You Can't Tell She'd Make a Good Mother

If you're looking for "the one," and you shouldn't be, you might ask "Will she make a good mother?"

Now, there are some red flags that indicate she definitely wouldn't be a good mother. But just because you don't see certain red flags (yet) and think she's compatible with you and on the same page when it comes to parenting does NOT mean she will actually be a good mother.

There really isn't any way to know for sure.

In the good ol' days, she didn't have much choice. She'd better do things your way. Things are very different now, with a culture that undermines parenting.

She might SAY she wants to raise children, but just like you, she really has no clue. Being an older sibling, or babysitting someone else's kids can cause someone to legitimately realize they don't want children, but they're not a good way to decide that one DOES want to parent. How can things work that way? Because if children irritate, annoy, exasperate, or otherwise bring you down, that's enough to know you shouldn't raise any, but even if you enjoy being around them, that's far different from being their parent, who is financially, socially, morally, and legally responsible for them 24/7/365 for 18 or more years.

Having a dog isn't being mom to a human child.

There are some definite signs, other than not liking kids in general, she's not mother material. She wouldn't make a good wife. Her career comes first or she has a highly demanding career (long/odd/extra days, frequent travel, instability/having to hop from company to company, emotionally draining/stressful, leaves her exhausted); she's misandrist; she's impatient or easily angered; she needs everything neat and orderly; she's unhealthy; she's mentally ill; she's a substance abuser; she's irresponsible; she's abusive; she isn't nurturing or affectionate.

Other things are harder to discern.

If she already has children, you shouldn't be with her, let alone making more with her or bringing your kids around her and her kids.

You can't tell with reasonable certainty a woman will make a good mother, and frankly, you probably shouldn't marry.

So you probably shouldn't have kids, or if you are going to have kids, you might want to consider not having a wife and keeping control by using a donated egg and a surrogate for gestation.

You Can Be Right or You Can Be Married

Have you ever heard that saying I used as the title of this entry?

Have you seen the exchange written in the picture to the left, or anything like it? Or experienced something like it?

When I got engaged, someone gave me a graph depicting a man's chances winning and argument. It starts at 50%, then goes to 25% when he gets engaged, then to 0% when he married.

How many times have you heard men told that the key to a happy marriage is to learn to say "Yes, Dear."?

Consider this letter from a listener to Dr. Laura:

Winning Isn't Everything

I have been married for 27 years, and I have a few thoughts to share about working through arguments with your loved one.

1.You should listen enough to at least let the other person articulate their issue or point of view.

2.Do not force the other person to listen if they don't want to!

3.Listen to YOURSELF so that you are not ever speaking too loudly, with harshness or even a hints of sarcasm.

4.It doesn't matter who wins - it's how both parties feel afterwards.

Sometimes being a good loser makes you both winners.

The letter is really good right up to the underlined part.

I realize that letter is to be considered by both husbands and wives, but the bulk of these things are directed at husbands. We're told in many ways that we're supposed to simply accept and/or announce that we're wrong even when there hasn't been a logical explanation that even demonstrates the possibility that we are. We're supposed to cater to unjustified or even irrational hostility, demands for apologies, and her claim of control, except where she has inconsistently and temporarily (and often silently) ceded some power back to us.

Men and Women Do NOT Need Each Other

No, Dennis Prager, men and women do NOT need each other.

Pathological as he is, Dennis Prager raised the issue again during the weekly "Male/Female Hour" on his program, on December 6, 2023.

He said he doesn't know (heterosexual) men who say men don't need women. He must be ignoring or selectively forgetting some of his mail.

A man can live his entire life and thrive without a woman. A woman can live her entire life and thrive without a man. There are people who are doing this right now. There are people who've done it.

No individual person needs to reproduce. But yes, both a man and a woman are needed for reproduction ...for now. Science is rapidly ending that.

Sex? Clearly sex isn't a NEED, because many husbands are living without it. And many people say people should wait until they marry to have sex, and some of those people also say people shouldn't marry before they are 28. So sex may be a very strong WANT, but it isn't a need. And again, science/technology and art are making better and better masturbation aids, to the point in which it may become difficult to distinguish it from sex. Also, people can and do have sex without living together or being in an ongoing relationship that involves anything other than sex. I'm sure that's not what Dennis is talking about.

The government needs people to pay taxes, especially for their ponzi schemes. But male taxpayers don't need any of the taxpayers to be women, and vice-versa.

There are still some jobs for which it is very hard to find women to do them. But again, technology is making that less and less the case, and for now it means that women need men, not "a" man to herself. For this, men don't need women.

Dennis can’t even say men, or, more precisely, boys, need women for breastfeeding, as he has been a staunch denier of the need for breastfeeding.

People CAN live happy fulfilled, productive, honorable, worthwhile lives without ever living with the opposite sex, without working with them, and without having any as friends.

Men and women don't need each other.

Why Sign Away Your Earnings?

To help Free Men with what they say to others, and to help explain why men stay free, I will occasionally post sample dialogue.


Marriage Seller: Why aren't you married?

Free Man: Why would I want to sign a contract that legally shifts over half of my earnings to somebody else?

MS: You're not looking at marriage the right way.

FM: I'm looking at it the way the law treats it.

MS: Marry a woman who has a job?

FM: Why? My income pays for my lifestyle. Why would I want to add someone to my home who earns less than I do, meaning my earnings will still be legally shifted to her, who will increase expenses and take over most of the spending decisions, purchasing things and services I don't want and won't be using? I could be obligated to make ongoing payments to her should she leave me or should I find I can't tolerate her anymore. Also, she can quit her job and it will be like she never had one, as far as community property and alimony goes. What happens if my career path becomes incompatible with hers? If she has a bad day at work I can forget about sex that evening and have someone in a bad mood darkening my residence. No thanks!

Stay free, men!

Comment Here on Dating (or not) Women With Minor Children

There are so many comments that have been left on my blog's most popular entry that I'm encouraging people to comment here instead, so your comment doesn't get lost in the shuffle. The topic: I discourage men (and women, for that matter) from dating women with minor children. You might disagree with me. Maybe you have stories to tell. This is the place!

I urge people not to add chaos to their child's life. Don't date single mothers, or mothers of minor or dependent children!

And before you ask again, here is something I wrote to a widowed mother.

Disagree? Agree? Do you have success stories? Horror stories? Comment below! BUT PLEASE DO NOT USE PROFANITY (CUSS WORDS) in your comment or I probably won't publish it. This is acceptable: "That's bull****!" Writing out the word in full is not acceptable. No F word. No C word. No S word. No D word. You get the idea.

Who Leads the Home?

Most men have a strong drive to have sex with women, especially the woman he's serving in marriage.

Most men don't want to argue or disagree with their wife, or have her nagging or whining or complaining to him.

Most women marry men who do, or will, earn more income than them.

These realities, along with family law and courts, and domestic violence laws and policies, mean that men lose their power when they marry. Husbands have power at the delegation of their wife. She can rescind that power at any time.

These things mean that if the wife doesn't let her husband be the leader, she will be the leader.

"Oh, we decide together."

It might look that way, especially when what he wants/chooses is something she would choose if it was entirely up to her. But husbands will often try to avoid conflict with their wife, so unless she truly defers to him, he's going to defer to her when there is disagreement. He may be so good at that she might not even realize it is what he is doing, or she might think he doesn't really care either way (even though he might care very much).

There are only two people. If each gets one vote, and they don't agree, what's the solution? When a husband takes the lead, and the wife doesn't accept his decisions, she's likely to call him inconsiderate, immature, controlling, or some other negative descriptor.

In my home, my wife has said in the past that she wants me to make more of the decisions. However, when I decide differently than she would, she says I didn't listen to her. I did listen to her! I listened and still decided the way I wanted was the better choice. She's not happy with that. So, it's better to talk with her, figure out what she wants, and unless it's sure to be significantly destructive, "agree" with her or "decide" the way she wants.

This is one more reason not to marry, as free men don't have to deal with this. Live alone, and you always get to decide. But if you're going to be foolish enough to marry, try to have this worked out ahead of time: How are decisions made? How are disputes settled? She might not stick with whatever she says before you marry her, but you can at least try. If you really want to subject yourself to marriage.

Cult of the Cubicle

The lockdowns associated with the 2020 pandemic widely revealed something that some people had already discovered:

Thanks to technology, many office jobs can now be done entirely or almost entirely from home, or some other "remote" location.

Some employers embraced this for the long term, significantly reducing the office space their company leased or owns.

Others, steeped in what I'll call the Cult of the Cubicle, have been trying to get everyone back into their cubicles, or even worse, their "open" workstations.

If responsibilities can be handled through telephones and computing devices (smart phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, etc.), they can be done through "telework" or remotely. Presentations done on screens can be presented and experiences remotely. Meetings can be done remotely. Trainings can be done remotely.

There are tasks, there are personalities, there are home situations which make it preferable for some people to work in the common office. Some collaborations are going to be better that way.

But for others, why not let them work from home/remotely full-time, permanently, if that is what they want? Either they can do quality work at the quantity needed or they can't. If they can, what is the problem? I can't think of any except for a desire to have a feeling of control over people.

Commuting has costs and risks. For many people, their residence and their employer aren't going to be close, or the commute is going to be slow and stressful even if the physical distance isn't all that far. In the greater Los Angeles area, it isn't unusual for people to have commutes that are over an hour one way, and that's without an accident that stops a commuter train, or closes lanes on a freeway or tollway. The saving grace for people in those commutes is usually radio, podcasts, or audiobooks, or they might do phone calls as they move slowly along the roadways.

But that's about the employee's quality of life. How does allowing more people to work work "from home" more of the time benefit employers? There are many ways. In no particular order:

Yet Another Example of Why Men Should Avoid Marrying

Every once in a while, the mask slips.

Yesterday (January 4, 2022), this, screencapped below in case it disappears, was posted on the Dr. Laura Program official Facebook page. [This entry has been bumped up.]



Many women commented on it, about how men need to jump through more hoops in order to get sex from their woman.

Typical right? We hear and read that all of the time.

About 24 hours later, this was posted on the very same Facebook page, again, screencapped below in case it goes away.



How can this be reconciled with the first post? Simple! Tell the boyfriends to stop doing so much for her. Right??? I mean, then her sexual desire will be reduced. Right???

The men had fun with this one, commenting on this second posting:




Dr. Laura does monitor and comment on her program's official Facebook page (unlike Twitter, which she doesn't personally check), so it will be interesting to see if she responds to this, deletes something (including some comments from men), or what.

There is a larger point here than two apparently contradictory posts on the same page in about a 24-hour span.

It is that many (most?) women DO NOT need ANYTHING in order to be sexual. The proof is in how women behave, often from first dates (or hookups without even going on a date), all the way until their wedding or the birth of a child. The proof is in affairs. The woman in the second post doesn't need her boyfriend to jump through hoops. She wants sex with them.

A BIG tell is single mothers. If she was able to have sex with him plenty when they were dating, even though she had LESS help around the house, and then he marries her and thus is doing more than before they were married, and the sex dwindles, that shows "he needs to do more" is dung. (Don't date or marry single mothers, though, guys.)

The only way "Hey, husband, you need to jump through more hoops" is true is if he needs to do more because she is now less attracted to him because of age and/or marriage, and if that is common, then it is all the more reason for men to STAY FREE and date women who are more attracted, or go into monk mode.

None of this is to say men who've been ignorant, delusional, desperate, or masochistic enough to marry shouldn't contribute around the home or shouldn't romance their wife. Rather, this is to again demonstrate an inconsistency between what woman (and marriage sellers) say, and how women actually behave.

See something I wrote before about this topic.

When Marriage Sellers Say Married Men Live Longer

"Married men live longer."

Wow, that sure looks like strong reason to marry, right?

But... as usual, the realities behind the statistics being used to sell marriage to men can tell a different story.

1) Women are more likely to marry and stay married to healthier and wealthier men. Guess what? Healthier and wealthier men tend to live longer. If a couple is living together but she won't marry him because he's ill, then again, he's counted as "unmarried."

2) Divorced men are usually counted as "unmarried." If a man gets ill and his wife divorces him and he dies, he is counted as "unmarried." The suicide rate for divorced men is high, too. What if, instead, those men had learned to be happy without ever marrying?

3) Men who die young are far less likely to have married. What ages are the statistics counting? If they are counting "men 16 years of age and older," that means any unmarried guy who died at 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 can skew the statistics in comparison to the fact that most men who live 40 or more years will have married. To put it simply, if you look at 10 guys who died before age 40 and 10 guys who died in their 70s or 80s, chances are, the older guys were married. It doesn't necessarily mean that marrying kept them alive longer or that the men who died younger died younger because they didn't marry.

Do you see how the statistics might not be making a clear indication that marrying causes a man to live longer?

It is possible that having a woman in his life who nags him to go to the doctor can keep a man alive longer. That's a reasonable consideration. But a woman can do that for a man without a terrible state contract. In fact, I urge men I'm not married to and I will never marry to go their doctors. More people should do that, instead of telling a man to sign a terrible state contract because it might appear to be correlated to longevity.

Finally, even if it could be definitively proven that marrying does, in fact, extend a man's life, let's consider what that would mean. It would mean that he trades decades of freedom, peace, quiet, control over his own finances and life, and everything else about life that Free Men enjoy that the average husband doesn't, for mere months or a couple of more years of convalescence, when he might not even remember who he is or be able to feed or wipe himself. Consider that carefully, guys.

Indeed, the stats are likely turning out as they do because an elderly man’s wife was there to call for help when he collapsed. So he lives a few months longer. If you really want to live longer in that condition, guys, technology can now monitor you and summon help, for much less cost than a wife.

Hey, what about women? Oh, what do you know - married women don't live as long as unmarried women. Shouldn't men avoid being selfish by avoiding marriage, since it appears to rob women of life?

Weddings Are Highly Visible But Marriage Isn't A Wedding

Weddings are highly visible. They are often prominent in both fictional media and "reality" media, including news and gossip outlets. They are announced all over, there are save the date notices, formal invites, and thank-yous. There are wedding registries. There are special dresses. There are entire websites/shops dedicated to weddings. There are wedding rings. There are bridal showers, wedding showers, bachelor parties, bachelorette parties, rehearsal dinners, receptions, anniversary celebrations, elaborate proposals, engagement announcements, engagement rings, wedding photographers, wedding planners, cakes and cake tasting, flowers, on and on it goes.

If the people getting married are happy through those things, that's fortunate.

But marriage isn't a wedding.

Here are some of the things about marriage and its aftermath that are hidden or far less visible:

• One spouse having to pick up after another
• The spouse who has/earns more money having to pay for bills generated by the other, especially for things the paying spouse didn't want or couldn't enjoy
• One spouse feeling stifled by the other
• Abandoned dreams
• Alienation from family of origin
• Alienation from friends
  
• Arguments, disputes, conflicts
  
• Cruel words
• Mood swings
  
• Loneliness
• Disappointment 
• One spouse not being able to sleep or relax because of the other
  
• Walking on eggshells
  
• Nagging
• Frustration
• Disrespect
  
• Irritation and annoyance
• Emotional rejection
  
• Sexual rejection
• Boredom and monotony
  
• Affairs
  
• Marriage counseling
• Indifference
  
• Contempt
  
• Visits by law enforcement due to reports of possible domestic violence
• Actual domestic violence
  
• One spouse murdering the other
• One spouse subjecting the other to their substance abuse
• Abandonment
• Physical separation
• Legal separation
• Consulting divorce lawyers
• Paying divorce lawyers
• Court battles over divorce
• Dividing assets
• Ongoing payments, such as alimony
  

What if those things were as visible as weddings? What if people were to tell you and put on their social media "We're going through a really crappy time in our marriage right now" whenever that was the case? Do you think there might be fewer weddings?

There are many people who have an interest, especially a financial interest, in other people getting married. People have been selling marriage. They emphasize the good and keep the bad quiet. Talking about the bad is "tacky" or a "sin" or a "betrayal" or a "negative confession."

But what if reality wasn't hushed up so much?

It's Just Like Cheating!

Matt Walsh, apparently feeling that the countless anti-pornography ministries aren't enough, decided to score points with the uptight ladies by chastising men for liking depictions of female flesh and sexuality. From his column at The Daily Wire, "How to Betray Your Wife, Destroy Her Self-Worth, And Implode Your Marriage In One Easy Step": [This entry is bumped up from December 2017]

I wrote an article last week about a husband’s great need, and right, to be respected by his wife.

Yeah, good luck with that. Our culture and our laws make that nearly impossible.

But one theme seemed to emerge from many of the messages I received: a lot women have trouble respecting their husbands because their husbands spend so much time watching porn.

Those were probably women who spend all day feeding confirmation bias about how terrible their husbands are.

I maintain, porn or no porn, that husbands should still be treated with respect in their homes.

Uh oh!

But that does not justify porn, nor does it mitigate the impact it has on a marriage. A man who laughs at the very idea that he may be hurting his wife by watching porn only proves the point. He has become so intensely self-involved that his wife's needs are a joke to him. Even when she tells him that she is hurt by it, still, he blows her off and returns to the naked people on the screen.

Why does it hurt her? Usually, it is because she's been TOLD it is hurting her. If she was instead told that she shouldn't be jealous of pixels, she'd probably, in most cases, be just fine.

Does Marriage Require A Bride, A Groom, and Jesus?

In discussions about marriage, divorce, and how to keep marriages together, there will often be comments from people who insist that for a marriage to work, it has to have three people: a bride, a groom, and Jesus. Sometimes they will be less specific and say "God" instead of "Jesus" (orthodox Christianity teaches that Jesus is God, as is the Father and the Holy Spirit).

Now, I'm a Christian. I wish it was true that being Christian would make marriages successful. And yet the divorce rate, including in "Evangelical" churches, indicates that isn't the case.

A good reply to that is "Well, not everyone who attends church is truly a Christian, and if people consistently applied Christian principles in their marriage, their marriage would last."

I can grant that.

There's still a problem though.

Don't we all know people who have been married for decades, some until one or both die, who aren't Christian? Even some who haven't placed God at the center of the marriage; indeed, neither may have any faith in God? And yet they've lasted.

The only possible answer to that I can think of is that the person who makes the original assertion would say that the marriage isn't real or isn't successful, no matter who cute or adorable the couple seems to be, how they treat each other in front of others, and how the children they raised together have turned out.

Things like that immediately diminish the credibility of such believers in the understanding of certain unbelievers.

Today's legal and social marriage have very little resemblance to the marriages in the Bible. But let's say applying Christian principles to marriage is one way that will make a marriage successful. The problem with this is that the only perfect practitioner of Christian principles is Jesus. No matter how devout, there will be times one or both spouses will screw things up. Then all it takes is for one of them to go to a divorce lawyer during a time of temporarily screwing things up, and the ball gets rolling downhill.

Also, we don't truly know someone else's heart and future, even a woman we date for years.

Men can have Jesus at the center of their life without signing a terrible state contract. Men can have Jesus at the center of their life without ever having a wedding ceremony, or living with a woman, or raising children with a woman.

Guys, being a Christian, no matter how faithfully, will not guarantee you a successful marriage. Sometimes, the only way to win is to not play.

And for anyone who says Christians are called to sacrifice - Yes we are, but not foolish sacrifice. Men can apply one of the ultimate Christian principles and stay unmarried, like Jesus.

How to Keep Your Friends Free - Rescue, Recovery, and Restoration

Despite your best efforts with Prevention and Intervention, some of the guys you know are going to sacrifice themselves for what will likely be a lost cause. They're going to get married, or shack up, or otherwise entangle themselves in a woman's life in a way that gives away their freedom. Or maybe they did so before you had the chance to even try to instill in them the value of freedom.

The good news is that many of those guys will be dumped or will escape, and thus gain back some of their freedom, albeit heavily damaged and, often, compelled to make ongoing payments.

That's where you come in with the rescue, recovery, and restoration.

Of course, this depends on you having either stayed in contact or having left the door open. If these guys can't find you or don't think you want to hear from them, you're not going to be able to help.

 

Hopefully, if you knew them before they climbed down that ladder and were able to warn them, they'll remember that while so many other people were encouraging them to make what was perhaps the worst change they've ever volunteered to make, YOU were telling them the truth, even if they didn't like hearing it.

I've written about this before, but that was with a focus on you. I'm expanding here on what you can do for these guys. Some of these guys will have forgotten how to live as Free Men, or how to enjoy life, or even make their own decisions.

• If you can, and you don't have reason to believe he'll become a permanent mooch, offer him a place to crash.
  
  
• Refer him to a good family law attorney, if he doesn't have one, and if he needs one. He WILL need one if he was married, has a child, or co-mingled accounts/assets with her.
   
• If he seems to need it, refer him to a good Free Man-friendly therapist.
  
  
• Get him back to having fun doing the things he enjoys doing. Don't be discouraged if he doesn't seem to be immediately enjoying himself. He might not have given himself permission to enjoy his freedom yet. Yes, there are some things he may never resume, but he needs to at least give himself the opportunity.
  
  
• Listen carefully to what he says. Try to listen as much as possible, but you might need to point out, even interrupt him when he talking to remind him, that he is reclaiming his freedom, and to stop thinking like a husband. He needs to stop limiting himself and deferring to her or what she wanted. She doesn't get to decide anymore, and can't punish him anymore.
  
  
• If he ever talks about missing her or wanted to try to work it out with her, remind him of the terrible things she did and that going back to her would be throwing away the freedom and autonomy he's regained.
  
  
• There is the risk of him thinking "Maybe it was just her." The risk of him feeling like he has to be a husband. Consult the Prevention entry of this series. Go back to the basics. Especially if he has kids, it's even more important to stay as free as he can. Also, second marriages or marriages in which there are stepchildren have a much higher divorce rate. His children don't need the chaos having new women to meet. He needs to keep any involvement with new women very casual.
  
  
• He might miss the sex, even if it was infrequent and bland. He needs to know how to run game or sublimate.
  
  
• Set up regular get-togethers and outings, especially on Fridays and Saturdays, either with a group of guys or just the two of you. The more fun a recovering man has as a Free Man, the better!
  

This is the end of the series for now, although I will probably write and entry that addresses how to apply this when dealing with your own son.

How to Keep Your Friends Free - Prevention

How to Keep Your Friends Free - Intervention

Want More People to Marry?

Want more people to marry, or marry early enough to have (more) children together inside the marriage?

Marriage must have something men want they can't get for less risk and cost otherwise, and men have to know about it. Marriage must be distinguished from nonmarriage in a positive way, legally and/or culturally. I'm not talking about misleading use of statistics. I'm talking about it actually being better. Two lesbians can marry, and two gay men can marry. Why would most heterosexual men want to do it? What makes it special? You can't tell a man that marriage is something special between a man and a woman if two women can do it without a man. You can't even say it is something special between two people, because historically, polygamy has existed in many cultures around the world. But maybe it can be made better, to the point more men want to marry women.

How can marriage be made better?

There are at least three major things it will take to make marriage appealing to men. Let's consider them.

Was It Really Wasted Time?

There are women who look back on a marriage or relationship that ended and they say something like "All those years, wasted!"

Especially if she was happy, enjoying herself, or feeling that her needs were met for most of that relationship, what does she mean that those were "wasted" years?

If her only goal was to have the man be with her into old age and then for him to die on her or outlive her, sure, it was wasted, if you dismiss that being with him helped her prepare to be with someone else - someone she wouldn't meet or wouldn't have dated before.

Or, if her only goal was to have children and she didn't because he couldn't, wouldn't, or she didn't think he'd make a good father, and now she's too old, sure, it was wasted, if you think she definitely would have had children with another guy, which we can't know with certainty.

But what about the companionship? The attention he gave her? All of the good times they had together? Things he did for her? For that all to be a waste, it means she didn't and doesn't value those things. Men, stop spending time, energy, and money on a woman who doesn't appreciate it!

The "wasted years" comment, upon careful consideration, sounds like ingratitude in most cases. An exception would be if we know for certain (and how can we) that she would have had a better time with someone else. It makes sense if she's saying "Bob, who I'm with now, wanted to date me, but I was busy with that jerk Joe!" Understand though, that her statement that she "wasted" those years is about her, not Joe. It was her choice.

Guys, if you're looking for an ongoing relationship, be very careful about a woman who says a past relationship was "wasted" time, unless she can explain how without sounding like she doesn't value affection, experiences together, gifts, etc. If you're just looking for dates and not a relationship, then be one of those guys she will say she wasted time with... just don't waste too much of her time. Keep the dates are short as you can!

Women, are you wasting your time? Does the journey matter, or only the destination?

No, Men, Your Standards Are Not Too High

Are you an unmarried man who's been told that your standards for a wife are too high? [This an entry from October 2015 I'm bumping up. It still holds up.]

They're not.

At least, they're not if you're self-sufficient.

Don't get theological on me. I know we're all dependent on God – I'm talking about self-sufficient in being able to pay your bills, finance your future, and otherwise meet your obligations and maintain your domicile.

If you're self-sufficient, and not sickly or disabled, your standards for a wife are not too high, no matter what they are.

Marriage is entirely voluntary. Marriage isn't necessary to live a productive and full life. As a man, getting married means taking on certain obligations and serious risks legally, financially, and socially. Every benefit a marriage might bring a man is provided at the voluntary generosity of a an irrational creature who can rescind her generosity without any penalty for doing so, and those things can all be obtained without marriage. (The exceptions are: 1. If a man believes unmarried sex is fornication and wants sex without fornicating – but getting married is no guarantee of satisfying sex, or sex at all, and 2. If a man wants to raise children within a marriage.)

Your standards are not too high.

You don't need to, and you should not, spend a couple of years paying for a woman's meals and entertainment and buying her gifts on those "special occasions" scattered throughout the year.

You don't need to, and you should not, buy her overpriced jewelry to wear on her finger.

You don't need to, and you should not, pay for a series of expensive parties that are mostly about her.

You don't need to, and you should not, take on children a woman has had by other men.

You don't need to, and you should not, take on debts a woman incurred before she even met you.

You don’t need to, and you should not, sign a legal document that ensures at least half of everything you'll ever earn will be hers and that you will support her should the relationship end and that you'll be the legal/financial father if she conceives children by another man.

If you're going to make someone your default beneficiary and give them power to make medical decisions for you, or if you're going to be sharing a home and a bed with this person, then your standards are NOT too high.

If a married person tells you your standards are too high, ask them if that means they had low standards when they married.

I'm still waiting for just one good reason for a man to marry and if you're thinking about getting married, you should also try this exercise.

Managing Danger

Many years ago, a significant earthquake hit where I was, and without even thinking about it I was under an extremely sturdy table as fast as I could get there. I didn't even have to think about it, because I had thought about it many times before.

Thinking ahead and paying attention can help protect you.

"What if...?" can help you.

How many people get into accidents while driving because they weren't paying attention? How many accidents have been narrowly avoided because someone was paying attention? We count on other drivers driving safely and following the rules of the road, but sometimes they won't or can't: They have have a medical problem, they're drunk, they're fighting with a passenger, they're distracted, their vehicle has a mechanical failure, they're angry or set on committing a crime, a pedestrian/animal/other object gets in their way, etc.

Driving or anywhere else...

Having a Family Doesn't Guarantee Happiness

Matt Walsh, who I agree with some on some really big things, is back [this entry is being bumped up] to beating the drum to marry and pop out kids. He starts off his column at The Daily Wire citing comments by former First Lady Michelle Obama. [This entry bumped up from January 2021.]

The former First Lady was interviewed by "Blackish" star Tracee Ellis Ross and the women together lamented the fact that girls "still dream of weddings" and "Prince Charming." The two agreed that some women (Tracee Ellis Ross included) can sacrifice family for the sake of a career and be "happy as a clam." In fact, it would seem that Mrs. Obama — who is married with two kids — thinks this path is preferable, given that she considers it a problem when girls aspire to marriage. Ross provided compelling evidence to prove that her decision to forgo family life was the right call: "Look where I'm sitting," she declared. Yes, the summit of all happiness is to sit on a stage with a former First Lady. Truly, this is the eternal bliss for which we were designed.

Maybe Ross is happy? I'm not aware of Walsh having psychic abilities.

If You Marry, You WILL Have a Prenuptial Agreement

The question is, will it be the default agreement put together by strangers (state law, left up to interpretation and application by a judge), or will it be customized to the two of you?

The state prenuptial agreement is TERRIBLE for breadwinning men.

You might think "I don't really have much." Maybe not. But with hard work and smart moves, that'll change. Don't cheap out! If you "cant' afford a prenup," you can't afford a wife.

Guys, you should NOT be marrying at all, but if you are going to legally marry or even just cohabitate, you need a customized prenup, and you need to do it right. Judges have thrown out prenups. Here's how to minimize the risk of that happening.*

1. The agreement has to be signed and notarized/filed/whatever BEFORE a wedding date is set, before there's a pregnancy, and before you live together. You do not want her to later claim she was in any way pressured or coerced or signed under duress.

2. She will need her own attorney and so will you. The attorneys will go over the agreement before it is finalized.

3. Along with your attorney, line up a professional videographer and a (retired?) judge to go over the finalized agreement with both of you and your attorneys, signing and dating it on-camera. The judge should confirm your date, time, location, identities, that you are of sound mind, that you're entering into this agreement willingly (no wedding date has been set yet, etc.), that you have your attorneys present and that you are satisfied with them, that you understand English, and go over each clause of the agreement to explain what it means and whether or not you consent to it. The idea is to make it virtually impossible for the agreement to be challenged later by claiming there was pressure or that something was unfair or not understood.

4. Make sure you have discussed with your attorney how to keep the agreement in effect. Certain things you might otherwise say or do could end the effectiveness of the agreement, and you want to be sure to avoid that. Don't let her pressure you into doing those things!


The specifics of the agreement will be up to the law and what you two and your attorneys work out. She might ask for a sunset so that if she stays with you a certain number of years, the state's agreement comes into effect. Avoid that! All that does is give her a countdown. Things that might be in the agreement might include, but certainly not be limited to, access to financial accounts, the conditions of any joint accounts, provisions for insurance, what each of you owned and owed at the time you entered into the agreement, the process for amending or changing the agreement, who will pay for what, what happens if there is a separation/divorce/incapacitation/death, what will happen with property purchases and sales, etc.

You want to protect any property or assets you would be bringing into the marriage. Have your own business? Plan to start one? What if you create something like a work of art or a game? These are things that need to be considered.

If you own a home, you'll probably need her to sign a quitclaim deed and you'll probably have to refuse to allow her to "help" with paying for or maintaining it.

In most places, inheritance is NOT community property. If anyone is leaving anything to you, they should leave it only to you, NOT including her, and you should keep whatever you get separate. For example, if it's cash, it would go into an account she has nothing to do with.

If there is a divorce, you're not going to be able to get away with paying her nothing. You're going to have to pay her something, but if you spell out what in the agreement, it can be far less than what you'd have to if you went with the state default.

Again, you most likely shouldn't be marrying (or living together) in the first place. But if you're going to take that risk, mitigate it somewhat with a customized prenup. If she won't agree, DO NOT MARRY HER.

Keep in mind, having children provides an end-run around a prenup. She can get a court to order you to pay "child support" well above what it takes to raise the children. No man should be conceiving children unless he sincerely wants to be a father.

*I'm not an attorney. Do not so much as share a residence, let alone marry a woman, without consulting a family law attorney.

Dennis Prager Doesn't Understand Putting Financial Stability Before Getting Married

On the Male/Female Hour of his show today (Wednesday, February 3, 2021), Dennis Prager again took the opportunity to try to sell people on marrying by bringing up how people, especially men, will say they don't want to marry until they have financial stability, and claiming he's never heard a good explanation for that. [This entry us bumped up because it is still relevant.]

I was hoping for some callers would do what I recommended here. One sounded like he might.

I wish I could call in, but I can't. At least not yet. 

Most men shouldn't marry at all, but if they are going to do something so foolish, they should definitely not marry until they have financial stability. There are many reasons this is so. In no particular order, here are just some reasons as to why:

• Marriage is difficult enough. It is even more so when you're poor. Finances are one of THE most common reasons spouse fight and people get divorced. 
• People trying to reach financial stability have less time and energy to spend on a spouse.
• Men who are better off financially can get a more attractive wife.
• Why should you take on another person's debts? Why should they take on yours?
• Wealth acquired before the marriage can be more easily protected from divorce than wealth acquired during the marriage.
• Most women want to marry a man who can support them.
• If kids are a possibility, it is best they have a parent raise them, not have both parents unavailable and tired out from working jobs.

Rather than further repeat myself more, see what I wrote here and go ahead and look through the Dennis Prager tag on this blog. 

Dennis Prager, being unmarried is the default. MEN DO NOT NEED A REASON TO AVOID MARRIAGE. Instead, they need a good reason TO get married, and most men don't have one!

"Why Can't Men Be Upfront and Honest?" - Part 3

Part 1 of This Series

Part 2 of This Series

Women usually know within the first five minutes of meeting a guy whether or not they'd ever have sex with him. But it isn't like they'll tell the man. That would be upfront and honest.

Unless they are asexual or something is wrong with them, men want sex. Depending on their morals, religion, strategy, etc., they might be willing to wait for sex. They might want sex AND [fill in the blank... marriage, family, etc.]. But we all want sex. If we didn't, we likely wouldn't have asked the woman to date, meet us, or let us come over.

"But women want sex, too" you might object.

Yes, most women do want sex, at least for part of their life. But the average woman doesn't want sex as much as the average man. The average man also wants sex with a wider variety of women than the variety of men women want to have sex with. The worldwide history of humanity demonstrates this. It is beyond the scope of this posting as to why that is. But it IS the case. A man would have sex with just about every woman he sees who isn't absolutely hideous.

So... in general, it is the man's role to pursue the sex, as he is more likely to want it, and intercourse doesn't happen if he isn't turned on. (Please note, I'm referring to the initiation of the relationship. Once a sexual relationship is established, of course it's great with most men if the woman takes the initiative sometimes.)

The man wants sex. Otherwise there wouldn't be a date. The woman may or may not want sex. She might be going on the date for freebies, attention, to affirm to herself or signal to others that she's desirable, leverage, or many other reasons instead of wanting sex with the guy. If he runs game, he will either smoke her out as not wanting sex with him, or he'll get to the sex with less effort/time/money/emotion than the man who doesn't run game.

She might want sex upon meeting him, but if she finds out something about him - and it depends on the woman what those things might be - she might not agree to sex. So, for the man who is primarily looking for sex, the less he reveals about his true self, the better. That's the case for most men. There are exceptions (very wealthy men, for example). She doesn't need to know any more more about him because he's not there to live together, get married, and have children. He's there for sex. If she finds him attractive enough to have sex with him, between his physical appearance, his behavior with her, and what she thinks she knows about him, he doesn't want to say or do anything to change that.

But if she doesn't want to have sex with him, he wants to find that out as soon as he can so he can stop wasting time, money, and energy. She can be upfront and honest and tell him that right away.

Why would a man have an obligation to spend more effort/time/money/emotion than it takes for him to get what he wants? In these sorts of relationships, it is up to the individuals to seek out what they want, to initiate what they want, and to either agree to, or decline, what the other person initiates. These are not marriages. They are dating relationships, hookups, booty calls.

If the woman doesn't like what he's doing, she is entirely free to stop seeing him. She can be upfront and honest and tell him that it is her intention that she's not going to have sex with him (or have sex with him anymore) unless he spends more time and money on her, agrees to an exclusive girlfriend-boyfriend relationship, or whatever. Maybe he'll agree to wait or change the relationship. Or maybe he'll carry on as he has, and she will still allow him to show up for a booty call, despite what she's said. If she stays true to her word, he can either agree to the terms or move on.

This is a dance. Men will dance in a way that gets them what they want. It's generally women who either reward the dancer or not.


Part 1 of This Series

Part 2 of This Series

Part 4 in This Series

No, Life Doesn't Have To Be That Way

You probably know someone, and maybe that someone is you, who is in a marriage or relationship with someone who brings a lot of trouble into your life, who is difficult, or who is "too much work," and your or his reaction is "Well, that's life." Or "That's just the way things are." Or "This is the way relationships are, and I have to put up with it."

NO.

You do not.

Life doesn't have to be that way.

That's doesn't have to be life.

Men today can be FREE.

You don't have to take on her problems.
You don't have to be nagged.

You don't have to be abused.
You don't have to put up with her destroying, damaging, or tossing out your possessions.
You don't have to deal with mood swings and bad moods.
You don't have to deal with her drama, friends, and family.
You don't have to allow her to antagonize your family or friends.

You don't have to deal with her mental illnesses or personality disorders.
You have don't to be yelled at.
You don't have to argue.
You don't have to deal with constant criticism.
You don't have to "compromise."

You don't have to sacrifice.
You don't have to cater to her while she sexually rejects you and forbids you from even noticing other women or even touching yourself.
You don't have to jump through hoops and dance just to be allowed your life.
You don't have to let her keep your balls in her purse.

You don't have to apologize for things you didn't do or things you did that weren't wrong.
You don't have to walk on egg shells and tiptoe around her irrational insecurities or sensitivities.
You don't have to spend your time on "honey do" lists.
You don't have to deal with her hysterics.

you don't have to deal with her kids.

You don't have to deal with her debts.

You don't have to deal with her bills.
You don't have to bring lawyers and the state into your relationship.

You don't have to do any of those things for any woman.

Yet Another Example of Why Men Avoid Marriage

AT A CROSSROADS is a beaten dog who wrote  into Dear Abby:

I met my wife in college.

Bad move, unless he didn't get serious with her until later. College is great for playing the field.

We have been married for 40 years and have two adult sons.

Forty years of marriage is important to the rest of the letter.

My wife had a brief affair early in our marriage, but we have long since moved on from that.

Then there was no reason to mention it, right? Oh, but there is. If they didn't have kids at the time, he should have hit the eject button.

However, increasingly over the last 15 years, my wife (career homemaker, her choice)

Of course it was! If he left her, he'd have to pay!

has been aggressively making demands in exchange for anything she does for me -- i.e., if I don't buy her something, she won't cook dinner, do laundry or have sex.

Please send this to any guy you know who might get married.

I buy her things all the time, and I give her an allowance, roughly 70% of my take-home pay. Some of her demands I simply cannot afford, so I often cook, clean, etc., myself. As a result, we haven't had sex in more than 10 years.

This is marriage, guys. Most marriages are like this or are closer to this than being good marriages.

OK, before we get into the next part of the letter, it has already been established that he doesn't have a marriage. What he has is state-enforced slavery, with the option of physically leaving but still being financially enslaved.

Two years ago, I met a younger woman. She is also married, although separated.

How does he know that?

She still shares a home with her husband and their two children.

While it might be legally possible in some places, that sure doesn't sound like separation.

We meet as often as we can and I find her delightful and easy to get along with.

For now. She's auditioning.

Lately, she has been saying she wants us to leave our situations and get married.

Why would you ever want to remarry?!? You like things with her now. That's not marriage. Even so, wait for her leave her husband and prove it. Don't make any changes that take her into account until she has at least done that.

My concern is twofold. First, when my wife gets angry, she threatens to divorce me and take everything I've got, even if it costs her everything as well. She does not bluff.

She could and would do that even if she never said that to you. That's what happens if a wife doesn't earn income and the marriage goes on for decades.

Second, my girlfriend is so much younger than I am that I'm concerned that while things are great now, I'll be an elderly man in the not too distant future and could be a burden to her. What are your thoughts?

I have to wonder: What have you been spending on this girlfriend? How much more money do you have than her?

Never operate under the assumption that any woman will continue to be a positive presence in your life. Even if you both divorced and married each others, the odds are slim that marriage would work out well. Do not promise this woman anything, and don't limit yourself.

Your marriage is over. It has been over for a long time. But if you can keep out of the family courts for the rest of your life, and avoid paying for two legal teams, that would be great. So, if you want female companionship, run game as discretely as you can. Don't worry about pleasing your wife, but it's best she never have definitive proof you're with other women. Although statistically unlikely, the best thing for you would be for her to drop dead soon, with you outliving her many years so you can have some peace.

Unmarried guys, I hope you're seeing that that the best way to "win" at marriage is to NOT PLAY.

Dear Abby responded:

If the only thing keeping you in this unhappy marriage is fear, contact an attorney to discuss what a divorce would cost you financially.

As she has done with other situations, Dear Abby could have asked an attorney. Maybe she did, but doesn't want to print the results.

This guy is SCREWED. If he were to divorce, he'd lose at least half of everything, and on top of that, he'd have to pay for both legal teams AND likely pay significant ongoing alimony for the rest of his life. His wife and the attorneys would stretching things out as long as they could, milking his paycheck. HE... IS... SCREWED. THAT is the crappy family law we have.

Stay free, men.

Are You Worried About Lower Fertility Rates in Your Country?

Then YOU have more children, OK?

Stop trying to convince people who aren't enthusiastically seeking to have (more) children to pop out babies.

If you're so concerned, you have more children. You pay to raise them. You make the sacrifices. After all, it's worth it, right?

See these posts:

We Are Not Going Back

Having A Family Doesn't Guarantee Happiness

Is It Now Irresponsible To Have Children?

Why Are They Surprised?

The Costs of Raising a Child

Oh No! Not Lower Fertility Rates!

Being Free Isn’t Being Deficient

 

You are a complete person.

You’re sufficient.

You don’t need a spouse, a partner, or whatever anyone wants to call another person to be a complete person and to live a great, productive, honorable, worthwhile life.

Yes, we’re all flawed. Yes, we all have our limitations. Yes, we all need other people to do things or we won’t have food, shelter, etc. (And yes, I believe we all need Jesus.)

But you are a complete person. Having Jesus + a wife won’t save you. The wife doesn’t factor in to your salvation.

You can have a residence, contribute to society, have a great career, be a good friend, and all of that without a wife, a partner, or a girlfriend.

You don’t need someone living with you, having any control over how you live, what you do, how you decorate, what you eat, what you watch, when you go to bed, when you wake up. You don’t need someone there costing you money, taking up your time, nagging you, criticizing you, arguing with you, interfering with your life.

You’re sufficient.