More Fun With Statistics - Body Count and Marriage

"People who have no or fewer sex partners before marriage are more likely to be satisfied with their marriage and less likely to divorce."

Have you heard that or some variation of that?

Even if true, it would be completely useless to you if you've already married. If you've had "more" sex partners, then it would be all the more reason to avoid that terrible state contract! Or if she has. If you both have, that's EVEN MORE reason not to marry.

But some will find that statement useful in telling younger people to or anyone who has has "fewer" sex partners why they shouldn't have (more) sex outside of marriage.

It won't deter anyone who doesn't want to get married.

And it might not deter people who are good at analyzing data and statistics.

Let's look at a couple of graphs that are being used to push this message.

As Panscan points out, we're not seeing the entire graph. There's a 5 percent difference between people who have had 2 partners and people who've had eleven, twelve, or scores of partners. But it looks more dramatic when you remove all of the graph under 50 percent.

Also, if we're going to take the graph seriously, men who've had 6-10 partners are better off than men who've had four or five partners, and women who've had 11 or more partners are better off than women who've had 4 partners.

Even if a man "waited" for sex, there's still a 27 percent chance - more than 1 in 4, he will admit to not being very happy in his marriage. And for women, that's 35 percent - more than one in three!

Finally, notice that the husbands are happier than wives. Guys, don't be selfish by asking a woman to marry you!

Now let's look at the second graph.

This graph uses months.

Notice that people are divorcing a couple of years in. Guys, if you're foolish enough to marry, refuse to spend much on the wedding and related events.

80 months in (so a little over 6 and a half years in), the lowest rate of divorce is still 10 percent, meaning 1 in 10 couples. Most people will have had a 25 percent divorce rate! 1 in 4 couples!

Also, if we take this graph seriously, if you've had one premarital partner, you might as well have had countless, at lease as far as six years or so down the line.

What is really going on here?

Is That Really in the Good Book?

I added a link in the right column of this blog. It's for a website called Biblical Sex. Maybe you don't consider the Bible an authority on matter of sex, but you probably interact with people who do. Some people try to base laws on it. We often hear people appeal to what they think the Bible says about sex, erotic media, erotic fantasies, and looking at the bodies of other people.

The Biblical Sex website tries to clear up what the Bible actually commands and doesn't command, in doing so, the website often disagrees with that is taught in certain conservative religious organizations and movements. I'm not saying I agree with everything the website says, just that it is worth reading the articles there.

Continue to read this entry if you have any interest.

Translating Happy Hubby Talk

[Bumped up.] Recently I considered what I'm sure I've realized before... that many men who say how great and wonderful marriage is either had no game as bachelors or felt guilt about fornicating. A lot of them are, and always have been, nerds. They couldn't get laid when they were younger, but once some woman figured that she'd better cash in her aging chips and look for "security" and a "good provider" (someone who'd actually be able to pay her way through life) and that she could settle for a nerd because he would have a dependable high salary and probably wouldn't whore around.

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.

Positions Dr. Laura Takes That Might Surprise Some

Both critics and supporters of Dr. Laura who think she's some religion-driven ultraconservative might be surprised if they listen to closely to her radio program. It helps to understand that she's coming from a position of what is best for children and makes a good society, not pushing a right-wing or Religious Right agenda.

Let's look at what might surprise some people.

Do I Have A Moral Obligation To Warn My Wife About Divorce?

Let's assume that I decide that, once our youngest child is 18, which should be after they are done with high school, I'm going to file for divorce.

That's still years away.

In general, do husbands have a moral obligation to give advanced notice? How much in advance?

Do I have a moral obligation in particular?

Please note that I'm not talking about financial or legal strategy. I would talk to an accountant and an attorney about those things.

I'm talking about morality. Would I be morally obligated to tell her I'm going to file for divorce, and how far in advance would that obligation exist?

Keep in mind:

Are Pixels to Blame For a Decline in Marriage Rates?

That favorite villain of so many, "porn", is implied in recent news reporting to be a culprit in the marriage rate decline. [This post has been bumped up from earlier publication.] See the headline of Paul Bedard's article at The Washington Examiner for one example: Shock study: Marriage rate declines with porn use, threatening economy, society

Yes, yes, out of everything that has happened, let's blame pixels.

Pornography is replacing the desire among young men for marriage, according to a new study that finds males are chasing “low-cost sexual gratification” on the web over a wife and family.

Once again we see that people think men are supposed to pay a lot of money to have orgasms.

There's so much to be said, and so little time. 

1) Are there some men who say, "Hey, who needs marriage when I can watch porn?" There probably are a few - a very few. Let's think about those men for a moment. If a man who would and could otherwise marry is looking at porn as a replacement for marriage, that means the only thing he thinks women bring to marriage is visual/auditory sexual stimulation, or he thinks the other things women bring to marriage do not outweigh his costs for getting and being married. Do you think it would be a good idea for such a man to get married?

2) However, there are other men who use porn because they haven't married (yet). They want the stimulation, they're not getting it from a wife, so they view porn.

3) There are unmarried men who do not view porn, or at least only incidentally view it. Some of these men never want to marry (again).

4) There are married men who view porn. Some of those men are satisfied with their sex life with their wife, some of the wives are happy with their sex life, and in other cases, he's viewing porn because his wife is sexually rejecting.

5) There are men who marry, and marry at the same age they would have with or without porn, who viewed porn all along.

6) Men can get sexual gratification without viewing porn and without being married. Whether it is masturbation or a girlfriend, or a shack-up, or a booty call, or a friend-with-benefits, it is very easy for an unmarried man to get sexual gratification these days without viewing porn and with little time, money, emotion, or effort spent.

Scott Morefield Laments a Lack of Suckers

I generally like most of the columns carried by conservative Townhall, but you can often find stuff there encouraging men to sacrifice themselves for what we're currently calling marriage. Scott Morefield is the latest writer to go there (please note that you can go there and comment):

What on earth happened to marriage?

Our laws and culture have changed. Women have changed a lot. Or, at least, they've tried to. That's what happened.

Even for those who don’t believe the practice to be God-ordained as prescribed in the Bible, it’s hard to deny that following the “success sequence” of finishing school, getting a job, getting married, THEN having children leads to a remarkably strong bulwark against poverty.

I wonder what happens when a man gets a job, INTENTIONALLY AVOIDS marriage/shacking up/spending money on women and remains child-free. Guys like that are unlikely to be poor.

And yet, has anyone else noticed that ‘traditional’ families - i.e. a husband, a wife, and a child or children who are actually at least nine months younger than the total time their parents have been married - are about as rare as a liberal who tips?

Yeah, ain't diversity grand?

Old Time Values Are Now Counterculture

People who are new listeners to Dr. Laura may be confused because she is counterculture - and I say she is counterculture as a very high compliment. If "new" listeners call in and get onto the show before they understand from whence Dr. Laura comes, they may experience bewilderment. Knowing that these are some of her rules, assumptions, conclusions, and values (at least, as far as I've discerned from her media) will give you some understanding and might help you get something useful from the show or the call because there's less chance you'll be confused. Again, these are hers, not necessarily mine. (Although I largely agree with her.) [This entry is being bumped up from years ago, because it is still relevant.]

It's a Completely Different Culture Now

As Dr. Laura gets more and more experience dealing with callers who have been raised in a culture in which there is no discouragement of casual fornication (or shacking up), including teenaged fornication, she gets more likely to make a point of commenting on it when the caller or someone the caller is dealing with is involved in such behavior. (She seems to be somewhat wearied by the negative cultural shifts, which is certainly understandable as she deals with call after call with the ugly fallout of this societal breakdown.)

In the second hour of the show on Monday, August 10, 2015 [note that this entry has been bumped up] she had a call from a mother whose teen daughter had been staying with a friend, but slipped out and walked to a nearby home in which a boy was residing and had intercourse with him. It was presented as her first experience. Dr. Laura expressed disgust that the boy's parents were likely home and sleeping at the time; presumably the disgust was at the brazen flouting of morality and parental respect (which assumed the boy's parents would object, though it is entirely possible they wouldn't), because she expresses no disgust at the thought of grown, married people having sex while visiting and staying at a parental home. But I digress.


Dr. Laura urged the caller to ask her daughter how she felt about the experience. "Did she think it was love? Was it curiosity?"


That's where I want to scream at my listening device "How about IT FEELS GOOD!"?

She also threw in the "He's bragged to all of his friends" thing.

Dr. Laura often approaches this as though every teen girl is expecting that sex will always mean love, that no teen girl enjoys sex or ever puts her physical pleasure ahead of other considerations, and that teens still talk about sex the same way or that a teen girl is going to mind if other people know she had sex. There are other times Dr. Laura indicates that women enjoy sex but the way she talks about fornication, if it is all anyone heard from her on sexual matters, would give someone the impression that she doesn't think females enjoy sex. Females do enjoy fornication. Most don't enjoy it as much as marital lovemaking or might feel some negativity about it after it is over, especially if there is a breakup or a relationship doesn't actually form in the first place, but they do enjoy it if the guy is at all competent in what he's doing.


Yes, up into part of the 1960s, most girls didn't want people to know they'd fornicated, because most people lived their lives in the same rural community or urban neighborhood and there was a general cultural shame against fornication (sure, plenty of people were doing it, but they tried to keep it private) and if word got around, then the young men in the area would either not want her or the parents of the young man would strongly pressure him not to date her, but especially not to marry her. The school she attended and the religious congregation she attended might have taken action. It might even have been a criminal matter.

None of that is true anymore, at least in most places in the USA. As such, few girls who fornicate are going to mind if word spreads. Often, it isn't even talked about. It is just assumed that it is going on. There are teen girls who walk around school wearing condoms on their clothing to get attention (under the guise of trying to raise awareness in her peers); would such a girl give a rip if someone found out she was having sex?

But the way Dr. Laura often handles these calls, it is like she still thinks things are like they were when she was growing up. This time, she did go on to acknowledge that teen fornication is now seen as the norm and expected. During part of the call, though, I wanted to somehow break in and say something like, "Excuse me... she's a heterosexual girl who is turned on by males, this one in particular, and sex can feel good, even when it is fornication. It is like asking her why she stole the ice cream out of the freezer and if it tasted good while she ate it. Maybe she felt nervous, maybe a little guilty, or maybe she's worried about it going to her hips, but she liked the taste."

The frame of reference is way too different now. Saying something like "He doesn't love you! You're not going to have a lasting relationship with him! All of his friends know!" isn't going to have any dissuading effect on most teens these days. Rather, a better tactic, if religion isn't going to be invoked (and it's not a religious show, after all) is to convince teens that the risks (getting bonded to someone wrong for you, diminishing your ability to enjoy future intimate relationships, STDs, pregnancy) aren't worth the pleasure. Admit that it can feel good, but so can many other things that have a better time and place.

Anyway, I previously went over some of these issues in much depth here, and this is another entry that is relevant.

A Flaw in Tom Leykis’ Logic

It's been almost ten years since I published what is below the fold. It still stands up.

You're not going to find a better talk show host than Tom Leykis when the topics are the radio and television industries. He's also brilliant when it comes to personal finance and money management, entrepreneurship, motivation, and how to avoid marriage, avoid relationships, and how a man can "get more tail for less money".

One of the areas he falls short in, however, is when he blasts Christianity or a general belief in God. He's a lifelong atheist. But there are atheists out there far more knowledgeable and willing to debate much more seriously than Leykis. So when he tries to goad people to call up and argue with him about God, it isn't surprising that it doesn't "work". He tried having a semi-regular segment to his show called Ask the Atheist, but he dropped it for lack of calls (his audience is different now that his show is streamed online rather than on terrestrial broadcast radio), and today he tried (and failed) to do an unofficial Ask the Atheist hour by saying Hurricane Harvey is proof there is no God. There are many, many, many, many, many serious essays on natural disasters/suffering and the existence of God that Leykis could critique during his show, or he could have a Christian apologist on his show if he was really interested in a serious discussion. Instead, he's inviting his listeners to call in, most whom are primarily interested in how to fornicate with as little trouble as possible. If anyone does try to take the position of Theism or even Deism, Leykis resorts to the tactic of essentially repeating "Sez who?!? and "Not so!!!" and all sorts of sleight of word, redirection, etc. Most of what he does is to provide an entertaining show, but this appears to be an attempt at an ego boost or confirmation bias. Whatever the case, he isn't open to serious discussion on the topic. If he was, it might actually be a more successful segment to the show.

But let's get to what I wrote ten years ago.

Still Fighting the Tide

So far, the Dr. Laura Show this week has had a lot of women calling who are shacking up, and Dr. Laura attempts to shame these women, including pointing out that their children are seeing them shack up. One of the reasons given as to why this is bad is that it makes the children more likely to shack up. But this reasoning doesn't work on callers (or listeners) who don't see anything wrong with shacking up in the first place. Dr. Laura can run down a list of reasons she opposes shacking up, but she doesn't always do it.

One problem is, shaming doesn't work on people who have no shame for their actions. Since old time values are now counterculture, postmodern influence is widespread, and selective moral relativism is so prevalent, they look at Dr. Laura's reaction as akin to someone saying, "Chocolate ice cream? I don't like that flavor. How could you let your kids seeing you eating chocolate ice cream?!?" For many of these women, they prefer shacking up to living alone.

Discouraging Shacking Up

In Hour 1 on March 5th's show, Dr. Laura got a call from a shack-up honey who was just nineteen, or maybe that was her age when the shacking up started. She was concerned about how her boyfriend handles money. Now, I'll say yet again that I think shacking up is a terrible idea (I intentionally avoided it) and I adore Dr. Laura and I'm a huge fan of her. It is because I listen so thoroughly and closely that I can pick bones sometimes.

Dr. Laura told her...

Justifying Unmarried Fornication is Not the Same As Planning to Cheat on Your Spouse

Ah, two entries in a row inspired by the Dr. Laura Show. As I often do, I'll say I love her show, books, etc. and I generally agree with her and I think she does a lot of good for people.

With that out of the way...


In the first hour of yesterday's (March 3, 2015) show, a woman called to ask about letting an unmarried middle-aged couple stay in the same room of her family home while they visited for an event to which they were going. The caller was against it; her husband was OK with it. She and her husband did NOT shack up themselves. Her husband was justifying the fornication of their friends by saying that dating was to get to know someone, and sex was part of that and people did it so they wouldn’t get "defrauded" into marriage. Dr. Laura claimed that the statistics are that when people don't shack up and don't have sex before marriage that their "success rate in marriage is much greater".

I’d like to believe that. That's how my wife and I handled it, after all, and this is a claim I have always accepted. I think I've gone into great detail about that before on this blog about the various  reasons that statistic might be true. One of them is that the kind of person who is willing to wait until marriage for sex and cohabitation is also likely to avoid filing for divorce, no matter how miserable or toxic things get.

Anyway, if the call had ended there, that would have been great. But it didn’t.

Dr. Laura then told the caller to be "very worried" about her husband's mentality because "sex outside the marriage may be the next thing he justifies." The caller was stunned. "Yeah," Dr. Laura continued, "He’s going in a direction, can't you see that?" Then when the caller revealed they got married when he was 45 (he'd never been married before) Dr. Laura said she would have talked the caller out of that one, and ended the call. But she went on to say "He's creeping out from under the covers. We're hearing more and more the truth."

Really?

There are many, many people who think it is "OK" for middle-aged people to fornicate monogamously with each other who do NOT think it is OK to cheat on their spouse and never would cheat on their spouse. I know, I know, there are people who say fornication is cheating on your future spouse, which, of course, assumes someone will have future spouse. But that's a very specific religious view. I'm instead talking about general mindsets in society.

I largely agree with Dr. Laura’s overall moral mindset, but I know there are many people who do not think like "us" and thus do not see all sex outside of marriage under the same general category of immorality. In their minds, cheating on a spouse is entirely different than having sex with your longtime monogamous partner you are with under the intention of finding a spouse.

I'm not sure telling that wife to be suspicious of her husband was a productive thing to do.




The more likely way this pertains at all to the marriage of the caller is that her husband himself might feel like he was defrauded. But the caller said they didn't shack up, not that they didn't fornicate. I'm fairly certain from what the caller said and didn't say that they did fornicate and so the husband "knew what he was getting himself into".

So Dr. Laura's nudging of the wife towards suspicion seemed to me to be a mistake on her part. The call should have been ended with the fact that the wife is co-owner of the home (assuming she is - she might not be given the ages, and if she's not Dr. Laura probably would have said that was wrong, too) and she doesn't want unmarried couples spending night together in her home, and that should be the deciding factor.

Tom Leykis Doesn't Really Know All That Much About Religion

But then neither do a lot of religious people.

Tom Leykis is an Atheist.  He makes no pretense of being Agnostic or anything like that. He states that there is no God, not that there might not be a God. He does admit his Atheism is a belief, but he falsely claims he doesn't try to get people to adopt his belief system.

The first two hours of his Thursday, January 8 show was the topic "Religion: Stupid". It was inspired, it sounds like, by the Islamist terrorist attacks that just happened in France.

1) His lumping of all religions together is like someone lumping all audio content shows (radio, podcasts, etc.) together and saying something like "Stephanie Miller did something terrible, so all audio content shows are stupid!" If Leykis wants to debate whether philosophical naturalism or a belief that there is a supernatural existence makes more sense, that's one thing, or debating the benefit of religious community, or ritual, or whatever, fine. But to lump all "religions" (by which he seems to mean anything that isn't Atheism or Agnosticism), which are highly diverse in beliefs, practices, and historical behavior, and then demand that someone has to defend them all, is an invalid exercise. I'm not obligated to defend belief systems and practices that are often exactly opposite of mine.


2) He repeats the common falsehood that there has been more death and destruction in the name of religion than anything else. First of all, "religion" is too broad a term. See #1. I know he doesn't consider Atheism a religion and since Atheistic rulers have been the biggest mass murders in history, then no religion can be.

Letter Writer Didn't Get It

The woman who sent this recent E-mail of the Day to Dr. Laura misread/ignored a very important word said (written) by a man. Hard to believe, I know. I have no idea if Dr. Laura (who is on vacation) actually read this letter herself or not.

I know exactly where the man being quoted is coming from. Whether you, dear reader, agree or not, the man is operating under the very common understanding that men want sex, and women want attention, a bill-payer (at least to buy dinner/entertainment/gifts while dating), a bodyguard, a chauffeur, and a stronger/taller person to do her bidding.

The woman who sent the letter starts off:

Dr. Laura,

It's soooo hard being a woman who is waiting out there.

By "waiting" she means not having sex until married.

When the rest of the women give it up for free, the men won't even give me a chance.

The phrase "for free" implies she expects to get paid for sex. "Without commitment" might be a better phrase, but I could quibble with that one, too. She's right, though, that smart or even just lazy men are going to seek the path of least resistance to getting whatever it is they want.

Then again she might not be attractive.

Where Are the Good Guys Going?

It's understatement, and a late statement. It would be like saying the federal government is starting to go beyond Constitutional mandates. Mark wrote in to Dr. Laura, prompted by her monologue on women being attracted to bad boys:

We 'good guys' eventually become more than a little bit misogynistic when we see our 'bad' brethren basically having their way.....over and over and over again......with women, while we often become neglected, and taken for granted, in our relationships. It's always been said, "Good guys finish last," but, frankly, I think it's never been truer than it is today.

Just about every heterosexual guy wants sex from women. There are a few who, for whatever reason, have no sexual desire or a superseded sexual desire. The vast majority of straight guys want sex from women, even if they believe it is best to wait for marriage, or engagement, or "commitment" or "love", or whatever. Because of those beliefs, some men will resist temptations. But more men do find it more difficult to resist temptation when there are fewer worthy women. Men will see the guys around them having sex with few or no strings attached, with little effort spent... and what are they supposed to do? Save themselves for a woman who was out bed-hopping and is now of the attitude "been there, don't that", and make vows to her to lay down his life and financial security for her? I realize that this is the carnal way of viewing these matters, and that we're supposed to obey God regardless of the results, but how many people out there think that way?

Women who act this way do so at their own peril, in my opinion. It's becoming more and more apparent that ALL guys are losing more and more respect for women everyday. The bad boys never viewed them as being more than sexual objects and we good guys question whether or not staying true to the traditional values and mores is even worth it anymore.

There are men out there who were good and would treat a woman with the utmost respect, love, affection, and kindness, but have had their hearts hardened and now take the casual sex freely offered without strings, picking the more plentiful easy women over the increasingly rare virtuous women. Such a man doesn't appear to suffer any consequences for doing so. Some men will be good men regardless, but many men will be only as good as women encourage them to be. Women do have that kind of power.

Previously: Thoughts on the Marriage Delay and Marriage Strike

Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children?

"Colleen", in a letter to Dr. Laura, wrote about her disapproval of a pilot that ran on NBC. The title character, Whitney, was seen taking a shower with her boyfriend. That was the opening scene.

A little bit later I went back to see if anything had improved - wrong it was far, far worse. As Whitney's boyfriend was talking to his friend that he and Whitney had broken up, the friend was scornful he would even care- "What, you like having the same VAGINA every night?" As I quickly turned off the set, I was so disgusted. This is what we've come to in America, women are just interchangeable vaginas????

Well, "yes" in the sense that there are some guys who just want sex. "No" in the sense that the reason they don't mind being out of a committed relationship is that they can easily get sex from a variety of women, all whose bodies are different. If your "vaginas" (really, the whole body, the attitude, the sex) were really interchangeable, then the guys would stay put because there would be no reason to try other women. These days, vaginas are cheap, not interchangeable, due the law of supply and demand. They have always been in high demand. But beginning with the culture of mobility and urbanity, growing with contraception, functional atheism (in which people behave as though there is no God) and then "liberation" of women, easy access to many vaginas is widespread... so to speak.

Now, as I've previously written, it is more enjoyable to make love than to have casual sex, all other things about the sex being equal. But the guys in these scenarios do not want everything that comes along with being in that kind of relationship, which is harder to find anyway because much of the female population has changed in attitude.

It makes me sick to think of the children watching garbage like this.

I am a parent myself, and yes, it is hard to protect them from a lot of the bad influences, but discernment and filtering are very important. So is innoculation, which works much better than isolation or indoctrination.I agree that parents should not be letting their children watch something like that. However, are you proposing that everything in society be designed and operated so as to be child-focused? Children should be a top priority to their parents, and society as a whole should value children, but not every aspect of life should be appropriate or appealing to little kids.

Mistakes

Something that stood out for me from recent letters to Dr. Laura:

I make mistakes A LOT, but repair them, learn from them, try my best not to repeat them, and move forward.

That's the best we can do as imperfect people. I think Dr. Laura has modeled that behavior for her audience.

Whenever she's in the news, you can always find comments after the stories from people who hate her. Usually, aside from political differences, their complaints are based on misunderstandings of what she has said or misquotes, or based on some past mistake for which she has repented. My wife gets a kick out people who say they hate Dr. Laura because she's judgmental, intolerant, and close minded – and if you ask them if they've listened to her show, they, being so open-minded and nonjudgmental in their hate for her, say no.

One of my "favorite" standard attacks on her is "she's a hypocrite". Yet, if you ask people to "explain how she is a hypocrite, keeping in mind that the word means someone who says one thing but currently believes something contrary", they don't know what to say. That's because they are used to using "hyprocite" a magical word that shuts down all moral or ethical discussion.

That Dr. Laura has made mistakes, as we all have, does not disqualify her from having an opinion or giving advice to those who call her seeking it. the truth is still true regardless of who says it. Making a mistake, and then learning from it, repairing it if possible, trying to avoid that mistake, and telling others they shouldn't make that mistake is not being a hypocrite. It's being loving and truthful.

A Big Question About Sex, Marriage, and Morality

I now believe sex is for marriage. I have written about many of the instances and relationships of my years before marriage in which I fornicated – had sex outside of marriage. Although I do think that fornication is wrong, I generally don't look at is as the end of the world. Compromising relationships, bonding with the wrong person, catching/spreading sexually transmitted diseases, and making a baby out of wedlock who you're not prepared to raise – those are problems in increasingly serious order that result from fornication. The last one is especially bad if it results in a slaughtered baby. And guys – that is always a possibility with fornication... that your sex partner will kill your baby. Actually, it is a possibility with married sex, too, but not as likely. (Note: the most important reason a believer has to not fornicate is that the Bible and other authorities say sex is for marriage.)

So there are good reasons to avoid fornication, especially intercourse.

But we have to be honest – there are reasons to fornicate. It often feels good (for men, almost always), even in the instances that bring negative feelings later. The reasons seem good at the time. And I can't say I didn't enjoy my immoral behavior. But I also know that it was a tradeoff. There were things I lost as a result of my sin.

What brings all of this up again? Well, for the most part I find that my worldview clearly "works". But one of those tough areas I hadn't resolved is found in this problem:

How do you know you are marrying someone with whom you are sexually compatible unless you have some amount/level of sex with them before marrying them?

This isn't merely academic for me, since these are issues my children will be facing. There's just got to be good material out there that isn't written by wrinkly old people who’ve been married for 40 years and forget what it was like to be young, tempted, unsure, seeking, and hormonal – or by some beautiful, sexy couple who both enjoy sex and married at age 19. There's got to be some material that is helpful and realistic and not entirely hypothetical, but based on someone with real life experience in dealing with the issues. Someone with a sex drive who has dealt with today's culture and avoided fornication at least into his or her late twenties, and if married now, has a good lovemaking life.

Also, a reader of mine endured a marriage to a closeted homosexual man. I'm sure this happens in churches more that most people realize. Someone with homosexual feelings tries to follow the Biblical model for sex and marriage by marrying someone of the opposite sex, and that person and their intended don't have sex before marriage – they may even marry as virgins. And everyone in the church and their families applauds and says "Wow, they did things the right way." They may consummate their marriage that night or not. Troubles consummating the marriage or a lack of newlywed lovemaking frequency may be blamed on it all being so new to them or even having suppressed their libido for years. But then the days turn into weeks, the weeks into months, and the months into years. Frustration and feelings of inadequacy, rejection, and bitterness build, and one or both will likely engage in adultery. Sometimes, the homosexual person isn't aware when they agree to marry that they won't be able to carry on a normal, mutually satisfying lovemaking life with their intended spouse; other times, it is a matter of wishful thinking or something intentionally more selfish.

Other people have little or no sex drive and are unwilling to do anything to change that, or were abused and traumatized and are unwilling to get the help they need to overcome that to have a normal and mutually satisfying lovemaking life with a spouse.

Perhaps a smaller problem but still an issue is incompatibility between two normal, healthy spouses. Sure, a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman are sexually compatible in the most basic physical sense, but if both spouses will only engage in intercourse if they are on top, that's going to be a problem. If a woman can't orgasm through intercourse but the husband refuses to pleasure her through oral sex or manual sex (with or without an aid) and won't let her masturbate (with or without an aid), then she's only going to be able to have an orgasm when she's hiding from him or he's not around. And that's a problem. There are many examples like this... men wanting fellatio and women who refuse to do it, so on and so forth.

As I think I've written before, one of my girlfriends told me her mother had told her to never marry someone without having taken the test drive. But neither of them had religious or moral beliefs that said such behavior was wrong.

I wrote to my reader: