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.

Unmarried Women and Elections in the USA

This was originally published in September 2012. It still holds up, I think. In 2024, elective abortion has been a big issue, even though plenty of states shave unrestricted abortion and travel to those states isn’t difficult. Follow the money.

*****

Married women are more likely to vote Republican, unmarried women are more likely to vote Democrat.

Why?

Different people have different explanations, because even asking female voters why they vote the way they do won't necessarily get you the truth.

One explanation I think holds a lot of water is that while many unmarried women see themselves as independent, they want someone to promise them security, and they are very much dependent - on taxpayers they don't even know. Another way of putting it is some some women who say, "I don't need a man!" are counting on men (and women) who pay the taxes that fund the government programs on which these women depend. Democrats promise larger (and supposedly bringing more goodies) government. Republicans promise... to slow the rate of increase in expanding of government. So someone who wants the government to take care of them (as opposed to simply protect them from invading armies, terrorists, and criminals) is much more likely to vote Democrat.

Of course there are unmarried women who are successful and are part of the 53% paying federal income taxes to support those other women who claim to be independent. One big reason many of them are unmarried is because they will only marry a man who will earn more than they do and will promise them additional financial security. The more successful a woman is, the fewer men there will be who are more successful than she is. (Isn't Oprah still unmarried?) If she has been focused on her education and career and growing her business or climbing the corporate ladder, she may not have had the time or interest in building personal relationship with a marriage-minded, marriage-material man. And, by the time she feels like she has arrived at a level where she feels successful, the men in her age range are married, or divorced with children and nasty ex-wives, and/or dating younger women.

On the other hand, someone could argue that the kind of women more likely to vote Republican are also the kind of women more likely to be married. Not sure how that works, though, given that statistically, almost everyone gets married.

I've also noticed that Democrat operatives, academics, and leaders tend to classify people by their sex, sexual orientation, skin color, religion, income level, etc. and then tell them that if they are Latino, black, homosexual, non-Christian, lower-income, or female they then are victims of hate coming from white, heterosexual, Christian, wealthy men and the only or best way to mitgate such injustice, or course, is new or expanded federal programs and protections. Yes, unless they make the system bigger and more powerful and put the "right" people in charge of it, rich male breeder Bible-thumpin' whitey will deviously take any income, food, or home they arrange for themselves, and force them to be incubators for the new supply of child labor. Well, I'm a white, male, heterosexual, Christian, and my income is higher than average. I want people to have whatever they've earned. I want every person's rights protected. I don't want to oppress anyone. I don't want big corporations or the wealthies to manipulate the system unjustly. That's why I belived in Constitutionally-limited government and, as much as possible, power being decentralized. Congress can't give out corporate welfare if Congress sticks to the Constitution.


There other other explanations, too, as to why there is such a split between unmarried and married women, but I think the dependency/security or "I want someone take care of me but not tell me what to do or hold my accountable" thing makes the most sense, based on what I've heard from the very women in question.

Yes, there are exceptions and outliers and I'm generalizing. Of course I am. And I welcome your disagreement or agreement or citing of exceptions.

===============

Note: If you still come here to read, I am so sorry about my slowdown. Life's been busy.

The Happiest Years of Your Life?

During his Happiness Hour on Friday, November 1, 2024, Dennis Prager asked callers what the happiest years of their life have been. It was prompted by a text he got from a friend saying the happiest years of his life had been when they were in college together, which was a long time ago.

It got me thinking.

I wrote out an autobiographical essay, breaking my life down by certain periods.

Rather than bore you with it, I’ll bottom-line what my trip down memory lane reinforced to me.

• Marrying was a biggest mistake I’ve made, by far.
• Bad thinking is a problem (see immediately above).
• Life is short.
• While it’s good to do things with the future in mind, allow yourself to enjoy the moment and smell the roses sometimes, without worrying too much about the future.
• Perspectives, mindsets, and goals change (which is another reason not to marry).

Beyond the trite “You can choose to be happy!”, what most people mean when they refer to the happiest time in their life is that they had comfort, pleasure, joy, hope, some sense of belonging and security, and they were meeting their obligations well with little frustration and without tough choices; they weren’t dealing with much unpleasantness. If someone has ever had such a time in their life, they’re very fortunate.

That will usually be tied to certain aspects of their life.

Environment. Where they live, where they work and/or go to school, where they spend the rest of their time are what they feel are good places.

Health. Their physical and mental health and abilities are good. Mental health includes accepting themselves; not giving up on improving themselves, but not hating themselves.

Worldview. They feel at peace with, or even joyful, in their worldview and beliefs about reality, the spiritual, and their place in the universe.

Family. Whether their parents/grandparents/siblings or their spouse/kids/grandkids, things are generally well with them or the person is at peace about them/not having them. Family members aren’t dying, being prosecuted or incarcerated for serious crimes, or going through divorce.

Education/Work. They can be proud and feel like they are doing well and doing good.

Finances. They’re not struggling.

Love and Sex. They feel good about their situation as far as dating, relationships, etc. For some people, that’s going to be completely abstaining. For others it will mean playing the field, and for others it will mean what they think is a great marriage.

Friends. They feel like their interaction with friends are going well. Like love and sex, that can look very different depending on the individual.

Hobbies, interests, activities. Basically, what people choose to do outside of their survival obligations. This is their recreation, play, or passion. If they feel like these things are going well, going their way, that can bring happiness.

For me, and I suspect for almost everyone, there was no “golden years” period when “everything” was great. That’s not to say I haven’t had a great life. I’m aware there are billions of people wishing they’d been living a life like mine. But someone can, for example, have an exciting romance and a new job they love, and yet someone close to them is dying. There’s almost certainly going to be “something” that is painful, unpleasant, etc., and hindsight can put things into a context of realizing your happiness was short-sighted or out of ignorance, or that you had it good, even much better than now, and you didn’t appreciate it at the time.

So “happiest” is a relative term. I can tell you when, say, I felt happiest in my family life with the family I created. But it doesn’t mean the other areas of my life were their happiest. Plus, it turned out I was delusional. Ignorance is bliss, right?

Childhood summers were great. I loved being out of school, having freedom, being able to ride my bike all over town, swimming, body surfing, etc. If I had to pick the happiest time in my life it might be; for example, the summer I was 10. The summer I was 16, my last summer of freedom, was pretty good, too. Still hadn’t ever had even a real kiss, though.

Marriage sellers like Dennis Prager and Focus on the Family want you to think you’ll be happiest with a spouse and kids. For some people, that’s probably true.  

With the right wardrobe, lighting, makeup, and photographer, my wife, ours kids, and I could pass for one of those Focus on the Family brochure families in a snapshot, smiling and laughing and everything is HAPPY. But I now realize nobody has that life for more than a few moments here and there. I also realize that the churches I’ve attended in my adulthood and the ministries I’ve attended teach as though the Christian Bible has far more clear limits on relationships and sexuality than it does.

Maybe I could have been happier if I knew “then” what I know now. Maybe I’d be happier now, having made different decisions and taken different actions?

I’m generally happy, or at least content. These days, if my wife gets into one of her “moods” (which risks being a psychotic break) or one of our kids has a meltdown, that’s going to make things miserable for me. I don’t get enough time for my interests, my friends, my parents and siblings. I’m not working my dream job. My home is not even approaching the level of my childhood home in its great location, features, and condition. While my net worth on paper is much higher than it used to be, I was better off financially when I could make my decisions alone and was earning significantly more than I needed for my lifestyle. At this point I doubt I’ll ever have a sex life again that is as good as the sex life I had certain years before I married.

Perhaps the best time of my adult life was in the time between when my last exclusive girlfriend decided we were no longer a couple (but would still call me over for sex) and when my to-be wife and I became a couple. If only I had accepted that I could thrive being free for the rest of my life and orient my life around that. I quite possibly could have bought a better home during the crash and also have landed a dream job.

Overall, life isn’t terrible. But this is not the happiest time in my life. I have many blessings, to be sure. I don’t take them for granted.

When Marriage Sellers Make One of My Points For Me

The Institute for Family Studies, despite being, overall, a marriage seller, is the gift that keeps on giving. There was another round of trying to convince people they're better of having less sex and less sexual variety. Let's take a look at this graph:


 
That graph was used to try to show people that sexual abstinence before means your marriage will be much more stable.

Look closely,  though. Even the best category shows that more than 55 percent of married people in that category believe their marriage may be in trouble of ending. Remember, this is from an organization that is promoting marriage. A minority of married people think their marriage is "very stable."

Do you want to get into a terrible state contract in which, most likely, you will be worried that you are facing what some men call "divorce rape"?

It gets "better," though. Let' look at the next graph.



According to this, 78-80 percent of married people who "saved sex" are NOT very satisfied with their sexual relationship. Sure, the point they were trying to make - that it's even worse for those of you who've had two or more partners - is true... so don't bother to marry!

Why bother to sign a terrible state contract if those are the odds?!?

When someone implies or outright says that "saving sex" for marriage will mean your marriage will be stable, without fear of it ending, and that your marital sex life will be very satisfying, they are ignoring that for MOST people who marry under those circumstances that's not true! Even just the data from which these graphs come indicate there are many married people who are very dissatisfied with their sex lives, including people who "waited". Those people, and the trade offs and risks shouldn't be ignored.

To be fair, there may be studies that show relationship stability and sexual satisfaction rates are even lower for people who aren't married. That's a "cart and horse" thing, meaning it could be that if people don't think their relationship is stable and the sex isn't great, they're less likely to marry.

But yet again, I must point out that these studies and surveys never distinguish intentionally free men who run game to find out how stable their lives are and how satisfied they are with their sex lives. There are men who are loving life and thriving free of a supposedly exclusive or marital relationship, and some them are also very happy with their sex life.

More Fun With Statistics - Body County and Marriage