How Have the Holidays Been So Far?

The end of the year is rapidly approaching. How have the holidays been for you so far?

If you're in a relationship (unmarried), how has that been going? Has it been stressful? How has it been, dealing with her, her family, her friends, etc.? How has she interacted with your family and friends? Remember, she's auditioning. This is the best it will ever be. If you marry her, she will likely think she doesn't have to try anymore. She doesn't have to pretend to like your family or friends. She doesn't have to hold back from whining, nagging, complaining, cajoling.

If you haven't hit the eject button yet, do it before the year closes out. You don't want to be with her at the stroke of midnight as 2019 becomes 2020.

Read this and follow the links.

I know.

I didn't see any of my original family or friends for Christmas. I spend the whole date with my wife's family.

Thinks were, comparatively, much better than some other Christmases I've spent with her family, but it was still mostly a day sitting around wishing I was with my parents and siblings or home, being tired and having to drive in bad conditions but having to wait for when she had had enough, meaning driving conditions were much worse than when I would have left. And again, this was comparatively good. There have been some awful Christmases with her family.

Stop! Don't Propose!

Guys, if you're thinking about proposing as a holiday surprise or just because you think it is a romantic time of year to propose, DON'T DO IT.

Odds are, proposing is a mistake. This is a statistical fact.

Consider:

1) 33-40% of first marriages end in divorce. It is well over 50% for second marriages (70% if stepchildren are involved).

2) Enough of the other marriages are problematic enough of the time that literally, between divorce and "bad" marriages (including marriages that effectively end but don't legally divorce, or in which one spouse dies or is killed by the other before divorce could take place) most marriages are a mistake.

3) On top of that, add in the engagements that don't make it to marriage that end with drama and/or bitterness.

So, statistically, proposing is a mistake, a very big mistake.

December Is Here and That Requires Evasive Maneuvers

Guys, December is here, and that means holidays, like Christmas, Hannukah, and the New Year. Those can be threats to free men. If you're an American who celebrates Thanksgiving in November, you should have already taken steps to ensure your freedom won't be jeopardized, but if you haven't, you really needs to act sooner rather than later.

Now is the time, guys. It is time to become extremely scarce to any woman who considers you her fiancé or expects your relationship to head that way. If you're seeing a woman regularly, it is time to disrupt that. Don't end up spending a lot of money! Don't give her (or her family!) the impression that you're eager to marry. That it what she/they will think if you join her at events with her friends and family. You shouldn't even know any of her friends or family. You should only be seeing her when the Sun isn't visible, preferrably at her place.

In taking evasive maneuvers, you're going to avoid seeing her until at least February 15. She might not agree to see you when that time comes. That's a small price to pay compared to having to spend the time and money that it would take if you were with her in-person through the holidays. 

Guys, It's Time to Go Ghost or Hit the Eject Button

Now is the time, guys, especially in the USA, where Thanksgiving is rapidly approaching. It is time to become extremely scarce to any woman who considers you her fiancé or expects your relationship to head that way. If you're seeing a woman regularly, it is time to disrupt that. Don't end up spending a lot of money!

[Bumped up! Procrastinators, ACT NOW!!!]

It's Not Too Early to Think About the Holidays

Guys in the USA (and some of this might apply to some of you men in other countries), Thanksgiving will be here before you know it. It's Thursday (of course), November 28. Unless you're so ignorant, delusional, or masochistic that you're thinking you want to be exclusive with a woman you've been seeing, perhaps you should set up a tickler on your phone for mid-November as a reminder that you're going to need to avoid any woman you've been seeing regularly. This is especially needed if you've made the mistake of letting her think of you as a potential husband, or a boyfriend, or committed - or you've met her family or friends.

You do NOT want to be with a woman you've been seeing regularly on Thanksgiving, on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, on New Year's Eve, on February 14, or on her birthday if it falls during that time or soon after. Same goes for any day during that time she considers an "anniversary" with you.

You need to avoid such a woman for that whole time: from at least November 28 through February 14.

Why?

1) So she doesn't get the idea that this is heading for a marital or live-in or even an exclusive situation; and

2) To avoid spending money on gifts for her, airfare, hotel rooms, parties, etc.

Be scarce. Be busy, Be "working". Don't answer her calls, texts, etc. or only respond "late" to every third or fourth one, saying you're busy. (She shouldn't know where you really live, or what you're actual phone's number is - use Google Voice or something similar.)

If she won't see you again come February 15, so be it. There are many other women, if you still want to see any.

During that time, as long as it isn't Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve/Day, or New Year's Eve, it's fine to see women who aren't of the "commitment" or "exclusive" thinking, at least when it comes to you. or new women, and you can see a new woman who is alone and desperate on February 14, as long as you're picking her up out and about, on the fly.

Or, use that time to hang out with friends, family, catch up on hobbies, do those chores you've been putting off, etc.

You DO NOT want to be with a woman who is thinking that because you've been seeing her for a while, and you're with her on those holidays and special days, that you're going to be exclusive with her, or living with her, or heading towards marriage. You DO NOT want to have to meet her friends and family. You DO NOT want to have to buy her gifts, or pay her way to some party or event or overpriced dinner or hotel room.

Read more:

We're Almost to February 14

Dealing With the Holidays

Stop! Don't Propose! Don't Marry!

Now is the Time, Guys

Who Am I? Why Am I Here?

Hey you. Yes, you. You might be wondering who I am and why this blog is here.

I'm a married middle-aged father living in the USA. I have steady career work and a four-year college degree. I'm the breadwinner for my family. I'm married to my first (and only) wife and I'm her first husband. Neither of us have children other than the ones we made together, after we married, and are raising. Neither of us shacked up with anyone before we married each other, nor did we live together before we married. We've been married well over the threshold of time that my state would order me to support her for life should we divorce.

I have opinions and experiences I want to share and questions I want to ask. These days, my main goal with this blog is to serve as a warning to other men that most of them should not sacrifice themselves for what our laws and culture now call marriage and fatherhood. For most men, it won't be worth it, even if your brain chemistry and your psychology try to cover up for making terrible decisions by trying to fool you into thinking that you really didn't do so badly by marrying and making children. Most men should be on a marriage strike.

Statistically, due the factors I mentioned in that second paragraph and other factors, my marriage is supposed to be a happy one. That's what "they" say anyway. And my wife probably would tell a pollster it IS a happy marriage, and if I was being polled in front of her, I'd have to agree. But the reality is, it isn't a happy marriage. Poke around the blog and you'll see why.

So, that's the brief overview.

I welcome comments on almost all the blog entries, whether you agree or disagree with me, but if yours looks like s-p-a-m or something from a b-o-t, it won't get published. Also, please watch your language as I try to avoid publishing profanity. You can also interact with me on Twitter.

Things Not to Say When On the Dr. Laura Show

I was already working on an very considered entry here about how to get through a call with Dr. Laura. She mentioned on the show Monday, October 28, 2019 that "someone" (might have had me in mind... no, seriously) should come up with a list of things not to say while a caller on her show.

So, here they are, in no particular order.

Things Not to Say When On the Dr. Laura Schlessinger Show

Women Get Something Out of Shacking Up, Fornication

This is something I wrote several years ago. It is as relevant as ever.

There Are None Good

Late in her show on Thursday, September 12, 2019, Dr. Laura took a call from a wife who said her husband's nephew was "verbally abusive" to her, which Dr. Laura had her change to nasty or mean or whatever, dropping the "abuse" word. The nephew had indicated his marriage was based on his wife's family's wealth, the caller had spoken up against that, and the nephew responded, with rude words, to tell her he didn't care what she thought.

Because of this, the caller's husband agreed to cut short their visit and leave the next day.

Apparently that wasn't enough for Dr. Laura. The husband was supposed to do... something... to the nephew. She didn't say what, which is very telling. Probably a statement of some sort, even though Dr. Laura also tells callers not to waste their breath with pointless confrontations, and "you have no power" and all of that. I guess maybe the point would be to show his wife that he cares? But that hasn't been enough of a point in so many other situations.

Anyway, the caller said her husband is a great husband, and Dr. Laura insisted he wasn't! He's not a great husband because he didn't tell the nephew off?!? Or do whatever unexplained thing he was supposed to do? He could be a great husband in a million ways, but because of this, he's not a good husband?

As she explained, a husband's top priority is to protect his wife. OK, the nephew was rude to her. It's not like he stole from her, physically threatened her, or even questioned her honor.

So, the caller's husband isn't a great husband.

But if that's the standard, there are none that are good. No husbands, no friends, no parents, because everybody is imperfect. This has been a recurring thing on the show lately. Dr. Laura's opinion of a friend suffered because that friend put her in touch with a possible date Dr. Laura decided was dishonorable. She also recently sounded like she had lowered her opinion of someone else she knows because (and Dr. Laura was intentionally very vague about it) that person suggested Dr. Laura interact with someone in the media she apparently loathes. My guess is that it was a suggestion for helping to promote her upcoming book.

Callers need to take note. Be very careful what you say, or you might get sidetracked by a declaration that someone in your life is terrible and you're in serious error for calling them a friend, or staying in touch with your mother, or having married your husband. Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. Dr. Laura is absolutely right most of the time when the caller's focus is to describe an individual's ongoing or repeated actions in great detail. But in situations in which only one relatively minor issue can be described, no strangers should make a judgment that the person's overall performance as a parent or friend or spouse or coworker or boss or employee should be declared bad.

Dr. Laura typically does 15 hours of radio per week. In an average week, she hits the nail on the head 98 percent of the time. That's why the times I think she falls short stick out to me so much.

Attention Radio Hosts Whose Shows Are Sold as Podcasts

If you're not going to post an hour of your show, for whatever reason, that you did live, please post a note to that effect. I suppose it is too much ask for a reason, too? Some of us actually WANT TO LISTEN to your show, and yeah, some of us are a bit compulsive about.

The talk radio hosts I listen to the most all have podcast versions of their shows that can be subscribed to for month or a year at a time, at a cost. The "in-show" live ads they read are included, but the "breaks" aren't, which is convenient. Each hour of the show is posted separately, as a separate file to play or download.

When Dr. Laura is out and the show is a "Best of" (a re-run), the brief description of the podcast hours will usually include that it is a "Best of". Sometimes, the same hour will be mistakenly posted as two different hours, and that will usually be corrected the next day the show is live. So, if that happens on a Friday, on Monday the staff will correct it.

I have paid subscriptions currently to Dr. Laura, Dennis Prager, and Michael Medved. Prager's podcast descriptions will also note when the show is a re-run or when a guest host is filling in. My gripe is about Medved's podcast. It seems that every week or two, there'll be an hour that is simply not posted at all. There will be a listing for Hour 1 and Hour 2 on Thursday, no mention of Hour 3, and then Hours 1, 2, and 3 for Friday. That sort of thing. There won't be a mention of the missing Hour 3. Or, as happened recently, there'll be an hour listed and described, but the file is actually something that's just four minutes long, instead of the usual 36 or 37 minutes.

Tweeting at the official account doesn't help.

I'd love to recommend Medved's podcast, but if we're not even going to get an explanation, let alone the actual content for which we paid, I'm reluctant.

Yeah, it's a First World problem. I could go back to listening to the shows live. It's far more convenient for me to listen to them once they're packaged as podcasts.

Do the Dreams of Men Matter?

Dr. Laura has repeatedly told male callers to her show (either directly or through their wife calling) that it doesn't matter if they hate their job, they need to (financially) provide for their family and not be concerned with following some dream.

During yesterday's show (August 21, 2017) [yes, this entry has been bumped up] during the third hour, she got a call from a woman who has been a SAHM, formerly a dental assistant, who was going back to work due to her kids aging out, but as a preschool (= daycare, which Dr. Laura usually rails against) teacher. The woman prefers doing the preschool work, but the dental assistant work, which she could get, pays far more, and her husband wanted her to take that work instead of the preschool work, to facilitate saving for retirement.

Now, Dr. Laura has declared she'll never retire and she says she can't understand people who retire "early" (despite telling men to do jobs they hate), so that might have played into her answer. Most people do want to retire, though.

Dr. Laura specifically told this woman to follow her dream and do the preschool work, and to tell her husband she's going to budget to save money. She tells wives these things (like when she tells a wife to tell her husband she'll feel sexier if she can quit her job), but I wonder how many actually follow through and budget, and are more frequent/enthusiastic lovers? My guess is many don't. There may not be all that much they can do to save more money, or maybe the husband doesn't want to cut back on their current lifestyle? In this case, the kids were off the college so that was probably going to be a big financial strain.

Dr. Laura further said that she doesn't know what has happened to today's males, who are, in her estimation, telling women to "go be a slave, forget about your dreams and earn income". This is very revealing. Are husbands slaves? Anyone clued in to MGTOW would say yes. I'm right there with Dr. Laura when the kids are young and there needs to be a parent with them. One parent (usually the husband) needs to earn income and the other (usually the wife) needs to be primarily concerned with caretaking of the children. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about empty-nesters.

What has happened to today's males? Here's what has happened: It costs more to live longer. Husbands know career disruption is a big thing now and they can't count on having their job until retirement. Also, there are an awful lot of wives out there who decided to leave their marriages, and if they are earning nothing or significantly less than their husbands (as most wives do), they are getting alimony payments, and depending on the state, for the rest of their lives!

The caller's husband is trying to secure their joint future. If they're going to need care, that's going to cost. If they're going to want to travel, that's not cheap. If they're going to be paying for their kids' education and weddings, that can easily total hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So... do the dreams of men matter?

We're not talking about the needs of children. That's out of the picture at this point. Now it becomes a question of whose dreams matter more. His dreams appear to be centered on the two of them together. Her dreams are about what she's doing with her day.

If is important to note that Dr. Laura frequently refers to a man marrying as a man "laying down his life".

Men: Want to pursue your dreams? Want to live your life instead of laying it down? DON'T MARRY. When you marry, it becomes all about her. And if you have children it is all about them. So don't do those things. Now, Dr. Laura and others  might accuse you of being selfish or immature or "afraid of commitment" or some other negative label. So what? You can console yourself with all of your freedom and financial security and enjoying your dreams and NOT dealing with nagging and hostility from the person who is sharing your home. That way, the woman you would have married can work whatever job she wants to. She won't have to deal with your request she be a "slave" like you have been.

Dating and Courting Are Not the Same Thing

I wish I had waited longer to finish up this entry about something Dr. Laura said on her show recently, because this past Tuesday (8/13/2019) she elaborated on her position about dates. I've been listening to her for decades and I don't remember her ever saying it so clearly. There might have been a couple of times I heard her saying the caller was dating a bum because he had gone on a date with someone else, but usually there were other problems with him, so I didn't catch it.

I agree with her on so much, but this is an area in which I think she's far too limiting and most of her listeners will not conform because it is generally understood that going on a few dates with someone doesn't make the people dating an exclusive couple; it is expected that they might be going on dates with other people as well, at least until they have a "define the relationship" moment, agree to be exclusive, or agree "we are girlfriend and boyfriend".

That's how it always was with any woman I dated, including my now-wife. My wife had the same understanding.

So Glad I Could Help

A comment was left on this entry of the blog. I wanted to highlight the comment, but I'm also putting it here because I wanted to "censor" it because I really don't want profanities on my blog. I don't mind people using profanities in private with me. I just don't want them on my blog.

William D.

Just found your blog at 6am in a hotel room away from my Wife and 4 year old daughter because initiating a divorce got me shooed out. Hooked after reading 1 post and stayed because of your positive personality. Might sound ironic to some that I say “positive” but honestly it takes a positive, brave and mindful person to come to terms with what’s going on, accept it and take the best route. It’s easy to go into a downward spiral of resentment and f--- things up (extreme example: Chris watts) Just reading reminds me that I am not alone and grounds me to deeper consciousness. Thanks Ken!

William, thank you so much for your very kind comment. I am so sorry for what you're going through and for what your daughter is going through. I sincerely hope you and your wife can patch things up, at least well enough and long enough that your daughter will be raised in a supportive home. If that doesn't happen, I hope you will be able to be there for your daughter as much as possible.

Guys, the best way to avoid a situation like this is to avoid conceiving children and refuse to marry.

Men Going Their Own Way - MGTOW

As I've understood it, Men Going Their Own Way is about men not getting into dependent relationships with women, whether that means avoiding social interactions with women entirely or exclusive dating relationships, and certainly refusing to marry or co-parent with a woman. I have also understood it to mean not being dependent on, nor reinforcing, gynocentric governments or certain other institutions. MGTOWs are certainly marriage strikers, but not the only ones. There may be some people who can be identified as both MGTOW and MRA (Men's Rights Activist) but not all MGTOWs are MRAs and not all MRAs are MGTOWs.

Faithful Leykis 101 students, who, while pursuing casual sex, avoid exclusive dating/romantic relationships, avoid living with women, avoid interacting with women in the workplace any more than strictly necessary, avoid conceiving children or co-parenting, fit in with the MGTOW movement, although Leykis, a self-proclaimed libertarian Never-Trumper, has stated he perceives MGTOW to be a co-opting of Leykis 101 with Trump support, and perhaps other things he doesn't like, added on. I think I heard him or others suggest MGTOW is racist, which doesn't seem to be the case at all, as I see men of all races active in the movement and most racists in social media strongly urge people of their own race to marry and pop out a lot of children.

My understanding of the MGTOW movement is that it is international, non-partisan, and generally welcomes men across the political spectrum (although it opposes laws and government projects and programs favoring women) regardless of religion, race, or ethnicity. Given MGTOW concerns about gynocentrism, it is understandable why they would have supported Trump as the only alternative to a President Hillary Clinton.

While there may be some incels (involuntarily celibates) who hide behind the MGTOW label, most men in the movement, which deliberately seeks to avoid marriage or any interdependent relationship with a woman, are NOT incels. They are VOLUNTARILY celibate (unmarried), whether they are chaste or they are fornicating. Indeed, many of them have been married and many are fathers. 

Don't Be Like Me

There was a time I was unmarried, child-free, and living a darn good life. [This entry is bumped up from October 2016 as it is still relevant. The updates included below were added a while ago, and things have not improved.]

To be sure, I was working a lot. I had a full-time job, a part-time job, and I freelanced. But the part-time job and the freelancing were mostly about having fun and interacting with my friends. Since I had budgeted my living expenses based on just my full-time job, everything else I earned went directly into savings.

And saving I was. And investing. I was on track to be able to retire very comfortably.

I was renting. Sure, it wasn't owning, but it also meant that no problem with the property was my problem - it was the landlord's, and I had the easy option of moving if I needed to. As it was, I was living a short drive from my full-time job.

I was hanging with my friends and spending time ALONE (which I very much enjoyed) in my free time and otherwise doing what I wanted to do.

As long as I showed up to work, filed my taxes, paid my rent, paid my utilities, and paid my credit cards, which I easily paid off every month, I was meeting my obligations - and I had no trouble doing any of that. I had no mortgage, no property taxes, no homeowner's insurance, no car payments, no school payments, no medical bills beyond insurance and a small co-pay for doctor visits, no student loan payments.  I didn't even need exercise equipment or a gym membership because one of my jobs kept me in shape.

I was fully able to shop for and prepare my own food, take care of my laundry, and keep my place clean.

Basically, my biggest problem was scheduling. If I wanted to do something that was going to take place when I normally worked, I needed to ask for the time off well in advance. Or have a good enough track record to take a sick day.

I had also gotten the hang of dealing with women so as to avoid spending any more time, money, energy, or emotion than necessary. There were women who were all wrong for me, who tried to get their hooks into me, and I limited interaction to what I wanted. I went on dates, and didn't sacrifice my wallet or myself in doing so.

It was a carefree life.

I decided I was open to marriage and fatherhood, if I found the right woman with whom I could do these things. (Before that, I was under the assumption that I should seek to marry and raise children.)

My mistake was believing that such a woman could possibly exist.

It's Amost His Time

There are two basic models of "relationships" that "work" for men.

The first is the all-in, marriage-minded one. Granted, this fails most of the time as either she divorces you, or cheats on you, or kills you, or becomes indifferent towards you, or unbearable to live with. But for a few people, usually people who are both enthusiastically following a conservative religious framework together, it "works" in that they stay together and won't admit to entertaining a desire to have a different life.

The other is the Leykis 101 life or something very similar to it, in which a guy is just enough of an aloof jerk that women will hook up with him for a while without expecting much from him. Guys can get just about all of the sex they want without any of the stuff they don't want (paying her bills, dealing with her friends and family, etc.)

If not one of those, a guy "should" be full-on MGTOW and stay out of the mess entirely. Because otherwise, you get people like this guy who wrote to Dear Abby.

Let's look at the letter from SOMEBODY'S BOYFRIEND IN MICHIGAN. 

More Angry Single Mothers

I have this thing about trying to keep the text on this blog free of "cussing", to keep it like something you'd heard on broadcast terrestrial radio. I even have a warning where people comment saying that their comment won't get posted. But people do it anyway. Sometimes, I want to address their comment. That means I have to copy/paste/edit their comment to remove the cussing.

Below, I look at a couple of comments left on this blog's most popular entry, which advises men not to date single mothers. It's received so many comments over the years that I'm thinking about posting a new entry for the sole purpose of allowing new comments on the topic. (Feel free to comment on this posting instead of the original one.)

What To Teach My Son?

My son currently insists he's never getting married. [This post is from January 2017. My son's thinking might have changed.]

He's still just a little kid, though, so it could still be the childhood "girls are yucky" sort of thing, or it could be more serious, such as seeing what my life is like as a husband. I try to put on a good face, but he is more than smart enough to observe the fact that I have to go work as much as I do and yet we have to watch our spending and that I spend much of my time at home being my wife's butler.

I know what I'm supposed to teach my son, according to the standard operation procedure of the subculture to which I belong: Stay "pure", go to college and/or the military, get a career, get married and make babies, and stay married at least until those babies are all grown, all while regularly attending church and giving "ten percent" and more to the church, in addition to time and effort serving in some capacity. And he should do this so... his sons can do the same thing, and their sons can do the same thing.

However, I can't, in good conscience, encourage a son of mine to enter into what our laws and culture now call marriage.

And there's the great paradox.

Dr. Laura Modifies Her Show

Call-in talk shows, especially those relying on drivers for a good chunk of their audience, are dealing with generations who are not making as many phone calls in general. Tom Leykis dealt with this problem on his live show.

In recent weeks, Dr. Laura was telling listeners she had open lines on a daily or almost daily basis, something I can't recall hearing on her show before. Heading into the Memorial Day weekend, she announced this past Friday that, rather than restricting calls to those she'd begin with "How may I help you?" that were strictly about moral dilemmas and relationships (how to handle a mean coworker, what parent is to do about their troubled teen, should the caller keep dating this person) with the occasional "Just want to tell you that you've helped me so much", she would open it up to broader, seemingly apolitical topics. "What do you want to chat about?" became the opening of each call.

It's really a contrast from just a few months ago, when she'd say "No more calls today about your husband cheating on you or your adult kid being a snowflake who won't move out", which further narrowed the acceptable calls.

Rather than resuming the previous, long-term format after the holiday on Tuesday, she kept the newly adjusted format going.

Another huge, simultaneous change, is that she's being softer and more mellow in her voice and tone. Whether this is due to market research, a lack of calls (people being afraid to be chewed up and spit out), or some good thing in her personal life, I don't know. But the result seems to be positive. A majority of listeners commenting like the show better this way, and I agree it is easier on the ears.

If our culture moves further and further away from phone calls to other ways of communicating, Dr. Laura might have to, reluctant as she may be, incorporate some live social media involvement in her show. Calls and letters from listeners are great, but adapting to more might be necessary.

I hope her show is around as long as she has said she wants it to be.

Does Saving It Make it Better or Divorce-Proof Your Marriage?

A letter was printed at drlaura.com from someone who endorses saving sex for marriage:

Abstinence until marriage is the best!!! It's also the BEST gift you could ever give your future spouse.

To say you WAITED for them, instead of shacking up and throwing the benefits and blessings of marriage to the wind. If you do have sex without the blessing of marriage, you rob yourself and your partner of the best blessing you will ever know.

Its not anything special if you don't wait.

No indication is given as to the sex of the writer, but I think it is safe to say it is a written by a devoutly religious married woman who is happy with her husband, at least for now.

Let's look at it bit by bit.

Provocative Women on Twitter

Dr. Laura has repeatedly told wives who call into her show who don't like their husbands watching porn that it is OK for him to watch as long as he's not neglecting his obligations and the porn is of women or women with men, and not of "children or small farm animals". (It's still OK if he watches gay male porn, but it means he's gay, so it was bad of him to marry her.)

During the first hour of today's show (May 8, 2019) she got a call from a woman upset that her husband follows "provocative women" on Twitter. Without hesitation, Dr. Laura responded like this was not acceptable.

Why?

What is the difference between "watching porn" and "following provocative women on Twitter"? In some cases, there is no difference! Some men watch their porn on Twitter. The "provocative women" are probably models who post pictures and videos.

I have to wonder if there was information on the screen Dr. Laura didn't share with us?

More likely, though, this was simply a part of Dr. Laura's bias against technology and especially social media. She makes it clear that, although her show has a Twitter account, she doesn't use Twitter and doesn't handle the show's account. So maybe she just doesn't know enough about Twitter?

She probably doesn't realize that some of the previous "my husband watches porn" calls were about husbands watching on Twitter, or Tumblr, or some other social media. She probably just assumed it was the husband going to website that isn't social media, or watching videos on discs or streaming services.

So, it sounded like this caller got a different answer than Dr. Laura has given so many others due to a misunderstanding.

Fortunately, she continues to have a great show and help a lot of people. (Also, at the end of the call, the wife was saying she was going to stay, so hopefully a marriage wasn't unnecessarily broken up.)

June Is Coming

Wedding season, gentlemen. Maybe you’re scheduled to be the groom.

Maybe a man you care about is scheduled to be a groom.

Maybe a woman you’re "seeing" or "with" is expecting you to be her date for a wedding or weddings.

Obviously, the first situation is the most dire.

No, Don't Get Rid of Your Video Games

The last call Dr. Laura took during the first hour of her Thursday, April 18 2019 show was a husband and wife. Dr. Laura finished the call insisting repeatedly that the husband get rid of his video games, even though that wasn't what the call was about and was mentioned almost in passing.

Rather than repeat myself, I will refer to these previous entries:

Go Watch Your Musicals, Ladies

Some Real Men Play Video Games

Is Dr. Laura The Only Talk Show Host Who Does This?

Over the last three decades plus, I've listened to a lot of audio talk shows that take calls. I still listen to many.

I have to ask: Is Dr. Laura the only host who either doesn't understand normal over-the-phone dialogues, or does she simply reject the standard etiquette?

Cross talk in such situations is extremely common (as it is with normal phone calls people make to each other). It probably happens on more calls to audio shows than not. There are going to be times a caller starts talking before the host has finished what they were saying (often because it sounded like they were done), or the host will jump in to say something while the caller is still talking and the caller won't notice that the host has started talking. Stuff like that.

Usually, the host or the caller will repeat what they said, or the host will invite the caller to repeat what they said.

That's every show that takes any calls.

Except for the Dr. Laura Show.

She takes it as a personal insult if the caller says anything while she is talking, even if it is just "I agree" or "Right", and she also gets upset if the caller doesn't stop talking the millisecond she cuts in, even if it is the middle of their sentence.

"You can hear me, I know you can hear me!" she'll insist. "You're talking over me!"

She think they're talking over her out of a lack of thoughtfulness or respect. Or, the only other possibility in her thinking is that there are technical problems with the phone lines so that callers aren't hearing her. I feel for the technical personnel who are handling those phones, because every once in a while she'll say on-air that it needs to be taken care of, and if she's saying that on the air, she's probably said it many times during breaks, but not as sweetly. It sounds like nobody has ever sat her down and said that crosstalk, especially on call-in talk shows, is normal.

I've said many, many times on this blog how great her show is and how much I appreciate her. If I didn't listen to every minute of the show, I wouldn't know this stuff about the show. It's a bit sad that she lets this get to her so much. She should listen to a few other shows, especially the kind where things can get heated, and she'll see how common crosstalk is.

A Terse Bottom Line on Marriage

When it is the case that a husband does or will earn more more than his wife (which is the majority of marriages), the only benefit a man gets from marrying that he couldn't get as an unmarried man is at the voluntary generosity of his wife, while women benefit by law. Actually, he could get all of those things at the voluntary generosity of a woman who isn't his wife, too. That voluntarily generosity can be rescinded at any time without legal or financial risk, while a husband can be ordered by a court to keep providing benefits to an ex-wife.

The Prom Is For Girls and Gays

Here we are again. I'm hearing about The Prom again.

Every year now, I note this ritual, which has become another day, along with "Sweet Sixteen" (or other birthdays for certain cultures, at 13, 15, etc.) and wedding days (the the related events) that are all about feeding the narcissism and sense of entitlement of attention-whores and attention-whores-in-training.

Refer back to my "Beware the Prom", and this look at a Dear Abby column, and this look at a different Dear Abby column and now this entry on increasingly showy proposals ("promposals") for dates.

Stop it, guys! Unless you're gay and want to rub it into the noses of some uptight school staff or parents by taking someone of the same sex, you don't really want to go to a dance, do you? You don't really want to take girl to the prom, do you?

It a nutshell, here are my problems with the prom as it is these days:

1) Boys wasting money.

2) Another event where females are princess-ized, which is a problem as long as males are prevented, culturally/socially and often legally, from events that cater to them and are focused on them in a similar way. Go ahead and tell me... what event gives boys the equivalent of the prom, where the activities are all about things he wants to do, with the boys dressing the way they want to dress, the girls dressing the way the boys want them to dress, the girls paying for it and escorting the boys, and where the boys will go hang out with their friends during the event?

If you already have a date for the prom, break up with her. If you were planning to ask a girl, especially with some elaborate production, don't!

Some of you guys think that taking a girl to the prom means she will have sex with you. If she hasn't had sex with you yet, paying her way and being her display piece for the prom almost certainly will NOT make it happen. If she really is the kind of girl who will finally have sex with you because you took her to the prom, it's probably not worth it. You're far better off going straight to one of the "after parties". But even then, you're just asking for trouble, even more so if she's underage (even if YOU are underage). 

You're better off doing something else that night, even staying home and sleeping. If you're a very bad boy, you might want to track down a neighborhood "single" mom whose daughter is off to the prom that night and it has her (the mom) feeling nostalgic and over the hill. Just be careful or you'll end up a very young father.

Limits

It's hard for me to make long-term plans or plans months in advance. I'm not talking about finances. I have multiple investment/retirement accounts going, although I'd like to save more. I'm talking about making plans to be at certain places at a certain time, whether in a professional capacity or a personal one.

It's not a calendar issue. I maintain calendars for both my professional and person life, the latter share with my wife, thanks to technology.

No, the issues are:

1) Between school, activities for the kids, medical and therapy appointments, and of course my work, it's hard to clear any time without feeling like we'd be taking a big risk or neglecting something.

2) The kids fight each other and their mother, which means spending "extra" hours away from home is risky.

3) My wife's mental problems and those at least one of our kids inherited can make for unpredictable problems, which also is a risk and anxiety-making. My wife also has physical problems that can suddenly, unpredictably, prevent her from driving, meaning she won't be able to drive any of our kids somewhere or pick them up.

And aside from these issues, anything that will take both me and my wife out of town is hindered by:

4) The kids not being able to stay together, and the people who are might, possibly, (separately) take them are 45-60 minutes away (so if school is in session, it's not possible).

5) Multiple pets I very reluctantly allowed us to take on. (I've refrained from writing much about that on this blog, but I probably should.)

I never know when there will be a serious problem. Countless times I've had to stop working and drive home or somewhere else, often an hour away.

Sure, something can happen to anyone, but it is more likely to happen to my family or me than the average person.

Only for very rare occasions can we plan well in advance with a determination that one of us will follow through.

I often feel like I'm treading water and have a long to-do list. I think about things I've wanted to do with my kids or offer for them to do (think things like a particular sport), but I already feel so worn out and exhausted and know I'd need my wife to be able and willing to help facilitate their participation, and I simply can't rely on her.

You might read this and think, You have too much on your plate. Drop something.

I need to work, so that can't go.

I'm not dropping my wife or the kids.

I don't get together with the guys (not in person, anyway). I don't take classes. Other than work, what I do outside the home is run errands and do weekly personal therapy at the demand of my wife. I obviously do blog, but I'd go crazy if I didn't.

There's one thing. It's a personal project that will bring in a very small amount of extra income. But I just can't bring myself to drop it. It doesn't take up much time, and it is very important to me.

Sigh.

Don't marry, guys. Don't marry and do get a vasectomy.

Hold Those Hormones

I'm a follower of Christ, and I generally fall in line with the positions held by "conservative Christians" or "the Religious Right" (with a libertarian lean when it comes to government involvement), with a few notable exceptions, such as discouraging rather than encouraging men to legally marry, and not thinking that watching pixels of nude women and people appearing to have sex turns people into serial killers. I'm very familiar with the positions and reasoning used in these circles.

That brings me to something I find a bit frustrating, but I have to paint a detailed picture to explain it.

Here is a composite list of rules, based on what you can find in media featuring prominent leaders of this sort:

Confidential to Anonymous

Someone has sent me a couple of anonymous comments (not for publication) and I wanted to offer you thanks for your comments and I wanted to encourage you to stay strong.

There's nothing wrong at all with your status.

That some people think it is somehow negative or that you're lacking is erroneous thinking on their part.

Continue to think critically. Continue to think of what is best for you. Getting married and having children, if done "right", is about self-sacrifice. Sacrifices shouldn't be made for lost causes. What I mean is, you'd sacrifice yourself and, chances are, the outcome wouldn't be worth your sacrifice.

Remember these pages and posts:

Why You Don't Want to Do That
https://tunasafedolphin.blogspot.com/p/why-you-dont-want-to-do-that.html

Quiz For Men: Should You Get Married?
https://tunasafedolphin.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_30.html

To What Should Males Aspire?
https://tunasafedolphin.blogspot.com/2016/12/to-what-should-males-aspire.html

Why We Should Use the Death Penalty

Here's another one of those all-too-common cases to remember when you see people encouraging others to become parents. It's from Alejandra Reyes-Velarde and it was in the Los Angeles Times:

A Fontana woman previously convicted of child abuse has been charged in the death of her 3-year-old daughter, who died days after being taken to the hospital with injuries that authorities said stemmed from abuse.

Fontana is in the "Inland Empire", which is the part of California that east of Los Angeles county and the OC and west of the border with Arizona and Nevada. There are some fine people who live in the Inland Empire, but it's also home to a lot of people who are wasting their human potential.

Miriam Sandoval, 37, and the child’s father, Richard Rojo, 34, were arrested Feb. 27 after Fontana police responded to a medical aid call in the 9500 block of Madrona Avenue. When they arrived, officers found a 3-year-old girl who was not breathing, authorities said.

Nice. Notice he's the "child's father", so I guess that means they never bothered to marry?

The girl was taken to the hospital and died Sunday, Fontana police spokesman Jay Sayegh said. 

It’s unclear how the girl died, but Sayegh said she had “significant visible body injuries.”

Infuriating.

Sandoval previously was convicted of child abuse after the girl, as an infant, suffered broken bones, including a broken pelvis.

A broken flippin' pelvis. On an infant.

“It’s extremely frustrating,” Sayegh said, adding that the woman was put on probation after a plea deal. “This is a woman who should have never been around those kids again. It’s heartbreaking.”

Gotta love those plea deals. Imagine the life that kid lived.

Sandoval and Rojo have two other children: the dead girl’s twin sister and a boy about 6, Sayegh said. The children are now under the care of the county’s Children and Family Services Department, police said.

Let's hope they don't end up with abusers.

Authorities do not think Rojo participated in the abuse, but Sayegh said the man was negligent.

He knocked the woman up at least twice knowing she was an example of toxic femininity.

“The father took no actions to protect the children,” he said. “That’s his obligation.”

There's something to remember, guys. If you don't protect the children, you're also held responsible. This is something I've had to remember myself. As far as I know, my wife hasn't physically or sexually abused our children, but physical and sexual abuse aren't the only forms of abuse.

At least one of these adults deserves the death penalty, which California still technically has, but it's a joke because the thing has been thwarted by cruel people.

Dr. Laura Gets a Lot of Calls From Shackups

Shacking up is so common and accepted these days that people who don't listen much to Dr. Laura might be surprised that she's against it, and how strongly she condemns it (as do I). She will even hang up on some male callers who are shacking up without bothering to let them ask their question. For other callers, she will usually make an example of them.

During the first hour of the Wednesday, February 27, 2019 show, she took a call from "Michelle" who said she has a boyfriend of a few years and she's moved in with him to what had been his former marital home. She had also been previously married. They both have grown children.

But before Michelle could really get that out, Dr. Laura started in.

So She Has Moved On - Now What?

Guys, has she just dumped you, officially or not?

This is the time of year when a lot of men find themselves dumped, left, served with divorce papers, or that "the woman in their life" has checked out from the relationship or is with other men (online or in the flesh). You were with her for Thanksgiving, maybe with her at your family's place or you being her guy-to-show-off at her family or friend's place. You got her Christmas presents. You were there for her on New Year's Eve, maybe even spending a lot of money. And you made a big deal about Valentine's Day.

But she was planning to leave after she got what she wanted. Or you didn't jump through the hoops right (in many cases, nobody can).

And now you're finding out why I told you to become scarce in November, and you should have listened to me.

So now what?

We're Almost to February 14

Men, if you're not already married, don't let the marketing get to you. Don't let any peer pressure get to you. Don't let any "hints" from women get to you. Unlike most married men, you can survive February 14 without jumping through hoops and spending a lot of money.

If you have a fiancée or girlfriend, you need to think very soberly about what you're facing by allowing that relationship to continue. You CAN back out. Most likely, you should.

You should at least get scarce between now and February 15.

From just before Thanksgiving until February 15, you should not be seeing any woman who is expecting you to marry her, propose to her, impregnate her, move in together, or make a big deal about February 14. And if you're seeing someone whose birthday is in late February or who counts a day in late February as an anniversary with you, avoid her until after that day.

If you were with her through the holidays, that makes it all the more important you get very scarce until at least February 15, if not outright ghosting her permanently.

What's the risk, really? That she'll get with some other guy? Or move on? So what?!?

Let some guy who doesn't value his earnings or is desperate pay for what she wants. You don't want to get suckered into spending a lot of time, money, and effort to get something you can get without doing so. There are attractive, available women who will gladly take the open spot in your rotation if you play your cards right. Whether you want to keep getting with women or not, you probably shouldn't get into a situation in which you're heading for marriage.

Most men shouldn't marry. Most marriages are not both lasting and happy. Having a woman live with you is asking for trouble. You don't need a wife.

Do things right, and you can have a full social and personal life year-round without going to ridiculous lengths to make Valentine's Day, some woman's birthday, anniversaries, and winter holidays (like Christmas and New Year's Eve) some sort of worshipping of a woman.

Problems With Statistics in Selling Marriage to Men

Statistics are about a population, not individuals. What happens in your life either will happen or it won't (usually depending on your choices) - so it is either 0% or 100% for you. Statistics can tell you the odds, all things being equal, but things aren't equal. Let's take college graduates, for example. The average person with a Bachelor's degree is going to earn more than the average person without a college education. Yet some of the people with the highest incomes or the most wealth never graduated from college. This includes tech leaders, professional athletes, entertainers and authors, and various businesspeople. [Please note that this entry was posted several years ago. It still holds up pretty well.]

Statistics usually can't tell you why something is the way it is. For example, statistics will tell you that if you compare 200 people in a hospital and 200 people in an apartment complex across the street, you'll see that you're far more likely to die in the hospital than in the apartment complex. What are we to think as a result? That hospitals are harmful to our health? Or that people who are seriously sick and injured go to a hospital, where some of them are going to die, but more of them would die if they hadn't gone to the hospital?

Talk show host Tom Leykis, like a lot of other people, will tell you that half of all marriages end in divorce, and that more adults are unmarried now than married, as if this is some profound shift in how people look at life. However, most of the shift in married vs. unmarried involves people getting married later in life, such as their late 20s or early 30s instead of their early 20s. Although there is a growing percentage of men swearing off marriage, it is still a small group and most people will get married at some time in their lives. As far as divorce, Leykis has had four divorces. I've had none. If you average us together, that means the average person has two divorces. That's a little misleading. First marriages have about a 40% divorce rate, which is still way too high, but it isn't 50%. It is the high divorce rate for second, third, etc. marriages that skew the statistics. (On the other hand, perhaps even MORE marriages would end in divorce if it were for fatal illness and injuries, murders and suicides ending someone's life before they could divorce – so just because a marriage didn't end in divorce does not mean it was a good marriage.) 40% is the rate for all first marriages. I wonder what the divorce rate is for people who marry into a first marriage: 1) without children from other lovers or a current pregnancy influencing their decision; 2) after about 18-24 months of being a couple (but not too much longer than that); 3) without having shacked up OR being "long distance"; 4) after six months of intense premarital counseling with a LMFT; 5) with the same or compatible religious beliefs or practices and plans for children; 6) with no credit card debt; 7) without substance abuse problems. My guess is that divorce rate for such marriages is very low.

Conversely...

Still Waiting

Another comment was left by another Anonymous woman who didn't bother to address what I actually wrote in this blog's most popular entry, but instead tried (and failed) to shame men for actually caring about their own well being.

Since she left it as a response to another comment, I will look at that comment first.

Here's the original comment.

I'm a man, engaged to the mother of my two children.

Why? Clearly you can have kids without being married. Why bother marrying? What we've been told over the last 25 years in our courts and culture is that marriage isn't about children. So there must be some other reason you're engaged to her. (And that she's the mother of YOUR children, and presumably not another man's, that colors your comment.)

And even in this situation, the children always take priority. You (the significant other) won't always be the priority; and that's fine. We a still love eachother and we're to be married September in 2016.

I wonder how they're doing now? For the kids' sake, I hope well.

I think most of this article is trash. Not wanting to be with a woman because she doesn't have a pre-pregnancy body is incredibly shallow, and speaks poorly to your character.

It's a good thing women aren't shallow, like, say, not dating men who aren't taller than them, or preferring men with fatter wallets. The body issues were a small part of the list. There were many more reasons given, some that should be deal breakers by themselves. Nobody should kid themselves, though. If a man isn't turned on by a woman, it is unlikely their marriage will be a good, lasting, happy one.

If you're really worried about the possibility of a divorce, and the woman getting half of everything you have? Sign a pre-nup.

Judges throw out prenups all of the time. Men should avoid signing a marriage contract or any contract with a woman, especially a single mother.

Into the New Year, Mid February is Coming

Guys, did you make it through Christmas and New Year's Eve without getting engaged? If not, you need to think very soberly about what you're facing. You CAN back out. Most likely, you should. You shouldn't have even been with a steady girlfriend on those days.

February 14 is rapidly approaching. You should not be seeing any woman who is expecting you to marry her, propose to her, impregnate her, move in together, or make a big deal about February 14 - until at least February 15. And if you're seeing someone whose birthday is in late February or who counts a day in late February as an anniversary with you, avoid her until after that day.

What's the risk, really? That she'll get with some other guy? Or move on? So what?!?

Let some guy who doesn't value his earnings or is desperate pay for what she wants. You don't want to get suckered into spending a lot of time, money, and effort to get something you can get without doing so. There are attractive, available women who will gladly take the open spot in your rotation if you play your cards right. Whether you want to keep getting with women or not, you probably shouldn't get into a situation in which you're heading for marriage.

Angry Mom Checks In

Another comment (that didn't actually demonstrate where I was wrong) was left on this blog's most popular entry, which has received hundreds of comments.

I'm assuming this comment was directed at me and not someone else who'd left a comment. This is what SaEatonmomof3 had to say:

You are the most self centered, must be narcissist that I have ever read crap like this from.

Remember guys, if you won't want to ruin your life via someone else's children, you're a narcissist!

How Many of You Are Sick?

Dr. Laura's mind tends to go places most people's minds don't. I love her show, I love her books, and she's usually right but sometimes I scratch my head.

For example, during the first hour of today's (Wednesday 1/9) show,  man called to talk about an annual family vacation for him, his wife, and their grown kids (two daughters and a son).

Since the eldest is now married, he was wondering about room sharing arrangements and he asked Dr. Laura about having (no doubt since the married daughter and her husband would be sharing a room) the other daughter and a son share a room for a week since the daughters would no longer be sharing a room.

Dr. Laura quickly, emphatically, and repeatedly called it "sick". She acted like she was shocked.. She stated she was "horrified".

I can understand calling it impractical, even unfair, or whatever, but why did she call it sick? Why does she apparently think sleeping in the same room equals sex? Many married people who share a bed know it's not true. We can go months, years sharing a room and not have sex. I mean, she's used the work "sick" for other situations before, but I don't think she could possibly mean that the kids are mentally ill or that they'd be beating up on each other, so I assume she's talking about sex.

She continued the call briefly, then decided to pretend it was a phony call.

For most of history, people have NOT had their own rooms. I guess everyone was sick?

I've noticed before that she usually treats the presence of a bed or touching a bed as akin (no pun intended) to having sex with the person who uses it. For example, kids aren't supposed to touch their parents' bed.

Presumably, the brother and sister would not even be sharing a bed. I distinctly heard they would be sharing a room.

I have to wonder what Dr. Laura does with the fact that some people have sex on the couch, on the living room floor, on the kitchen table, in the family minivan, in the shower (which she sometimes recommends), you name it.

Scott Morefield Laments a Lack of Suckers

I generally like most of the columns carried by conservative Townhall, but you can often find stuff there encouraging men to sacrifice themselves for what we're currently calling marriage. Scott Morefield is the latest writer to go there (please note that you can go there and comment):

What on earth happened to marriage?

Our laws and culture have changed. Women have changed a lot. Or, at least, they've tried to. That's what happened.

Even for those who don’t believe the practice to be God-ordained as prescribed in the Bible, it’s hard to deny that following the “success sequence” of finishing school, getting a job, getting married, THEN having children leads to a remarkably strong bulwark against poverty.

I wonder what happens when a man gets a job, INTENTIONALLY AVOIDS marriage/shacking up/spending money on women and remains child-free. Guys like that are unlikely to be poor.

And yet, has anyone else noticed that ‘traditional’ families - i.e. a husband, a wife, and a child or children who are actually at least nine months younger than the total time their parents have been married - are about as rare as a liberal who tips?

Yeah, ain't diversity grand?

Stop Telling People to Have Kids

Concerned with dropping "fertility rates", there are people who encourage others to have (more) children. This is one of millions of examples of why that's a terrible idea.

Hannah Fry reported in the Left Angeles Times...

The city of Napa and Napa County will pay $5 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the father and grandmother of a 3-year-old girl who was tortured and killed in 2014.

The City of Napa and the Count of Napa. That means the taxpayers of Napa. That's because they were supposed to somehow only have government officials and employees who would have prevented this.

Kayleigh Slusher died in a Napa apartment in January 2014 after being neglected and abused by her mother, Sarah Krueger, and her mother’s boyfriend, Ryan Warner. Both were convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison, according to court records.

They should have gotten the death penalty.

After Kayleigh’s death, the girl’s body was stuffed in a duffel bag and stored in the freezer for three days before she was placed in her bed, where police ultimately found her. The girl’s cause of death was multiple blunt-force injuries to her head, torso and extremities. She had suffered a broken rib and damage to her small intestine and was covered in bruises before she died, authorities said at the time.

Don't you tell me that lethal injection is "cruel and unusual". The people who wrote and adopted that phrase into our Constitution would have done far worse to her murderers.

Kayleigh’s father, Jason Slusher — who was serving a prison sentence when his daughter was killed — and her grandmother, Robin Slusher, filed a lawsuit against the city and county in 2015 alleging that despite obvious signs of abuse and neglect, police and child welfare officials did not intervene or remove Kayleigh from her mother’s home.

Why was her father in prison? Was he wrongly convicted? Or was Sarah Krueger just that good at picking men? Whichever it was, Jason made a terrible mistake in knocking up Sarah. And his mother... how did she raise that guy? All that being said, I do recognize that there are legal principles that apply here that say they could be rotten people (not saying they are, but they COULD be) and they still have standing to get big bucks because of what happened to their daughter/granddaughter.

The lawsuit said that in the three weeks before Kayleigh died, Napa police and child services had been called to the girl’s home five times regarding possible abuse and drug use.

When officers visited the home, they “would have seen that she was covered in bruises and in excruciating pain from a broken rib and the intestinal infection that was slowly killing her,” but they did nothing, according to a statement from Slusher’s attorneys.

Is anything being done to the people who responded to these calls? Demotions? Loss of jobs? Criminal prosecutions? Stuff like that has been pursued in SoCal after a highly publicized torture-murder of a boy. Or is Joe Taxpayer the only person who's paying?

I have no idea if the responding personnel were simply callous or jaded or secretly hate little girls, or if they made genuine mistakes, or if they were sincere but completely incompetent. I wasn't there. I wasn't in their heads. It certainly looks like they failed to take action when they clearly should have. It's a terrible position to be in. If you make mistakes, kids die or you take kids out of a loving home, at least for a while.

But let's not forget who put that little girl in that position in the first place. Her own parents. When parents can't or won't protect their children instead of torturing and murdering them, how do we expect a bureaucracy to do it effectively on a consistent basis? Answer: It can't. Which means horror stories are inevitable.

Stop telling people to have children. They really shouldn't, unless they're prepared and willing to be good parents.