This Is Not a Case For Getting Married

The marriage sellers are linking to "A Case For Getting Married" by Matthew Walther. It's at The American Conservative, so all of you who aren't conservative are already warned.

In the extended social circles to which I belong a great deal of agony surrounds discussions of the so-called “dating scene.” Men are so lazy and so childish, and just look at the icky things they tweet; women are impossible to approach, etc.

Guys running game often wait for women to approach them. Hot women hate to be ignored.

Right off the bat, this reveals something about the author, or at least the people he associates with: they are bad at dating, and so they are happy if they don't "have to" do it anymore. We hear the same thing from Michael Medved, who thinks all men are as hapless as he apparently was.

My own belief is that beneath all the other difficulties real and imagined is risk-aversion. The longer people wait to pair up in the hope of finding the “right” one, the likelier they are to become so settled in their habits—and so neurotic about the opposite sex—that no prospective partner will be capable of ticking all of the ever-increasing number of boxes.

So, don't grow into the kind of person who you are, give all that up to be molded by some woman who will likely divorce you.

Husbands Are Well Aware Adult Media is Fantasy

Antiporn crusaders will often say that porn gives unrealistic expectations, or that men don't consider that there's a difference between what's depicted in porn and real life. But THAT'S EXACTLY WHY THEY WATCH - because there is a difference between porn and real life.

What media has realistic portrayals of men, women, or relationships?

Professional sports coverage? How many people look like that and can perform like that?

Action movies in which men and women both withstand severe beatings but are still able to function like not much has happened to them?

Marvel and DC movies? Romantic comedies? Sitcoms? Advertisements, especially for jewelry and engagement rings? "Reality" shows? Princess fantasies? Church/ministry brochures, websites, and social media depicting gorgeous couples and their perfect children, all perpetually smiling and laughing?

Husbands are VERY aware porn is fantasy. They know all too well that wives are rarely that enthusiastic about sex.

Here's where someone retorts with, "Well maybe you're a lousy lover."

That might work on guys who "waited" or "saved sex" for marriage. Those of us who didn't know better.

"You should do more around the house."

Some of these husbands, myself included, do more around the house than their wife. But many of us did NOTHING around the home of our girlfriends, at least when we first started getting together with them, and yet they were enthusiastic lovers.

"That's just your wife. You should have picked better."

Picked better how exactly, if you don't want people having sex before they sign a terrible state contract? And nope, it isn't just my wife or his wife. We have seen the same story from many other husbands and ex husbands. Consider the old joke about why a bride is smiling so much.

Finally, any time an antiporn crusader says "Porn depicts___" or "Porn has____"  or "Porn is___" ...and finishes those statements with anything other than "...material someone finds arousing," they are misleading people. Adult media is very diverse. "Porn teaches" or "Porn says" or anything of the like is a statement as silly as saying "Books teach" or "Books say."

It's OK to say "I don't like nudity or sex in media." Criticizing adult media with criticisms that you can also apply to other media, but don't, reveals that you are desperate to persuade people to adopt your opinion through double standards.

Prager U Gets it Right on Some Career Advice

Prager U doesn't always get it right. After all, they've posted multiple videos trying to trick men into thinking what we now call marriage is actually a good thing for them.

But they got this one right.

I have encouraged you to Know Thyself. This, below, is also great advice, especially in conjunction with knowing thyself.. It's "Career Success and the Proximity Principle" featuring author Ken Coleman. The video is below, but I'll include much of the transcript below. And, if for some reason, the YouTube embed isn't working, try this link.

A False Dichotomy

Dr. Laura asserts the following dichotomy to her callers and her audience:

• Marriage means, among other things, having a state contract, making vows, living together, sharing finances, sexual exclusivity in complete privacy. Otherwise, it isn't marriage.
  
  
• Those things aren't part of dating, especially long-term dating, or living together without a state license (shacking up). There are no obligations and there are no agreements, such as an agreement to sexual exclusivity.

According to her, romantic relationships are either marriage as she defines it, or, if two years or fewer old, are mutually agreed to be on the way to marriage, or they are aren't worthwhile and there are no rules.

She's allowed to say what she wants on her program. But she can't dictate this for anyone else. The dichotomy she presents does not describe reality.

There are married people who don't have a state license, never had a ceremony, keep separate finances, spend substantial periods of time apart, and/or aren't sexually exclusive. They use the terms "husband" and "wife," treat each other as spouses as far as doing things together and generally putting each other first and caring for each other, are recognized as spouses by the people around them, and might even be recognized as married by the state.

There are unmarried people who have been together for years, live together, share finances, and/or have agreed to sexual exclusivity. The people around them recognize that they are a couple and respect their agreements.

These things are happening every day. Millions of people do these things. This is going on, whether I like it or not and whether anyone else likes it or not. And for the record, I'm generally against, in most cases, agreeing to an ongoing exclusive relationship, living together, or marrying.

A state-licensed marriage isn't the only personal relationship with rules. Friendships usually have rules. So do most unmarried romances. Commitment is in behavior. The state license isn't a commitment to do anything other than have the spouse who earns more pay the other.

If she's going to deny a caller's reality, the reality they've been living, the caller should probably consider getting advice from another source.

February is Fast Approaching

The rapid approach of February means a couple of things in particular.

1) If you’re seeing a woman you’ve been seeing for a while, especially one who is thinking of you as marriage material, you need to get scarce before February 14 and stay scarce until at least the 15th, or if she has a birthday or the two of you have what she thinks of as an anniversary soon after, until that day has passed. This is the season to be either enjoying time with your buddies, your hobbies, or new dates.

2) We’re going to be subjected to a glut of misleading marriage-seller propaganda, especially from the 7th through the 14th. Do not fall for it. But if you’re so inclined, you can comment on it with the truth. Feel free to borrow extensively from posts here. Here’s some basic truth-telling you can copy and paste:

****

Life has changed.

It’s never been easier to thrive being unmarried.

Most marriages fail.

The state contract is terrible.

The terrible state marriage contract brings nothing beneficial to a man he can’t otherwise get for less cost.

Most men can get everything they want out of life and live a good life without ever signing a terrible state contract.

Alleged correlations do not prove men benefit from marriage, especially when the data never separates out intentionally unmarried men.

Marriage isn’t for me, and that’s OK.

Better men than me have been divorced, some multiple times. If they failed, why would I be so arrogant as to think I’d succeed?

I haven’t found mutual attraction with a compatible woman who is willing and prepared to be a wife.

I’ve known many couples who were “happily married,” right up until the affair was discovered, or the abuse was revealed, or they divorced. 

I’m not ignorant, delusional, or masochistic enough to marry.

After listening to married women and divorced women, I don’t want to ruin a woman’s life by inflicting marriage on her.

Today’s secular state contract and social construct of marriage has little to do with Biblical marriage. In some ways it directly contradicts it.

We need Divorce Week, in which we show the reality of how common divorce is and what it does to men. Weddings are highly visible and posed pictures depict unrealistic expectations, but if we saw more of the truth, if it was more visible, fewer people would marry.

Wanting a series of parties in your honor, expensive jewelry, gifts, and a state contract that says you’re entitled to another person’s earnings no matter how you behave isn’t the same thing as wanting to be a good wife.

Once a man is earning a certain amount, he can hire professionals who can and will handle everything for much less than half of his income and without disputing, contradicting, or subverting his decisions. That includes, the more he earns: cleaning, laundry, cooking/preparing/serving meals, decorating, shopping/scheduling or otherwise being a personal assistant, listening to him, physical affection, accompanying him to places and events where he should have a woman by his side, giving him children, raising his children (if he truly wants any).

I’m seeing a woman. I decided if we can go two years straight without a red or yellow flag, I’d propose. The clock keeps getting reset.

I don’t need to sign a terrible state contract. I’m loyal and loving without one. We have overwhelming evidence having one won’t make a woman continue to be loyal and loving.

Children are a blessing. Most available women have them. Who am I to claim another man’s blessings?

If I could find an attractive, compatible woman who isn’t divorced, a mother, carrying debt, dealing with mental disorders or other health problems, or trying to use me to get/stay in the country, I’d marry her. So I guess I’m staying unmarried.

I’m against trafficking, and I have no way of knowing a woman who claims she wants to marry isn’t being trafficked. The way to end trafficking is to stop the demand.

****

Or, come up with your own succinct statements that are easy to quickly copy and paste. Suggest some in the comments below!

Defending Your Decision Not to Have (More ) Children

Being a Free Man can be entirely ethical and moral. In fact, Free Men are morally superior to most husbands.

But what about when someone claims you you have an obligation to have (more) children? (This is usually paired with "...so you need to get married.") The claim that you have an obligation to have children is usually some variation of "Society needs children to continue."

That's true. Without new children, society would eventually end.

Also...

Society needs abundant, clean, freshwater to continue. Does that mean you are obligated to drill wells or be a waterworks engineer?

Society needs food to continue. Are you obligated to even have a single fruit or vegetable growing in a garden?

While there are homesteaders who do farm and have wells and also have lots of children, I can't think of anyone who has even attempted to make the argument that every person is obligated to produce freshwater or grow agricultural commodities.

Society needs people working. You can work more if you're not parenting. But you're under no obligation to do more than it takes to provide for yourself, plus a little more for giving, if you are able to do so. (The giving is mostly to help those who truly aren't able.) You have no obligation to have children. Other people will make children. That's clear.

You might choose to stay in a religion or cult that tells you that in order to be a member, you need to try to make children. You might choose to marry someone you know is expecting to have and raise children. Then you'd be obligated, unless you left. But there's no blanket obligation.

We have to do something in order to have children. Our default status is to be childfree.

Then there is another attempt that goes something like, "Children are like flowers. How can you have too many? I like my children."

That's good for them, as long as one of the older ones doesn't molest the younger ones and then the family goes on a "reality" show that ignores that. Children are people. You know people you like a lot, and people you don't like, maybe even people you can't stand. The same can be true of children. And people who generally don't like a lot of people probably aren't going to like having to raise people. Childfree people can pick the people they have in their life. Parents are pretty much stuck with their child, who could be a sociopath.

There is no blanket obligation to have children. For many people, it is irresponsible for them to do so. Get a vasectomy, guys.

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.

Fun With Statistics - Cohabitation

Cohabitation, or "shacking up," as Dr. Laura (and I) still call it, leads to marriage.

That goes against what Dr. Laura says. Shacking up is one of her main no-nos, in her countercultural preaching. She often rattles off a few statistics (which may or may not be current) to try to bolster her point.

And yet, if someone is a marriage seller, as she is, I can use statistics to point out that cohabitation leads to marriage:

1) Most people in our culture who marry lived together before they married.

2) Couples who don't live together are far less likely to marry each other.

There it is! CONCLUSIVE PROOF that living together leads to marriage!

Right?

Well, in fairness:

1) Many people live together but never marry each other.

2) "Couples who don't live together" includes all those people who are only couples for a few months and then break up; of course they didn't marry.

My overall point is that using statistics can be misleading, as I already pointed out in this post, "Thinking Critically About Cohabitation."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not advocating living together unmarried with a romantic or sexual partner. I generally think it is a terrible idea. But more and more people will not marry someone unless they live with them first. To me, that's all the more reason to avoid shacking up, as I discourage most men from marrying and encourage them to stay free. Despite what Dr. Laura says, when a guy has his girlfriend living with him, it reduces his freedom.

Running Game - How Long Will She Be Around?

Running game is about weeding out the duds and the women who are too much work. It isn't about building a relationship so that you'll be monogamous, living together, married, and then raising children together.

As such, once you're into your groove as far as running game, and you're attracting women, it's no big deal when some women stop seeing you, or you need to stop seeing them, after a while. If you're doing really well, some will drop off the list simply because you don't have time for them because you're too busy with other, more attractive, more enjoyable women. That's peak game.

For most men, in most situations, the best of the relationship has already been experienced during the first three to six months anyway.

If she won't see you again, or you need to drop her, there's no need to spend any time being upset about it. You don't try to "make it work" or "win her back" or go to counseling or therapy with her. You simply move on, seeing other women or picking up new candidates. It's better to be alone than stop running game and cater to the demands of a woman. If you run game well, you won't be "alone" for long. You'll have your pick of dates. Never let on to women if you are in a slump or dry spell.

Conversely, a woman can be on your list or in your bullpen for YEARS if she's willing, stays attractive and enthusiastic, doesn't cause problems, doesn't start trying to enforce demands, etc. But what are the odds of that???

Would You Get on That Airplane?

Dr. Laura often gets calls from people who have a minor child and these parents are engaged, in a relationship, dating, etc., or considering it. Dr. Laura will tell them that marriages in which there's a stepchild (that's what their child would be to their spouse) have a 70 percent divorce rate, and that the rest of the marriages aren't all happy ones. She says this to discourage them from bringing more chaos and conflict into their child's life; to tell them that their minor children shouldn't even know they are dating. Indeed, if they've married or shacked up, whatever the child is doing that the parent doesn't like will be attributed to this fact, even if children in intact homes do the same thing.

Concerned for the child(ren), she drives the point home by asking "Would you go on an airplane if it had a 70 percent chance of having a terrible crash?"

Of course the answer is no.

But what's the divorce rate for first marriages without stepchildren?

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.

Does Living Together Mean Doom?

Dr. Laura makes it sound like your marriage is doomed if you two cohabitate (“shack up”) with each other before you two marry. Well, chances are, it IS doomed, because it’s marriage and most marriages fail. Anyway, she also makes it sound like you won’t get married if you cohabitate while unmarried.

She’s highly likely to be basing that on very old data. But let’s grant that current data indicates “couples who cohabitated before marriage divorce at a higher rate than couples who didn’t cohabitate before marriage.” I don’t even know how anyone could word the second point. “Couples who cohabitate are less likely to marry than couples who don’t” is clearly not the case. Most couples don’t marry. Most people who marry had been a part of a different coupling multiple times before they ever married.

It’s possible to say AN INDIVIDUAL who shacks up tends to marry later or never marry in comparison than those who don’t. 

If the data takes couples who have plans to marry and tracks them over time, and sees that those who cohabitated before marrying had a higher rate of never marrying than those who didn’t cohabitate before marrying, that would be something. But since we don’t know the control group being used for the claim “couples who cohabitated unmarried were less likely to marry,” it’s a suspect claim. It’s far easier to make the first claim, as that is objectively, to some extent, observable: they married. They either lived together before they married or they didn’t. And over a certain amount of time, they either divorced or they didn’t. 

But what even counts as cohabitation? Even married people who didn’t officially share an address might have frequently spent days, weeks, even months in the same place. Back in my youth, I often spent 3-4 nights per week at my girlfriend’s place. I had my own place. I never claimed a girlfriend’s address as mine. Does that count? What if they spend almost every night together, some at his place and some at hers?

Keep in mind divorce is just one way a marriage can be terrible. A marriage can be legally intact but awful. Dr. Laura would claim the data also shows the quality of the marriage is better for couples who didn’t first shack up, but I’m not so sure. It could be that couples who didn’t cohabitate before marriage are less likely to be honest - with a sociologist or even themselves - if their marriage is crappy, and that could be for religious reasons, among other explanations.

Here’s the reality today whether anyone likes it or not:

-Most couples who marry cohabitated. (Twisting Dr. Laura’s tactic on its head, we can say shacking up leads to marriage, since most people who married shacked up.)

-Most people won’t marry someone they didn’t cohabitate with first.

-There are couples who’ve been together for decades, including officially or unofficially living together, who’ve never had even a courthouse wedding.

-There are people who’ve been married for decades who lived together before they married.

-If you want to be in either of those groups, there are things you can do to make it more likely.

One of the “dirty secrets” of the data Dr. Laura is using is that it lumps all unmarried cohabitation together, including people who never intended to marry or be permanent in the first place, and people who “fell into” living together. Data that separates out independently established, stable people who PLANNED out their cohabitation in advance, discussed and sincerely agreed about goals, intentions, rules, etc, and had a high level of general compatibility will show much better results.

Maybe you don’t want to marry.

Maybe you do.

Either way, cohabitation will be more likely and even may most likely work out if:

-It’s thoroughly planned out ahead of time, with sincere, honest, realistic discussions and agreement about goals, timelines, intentions, rules, etc. (Dr. Laura says there are no rules, but she doesn’t get to decide that for you.)

-It is done out of mutual intention, not incrementalism or “falling into it”, and an informed, experienced desire to live with each other, not out of desperation or zombie relationship escalators.

-You’re both responsible, established, independent adults who can generally handle life well and are fundamentally compatible.

Dr. Laura claims the intentions are different in shacking up, and that it is to avoid commitment. She was a trained, licensed, experienced therapist but she is not a mind reader. She doesn’t know what a caller she’s been talking with for 20 seconds really intended, and she certainly doesn’t know what their partner, who isn’t on the call, intended. She can make an experienced guess. Sometimes. 

Most of her listeners probably have no idea she did “everything” wrong. She shacked up for years with an older man who was a married father when she took up with him. She got pregnant at least once. And yet they subsequently married (as he had, she had been married before) and stayed married for decades, until he died. It apparently worked out for them. Although she’d say they beat the odds, if you could ever discuss it with her (she’d never let such a discussion about herself make it to air). If she’d discuss it and be honest about it, she’d probably say there was much misery because of how things started. 

I am compelled by my conscience not to end this post without stressing that  I think most men should avoid shacking up/cohabitating. It’s almost as bad as marrying. It’s costly and puts you at risks, shifting much of your power to her, and you can get kicked out of your own home. But if you’re going to do it, there are ways, as I explained, that make it more likely to work out. 

Minimize Hostility

Most women don't like men.

There are some who genuinely like men.

But for the most part, most women don't like men, even if they like what men can do for them.

Even women who like and appreciate what men can do for them might grow entitled, demanding, and  then resentful.

Contempt and disrespect pervade.

What men do is never enough. Women in "committed" relationships think they settled.

Many men simply don't grasp this. For example, most heterosexual men are physically attracted to a wide variety of women, and like seeing a woman's genitals, even if he doesn't know her. Conversely, most women don't even like their own husband's penis and don't care to see it. There's a good chance even your newlywed wife isn't physically attracted to you.

Consider gays and lesbians. Most gay men, who have no interest in women sexually, do not hate women. In fact, they often have women as best friends. But a lot of lesbians openly hate men. Because they aren't attracted to any men, they have no reason to pretend to like them.

For most of human history, women depended on men directly. That's no longer the case. Women can earn money in white collar or service jobs, and have full access to financial services, asset ownership, etc. Gun ownership can physically protect her.

Even though women no longer need men, there are still "kept" women, far more than men. But even many kept women grow to despise and resent the men who provide their lifestyle.

There are women who prefer male bosses and/or like hanging around men. But that's not necessarily because they like men. In some cases it is because women are so bad to each other or because these women believe they can manipulate these men.

Perhaps nothing is more amusing to a woman than when a man gets hurt or injured.

 

Pay attention to how women talk about men in spaces and platforms that cater to women. Notice the advertisements that effectively appeal to women, and how men are usually portrayed as helpless, pathetic, stupid, ignorant, annoying, disgusting, etc.

In addition, women who appreciate men or at least their man can be poisoned by their mother, sisters, friends, media, etc. into being hostile.

What's my point?

My point is DO NOT BURDEN WOMEN. Respect their independence and autonomy. Stay free. Do not enter into a terrible state contract with someone who, chances are, isn't attracted to you and doesn't like you, or at least soon won't.


She Feels Differently Than You

We Are Not Going Back

During the first hour of Dennis Prager's Monday, August 19, 2019 show, toward the end of that first hour, he said he "doesn't understand" waiting to marry until establishing or gaining success in your career (succeeding professionally/financially). He claims it isn't rational, and it isn't what people did in history. "Why can't you work on your career while married?" he asked. [This entry is bumped up, and some details of my life might have changed since.]

He says things like this because he is a marriage-seller and because he has no idea what it is like to be a young person today, trying to make their way in this world. He's made it clear that he buys into the idea that man isn't really a man unless he takes on the burden of supporting a wife and children, as if women still don't have access to employment, property ownership, and personal finance. 1) If someone is working on career success, marriage, especially with children, is an enormous disadvantage. Even putting aside the emotional drama and turmoil a wife and family can bring, a spouse and children put a demand on time; there will be days you'll be late for work, or have to leave early, or not be able to work at all due to family matters. You'll get calls and texts that demand your immediate attention, taking you away from whatever you're supposed to be doing. Also, these days, establishing yourself in a career often means long and odd hours, extra days, networking at lunch and happy hours, business travel, moving, and changing employers. None of these are friendly to family.

Running Game - Slumpbusters

If you're not running game like a well-oiled machine yet, or you took a break, or you're in slump, you might benefit from one or more slumpbusters.

A slumpbuster means hooking up with a woman you wouldn't have as part of your regular bullpen. Maybe she's too old, maybe she's too fat or too skinny or otherwise less attractive to you, maybe she's not enthusiastic or skilled enough. But she's willing to hook up. If some affection is better than no affection to you, that's what a slumpbuster gives you.

However, slumpbusters also help because they "prime the pump." Somehow, some way, the fact that you're active at all helps bring other women to you. It's just one of those mysteries of reality.

How to Keep Your Friends Free - Prevention

I have a habit of writing some really long entries, but I'm going to try to post some things as series instead, to keep them from getting too long. With that in mind, I'm starting a series about how Free Men can keep their friends free. Even if you're not a Free Man, you can use some of these tactics to help other men stay free.

The best way to help other men stay free is through PREVENTION. Helping them from getting into a mess in the first place is the ideal. It's best to do things proactively and prophylacticly, BEFORE he gets into an exclusive relationship.

Here's how.

• Point out to each Free Man (especially young men) in your life why he doesn't want to climb down that ladder, down into that pit in which a woman will have more and more control over his life.
  
  
• Point out that legal marriage is a bad deal for most men, most marriages fail, and men can have happy, full, productive lives without ever legally marrying.
   
• When these guys aren't in "exclusive" relationships, point out the benefits to them of being a Free Man and why they wouldn't want to give that up.
  
  
• When he's doing something he enjoys, with or without you, point out how he either wouldn't be able to do it or do it the way he wants, or it would cost him a lot more, if he was tied down to a woman, especially with kids.
  
  
• Point out that being a Free Man is our default state, and even marriage-sellers say marriage is hard work and takes a lot of compromise and sacrifice. 
  
  
• Point out to him how a newlywed woman butches up and blimps up. There will be examples in his life and in media.
  
  
• Point out that women use sex as a loss leader and do "bait and switch" all of the time. They are on their "best behavior" during early dating because they are trying to lock him in. Things will never be better with a woman than the first 3 to 6 months. 
  
  
• Point out examples of men suffering because they gave up their freedom and autonomy. They can be men you know or men in the news. Point out the beaten dogs, the emasculated guys, the ones whose balls are in their purse of the woman who owns him. Point out when guys waste their lives arguing with a woman. Point out the men who've been or are being put through the wringer in divorce.
  
  
• Point out that a Free Man gets to control his own calendar/social schedule, and how his money is spent.
  
  
• Point out that he doesn't need a girlfriend, and he certainly doesn't need a wife.
  
  
• Encourage him to avoid dating just one woman, and to avoid giving a woman the impression he's only dating her, and to avoid seeing any given woman more than once per week.
  
  
• Debunk the misleading marriage-selling statements he might hear, like the one about the sex in marriage being more frequent and better.
  
  
• Discuss Red Flags with him.
  
  
• If a woman he's dating is giving him grief, is too much work, or possessive, point out that there are plenty of other women and he doesn't have to date her.
  
  
• Frequently get together, whether at home or wherever else, to enjoy doing things as Free Men.
  
  
• Share with him the tactics you find helpful for staying a Free Man. For example, encourage vasectomies. Encourage having a holiday season game plan.
  

Of course, you can send him whatever entries and pages from this blog you find helpful.

If you have other tips you think should be added, comment below.

This entry turned out to be long anyway, and it might get longer still. In the next installment of this series, I plan to write about what to do when he's getting into an "exclusive" relationship or already is, and might be heading for the marriage trap.

UPDATE: Here's the Intervention entry in this series.

UPDATE: Here's the Recovery entry in this series.

A Running List of Reasons Given By My Wife

This will be a running list, in no particular order, of reasons or excuses my wife (and maybe yours!) gives to NOT make love or have sex. As I've written in other entries, we're down to about once every three weeks, and usually it's a mercy session.

Some of these reasons might be legitimate some of the time; I'll grant that. But cumulatively, it is rather sad, given that this is supposed to be a mutually enjoyable "gift from the Lord" that is supposed to be a major benefit to marriage that, in turns, strengthens marriage and is good for our health and all of the other stuff.

Now, I know how the world works. The average man wants sex more than the average woman, and the same holds true for our little microcosm: I want sex more than my wife. Traditionally, on a societal level, this has either been handled through official polygny or through mistresses, concubines, or prostitution. Or, even if monogamous, there has been an agreement, whether tacit or explicit, that marriage is an exchange. The wife has agreed to sex as often as the husband wants it (in addition to cooking and making sure the household chores are done) because he's protecting her, providing for her, and keeping the children in line (even with just the threat of what'll happen when Dad comes home). This agreement seems to have been abandoned for the most part, which is one reason why most men shouldn't bother to marry. I'm fulfilling my end of the bargain, however.

I'm sure there are some snarky types out there who will read these and tell me that if I was a more considerate and all-around better lover, I wouldn't hear these excuses so often. See, that's what I'd believe, too, if I didn't have the experiences of my wayward youth. I know it isn't me. And I have solicited her thoughts and feelings during neutral times (away from lovemaking situations) about what I can do to make things easier and more enjoyable for her. The bottom line is that, whether because of her medications or some other reason, she doesn't like sex much. She pretended to be craving sexual affection before we married, and still somewhat until we had our children, because she wanted the guarantee of my financial support. Once she had it, she no longer had to pretend. She will not say it that way, but that's the harsh truth. (And it is the harsh truth for a lot of men. I suspect the real reason prostitutes are put down is because they deliver when they're paid and paid women who don't deliver hate that.)

Same goes for "You should be romancing her. I bet you're not taking her out on dates like you did before you married!" Hey, I've tried. She shoots down dates, she doesn't want flowers, and she doesn't want me drawing a nice bath for her.

Feel free to add your own reasons or excuses in the comments, even if you're a woman whose husband is rejecting her.

Since this is a running list it will be updated and bumped up from time to time, and I'll elaborate on some excuses.

Motivations Against Adult Media

I don't like it when people aren't honest and upfront about their motivations. I'm much more likely to deal with a salesperson who is honest than one that is pretending to do something out of the pure goodness of their heart or claiming a dire disaster will happen to me if I don't buy from them. [This entry has been bumped up.]

You see this sort of thing all of the time. People say they want to "legalize hemp" for medical marijuana or because practical products made from hemp are so much better than using petroleum. But once recreational pot is legalized these people seem to disappear. Or the "Indian gaming" pushes that say it'll be nothing like Las Vegas, and then once the laws are passed they run ads calling themselves the "shortcut to Vegas!"

This happens constantly when people talk about adult media. So many of the complaints are really about media, masturbation, male sexual nature, the nature of sex, etc. but people choose to only apply their complaint to adult media.

Some people breathlessly pronounce that if you watch "porn" you will become addicted, become impotent, rot your brain, and become a serial mass rapist-murderer. That, THEY CLAIM, is why they constantly warn people and call for restrictions ranging from censor/spyware they're selling to incarcerating people for making or watching video of adults having sex or pretending to. They dupe politicians into passing declarations that such material is a "public health crisis" even though it isn't, and offer a “cure” in the form of a book or “rehab” they’re selling. Or stickers and t-shirts.

Let's get honest about why people freak out about porn.

Organizations of Which to Be Wary

Recently, a certain fraternal organization started within the last few years and its leader have been getting trashed online. I had been wary and a bit suspicious of the organization and its leader, even though he was saying many things with which I was agreeing. There were a few things he was saying and doing, and the tone he was taking, that made me suspicious. [This has been bumped up from January 2022. They are now supposedly offering a health care plan of sorts. What could go wrong?]

In no particular order, and subject to being revised and expanded, here are some signs you should be skeptical/cautious of joining or associating with an organization: