One Bad Argument Against Porn

I wrote and posted this almost seven years ago. It still holds up. pretty well and is still relevant.




Let me make it clear up front that I know porn is a bad thing, for various reasons. About the only kind of defensible "porn" is produced by a husband and wife with and for each other only – and I'm sure there are people who can make a good argument as to why even that is wrong.

But it doesn't help our cause – well, my cause, which is NOT to outlaw porn but rather discourage people from supporting it – if we use bad arguments that are easily shot down.

One of those bad arguments is some variation of this:

"Porn creates unrealistic expectations or is unrealistic in its portrayal of women and sex."

When you stop to think about it, almost all media creates unrealistic expectations or erroneous or incomplete depictions of people or activities or situations. It is very difficult for any book, any magazine, any film, or any television show to give a complete, in-depth, and unbiased portrayal of anything. (Same goes for theatre.)

Even the Bible (which I consider at the other end of the spectrum from porn… by light years) doesn't give all the details of the events described, or all of the character traits of human beings from years past – just the ones relevant to the message. I believe the Bible teaches us all we need to know to have fellowship with God. But it doesn’t tell us what Jesus had for dinner most nights of His pre-crucifixion ministry.

Getting more mundane – what about romance novels? Jewelry ads? Soap operas? Crime dramas where the DNA is tested within minutes and matched instantaneously and problems are all solved in less than 60 minutes when you ffwd through the commercial breaks? What about sitcoms where husbands are constantly mocked and berated, yet still manage to be cheerful and romantic? The NBA doesn't give a realistic portrayal of most men. Most of us aren’t 6'7", trim with bulging muscles, and able to run for an hour and still make slam dunks while three other giants try to stop us. Even the news doesn't even give well-rounded portrayals of most people covered.

It is kind of silly to tell our sons (or daughters, for that matter) that they should not view porn because it is unrealistic, and then go out and buy them the latest superhero movie blockbuster for them on Blu-ray. I watch "The Lord of the Rings", and nobody from my church says, "You really shouldn't do that. It is unrealistic."

It isn't like porn gives realistic portrayals of men, either, but you rarely hear that complaint. There are women who look like that (especially with surgery). There are women who behave that way, too. So it isn't entirely unrealistic, even if uncommon. But it usually does glorify fornication and adultery and encourage illicit lusts – those are some valid reasons to avoid it.

Notice, I'm not addressing the "degrading" argument in this piece. That is another matter.

Let's not use bad arguments, unless we're trying to get a laugh. Porn is bad, but not because it is unrealistic.

Itches and Scratch

The obsession in Evangelical circles about "porn" makes me cringe, because so many bad arguments are used, which discredit "our" side, and the disproportionate focus on it. I recently sat through a sermon (unfortunately one of my young kids was with me) from someone who was not the church's pastor, but had been doing a sermon series on "first things" when it comes to following Christ. This was supposed to be a sermon on Satan and his tactics. Yes, doctrine holds that Satan is a real, spiritual (not physical) being who interacts with human beings.

Despite supposedly being about Satan, it was more about porn than anything else. One must wonder what Satan was doing before the advent of photography.

Because Some People Care

Some people are finding this blog looking for an update on KFI AM 640, specifically "Thompson and Espinosa." I haven't read any print news about the matter, but from listening to KFI, I know that as of this past Monday 10/12, Gary Hoffmann, who'd most recently been the news anchor for mornings (and host of the 5 a.m. Wake Up Call hour), was teamed with Shannon Farren, who'd been news anchor (and occasional fill-in for John or Ken when one of them was out) during afternoons - to have their own two-hour show from 1-3pm.

Aron Bender, who'd anchored evening news and did the News Bender during Conway's show, is now the morning news anchor and host of Wake-Up Call. During the 5 a.m. hour, he's doing both the show hosting and the news anchoring, which has to be more difficult than it sounds.

So what this means is that "Thompson and Espinosa" got the ax. From what I heard, they might have gotten word about it last Friday 10/9 and briefly said "goodbye" at the end of their show. If an unofficial Facebook group is any indication, KFI fans mostly hated Espinosa. Mark Thompson  (not to be confused with the Mark Thompson who is now the great morning host of 100.3 FM The Sound, after having been half of the long-running not-as-great "Mark and Brian" show on KLOS FM 95.5) is still around, and does appear part-time on Conway's show. Speaking of Conway's show, Doug Steckler, who used to co-host on Fridays, is no longer there and according to what was said on The Tom Leykis Show, he considers himself retired from radio and politely declined to appear on Leykis' show (which is NOT radio, but rather Internet audio).

Some Men Are Masochists

...and I don't mean in the fun, sexual sense.

A picture popped up in my Facebook feed that caused me to laugh out loud and shake my head.

My ex-fiancee and her ex-husband posted a picture in an update that stated they were in a relationship (again). Read that again if you didn't quite catch it.

I've probably written about this before, but I'm not finding the entries so here's the background...

Sacrificing Much-Needed Sleep For Lackluster Lovemaking

After two and a half weeks since our last, and decidedly bland sex session, my wife stopped filibustering.

She'd asked me to finish some necessary tasks early enough that we could have time with each other. Usually, this "promise" of hers is hollow, or at least turns out not to come to fruition. And no, I don't always wait for her to initiate. I do try to initiate and usually get shot down or put off (which usually ends up being shot down). On the flip side, I don't think there's been a single time I've put her off when she has initiated, as I don't mind her initiating and actually enjoy it because it makes me feel wanted.

So, I made sure that everything was taken care of "early enough". I shaved (even though it would screw up my shave for work) and showered - and there's never any chance she'll surprise me in the shower. I made sure she knew when I was all done.

It's funny, that I bother to shower for these sessions, really, because she barely gets near me. But I did.

Finally, with about five hours to go until I'd be waking up for another full day of work, she sent me a text that she'd be right in. She's likely finishing watching a show, which she could resume watching whenever she wants, mind you.

She finally made it in half an hour after she sent the text, meaning it was now four and a half hours of sleeping time left, if I were to go to sleep right then.

Now, it's true I could have gone to sleep the moment after I was done with the grooming and cleaning. The problem with that is that she wouldn't have woken me up, and I would have gone an additional four-to-seven days before possibly getting a chance for sex again.

The rest of this entry is a little explicit, so here's your warning.

This Bites

During a recent session with our family therapist I was attending alone, the therapist ask me for what I would want as an ideal life.

What kind of question is that? What are the rules? I mean, do the laws of physics apply? If we're going to deal with the realm of possibilities, it would be that I would be unmarried, childless, and doing work for which I have much sincere enthusiasm. I can describe specifics but I won't, for the sake of privacy. This isn't to say I don't love my kids. I do. I love them a lot. They are the best thing about being married. I enjoy them, at least when they aren't physically attacking each other or me. It is that I don't think I am being the best father I could be for them. I think they're getting a raw deal between the combination of their mother and their father. But I can't do anything now about who their mother is, or what medications she couldn't go without while she was pregnant with them. And to be a better father than I am now, I'd have to drop work, and then we'd be without the money and benefits that are so desperately needed.

A Trap I Keep Avoiding

In person and over the phone, my mother-in-law has repeatedly changed her tone and reached out with what sounds like sincerity to solicit my confiding in her/father-in-law about difficulties with my wife.

Their daughter.

There are many reasons I avoid this trap.

In no particular order:

Does It Make a Difference Where Someone Finds Their Co-Adulterer?

I have to wonder if this was Dr. Laura's bias against online communications, especially when it comes to relationships, impacting the way she handled the last call she took on yesterday's show.

It was from a woman who has a three year old with her husband, saying she found her husband's info in the data hack of a certain website that requires pay for attempting to facilitate adultery.

"I have no advice for you." said our hostess.

That wasn't true. After all, she went on to give her advice. Perhaps Dr. Laura should have said "Things are going to be a mess no matter what."? There are some callers she refuses to give advice to because they're in the mess they're in because they didn't follow her teachings (even if they'd never heard of her before).

Before we were given any more details, Dr. Laura declared the caller's  husband to be a "louse".

Now, with most other women who call in and find out that their husbands are having an affair (this caller was saying that she had evidence he was looking to have one), Dr. Laura will ask them what kind of a wife they've been, and try to discern if the husband is a generally bad man or is a good man who made an immoral choice after his wife neglected him, because in the latter case the wife has the power to motivate her husband to vanquish the other woman and become faithful.

But instead of going into that line of discussion, Dr. Laura pronounced the caller's husband a louse. Based on all of my years of listening and reading, I'm thinking it was because he sought out an affair using a website.


The woman subsequently went on to say that she'd discovered an affair when she was eight moths pregnant, and that's another one of Dr Laura's hot buttons. She's much harder on husbands who cheat while their wives are pregnant than, say, when their kid is a year old, because then Dr. Laura says the woman's focus on the child to exclusion of her husband's needs was a problem.

Dr. Laura has also previously said that even if the couple splits up, as long as he's been an otherwise good father (aside from the major sin of cheating on the child's mother), he should be in the child's life as much as possible.



But in this case, Dr. Laura said "Go home to mom and have him visit. One of these days he's going to give you AIDS. You can't afford to risk this."

Well, yeah, that's possible when a husband cheats with a neighbor, too, so why is the advice different now? Again, perhaps it is a bias against use of technology, as she went on to say:

"He's on websites trolling for sex. He's a real piece of s---."

Trolling for adultery in the workplace cafeteria is OK?

In contrast to when she tells wives to give their straying husbands great sex, she said:

"He's not going to stay with you if you're not going to do him, and you'd be stupid to have sex with him... You can't have sex with him ever again."

Then she went on to tell the caller to get away from her husband and try to get him to sign away his parental rights.

So guys, you should never cheat. But the lesson here seems to be that if you are going to cheat, don't meet the person using a website or app.

Seriously, let's be clear here. People who used that website were wrong on many levels, in addition to committing adultery or attempting to. They were wasting money on something that is easy to get for free.

You Can Still Get Together Even If Dishes Are Dirty

If a man complains about his wife sexually rejecting him, women and feminized guys will often chastise him and say it must be his fault:

He's not treating her right.
He's not romancing her.
He's not doing enough of the housework.
He's not jumping through the right hoops.


In some of the cases, that might be true, but it isn't in all or perhaps even most cases.

Women, your sisters (and perhaps your younger selves) have exposed you. Most of you don't need your husband to do anything different or better in order for you to keep your vows and engage in what is supposed to be a mutually enjoyable activity.

How do we know? We know from many different things. These are just a few.

1) Unmarried guys don't have to do anything, or much at all, to get many women, even strangers, to have have sex with them. Guys are regularly getting sex in three dates or less, spending less than a grand total of $120 over three dates.

2) Married guys can commit adultery with plenty of willing women who usually don't require those guys to jump through a lot of hoops.

3) Whether they've actually done it or not, most women can name for their girlfriends one or more male celebrities they'd have sex with if they could just be in the same place at the same time. These women don't really know those celebrities at all. They've never spent time with them. Those celebrities have not done their dishes. Those celebrities have not taken them to nice dinners.

So most of this "she must have a good reason for rejecting her husband" stuff is crap. It's a load of dung. It's applicable only in rare examples in which a guy has become unhygenic due to mental illness or has done something extremely disgusting and immoral (child abuse, for example). (And even then, while some women rightly stop having sex with men like that, there are plenty of women still willing to have sex with molesters and murderers.)

It seems to me that all I ever had to do in my wayward youth was show up. I never had a girlfriend reject me. In fact, they were always the ones to bring sex into the relationship in the first place. Yes, I dated them. I took them out. Nothing lavishly expensive. I was kind and sweet to my girlfriends. But not once did any of them ever reject me and point to me failing to jump through this hoop or that hoop as the reason why. As time went on, I found that I could be aloof, uncommitted, unreliable, and unhelpful and still get sex.

So it's dung, in a lot of cases, that a wife "needs" her husband to do something differently or do something more in order for her to have sex with him.



Absent a better explanation, men like me are left to conclude that you're using sex as a loss leader, and once you've got us signed into a contract that is to your benefit, especially after there are children, your motivation is gone. You know what this tells men? It tells men not to marry and not to have children. It's also your loss as well as his. Sex is a great gift that He has given to a husband and wife. With the right attitudes, it doesn't ever have to be dull or routine. It can be very satisfying - mutually, and an experience of joy and delight.

Click on the tags for much related content, and don't miss this, this, or this.

Fessing Up

Well over a year ago, I wrote in this post about something I discerned from what little my wife's family told me just before I had to take her in for a psych hold a few years back and by paying close attention to what she and a family therapist did and did not say to each other in front of me. What I  had discerned is that she has been mentally ill on an ongoing basis, and, from time to time, very severe level, resulting in multiple suicide attempts and hospital stays.


I'd asked my wife about this and she continued to lie to me about it, denying her history.

Recently, while we met with with another family therapist, my wife, for the first time, explicitly recounted without details what I'd already discerned, dropping at least some of her lies.

Conditions Under Which My Wife Will Have Sex With Me

In case the title of this entry wasn't enough warning, this entry is entirely about marital sex.

Damned If You Do

WIFE: You never make decisions. You make me do all of that work.

ME [Makes more of the decisions after soliciting input and reasoning from wife. Some are different than she'd make.]

WIFE: You don't care about me! I don't matter! You're just going to do whatever you want to do anyway! You can forget about sex for this week and forever!

This is something I'm sure millions of husbands experience. There are many no-win scenarios when it comes to being a husband. Getting married means handing over your life and money to an irrational, moody being who makes unreasonable and arbitrary demands, and many end up leaving, blaming the husband for not being able to make her happy when nobody and nothing could make her happy.

How Is It?

How is it that the same guy who berates and threatens his listeners for not calling in on some days, saying he's not going to do the "heavy lifting", rambles on for 30-60 minutes without taking calls on other days?

And there's nothing like taking 45 minutes to say something that could be said in about ten. That's a real talent, and it is a good one to have when you sell advertising and subscriptions.

How to Piss Off Tom Leykis - UPDATED

[Bumped up May 21, 2015 because Tom is throwing a tantrum because of a tweet made by some average Joe, who expressed regret that Tom had ever been a role model for him. Because this tweeter was religion, Tom starting ranting on religion again. It's an awful lot of time and energy on something Tom claims not to care about.]


[Bumped up YET AGAIN on May 14, 2015 because Tom was again berating his listeners, calling them stupid, and mocking them for not filling all ten of his phone lines. When they actually did call, he often knocked down strawmen, seeming to miss the real points some of the callers were raising about why more listeners weren't calling in. You can't make this stuff up.]

[Bumped up AGAIN on June 17. 2014 because Tom is again scolding his listeners, noting that summertime brings a drop in calls, and he even cut one of his Monday shows off a half hour early.]

[Bumped up because Tom is "warning" (berating) his listeners a lot these days for not calling in. I don't think I've ever heard another show host lecturing his audience in this manner and tone. I'm sure plenty of hosts have contempt or disdain for their audience, but they don't come right out and say it on the show. How many hours of the show can be about the show? I like some "inside" stuff, as long as it isn't too much, and as long as the host isn't wagging his finger at me for not calling in.]

Tom Leykis has been doing a great job with his new venture, at least as far as his signature show goes. It is even better than when it was on corporate-shareholder FCC-constrained radio. He plans for most of the shows to run live 3pm-6pm Pacific Time, but if there is a high level of interest from the audience, especially if that includes a high volume of calls (perhaps because of breaking news, or a really hot topic), he may extend the show an hour or more. He can see in real time how many people are listening via various ways of getting his show, which is Internet-based rather than on AM or FM radio.

Listening closely to his tone and some of his comments, he does, from time to time, get irritated with a lack of calls, and even warns that he'll stop any given episode of the show when the calls stop and go off and enjoy his wealth, even if that means stopping that day's show early.

That's where the fun comes in.

One of his advertisers is an attorney. That attorney is regularly scheduled for the "bonus hour" of 6pm Pacific Time on Tuesdays. One Tuesday the attorney will talk about divorce/family law. The next Tuesday he'll talk about criminal defense law (especially relating to DUIs), and it alternates like so. Tom and the lawyer take calls after discussing what are usually relevant current events and the callers will get free legal advice to a certain extent.

Here's where Tom's audience has the opportunity to prank or punk him.

It seems to me that Tom has to do all three hours of Tuesday's show because he has to do the fourth hour with his advertiser, who obviously has asked to be on the "bonus" fourth hour because of needing to work before then. That means there is no way Tom is going to end the show early on a Tuesday. That means that if the audience refrains from calling in, Tom will have to vamp (as he likes to put it), most likely by chatting with the crew. Or less-than-stellar callers will be kept on the show for a long as possible.  Especially if Tom figures out that the audience is doing it on purpose, he may get irritated enough to go on a rant about his own audience.

If it happens regularly, I wouldn't be surprised if he starts doing the Tuesday show at 5pm or even 6pm.

Just something to think about if you want to get under his skin a little bit.

And Tom, if you're reading this - you're welcome.


UPDATE: He went on a rant today (July 8. 2013) about the lack of calls in July 1 & 2, and saying that's why they took July 3rd off, and he expressed his contempt for people who were criticizing him for taking the 3rd off. He even threatened to take the summer off. Today was his first live show since last Tuesday. Oh yeah, he's ticked. I think he expected that, by this date, he'd have a higher volume of quality calls and more people paying for the premium access rather than listening for free to the live stream or the repeating show (which repeats until the next live show).

A Grand Recap of Mother's Day

I failed to arrange anything special for Mother's Day.

Stick with me here.

My wife doesn't want things like flowers. She considers those a waste. Generally, when she wants something, she asks for it, and usually she gets it. She has a wish list which she prefers people use, but she hasn't updated in since she was preparing it for Christmas and the things left on it are for the kids, not her.

She pretty much just wanted to sleep in and relax on Mother's Day. I brought her a favorite drink that amounts to a milkshake with a slight coffee flavor, though it is marketed as coffee drink. I offered to bring her anything she might want to eat, but it seems she preferred food in the house she could grab herself, but even more so candy from her stash.

I wrote her a nice, positive note. It could have been more syrupy, but I kept it honest. I mean, I think we've done some lousy things as parents, as I think I've explained in other postings. I did not pick the the mother for my children I thought I was picking, and one who would be a good counter to my flaws that diminish my fathering, and for her to be a very good mother, she needed a different husband, one who could make up for the fact that she is physically a wreck, emotionally immature, and mentally ill.

But why didn't we do anything unusual for Mother's Day?

It struck me that almost every week, one, two, or three days are already Mother's Day.

1) She sleeps in as long as she wants.

2) She usually doesn't cook or clean or do any chores or those days.

3) She doesn't tend to the kids. I do. I keep them from killing each other, I make sure they are fed and washed and clothed, I take them places.

4) She gets to watch whatever she wants and play on her tablet as long as she wants.

So while I didn't do anything special for Mother's Day, she had a day a lot of mothers wish they could have.

This is the Reality of Many Husbands

Some really great letters are posted at Dr. Laura's website. Typically, there will be three letters posted every weekday. This is usually something distinct from things posted on her show's Facebook page.

Here's a recently printed letter from Peter.

Fifteen years ago, I married my sweet loving girlfriend after many years of dating. The first year of marriage was pretty bumpy, but then she read your book "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands". Wow, the marriage really got good.

Sounds great, right?

Fast forward to today and things have taken a turn for the worse. I like so many of your callers am no longer married to my girlfriend.  Instead I'm married to a bitchy wife with 3 kids. Now I understand 3 kids can be a handful, but here are a few thoughts from my perspective.

1.When you say guys don't communicate that's because we often get punished if we communicate.

Anything you say can and will be used against you. Not just what you say but how you say it.

She asked me what's wrong about a year ago and I made the mistake of telling her.

Sometimes, it is best to minimize interaction.

I get the house will be a mess with three kids, but every room is like a war zone. So instead of ever mentioning it again, I just put in some extra effort in doing the dishes for her, some laundry, picking up things. And now by me being helpful and proactive, she considers I'm still complaining...

Some women claim to agree to a division of labor. The husband is supposed to financially support the entire family and handle certain chores and errands (lawn care, automotive maintenance, etc), and they will handle most of the cooking, cleaning, and laundry. But then the women will do a little test. They'll stop doing some or all of the domestic chores and figure either their husband will do it himself or he will shell out cash to pay someone else to do it, even though he's already paying half of his salary for domestic considerations.

2.I didn't realize I signed up for a life of celibacy.

There isn't (any longer) a legal requirement not a social requirement that a wife actually be her husband's lover.

Again, I made the mistake of communicating my frustration. I also emailed her some quotes from you like, "This is the measure men have of how much their women love them". Now she says I'm just thinking of me.

So she doesn't enjoy sex? Most likely she seemed to enjoy it before the wedding and maybe even before the kids.

3.Men are reactive and not pro-active. She doesn't seem to understand, the woman sets the mood of the household. And men react to their woman's mood. If she is bitchy then I'm on guard and try to not communicate too much to avoid her wrath. If I confront her, it's twice as bad.  And if I avoid her, I'm still a bastard for being quiet and not communicating. Refer back to #1.

Yup. It's a rigged game.

4.Men aren't women. I'm not wrong because I don't react to the kids the same way you do. My experience?  When I lay down some rules, Mommy intervenes to tell the child Daddy is wrong for being angry. To undermine Daddy like that just sets up the kid to be a spoiled brat for the rest of its life.

And yet you know that if he backed off she would complain that he doesn't help parent.

In conclusion, there was time when I would have swam through shark infested waters to bring her a lemonade. Now I just seem to forget some of those presents at anniversaries and birthdays.

She no doubt complains to anyone listens about that.


Is this a man who can honestly tell his son or any other man that marriage is a good thing?

Something a Wife Doesn't Want to Find Out

Standard disclaimer about posts like this: I love Dr. Laura and her show. I do posts like these to express my few, usually minor, disagreements with how she handles some calls/topics. Also, this post is going to be about very adult topics.

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.

A Success Story

Let's get something straight right away. I'm still of the conviction that sex is for marriage.

Today’s Dr. Laura Show e-mail of the day comes from "Kelly" and is titled "Waiting Made It Better". I don't know if that’s Kelly's title or the title given to the letter by Dr. Laura or someone on her staff.

When my husband and I began dating, we were in our forties. Unfortunately, in our age group, sex is an expectation of even the most casual of dating.

That's an expectation of any age group from 16 years-old on up.

I knew I had a keeper when at the very beginning of our relationship, he agreed to wait until our wedding night!

Many women "knew they had a keeper" due to a similar agreement, only to find out that they married a man who has little to no interest in having/ability to have sex with her or women in general. This could be due to impotence, or trauma, hormonal problems, or a disorder, or only having attraction to children or males or inanimate objects. And then what? Well, many people who insist only having sex in marriage also insist on not divorcing. So you they find themselves enduring a lack of this kind of affection for the rest of their lives. That is more tolerable if someone is paying your way through life, but for men, it is less so.

This was made all the sweeter as we had both previously been married so we knew what comforts and pleasure we were missing.

So it isn't like they were curious and pent-up virgins. It's one thing to "wait" when you've had it as a regular part of your life before. It is another thing to wait when you've never had it, and we shouldn't pretend it is the same thing.

We celebrated our 5 year wedding anniversary this past Valentine's Day.

That's smart on his part - getting married on February 14. It cuts down by one the number of "special days" he has to make a big deal about. He gets even more points if he Kelly's birthday is December 25. If you're going to get married, guys, find a woman whose birthday is either 2/14 or 12/25 and get married on the other date.

We have a marriage that is not only passionate and getting more so each year, but we have peace in our home and the loving, trusting, never-going-to-leave-you-no-matter-what relationship we've always dreamed of.

If she's implying that he's:

• loving
• trustworthy
• never going to leave her no matter what

...because he was willing to wait, well, that isn't necessarily the case, as many women who married men who waited with them can testify. Also, "never-going-to-leave-you-no-matter-what" can be a very a problematic attitude. I made vows to my wife, but if she gets to strike three as far as risking harm my children, than I pray I have the guts to leave her.

Getting back to the title of the letter and her comment that "this was made all the sweeter". The fact is, we don't know. We have no idea what it would be like if they hadn't waited. She might be just as happy with everything now. And yes, things might have been not as good. We don’t know. What we do know is that for that amount of time, which they are never getting back, they weren't enjoying sex. We make these claims, implicitly or explicitly to younger generations that if they just wait, things will be great. It isn't necessarily so. There are real people out there who waited and have found things are not great - they may be awful. I'm glad things are great for Kelly and her husband, and wish them a long and happy life together, but it doesn't always so the same for everyone, and they're only five years in anyway and things could be very different in another five years. We can still make the case that waiting is the right thing to do without fostering unrealistic expectations that will leave some people confused and bitter.