Important Messages to Young Men - Know Thyself

The intro to this series is here.

Know thyself. Generally, the younger you are, the more about yourself you still have to discover. Also, things might change over time with experiences and with your determination to change something. Know yourself as you are now, and accept that you can and will change to some extent. 

Even though you’re young, what I advise here applies to you and is something you can do many times throughout your life. 

Knowing yourself will inform most of this series. For example, knowing yourself will help with your health and how you spend your time.

Use what you've got.

Develop or buy/rent what you need.

Own your flaws, faults, and shortcomings.

Know what you don't know. You can never know everything, but you can know where to find out or where to find someone who knows what you don't.

You can take calculated risks. What’s a good risk or bad risk might depend on who you are. 

Know what your goals are. For example, having children isn't for everyone, but if you want to truly want to be a father, then that should inform most of what you do. Do you want to work for yourself? Do you want to climb someone else’s ladder? Do you want live on a boat? Only you can figure out your goals. Leaving them up to a parent or partner isn’t good. 

One thing all of you should know is that if you’re an adult male, you ARE a real man. Don’t be manipulated by other people claiming you have to do what they like in order for you to be a real man.

Why Men Send Unsolicited Crotch Shots

There are two basic reasons men send unsolicited crotch shots, or "d--- pics".

1) Exhibitionism has long been a thing. The stereotype used to be of the guy wearing the hat and coat flashing women in a park. Now it can be done with a smart phone.

2) Much more commonly, the "average Joe" (whether he is average down there or not) does it because he has accepted the ridiculous notion that men and women are not different.

It's quite simple, really:

Most heterosexual men would be somewhat aroused by receiving an image of a woman's genitals, even unsolicited, even if he doesn't know her, even more so if he had reason to believe it was an image of the woman who is in contact with him, and she intentionally sent it to him. (We're not talking about injured or diseased genitals, although a few guys probably have a fetish that covers that.)

As these guys would want a woman to send a picture of her genitals, they reason that since women and men are pretty much the same except for certain exterior body parts, she's likely to want to see his genitals as much has he wants to see hers.

A lot of women can't believe men think this is a good way to attract or arouse women. "Don't these men know the truth?" No, they don't, because they've been told over and over again that women are just like men, including when it comes to sex.

But the truth is out there. Extremely, and I mean extremely rare is the woman who likes getting unsolicited crotch shots from men. Heck, most women don't want crotch shots from men they're in love with, and the ones who do are more about liking that they have, according to the picture, aroused a man they care about.

Guys, she's either disgusted or she's laughing at it, and, often, sharing it with her friends so they can make fun of you.

Men and women ARE different, and it isn't just a matter of socialization. Do you think society has socialized men to want to see the genitals of other men? No, but gay males tend to have the same reaction to unsolicited crotch shots of men as heterosexual males have when it comes to those of women.


[Edited to clean up typing mistakes.]

Why Did I Get Married?

Why did I ever want to get married?

If you read this blog, you have to have noticed that I now warn most men against marrying. So why did I get married? Why did I want to?

Well, it can probably be explained by several things, including, in no particular order:

• being raised by middle-class married parents
• choosing Evangelicalism (which wasn't my parents doing), which was pushing marrying as one of the central, main goals in a good life
• virtually all media I was exposed to growing up and into my early adulthood portrayed marriage as the goal, as the default, as the happily ever after, and implied that only a loser or freak (or gay person) "couldn't" marry
• as far as I knew, my parents and all of their siblings got married and stay married
• likewise my grandparents stayed married until death
• my older sibling got married and, so far, stayed married
  
• being generally conservative, loyal, affectionate, and a "hopeless romantic" 
• wanting sex, and being hoodwinked into thinking that marriage meant lots of good sex, and I was of the belief that "unmarried" sex was wrong (What really constitutes marriage, from a Biblical perspective, is a whole different matter than I realized.)
• thinking I wanted to raise kids and that having and raising kids what something I was supposed to do, and that being legally married was the best way to do that 
• having had a great relationship with a girlfriend and thinking that it would be possible to have that same kind of relationship with a wife who, unlike the girlfriend, is religiously and politically compatible
• mistakenly thinking I'd found a woman who would be compatible, fit the profile of what I was looking for in a wife, and would be a pleasant, positive, productive influence on my life
  

Does any of that sound familiar to you?

That at least three neighbors and some friends and extended family had divorced parents and that my own parents ended up divorcing should have been a tip off, but it wasn't.

Over the years, my delusions slipped away and my ignorance was reduced. That's why I now realized I shouldn't have married, and most men shouldn't.

Our media, our religions, and often our families call much attention to weddings and marriage, but not to divorce, save for scandalous celebrity divorces. If we could see all the misery in marriages, if every divorce was given as much attention as every wedding, if we were to pile together all of the media that claims to help marriages, if we could line up every divorce lawyer out there in one place, and if more thriving free people were visible, fewer men would be so delusional or ignorant as to think as I did.

This is one reason why it is so important to let men and boys know that they don't have to marry; that they can be great men and live good lives without ever marrying.

I was doing well on my own. My finances were in great shape and I was on track to retire very well off and reach my career goals. I enjoyed my hobbies and friendships. I spent time with my parents (separately), siblings, etc. I traveled. I was healthy. I had a nice residence. That was all without being married.

That I enjoyed my time alone and so many of the activities I most enjoyed where solitary should have been a huge clue to me.

Now I know that:

-Most marriages fail. 

-Most men can get everything they want out of life without ever marrying. 

-Marriage is a bad deal for most men.
-Present-day Evangelical restrictions on sexuality aren't all from extant Biblical commands.

-Men can be great Christians without ever legally marrying.

-I had a great life when I was a Free Man.

Don't make the same mistake I did. Stay free.

Why Some Men Refuse to Interact With Women in the Workplace

In some places in America, sexual harassment laws and polices have gotten so absurd we may look back someday and laugh at our own stupidity. But it isn't funny for people who have to deal with the problems now. It isn't funny for grade school boys who get labeled harassers for hugging grade school girls. [This was posted here in May 2012. It is even more relevant than ever.]


As with so many other things that involve the government, the cure is worse than the problems.

Imagine three workplaces:

1) A workplace where interaction between coworkers is dull and strained, with little socialization; everyone is fearful of acting naturally.

2) A predominantly male workplace where men talk and bond freely about things like the latest leading lady in the movies and how hot she is, and where women get asked out for dates, and everyone jokes.

3) A predominantly female workplace where women talk and bond freely about things like the latest leading male in the movies, a star male athlete and his physique, PMS, a jerk of an ex, and everyone jokes.

Now, I know those are just three examples and do not exhaust the spectrum, but who really prefers the first option?

Here's where we are in the workplace in some states:

A regular customer comes in, chats with a favorite employee, and hugs that employee before leaving. A different employee, who was on the other side of the room, files a complaint for a "hostile work environment". The customer and the first employee are barred from hugging again.

That is the world that has been created. Normal, harmless (even beneficial) human behavior that has gone on forever in the workplace is now banned. It isn’t by employer choice, really. Since I believe in property rights and freedom of association, I think business owners should generally be able to hire, fire, promote, or demote anyone or any or no reason, and set the tone of the workplace to their liking. Under that policy, if they create a workplace someone finds hostile, that person can take their services or business elsewhere. Guess who loses? The business owner, if that was a good customer or employee. But employers have lost or are losing the freedom to set the terms and conditions and tone in their own workplace, due to laws and court decisions about sexual harassment.

It’s another way trial lawyers and stupid juries are doing some harm. It is another way the Left takes the fun and joy out of life. Yes, this is a Leftist issue. Sexual harassment is something that has been the drumbeat of Leftist feminists. Leftist feminism was, to borrow from El Rushbo, largely about getting less attractive women greater access to the mainstream, and “hostile environment” sexual harassment is their way of punishing men they find unattractive. That is evidenced by the fact that two people can say the exact same thing ("that's a nice blouse") to the same woman in the same tone, and the male who says it is punished while the lesbian who said it isn't. It is also about forcing all workplaces to cater to female sensitivities, even if there are 100 men there and 1 woman. The people who investigate allegations are usually, guess what, women. Leftist women. And men are more prone to violate restrictions because we're visual creatures, we want sex more than women, and we're expected to do the pursuing.

Policy and law about quid quo pro isn't as ridiculous, but even with that, I tend to prefer property rights and freedom of association. If your boss asks for sexual favors, it is time to find a new place to work, if you don’t want to do your boss.

The Left loves to convince people they are victims, and this is just one more way they can be victims.

I know that discrimination and a bad work environment do hurt some people. None of this is to say I think assault, exposure, stalking, or slander/libel should be legal, nor that I think quid pro quo or creating a hostile work environment is morally acceptable. I have a mother, a daughter, sisters, and a wife. I don't want them treated crudely and rudely. However, I'd like to think they all know how to hold their own against rude jerks. But I'm also a man and I have a father, a brother, and a son, and I don't want any of them screwed over with ridiculous laws and polices stacked against men.

Creating a workplace in which nobody will ever be offended in regards to their sex, body, love life, sexual orientation, or delusions about "gender identity" is not possible. I can only conclude that stringent laws and standards regarding "hostile work environment" in regards to sexual harassment are those that everyone knows will not be followed or met most of the time, and are meant to give women an edge over men and to punish employers and reward trial lawyers and government bureaucrats. Employers subject employees to laughable prevention training for the sake of liability issues, though sometimes it doesn’t matter if everyone's been through training – the employer will still get nailed and have to pay out large sums of money.

Why does sexual harassment get special status? If an employee eats bacon in a lunchroom, is that dietary harassment to someone trying to avoid pork products for weight loss, health, or religions reasons? What about if I eat a big, beefy hamburger in front of a devout Hindu? Or if a vegan tells me how wrong I am for eating meat?

Why has the workplace had to conform to female sensitivities, rather than how things used to be when a woman entered a male-dominated workplace or profession: the thickening of her skin, and often sharp wit on her part that disarmed rude men and charmed others? I've personally known women who broke glass ceilings with no help of quotas or sexual harassment polices – they succeeded because they were outstanding employees who knew how to deal with people as adults.

If I invite someone to my home and I want to be a good host, I’ll strive not to offend them. But since when has there been a right to never be offended anywhere, especially if you are a member of a group favored by the Left? (Nobody cares about offending heterosexual white Christian males.)

Why couldn't I run a workplace the way I’d like? As it happens, I would choose to have a policy against quid pro quo harassment and I would have a fairly high standard for decorum. But that should be my choice, not something determined externally and imposed upon me.

What say you?

*****

UPDATE: Post "#MeToo", some men are refusing to mentor or even hire women, or women who are at all attractive. It's sad, but it is an understandable reaction. Saying "Just don't be a jerk" expresses a nice sentiment, but one that doesn't deal with reality. Men could act within the rules of today, only to find in 10 or 20 years that they're being attacked because their behavior or the words they used have since been deemed problematic.

The Costs of Raising a Child

Every once in a while, the news will report on the costs of raising a child, according to the United States Department of Agriculture. My guess is that the USDA does these reports not because children are considered livestock, but to justify welfare programs that ensure food producers get taxpayer money and then the government has programs to feed children.

Some marriage-and-family advocates (the people who try to get everyone to marry and pop out babies) scoff at reports that it costs $250,000 (or even up to $400,000) to raise a child.

But those numbers do not surprise me. Children are very expensive.

Of course we're not supposed to talk that way. "Children are a blessing!" and "How can you put a price on a child?"

But that doesn't change the fact that it costs money to raise children.

Here are some official links that explain how the costs of raising a child are determined:

https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-child

https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/crc2015.pdf

And  here's Wikipedia, which makes it fairly easy to see the basic breakdown:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_raising_a_child


Let's be generous to people who try to minimize the costs of raising a child. We'll assume that you won't need fertility treatments, IVF, to adopt, or anything else of that sort, all of which can be very expensive, as it can be if your child has special needs, and they won't assault other kids, or destroy the property of others, all of which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Let's go over the costs that everyone is going to have when raising a child.

Will Dr. Laura Ever Find Another Man?

One of my favorite authors and radio show hosts, Dr. Laura, is available. It's been a while since she was widowed. [This was originally posted in August 2019. It's still relevant.]

She makes no secret of the fact that she's into her 70s now. It's not easy for any woman in her 70s to find a new man, but it's going to be even more difficult for Dr. Laura, despite the fact that she knows how to keep men happy (she even wrote a book: The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands) and despite the fact that she keeps herself in excellent shape.

For some men, that their potential partner has the level of fame Dr. Laura has, especially of a controversial nature, is a deal breaker.

I have to wonder if Dr. Laura is going to relax her stance on age differences, at least for people who are past the child-bearing years. Given how active she is, I don't see anything wrong with her dating a man in his 50s, as long as doing so would not divert his attention away from minor children. She has railed against callers dating someone more than ten years younger than them, pointing out that the older person was likely to leave their spouse a widow/widower. But... isn't that what has happened to her? Given her health, it is possible she has multiple decades left. What would be wrong with marrying a man in his 50s, and if he's like most men, he passes in his 70s or 80s? Heck, she might outlive him. [At least one recent call indicated she has softened her stance on age differences, at least if the woman is older. Hmmmm]

If her potential suitor has to be in his mid-60s or older, and has to be active enough to keep up with her on hikes and such, that's going to be a very narrow pool. And if Dr. Laura lives out her long-held stances against casual sex and shacking up, which I expect she will, it's going to narrow the pool even further.

I bring this up because she opened her show one day last week describing that someone in her life had "introduced" her to a potential date, and they talked over the phone for a couple of days. He was honest in saying that he was seeing someone, and he also claimed they weren't committed.

Dr. Laura asked if the woman he was seeing was going to know why he was traveling out of town (which would be to see Dr. Laura). He said no. Dr. Laura ended things and said he wasn't an honorable man.

Now, perhaps there was something being left out of her recounting of this interaction, but based on what I heard, I think she made a mistake in not talking with him further and perhaps seeing him. Hey, it's her life and she can do what she wants, but unless there is an engagement ring on a woman's finger or the man and woman have explicitly agreed they are exclusive, they are free to date others and they should EXPECT that the other person is dating others. As Dr. Laura herself points out, even living together isn't an implication of exclusivity; even if they agreed to it! So why is a man expected to tell a woman he's dating he's going out of town to see another woman? Is she expected to say she's going to dinner with another man?

She may have not been fair to herself or him. But again, it's her decision to make.

This isn't just me pontificating. My mother, who was very traditional when it came to dating and marriage, made it clear that unless my ring was on a woman's finger, that woman was free to date others. I never expected the women I dated to only be dating me, nor tell me they were going on dates with others. We had to have a discussion about exclusivity before we could expect it.

These days, men should never assume the woman they are dating is only dating them, even if they claim to be. And men should never imply to the women they are seeing they are only seeing them. But then I'm telling most men they should never marry at all. Dr. Laura is looking for a keeper.


Dr. Laura later explained more about her position on dating.