Don’t Let Thanksgiving Cause Your Downfall

Dear Fellow American Men (or any man who is dealing with the pending American holiday),

(If you’re not, consider this a warning for the December holidays.)

Don’t let the Thanksgiving holiday and weekend lead you to giving up your autonomy, peace, and freedom by sinking into the quicksand of a “relationship.”

You shouldn’t be meeting or spending more time with the family or friends of a woman you’ve been dating. She shouldn’t be spending the holiday with you. You should be scarce this time of year for any woman you’ve been seeing regularly.

Spending holidays like this with such a woman is the path to humiliation, emasculation, and drudgery.

If you have plans with such a woman, it’s not too late to cancel. And you should. You don’t want her thinking of you as husband material.

Let me, a husband, assure you: it would be better to spend this time alone than set yourself for being ensnared in a terrible state contract and the awful social contract culture has attached to it.

Don’t become a beaten dog.

See your family or see friends. If not this year, maybe next year you can plan something for friends who can’t go “home” or prefer not to? If nothing else, I hope you’ve learned to enjoy solitude and can enjoy it now.

Take evasive maneuvers now!

"Why Can't Men Be Upfront and Honest?" - Part 5

In Part 1, I explained that men who get scarce around certain holidays and special days keep women from thinking of them as husband material, and thus are avoiding leading women on.

In Part 2, I explained that "bad boys" who aren't forthcoming and honest are rewarded with NSA sex.

In Part 3, I explained how this sorts out the women who are leading men on.

In Part 4, I showed how women often aren't upfront and honest.

Here in Part 5, I will be upfront and honest.

Here's honesty for you.

Male nature is such that what we want is frequent sex, and a variety of it at that, including what you might think of as perverted or degrading sex. We want sex with multiple young, hot women, whether one at a time or in groups. We like seeing their bodies, we like seeing them do sexual things. We want to have sex with just about any woman we see who isn't hideous. We want good food, especially if someone else is preparing it. We want appreciation, gratitude, admiration, and respect. We want to feel accomplished, and like heroes or conquerors. We want to hang out with the guys sometimes, away from women.

In this nature, we DON'T want to jump through a lot of hoops to get what we want. We don't want to pledge and live out being exclusive to one woman. We don't want our ears talked off with the same complaints over and over again, especially about something we can't or won't change; we don't want to hear criticisms, nagging, griping, whining, or endless babbling about subjects we don't care about. We don't want to pay your bills, pay your way, dance, buy you flowers or chocolates, or buy you a ring. We don't want to get "honey do lists". We don't want to be subjected to PMS, mood swings, deal with your catty friends or whacked out family, or raise another man's kids. We might be willing to do/endure these things to get what we want or because we have been indoctrinated/trained to think we're supposed to. Men who run game well mostly don't do these things.

If we could have our way, you'd have great sex with us whenever we want, never let yourself go, stop talking our ear off, take care of the kids until they are old enough to play ball or fish with us (if we want kids), keep the house clean, do the laundry, make our meals, get along nicely with our family and friends, and otherwise stay out of our way. This isn't to say we don't enjoy hanging out with you or that spouses aren't friends (especially if our testicles have just been emptied and our bellies are full - otherwise, we're focused on getting there), but there's a whole lot of things in relationships we don't naturally want to do.

There are always a few men who object. "I like dancing! I like taking a woman out on a really nice date!" There are always exceptions, outliers, guys who are in denial or have denied themselves, and not everyone wants exactly the same thing all of the time. Again, some men are sticking with an indoctrination/training or think they have to do/say these things to get what they really want.

I'm sure many of you women reading this are saying "There are things we want and don't want, too, things we tolerate in men that we'd rather not have deal with!" EXACTLY!!! That's why I encourage men to stay free. For every Free Man, there will be a free woman (unless she insists on being a sister wife or a mistress.) I encourage men to NOT subject women to things they don't want; don't get possessive of them or demanding of their time. Keep interactions to a bare minimum.

Here's an example of  guy who was doing it right.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

"Why Can't Men Be Upfront and Honest?" - Part 2

Part 1 of This Series

Short answer: Because that doesn't get them what they want. 

Longer answer:

Letting things go unspoken, letting women continue with their self-created delusions and misperceptions, engaging women by running game gets men what they want.

Let's consider a very familiar scenario.

Is It Really Sacred?

Since I listen to every (new) minute of the Dr. Laura Program, I heard her give this monologue recently. It has been posted on her website as a blog post. I still don't see an ongoing blog tab anywhere on the site, but this was tweeted out (by her staff, since she doesn't touch Twitter). It is titled "Respect Your Marriage Vows by Not Shacking Up First".

As regular readers of this blog know, I think shacking up is a generally bad idea; it's almost as bad as legally marrying.

But Dr. Laura promotes marriage and is against shacking up. Dr. Laura maintains that her program is a secular, non-religious program. But if you pay attention, she invokes religious concepts sometimes.

If someone isn't planning to marry, shacking up can't possibly disrespect their marriage vows. And now, many, perhaps most people, who do want to marry will refuse to do so without first living with the person they are considering as a possible spouse. The secular world has made it clear that they see shacking up as a normal part of relationship cycles. Without invoking religion, it is extremely difficult to explain how this would disrespect their future marriage vows. Dr. Laura has tried to teach that it is objectively detrimental to shack up, which I address here. In this blog posting of hers, she tries to explain why shacking up is bad a different way.

If you call anything a ‘piece of artwork’ or if you call something sacred, don't you immediately look at it differently from everyday objects or experiences? It doesn't matter if you're religious or not, I think when we say something is sacred, everybody lowers their voice and shows more respect. It's not accidental.

So, playing a mind game with oneself? Then someone could call shacking up "sacred" and this is all over.

Men and Women Do NOT Need Each Other

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Men and women don't need each other.

Correlation Isn't Causation: Lower Risk of Divorce in Religious Young Marrieds

"A study shows that religious people who marry young and didn't shack up are less likely to divorce!"

The people who tout this want you to believe that if you're religious and marry young, without shacking up, you'll have a lasting, happy marriage.

Well, it might last legally.

There are other studies, though, that show that among all people who marry, people who marry in their late twenties are less likely to divorce than people who marry before then.

What gives?

There's a hint in the fact that people who marry really young don't have the time to cohabitate before they marry. It's a bit like saying that there's a low cancer rate among people killed in school shootings.

Here's what's going on.

People who are so religious that they get married young (this avoids unmarried sex) without having shacked up are also going to be so religious as to think that divorce is a terrible sin (also, they are probably living where - geographically and subculturally - there aren't a lot of options for other partners/spouses should they divorce). So they stay married.

Now, you might ask if these really are happy marriages.

The same people who want you to believe it's a good idea to marry young without shacking up also will tell you these people who've done that report that they are happy (with their marriage).

Of course they do! Because:

1. They see the alternative as being a terrible sinner, a pariah if they were divorced, looked upon with disapproval by the people who have been most important in their life. They aren't comparing their marriage to true freedom or another marriage. They are comparing it to having lawyers and courts and shaming and gossip and no sex or affection or company at all.

2. Admitting to researchers that they are miserable, or even just less than very happy, with their marriage is considered sin (such as ingratitude).

3. If they have picked up any of the "Word of Faith" type thinking, they would think it is a "negative confession" to say their marriage isn't great; they think it would make their marriage worse to admit it.

So, what happens? They stay together, miserable, and deal with it by eating, drinking, antidepressants, golfing, watching football all weekend, maybe beating each other up, having affairs, suicide, etc.

I know these people. I've been around a lot of them. A lot of them will claim to be ever so happy in their marriage right up until the moment they file for divorce, or kill themselves, or admit to an affair, or worse. Yes, some of them will divorce, just later.

I discourage most men from legally marrying or from shacking up, but if you're going to marry, DO NOT DO IT until you've achieved your dream. Don't believe these misleading reports. Yes, it would be nice to have a wife who "doesn't believe in divorce" but not if it means misery.

Running Game - Young Men Have Time On Their Side

If you're a young man or boy who is frustrated, anxious, or down about your experiences (or lack of them) with women, I want you to know that if you play your cards right, time is on your side.

Media and the rumor mill make it look like "every" guy except you (and a few "incels") are scoring with the ladies. But that's not true. There are many, many men in your situation.

You don't have to be handsome, tall, strong, rich, accomplished, powerful, or famous, or romance them like some guy in a romantic comedy or princess fantasy, to have fun with the ladies.

Time is on your side.

 

Why is that? Because as men get older, they tend to have more of what hot women want, and as women get older, they tend to have less of what most men want. That's true, even if it sounds unfair, sexist, misogynistic, or whatever anyone wants to say about it. Like it or not. It's a demonstrable fact. Look around. Older men, including those who are plain looking or downright ugly, can get young, hot, attractive women. In fact, part of your current struggle might be the result of the attractive women your age being busy with older men. In most relationships and marriages in which there is an age gap of more than few years, it's almost always that the guy is older and the woman younger. To some extent, this can even be seen in high school. There are attractive girls who go to at least one prom for every year of high school, because 11th and 12th grade guys want them. How many 9th or 10th grade guys are going to prom? Not many.

You don't see supermodels dating guys working in a fast food joint. Meanwhile, the sexiest men in the world usually don't care what the women they date do as jobs.

Women seek the man with the most wealth/power/fame their looks can attract, and men get the youngest and hottest women their wealth/power/fame can attract. The bigger the diamond on a woman's finger, the thinner the finger, unless she's a very rare case who was able to buy it herself or inherited it.

There are hot women you want right now, who think they'd never ever go out with you. But as time ticks by, as they age, as their youth slips away, as they gain baggage and lose fertility, the pool of guys they can date gets smaller and smaller. Almost all women, even the most beautiful, "hit the wall." Meanwhile, if you do things right, the pool of women you can date will get larger and larger (the pool will... the women won't.... I mean, the larger ones will wish they could date you, but you'll have your pick).

None of this is to say that poor men or fat or unattractive women can't be great people. Many of them are! This is strictly about the realities of dating.

And you don't actually have to be rich, powerful, or famous. But if you stay free and manage your wealth well, you will have plenty of "disposable" income as you get older.

Guys in their late 30s, their 40s, their 50s who don't have kids, don't have alimony payments, haven't lost their wealth in a divorce, have their act together, and don't have a wife or "exclusive" girlfriend are in high demand.

Time is on your side, young men.

"But what about right now?" Get your presentation together and working for you. And if that doesn't do it, well, more on that another time.

Keeping Boundaries As a Free Man

If you are a Free Man, meaning you don't have a wife and don't live with a woman, I implore you to enjoy your freedom. I also urge you to keep your freedom. 

That might sound easy. I mean, don't you have to decide to move in together and don't you have to ask a woman to marry you?

Sure, but it gets more complicated than that.

Some women literally scheme to get pregnant even though you've made it clear you don't want to have children. Some women incrementally move-in-by-stealth. Some women nag and nag and nag (and even get your family to join in) to get you to "propose".

You need to keep boundaries in order to stay a Free Man.

AVOID POP DNA TESTS. Don't buy them for your family, either. You can't stop them being foolish and taking them, but avoid taking one yourself. No good will come from one of those. The only time you should take a DNA test is through the advice and arrangement of your lawyer.


Monk or Ghost

This is the the most extreme way of staying a Free Man without literally going off to be an isolated hermit. Some men decide to avoid women as much as possible. They don't date, they don't have female friends, they don't work for or with women, and they don't have any professional or financial connections to women (for example, they refuse to have a woman as an accountant or doctor). That is extreme, but for some it works.


Stay Present But Independent

This is the less extreme way. You can still participate in society and interact with women. You just need to be persistent and firm in keeping yourself independent. Let's consider how to do this.

Answering Marriage Seller Assertions, Talking Points, and Questions - Part 5

Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here and Part 3 here and Part 4 here.

 

 

Doesn't the woman you're with want to marry?

There is more than one way to answer this depending on your situation, but this question is based on you having at least one woman you are seeing, which may not be the case. In some cases, more than one of these answers will be useful for you.

A) No.

B) She says she wants to marry, but I know she isn't prepared to be a wife.

C) More than one woman I'm with wants to marry. I treat them equally by not marrying either/any.

D) There are things I want. That doesn't make it her/any woman's obligation to do them.

 

E) So what?

F) I take marriage very seriously and I don't want to enter into it lightly [...or at all].

G) We haven't been seeing each other long enough. [60 years might be enough.]

It is important to remember that you're not holding any woman hostage. Ideally, you haven't made any promises about actually proposing or getting married to any specific woman, nor are you living with any woman. She is continuing to see you AS-IS.

If you have told a woman you will propose to her or you will marry her, you need to invoke your prerogative to change your mind, and the sooner you make that clear, the better. She might leave/stop seeing you, she might not. Even if she does, it is far better than marrying. Living together is usually a very bad idea, but don't make it worse by signing a terrible state contract.

This sort of question by marriage sellers is often followed up with "So you're just using her?" or "You're wasting her time!" You are no more using her than she is using you. Since you're not married, your interactions are entirely voluntary, whereas marrying (even if subsequently divorcing) forces some interactions even if one of you no longer wants to interact in that way. If she doesn't enjoy the time she's spending with you or doesn't otherwise get anything out of it, she is free to NOT see you.

Part 6

Adapt or Be Irrelevant

A pitfall of conservatism is when a conservative fails to deal with the reality that things have changed.

I'm not bashing conservatives. Most people would probably classify me as a conservative if I described most of my political and social positions. Obvious exceptions you might have noticed if you've read other entries on this blog is that I warn most men not to marry and I think professional antiporn crusaders are misleading people for personal gain.

I recognize that the truth is the truth regardless of the culture or what is in fashion.

And a truth that conservatives need to deal with is that some things change and if you're going to be effective, you need to meet people where they are.

Let's bring this into the world, to where the rubber meets the road.

Example: State marriage licenses. They are issued to same-sex couples and that's not going to change, unless states cease issuing marriage licenses entirely. Most conservatives have conceded this. Some still appear to be devoting their resources to trying to reverse this shift.

Two talk radio hosts to which I listen via paid podcast subscription, both of whom I think do a lot of good for people, demonstrate the problem with not accepting change.

Dr. Laura, despite what people might think who only know her through what other people say, has always held some positions that go against conservative consensus.

However, she usually refuses to help callers who are cohabitating outside of legal marriage. She usually won't help them with the problem or concern that's coming up within their relationship as it is. Instead, she tells them to either move out or go to the courthouse and get married ASAP. Very few of the callers are going to do either, and dismissing them with that won't help them in their marriage (if they do marry) or interpersonal relationships with each other or others if they do move out from each other.

I am generally against "shacking up" myself. However, most people who marry these days lived together before they did, just like Dr. Laura and her late husband. It's perfectly valid for her to explain why she now opposes shacking up (as long as she doesn't rely on statistics in a misleading way), and she can still do that. But the callers, and a wide swatch of her audience, will benefit more if she deals with things as they are. There are several other examples I could cite when it comes to the Dr. Laura Program.

I don't know of anything more foundational to how Dennis Prager views life and talks/writes about life than the notion that men and women should marry and raise children together, and that it is man's lot in life to financially support a woman. He is so convinced of this he constantly urges men and women to order their life around this. If they aren't married now, they should be actively seeking to marry, including if they've been divorced multiple times. If the Lord Almighty were to part the clouds and boom from the skies with a command to someone walking alongside Dennis that they shouldn't marry, Dennis just might go atheist.

Even though he acknowledges the severe problems with family law and courts, he still urges people to subject themselves to them. He needs to accept that we no longer live in small farming villages on family farms our entire life and don't need to birth our own farm hands. Men and women can both thrive living "alone" or without marriage.

Antiporn crusaders write and talk like scientists who aren't in their tank can't research and network, and that people can't check things out for themselves now. Their claims from forty-plus years ago like porn rots brains and turns people into serial killers are easily debunked now, but they still try to use those scare tactics. Porn isn't going away.

Life has changed, and tactics and positions need to change with it, or someone becomes ineffective.

Part of Running Game is Saying No

Men who think they have to jump through hoops for women in order to get what they want from women, saying "yes" to what a woman asks of them, have been misled.

In general, NO works much better.

Unpaid?

"When someone is selling something, they don't like it when other people sell the same or similar product or service for much less." - Me [This entry has been bumped up.]

On Dr. Laura's Thursday, June 18, 2020 show, she took a call from a woman who has had a boyfriend for three years and she called about the possibility of talking marriage. Dr. Laura asked her if they were having sex. Of course the answer was yes. Dr. Laura called her an unpaid whore, which is a term she tends to apply to shackups, which the caller noted because they weren't living together. Dr. Laura went on to say that women like the caller are "giving men sex for nothing."  (I may be conflating the call with another one from the same episode, during which a man challenged the wisdom of marrying without having lived together.)

Aren't they giving each other company and sex? What exactly is he getting out of the relationship that she is isn't?

Again, we see the principle that men are expected to pay for sex, or that women don't enjoy sex.

And, we have no idea what bills of hers he's paying, or what gifts he's giving her. If he's taking her to nice dinners and paying for her vacations, entertainment, recreation, etc., then she is getting paid.

Dr. Laura brought up the white wedding dress and how it's not fair for women who aren't virgins to wear them. Except the truth about white wedding dresses says otherwise.

Thinking Critically About Cohabitation

Introduction: Is Unmarried Cohabitation Bad?

I've been carefully mulling over just about everything I've accepted about sociology.

Let's look at shacking up (unmarried cohabitation).

Don't misunderstand. I'm against shacking up. But I'm also against misleading people.

Dr. Laura (and many socially conservative commentators) will tell callers that shacking up is linked to negative indicators, such as:

• It makes it less likely you will get married
• It makes is less likely you will stay married
• Increased infidelity
• More abuse
  

When Dr. Laura (or any other commentator) barrages someone with all of this, most recipients aren't prepared for it and don't have the wherewithal or the time to counter the claims. Indeed, as Dr. Laura says, she refuses to argue or debate, which seems strange if she's confident that she's right. She hits her callers with this and that's that.


How Do We Know If It is Good or Bad?

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

Part 1 of This Series

Part 2 of This Series

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Part 1 of This Series

Part 2 of This Series

Part 4 in This Series

Good Luck With That

The Institute For Family Studies needs to promote marriage. So Alysse ElHage has this blog entry touting a new book that attempts to address marriage problems through churches. [This entry was bumped up.]

A few years ago, I was scrolling through Facebook to catch up with friends and family when I stumbled upon some news that made my heart sink.

As I've said, Facebook is a front row seat to a train wreck.

A married couple from the church my husband and I had attended for about 10 years had apparently split up since we moved away. Both the husband and the wife were popular leaders in our church and seemed to have a vibrant marriage that everyone admired. But now she was building a life with a new man in another state, while he raised their two children alone. As I was trying to digest this news, I discovered that at least five other married couples with kids from the same church had split up over the past few years. Two of the couples had been married for several decades; one couple less than five years. When I asked our pastor what happened, he was as brokenhearted as I was over the news, but he had no answers. He’d tried to counsel with some of the couples, but the spouse who wanted out (most often, the wife) was dead set on divorce.

Pay attention, men.

1. These were supposedly dedicated, churchgoing wives.
2. They seemed to have a vibrant marriage. You have no idea what's going on behind closed doors.
3. Decades of marriage can mean the wife gets set with alimony for life. In California (I don't know how many other states are the same), ten years of marriage sets her up for life.
4. The women are the ones leaving. YOU CAN'T STOP THEM. And, quite often, the more you try to treat them well, the more likely it is they'll walk all over you and leave.
5. The pastor claimed to have no answers. Most likely, he had answers, but doesn't want to say them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other things are harder to discern.

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

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

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

Answering Marriage Seller Assertions, Talking Points, and Questions - Part 7

 


Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here and Part 3 here and Part 4 here and Part 5 here and Part 6 here.


Why aren't you married/Why don't you want to be married?

One problem with these questions is that they are asked as though marriage is the default. It isn't. One must do a series of voluntary things in order to be married. If someone doesn't do those things, they won't be married. Once you realize that the default is being unmarried, deflecting these questions becomes easier.

Yet again, there are several ways of answering this, depending on your situation and your interactions with the person who is asking.

A) I was born without a wife.

B) Marriage is voluntary. I am naturally free. The real question is "Why should I get married?"

C) I don't have compelling reasons to marry.

D) I don't voluntarily sign terrible state contracts.

E) I haven't found a compatible woman.

F) I don't want to inflict myself on someone.

G) I have too much respect for the independence of women than to do that.

H) I refuse to perpetuate such misogynistic patriarchy.

I) Just lucky, I guess.

J) (Turn it around.) Why did you marry?/Why are you marrying? (They will usually cite something they could have had without a terrible state contract. It's up to you if you want to point that out or not.)

Most men don't have a good reason to marry. When men stop accepting without question that marriage is a must and a if not married, a man must seek to get married, and flip things around to place the burden where it belongs, which is on the marriage seller, most of the marriage marketing campaign crumbles.

Part 8

Marriage Material Men

As anyone who has skimmed through this blog can tell, I'm a huge fan of the Dr. Laura Program and the hostess herself. As such, I listen to every minute of the show and thus I think I've discerned what she would consider the basic requirements of marriage-material men; in other words, what she tells her female callers to look for when it comes to finding a husband.

In no particular order, here they are:


1) He is 28-35 years of age. That might slip down to 27 and slip up to 38 or so, but guys in their earlier 20s are not considered marriage material and men in their 40s or older who have never been married (see below) aren't married because either they really don't want to be or there is some serious flaw with them. Now, she doesn't oppose people remarrying when their children are grown and there is a prenup to protect those adult children and they meet all of the other criteria. However, the focus of this entry is on first marriages.


2) He is the same age or slightly older than the woman.

3) He has no minor children and has never been married before (with the possible exception of widowers). Even if he doesn't have kids, having been married before makes things more complicated and can make divorce more likely. Remember, we're talking about guys in their late 20s and early 30s.

4) He is done with his education and training.

5) He is not in debt.

6) He doesn't abuse substances and is physically and mentally healthy.

7) He doesn't play video games and has no Facebook or social media account.

8) He is Alpha, not weak, and not a momma's boy nor does he allow a problematic mother (or anyone else) to control or negatively impact his life.

9) He earns enough to be the sole support of wife and children in a nuclear family home without others (and he wants to), to pay for private school or homeschooling plus activities, to pay lawyers to "go to war," to pay to care for elderly or disabled relatives to have the care they need, to pay for you both to avoid ever being burdens on your children, and many other things.

10) He has a job that pays as much as described in #9 and is steady, stable, and secure, and yet it doesn't require moves, frequent travel, semi/pseudo-social situations with women, working/commuting long or odd hours or extra/odd days that would intrude into family time, communicating outside of work hours, nor has dangerous conditions, and will allow him to be home for dinner every night.

11) He has a compatible religious background to the woman. Saying "neither one of us is very religious" doesn't count if the religions are in conflict. For example, Jewish (non-Messianic) and Catholic. This is only a must if there is a possibility, however slight, of having children.

12) He is otherwise fundamentally compatible with the woman (major goals, raising children, personalities, etc.)

13) He is willing and able to be completely monogamous for life (no threesomes, swinging, swapping, group sex, polyamory) and would never ask the wife to have sex where others might see nor to watch others have sex in-person.

14) The woman is strongly attracted to him, including physically.

15) There are no red flags in addition to anything covered above, including things that would be red flags if they happened more often or on a larger scale. (You can't come back later say, "It wasn't this bad!")

I personally disagree with #7. I think it is simply something she didn't grow up with and she has an unreasonable bias against such technology. Otherwise, I think these are very good rules for a woman looking for a husband.

In today's world, the combination of #9 and #10 is increasingly rare, especially fitting into the criteria of #1. However, since the priority is family and children, these are necessary things. This is why she frequently gets female callers who say that they "have to" work, or whose husbands aren't home enough or the right hours/days, or whose (potential) husband is older. But remember - "everyone", deep down, wants to be with someone.

UPDATE: It has become painfully apparent with COVID-19 shutdowns that #10 is exceedingly rare in the sense that very few jobs are secure, steady, and stable. They can be removed by government fiat at any time.

Explain What You Mean in Telling a Husband to Man Up

I've posed this question before, directed at Dr. Laura, but a lot of people tell a husband to "man up" or "grow a pair" or "use your balls" or something similar in dealing with his wife, usually when there is a disagreement or the wife is behaving in some way that is immoral, irrational, unfair, or destructive. I'd very much like to know what someone who says such a thing means by it. What do you they expect the husband to actually do?

He can assert his opinion or demand. His wife can easily ignore or dismiss it.

Then what?

He can't force her to comply, and even if he can physically take unilateral action, she can use the force of law to stop him. He can't withhold his earnings from her (at least in Dr. Laura's scenario, a first marriage wouldn't have a prenup keeping finances separate). Anything he refuses to do for her, she can pay someone else to do using his earnings.

A Very Tiny Pool

"Refuse to date men use porn!" was tweeted out by one my favorite antiporn accounts.

First things first: Of course people can and should set any standards or requirements they think are best when it comes to who they'll date.

Two very important words in the tweet were "use" and "porn". What exactly are we talking about here? Is a guy who stares at artistic nudes once or twice per month or enjoys the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue just as out-of-the-question as a guy who is viewing hardcore videos 2-3 times per week? If so, there's going to be almost no man who passes this test. And "use" implies it is ongoing. Given how much we are told  by antiporn activists that porn damages the brain, shouldn't men who used porn be out of consideration, too?