book with the exact same information, while avoiding using the name "Leykis" or some of Tom's favorite phrases and personal stories. Granted, that listener wouldn't have Leykis' name recognition or media connection for ready publicity. Tom would probably argue that multiple people have already tried.

It did seem strange that the placeholder listed that the book would be released the same month Tom was ending the current version of his show.

The book could still be used to promote the subscriber podcast and archives, and perhaps Tom is revising the text to do exactly that. Heck, he could string together segments from his archives to compile an audiobook.

Waiting For Marriage is Good But Not Risk Free

[This post is from December 12, 2012. I'm bumping it up because it is still relevant.]

When I last updated here, I wrote this. I'll probably explain things more later, but for now, things are OK. I'm alive, she's alive, the kids are alive.

On yesterday's Dr. Laura Schlessinger program (which I listen to every minute of, because she's great), she opened by talking about the risks of fornication (without using that word) and why, statistically, saving sex for marriage (marrying as a virgin) is good. On her Facebook page, a question was asked of readers (even though she regularly says people should not have personal Facebook pages... they have to be on Facebook to respond on Facebook... but I digress.) Her opening commentary said sexual bonding short-circuits decision-making. But if that's true before marriage, it has to be true after marriage, too.

Then, appealing to data, she said

Compared to the early sex group* those who waited for marriage:
Rated relationship stability higher
Rated relationship satisfaction higher
Rated sexual quality higher
Rated communication higher

*A month of less after meeting/dating. There is a sizable gap between those couples and couples who waited for marriage. I wonder how couples who waited, say, three months or six months would compare?


How was this data collected? How were the questions asked? Were they asked as a couple, face to face with the person collecting the data? Was the "less than a month" or "married" question asked before the others? I suspect couples who waited for marriage, especially if they realize what is being studied, and even more so if done face-to-face and in front of each other, will overstate positives because they are financially, legally, socially, and often religiously invested and don't want to admit to others and especially themselves if they are unhappy with their marriages or something in their marriages. Some of these people may be of the mindset that "speaking it makes it so" and if they believe, as Dennis Prager does, that happiness is a choice and a moral obligation, they have even more incentive to claim things are great. Wouldn't they sound selfish and ungrateful to their spouse and God if they said things weren't going well?

What does it mean when people who've never had sex with anyone else rate the sexual quality of their relationship higher? They have nothing with which to compare it! Now, ignorance may be bliss if they want to stay married for life, but that's hardly an effective statistic to cite to any rational unmarried person about why saving sex for marriage is better: "If your married sex life ends up dull, you'll have no idea how much better it could be!!! Isn't that great?!?"

As with all sociology, correlation does not prove causation, nor the direction of causation, and we can't compare the same people to both circumstances, because they are only in one. For all we know, these same "saved it for marriage" couples would say the same things about their relationships if they had, instead, started having sex with each other right away and got married the same time along in the relationship, especially if they did not buy into a belief that sex is for marriage.

Dr. Laura ended the commentary by saying  "there are a lot of benefits, and no downs".

Really?

I wrote the letter below to her, and I doubt it is going to show up on her website, so here goes...
*****

I now believe sex is for marriage and that the world would be a better place if everyone reserved sex for their one and only spouse, and if widowed, again reserved sex for their next spouse.

But we who believe this should NOT:

1. Overpromise. Just about anyone who believes what we do is very religious or at least socially conservative, and the message we send is that if someone just saves sex for marriage and marries within the same faith, things will generally be great and the sex life will be great. The statistics often cited (including by you) are usually based on self-reporting, which I find dubious. The married-as-virgin people have nothing to compare their relationship to and no idea how things would be for them if they hadn’t married, or married as virgins. Even if accurate, as you recognize, statistics are generalizations. There are many unmarried people having lot of sex and are happy with their sex lives and lives in general, and many married people who are getting little or no sex and are unhappy.

2. Deny there are tradeoffs. Yes, there are. Every day we save sex for marriage is another day we don't enjoy sex, for example, and plenty of people, including women, do find sex outside of marriage enjoyable and it has many of the same benefits married sex does. It is very easy for those of us who are married and having sex to tell those who aren't "You should wait." Many of them see it like we're enjoying a nice meal while they are standing around with growling stomachs and we're telling them "Don't eat that junk food! Wait and MAYBE you'll be seated at that gourmet restaurant." They're hungry NOW, and while they might sit alone listening to good reasons to save sex for marriage, things look very different while sharing a passionate moment with someone they love.

3. Deny or ignore the risks. a) Almost anyone who believes sex is only for marriage also believes divorce is only permissible (and even then, still to be avoided if possible) if there is abandonment or abuse (including adultery and addictions). They may think they are marrying a virtuous, strong person because they are marrying a virgin, only to find they've married someone who has a low sex drive or other physiological problem, a psychological aversion to sex, or is homosexual. b) While people often stay in bad or mismatched relationships too long because they are having sex, there are also people who marry too young, too quickly, or the wrong person because they have a natural yearning for sex and want to be able to say they saved sex for marriage. [After I wrote this and sent this, I got to the 40-minute mark in the 2nd hour of the podcast and she got a call from a woman whose son was marrying too quickly/young/to the wrong person precisely because they were saving sex for marriage, illustrating my point.] c) Sexual incompatibility, especially when these incompatibilities can't be reconciled[1] or one spouse refuses to try to reconcile them. Although YOU wouldn't tell them to, they then think they are compelled by the same religious community and beliefs (including that divorce is shameful) to suffer and struggle through such a marriage.

4. Ignore that we've created a culture in which it takes longer to become established, independent adults and for men to earn enough to provide for a family, while at the same time making it easier to have unmarried sex without unwanted physical or social consequences. In Jewish culture 2,000 years ago, people married a lot younger, usually to someone they'd known all their lives and were pledged to marry, and unmarried sex, casual or otherwise, wasn't so easy to have and keep private as it is now.

Personal disclosure: I married a virgin, even though I did not require that in a wife. I now believe she was able to maintain her commitment to save sex for marriage due to the many medications she takes, as I discovered after we'd married, despite (or perhaps because of) making it clear I didn't want to marry someone who was chronically ill or constantly treating illness. After marrying, there was one situation after another that could be cited as interfering with our love life, and by the time I realized this was the way things were always going to be, we had children. I have crunched the numbers and even with rounding off to the benefit of marriage, I am one of those people who had a more active sex life (as wrong as it was) when I was unmarried, with no pregnancies that I'm aware of, and no STDs, confident I do not have any children from those relationships. If I hadn't had those relationships, I would be more anxious/bitter in my marriage because I would have to live with knowing that I'd never know what it is like to have an enthusiastic lover who wants sex enough to initiate and what it was like to do some rather common things my wife won't do with me. Thanks to you, I at least get some "mercy action" between the times she is willing to actually get naked , let me make love to HER, and have intercourse, but it emotionally feels like me masturbating, only while adding a chore to her day, which makes it less enjoyable to me than masturbation.

I appreciate all you do to encourage everyone to lead better lives. If we're honest about saving sex for marriage, we'll maintain credibility and avoid prompting general disillusionment with people who do not share so many of the positive results of saving sex for marriage.

***** [End of letter]
[1]Off the top of my head, some basic sexual incompatibilities married couples may experience include: 1) Who "may" initiate and how. 2) Who takes the lead 3) Positions for intercourse 4) Whether or not sexy talk is allowed, and just how explicit/which words to use. 5) Use of sex toys or common items household items (whipped cream?) 6) Lights on vs lights off. 7) Role playing
8) Who climaxes when
9) General limitations (examples: Once something has her natural lubrication on it, her mouth will not touch it, or he will refuse to kiss her on the lips if she has gone down on him.)
10) Cunnilingus? Fellatio?
11) Very soft and gentle and slow, or rougher?
12) Frequency
13) Morning, afternoon, or night?
Now, I know there are people reading this who are saying to themselves "They should just talk it over." That only works with someone who is willing to try, or willing to do it to please their spouse (without indicating to their spouse they find it a chore, thereby ruining it for their spouse). I've made it clear on this blog that I love cunnilingus. But what if a woman who more or less needed either that or a vibrator to orgasm married a man who said both of those things were "of the devil"? How likely is he to be talked into providing those things to her?   In my case, my wife has never ever suggested something I've turned down, while she has turned down several things, or has volunteered after the fact, even though she should have been able to tell I enjoyed it, that it, at best, does nothing for her.

Do I Have the Right to Remain Silent?

I probably didn’t handle this in the best way. There’s probably some way I didn’t think of that would have made things better. I’m always open to instruction and suggestions.[This is bumped up from June 2015.]

It is times like this that I am grateful for Tom Leykis and certain "manosphere" folks, and for the fornication of my wayward youth. I know I'm supposed to say I regret my fornication, but thanks to those experiences, and to Leykis and others, I know that my wife's sexual rejection is about her, not about me. Oh, sure, I don't have it as bad as some husbands. I still get some (mostly mercy, mostly vanilla) sex every two or three weeks. That's not enough for me.

I really, really, really wanted a lover who was enthusiastic, curious, adventurous, and generous, because those are the things I bring to lovemaking. I wanted someone who'd indulge with passion, playfulness, and think of marital lovemaking as bonding, a blessing from the Lord, and a shared hobby.

How does one know that's what they're getting if they avoid sexual interaction with each other before they marry? That’s a question I’ve asked before.

When someone calls Dr. Laura and says their spouse lacks interest, she asks how it was before they married.

Before we married, my wife explained that she was a virgin and was determined to be one until she married. I was fine with that. I thought that was ideal. She was passionate with her kisses. We did more than we should have, if going by what’s been esteemed as moral tradition, and she really seemed to struggle holding back. In fact, as I think I've written before, she did something multiple times she hasn't done even once since we married.

The indications were that she was revved up and ready to enjoy married life in this way. But there were a series of challenges life threw at her/us (you know… life) after I signed on the dotted line, and then we had two kids, and she had everything she wanted: She had the title of "wife" and "mother" and the minivan and the house. She had someone paying all of her bills, including for her overused health insurance and medical bills.