Evil

As I understand it, there's only one human being who never sinned. But some evil goes beyond and elicits my outrage.

Deandre Fitzgerald Green, a two year old boy, was beaten to death, allegedly by the boyfriend of his "mother". From LATimes.com’s Robert J. Lopez:

A 26-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of killing a 2-year-old Long Beach boy, police said.

Hector Ernest Jr. of Hawthorne is accused of slaying Deandre Fitzgerald Green, who was pronounced dead Saturday at Long Beach Memorial Hospital, police said.

And there’s this...

Detectives believe that neighbors in the 3100 block of Springfield Drive may have heard Deandre crying or being abused, according to the Police Department.

Ugh. What a nightmare. How can anyone live with themselves if they let this go on?

If you want to see a picture of Deandre (a nice picture), click through to this entry by Tony Barboza. Doesn't he look like the cutest thing?

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and the Hawthorne Police Department received at least two reports concerning a 2-year-old Long Beach boy before the child was killed, investigators said Tuesday.

At least one of the reports came from the boy’s relatives, said Officer Jackie Bezart of the Long Beach Police Department, which is investigating the death.

I read a comment by someone who said the boy's upset father was on the news, talking about how he tried to do something. This is an example of a case in which I would have supported "abduction" by the father. Unfortunately, he likely would have ended up in jail and the boy would have been back in danger.

The sad fact is, things like this are more likely to happen when a "honey" is brought into the life of a child. Parents with minor children should not do that. It's also too bad that the boy's father didn't pick a better woman to begin with.

Sheesh. I need to blog about something fun and light-hearted next.

Health Care and Domestic Violence?

I could write a lot on how the current efforts to expand federal government involvement in health care and insurance is even more unfair financially to men than other expansions of government. (It is also harmful to the independence of women and to women who earn higher incomes.) But as noted on The Playful Walrus, there are nine states that allow insurance companies to treat domestic violence as a preexisting condtion, and some people, including the current administration, find that troublesome and are presenting it as a womens' right issue. Never mind that women commit domestic violence as well - is it never reasonable for an insurance company to turn someone down who has a history of being abused?

Why should an insurance company be forced to take on someone who voluntarily subjects themselves to a situation that has already proven to be unnecessarily dangerous? And yes, it is voluntary. Dating is voluntary. Being alone in private with someone is voluntary. Shacking up is voluntary. Getting married is voluntary. Staying married is voluntary.

Should all insurance companies should be forced to insure someone (male or female) who keeps going back to someone who beats the crap out of them, or regularly assaults them? To me, it is a problem that only nine states allow insurance companies to treat this as a preexisting condition.

When Wedding Planning Lasts Longer Than Marriage

A couple I've known for many years - heck, they came to my wedding together, and that was over six years ago - have split after probably something like ten years together. They got married less than six months ago.

I know a different couple whose marriage was over about a year after it started (I watched these two exchange purity rings at their wedding).

Another friend's marriage was over after 15 months.

I knew a woman who had gone through a commitment ceremony with her female partner, birthed a daughter conceived through artificial insemination, and then after their relationship fell apart, she ended up marrying a guy. The guy walked out on her and her daughter several months later.

I also flew into a different state to see a cousin-once-removed get married, and to catch up with relatives; that marriage lasted less than a year. The way my cousin tells it, the young bride was used to the more expensive things in life, and she figured her new hubby would change his mind about his career path, which, although admirable, wasn't likely to make them rich. He didn't change his mind after they married, and she got out.

While not all of those examples involved relationships of several years, you may know a couple who finally married after something like six or more years of dating. You can see this sometimes in the world of celebrities. I don't have data or a graph to show, but I suspect that, once you get beyond five years, the longer a couple has been dating the higher the odds are that they'll divorce within a few years after they marry, especially if they had been shacking up. Perhaps it is a little different if one or both were in intensive education programs, like law school or medical school, and didn't want to marry until through with those things. But even then, people sometimes find that the person they wanted to be with while going through their education is not the person they want to be with when they are concentrating on career.

When I learn of a couple, famous or not, that is marrying after being a couple for seven, eight, or nine years, I expect that about a year or two after their wedding, I'll find out they've split.

Why? Well, I can take a guess or two.

You should know if a person you have been dating regularly would make the right spouse for you after about year. Certainly, by two years. Unless you have kept a very superficial relationship, then that period should have given you enough time to get to know the person and his or her personality quirks, habits, faults, and so forth and how you interact with that person in different kids of situations. You should have gotten a good idea of how you get along with that person's family and friends. You should have noticed any red flags. There are some rare exceptions.

Sometimes, a guy is trying to complete his education, or get established in his career, or take care of some debts, or set up a permanent household. If he has been making real progress toward those goals and will likely meet those goals within the next year, then it is certainly understandable why he has held off proposing. But if those priority goals are several years away, then it shouldn't be an exclusive dating situation.

But if everything is just kind of cruising along, then he may not want to get married. If he's getting sex, round-the-clock companionship, and even some regular laundry/maid service, he might not see what it is in it for him to marry. He may end up proposing because he was nagged into it, or figured it was the only way to keep her around.

That doesn't bode well for a lasting marriage.

Whenever anyone is together that long and then gets married, I fear the wedding is the last gasp of the relationship... people getting married because the relationship is bad or dying and they think it will make it better; or they think that's what they're supposed to do after such a long time; or to "redeem" the relationship after "investing" so much time, or at least to get a big party out of it.

Then after the parties are over, they realize it isn't really working, or not what they wanted.

Sometimes, a kid becomes the last gasp - but it is a terrible idea to get pregnant to try to save a relationship. It is hard to raise a child; many couples divorce soon after having a child. Some of that statistic is no doubt attributable to people who married mainly because of the pregnancy. Others are probably people who let the stress of parenting turn them on each other instead of to each other.

It is shame that people think marriage is going to make everything better. Yes, there are nice things about marriage. But it doesn't get rid of the problems a person has or the problems in their relationship.

So soon after we married, I was returning to our home after being out working. As I approached the door, I felt a sense of personal arrival, like "This is the way it is supposed to be." I don't think everyone will be hit with that feeling, and some who aren't take it to mean they have made a mistake. In some cases they are right.

In the most recent example, which got me thinking about writing this blog entry the first place, the couple married after he was in a good career for a few years and able to buy a house. She has left him for, as her father says, "some guy in a band."

Married Men Get More Sex - Part Seven

Ladies, I especially would like your insights and suggestions on this one (I always appreciate your comments, but this subtopic especially needs your perspective).

This is the last in this series for now.

It is easy for an unmarried man to get sex, and get a lot of it (see Part 1 and Part 5). Rejection by some women isn't a problem if he's willing to keep pursuing the ample supply of women who will engage in casual sex "even" with him.

But a married man who refuses to have sex with anyone other than his wife is in a different situation. If he's not getting enough sex to satisfy him, how can he get more sex from his wife?

The rules aren’t so clear here. I've read and heard things like "do more housework" and "buy flowers" and stuff like that, but every woman is different. My wife, for example, would consider my buying of flowers a waste of money. And yes, if a woman has less housework to do herself because someone else has done it (and not screwed it up and thus made more work for her), she's going to have more time and energy to spend on things like... lovemaking.

The experts/authors/lecturers who address this suggest dropping the kids off with family, getting a hotel room, putting candles and rose petals everywhere, and actually scheduling sex. But it isn't practical to do this three times a week.

So what to do?

Here's my embryonic, fuzzy list of tactics in no particular order:
1) Tell her you want it more often, in a positive way. Example: "There's nothing I'd rather do more than make love to you. I'd like to do that more often." That's better than, "Hey, you frigid nag – if you don’t put out more, I'm taking a trip to the brothel."
2) Consider what is thwarting lovemaking sessions, and work to change that. a) Where is all of the time and energy going? Do your schedules line up? This is a big problem for me as I have previously detailed. b) Is there a hormonal issue or other health problem that needs to be addressed by a doctor?
3) Attempt to initiate more frequently, regardless of the frequency of rejection.
4) Engage her in nonsexual forms of intimacy that may not, but could possibly, lead to sexual intimacy: back/shoulder rubs/massages; encouraging her to talk at length about things she enjoys or of which she is fond; leaving notes for her (paper, e-mail, voice mail, or texts).
5) Tell her, while not in a session of lovemaking, what you like about her body and what she does sexually.
6) Tell her what you enjoy doing with/to her.
7) Reassure her with compliments and appreciation.
8) Flirt – including when apart – treat her like a girlfriend.
9) Get in better shape.
10) Don't neglect grooming.
Notice, this is a lot more work than what an unmarried man has to do to get more sex – and wives with faithful husbands who want to make love to them have all of the power to determine when and where and how he will have sex. She suffers no legal, financial, and quite often no social sanction if she rejects him sometimes or all of the time. This is just one reason why it is critical that a man choose his wife wisely, only marrying a woman who truly cares about him.
Closing review/thoughts for this series...

I've said before that I, and a lot of other men, find the very same sex acts more enjoyable with a wife rather than a woman to whom we are not married. But we can't enjoy something that isn't happening.

I do believe that married people worldwide, in general, experience a higher frequency of sex than unmarried people, but there are a lot of men who find that they end up having less sex as husbands than they did as bachelors (even if that sex was with the woman who became their wife). Due to this and all of the other things that come along with marriage, someone who promotes marriage ought not promise an unmarried person that marriage will mean more sex.

Morally, I believe sex is for marriage and one should not engage in sex with someone other than their spouse.

Also true is that since sex is for marriage and is a gift from God to husband and wife, sex should be regularly and frequently enjoyed in marriage in a variety of ways.

(Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6,)


[Read my comments on this series over six years later.]

Married Men Get More Sex - Part Six

Since I wrote about how an unmarried man can get more sex than a married man (see Part 1 and Part 5), I think I should balance it out by pointing out that there are ways for a man to lower his risk of getting divorced. Statistics that say that anyone who marries is facing a 50% divorce rate are misleading, but they are frequently used as a reason men should avoid marriage.

Even if it is true that half of all marriages end in divorce, the statistic takes into account second, third, fourth, etc. marriages. The odds of two people, marrying for the first time, ending their marriage in divorce, is significantly less than 50%. But there are other factors, too.

I want to see the studies that track the divorce rates of first-marriage couples who:

1) Did not cohabitate with each other before marriage (shack up). (Perhaps include subsets including people who did not have sex with each other before marriage, people who married as virgins, etc.)
2) Frequently attend religious services together
3) Regularly have dinner or breakfast together
4) Are no more than seven years apart in age, with the male being older
5) Married in the 25-35 age range
6) Married after 12-30 months of dating
7) Were childless when they married
8) Had premarital counseling of some sort, which may mean multiple meetings with clergy or a class together
9) Were finished with their formal education when they married
10) Did not have significant debts, aside from mortgage or car payments
11) Didn't experience ongoing substance abuse

If someone does these things, I'm sure they're greatly reducing the odds of being divorced. Once married, if someone has picked the right person, they treat that person well, the odds are going to be even more favorable.

The next (and last, for now) installment will be about how a married man can get more sex. Read it here.

(Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5)

Married Men Get More Sex - Part Five

Let's grant for the sake of this writing that, in general, married people have more sex than unmarried people. Even if that is so, there are people who are unmarried who have more sex than the average married person, even a married person of similar age, economic status, and health. I detailed my own experience, showing that I had more frequently, on average, in my unmarried years than during my married years (which are still ongoing).

In today's social climate, there are things an unmarried man can do to have a sex life that includes more frequent sessions than the comparable married man.

I would like to see a study that tracks sexually active heterosexual males in various age categories:
21-25
36-30
31-35
36-40,
etc.
...in major metropolitan areas. Compare faithful married-with-children guys to unmarried childless guys who strictly adhere to these behaviors:

1) Does not keep "a" girlfriend, but rather seeks to have four or five nights a week of "dates", including scheduling more than one date a night (and perhaps canceling some), but never seeing the same woman more than once, maybe twice a week.
a) By "seeking" dates, I mean that online or in person, goes to where the easy women are to find new prospects.
b) By "dating" I mean meeting up after dark, preferably where she lives, otherwise an inexpensive establishment that serves hard alcohol, and moving the situation towards sex as quickly as possible - the location and activities of the date are chosen by him.
2) Does not spend more than $40 on a date.
3) Does not approach women in groups. Preferably, he acts like he is waiting for someone else until a woman approaches him, or does some other ruse (perhaps with an accomplice) that prompts a woman to approach him. This would include that he not buy drinks for a woman who asks him to, let alone for her friends. Ideally, only buys drinks (hard, not beer) for a woman who came to the establishment with him and will be leaving with him.
4) Only dates women ages 21 and up who drink, are childless, aren't virgins, aren't coworkers of his, aren't married, and do not exhibit signs of PTSD.
5) Stops seeing any woman who doesn't put out on the third date or earlier; leaves the first, second, or third date immediately if she takes a call, texts, or has a friend show up; stops seeing any woman who behaves violently.
6) Uses caller ID and/or answering machine/voice mail to avoid taking calls from women on the weekend, or more than one call per date, unless he knows for certain she will be inviting him over for sex.
7) Calls her only to initiate the next sexual encounter.
8) Always wears his own condom/or has had a vasectomy.
9) Does not stay, to sleep, spoon, or cuddle after sex or after she has said "no", "don’t", or "stop" to stop the sex.
10) Never reveals how much money he really makes, but may do things that give her the impression that he makes a lot.
11) Will only see women during the workweek, unless she is a sure thing.
12) Keeps each "relationship" to as close to booty call status as possible – does not move in or allow her to move in or leave anything at his place; if she gets to be too much work or makes demands she is gone; no gifts, birthdays, holidays, or anniversaries; no meeting family or friends; does nothing to give her the impression he is only seeing her; avoids offering compliments other than backhanded compliments.

Most of these are adapted from Tom Leykis, designed to maximize the amount of sex a guy is getting from easy women and minimize the amount of time and money he spends in doing so, and to avoid indicating that he is looking for a relationship and marriage. These things "work" because there are plenty of women out there who will readily have sex with jerks they hardly know. Some just want male attention - any kind of attention, some have more libido than they have reservations about casual sex, and some are just too busy with career for a relationship. Whatever the reason, they respond to these tactics, and a guy who uses them can easily get more sex than most married men.

Although I suppose you can say I "audited" Leykis' "course", I was never a student as I didn't frequent bars, and didn't do anything to give any woman the impression that I had more money, power, or potential than I actually had, and I wouldn't avoid meeting with friends of women I was dating in my post-girlfriend years. Also, I would typically (but not always) spend the night and sometimes spent more than $40 on dates, and I don't think I ever bought a single drink for a woman who was meeting me for a date. But I do know from experience that some women will try all the harder to have sex with you if you are emotionally distant and refuse to entertain their dreams of a relationship. I do know that a guy doesn't have to be a faux-sensitive doormat who acts like a woman's trained puppy to have unmarried sex. Plenty of attractive women will have sex with unreliable, unhelpful, plain-looking guys without any sign or sort of commitment. The irony is that some of these women will hold out if they think there's a chance a guy will marry them and would be a good husband.

Anyway, I'd like to see the sexual frequency rates under such conditions. Heck, take away points for contracting STDs. Major loss of points if he is killed while at her place. I bet most of the unmarried game-players would get more sex than most of the married guys. Someone can do a masters thesis on this, maybe even get a doctorate.

Coming next: How to lower the chances of getting a divorce. (Read Part 6)
(Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4)

Married Men Get More Sex - Part Four

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Married Men Get More Sex - Part Three

I wanted to address morality before I go further with this series (Part 1, Part 2). I am not neutral. Although for the sake of discussion I am comparing married sex to unmarried sex as though there is no difference, I do believe there is a difference. I believe that spouses having sex with each other is generally a positive thing, and people who are not married to each other having sex is generally a destructive thing.

So even if it was proven that marriage means less sex than being unmarried, that reason alone is not enough for me to discourage marriage. [*] The more sex a person has outside of marriage, the more damage they are doing to themselves and others. A loose analogy is that someone who engages in counterfeiting money may have a lot more money than someone is doing an honest job. But the counterfeiter isn't supposed to have that money. It doesn't matter if the clerk knows the money is counterfeit and still accepts it – it is still wrong.

I realize that people who do not have a moral problem with certain sex outside of marriage, or any sex outside of marriage, will not accept such an analogy, but I offer it to give some insight into the thinking of those who do - who are often the very people touting that marriage means more sex.

Aside from religious prohibitions or related morality, some would argue that even if someone does get more sex while unmarried, that such sex is destructive and separates sex from a core purpose or one of its greatest benefits, namely bonding husband and wife, and is otherwise counterproductive as it may delay marriage, cause someone to bond with the wrong person, and take on behaviors incompatible with their future marriage partner. Women especially are different from each other, so when a man becomes accustomed to the give and take and nuances he has with one woman, this will likely interfere with a subsequent wife. An analogy here would be that it is like a man collecting rocks as he goes on a hike, the load getting heavier and heavier, and then when he gets to his destination, he finds he has to build a foundation using different rocks than the ones he collected on the way. In fact, he has to keep moving the rocks he brought out of the way as he builds, and they remain nearby, in the grass, catching his eye now and then as he tries to enjoy sitting on the porch with his wife.

Again, the reason why I am discussing this topic – the frequency of sex within marriage vs. outside of marriage – is because I have often heard and read that studies show married men have more sex than unmarried men. Which brings me to...

[*] Since marriage is more than sex, evidence that getting married means more sex may not be enough reason to get married. In other words, either way, there is much to consider in deciding to marry or not marry other than sex.

[Read Part 4, about other considerations besides frequency of sex.]

Drinking Women Stay Thin

According to a new study, there is a correlation is women between drinking in moderation and not getting fat. Shari Roan reports in the Los Angeles Times on the study.

Researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston examined data from 19,220 women enrolled in the long-running Women's Health Study. The women, all originally of healthy weight, provided health and lifestyle information over an average of 13 years.

After doing their best to adjust for other factors that influence weight, the researchers found that compared with women who did not drink, women who drank 15 to 30 grams a day -- the equivalent of a drink or two -- were 30% less likely to be overweight or obese at the end of the study period.

Category 4 guys already look for women who drink because drinking gives them an excuse to put out. Leykis advised his "students" to leave – end the date – the moment a woman reveals she doesn't drink, as the pool of easy women who don't drink on dates is too small to be worth playing the odds. It is a bonus that these women will be less likely to gain weight.

On the Los Angeles Times website, the readers seem to have picked up on this.

"covertmoose" wrote:

I have a better reason: the women who party worry more about their personal appearance than those who don't.

Quite possible.

Leykis did advise his students to avoid beer, instead opting for hard liquor or wine. The goal was for the woman to get buzzed, but not send her to the restroom sick or with a full bladder. I would be curious to see if there are weight differences between women who mostly drink beer and women who mostly drink hard liquor or wine.

As for married guys, this is all the more reason to enjoy a glass of wine with the wife.

Another Game of Switch the Sexes

What would you do if a man confided in you that his girlfriend was violent, to the point of regularly injuring him? Would you tell him to fight back? Keep living with her? If you're sane, you'd tell him to get out of that relationship and do everything to avoid her.

In a Los Angeles-area paper The Daily Breeze, Denise Nix reports on a case I found interesting.

A woman who stabbed and killed her boyfriend during a dispute in Gardena was sentenced Tuesday to probation and ordered to attend domestic violence counseling, according to prosecutors.

Lloya Williams, 24, was originally charged with murder for the death of Antoine Benbo, 27, on April 11.

However, the charge was reduced to voluntary manslaughter after an expert testified at a preliminary hearing that Williams' actions were consistent with battered women's syndrome, according to Deputy District Attorney Lana Kim.

We're not living in the 60s or 70s. This didn't take place in the middle of nowhere. If someone attacks you for the first time and you kill them in self defense, then I can understand that. If someone attacks you and you stay with them, then I don't care what you call it, but you're putting yourself in the situation. Yes, assault is wrong. But were Williams' fatal actions really justified? I guess we'll have to take the expert's word for it.

At the time of his death, Benbo was on probation for a domestic violence conviction against Williams, Kim added.

So she knew he was violent and would be violent towards her. Yet...

Williams stabbed Benbo in the chest with a kitchen knife during an argument at their trailer park home in the 13800 block of South Vermont Avenue.

Their home? She was still living with him?

Again, I don't defend the Benbo's actions. He sounds like an evil guy. But what if the sexes were reversed? Are only women excused by hormones and syndromes when it comes to violence between the sexes?

I certainly hope she gets better at picking men, though it would be very risky to date her, so perhaps any man who agrees to date her would be, by definition, not the right man.

And guys - any woman crazy enough to stay with a guy who beats her is certainly crazy enough to kill him as payback. Beating each other is not okay. It is not "just the way relationships are". It is the way sick relationships are. Get help.

In Praise of Good Women

I spend a lot of time here pointing out the stupid and evil things that some women (and men) do, and defending men from what I think is unfair treatment. Every once in a while I like offer a reminder that I appreciate good women.

If you poke around male-oriented websites, you can find some where the blogger or, more likely, some of the regular commenters express their dislike or hatred of women as a group. Now, I can agree that a man should be very cautious about trusting a woman - as people in general seem to be getting less trustworthy these days, and our culture generally enables bad behavior in women at the expens of men. I can understand frustration with the current climate between the sexes. But I can't go along with a general dislike of women.

I love women. I love my wife and many things about her and what she does. I love my mother and my sisters. None of these women are perfect, but that's okay. I love my daughter... who is too young to be a woman. I've had some great female coworkers and bosses who have become friends. I had some great women teachers. One of my most favorite singers is a woman. I appreciate the commentary and entertainment provided by women such as Dr. Laura, Tammy Bruce, and Ann Coulter.

Some women have made remarkable contributions to the world as wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, soldiers, leaders, artists, scientists, entrepreneurs, investors, and more. Women literally have a different way of analyzing the world around them and literally think differently, and that is often a valuable thing.

Women bring so much beauty to the world in may ways. I make no apologies for finding the female form to be captivating. Some (heterosexual) guys say they are happier not looking at or thinking about it at all. Just as I don't say marriage is right for them, they shouldn't say they know I'd be happier never admiring or thinking about the female form. They probably are happier never thinking about the beauty of women. But even if I wasn't married, I know I wouldn't be happier never thinking about the beauty of women.

I'm not saying that I think it is OK to leer at women or drool over provocative nude imagery. (Nor am I saying that women are only good as bodies.) But I could stare at my wife all day, and there's nothing wrong with a man admiring the form of a woman who walks by his line of sight, no more so than admiring a doe or a sunset. Sure, we have been marred by sin and admiration can quickly cross over into sinful lusting. There are worse sins, and women really shouldn't make a big deal about it if they catch the man in their life looking at a centerfold.

So while some men declare they would love an existence without having to interact with women, and some of those men look forward to the day when technology will make sex dolls (masturbation dolls, really) almost indistinguishably lifelike in their look, sound & speaking, smell & taste, feel, movement, and behavior - customized to the man's every minute idealized preference – I'm glad I have my wife, flaws and all.

Did You Knock Up Jessie Lauren Canfield?

Jessie Lauren Canfield, 24, of Santa Barbara, California, has been arrested and accused of dumping in the trash a baby she gave birth to at a party.

If she is convicted of murdering this baby, will we ever find out the name of the guy who made the mistake of knocking up a woman who would carry a baby to term and then dump it in the trash? Just because she'll let you stick it in doesn't mean you should. And... ever hear of condoms?

California has a "safe surrdender of newborns" law, and everything else I want to say about this story I've already said before.

The Law Applies to All

More men are filing sexual harassment claims, reports Associated Press writer Sam Hananel.

During more than two years as a food runner at an upscale steakhouse in Scottsdale, Ariz., [John] Pilkington says his male supervisor groped, fondled and otherwise sexually harassed him more than a dozen times.

I'm a firm believer in the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery. I'm also a firm believer in freedom of association and property rights – things that although are supposedly Constitutional, aren't enforced as well as the Thirteenth Amendment.

My point?

The way I see it, Pilkington had three possible good options if he didn't like the groping:

1. Go to the supervisor's boss or the business owner and complain. The owner should be responsible for the tone of the workplace.
2. Quit.
3. Tell the supervisor that he will quit if he does it again, and then quit if the supervisor does it again.

Now Pilkington, a married father of two, is the star witness in a federal lawsuit against Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar and one of a growing number of men claiming they are victims of sexual harassment in the workplace.

I fail to see why the owners of the steakhouse should be held responsible in a court of law if Pilkington didn't like the work atmosphere. He wasn't a slave. He was free to quit. Somehow, we go the idea in this country that if someone hires you, they are obligated to make you feel comfortable in perpetuity. They aren't – or shouldn't be. They are obligated to compensate you as mutually agreed for the work you do. If I hire someone to add on to my house, I should not be obligated to make sure that person is never offended by anything he sees at my house.

I agree that the supervisor's actions were wrong. But I don't think that everything that is wrong should be addressed in the law or a court.

From 1990 to 2009, the percentage of sexual harassment claims filed by men has doubled from 8 percent to 16 percent of all claims, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Well why not? The law applies to all. Either we have equality under the law or we don't. Some of the people who supported sexual harassment laws, like some supporters of other laws, only meant for the laws to be used by certain people against certain people - but that's too bad. I remember how upset some self-identified feminists, who had been so insistent that sexual harassment claims against (now Supreme Court Justice) Clarence Thomas be taken seriously, got when sexual harassment law was applied against President Clinton. That wasn't supposed to happen. Other feminists, like Tammy Bruce, recognized that Clinton's behavior was wrong and called him on it, and called other feminists out for defending Clinton.

Women still file the overwhelming majority of sexual harassment claims with the EEOC and state and local agencies.

That's a given considering the previous sentence – that 16 perfect of claims are filed by men. The options are kind of limited as to who is filing the rest.

While some cases allege harassment by female supervisors or co-workers, most charges involve men harassing other men.

That's because most men who are being sexually groped or pressured by females or being subjected to females exposing themselves or touching themselves don’t mind it. Okay, so I’m joking. Partially. Actually, it probably has more to do with testosterone. But hormone defenses in court cases don’t work as well for men as they do for women.

In the past, some employers might have shrugged off such antics as "boys will be boys" horseplay or fraternity-type behavior. But the EEOC has been filing more lawsuits involving male victims, saying it wants to send a message that such behavior is unacceptable and unlawful.

So not only have women been successful in making previously male cultures be readjusted to the sensitivity levels for women who are present, but even when a female isn't there, we're still supposed to act like there is a sensitive female there.

What ever happened to people handling things like grown-ups? Harassment is childish, but people used to respond along the lines of "sticks and stones may break my bones...". A clever comeback used to smooth the situation over. A swift kick to the nuts of the groping supervisor would have done much to get the message across.

The EEOC said the abusers would drag some victims kicking and screaming into a walk-in refrigerator, touching and grinding against the victims' genitals and take turns simulating rape.

There's a difference between harassment and assault.

Again, I do not justify harassment. It is morally wrong. But what we're seeing is a predictable result of 1) women making inroads into previously male-only professions and positions; 2) a general increase in crudeness and sexuality in the culture; and 3) the ideas that we have a right to ongoing employment regardless of what our boss thinks and a right to not be offended or uncomfortable when interacting with other people.

I'll stop here before I end up rewriting the rest of what I already wrote in this previous entry.

There's a lot of truth in this video from Saturday Night Live.

Married Men Get More Sex - Part Two

I hear/read that married people have more (and more satisfying) sex than people who aren't married. As someone who is now married, this hasn't been my experience – probably because we have young two children. (See Part One) And there are plenty of people who claim experience that goes against this well-known data.

Why?

Even without my own personal experience, we know that: 1. Statistics can be misleading, and 2. Individual cases can be different. For example, if marriage is 90% likely to mean more sex, then there is 10% for whom remaining unmarried means more sex, or at least the same amount.

Here are some considerations for studies/polls that say married people have more sex than unmarried people:

1. We don't know how much sex any particular person would be having if that person had chosen a different path. In other words, we don't know how much sex married John Doe would be having if he had decided to shack up instead, or just had a series of steady girlfriends, or stayed single but dated. We don't know how much sex bachelor Mark Smith would be having if he had married instead.

2. Perhaps the kind of people who are likely to have more sex are the kind of people to get married to begin with. (I discussed both of these first two points before.) Let’s face it, a young, healthy, tall, outgoing, rich, attractive man is more likely to attract a wife or a sex partner. He can attract sex partners without being married.

3. How is the data obtained? Anonymously and alone? Couples meeting with counselors? Unwritten memories – like when morbidly obese people swear they've been eating nothing other than 1000 calories a day of low-fat, low-suger food for the past two years? Are these people keeping a journal? As "liberated" as women are these days, many will lie about how much sex they have had outside of marriage. Women will frequently lie about sex outside of marriage toward claiming fewer partners and encounters than they have really experienced, because they don't want to admit to behavior that they think will make them look slutty. Conversely, married people may overstate the amount of sex they are having becauase they think that is what they are supposed to say.

4. Mixing the USA or Canada or Great Britain or the Netherlands in with Saudi Arabia or Bangladesh or Guatemala or Malaysia or whatever doesn't quite work. Even comparing rural areas in the USA with major metropolitan areas like Los Angeles makes a difference. Some places are more discouraging – by law or socialization or general culture – to unmarried sex than others. Check the bar/club to church ratio. Of course the average unmarried person living in a small town where everyone belongs to the same Baptist church or Mormon stake (I think that's what they call it), with or near family is going to be having less sex than the average married person. But what about the bachelor who lives in a condo tower in the middle of a densely populated area where nobody knows - or cares - that he brings various women he barely knows back to his pad?

5. "Unmarried" is a huge category. It can include: a) 10-17 year-olds, b) people in comas or otherwise severely physically limited including very elderly widows, c) people with hormonal imbalances and thus no sex drive, d) the incarcerated , e) the deployed, f) monks/priests/nuns who have taken a vow of celibacy, g) others who have resolved to abstain until marriage h) LGBT, i) people in the process of getting divorced or are newly divorced, j) people shacking up, k) unmarried people with a regular partner but not living with that partner, l) people who are single – you get the idea.

The best studies will compare people who are married to people who are unmarried who are the same ages, roughly the same economic status, and in live in close proximity, breaking the categories of "unmarried" down into sexually active people who a) shack up; b) do not shack up but have a steady partner; c) play the field.

There's a lot more to discuss about this topic, so this series will continue.

[Read Part 3, in which I give a disclaimer about moral considerations.]

I Don't Want to Go On Vacation

We're going on vacation later this year. We're going to attend a wedding in another part of the country, so that got the ball rolling. Then my wife decided she wants to get together with some old friends and pen pals. But it couldn't be the same day as the wedding, which is on a Saturday, so she chose the following Saturday for the get-together. I just found that part out. I had been hoping for a trip that was going to be an extended weekend. Instead, it is going to be over a week.

Vacations are great when you work have the kind of job in which work doesn't accumulate. For example, if you’re a waiter, someone else is going to do the work while you’re gone. That's not how I make my money. For me, vacations mean either losing money or doing the same amount of work – just doing it before and after my vacation, in addition to all of the other work I would normally do. This stress can be countered by having a relaxing vacation.

I don't expect this vacation will be relaxing.

We've traveled a couple of times with one kid. One of the trips we consider a bad memory. Now we have two young kids.

Flying in general has gotten to be more of a hassle and more expensive ever since 9/11. Flying with young children is even more of a hassle. If I was flying some place for a week, I used to be able to pack all I needed into whatever I was carrying on with me. No chance of it getting lost. No waiting for it to be unloaded. That went out the window with getting married – add a couple of kids, and forget it!

I'm one of those people who do not want to be a burden or annoyance on others. So I really don't want to subject other passengers to my kids if they start screaming or getting restless, and I know kids can be bothered by airliner pressurization.

I wish we had the time to take a train. My family took a couple of long train trips when I was a kid, and I liked being able to walk on the train to stretch my legs and see the scenery. Having a private cabin avoids being an annoyance others.

Flying itself doesn't scare me, though someone near and dear to me was killed in an airplane crash. I get more concerned when we land and I realize I'm going to get into a rental car and drive unfamiliar roads, which is far more dangerous. We're doing that, too. Even "better" – the airport into which we'll be flying will mean having to drive for a couple hours to get to our destination. Gotta strap in those car seats – hopefully the airline won't lose them or delay them (that happened to us before).

Someone has to keep an eye on the house while we're gone, and we have to make arrangements for the dog. That's likely going to be another expense, and less than ideal for the dog.

So, will the kids really behave during the wedding? I have my doubts. Kids get bored silly at such things. It is not in their nature to sit there quietly for long periods of time while people they really don't know go through a formal ceremony. I'll remove them if they can't handle it. Maybe we should add to such ceremonies magic tricks, fire-breathing, and puppets that look like fruit singing annoying songs about sharing?

And then there's sex. I don't see how that's going to happen on this trip. I probably won't even be able to let off steam.

If I recall correctly, it was on the last flight I took with my wife before we had kids that we discovered how much she liked it when I let my fingers do the walking up her skirt right there in our seats. Some dude was sleeping on my other side (or doing a good job of faking it) and we had a blanket to conceal what was going on. From what I understand, this is not uncommon. My wife was turned on something fierce. She's one of those "good girls" who gets a thrill from being "bad" in ways like that. Ain't going to be able to do that this time.

I really don't want to go. Sending her alone or with one or both kids isn't an option. Beyond reading up on some tips to minimize the things I won't like about this trip, I'll need to just stop thinking about it so that I don't stew over something I can't change.

Any advice or tips on preparing for this trip?

Sometimes I read back through entries like this think I'm too uptight and enjoy being alone too much, and as a result I'm robbing my wife and kids. Presenting a happy, pleasant front is good. It is even better if it is genuine.

Biblical Manhood Blog Gets Mothballed

I'm sad to see another good blog get mothballed.

There now plenty of blogs and other online places that defend men and masculinity - but some (not all) by attacking women as a group.

There are places that tell men gpod reasons why they should not get married - but many of them encourage men to go ahead and fornicate.

There are "father's rights" and "men's rights" bloggers.

There are plenty of "Christian" or "conservative" blogs encouraging men to marry and procreate (and casting suspicion on those who don't), and blaming men for most, if not all, of the sufferings and discontents of women, and placing (almost) all of the blame on husbands for anything a woman sees as a problem in marriage.

But Biblical Manhood has been a thought-provoking place that first and foremost called on men to follow Christ. The blogger skillfully applied the Scriptures to defend masculinity, men, and being unmarried, often exposing the problems in some of the statements made on some major Christian websites and some cultural problems in general.

I hope the blog is left intact, unlike some other good ones that have been deleted. I will be moving it in the column on the right, since it will no longer be updated.

Keeping a blog going can be challenging. We all should have our priorities, and when blogging interferes with more important matters, or the topic has run its course, then stopping makes sense. But that doesn't stop me from missing some bloggers who have left.

Mind Games

One of the blogs in my blogroll is "A Shrink For Men". It bills itself as "a blog for professional men in complicated relationships and dissatisfying careers combining psychology, insight, humor, irony, sexuality, and social commentary."

Although geared towards men, the ladies can find some important insight there – and it could be helpful to a brother, son, or friend.

I want to call special attention to this recent entry there, entitled "How Abusive Women Brainwash You". Some of the techniques described are also employed by abusive men, but men no doubt have other techniques women don’t tend to use. I am fascinated by brainwashing, but also groupthink and cultic behavior – which can both go hand in hand with brainwashing. A group doesn’t have to be overtly religious to be cultic – it could be a political group, a club, even just a bunch of people starting out as friends.

Here's a snippet from the essay, but I implore you to check out the whole thing.

You question your judgment, perceptions and sense of reality. She tells you she loves you yet continues to treat you horribly. You believe she loves you and that you must be a colossal jerk for her to always be so upset. If she's successfully isolated you or gotten you to isolate yourself, you can’t reality test her version of events or receive outside support. By this time, she's made you totally dependent upon her and solely focused upon pleasing her, gaining her approval and avoiding her wrath or disapproval. You probably feel completely alone. Alternatively, if you're still in contact with friends and family, you fear that if you tell them what's going on that they wouldn't believe you or wouldn’t understand.

Married Men Get More Sex - Part One

The studies and statistics say they do (see here and here for just two examples), and this is one of the "selling points" of marriage. But statistics aren't guarantees of individual reality.

To again paraphrase what was said over at The Opine Editorials, which was about health correlating to marriage, and I paraphrased on this blog to look at wealth correlating to marriage, perhaps it is the men who have more sex or have the potential to have more sex who get married:

As a married man, I'd like to believe that marriage does [increase the frequency of sex], as many studies report. But I do have to wonder if the correlation is entirely one-directional, or if [sexual] people or people [more likely to have sex more often] are more likely to get married in the first place? I mean, all other things being equal, who is attracted to and wants to marry someone who is [asexual, unattractive, has a low sex drive, or is somehow incapable of having frequent sex]? While we can get averages, we can't compare me, a married father at my age, to me at the same age having never been married or a father. We can't compare John Doe #1, unmarried and childless at his age, to John Doe #1, same age, married and with children.

Maybe the healthier, wealthier people are more likely to get married and more likely to have sex?

I'm going to evaluate my own experiences with this topic. Once again for the record, yes, as an unmarried man I fornicated. No, I do not endorse fornication. I never really have, even though I did it myself. I do believe that sex is for marriage, and that I was wrong to fornicate. I also believe that overeating is wrong, yet I do that sometimes, too. I no longer fornicate and didn't for a while before I met my wife.

If you can't handle that I will be writing about my fornication or marital lovemaking, then skip the rest of this entry.

The fact is, though, that I did fornicate, and I know exactly what I did and didn't do, so I'm going to draw upon my own personal experiences. Note: At no time through all of this did I ever shack up. I didn't even live with my wife until we married.

I had three long-term girlfriends, including one who was significantly older than me. With the first one, I had about 17 months of regular sexual activity, as I did with the second one. With the third one, I had about 37 months. There were significant gaps in time between the three relationships – spells that that were almost entirely dry, and I'm including in those dry spells the time I wasn't having sex with the second and third girlfriends. From losing my virginity to when regular sex ended with the third girlfriend, a total of 100 months passed.

With each girlfriend, I almost always had sex about 3-4 times a week, usually involving sleeping over[1]. So I figure 14 times a month is an accurate enough, though conservative number, for a total of 994 times. Averaging that out over 100 months total, we get and average of 9.94 times per month.

I have been married for over six years. There may have been a time in our marriage, like the beginning, during which we were having sex 3-4 times per week[2]. Then certain things got in the way. My wife had workplace problems that brought on depression for many months. She had a bout with a recurring illness. We've been through two pregnancies[3], followed by two births, two breastfeeding regimens, and now we have two young kids. From what I've heard, some women get extra horny during pregnancy. No so with my wife. Pregnancy mostly reduced her drive to nothing, and breastfeeding kept it reduced, and mostly meant her breasts were off limits. Having two little kids around, as most parents can vouch, greatly reduces the energy and time windows for sex. I should note here that I thought my wife was especially beautiful and sexy while pregnant and nursing, and seeing my children emerge from her vagina in no way reduced my attraction to her – it probably increased it.

My wife doesn't work outside of the home anymore (which is good – she stopped before even getting pregnant the first time), but still keeps different sleeping hours than mine, and orgasms keep her awake. This further restricts our sex life. We're not at a place where the kids will both go to sleep (and fall asleep) the same time (or just before)I do, which would enable my wife to "put me to sleep" and enjoy the aftereffects of her own climax before she finally retires herself later on. I suppose I could set my alarm to wake up early and initiate, but I've never been good performing that way on a time limit, and the kids are more likely to interrupt, and it would deprive my wife of a considerable amount of sleep[4]. Is there a solution here that I'm not seeing???

The Bottom Line (no pun intended)...

We've been having quick, rather vanilla/repetitive/almost clinical, once-a-week, mostly one-sided sessions for quite a while now, usually involving her waking me up from a dead sleep (I don't get enough sleep as it is), though not as creatively as she could. That means we've been doing it 4-5 times a month (and usually not taking her to climax, which I really, really like doing). There's no way we've averaged 9.94 times a month when considering the whole marriage.
Verdict: I am currently one of the people who can say I got more sex while unmarried than married[5].

But wait a minute. There was a time when I had decided having a girlfriend wasn't a good idea, but I still dated, and I did get a lot less sex [6].

Counting all of the sexual encounters[7] during this post-girlfriend time period up until my wife and I started seeing each other[8], then the conservative rate is an average of 7 times per month from the time I became sexually active until my wife and I started seeing each other. That's still more than I'm getting now and could be more than my overall marriage - especially if you factor into my marriage the time we were together before we got married, when we weren't/I wasn't having sex.

Mind you my wife is someone who understands that husbands "need" sex and she does care... or at least she is really good at faking she does. I don't think she would reject me if I were to, say, change my work schedule so that I could be there every day when she wakes up. But we'd still have the kids to work around, and changing my work schedule would mean a major overhaul of our lives and other trade-offs.

This is all about the sex only, of course. There are other factors to consider, and marriage has definitely been good to me in some ways. But this entry is already long enough, so I will have to discuss those differences another time. There's a lot of related things I want to write.

It is also from a strictly amoral context – simply looking at the frequency of sex, not distinguishing between fornication and marital lovemaking. That is one of the things I will return to in a subsequent posting, in a way that is different than what I wrote before.

[Read Part 2, on why stats say that married men have more sex.]

[Read my comments on this series over six years later.]

Notes:
[1] I'm being conservative because I'm not including multiple goes in the same session/night. These sessions almost always involved intercourse, and even when they didn't, they still involved mutual climax.

[2] We waited until marriage for full sex, but were heavy on the kissing and crossed a few boundaries, especially close to the wedding.

[3] None of these things happened with any of my girlfriends.

[4] She has repeatedly insisted that she doesn't "need" to orgasm frequently, let alone with each session. In almost every sexual encounter outside of marriage, before I met my wife, bringing my date/girlfriend to climax was a regular part of it, and I enjoyed that. A lot. It is a turn on for me.

[5] Being someone who now believes in marriage, including saving sex for marriage, (though I do not think everyone should get married and would advise a lot people against it in their current conditions), I wish this wasn't so. I wish I could tell younger males that I consistently get more and better sex than I did when I was unmarried, but that would be a lie. Also note that most married people have children. I will not consider having sex with anyone other than my wife. Heck, even with my girlfriends, I was monogamous.

[6] To some extent, I used a few aspects of "game" or "Leykis 101" to get sex while not having a girlfriend, without: implying I was looking to get married or even be monogamous; lying; allowing a woman to treat me as a doormat, ATM, or servant; pretending to care about/enjoy things I didn't; or contracting an STI or creating a kid.

During that time period, I was working some crazy amount of hours between more than one job, and I didn't frequent bars or other hookup places. My prospects came mostly from online communications that weren't specifically pick-up sites, and were cultivated through conversations over months.

It is possible I would have continued to go without fornicating even if I had never met my wife (see note 8 below). It is also possible that I may instead have adopted more game, including going to hookup hangouts and using social networking for hookups, and thus increased my numbers. I could also have contracted some killer disease or been stabbed by a crazy date. There's no way of knowing for sure. What I do know is that the frequency was greater when I was unmarried than it is now that I'm married and a father.

[7] Encounters that usually involved mutual climax, even if not all involved intercourse.

[8] Again, I did not fornicate or even really make out with a date for a while before meeting my wife, as I was undergoing what I would describe as a spiritual healing and conditioning that, in retrospect, prepared me to find my wife and be a husband.

What Are You Watching?

The Opine Editorials is an excellent blog dealing with marriage and related issues, especially in defending marriage from courtroom and legislative attacks. There doesn't seem to be a clear distinction there between marriage and "marriage 2.0", but it seems to me that 2.0 is considered part of the problems being addressed.

You can't have a "marriage and family" blog these days without the issue of porn... uh... coming up... so to speak. There's a recent entry there linking to a piece on the harms of porn, and this subsequent piece (which links back to an earlier entry of mine) about all of the other things - especially media - other than porn that seem to escape the criticism porn gets, even though they can have the same sort of detrimental effects.

Shattered Crystal

False rape accusations are horrible for many reasons, including (but certainly not limited to) 1. making things more difficult for actual rape victims; 2. casting lingering suspicion and loss of reputation on the falsely accused; and 3. tying up law enforcement resources in a wild goose chase.

With that in mind, here is the latest on North Carolina’s Crystal Gayle Mangum, per The Smoking Gun:

The North Carolina woman who falsely accused a group of Duke lacrosse players of rape was arrested last night for allegedly assaulting her boyfriend and threatening to stab him.

I wonder if this matter will be handled the same way by the legal system, media, and domestic violence groups as it would be if the sexes were reversed?

The guy is foolish to associate with her, but let's not blame the victim.

According to Durham cops, Crystal Mangum, 31, got into a violent altercation with Milton Walker, and set his clothes on fire in a bathtub.

Isn't that arson? Why yes, she has been charged with that, too.

She also scratched and punched Walker, who was not arrested.

Why would he be arrested? How often, in stories of men being arrested for violence against women, do you see a mention of whether or not the woman was arrested? I guess it is noteworthy in this case because too often, men in positions like this ARE arrested, too.

Firemen were called to extinguish the bathroom blaze while Mangum, Walker, and three children were evacuated from their Lincoln Street residence.

Yes, three children were there. Lovely.

Mangum...was charged with a variety of crimes, including attempted murder, arson, simple assault, communicating threats, resisting arrest, and child endangerment.

Somewhere out there, there is a nice lady wondering why she can't get a date, while some guys will take up with a woman like this. Does this guy have a job?

A Durham Police Department arrest report notes that Mangum had not consumed drugs or alcohol before the 11:30 PM incident, and that she has a Mickey Mouse tattoo on her left arm and a Smurfs tattoo on her right leg.

No drugs or booze? Her defense lawyer will likely choose one or more of the following defenses: 1. It was self defense; 2. She's got a hormone condition; 3. This is PTSD from being raped/battered/having a bad childhood.

In 2006, Mangum, then working as an exotic dancer, claimed that she was sexually assaulted while performing at the Duke lacrosse party. Rape charges against three athletes were eventually dismissed when the North Carolina attorney general determined that there was insufficient evidence to back Mangum's claims.

That's an awfully light version of the story. The AG was thoroughly disgraced based on the lack of evidence and what was done to the players.

This story says she's 33. It also says...

Police charged her with attempted first-degree murder, five counts of arson, assault and battery, communicating threats, three counts of misdemeanor child abuse, injury to personal property, identity theft and resisting a public officer.

How long before she gets a reality show?

The three children inside the house, ages 3, 9 and 10, were not injured.

I wonder how many of those, if any, are Walker's?

If she's this nuts and hotheaded, she must be great in bed. But no guy should get near her ever again. The false rape allegations should have been enough. But this is also more than enough by itself. What are the odds Walker stays with her? High, I'd say, if she manages to get the charges reduced and doesn't have to serve a lot of time.

100 Cops Say Joshua Vasquez is a Tagger

Time for a chuckle. Richard Winton reported in this Los Angeles Times blog entry that an alleged graffiti vandal, in addition to allegedly making the mistake of tagging, picked one of the worst times and places to do it.

A 22-year-old graffiti tagger picked the wrong place Friday to leave his mark: a glass door at an aquatic center in Commerce that separated him from 100 Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies discussing having enough backup when chasing suspects, authorities said.

Joshua Vasquez looked shocked as a throng of deputies began running toward him, said Capt. Mike Parker, who was teaching the class. Vasquez turned and ran as at least 40 deputies crammed through the doorway to get him, Parker said. Vasquez tripped over his own feet and fell, Parker said, and deputies restrained him.

You can't make this stuff up.

"We were discussing the importance of having backup when engaged in foot pursuits," Parker said.

That's when the entire class was drawn to the doorway, where it looked like the suspect was waving at them, Parker said. "It turns out we could see him, but he couldn’t see us," he said.

I want to see video.

But the suspect didn't give up so easily, and he kicked out the rear window of a sheriff's cruiser before being further restrained, authorities said.

Yeah – keep adding to the charges against you.

You know, at 22, shouldn't he have put down the tagging tools and taken up with girls? I hope he turns his life around. If the story is true, he's kind of got a sad thing going.

"Winmancan" commented on the blog with a great idea:

I always thought that a proper punishment for taggers, would be an open house tagging party at their home. With a cop present, any one could enter and tag anything and everything in and around the residence...the structure itself, furniture, pictures, clothes etc.

Sounds good to me! Some of you in rural areas or nicer suburbs don't see just how much blight taggers cause in places like Commerce, California. It is constant and pervasive. So I got a good chuckle out of this story.

Dating Parents and A Questionable Ring

I usually wait a while before commenting on advice column installments (for more than one reason), but today, I just couldn’t sit on what I found in Dear Margo and Dear Abby, especially with Valentine's Day coming up.

"Torn" writes in to Dear Margo, and it gets titled "No One Needs a 17-Year-Old Dictator".

I am in my 50s, have been divorced for 10 years and have a 17-year-old daughter. Her dad is remarried.

That's too bad.

I’ve been seeing someone for 13 months, and my daughter can't stand him.

You started seeing him when she was 15 or so?

He is a nice guy, and there are no behaviors to dislike.

To you.

In fact, he's rarely been around her. She has no reason; she says she just doesn't like him and doesn't want him around.

She's 17. She's dealing with school and major choices about the future and teen drama. Her dad was already taken from her in a new marriage. Maybe she wants her mother to herself for her few remaining months at home, without her mother going through the drama and emotions of a dating relationship?

How to handle this?

Take a break from the dating. Go back to dating after she is 18 and on her own.

I've told her it’s my choice and my house, and I can have company.

It sure is your house. But she is your daughter. It was your choice to bring her into the world and raise her. Your obligation is to her, for a few more months.

(He has never stayed overnight with her around, only for a dinner here and there.)

Well, that's good that he hasn't stayed overnight with her around. But even if she's naïve she knows what happens when she isn't there.

The comments so far are mostly from people who suggest that the teen is being unjustly selfish or that perhaps the guy has made moves on her or has said things to her she found threatening. Certainly, the 17-year-old is more at risk for abuse because of the situation – according to statistics.

Dear Margo replied:

My position has always been that kids don't get a vote unless the "interloper" is obviously disreputable, snippy to the kid or a felon.

Wouldn't want to tick off your readers, now would you?

I think the approach you’ve been taking is just fine, and I would urge you to push her to articulate her dislike, and also to stick to your guns — in this case, your man.

He's not her man. He is someone she's doing. If she really isn't spending all that much time with him, it is not unlikely he is doing other women, too.

There's another letter is from a daughter whose father is planning to remarry near the time of his son's (her brother's) bar mitzvah. So that guy has a child as young as 12, and he's off and running with a new woman while the divorce is still in progress.

I hope I'm never in the position to be an unmarried parent of minor children. But if that happens to me, I would hope I would make my children more of a priority.

Dear Abby has this letter from DUMBFOUNDED OR JUST DUMB? IN FLORIDA:

I have been dating a man for four years.

Why four years? Was someone in school? In debt? What? When the (exclusive) dating goes on for more than two years, I have to wonder why someone who is marriage-minded would do that.

I told him I am ready to end our relationship if he isn't ready to get married within the next year.

Don't let the door hit you. What's he going to get by marrying you that he isn't getting now?

Two months ago, he gave me a beautiful 2 1/2-carat diamond ring and announced to family and friends that we are engaged.

Did he actually propose? Some guys do this to keep the sex going a while longer.

He has not discussed any wedding plans, but he says the wedding will be within the time frame I am asking for.

Sounds like you are getting down to the wire.

I went to a jeweler today to have the band on my ring enlarged a bit and was told that my stone is not a real diamond.

Why did you need the band enlarged? That could be a clue to what is going on.

Abby, this man owns his own business and is wealthy!

1) So what? Why is he obligated to buy you a 2 1/2-carat real diamond? What have you bought for him?

2) Are you sure he's wealthy? He could be in massive debt, either to the IRS or others.

He spends thousands on golf trips every year and just spent a great deal of money on high-end house furnishings.

And so maybe there is little left over? Is this guy really marriage material, or are you letting your "time invested" and your beliefs about his wealth blind you to something like bad priorities (if you’re looking for a husband) or bad spending habits?

I am embarrassed to tell anyone of this fraud.

Then don't. And it isn't a fraud unless he told you it is a real diamond. Or maybe he doesn't know himself and got cheated.

Am I fooling myself thinking that this man truly wants to marry me?

Probably. Why else would he go four years without asking you to marry him, and only buy you a ring after you gave a deadline? The cheaper ring is a less costly investment for him if he's just trying to get sex out of you for as long as he can. Dear Abby told her to talk with him about it. What's he going to say?

At least Dear Abby printed this suggestion from SERVICE OFFICER, AMERICAN LEGION POST IN MAINE:

Please remind your readers that a nice thing to do on Valentine's Day is to go to a veteran's hospital to visit the veterans who are there -- especially those from World War II, whose numbers are dwindling. The wards generally have parties going on for them.

Try to attend. You'll find a group of very appreciative people there.

Great idea.

Roscoe the Dog

I've been enjoying what I’ve caught of Dr. Laura this week. She is doing a good job of explaining to women the men in their lives.

With Valentine's Day approaching and the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue out, Dr. Laura has had material to point out to women that most men aren't really happy about Valentine's Day, and that men do appreciate the female form - and that is normal.

She read this letter on the air, titled "Why I Treat The Dog Better Than My Wife".

Roscoe seems quite willing to listen to me about my day with a simple stroke on his head. You aren't interested in my day and if I do try to tell you something you quickly change the subject so it can be about you...

You say I don't give you my opinion anymore. Gee, most times when I do you quickly tell me how wrong I am. Roscoe accepts my decisions and works with me as a partner instead of continuing to whine about how your way is better.

And why does Roscoe sleep in bed with us? Why not? It's not like there's anything else happening there other than sleep.

Click through to read the whole letter. It is about appreciation.

It is also good when Dr. Laura explains to men how they can show their appreciation to a good woman. Wouldn't it be nice if the appreciative people all found each other, instead of partnering up with someone who is miserable and indifferent? Don't do that to yourself.

Also, today, during her daily talk with the morning hosts on KFWB, I was also happy to hear her say that technology is wonderful - that it is up to us to use it well. She's been so on-target the last few days - at least what I've heard.

Susan Smith, Andrea Yates, Linda Wilborn?

Linda Wilborn, 31, of Seal Beach, a "mother" of four, has been arrested for the murder of her 22-month-old daughter (who had her heart ruptured) and for allegedly fracturing the skull of the girl's twin brother, according to Matt Coker of the Orange County Weekly.

From the Orange County District Attorney’s statement...

Millicent was transported to the hospital, but later died due to a ruptured heart despite the life-saving efforts of medical staff. Further examination of the victim revealed that she had fresh and old fractures to her ribs. An examination of her twin, John Doe, revealed that he had a fractured skull. The defendant is accused of causing the great bodily injuries that resulted in the death of Millicent, as well as the injuries to John Doe. The other two children did not have any physical signs of trauma.

Wilborn's three surviving children were placed in protective custody.

The eldest is three and the youngest is 8 months. That's a lot of kids in a short amount of time. Oh, if only there was some way we could avoid overwhelming ourselves with so many kids in such a short time frame.

In the two articles I have read, I have not seen any information about Wilborn's husband other than that he was working (otherwise, I'm sure he'd be the suspect). I'd really like to know more about this guy. Has he been married to her long enough to presume he is the father of the eldest? Or long enough for him to know what she was like before she gave birth, and to see if she became a menace after giving birth? How could he have not known about the prior abuse? Was there any indication his wife was going to beat her child to death?

Crazy women are great in the sack – ask any guy who has been around the block. But crazy women make horrible girlfriends, wives, and mothers. It is a really, really, really bad idea to knock up a crazy woman. It is evil to leave a child in the care of a crazy woman (or man, for that matter).

Remove Your Dentures First

FEELING USED IN BELLEVILLE, ILL. is an 84 year-old woman who has been a widow for ten years. She wrote in to Dear Abby:

I am torn about accepting requests from a man I used to work for to "come and visit" him. This is not an invitation for a date -- dinner, a movie, a drive. It's nothing but "a visit."

This happened before when I was divorced and living alone. The "visit" consisted of hugging, kissing and sex. That's all.

Booty call.

It made me feel cheap.

1) Did you not enjoy it? If you were just showing up because he is your boss, that was either sexual harassment or you trying to get an advantage at the office.

2) What’s the price supposed to be? (The correct answer is... marriage. But if you put out for dinner, then don’t try to make it sound like anything other than what it is.)

Although I would love to be kissed and hugged by a man as handsome as George Clooney, I feel he is trying to use me.

I’m not sure what she means by this. Either he’s very good looking, or his treatment of her would be okay in her book if he was.

There is never any mention of a "date."

Of course there isn’t. He’s getting what he wants as it is. If you aren’t, then don’t go.

Dear Abby responded:

The next time "Prince Charming" calls and asks you to pay a house call, smile into the receiver (which will make your tone warmer and friendlier) and tell him you'd be "delighted" to see him -- when he picks you up, takes you to dinner or a movie or even for a drive.

Notice that Dear Abby didn't tell her not to fornicate. She just tells her how to negotiate to get the other things she wants. Well, if that’s how the game is played, then he's going to move on. At that age, the numbers are decidedly in his favor as women outnumber men. Let's see... today's women in their mid or early 80s were 40 or so in the late 60s/early70s, when the "sexual revolution" was in full swing. There are probably some rather easy ones out there. And the letter writer can sit at home watching "Matlock" and "Murder, She Wrote", still not going to dinner or a movie or a drive and not having sex.

My grandfather outlived my grandmother in senior living. The women were like vultures, waiting for my grandmother to pass away.

It's nice to know the octogenarians are still getting it on. I hope my wife and I make it that long. In senior living, my grandparents had their own bedrooms but that could have been for the actual sleeping.

Yeah, I believe sex outside of marriage is a lesser experience and devalues sex (and is morally wrong). But I think a lot of people toss around the words "cheap" and "used" inappropriately, trying to describe their feelings of wishing things were different or wanting something to be more than it is. Sex is supposed to be consensual, and when people keep engaging in casual sex and then saying they feel used or cheap, then I think it has more to do other things than the sex itself - like with this letter writer, who apparently wouldn't feel used as long as the guy drove her around before bedding her.

Pants on the Ground, Socks on the Floor

Dr. Laura once took a call from a wife who was complaining about her husband leaving his socks on the floor. Later, she heard from a widow who would give anything to find that her husband was alive and with her, leaving his socks on the floor. So this "news blurb" from The Onion caught my eye:

The Best Thing That Ever Happened to Area Man Yelling at Him About Socks

Is a Mature Man Hard to Find?

Okay, I'm a little late with this one, but if you haven't seen it yet, you should check out this recent column from Dennis Prager, "Is America Still Making Men?"

If you are unfamiliar with Prager, he's a longtime radio host and author with a style that is usually polite and gentle, but firm. But the usual critics will dismiss him the same way they dismiss Michael Savage. Their loss. Prager airs live the same time Rush Limbaugh does, and while Limbaugh focuses on partisan politics, satire, and getting a rise out of the Left, Prager focuses a little less on partisan politics but is still decidely conservative, often talking about the larger issues behind current events. Regular topics of Prager's include religion (he's Jewish), happiness, and the differences between the sexes. Gender issues is what he wrote about in this column, hence the title.

What is a man (as opposed to a boy)? The traditional understanding was that a man is he who takes responsibility for others -- for his family, his community and his country -- and, of course, for himself. A man stood for ideals and values higher than himself. He conducted himself with dignity. And he was strong.

Anakin Niceguy may have something to say about that. Of course, all boys, provided they don't die, grow up to be men. But they don't all grow up to be mature, well-adjusted men. And no, I don't confuse apathy and letting women walk all over you as being mature and well-adjusted.

When I was a boy in the 1950s, without anyone expressly defining it, I knew what a man was supposed to be.

Oops. Dennis mentioned the 1950s. Certain people automatically insist that someone who speaks fondly about any aspect of the 1950s supports wife beatings, racist lynchings, witch hunts, and must want to kill all the gays, too. Yes, I actually found a blog entry trying (and failing) to counter this very column by Prager that took that route.

I wonder how many boys are told to "be a man" today; and if they were, would they have a clue as to what that meant? It would appear that for millions of American boys, this has not been the reality for decades. Many families and society as a whole seem to have forgotten boys need to be made into men.

He goes on to list nine main reasons, and there's a lot of truth in what he says.

Check it out.

Do Not Touch

Some guys have sworn off looking for wife. I say, don't give up hope! Here is a good word from a woman who is newly back on the market - something she recently wrote on a social networking site:

I want to apologize to all my friends for my temporary insanity. I tried to go off my medicine that controls my anxiety, ocd, anger, and depression. I guess I didn't realize I was such a bitch!!!!

If that isn't enough, then perhaps you'll like being a pseudo-father to her kids. They have different fathers - maybe you can persuade her to add a new kid that has your DNA?

In all seriousness, at least she did apologize. Still wouldn't want to live like that.

Yeah, ladies, I know there are plenty of bad male specimens, too. Feel free to share what you've seen and experienced. I often thank God that my wife is not typical.

Easy-To-Spot Red Flags

Some people are afraid of "losing" time they have invested in pursuit of someone else. But in some cases, there are easy-to-spot red flags that can save you a lot of time, money, energy, and emotion.

Some red flags are easier to spot than others. Some red flags are really more like yellow flags - you should talk over with your love interest – perhaps there's a misperception, or a temporary one-time condition that will soon be alleviated. Other red flags mean you should avoid that person, or at least avoid committing to that person – but then some of you aren't looking for commitment in the first place, so some of the red flags are going to be different.

Here are some easy-to-spot red flags.

Red Flag: What's in the Mail? You can tell a lot - good and bad - by what mail she has sitting around out in the open. Past-due bills? Catalogues from high-end stores? Parking/traffic tickets? Court/legal documents? Stuff from political/religious/nonprofit groups that have priorities incompatible with yours? N.O.W.?

Red Flag: This is kind of a subset of the one above. She subscribes to or regularly purchases wedding/bridal magazines. If you're looking for a wife, you might mistake this for a good thing, because you think it means she is marriage-minded. However, all these magazines indicate is that she is wedding minded. There's a huge difference. These magazines feed the idea that the wedding is all about her – not the two of you joining together before God. While these magazines may offer some money-saving tips, they rely on advertising – advertising from businesses that depend on you spending as much on your wedding and related festivities as possible. There is an exception to this red flag: She has a job that is related to weddings/wedding planning.

Red Flag: She kisses the dog. The bad news with this one is that by the time you see her do this, you have likely swapped germs with her – and thus, Fido, too. You may have heard that the mouth of dogs are "cleaner" than the mouths of humans. Even if that was true, they carry some different germs – germs you don’t need. Dogs stick their noses in iffy places. They lick themselves. The other day, my own dog (the dog came with my wife) ate some human feces (long story). One of the chicks on this season of "The Bachelor" lets her dog lick her lips. No thanks.

Red Flag: She has more than two cats. Isn't this one self explanatory? If not, just trust me on this one.

Red Flag: She always orders the most expensive things on the menu, but never makes a credible move to pay or split the cost. She sees you as an ATM. Exception: She lives in father or brother's house and doesn't really earn her own income, seeing has how she's always working in the family store or taking care of her nieces, nephews, or younger siblings/cousins and doing household chores. Still, she should at least refrain from always ordering the most expensive item.

Red Flag: You walk out of a restaurant where you had free soft drink refills and she requests driving through the fast food lane across the parking lot because she wants to order a soft drink. One of my ex-girlfriends did this. Plus, I don’t think there was a meal she ordered that she didn't send back for one reason or another. She had "issues". I had "issues", too, as evidenced by the fact that I kept seeing her as long as I did.

Red Flag: She drives a car that is beyond her means. Either she got some poor sucker to buy it for her, or she is paying high monthly payments on it, which means YOU will be paying for it. Exception: She won it on a game show.

Red Flag: Bad or hyper gag reflex. This is only a problem if you like receiving oral sex.

Red Flag: Her female relatives, especially the ones who are married/older, are all dumpy/fat. You can tell by the pictures she has on display. This indicates that your wedding cake will kick off a weight-gain cycle. Exception: You like that idea.

Red Flag: She has no female friends - all her friends are male. Most of those guys want into her pants. The ones who really are gay will likely be cutting you down behind your back. Yes, women can be difficult. But if she can't develop a friendship with at least one female outside of her family, it isn't a good sign.

Red Flag: Her place is a mess. Look, she knew you (or somebody else) was going to be back at her place that evening. She straightened up her place as much as she could with the time she had. If her place is a mess, your place together will be a bigger mess – unless you are fine with picking up after her as well as yourself. I'm not talking about the place being lived in. I'm talking about the place being a mess, dirty, dusty, or unsanitary.

So – what other easy-to-spot red flags can you name? They don't have to be universal. They could just be red flags for you. Ladies - can you think of some you'd tell your brothers or sons?