One Flesh Or Not?

Dr. Laura will often tell wives calling in (and thus wives listening to her show) that it's not a big deal for a husband (and father of minor children) to enjoy adult media...

...as long as he's not doing it instead of being with her and the adult media doesn't feature children, small farm animals, men (gay porn), or barely legal adults.

This has to greatly upset the portion of her audience that has bought into the anti-porn panic/hysteria about how it turns brains into mush and turns men into serial killers, or women who consider to be a form of infidelity.

But what about the other end of this spectrum? Dr. Laura, like a lot of other relationship experts, says it's a problem if he's using such media instead of being with his willing wife. This appears to be a presumption that his body and sexuality belong to his wife.

Disconnects When It Comes to Discussing Marriage Online

There are a couple of common disconnects with people who try to counter me in discussions on Twitter/X about marriage and being a Free Man.

1) They accuse me of being an incel or lonely, dateless, can't get a wife, etc. It takes two seconds to check my profile and see that I'm married. It's especially stupid because my personal status has nothing to do with whether I'm writing the truth or not, or whether it is a good point or not.

2) When I say legally marrying is detrimental to most men, or there's no benefit for them to do it, or ask someone to cite a benefit for a man, responses (the ones who don't try to divert, anyway) often cite something men can get without legally marrying, and often without socially or religiously marrying.

The lack of reason and logic, the use of fallacies, the bad mind reading, and the hallucinations are quite sad. I'm not obligated to defend an argument I don't make. I welcome legitimate disagreement and discussing the differences. When someone libels me, however, I will usually block them.

Answering Marriage Seller Assertions, Talking Points, and Questions - Part 2

See the first entry in this series here for a bit of explanation.

Marriage matures people/makes them better/turns them into grownups.

The only evidence provided for this that I've heard is Dennis Prager asking married and divorced people if marrying made them more mature/better people.

That means he's asking people "Did something you chose to do make you a better person?" Do you think there just might be a reason for many people to say yes, even though the answer is no?

People are reluctant to say something that cost them a lot of time, effort, and money that they chose to do didn't improve them.

Dennis doesn't try this approach with college attendance, which he says, in almost all cases, makes people worse. If he were to ask most people who attended college, especially people who finished their degrees, if it made them better people, they'd say yes.

Time, age, and struggle can mature people. If people really want to take on voluntary struggles, they can find ones better to choose than marriage. People can and do mature without marriage. Cut out the middleman/middlewoman and seek maturity through other means. Don't sign a terrible state contract.


If you don't marry, your life will be empty and meaningless.

There is more than one way to answer this.

A) My life as a free man is already full and meaningful, so clearly this isn't true.

B) I'll take that risk.

C) Some married people kill their spouse. How full and meaningful is that?

D) Jesus and the Apostle Paul had full, meaningful lives without being married.


Not marrying is selfish.

There is more than one way to answer this.

A) Earlier you told me that marrying would make me wealthier and otherwise better off. Wouldn't marrying on that basis be selfish?

B) If staying in my default state of being free and not signing a terrible state contract is what you call selfish, so be it. I'd rather be free and have you claim I'm selfish than enter into a terrible state contract and have you applaud me for it.

C) Refusing to sign a terrible state contract is smart. Marrying is usually delusional, ignorant, or masochistic.

D) If I'm a selfish person, I should definitely avoid inflicting myself on someone in a marriage.

E) Explain to me how you marrying was selfless. [Listen closely to what they say.] You could have done that without a terrible state contract.


Remember, men, your default state is being unmarried. The burden is on the marriage seller to explain why you should marry, not on you to explain why you won't sign a terrible state contract.

Read Part 3 here.

Why Married Men Should Have An Affair

I'm for harm reduction.

Most married men want sex more than their wife, and many of them get rejected, some more often than others. Now, many men in that situation turn to adult media (porn), as we know they should never pester their wife. However, considering everything I've seen from people and organizations like Laila Mickelwait, Justice Defense Fund, Exodus Cry, Fight the New Drug, No Fap, Your Brain on Born, Daily Wire, National Center on Sexual Exploitation, churches I have attended, and so many more, - it's clearly less harmful to have an affair with someone you know, like a neighbor.

Here, I'll demonstrate:

Porn: Addictive
Affair: Not addictive

Porn: Often necessitates time in rehab
Affair: Need for rehab much less likely

Porn: Causes some men to spend hours and hours in isolation
Affair: Usually doesn't take up that much time and isn't in isolation

Porn: Multi-billion dollar industry
Affair: Eh, maybe some gifts here and there

Porn: Rots brains
Affair: Doesn't rot brains

Porn: Causes sex trafficking
Affair: Doesn't cause trafficking

Porn: Causes unrealistic expectations in young men
Affair: Causes no expectations in any other young men

Porn: Damaging to real sex
Affair: Is real sex

Porn: Is filmed rape
Affair: Not filmed, not rape

Porn: Supports "revenge" porn, uploaded nonconsensually
Affair: Doesn't support revenge porn

Porn: You can't be sure the performers consented
Affair: You won't be doing anything without her consent

Porn: You can't tell if the performers are really adults
Affair: You know she's an adult

Porn: Is violence
Affair: Not violence

Porn: Turns people into rapists and serial killers
Affair: Doesn't turn people into rapists and serial killers

Porn: Causes ED
Affair: Doesn't cause ED

Porn: Performers are abused
Affair: You won't abuse her

Porn: Performers get injured
Affair: You won't injure her

Porn: She's only doing it because she's desperate for money
Affair: Don't give her money so you are making sure she just wants sex for the sake of having sex

Porn: Some performers abuse substances
Affair: You can choose to only have an affair with someone who is sober

Porn: Kids find it
Affair: You won't let that happen

Porn: Constant novelty
Affair: Just one person

Since I'm reliably assured that porn is "adultery, infidelity, cheating" and many ministries I know of spend far more time talking about the evils of porn than having sex with a neighbor, and considering everything I've observed as stated above, clearly the less harmful option is to have an affair, especially if it avoids marital rape.

...Right?

(I've never had an affair and I don't advise it.)

Running Game - What To Do On Dates

When a man is running game, here's how the ideal date goes:

It's dark out. You haven't seen her in a week or more.

You get a text from her that invites you over.

You go to her place.

Within five minutes of arriving, you're doing what you want to do.

After you're done doing what you want to do, you leave. You're not there to stick around to cuddle, snuggle, spoon, move furniture, fix the garbage disposal, or any of that.

To get to that point, though, you'll probably have to have other dates, first.

What's a Single Mother To Do?

Anonymous left a comment on this blog's most popular entry, which has hundreds of comments, so I wanted to call attention to hers.

I had my son with my now ex fiancé.

There was the first mistake. Conceiving before being in a stable, healthy, happy marriage.

We ended up breaking things off because he completely lied about who he was and it became a toxic environment.

Well, at least you didn't make more kids with him.

now I am a single mother who is currently picking up the pieces and doing what I can to give my son the best life possible regarding the circumstances.

It would be great if that included living with, or very close to, your nice, loving, married parents.

Despite how things ended, his father is still actively involved and we even hangout as a family periodically. 

If he's not abusive, I guess that's better than nothing.

My question is...if I choose not to get back with his father because of the boundaries that have been crossed..now what? Don’t date until ny son is 18 years old? Date a guy who is also a single father? Forever be alone? 

Good question.

1) Get your tubes "tied". Tubal ligation. Or, depending on your health history and your family health history, consider getting your ovaries and/or uterus removed. We don't need more children brought into this situation. Your son certainly doesn't need it.

2) Be there for your son. He needs parental attention. He doesn't have an intact home.

3) When your son is with his father, or grandparents, or aunts/uncles, you can date. Your son should never meet your new lover(s) until your son is 18, grown, moving out on his own. Even though people like me warn men to never date women with minor children, you can find plenty of dates anyway.

4) After your son is grown and out, you can date, be in relationships, shack up, marry, whatever. If you DO shack up or marry, be sure you get a prenup (marry) or cohabitation agreement (shackup) so that your son will be protected.

If you don't find this ideal, well, that's because your situation is not ideal. My advice is for your son's best interests out of the remaining possibilities.

Protect Children By Parenting Your Children

"Protect Children Not Porn" is a false dichotomy.

It is expressed on services like Twitter/X as #ProtectChildrenNotPorn by the usual antiporn crusader would-be censors and the people who make a living grifting off of them, who try to make life as difficult for people who make, sell, and watch any erotica.

Groups like Exodus Cry (originating from an Evangelical church), Justice Defense Fund (which is basically Laila Mickelwait, who was with Exodus Cry but might not be anymore for some still unexplained reason), National Center on Sexual Exploitation (which is a rebrand of Morality in Media) and Fight the New Drug (which insists it is NOT a Mormon organization, and we know Mormons have never tried to conceal their motives and operations before) know that very few people will support a religious crusade trying to ban all pornography, but their core supporters want that. So these groups try to fool people with campaigns that claim to be secular campaigns about children and women being abused. 

Except that we know their campaigns are really about attacking the freedom of consenting adults to make and watch erotica.

How?

1) They claim that porn websites must be shut down if rogue users violated the terms of service by uploading illegal video content, claiming that such content victimizes women and children. But these same people have never called for shutting down churches (or their Mormon equivalents) when staff is is caught making or distributing such material, or actually, personally assaulting a woman or a child. They don't even pressure banks/credit card companies to stop processing payments to/for those churches.

2) They use social media that has far more illegal videos on it than any of the porn sites they target, and they know this.

3) They have attacked OnlyFans, one of the best services for ensuring the women participating are consenting, are indeed women and not girls, and that the people viewing their explicit material are adults (they charge!).  

One of them, let's just call her Mayla Ficklewaste, has let her toddler play with her phone, even though Mayla constantly searches out illegal videos, frequently visits porn sites, and the child was able to access Twitter, which has rape and snuff videos. Anyone can upload anything to Twitter right now. PornHub only has verified uploads. Guess which service this MF attacks?

It's a RUSE.

It's a SHAKEDOWN.

It's a FUNDRAISING PLOY.

They're NEVER going to ban porn, but they'll keep collecting money from scared, insecure, gullible people who are counting on them to do so. All they can do is shake down what other people have earned, and make life difficult for models and performers. Likewise, they tell the broader public that they simply want these restrictions, but that's a lie. Their crusade would continue.

They haven't prevented one person from being abducted, enslaved, or assaulted. But Laila sure has gotten lots of attention, fed her ego, and lined her pockets.

It is not "defending porn" or "protecting porn" to value freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and free enterprise.

It is not defending porn or protecting porn, and certainly not attacking children, to point out that "leaders" in these "movements" are hypocritical, two-faced, and fleecing the gullible.

They say there's nothing stopping children from viewing porn websites. There is "nothing stopping" kids from walking into traffic, or taking an automobile a joyride, or setting themselves on fire, or burning down their residence.

Except that there is. It is called...

P A R E N T I N G

That's why I use the hashtag #ParentYourChildren

These crusaders are such bad parents that they want the whole world to change for the sake of what they don't want their kid seeing.

Here's what people can do to parent their own child.

1) Don't give your a child a networked phone or tablet. If you do, have controls and monitors on it.

2) Keep any other device that can access online content in common areas of your home, where it will be supervised. Controls can also be used on these.

3) Don't let your children go without your supervision to any residence that doesn't follow these practices.

"Why Can't Men Be Upfront and Honest?" - Part 1

A woman created a Twitter account apparently to respond to what I say in posts like this one, in which I encourage men to avoid being with a woman, on certain days/times of the year, who is thinking of you as potential husband material, or who you've been seeing on a regular basis.

This woman said:

"If you're noticing a girl likes you enough to be developing feelings for you and actually wants to spend time with you she at least deserves to not be strung along. It's pretty amazing how callously some men treat some women."

And:

"I’m just saying be honest and up front about not wanting a relationship so she is privy to what your intentions are."

By telling men to get scarce and avoid being with a woman he's been seeing during those days, I'm encouraging men to prevent or stop her from thinking of him as someone who is going to be part of her life with her friends and family, or thinking of him as shackup or husband material.

I'm addressing men who do not want to be married and do not want to even live with a woman. Ideally, these men are only seeing these women for dates (visits or booty calls) that don't involve meeting her friends or family.

If she's thinking it's more, or hoping for or wanting more, that's her problem. Nothing more should have been inferred.

Avoiding the woman during those times avoids leading her on!

It's up to her whether not she will see him again if he asks to see her after those days have passed.

There is far more to write about this, but I'll save that for another entry or two or three.

Part 2 of This Series

When A Wife Rejects Her Husband

A lot of husbands and now-ex-husbands know the pain of a sexually rejecting wife. By "rejecting" I mean at least one of the following:

1. Refusing to have sex at all.

2. Only agreeing to sex infrequently. "Infrequently" is a relative term. If they were having some form of sex every day for years and now she only agrees to sex once per week even though no changes in their life would prevent her from agreeing more frequently, that's rejection. Other husbands WISH they could get it once per week. They might get it once a month or a couple of times per year.

3. Reducing sexual options to a bare minimum. This could mean rejecting acts she used to do, especially if she did them before they had kids or before they married. It could be consistently restricting sex to intercourse or manual sex even though he has told her he wants to other other common sex acts. It could be her impersonating a corpse (when she knows her husband isn't into that sort of thing). 

4. Transforming her appearance and/or changing her behavior in ways that will kill his attraction. Significant weight gain; shortening her hair and/or changing her hair style/color to something he doesn't like; always wearing frumpy clothes when she used to wear sexy vestments; poor grooming/hygiene; cruel, belittling, or disrespectful statements (when he isn't into that sort of thing); expressing her general dislike of sex when she previously at least pretended to enjoy it - these are all forms of rejection, make no mistake about it. 

Questions Expose Bad Thinking By Would Be Censors

Unfortunately, a lot of people spread the claims of crusaders who want to censor adult media or donate to them without asking some very basic questions about what they've said, what they're doing, and how they're doing it.

If they say or write a bunch of words without actually answering the question, then they haven't answered the question.

It's good to get them on record either through social media, email, text, audio, or video recording. It is good to think critically about what they say.

When they say "Porn is [something they consider negative]." it is almost always unreasonable. The there is a very plentiful, wide variety of porn. For example, if they say "Porn is misogynist," consider how it could possibly be misogynist for, example, a video produced by women with female performers in which nobody is hurt, disrespected, or portrayed as in a negative or dismissive way.

A common assertion is "Porn is rape." To that, I have responded:

A woman decides to masturbate and record it. She then sells the video. Either:
1) That is rape

2) That isn't porn
3) Your assertion isn't correct

Almost all of their assertions like that can be exposed with similar examinations or some simple questions like:

What is gay porn? ("Porn objectifies women!" What is gay porn?)

What is dominatrix porn? ("Porn is about women being abused by men." What is dominatrix porn?)

You've seen all porn?

Sometimes they will try to use numbers or supposedly scientific claims to impose what is a personal moral issue for themselves onto others. An example of that is when they say something like "79 percent of porn contains acts of aggression toward women." Really? 79 percent of which porn? They haven't watched all of it. Gay porn certainly doesn't have that. The inconvenient truth is that women like "aggressive" or "violent" or BDSM porn more than men. Also, one must know what they are counting as "aggression." A light slap on the butt? If these are people who have claimed that watching porn causes brain damage, how can they trust the claims of the people who watched all of that porn? And by their own claim, 21 percent of porn has no aggression in it. So that porn is OK, right? (Spoiler: they will still say it isn't.)

It's also important to remember that apparent correlation isn't causation, and to see if there are studies that contradict the studies to which the crusaders appeal.

Another good question to ask is why they hold adult media and adult media outlets to standards they don't apply anywhere else. An example of that is when the crusaders cite that someone uploaded illegal material to a porn site as to why a porn site must be shut down, while the crusaders are using a social media service with exponentially more illegal uploads. Or "She wouldn't do that if she wasn't being paid to do it!" That also describes most other work women do for money. "Some performers get injured." And how is that different than pro wrestling, football, or movies with stunts? If they claim that their goal is fighting rape, assault, child molestation, etc., but never apply the standards the apply to adult media to, for example, churches, then it smacks of "We want church ladies to give us money to censor porn."

I could go on. The bottom line, no pun intended, is... think. Pay attention. Follow the money.

To Whom Does Your Body Belong?

What are the possible answers?

• God
• Your church or equivalent (NOT to be confused with God)
• The State (government)
• Your parents
• Your spouse/partner
• Your children
  
• Yourself
  

How you answer this question will influence how you live. And while I insist most men should never marry, they should definitely not marry a woman whose answer to this question isn't the same as his. Of course, like so many things, a woman can CLAIM to think the same way he does on this, but her actions might indicate different. People in general might switch back and forth on this.

Few people, especially those who aren't active duty military, will say that their body belongs to the state, but they often think and act like it does.

Many conservative Christian "influencers" will say that our bodies belong to God, but God delegates them to our spouse when we marry.

Think about this, and whether or not your actions line up with your thinking.

If you're married, and you believe your body belongs to your spouse, do you really act that way? Does your spouse think and act like their body belongs to you?

There Are Rare Circumstances in Which Using Daycare Is The Best Choice

People shouldn't have children unless they are prepared to raise them. Raising them means having them with a parent until they go to Kindergarten at age five or six, then having with a parent before and after school. School doesn't end at 6pm. Dumping a kid in daycare is almost always a result of choices.

A good daycare is, of course, better than being with an abusive parent, but even then, it would be better for the kid to be with grandparents or aunts and uncles.

Let's consider the other rare circumstances in which daycare is the best choice.

 

A) The other parent killed themselves, or abandoned the family (and there were no signs either of those was a likely possibility before making the children) and they're not paying enough support to allow the other parent to be with the kids; B) and there wasn't enough in funds or other assets and no way/time to work to avoid having to leave the children for work; C) and there's nobody else, like good, reliable grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc., to care for the child while the remaining parent is at work.

For 99 percent of the kids dumped in daycare, the circumstances weren't anything like that.

Unfortunately, there's no way to be certain the other parent is going to be around, present, and either able to care for the children well or provide enough income, for the duration of raising the children. People can try to set things up that way. They can try to choose wisely, treat kindly, and all of that, and have things like life insurance. They can try to only make children with someone who is already wealthy and set things up so the children will always be taken care of regardless of whether there is a death or the relationship ends. But most people aren't that wealthy, certainly not when they are 40 or younger, and there's no fail-safe way of ensuring things will work out. It's always somewhat of a gamble to have children, even for someone who tries to make the odds be in their favor as much as possible.

You can have a great life insurance policy on your income-earning spouse, and if they commit suicide you're SOL. Maybe there was no sign they'd do that when you had kids with them, but they suffered a trauma after you had the kids and eventually they did themselves in. Or maybe the trauma leads to them abandoning the family to live on the streets, jobless.

So, there can be circumstances in which daycare is unavoidable.

But "We want to live here, in this house, with these investments" or "I deserve my career" aren't those circumstances.

If you don't have children yet, think about these things very carefully.

You Don't Need a Bad State Contract to Raise Children

Here's what matters to children:

• Being fed and clothed with a roof over their head.
• Being able to play and learn.
  
• Having adults who listen to them and give them attention, comfort and care about them, protect and advocate for them more than anyone else, give them love and affection, affirm their worth as human beings.
• Having people with more life experience than them, who know what it is like to grow up, helping them deal with life.
  
• A sense of belonging and stability.
• Having a positive male role model who loves them.
  
• Having a positive female role model who loves them.
  

It doesn't hurt your children if you don't have a marriage license on file with the county or state. It doesn't hurt them if you're not wearing rings, you don't have wedding pictures on display in the home, and you don't celebrate a wedding anniversary.

Those who say the bullet points above are more likely under an intact, legal marriage (and I used to be such a person) are neglecting to account for the fact that, traditionally, people who get along well with each other, want to live together, and commit to parenting were also likely to marry. It isn't that getting legally married did anything at all for the children. The main way legal marriage might, in some cases, make the bullet points more likely to be fulfilled is in keeping a husband/father from leaving while the children are being raised because he knows family law and family courts are likely to beat him nearly to death.

Men, you can't ensure children get that last bullet point. The more wealth you have, the more you can ensure the other bullet points, especially if no woman has parental rights to your children.

If you have found a great woman who seems to be compatible with you and in agreement with you about how to team up with you to provide all those things to the children, and she stays devoted to doing so, that would be wonderful for the children, but there's no way of being absolutely certain that will be the case. Wives file the overwhelming majority of divorces. You have the power to decide YOU will be and stay devoted. You can't control what she does. She can leave, she can kick you out, she can divorce you, she can fight you in court, she can deny the children access to you and poison them against you, and the children will be deprived of many of their needs. Clearly, legally marrying does not keep women around. It is to keep you around, and you can decide to stay without getting married; but married or not, she can decide to send and keep you away.

The point is, even if you're determined to raise children, you legally marrying won't help the children because what matters is your presence, involvement, and determination to raise them, not the government paper. If you truly believe "Yeah, but maybe I'll change my mind and want to leave and having that government gun to my head will keep me there." ...then don't have kids.

If you have a great and willing sister or mother, it might be better to live with her or next to her so she can be the positive female role model. That would likely be more stable than a romantic relationship. Unless you use a legally donated egg and legally rented womb (that's expensive!) you can't set that up free from the interference of someone else, who'll have the power to ruin things. If your sister has her own kids, there's likely to be some conflict of interest there.

These are serious considerations. Deciding whether or not to conceive children is one of THE most important decisions you can make. Having children changes everything. They need involved parents. Do not have children just to dump them into daycare, boarding schools and summer camps, or the lap of a nanny.

Women Need to be Romanced

 

Husbands, how often have you heard that if only you were more sensitive, caring, romantic, did more around the home, and jumped through any number of hoops, your wife would be willing to have sex with you more often? Haven't you heard that women need to be pursued and romanced over the course of the whole day in order to get turned on?

Exhibit A, your Honor: A recent [this entry has been bumped up from April 2018] letter to Dear Abby.

UNWORTHY IN THE MIDWEST wrote:

I am a 17-year-old senior and have been dating the same boy for two years.

High schoolers shouldn't do that. Not exclusively, anyway. Guys, you don't need a girlfriend while you're trying to get educated.

A month ago, he told me he wanted to break up "because he needed some time to figure out what he wanted."

Translation: "I want to figure out if I want to have another girl as my girlfriend, primarily by sticking my penis in her."

I was devastated but agreed. Two weeks later, he told me he was sorry and he loves me.

Translation: "I couldn't get the other girl or she's not as good at sex or sexually compatible with me as you are."

We are back together now, but the weekend after our breakup,

Hours or days after the breakup.

I went to visit a college girlfriend. We went to a party and I ended up having sex with a boy I didn't even know.

Here are the really big questions, men:

How much romancing did that boy do?
How much of her laundry did that boy do?
How much did he prove that he could take care of her, protect her, provide for her?
Did he ever take out the trash?
Did he ever wash the dishes?
Did he ever buy her flowers?
Did he set up a candlelit dinner?
Did he even buy her dinner?
How much money do you think he spent on her?

You get the idea. He didn't do any of that, and yet she did him.

Somehow, she was able to have sex without any of that romance or helping out. And she's not a freak. This is very typical.

I feel guilty and unworthy. What should I do? If I tell my boyfriend, I'm sure I'll lose him for good. If I don't tell him, I'll always worry that he will find out from someone else.

You're 17! Are you going to go to the same college as this boyfriend?

He has a lot to learn if he thinks she wasn't getting some, especially since he was probably getting some or trying really hard to (or had already, when he broke up with her). Guys, expect that within hours after you break up, she's getting some. Come to think of it, you shouldn't assume  or count on her having only been with you while you were a couple anyway.

Surprisingly in this age of "me too", Dear Abby didn't tell the LW she was raped. Even if the age of consent is 16 or 17 where she was (and we don't know it was), she was probably drinking.

What Is A Real Man?

A real man is any human being who is:
1. Male

2. 18 years of age or older
3. Not fictional

Whether a man does or doesn't do any certain things you or anyone else likes or doesn't like has ZERO determination over whether he is a real man or not.

Preparing For Marriage

Recently, I saw a tweet about preparing for marriage.

That got me to think... How could a man prepare for marriage?

If you're a man who thinks you want to get married, either to someone in particular or "someday", take these steps to prepare:

1) Throw out everything you own. Give some woman who isn't a professional decorator or stylist total control over buying everything to replace what you had, using your money. This includes just about everything from clothes to furniture to your vehicle.


2) Beyond that, literally throw away enough additional money that most of your earnings are lost. 


3) When you're horny, take a cold shower or hide in the bathroom to masturbate. Pretend like someone is standing outside the door and you don't want them to hear you.

Why I Don’t Call Dr. Laura Schlessinger

Dr. Laura isn’t getting enough calls. Talk radio in general gets fewer calls than it used to, but the Dr. Laura Program is built around calls. As with many other hosts, she can monologue. But she wants calls.

We can tell she’s not getting enough calls because she dropped down to four “live” programs per week, but will still monologue for a while in the middle of the program, read letters, and yet still fill time with playing unannounced repeat calls, some from years ago and some from a few days ago. The screeners sometimes have to put unprepared callers up.

Her program can be heard live across North America. Why isn’t she getting enough callers?

Well, I know why I haven’t called. Maybe Dr. Laura or her staff will learn from me. I’m a paid subscriber to her program, not a general SiriusXM listener. I have thought for a long time that she’s an overall positive influence. I have concerns, questions, decisions, and situations for which Dr. Laura’s focused, experienced, sincere evaluation might help. I can probably disguise my voice enough without sounding weird. But I won’t call her.

Here are the reasons why.

1. She’s not there to help the caller. Callers are fodder for Dr. Laura getting her messages to listeners. She sees this as helpful to listeners. She has repeatedly said as much. I have no interest in being used as essentially an object lesson or warning against something I can’t change now. I already do that on this blog! She has helped many callers, but it's not her primary goal, and I believe she has hurt some callers. She will not take or will quickly dump calls that don’t easily serve her agenda, and spend much time countering a call that she might see as conflicting with her agenda after the caller is no longer able to clarify or defend. She usually won’t help callers who need to know HOW to discern, determine, or elicit something from others, so she gets curt or scolding if a caller says “I don’t know” regarding the reasons behind another person’s behavior. She can tell them how to find out, but she usually won’t. She will, more often, try to get the other person onto the program as well, which almost never happens.

2. Sometimes, she doesn’t listen. Per the point above, she doesn’t really need to listen to the caller in order to make assumptions and pontificate. But it can be a problem for her when listeners who are paying close attention notice, because they want her advice and statements to logically flow from what the caller said. And the caller sure wants that! There are reasons she might not listen to any given caller, other than preparing her retort or daydreaming. She has ads to read, other calls listed on her screen, work going on around her home (she works from home), a really great view, her dog, program staff talking in her ear (every once in a while we hear them when we’re not supposed to), and she eats, unmuted, during the program, while taking calls.

3. She doesn’t accept that crosstalk is a normal part of phone conversations, and reacts angrily to it. The way phones, especially mobile phones, work, there is no good way to avoid all crosstalk. Every other talk program host seems to have accepted that some crosstalk is to be expected, and calmly and politely work around it.

4. She interrupts, and not pleasantly. Related to the above, she will often ask the caller a question, the caller will start to answer, Dr. Laura will interrupt the caller mid-sentence, then be upset that the caller didn’t immediately stop the moment she interrupted. This can sidetrack the entire call. She has had many methods of interrupting, but the one she currently favors is a loud, high-pitched “WOO HOO!!! WOO HOO!!!” No thanks! Maybe try a gong? At least it would be funny. 

5. We have an incompatible worldview. I'm a Theist who believes in miracles, including that the Lord can and does operate in our lives. This does NOT excuse inaction on our part when, where, and how we should act. Followers of Jesus are supposed to do certain things and not do certain other things. Dr. Laura has decidedly dismissed certain things Theists in general and Christians in particular consider part of life. Sometimes her worldview, which appears to be Deistic or Atheistic, conflicts with this. This has an impact on the advice she gives and can cause her to sound critical of Christian theology.

Also, one of the things I'd ask her about is how to handle divorcing my wife in terms of my communication and other behaviors, if I were to do that. But Dr. Laura tends to think men owe women money for sex, whereas I see sex as something people share. Of course the law would force me to pay a lot in a divorce, but I don't see it as immoral to seek how to pay as little as legally possible.

6. Dr. Laura lives in a different world. Most radio hosts and most advice mavens pretty much live in the same world as the rest of us. For a long time now, Dr. Laura has had a net worth of tens of millions of dollars, if not more. She lives in an exclusive estate she tried to sell for 20+ million dollars. She pretty much works a job she loves, with no boss, four days per week, from home, for probably about 4 hours per day mid-day. Good for her, and I mean that, for doing so well. But it has influenced her advice sometimes, when she fails to understand the limitations and demands on her callers. One big thing I’ll be facing includes retirement. She often speaks out against it. I don’t need to be told not to retire.

Furthermore, disapproving of shacking up, casual sex, and making "salad" (blended) families is fine, but failing to grasp what present-day dynamics are, whether we like them or not, and deal with them, is a problem. We hear this when she tells a teen or young woman that the guy they had sex with is telling all of his friends, as if that is still some deterrent. There’s no stigma anymore in casual sex, unmarried cohabitation, and stepfamily constructs, or having a big wedding when any or all of these things have been involved. As my kids reach adulthood, I might be dealing with these things whether I like it or not. 

She has an unreasonable bias against technology. She rejects the use social media because she had to struggle to get her platform and now just any lowly person can have their message go viral even though they haven’t “earned” it. These things are a part of my life and there’s nothing wrong with that. 

7. She has a terrible history with family and close relationships. Her critics have made a point in pointing out her estrangement from her mother, which is part of the reason her mother was dead for quite a while before anyone knew. In Dr. Laura’s defense, as she has pointed out, her mother apparently had no friends to notice she wasn’t present, but Dr. Laura also wasn’t close to her father, apparently isn’t close to her sister, didn’t keep her first marriage together, and either her son and/or daughter-in-law requested she not talk about them on air anymore, other than mentioning stories of his childhood, or they’re estranged. Whatever is going on, it’s very different from when she’d frequently mention them, have current pictures of the three of them together posted on social media (which is OK for her to use), and have the DIL on the air with her to talk about HR situations. We also know Dr. Laura, well into adulthood and her career, decided to practice Orthodox Judaism (her mother was an Italian Catholic, her father Jewish), got her husband and son into it as well, then she stopped, apparently because of some problems with some people. What’s the common denominator in all of this?

We don’t really know how her relationship to her late husband was. We know she didn’t give their son her husband’s last name, and we know what little she has said: he was ill or in delicate health for years before he passed, he agreed with her when she said she’d destroy him if he ever hurt their son (said when she was pregnant), he protected her while she was very pregnant and crossing a busy street, he’d gas up her car. We really haven’t been told more, so we don’t know more than that and how the relationship started. He doesn’t show up in the stories of her son’s childhood other than handling something at the school office.

Yes, a heart surgeon can treat heart ailments even if they have their own heart ailments or even unhealthy behaviors. But in the context with everything else, it’s a concern. I have benefited from what she’s said and written about marriage and family, but it has to be taken with much salt.

8. General rudeness. I can agree that, sometimes, her tactics are “necessary” to push a caller out of their rut. However, that’s not always the case, as other professionals have demonstrated. She herself will, occasionally, show that she can be gentle and pleasant in dealing with a caller, so we know she can do it.

It’s definitely rude for the host of a call-in talk program to make assertions and bring up topics but refuse to take calls pertaining to them. If I could call her and discuss some of her assertions I think might be flawed, I might. But she doesn’t allow for that. She will not argue nor debate. As such, I’m left with thinking she’s mistaken or being too selective in the studies she uses; maybe I’m wrong, but she won’t take the steps to show why. Callers aren’t even allowed to address something relating to a previous caller other than to ask for “clarification.” 

So, there it is. I don't want to be misinterpreted and verbally beat up, I can't ask many questions I'd like to ask, and I have doubts that for some of my specific concerns, I'd be getting advice that isn't being skewed by her own obvious biases and the relational failures she doesn't discuss. Those are the reasons I don't call. I could call her to praise her for the many things I do like about her program, books, social media, etc., but that’s boring radio.

Why Wait?

Dr. Laura's blog was updated with an entry with the title "Why Wait to Have Sex?"

People who engage in sex before or within the first few weeks of dating have lower levels of relationship satisfaction, communication and stability than those who wait longer.

The claim here is the first few weeks. So, a month in is good?

Why?

Because people who wait are so happy to be having sex that that they'll accept a lot of crap.

Because casual sex is lust over love. Without a foundation, the excitement of the passion wanes, and the relationship crumbles.

Not if they enjoy the sex a lot and are compatible. They have both "lust" and love after a while.

Most women want the first time they have sex with a man to be mind-blowing, special and something that brings them closer together.

Men want that, too.

However, there is no love or commitment early on in a relationship, so none of those needs are met.

That doesn't follow. People can have mind-blowing, special sex that brings them closer together without love and commitment.

I find it remarkable how many women would not entrust their apartment keys to a guy they just met (even if it’s just to water their plants) and yet, give no thought to exposing themselves to STDs and unplanned pregnancies.

If they have your keys, they can steal from you for a while without you even knowing. They can squat in your place and it can be a long ordeal to get them out. Some women actually enjoy sex, and don't see it as something a man does to them, but something they do with a man. But yes, STD tests, contraception, and vasectomies can be great things, and some people having sex on a first, second, or third date use those.

Contrary to what you see in the movies, people simultaneously orgasming 20 minutes after meeting each other rarely happens in real life.

Most married people don't experience simultaneous orgasms, either.

First-date sex is usually awkward, and it runs on his timeline — if you get my drift.

So now it's two dates in, rather than a month.

Also, some guys gladly engage in cunnilingus, fingering, etc. until she has at least one orgasm. Even on a first date.

Plus, there isn’t that much warm-up because there isn’t that much caring to give you a warm-up.

How would Dr. Laura know this? And again, the experience of many people goes against this.

Nothing has changed in the double standard. The more sexual partners a guy has had, the less he thinks of women and the sex he has with them. Guys know that the quicker they can get you to bed, the less wifey material you are. You may be humping for a few years or even shacking up, but there’s no true emotional bond.

Except for the millions of people for whom that hasn't been the case. There are couples who seem to have great marriages lasting decades who had sex on the first date. Everyone knows someone like that. I do.

Dr. Laura will tell female callers who've had unmarried sex "He's telling all of his friends he did!" These days, SHE probably told his friends. And hers. Like it or not, times have changed.

Men don’t value what they don’t have to work hard for.

How hard did most men have to work for their mother's love? And yet they value it tremendously.

If you want a healthy relationship, you should charge a high price for sex - the price being attention, care and commitment.

For Dr. Laura, a "commitment" means having a terrible state contract, joint finances, monogamy, and a bunch of other things that must all be together. In her mind, people can be together for ten years with the same goals and treating each other well, and it's not a commitment unless they have a state license and joint finances. Also, people shouldn't marry until after being together regularly for two yeas. There's a lot of room between a month and two or three years.

While she doesn't admit it, Dr. Laura borrows from materialism and religion for her secular program.

Materialism says men should pay - literally pay - for sex, because of supply and demand. This is why Dr. Laura says an unmarried man having sex is "getting sex for free." He hasn't signed over at least half of his income to the woman with whom he's having sex.

Religion: "This Scripture or this Prophet says unmarried sex is wrong."

She struggles to explain why people should save sex for marriage without citing either of those.

She didn't bring up abortion. Like STDs, unwanted pregnancies are a risk with sex. From a purely rational perspective, people should avoid sex if they aren't prepared for, or haven't taken steps to prevent, unwanted conception, spreading STDs, or catching unwanted feelings.

I'm not here to tell you to have sex before you marry, much less sex a few dates in. (Many of you will do it anyway.)

But I am here to tell you there's no way you should sign a terrible state contract unless you have experienced sexual compatibility and chemistry with that person, unless both of you don't care about sex (and you can't really be sure they don't). Actually, you shouldn't sign the terrible state contract regardless. But you shouldn't make vows, a joint residence, joint finances, or children with someone unless you know they can fulfill you in that way.

So, stay free.

Analyzing Dennis Prager’s Marriage Preaching Again

Hardly a day goes by that Dennis Prager is hosting his main broadcast program that he doesn’t try to sell marriage or lament that marriage rates are down. 

On Monday, March 4, 2024, during Hour 2, at 15 minutes into the podcast hour, he was lamenting that the Left destroys everything. He cited as a “proof” that “25 percent of Americans age 40 have never been married, the highest percentage in history.” (Good work, men, but we need that number way higher.)

He went on to cite an article about Taylor Swift and her burly boyfriend, saying women want a men who’ll protect them and provide for them. “It’s built in.” (This is a polite way of saying “gold diggers,” though Swift specifically doesn’t need anyone else’s money.)

He talks about Adam and Eve, trans women in sports, and then says maybe there will be pushback against “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.” 

“It’s a lie that women don’t need men, and men don’t need women. We are built, created to need each other. ‘It’s not good for man to be alone.’ It’s not good for women to be alone. There are exceptions. But overwhelmingly a man needs a woman and a woman needs a man.”

But life has changed, Dennis. People can thrive and have great, full lives living in a their own residence. And we’re not alone. There are 8 billion living people. 

“When men marry, they earn more, they’re more responsible, they drink less, they cavort less,” and he repeats “more responsible.”

Women tend to marry men who do or will earn more. But most of what a married man earns isn’t his. It legally goes to his wife, who’ll make most of the purchasing decisions.

By implication, Dennis is saying that if he hadn’t married; he’d be making less money, irresponsible, drunk, and cavorting. Except I know never-married men who are very responsible, don’t get drunk, and enjoy their life. This is a bit like saying, “People who take the train tend to travel from here to there.” OK. But people can fly now, or drive if they prefer. It’s not like having a nag with the proverbial loaded gun to your head is the only way.

“Ask almost any man who got married.”

Ask divorced men. The ones who haven’t killed themselves. Yet.

Hey Dennis, we can ask college grads if college made them better. Almost all will say yes. And yet you dismiss that. Who wants to say that they made a huge, costly mistake? 

“And women need men just as much. Many women go a little nuts - the staggering irrationality that has take over in so many cases of females in our society is proof. Men without women are wild. And women without men are often irrational.”

Dennis clearly has far more married women listeners than unmarried women. Otherwise he wouldn’t say stuff like that on the radio.

There are never married men who aren’t wild, but are very responsible.

There are never married women who are clear, rational thinkers.

Find out why, and see if that can be taught. No need to urge people to sign a terrible state contract.

I note that Dr. Laura says men need women far more than women need men. It’s one of many things I’d like to see her and Dennis discuss. But, she prefers complete control of her appearance in media and won’t argue or debate.

A Very Tiny Pool

"Refuse to date men use porn!" was tweeted out by one my favorite antiporn accounts.

First things first: Of course people can and should set any standards or requirements they think are best when it comes to who they'll date.

Two very important words in the tweet were "use" and "porn". What exactly are we talking about here? Is a guy who stares at artistic nudes once or twice per month or enjoys the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue just as out-of-the-question as a guy who is viewing hardcore videos 2-3 times per week? If so, there's going to be almost no man who passes this test. And "use" implies it is ongoing. Given how much we are told  by antiporn activists that porn damages the brain, shouldn't men who used porn be out of consideration, too?

This Guy Wants Husbands to Pretend They Have Power

I generally think it is a good thing if someone tries to make existing marriages better. Really. I want to get that out right here upfront.

Let's take a look at this tweetstorm. Here's the TL;dr: Husbands, choose to be happy and content.

Over the past decade, I've met with dozens of men in failing marriages.

Most married men are, or will be, in a failing marriage.

If you want to be happy in a marriage that lasts, here's what you need to know:

Hmmm....

1 - They no longer believe they need what their wife offers.

Most men don't need what their wife offers. They never did. Don't believe me? When a man complains that his wife doesn't do something, if enough people hear it, he will always be told he can live without it, or that he can do it himself. No matter what it is. Sex, encouragement, companionship, cooking, cleaning, laundry, whatever. If a man can live without it, he doesn't need it. And there are men who aren't married, including some who never were married, who are doing well.

Wedding China

I don't know how long it has been a tradition, and I don't know if it is falling out of favor now, but when we got married, my wife put a china set on our gift registry. Having a china cabinet, full of china, is important for some women.

So we have a dedicated cabinet, a china cabinet, full of expensive china.

We've been married "a long time" now. How often do you think we've used that china?

Go ahead. Take a guess.

...

If you guessed ZERO, you are correct.

It just sits in the corner of the room, collecting dust.

I found out after we married that one of my wife's family members told one of my family members people shouldn't bother buying the china for us, because it would never be used. That person was right. The people who spent the money on that could have bought us gifts we actually would have used.

This is just one of many ways modern marriage and wedding culture is impractical.

Avoid it, guys!