I need to stop yelling at my wife and kids.
If for no other reason, my kids need one good parent who doesn't abuse or neglect them, and instead will protect them.
I think I know how I’ll be able to. In addition to all of the advice I have been gleaning from multiple sources, some personalized, I have decided that a significant problem has been my expectations. I've been frustrated because I expected my wife to be a functional, effective wife and mother. I expected this because she was eager to be a stay at home mother and I was glad she was eager to be, and that was the plan long before we married. I also expected it because she had been able live on her own and to work full time with children, and was educated in caring for children, child development, nutrition, etc.
But my expectations were not built on the whole truth, because I didn't know the whole truth. I'm not excusing my yelling, just explaining it. My expectations led to my frustrations which led to my yelling. Changing my expectations will be one the factors and that will allow me to stop the yelling. So far, I have restrained myself multiple times due to this shift in expectations.
Monday, May 19, 2014
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Who Has Time For Hobbies With All of These Appointments?
I've been seeing a therapist for a while. In addition to that, my wife and I have been, together, seeing a different therapist who has a lot of experience in dealing with situations in which one parent has a disability and the kids are acting out. This second therapist we sought to help us with our parenting because we’re apparently doing a horrible job.
There were a few simple things the therapist told us to do in order to help our marriage because the marriage is the foundation of the family, so this will eventually help our family dynamic. One was having a date night at the bare minimum of once per month. Another was sitting together and being together for a mere fifteen minutes in front of our children, without allowing the demands of the children or them demonstrating cage fighting techniques on each other to interrupt this time together. With weeks behind us since that those suggestions given, we haven’t done either.
We haven't done the second one because when I'm home and awake and the kids are home, my wife takes the opportunity to take time to herself.
We haven't done the first one because my wife prefers to put off doing chores until my family has our kids. OK, so my wife doesn't want to go out. How about some lovemaking? No, why would she want to that more than once per week? It's only minimally enjoyable for her because of the medication cocktail she'll be taking the rest of her life. Well, at least I can catch up on some desperately needed sleep, right? Uh, well... no. My wife had errands for me to run. That's my fault, I will admit. Instead of thinking of what would make her life easier, I should have told her "HELL NO I will not run errands, I'm going to get some sleep. You run the errands while I'm working the kids are still with my family." But I didn't.
My wife knows I'll eat one way or another, so she doesn't make a point to care if I eat.
My wife doesn't care if I'm extremely tired and not working to my potential. It doesn't cross her mind, I'm, sure, as long as the benefits are paid for and the bills are paid.
She could turn it around (and has) to say I have no idea what it is like living in her body. Which is when I want to scream with every ounce of energy I have left, "YOU CHOOSE TO GET MARRIED AND HAVE CHILDREN. JUST BECAUSE YOU WANTED IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD HAVE SET UP THIS SITUATION FOR CHILDREN!!!" She thinks the kids should just suck it up and have a limited life because their mother is disabled. Because their mother chose to become a mother knowing she was disabled and then experimented with treatments, leaving her a lot worse off than when we were dating.
The issues with the physical disability are bad enough, but there is no way I would have married her and had children with her if I knew of her mental health history (more of which has come out in the therapy) and her apparent need for ongoing medication for that. I didn't know because neither she nor her family were open with me about it before I married her, probably because they knew I wouldn't have married her.
I've been getting closer and closer to yelling the statement in caps up there two paragraphs up. The closest I came was when I congratulated her on getting what she wanted (to be a wife and mother), at the height of one family meltdown or another.
She has been saying to me what I've been thinking about her current effectiveness as a wife and as a mother, but when she says it I don't have the heart to explicitly agree. Instead, I tell her what she does right/well, or I ask her why she is saying what she is. I neither agree nor deny her statements. I don't want to deny them because, well, they're true, or at least I think they are.
Even though we don't have the money for it, we've been more or less replacing her with surrogates. We haven't sat down and verbalized that is what we're doing, but it is pretty much what we've been doing, slowly but surely. Of course, this does not extend to sex. Her responsibilities as a wife and mother are being increasingly offloaded onto others. Well, actually, mostly mother. I can survive without a wife, so the needs of the kids are what take priority.
At this point, without some sort of dramatic improvement in her physical condition due to finding the right treatment (or reverting back to the treatments she used to get), I don't see how we're going to avoid moving in with someone or having someone move in with us.
How does a therapist help a man deal effectively with staying in a difficult situation that he's in because he fell for fraud and misrepresentation? How does a therapist help a man deal with the fact that his own government will force him to support, for the rest of his life, the person who perpetrated this? How does a therapist help a man deal with the fact that all of this is cheating his kids out of the childhood he intended to give them?
There were a few simple things the therapist told us to do in order to help our marriage because the marriage is the foundation of the family, so this will eventually help our family dynamic. One was having a date night at the bare minimum of once per month. Another was sitting together and being together for a mere fifteen minutes in front of our children, without allowing the demands of the children or them demonstrating cage fighting techniques on each other to interrupt this time together. With weeks behind us since that those suggestions given, we haven’t done either.
We haven't done the second one because when I'm home and awake and the kids are home, my wife takes the opportunity to take time to herself.
We haven't done the first one because my wife prefers to put off doing chores until my family has our kids. OK, so my wife doesn't want to go out. How about some lovemaking? No, why would she want to that more than once per week? It's only minimally enjoyable for her because of the medication cocktail she'll be taking the rest of her life. Well, at least I can catch up on some desperately needed sleep, right? Uh, well... no. My wife had errands for me to run. That's my fault, I will admit. Instead of thinking of what would make her life easier, I should have told her "HELL NO I will not run errands, I'm going to get some sleep. You run the errands while I'm working the kids are still with my family." But I didn't.
My wife knows I'll eat one way or another, so she doesn't make a point to care if I eat.
My wife doesn't care if I'm extremely tired and not working to my potential. It doesn't cross her mind, I'm, sure, as long as the benefits are paid for and the bills are paid.
She could turn it around (and has) to say I have no idea what it is like living in her body. Which is when I want to scream with every ounce of energy I have left, "YOU CHOOSE TO GET MARRIED AND HAVE CHILDREN. JUST BECAUSE YOU WANTED IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD HAVE SET UP THIS SITUATION FOR CHILDREN!!!" She thinks the kids should just suck it up and have a limited life because their mother is disabled. Because their mother chose to become a mother knowing she was disabled and then experimented with treatments, leaving her a lot worse off than when we were dating.
The issues with the physical disability are bad enough, but there is no way I would have married her and had children with her if I knew of her mental health history (more of which has come out in the therapy) and her apparent need for ongoing medication for that. I didn't know because neither she nor her family were open with me about it before I married her, probably because they knew I wouldn't have married her.
I've been getting closer and closer to yelling the statement in caps up there two paragraphs up. The closest I came was when I congratulated her on getting what she wanted (to be a wife and mother), at the height of one family meltdown or another.
She has been saying to me what I've been thinking about her current effectiveness as a wife and as a mother, but when she says it I don't have the heart to explicitly agree. Instead, I tell her what she does right/well, or I ask her why she is saying what she is. I neither agree nor deny her statements. I don't want to deny them because, well, they're true, or at least I think they are.
Even though we don't have the money for it, we've been more or less replacing her with surrogates. We haven't sat down and verbalized that is what we're doing, but it is pretty much what we've been doing, slowly but surely. Of course, this does not extend to sex. Her responsibilities as a wife and mother are being increasingly offloaded onto others. Well, actually, mostly mother. I can survive without a wife, so the needs of the kids are what take priority.
At this point, without some sort of dramatic improvement in her physical condition due to finding the right treatment (or reverting back to the treatments she used to get), I don't see how we're going to avoid moving in with someone or having someone move in with us.
How does a therapist help a man deal effectively with staying in a difficult situation that he's in because he fell for fraud and misrepresentation? How does a therapist help a man deal with the fact that his own government will force him to support, for the rest of his life, the person who perpetrated this? How does a therapist help a man deal with the fact that all of this is cheating his kids out of the childhood he intended to give them?
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
And You Are...?
I can't help but ask, "And who appointed you to the position of deciding this for my sex?" whenever I hear a woman, no matter how much I admire her, publicly proclaim "Here's a list of the qualities of a real man." or something of the sort. If she's doing it in private to a boy she's raising, fine... but public pronouncements of that sort leave me shaking my head. Be honest, lady. Say "These are the qualities that turn me on in a man" (of course we know what women SAY turns them on and what actually does are often two different things) or "These are the qualities in men I think are beneficial to society." It is especially amusing if they say a "real man" is one who takes all sorts of crap from women and gives up all his hopes and dreams and works his ass for people who never appreciate it, but take it for granted.
Tuesday, May 06, 2014
You Know It Is Bad When
You know it is bad when you wonder if life would have been better for you and your children if you'd had not stopped your wife from committing suicide a year and a half ago.
If it came down to it, I know I would intervene and jump through all of the hoops all over again to save her from herself, because that's just who I am.
But sometimes, when I'm away from home for several hours and she's been quiet rather than sending me texts, I wonder if she has done herself in intentionally or accidentally, and if that would be so bad. My primary concern about that would be the kids being there and being distraught, or that she would have harmed the children.
We are getting already, and seeking the help of more, professionals. This is not how I wanted to spend my time and money, but this is how it is.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
A Game Wives Play
Step #1: Deprive your faithful husband of sex. (Note the word faithful. Some husbands go and get it elsewhere.)
Step #2: Push his buttons - you know, the ones that get him angry.
Step #3: Chastise him for being grumpy or losing his temper, and cite his lack of cheery perfection as a reason to not "reward" him with sex.
Step #4: Repeat
Now, I know what some of you are thinking. "1) But that doesn't make sense. 2) That means she goes without sex, too, and women like sex, too. 3) You must be a bad lover or repulsive."
Let's take those in order.
1) Women don't have to make sense.
2) There are plenty of prescription drugs that suppress normal sexual desire/enjoyment, and some women like other things more than sex.
3) Yeah, that's what I'd be thinking if it weren't for all of that ever so wrong fornication I perpetrated in my wayward youth. Actually, the women were always or almost always the initiators, but I was certainly a willing participant. Those women really seemed to enjoy it as much as I did, if not more.
What does she have to lose? She knows I'm not going to stray. She knows she's going to have her bills paid one way or another. It probably hasn't occurred to her that although she wants her children to grow up, avoid fornication, and marry, I can't, in good conscience, encourage my son to marry. Not with my own experience, not with those of other men I know, not unless the laws and culture change to be less hostile to husbands.
Step #2: Push his buttons - you know, the ones that get him angry.
Step #3: Chastise him for being grumpy or losing his temper, and cite his lack of cheery perfection as a reason to not "reward" him with sex.
Step #4: Repeat
Now, I know what some of you are thinking. "1) But that doesn't make sense. 2) That means she goes without sex, too, and women like sex, too. 3) You must be a bad lover or repulsive."
Let's take those in order.
1) Women don't have to make sense.
2) There are plenty of prescription drugs that suppress normal sexual desire/enjoyment, and some women like other things more than sex.
3) Yeah, that's what I'd be thinking if it weren't for all of that ever so wrong fornication I perpetrated in my wayward youth. Actually, the women were always or almost always the initiators, but I was certainly a willing participant. Those women really seemed to enjoy it as much as I did, if not more.
What does she have to lose? She knows I'm not going to stray. She knows she's going to have her bills paid one way or another. It probably hasn't occurred to her that although she wants her children to grow up, avoid fornication, and marry, I can't, in good conscience, encourage my son to marry. Not with my own experience, not with those of other men I know, not unless the laws and culture change to be less hostile to husbands.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Friendship or Flirtation?
My standard Dr. Laura disclaimer applies. I love the show, love her, love her books, agree with her 98% of the time, and think she’s helped me and millions of other people. If I didn’t listen to every minute of her show, I couldn’t write posts like the ones before.
During Dr. Laura’s third hour yesterday, a woman called who said she works with her husband and went on to say that she’s have a problem because her husband has developed a friendship with another female cowoker. The caller went on to say that he texts that coworker and they hang out together during many of their breaks. Rather than first asking, "Why isn’t he hanging out with you on break?" Dr. Laura jumped in and said it was a flirtation, not a friendship.
Uh, really?
Based on texts and spending break time together?
What if the coworker had been male? Would Dr. Laura declare the husband gay?
During my wayward youth, at one job during a certain time period, I had three peer coworkers. All three were heterosexual females. I did end up having a fling with one. The other two, with whom I was working before the one with whom I had a fling, I also texted and spent break time with. Hell, we went to Happy Hours and I was in their homes and did other things together. NO FLIRTING. I did not have designs on either of them (even though they were attractive enough) and as far as I can tell, they had no designs on me, and there were plenty of times they could have flirted if they had wanted. There was no flirting. (Now, as I’ve said elsewhere, if those women had offered themselves to me, I would have taken them up on their offer, but that had nothing to do with them being coworkers or the amount of time we’d spent together. That’s normal male behavior without abiding strong convictions to do otherwise. Should a man never have waitress serving him in
a restaurant because he’d be willing to have sex with her?)
Now, one could say the texting and hanging out are inappropriate for a married man. But to categorize it as flirting automatically… nah.
Regardless, the older, wiser me now would tell the guy not to interact with women in the workplace/company any more than absolutely necessary, and to keep that interaction to the driest, dullest minimum required by the work. And these days, if you read my blog, you know that my advice would be not to have married in the first place.
Now, how many people are going to live the way? Not many. We have the reality of the sexually integrated workplace. Are men to treat male and female coworkers equally or not? Does getting married mean a man is no longer permitted to network or form friendships with approximately half of his coworkers?
This is not the 1950s. No, I’ve never thought “This is the 21st century” is a valid argument to ditch morality, and I can like the roles, values, morals, and manners of the 1950s as much as the next person, but the reality is we now have a sexually integrated workforce, and the reality of today’s professional climate often means socializing is necessary for surviving and thriving as an employee. On the other hand, it is dangerous for men (unmarried or married) to do so. Unless he is self-employed, a man is at risk either way. Or am I missing something here?
Then the call went on, with Dr. Laura telling the caller her marriage is already down a hole because:
"He was willing to have you be upset not to lose her."
Hmm.
1) How many times have we heard that being upset is a choice?
2) Where is the line drawn on something like this? If a wife says, "I don’t like that male friend of yours" and can’t give a rational explanation as to why, is a husband obligated to drop that male friend rather than being "willing to have you be upset not to lose [him]"? What about where he works? The car he drives? The clothes he wears? The books he reads? The approach of "if it upsets your wife, then it is wrong" is only a good and hard rule if you’re wife has perfect judgment, instincts, security levels, etc. Guess what? The only being there is whose upset reaction is always the determining factor is God. I feel like advising men in such situations to randomly pick something the wife does and insist she stop, because it bothers you.
"The minute a man is willing to hurt his wife to hold on to another woman, it’s an affair."
Yes, depending on the definition of hurt. Otherwise, this kind of rule could lead to requiring a man to be a hermit.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Letter Writer Didn't Get It
The woman who sent this recent E-mail of the Day to Dr. Laura misread/ignored a very important word said (written) by a man. Hard to believe, I know. I have no idea if Dr. Laura (who is on vacation) actually read this letter herself or not.
I know exactly where the man being quoted is coming from. Whether you, dear reader, agree or not, the man is operating under the very common understanding that men want sex, and women want attention, a bill-payer (at least to buy dinner/entertainment/gifts while dating), a bodyguard, a chauffeur, and a stronger/taller person to do her bidding.
The woman who sent the letter starts off:
Then again she might not be attractive.
I know exactly where the man being quoted is coming from. Whether you, dear reader, agree or not, the man is operating under the very common understanding that men want sex, and women want attention, a bill-payer (at least to buy dinner/entertainment/gifts while dating), a bodyguard, a chauffeur, and a stronger/taller person to do her bidding.
The woman who sent the letter starts off:
Dr. Laura,By "waiting" she means not having sex until married.
It's soooo hard being a woman who is waiting out there.
When the rest of the women give it up for free, the men won't even give me a chance.The phrase "for free" implies she expects to get paid for sex. "Without commitment" might be a better phrase, but I could quibble with that one, too. She's right, though, that smart or even just lazy men are going to seek the path of least resistance to getting whatever it is they want.
Then again she might not be attractive.
Saturday, March 08, 2014
Kid-Oriented Life
I've heard Dennis Prager talk about this. Somewhere along the way, we shifted. Even though so many children are dumped in institutions from the earliest ages because their parents won't change their lives for them, parodixically we have allowed kids to become our masters. When I was a kid, toys and other kid stuff stayed in our bedrooms or a designated playroom. Now they are cluttering our entire home. A parent might come to one of our games or school musical performances, now both/all parents are expected to come to all of those things every time. Kids used to have to endure adult conversations at the dinner table until the adults excused them. Good luck with that now.
And then there are the kid birthday party. Every kid needs a big party every year. And the parents of the invited kid guests have to be there, too.
So on a Saturday morning, I end up at a 2 year-old's birthday party. There was no need for me to accompany my wife and kids there, but my wife is trying to make the mother her best friend, and so of course I am supposed to come along to help keep our bratty kids in line and because my wife hopes I will be good friends with the father. That way I'd have even less ability of keep my old friendships going. Not that I have time for them anyway, with my family obligations. But since my wife didn't pick them, she'd just prefer I not have them. They aren't clones of us, and so she can't relate.
It was really interesting to have my wife shower ahead of this party, and to get out of bed and get ready to go much easier than with just about anything else. These days, she usually sleeps as much as she can as long as I will be around to keep the kids from killing each other. And she doesn't seem to care to shower on account that there might be the possibility of making love. Her choosing not to shower in a given day is a big sign to me that she doesn't want me. I tried to take advantage of her having just showered, but she was tired. Of course.
This is definitely worth over half of everything I'll ever earn. Isn't it?
Wednesday, March 05, 2014
Bad Things and Theism
I don't know if anything has happened to Dr. Laura in her personal life, beyond seeing a friend of hers die not too long ago after an awful fight with cancer (which can certainly be devastating to see), but now she has gotten to the point of saying she is offended by the Theistic beliefs and related prayers of her callers. I was just listening to the second hour of yesterday's show and she had to make a point of it when a caller who'd witnessed a death as a result of a car accident says she now prays before driving.
Dr. Laura has a skeptical background, but went through a time of being an observant Orthodox Jew before giving that up after, she has explained, being disillusioned by some others in that community. She also has said she had talked with a famous Christian minister who told her to think of the Gospel as a metaphor, from which she inferred that even he didn't believe miracles were real in the literal sense. (Connecting the dots to other things she has said, I suspect that minister is Robert Schuller, which would not surprise most Christians the way she thinks it would.)
She encourages families to be active in their faith communities, preaches right and wrong as though there is an objective morality, yet has strongly implied she doesn't believe in an afterlife and continually expresses what appears to be Deism, if not Atheism, now to the point of, like I said, stating she is offended by prayers as asking Him to keep someone alert as a driver.
If there is a God, He can intervene in life. If there is a God who has called us to pray, what is wrong with praying for strength, alertness, etc. as long as one takes the reasonable actions they can? It isn't like the caller said she stays up for 72 hours before driving and prays for alertness. I realize the "IF" is a big one.
I will pray that Dr. Laura finds peace. I hope (another word she doesn't like to hear from callers) that doesn't offend her, because it is not meant as a dig. She has done so much good and I don't want to see her in anguish over what is wrong or broken in this life. Yes, there is much broken in this world. I am convinced God has provided a way to overcome that brokenness. If there was anybody who didn't deserve a painful and early death, it was the Jew we know as Jesus. Yet it is through that sacrifice we are reconciled to God, and we can look forward to the redemption of the world from sickness, suffering, and sin. That is not some wishful thinking on my part. It is a conviction based on consideration of facts, facts she can investigate herself if she so chooses. She may find a renewed passion for preaching the morals she does. After all, if there is no God concerned with what we do, and no cosmic justice (an afterlife involving rewards and punishments) then what objective reason is there for any given caller or listener or reader to put aside selfishness for the sake of their spouse, their child, or anyone else?
Thursday, February 13, 2014
It's the Middle of February
Here we are again. It's another Valentine's Day.
Fortunately for me, my wife likes to celebrate a different day, as one of our anniversaries falls close to February 14.
It's my year to plan.
Hey, I know, how about we plan a nice session of "How Did Our Sex Life Deteriorate To Doing It Once Every Two Weeks and You Wanting to Get It Over With More Quickly?"
Ah yes. Probably has something to do with one or more of the many, many medications she takes.
Which is one big reason I didn't want a wife who needed such medications.
Hey, let's go out on a date and... talk about the kids. Because what else do we have going on in our lives?
Fortunately for me, my wife likes to celebrate a different day, as one of our anniversaries falls close to February 14.
It's my year to plan.
Hey, I know, how about we plan a nice session of "How Did Our Sex Life Deteriorate To Doing It Once Every Two Weeks and You Wanting to Get It Over With More Quickly?"
Ah yes. Probably has something to do with one or more of the many, many medications she takes.
Which is one big reason I didn't want a wife who needed such medications.
Hey, let's go out on a date and... talk about the kids. Because what else do we have going on in our lives?
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
KFI's New Host
KFI AM 640, a ratings leader in recent years in Los Angeles, is a talk radio station owned by Clear Channel, which is scores of billions of dollars in debt. Clear Channel just changed their Left-leaning talk station in the same market, 1150 AM, into a right-wing format. Rush Limbaugh is now on 1150 and will soon be off 640. To fill up the 9am to Noon slot, KFI will now have the Bill Handel show run until 10am and the Bill Carrol show will shift two hours earlier. But this will leave the 1pm to 3pm slot open.
As far as I know, KFI hasn't announced who will fill that slot. I've noticed the station has been trying hard to have "diversity" on the weekends, but what about during the week? It's all white males, mostly heterosexual with the possible exception of Ken (but since he doesn't talk about hi sexual orientation it really doesn't count) and he definite exception of the might-as-well-be-gay Bill Handel, who, by the way, is a Latino Jew.
So I propose they find for their afternoon slot a black illegal alien transgendered disabled lesbian Wiccan Green Party partisan. Who cares whether or not the show will be any good? They need diversity.
UPDATE February 11, 2014: They filled the spot with a couple of local television news folks. Mark Thompson, who's been appearing on the Tim Conway Jr. Show and filling in here and there (and who has quite the voice), and Elizabeth Espinosa. Thompson is not to be confused with the "Mark & Brian" guy. Thompson is also not to be confused with a young ample-chested woman, which is why he's no longer doing the weather on TV. I have nothing against these two, but I doubt I will be choosing them over Michael Medved.
UPDATE February 11, 2014: They filled the spot with a couple of local television news folks. Mark Thompson, who's been appearing on the Tim Conway Jr. Show and filling in here and there (and who has quite the voice), and Elizabeth Espinosa. Thompson is not to be confused with the "Mark & Brian" guy. Thompson is also not to be confused with a young ample-chested woman, which is why he's no longer doing the weather on TV. I have nothing against these two, but I doubt I will be choosing them over Michael Medved.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Questions For Dr. Laura Schlessinger - 7
Read the introduction to this series here. This will be the last in this series for now. And there have been plenty of questions.
19) You say minors should not have certain tech things and then say your generation survived youth without smart phones, tablets, and online social networking. But generations before yours surived youth without technological/communications/media/social things you enjoyed as a minor. Shall we all live like the Amish?
20) You say grownups should not have personal Facebook accounts. How would they comment on your shows’s Facebook page if they didn’t? Are you aware that Facebook settings are customizable, so that, for example, only family has access to your personal Facebook page?
21) You say that a spouse who has not shared every password is hiding something they shouldn’t and/or is doing something unacceptable. Do you say the same thing about a person who does not always have their spouse present when they are in a therapy session? I realize that writing and other computerized activities are not the same as doing pushups when you’re on the phone with a show host, but they can be therapeutic.
22) How is it that interacting through online/telephonic communications is not a real relationship, but it is infidelity for a spouse to interact with someone else that way?
23) According to you, it is OK to fantasize, including about other people, when having sex. It is also OK to watch television, watch movies, and play board games. However, you denounce people who like fantasy in movies, video games, etc. and play video games in general as childish. What are the differences, other than your personal preferences?
24) I have heard you give what I would consider perfect answers to wives complaining to you that their good husband who does not neglect them views porn. However, when women call to say the same thing about their boyfriends, you tell them to dump him. Why is that? Are you just trying to save the boyfriend from becoming a nagged husband? Or is it that a married man is “entitled” to orgasms encouraged through visual/auditory stimulation because he’s paying for them, but the boyfriend is not, and thus it is morally unacceptable?
Wednesday, February 05, 2014
Questions For Dr. Laura Schlessinger – 6
Read the introduction to this series here.
16) When someone calls and says they no longer share the religious beliefs or devotion of their spouse, which may include no longer believing what the religious organization to which they belong claims about itself (for example, being the one and only true church), you give priority to family harmony in a unified family religion over the caller’s conviction of conscience. On what criteria have you adopted these priorities?
I ask because I’m convinced that there are organizations with doctrines and practices that are ultimately harmful, and that I am first and foremost accountable to God, and that God has called me to avoid supporting religious organizations that promote serious error with my time, money, effort, or presence. For example, by implying with my silence and continued attendance that I support such an organization (and, almost invariably, being expected to perform duties on behalf of that organization), I would be contributing to leading my own children and other people astray.
You may see all religious organizations that don’t promote terrorist bombings as more or less the same, but even from a secular perspective, they are not. Some, for example, avoid certain medical treatments. Some strongly discourage contact with family or friends who are no longer with the organization. Some make it nearly impossible to leave the organization without ongoing harassment.
Of course I have my own biases. For example, I’d want a newly atheist spouse to keep quiet and still take the family to a good Christian church. However, if someone has figured out that their “name it and claim it” televangelist church is not a healthy place to be, I would want them to try to get the rest of the family to switch to a better church. My bias comes from being convinced that there is a God who cares about our relationship to Him and has communicated to us how to worship Him and think about Him. Your priority seems to place more importance on making things comfortable and stable for children in the immediate here and now, but where does that priority come from?
17) Why is it so hard to believe that a “bush” could “burn” and not be destroyed if there is an omnipotent God involved? Either you believe in an omnipotent God who has intervened in in the world or you don’t. If there is no God to whom we are accountable and no afterlife, why is it wrong for someone to be entirely selfish and disregard your moral claims? What is the downside to them?
18) You illustrate well your point that children aren’t to give to/take care of parents by telling the story of the bird who starts to rescue each of his three chicks but only saves the last one, because the last one promises to pay it forward instead of repaying the parent directly. However, that story doesn’t explain HOW you arrived at your position or why someone else should adopt it. Why should someone make the next generation a priority and not give to the previous generation? If your answer is "survival of the species", why should anyone care if the species survives or not?
16) When someone calls and says they no longer share the religious beliefs or devotion of their spouse, which may include no longer believing what the religious organization to which they belong claims about itself (for example, being the one and only true church), you give priority to family harmony in a unified family religion over the caller’s conviction of conscience. On what criteria have you adopted these priorities?
I ask because I’m convinced that there are organizations with doctrines and practices that are ultimately harmful, and that I am first and foremost accountable to God, and that God has called me to avoid supporting religious organizations that promote serious error with my time, money, effort, or presence. For example, by implying with my silence and continued attendance that I support such an organization (and, almost invariably, being expected to perform duties on behalf of that organization), I would be contributing to leading my own children and other people astray.
You may see all religious organizations that don’t promote terrorist bombings as more or less the same, but even from a secular perspective, they are not. Some, for example, avoid certain medical treatments. Some strongly discourage contact with family or friends who are no longer with the organization. Some make it nearly impossible to leave the organization without ongoing harassment.
Of course I have my own biases. For example, I’d want a newly atheist spouse to keep quiet and still take the family to a good Christian church. However, if someone has figured out that their “name it and claim it” televangelist church is not a healthy place to be, I would want them to try to get the rest of the family to switch to a better church. My bias comes from being convinced that there is a God who cares about our relationship to Him and has communicated to us how to worship Him and think about Him. Your priority seems to place more importance on making things comfortable and stable for children in the immediate here and now, but where does that priority come from?
17) Why is it so hard to believe that a “bush” could “burn” and not be destroyed if there is an omnipotent God involved? Either you believe in an omnipotent God who has intervened in in the world or you don’t. If there is no God to whom we are accountable and no afterlife, why is it wrong for someone to be entirely selfish and disregard your moral claims? What is the downside to them?
18) You illustrate well your point that children aren’t to give to/take care of parents by telling the story of the bird who starts to rescue each of his three chicks but only saves the last one, because the last one promises to pay it forward instead of repaying the parent directly. However, that story doesn’t explain HOW you arrived at your position or why someone else should adopt it. Why should someone make the next generation a priority and not give to the previous generation? If your answer is "survival of the species", why should anyone care if the species survives or not?
I Can't Unscramble the Eggs
These days, it seems more and more like I made a mistake in getting married and having children. This, in turn, has led to mistakes like buying the wrong house and a bunch of other mistakes.
As it stands now:
1) I do not think I am being a good enough husband.
2) I do not think I am being a good enough father.
3) We are not taking care of our future like we should.
Pertaining to #3: From a secular perspective, what is a man’s primary responsibility in life? It is, over his lifetime, producing more value than he consumes, so as to contribute to society rather than being a burden on it. There are times someone is going to be dependent, such as childhood at one end of life and elderly decline at the other end, and maybe some times of severe illness or injury in between. However, these times are supposed to be offset by the productive times. Ultimately, it is taking sunlight and other natural resources, our imagination, and the knowledge of those who came before us, and producing.
Raising children can be productive. Obviously, without the raising of children, society ceases to exist as the human race disappears. However, it is only if those children are raised to also be net producers does raising children help. Otherwise, they can be a severe burden.
A man should only take on raising children if he can not only be productive enough for himself, but for raising his children, and that includes being productive, and equipped enough, for marriage and has found the right woman to be his wife.
As it stands now:
1) I do not think I am being a good enough husband.
2) I do not think I am being a good enough father.
3) We are not taking care of our future like we should.
Pertaining to #3: From a secular perspective, what is a man’s primary responsibility in life? It is, over his lifetime, producing more value than he consumes, so as to contribute to society rather than being a burden on it. There are times someone is going to be dependent, such as childhood at one end of life and elderly decline at the other end, and maybe some times of severe illness or injury in between. However, these times are supposed to be offset by the productive times. Ultimately, it is taking sunlight and other natural resources, our imagination, and the knowledge of those who came before us, and producing.
Raising children can be productive. Obviously, without the raising of children, society ceases to exist as the human race disappears. However, it is only if those children are raised to also be net producers does raising children help. Otherwise, they can be a severe burden.
A man should only take on raising children if he can not only be productive enough for himself, but for raising his children, and that includes being productive, and equipped enough, for marriage and has found the right woman to be his wife.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Questions For Dr. Laura Schlessinger – 5
Read the introduction to this series here.
15) How should the division of labor be delineated between husband and wife when the husband works full time (and perhaps plus) as the sole income earner and the wife is a full-time ”stay-at-home” mom?
Just shy of 18 minutes into the first hour of the January 22 show/podcast, Dr. Laura took a call from a woman who is married with five children. The wife was calling to say that her husband, the sole income earner, doesn’t do enough of the domestic chores. Dr. Laura indicated that this husband was a terrible guy for not doing some of the domestic chores.
Okay, I understand Dr. Laura’s opinion on that. I do some of the domestic chores at home despite being the sole income earner.
Except… I’ve heard (recently, mind you) Dr. Laura respond to another SAHM complaining that her income-earner hubby wasn’t doing domestic chores by asking if the caller was ready to go into the office and do some of her husband’s work for him. Dr. Laura made it clear that the domestic chores were the responsibility of the SAHM.
Why the difference in answers?
Is there a magic number of children that make domestic chores part of the husband’s role? I think whenever Dr. Laura hears “five children” it triggers thoughts of Andrea Yates. She’s even brought Yates up with other calls. Dr. Laura readily admits one child was enough work for her. So, if it is a matter of the number of children, does it matter who pushed to have that many children? And what if a SAHM caller sounds overwhelmed with one or two children? Surely it is possible for a woman to pull an Andrea Yates even if she only has one or two children. Many have.
15) How should the division of labor be delineated between husband and wife when the husband works full time (and perhaps plus) as the sole income earner and the wife is a full-time ”stay-at-home” mom?
Just shy of 18 minutes into the first hour of the January 22 show/podcast, Dr. Laura took a call from a woman who is married with five children. The wife was calling to say that her husband, the sole income earner, doesn’t do enough of the domestic chores. Dr. Laura indicated that this husband was a terrible guy for not doing some of the domestic chores.
Okay, I understand Dr. Laura’s opinion on that. I do some of the domestic chores at home despite being the sole income earner.
Except… I’ve heard (recently, mind you) Dr. Laura respond to another SAHM complaining that her income-earner hubby wasn’t doing domestic chores by asking if the caller was ready to go into the office and do some of her husband’s work for him. Dr. Laura made it clear that the domestic chores were the responsibility of the SAHM.
Why the difference in answers?
Is there a magic number of children that make domestic chores part of the husband’s role? I think whenever Dr. Laura hears “five children” it triggers thoughts of Andrea Yates. She’s even brought Yates up with other calls. Dr. Laura readily admits one child was enough work for her. So, if it is a matter of the number of children, does it matter who pushed to have that many children? And what if a SAHM caller sounds overwhelmed with one or two children? Surely it is possible for a woman to pull an Andrea Yates even if she only has one or two children. Many have.
Thursday, January 09, 2014
Questions For Dr. Laura Schlessinger – 4
Read the introduction to this series here.
12) You have confirmed what loyal listeners should already have figured out: that you have a high IQ. Given that your IQ is higher than many of your callers, and you have many decades of experience dealing with the family dynamics of thousands of people, isn’t it ever possible that one of your callers or the spouse thereof hasn’t thought through everything as extensively as you? Here’s an example: A woman calls with a problem with her 19 year-old son, who lives with her and her husband, who is the boy’s father, who is not opposed to the son continuing to live with them for now. The caller isn't trying to figure out how to move her son out, but you focus on that anyway. You insist this means that the caller’s husband does not want to be alone with her. Isn’t it possible, however, that he simply hasn’t thought about it that way? Maybe, right or wrong, he doesn’t want his son to have to worry about roommates and fleabag apartments while he’s trying to get through college and start a career? Maybe he likes the help around the house?
13) You have insisted that every caller who has a problem with their spouse MUST have seen the problem or the warning signs before they married, because people can’t act for that long without revealing their true selves. OK, let’s say they dated for two years before they married. Since they are not shacking up, because that would be wrong, they’re going to restaurants, going to movies, sharing holidays, hopefully going through intense premarital counseling with a MFT for what, one hour per week?
You say it isn’t possible for people to put on an act that long. However, don’t people do that all of the time with other things in life? For example, undercover law enforcement officers, con artists and frauds do this for a living. Some employes do this five days a week for 8+ hours per day, for years. You tell unhappy or discontented spouses to act, sometimes for years, for the sake of a peaceful home.
I know it is preferable to find something in the caller’s actions that were problematic because then the caller has the power to change thing, and usually, I’m sure, there were warning signs the caller should have seen, but there are incentives for people to hide their true selves when seeking marriage, It could be for immigration fraud, for financial gain, or due to religious, familial, professional, or social pressure. So is it really impossible to there to have ever been a caller who couldn't possibly have seen the warnings ahead of time?
14) You often note second marriages with children have a 75% divorce rate, and ask callers if they'd get on airplane with the same chance of crashing. However, a graphic posted on your show's Facebook page notes that first marriages have a 41% divorce rate - and that's just divorce, not how many are miserable but don't divorce, or cases in which one spouse dies young or slips into a coma, goes to prison, or kills the other. Would you fly on an airplane with THAT failure rate? I agree people should be warned about second marriages, but shouldn’t they be warned at least half as strongly about first marriages? You may argue that second marriages are not necessary, but neither are first marriages. Would you consider giving a commentary on how to reduce the risks of a second marriage failing? I’m aware that you are concerned about children, and while first marriages without children, by definition, don’t bring children into the mix from the start, most first marriages will end up involving children. So shouldn't people be strongly warned when it comes to getting married at all? "Choose wisely" is a start, but is that really strong enough?
12) You have confirmed what loyal listeners should already have figured out: that you have a high IQ. Given that your IQ is higher than many of your callers, and you have many decades of experience dealing with the family dynamics of thousands of people, isn’t it ever possible that one of your callers or the spouse thereof hasn’t thought through everything as extensively as you? Here’s an example: A woman calls with a problem with her 19 year-old son, who lives with her and her husband, who is the boy’s father, who is not opposed to the son continuing to live with them for now. The caller isn't trying to figure out how to move her son out, but you focus on that anyway. You insist this means that the caller’s husband does not want to be alone with her. Isn’t it possible, however, that he simply hasn’t thought about it that way? Maybe, right or wrong, he doesn’t want his son to have to worry about roommates and fleabag apartments while he’s trying to get through college and start a career? Maybe he likes the help around the house?
13) You have insisted that every caller who has a problem with their spouse MUST have seen the problem or the warning signs before they married, because people can’t act for that long without revealing their true selves. OK, let’s say they dated for two years before they married. Since they are not shacking up, because that would be wrong, they’re going to restaurants, going to movies, sharing holidays, hopefully going through intense premarital counseling with a MFT for what, one hour per week?
You say it isn’t possible for people to put on an act that long. However, don’t people do that all of the time with other things in life? For example, undercover law enforcement officers, con artists and frauds do this for a living. Some employes do this five days a week for 8+ hours per day, for years. You tell unhappy or discontented spouses to act, sometimes for years, for the sake of a peaceful home.
I know it is preferable to find something in the caller’s actions that were problematic because then the caller has the power to change thing, and usually, I’m sure, there were warning signs the caller should have seen, but there are incentives for people to hide their true selves when seeking marriage, It could be for immigration fraud, for financial gain, or due to religious, familial, professional, or social pressure. So is it really impossible to there to have ever been a caller who couldn't possibly have seen the warnings ahead of time?
14) You often note second marriages with children have a 75% divorce rate, and ask callers if they'd get on airplane with the same chance of crashing. However, a graphic posted on your show's Facebook page notes that first marriages have a 41% divorce rate - and that's just divorce, not how many are miserable but don't divorce, or cases in which one spouse dies young or slips into a coma, goes to prison, or kills the other. Would you fly on an airplane with THAT failure rate? I agree people should be warned about second marriages, but shouldn’t they be warned at least half as strongly about first marriages? You may argue that second marriages are not necessary, but neither are first marriages. Would you consider giving a commentary on how to reduce the risks of a second marriage failing? I’m aware that you are concerned about children, and while first marriages without children, by definition, don’t bring children into the mix from the start, most first marriages will end up involving children. So shouldn't people be strongly warned when it comes to getting married at all? "Choose wisely" is a start, but is that really strong enough?
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Perfect Timing
It is amazing how my wife "just happens" to pick fights or lays out a long list of complaints about me and/or makes demands about how I need to change (things I never do to her, by the way) a couple of hours before we're due to have sex. Yes, due to have sex. Oh, I wanted sex the days/nights before, but she kept putting it off. Yes, men, get married, and you too can schedule sex, but be prepared for that flight to be canceled. Scheduling makes it all the more easy for a wife to figure out ways to avoid sex with you.
It's funny, all of the women I fornicated with in my wayward youth seemed to want to have sex with me. They're the ones who initiated it into our relationship to begin with, and if we'd subsequently spent any amount of time together in private and did not have some form of sex, they would be concerned and want to know what was wrong.
It is times like this I can't regret having fornicated, because if I hadn't, I'd be damn near suicidal at this point thinking I must be completely repulsive and a terrible lover.
Yes, all of you guys who aren't married but haven't ruled it out of your future - you too can sign a legal document that will: 1) obligate you to give up more than half of everything you'll ever earn and make lifetime payments to a woman who will hate you; 2) automatically assign you paternity of any children she has, even if she conceived them with some genetic basket case while you were working your ass off at the office, and 3) give her default status as your beneficiary and the person who can make decisions for you should you become incapacitated. In return, the law guarantees you... uh... the responsibility of making decisions for her should she become incapacitated. What a deal! What are you waiting for??? You must be some immature boy or immoral cad to not want that!
Oh, by the way, the thing that apparently (who really knows with such irrational creatures) set her off this time? I kid you not, she is upset I did not perjure myself to get out of jury duty because it might... might... interfere with her social plans for a day - social plans I was key to facilitate in the first place by begging like a dog for a favor I can't possibly repay. I did it to make her happy. How ironic is that?
It's funny, all of the women I fornicated with in my wayward youth seemed to want to have sex with me. They're the ones who initiated it into our relationship to begin with, and if we'd subsequently spent any amount of time together in private and did not have some form of sex, they would be concerned and want to know what was wrong.
It is times like this I can't regret having fornicated, because if I hadn't, I'd be damn near suicidal at this point thinking I must be completely repulsive and a terrible lover.
Yes, all of you guys who aren't married but haven't ruled it out of your future - you too can sign a legal document that will: 1) obligate you to give up more than half of everything you'll ever earn and make lifetime payments to a woman who will hate you; 2) automatically assign you paternity of any children she has, even if she conceived them with some genetic basket case while you were working your ass off at the office, and 3) give her default status as your beneficiary and the person who can make decisions for you should you become incapacitated. In return, the law guarantees you... uh... the responsibility of making decisions for her should she become incapacitated. What a deal! What are you waiting for??? You must be some immature boy or immoral cad to not want that!
Oh, by the way, the thing that apparently (who really knows with such irrational creatures) set her off this time? I kid you not, she is upset I did not perjure myself to get out of jury duty because it might... might... interfere with her social plans for a day - social plans I was key to facilitate in the first place by begging like a dog for a favor I can't possibly repay. I did it to make her happy. How ironic is that?
Thursday, December 05, 2013
Questions For Dr. Laura Schlessinger (and others) - 3
Please read the essential introduction to this series.
4) In an era where women now have full access to every area of educational, training, and professional life, earning income, investing, banking, credit, and financial management, and women are able and expected to move out of their family home and pay their own way through unmarried life, why should a man be required, let alone expected, to always pay for a date (unless she cooks a meal for him)? If your response is "men value what they pay for" are you saying women value things other people pay for, but not what they pay for? If you say "in nature, the male demonstrates", why are we to adhere to that aspect of nature but not so many others? Why is her time more valuable than his?
5) You have said that a man should not be dating unless he is prepared to financially support a wife and children. You have also said that dating is to discern if someone is a match to marry. Does this mean that people who will not ever marry should never go on dates, even with people of like mind? Does this mean that men who will never be in a position to support a wife and children should never go on dates, even with women who will not be having children (or have grown children) and who plan to continue to support themselves? It now takes most men at least until their late 20s to be in a position to support a wife and children (if they ever will be). Should he never date at all before that, even to learn what kind of person he gets along with, or for mere entertainment?
6) You say a man should not be having sex with a woman without marrying her or at least being engaged with a ring and date. How did you arrive at that conclusion? If you cite the possibility of conception, does this mean it is OK for a man to have sex with a woman outside of marriage if at least one of them is incapable of having children?
7) You only find strict monogamy acceptable – for example, that having a one-night-threesome is an absolute no. I agree that married monogamy is what is moral. My primary basis for this is the Christian Bible. What is the basis of your rule? If you cite marital vows, what if "forsaking all others" wasn't one of their vows, or wasn't vowed with the meaning of excluding all sexual contact with anyone else?
8) You sometimes ask how a man explains it to the father of the woman with whom he's fornicating. Yet you never ask how she explains it to his mother. Why should an explanation be needed in one case but not the other?
9) With your principle (and mine) of reserving sex for marriage and that men should be the income earners, your touting of community property, use of the term "unpaid whore" for women who shack up, your suggestion that unmarried women get $250 for each session of sex, your statements that "you're not even making him pay for dinner" and "you girls are giving it away for free", and your insistence that men pay for almost all dates, aren't you saying that men should pay for sex? Doesn't that imply that women do not enjoy sex and should only engage in it as a means for material gain? Doesn't that imply that men shouldn't care whether a woman enjoys sex or not? After all, are we to care if our hired help likes their tasks or not? You (like many others) refer to mutual consented fornication as a man using a woman, but never say they are using each other or she is also using him. Why is that? If a woman who shacks up is an unpaid whore, why doesn't that make a married woman a paid whore? Why do you call them unpaid when, in some cases, he is paying all of her expenses and buying her gifts over and above that?
10) I agree that sex is for marriage and that shacking up is a bad idea. Here is a question I have for just about anyone: How is a man supposed to know about what kind of a mother or sexual partner a woman will be before he "lays down his life" for her? People aren't always consistent, so a someone being generally reasonable about most things in life and willing to negotiate and being compatible through dating/courtship and planning a wedding doesn’t necessarily mean they will be generally reasonable when it comes to parenting or willing to negotiate about sexual issues. Some hangups and quirks will not be discovered until actually having sex or actually living together.
11) You have said shacking up can’t involve any commitment, regardless of the explicitly stated mutual agreements of those involved, even if they have children together, because marriage is what makes the relationship committed. Thus, a caller has no right to complain about what the shack up honey is doing. You have also said that if someone has married, thus making public vows and signing legal documents, they have no obligation to work through marital problems if they have no children. For example, you tell women who call you with a problem in their marriage to leave and go home to their mother, So is marriage the commitment or is having children the commitment? Or does a commitment only exist if they have married and had children? With wide cultural acceptance of no-fault divorce at the will of only one of the spouses, is marriage actually a commitment to anything other than having a community property financial partnership? Also, do no other vows, promises, or stated commitments in any area of life have any moral weight unless they include a legal contract? For example, if someone said they were going to do something useful for your sailing hobby, do you really have no moral right to call him on it if he doesn’t, because he never signed a legal contract?
4) In an era where women now have full access to every area of educational, training, and professional life, earning income, investing, banking, credit, and financial management, and women are able and expected to move out of their family home and pay their own way through unmarried life, why should a man be required, let alone expected, to always pay for a date (unless she cooks a meal for him)? If your response is "men value what they pay for" are you saying women value things other people pay for, but not what they pay for? If you say "in nature, the male demonstrates", why are we to adhere to that aspect of nature but not so many others? Why is her time more valuable than his?
5) You have said that a man should not be dating unless he is prepared to financially support a wife and children. You have also said that dating is to discern if someone is a match to marry. Does this mean that people who will not ever marry should never go on dates, even with people of like mind? Does this mean that men who will never be in a position to support a wife and children should never go on dates, even with women who will not be having children (or have grown children) and who plan to continue to support themselves? It now takes most men at least until their late 20s to be in a position to support a wife and children (if they ever will be). Should he never date at all before that, even to learn what kind of person he gets along with, or for mere entertainment?
6) You say a man should not be having sex with a woman without marrying her or at least being engaged with a ring and date. How did you arrive at that conclusion? If you cite the possibility of conception, does this mean it is OK for a man to have sex with a woman outside of marriage if at least one of them is incapable of having children?
7) You only find strict monogamy acceptable – for example, that having a one-night-threesome is an absolute no. I agree that married monogamy is what is moral. My primary basis for this is the Christian Bible. What is the basis of your rule? If you cite marital vows, what if "forsaking all others" wasn't one of their vows, or wasn't vowed with the meaning of excluding all sexual contact with anyone else?
8) You sometimes ask how a man explains it to the father of the woman with whom he's fornicating. Yet you never ask how she explains it to his mother. Why should an explanation be needed in one case but not the other?
9) With your principle (and mine) of reserving sex for marriage and that men should be the income earners, your touting of community property, use of the term "unpaid whore" for women who shack up, your suggestion that unmarried women get $250 for each session of sex, your statements that "you're not even making him pay for dinner" and "you girls are giving it away for free", and your insistence that men pay for almost all dates, aren't you saying that men should pay for sex? Doesn't that imply that women do not enjoy sex and should only engage in it as a means for material gain? Doesn't that imply that men shouldn't care whether a woman enjoys sex or not? After all, are we to care if our hired help likes their tasks or not? You (like many others) refer to mutual consented fornication as a man using a woman, but never say they are using each other or she is also using him. Why is that? If a woman who shacks up is an unpaid whore, why doesn't that make a married woman a paid whore? Why do you call them unpaid when, in some cases, he is paying all of her expenses and buying her gifts over and above that?
10) I agree that sex is for marriage and that shacking up is a bad idea. Here is a question I have for just about anyone: How is a man supposed to know about what kind of a mother or sexual partner a woman will be before he "lays down his life" for her? People aren't always consistent, so a someone being generally reasonable about most things in life and willing to negotiate and being compatible through dating/courtship and planning a wedding doesn’t necessarily mean they will be generally reasonable when it comes to parenting or willing to negotiate about sexual issues. Some hangups and quirks will not be discovered until actually having sex or actually living together.
11) You have said shacking up can’t involve any commitment, regardless of the explicitly stated mutual agreements of those involved, even if they have children together, because marriage is what makes the relationship committed. Thus, a caller has no right to complain about what the shack up honey is doing. You have also said that if someone has married, thus making public vows and signing legal documents, they have no obligation to work through marital problems if they have no children. For example, you tell women who call you with a problem in their marriage to leave and go home to their mother, So is marriage the commitment or is having children the commitment? Or does a commitment only exist if they have married and had children? With wide cultural acceptance of no-fault divorce at the will of only one of the spouses, is marriage actually a commitment to anything other than having a community property financial partnership? Also, do no other vows, promises, or stated commitments in any area of life have any moral weight unless they include a legal contract? For example, if someone said they were going to do something useful for your sailing hobby, do you really have no moral right to call him on it if he doesn’t, because he never signed a legal contract?
Wednesday, December 04, 2013
A Generational Divide
I interrupt my series of questions for Dr. Laura with examples from yesterday's show that might explain some of the questions in the series.
The Call of the Day yesterday was from the first hour:
Shane (caller, female): I'm calling about a dating situation. I've been seeing someone for a little over a month. I've developed feelings for him. I'm definitely not ready to be a relationship him, because I don't trust him enough to have sex with him yet. I find myself-
Laura [Interrupting]: Shane, stop. You're not even ashamed of what you just said.
The Call of the Day yesterday was from the first hour:
Shane (caller, female): I'm calling about a dating situation. I've been seeing someone for a little over a month. I've developed feelings for him. I'm definitely not ready to be a relationship him, because I don't trust him enough to have sex with him yet. I find myself-
Laura [Interrupting]: Shane, stop. You're not even ashamed of what you just said.
Questions For Dr. Laura Schlessinger - 2
Read the introduction to this series here.
3) Along the same lines as question #1, what exactly are you expecting fathers to do when setting right their teen children, their daughter's boyfriend, etc.? Yes, a father can beat his chest, flex his muscles, clean his guns, talk in a loud, commanding voice, give stern looks, get in someone's face, etc. But if push literally comes to shove, the father faces arrest for child abuse and/or assault. Fathers are obligated to provide for their children. They can’t kick them out. They can't physically restrain them. They can't slap sense into them. They can't refuse to take care of them. The authorities will side with the teen, and so will many wives and the other parents. Young males today know this. So while they may not want their girlfriend's father yelling in their face, they know if her father touches them, he (they boyfriend) will own the father.
This macho dad stuff may have worked back "in the day" in certain places, but these days, a husband/father has no power if the others involved do not "let" him have any. I wish fathers still had the kind of power you tell them to act like they have. They don't. Not legally, anyway. This is the world we've created.
If you have answers to ANY of these questions, or you want to make a comment, please do.
3) Along the same lines as question #1, what exactly are you expecting fathers to do when setting right their teen children, their daughter's boyfriend, etc.? Yes, a father can beat his chest, flex his muscles, clean his guns, talk in a loud, commanding voice, give stern looks, get in someone's face, etc. But if push literally comes to shove, the father faces arrest for child abuse and/or assault. Fathers are obligated to provide for their children. They can’t kick them out. They can't physically restrain them. They can't slap sense into them. They can't refuse to take care of them. The authorities will side with the teen, and so will many wives and the other parents. Young males today know this. So while they may not want their girlfriend's father yelling in their face, they know if her father touches them, he (they boyfriend) will own the father.
This macho dad stuff may have worked back "in the day" in certain places, but these days, a husband/father has no power if the others involved do not "let" him have any. I wish fathers still had the kind of power you tell them to act like they have. They don't. Not legally, anyway. This is the world we've created.
If you have answers to ANY of these questions, or you want to make a comment, please do.
Tuesday, December 03, 2013
Questions For Dr. Laura Schlessinger - 1
If you read this blog, you know that I love the Dr. Laura Schlessinger Show, and I think Dr. Laura is great, and I agree with her almost all of the time and I think she’s doing a heckuva lot of good. She's made my life better, she's helped me be a better person, and she's done the same for many, many people.
It is because I am such a fan of her show, books, etc. that I know what she says well enough that I can have these questions for her (unlike people who have no clue and mockingly ask questions). These questions are not intended to be traps. I am not playing "gotcha". I'd really like to know if there are answers. It is difficult to give commentary and take calls for 3 hours per day, 5 days per week, plus everything else she does and to never misspeak or never put things in a way that could have been put better or never misunderstand what a caller has said.
I value consistency, basing things on principles, values, etc., and Dr. Laura is almost always consistent and clear about principles. Maybe there is some principle or bit of knowledge I am not seeing that would clear up my questions. Maybe she will give clarification on her show in a commentary, since she doesn’t take questions like this as calls – she only deals with a supposedly real-life situation faced by the caller. I think answering these questions would make her show even better because I'm probably not the only listener who has these questions.
I was going to do one long posting of all the questions, but that would take too long, I couldn't wait any longer, and people tend to skip over lost walls of text anyway, so I've decided to turn this into a series, starting with what was probably the original question I wanted to ask anyway:
It is because I am such a fan of her show, books, etc. that I know what she says well enough that I can have these questions for her (unlike people who have no clue and mockingly ask questions). These questions are not intended to be traps. I am not playing "gotcha". I'd really like to know if there are answers. It is difficult to give commentary and take calls for 3 hours per day, 5 days per week, plus everything else she does and to never misspeak or never put things in a way that could have been put better or never misunderstand what a caller has said.
I value consistency, basing things on principles, values, etc., and Dr. Laura is almost always consistent and clear about principles. Maybe there is some principle or bit of knowledge I am not seeing that would clear up my questions. Maybe she will give clarification on her show in a commentary, since she doesn’t take questions like this as calls – she only deals with a supposedly real-life situation faced by the caller. I think answering these questions would make her show even better because I'm probably not the only listener who has these questions.
I was going to do one long posting of all the questions, but that would take too long, I couldn't wait any longer, and people tend to skip over lost walls of text anyway, so I've decided to turn this into a series, starting with what was probably the original question I wanted to ask anyway:
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Messing With Talk Show Callers
I'm a sucker for some of the ways audio talk show hosts mess with callers. While the newscast of Robin Quivers was my favorite consistent feature of the Howard Stern Show (which I haven't heard since it went to satellite), one of my favorite occasional bits was when Howard would take a call from someone like Ian the Drunk and put other callers on with him, or when he'd take two callers on hold and connect them with each other, priming the pump with the occasional drop. Nobody beats Phil Hendrie, of course, who made a career out of messing with callers.
Two things Tom Leykis does that have always made me laugh hard:
1) When the caller asks "Is this Tom?" or says "I want to talk to Tom" right after Tom has started the call by identifying himself, and Tom handles it by saying, “Oh, did you want to talk to Tom?” and then does his whole set-up again, which includes the buffer music. I've heard him keep that up for an entire segment so that the caller never gets to say what he or she wanted to say.
2) When the caller has not turned off the show on their listening device, and rather than telling them (again) to turn it down/off, Tom tells them to turn it up - as loud as it will go. I heard one time, back when he was on FM radio, when he let the call loop back on itself what must have been a dozen times.
I guess I’m still a 13 year-old boy in some ways.
Two things Tom Leykis does that have always made me laugh hard:
1) When the caller asks "Is this Tom?" or says "I want to talk to Tom" right after Tom has started the call by identifying himself, and Tom handles it by saying, “Oh, did you want to talk to Tom?” and then does his whole set-up again, which includes the buffer music. I've heard him keep that up for an entire segment so that the caller never gets to say what he or she wanted to say.
2) When the caller has not turned off the show on their listening device, and rather than telling them (again) to turn it down/off, Tom tells them to turn it up - as loud as it will go. I heard one time, back when he was on FM radio, when he let the call loop back on itself what must have been a dozen times.
I guess I’m still a 13 year-old boy in some ways.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Jumping the Shill
I think he's dead wrong on certain things, but the Bill Handel Show is a regular part of my morning radio habit. I enjoy the rest of the on-air staff, including the traffic/aviation expert Mike Nolan, and Handel himself is often the perfect target for jokes by his cohosts. It is more the show itself than Handel that gets me, as evidenced by how I still enjoy listening (and often enjoy it more) when someone is filling in for Bill. With most other shows, the moment I hear that there's a guest host I catch up on my backlog of podcasts. I 've always liked Walter E. Williams filling in for Limbaugh, and I'll often listen to Mark Steyn, too.
Anyway, Handel reads a lot of the ads that run on his show, often including his personal testimonials, sometimes live but often recorded. Maybe I'm just grouchy, but in recent weeks his ads have jumped the shark for me. It's not like I was rushing out to buy the stuff he was advertising anyway, but I've been turned off the last couple of weeks. I'm finding his ads irritating and annoying. It probably isn't Handel himself, but rather the copy. For example, he's been promoting a weight loss company that has brick & mortar locations. He says the reason it works is "accountability". Since you have to show up and be weighed in front of the people who are helping you to lose weight (mind you, you are paying those people) you don't want to disappoint them. Really? Really? People who don't give a rodent's behind about how their spouse feels about them gaining and retaining weight are going to care what someone they're employing thinks? In some of the ads, he's even used the word "magic". Get out of here. In another ad, Handel is trying to convince people to buy advertising on the station, which is owned by Clear Channel. Maybe it is a sign of desperation from a corporation that has tens of billions of dollars in debt? Part of what irritates me about the ad is that is claims to tell us what the "smart" people are doing. Because, you know, you are a flipping idiot.
Maybe it isn't Handel, because there's a McDonald's ad that various people, like different traffic reporters, have been reading that has been irritating me. I don't care if their coffee is made from "real Arabica beans" or the eggs in their breakfast are "fluffy". In fact, I'd rather the word "fluffy" not be used to describe meaty food.
I'm rapidly turning into a grumpy old man, apparently.
Anyway, Handel reads a lot of the ads that run on his show, often including his personal testimonials, sometimes live but often recorded. Maybe I'm just grouchy, but in recent weeks his ads have jumped the shark for me. It's not like I was rushing out to buy the stuff he was advertising anyway, but I've been turned off the last couple of weeks. I'm finding his ads irritating and annoying. It probably isn't Handel himself, but rather the copy. For example, he's been promoting a weight loss company that has brick & mortar locations. He says the reason it works is "accountability". Since you have to show up and be weighed in front of the people who are helping you to lose weight (mind you, you are paying those people) you don't want to disappoint them. Really? Really? People who don't give a rodent's behind about how their spouse feels about them gaining and retaining weight are going to care what someone they're employing thinks? In some of the ads, he's even used the word "magic". Get out of here. In another ad, Handel is trying to convince people to buy advertising on the station, which is owned by Clear Channel. Maybe it is a sign of desperation from a corporation that has tens of billions of dollars in debt? Part of what irritates me about the ad is that is claims to tell us what the "smart" people are doing. Because, you know, you are a flipping idiot.
Maybe it isn't Handel, because there's a McDonald's ad that various people, like different traffic reporters, have been reading that has been irritating me. I don't care if their coffee is made from "real Arabica beans" or the eggs in their breakfast are "fluffy". In fact, I'd rather the word "fluffy" not be used to describe meaty food.
I'm rapidly turning into a grumpy old man, apparently.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Thanksgiving Reminder
Oh, there's so much I could tell you, so much I've wanted to say, but I haven't gotten around to editing my thoughts into a publishable post, because I've been too busy with them mundane things in life. I did have a very nice day that was out of the ordinary recently, but other than that, it has all been about grinding away at the job to support the family, and doing my chores, errands, and parenting stuff. The wife seems happy enough, she's pleasant enough to be around, but I think things could be a heckuva lot better. Ah, but before I know it, barring something happening even sooner, I'll be an old man and dying and it really won't matter. That's something that has been weighing on my mind a lot lately. I could easily live as long as I have so far. Time passes by more slowly when we're younger, perhaps in part because so much of what we're experiencing is new. And if it seems like just yesterday that I was a kid, then it'll seem like tomorrow that I'll be a dying old man. Nice thought, eh? Anyway, below is an annual reminder I'm now running for the third time. If you haven't done so already, you should really really how my Thanksgiving went last year. [- November 14, 2013]
It is that time of the year again - when married people endure problem in-laws and everyone has to deal with their own problem family members, and when some unmarried people sitting around a Thanksgiving meal endure from family the questioning, nagging, teasing, and whatever else about why they're not married or why they don't have kids yet.
Don't get me wrong. I think it is acceptable to ask a family member who is currently expecting a child and will not be giving the child up for adoption about getting married. But if someone isn't in that position, they should not have to endure yearly or more frequent pressure from other family members about getting married.
See a previous posting of mine on this subject and a more recent one.
If you have endured such questioning, have you come up with any good things to say that stop the questioning and pressure?
The answers would likely be different depending on one's personal beliefs and the general family's traditional belief. For example, if the family is very religious and so are you, you can say, "God just hasn't brought me the right person yet."
But if most people at the table aren't religious, especially not you, it is very easy (at least for a man) to reply honestly with, "What would I get by being married that I can't get being unmarried?"
Either way, perhaps a good response is...
"I like my life the way it is right now. I get to do what I want when I want. Nobody argues or fights with me, or nags me in my own home. I never have to sleep on the couch. I get to have my place the way I like it. And I get to come here and endure this line of questioning from the likes of you instead of having to spend the holiday with someone else's family."
Two common questions asked of those with no plans to marry are, "Aren't you worried about growing old alone?" and the related "Don't you want someone to take care of you?"
But plenty of people who marry and have children end up growing old alone and in a horrible nursing home. Most of the people who sit in nursing homes with little or no visitation from family had children. And as far as being alone, there are these wonderful people called... friends. And when your friend gets mad at you and decides not to deal with you any more (or you decide not to deal with your friend anymore), you don't have to lose your home and pay that friend money.
Have any of you endured this line of questioning? How have you handled it?
It is that time of the year again - when married people endure problem in-laws and everyone has to deal with their own problem family members, and when some unmarried people sitting around a Thanksgiving meal endure from family the questioning, nagging, teasing, and whatever else about why they're not married or why they don't have kids yet.
Don't get me wrong. I think it is acceptable to ask a family member who is currently expecting a child and will not be giving the child up for adoption about getting married. But if someone isn't in that position, they should not have to endure yearly or more frequent pressure from other family members about getting married.
See a previous posting of mine on this subject and a more recent one.
If you have endured such questioning, have you come up with any good things to say that stop the questioning and pressure?
The answers would likely be different depending on one's personal beliefs and the general family's traditional belief. For example, if the family is very religious and so are you, you can say, "God just hasn't brought me the right person yet."
But if most people at the table aren't religious, especially not you, it is very easy (at least for a man) to reply honestly with, "What would I get by being married that I can't get being unmarried?"
Either way, perhaps a good response is...
"I like my life the way it is right now. I get to do what I want when I want. Nobody argues or fights with me, or nags me in my own home. I never have to sleep on the couch. I get to have my place the way I like it. And I get to come here and endure this line of questioning from the likes of you instead of having to spend the holiday with someone else's family."
Two common questions asked of those with no plans to marry are, "Aren't you worried about growing old alone?" and the related "Don't you want someone to take care of you?"
But plenty of people who marry and have children end up growing old alone and in a horrible nursing home. Most of the people who sit in nursing homes with little or no visitation from family had children. And as far as being alone, there are these wonderful people called... friends. And when your friend gets mad at you and decides not to deal with you any more (or you decide not to deal with your friend anymore), you don't have to lose your home and pay that friend money.
Have any of you endured this line of questioning? How have you handled it?
Previously:
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Avoidance and Being Caught
My wife, who has told me before that although she tries not to show it, claims she is really flattered and encouraged when I make a big deal about her appearing nude before me. Yet she seems to have no interest in basking in my mesmerized stare of awe.
I want to be desired, admired, appreciated for my physical appearance. It seems like she should couldn't care less about being the focus of such passion.
I'm very sensitive to not being wanted, and I've told her so. I told her I'm more perceptive than she might think when it comes to that.
Recently, my tentative indications of interest in making love were met with her asking to defer to our regular weekly session.
Okay, fine. As long as she will allow me my privacy, I will tend to my health myself.
But then the appointed date came, and she deferred again to the next day.
I want to be desired, admired, appreciated for my physical appearance. It seems like she should couldn't care less about being the focus of such passion.
I'm very sensitive to not being wanted, and I've told her so. I told her I'm more perceptive than she might think when it comes to that.
Recently, my tentative indications of interest in making love were met with her asking to defer to our regular weekly session.
Okay, fine. As long as she will allow me my privacy, I will tend to my health myself.
But then the appointed date came, and she deferred again to the next day.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
You Did NOT Enjoy What You Chose to Do For Ten Years
Had to check in about a call during the first hour of Dr. Laura's show on Tuesday, September 17, 2013. Whenever I have a bone to pick with Dr. Laura, I point out that I listen to every minute of her show and I follow what goes on with her website and Facebook page, and I read her books. I think she usually hits the bullseye and I think she has done so much good for many people, me included. Blah, blah, blah...
Dr. Laura's advice and comments over the years have made it clear that she, like many other people, subscribes to the idea that men should have to buy sex one way or another, preferably by signing a contract that shifts over half of everything they’ll ever earn to a woman. That is not how she would put it, but it is the end result of what she says (including that men always pay for dates) and the use of phrases like calling women who shack up or otherwise regularly fornicate as “unpaid whores”.
She took a call from a woman who'd not been honest with her husband about her sexual past (as the husband had supposedly been with her) in that she had previously not disclosed to him that from her late 20s to her late 30s, she'd had a lot of one night stands as part of evenings stated off by clubbing. The caller said the encounters had been fun, at least for a few minutes each time. Dr. Laura denied they had been fun. Isn't it interesting how Dr. Laura can speak to whether something was fun for another person and tell that person they didn't have the feelings they did?
Dr. Laura's advice and comments over the years have made it clear that she, like many other people, subscribes to the idea that men should have to buy sex one way or another, preferably by signing a contract that shifts over half of everything they’ll ever earn to a woman. That is not how she would put it, but it is the end result of what she says (including that men always pay for dates) and the use of phrases like calling women who shack up or otherwise regularly fornicate as “unpaid whores”.
She took a call from a woman who'd not been honest with her husband about her sexual past (as the husband had supposedly been with her) in that she had previously not disclosed to him that from her late 20s to her late 30s, she'd had a lot of one night stands as part of evenings stated off by clubbing. The caller said the encounters had been fun, at least for a few minutes each time. Dr. Laura denied they had been fun. Isn't it interesting how Dr. Laura can speak to whether something was fun for another person and tell that person they didn't have the feelings they did?
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Shattered Delusions
She hasn't filed for divorce – yet. I'm fairly certain she hasn't committed paternity fraud (or if she has, my brother or father knocked her up.) She hasn't had me arrested. I would never attack her, but plenty of men have been arrested without even pushing their wife in self defense.
But she's done enough of the textbook behavior that MGTOW, MRAs, Marriage Strikers, and Leykis 101 all warn about that I guess I can be categorized as a "beaten dog."
Whenever I get some time alone, I love it. I've always enjoyed my alone time, but now I appreciate it more than ever. I set my alarm and get up earlier than I "need" to, despite not getting enough sleep, because it is the way I get time to myself. I'd rather be tired and have had time to myself than tired and not have had time to myself.
The other day, it was two weeks since I'd had any sexual contact with my wife, and that session, a week after the previous session, had been stopped short by my wife. Now, during my wayward youth, when I was in long-term relationships with girlfriends, if we would have ever gone a single week without sex (after we’d become sexually active), I know any of those girlfriends would have freaked out and demanded to know why I was holding out on them. It never happened. Because I wanted sex and so did they. So… did… they. They wanted sex… with me.
Anyway, this other day was the day my wife will usually condescend to let me make love to her. Ah, but many hours before that would typically happen, she told me she was on the rag. Now, she was also not taking one of her meds, which she claims she does to help her enjoy sex more, but not taking the meds also makes her more bitchy. When menstruation and a lack of medication combine, my wife can literally go crazy or she will get vicious and say the kinds of things to me that marriage therapists say will kill a marriage. She reacts disproportionately to things I do in a negative way. (And I'm constantly reminded in my own thoughts that I made it clear before we even had our first date that I didn't want someone who needed – or thought she needed - ongoing medical treatment. This warning, I no longer have much doubt, prompted her to hide the truth from me.)
But she's done enough of the textbook behavior that MGTOW, MRAs, Marriage Strikers, and Leykis 101 all warn about that I guess I can be categorized as a "beaten dog."
Whenever I get some time alone, I love it. I've always enjoyed my alone time, but now I appreciate it more than ever. I set my alarm and get up earlier than I "need" to, despite not getting enough sleep, because it is the way I get time to myself. I'd rather be tired and have had time to myself than tired and not have had time to myself.
The other day, it was two weeks since I'd had any sexual contact with my wife, and that session, a week after the previous session, had been stopped short by my wife. Now, during my wayward youth, when I was in long-term relationships with girlfriends, if we would have ever gone a single week without sex (after we’d become sexually active), I know any of those girlfriends would have freaked out and demanded to know why I was holding out on them. It never happened. Because I wanted sex and so did they. So… did… they. They wanted sex… with me.
Anyway, this other day was the day my wife will usually condescend to let me make love to her. Ah, but many hours before that would typically happen, she told me she was on the rag. Now, she was also not taking one of her meds, which she claims she does to help her enjoy sex more, but not taking the meds also makes her more bitchy. When menstruation and a lack of medication combine, my wife can literally go crazy or she will get vicious and say the kinds of things to me that marriage therapists say will kill a marriage. She reacts disproportionately to things I do in a negative way. (And I'm constantly reminded in my own thoughts that I made it clear before we even had our first date that I didn't want someone who needed – or thought she needed - ongoing medical treatment. This warning, I no longer have much doubt, prompted her to hide the truth from me.)
Thursday, September 05, 2013
Yahoo E-mail Grab
You may or may not be aware that Yahoo! has "recycled" e-mail addresses that were not used for what the company considered to be too long. It had been at least several months since I last accessed an e-mail account I set up for this blog, and so when I went to check on it... POOF... it was gone, along with all of the e-mail messages I had been sent and that I had sent. Gee, thanks Yahoo. Then again, I didn't pay for that account, but still... I would have at least liked to have retrieved the messages. Surely there is some way Yahoo could have set it up to say that they were making the address available again, but if I entered the previous password I would be able to retrieve my messages for the next seven days. Or something.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Self-Inflicted Wounds Can Be the Most Painful
On our very first date, the woman who later became my wife asked me for my thoughts on how children should be raised. I told her that strangers would not be raising my children.
If that sounds like strange first date banter, that's because our fist date happened a few months after I was introduced to her and after we'd since communicated some important things about ourselves to each other, including that we were looking for an eventual spouse.
After I told her that strangers would be raising my children, I told her I was flexible about how that would be accomplished. I was open to being the one to stay with the kids, for example. She quickly said she'd be the one to stay with the kids. As it turns out, her three main goals in life were to work in the profession she did, to marry, and to be a mother, and by be a mother she wanted to mother, not hire other people to babysit/raise her kids five days a week.
The other day there was a call to Dr. Laura from a woman who wanted to put her four year-old into a weekday program at their church that took preschoolers several hours a day three days per week. Dr. Laura quickly identified it as daycare, insisted that children do not like such programs, and pointed out that nobody cares about a child as much as that child's mother.
I agree, at least with the last phrase. However, I do think some children may actually prefer these programs over being with mom if being with mom means being stuck at home, without friends at that.
The problem is, when Dr. Laura is making these comments, she's thinking of only one child being involved (she only had one) and she's envisioning a mother taking their one child on bicycle rides and walks, to the park, etc. That also what I thought I was getting - a wife who'd be that kind of mother to our children. After all, she had a full-time job working with children and knew about child development and the needs of children, and she wanted to be a stay-with-kids mother.
Our daughter is in grade school. My wife is homeschooling her. We also have a son. My wife wants to stick our son into pretty much the same program the caller described, only for two days a week instead of three. She says it is just too difficult to teach our daughter when our son delights in interfering, especially when it is to torment his sister (at which he excels). And she says it is just for this school year, since he'll have his own schoolwork to do next year.
I can hear Dr. Laura's first solution in my head: do the schoolwork at a park where the boy can play nearby.
But my wife doesn't feel she can do that safely - not with two children.
Then how about letting grandma take the boy twice a week?
My wife's mother is a drunk and forbidden by my wife (with my full support) to look after our children. My own mother lives an hour away and has other responsibilities.
Why not move closer to my mother?
This is the house my wife wanted.
Why not move closer to her now?
Our excellent credit has been tarnished due to decisions by my wife. We're not moving anywhere.
Why not stick the daughter in school?
Public schools suck in our neighborhood and our state has turned public schools into madhouses in general.
Why not stick the daughter in private school?
I don't have the money. In part because of all the money I pay to fund the unusable public schools.
Why not become a stay-with-kids dad and have the wife go to work?
She is done working. She's not going to go back full-time, and we can't disrupt my work situation because we need the insurance due to my wife's medical situations.
Why did you pick her to be the mother of your children if she is incapable?
She seemed capable. She had no children yet, so how could I be sure? There's much she and her family did not reveal to me until after we were married and had children.
Why did you have two children instead of one?
My wife insisted that she didn't want our daughter being an only child, and I had no idea that having two children instead of one would be such a problem for her.
Tell her to bite the bullet and be a mother to her son.
Well, yeah, except she has the trump card.
I expressed my opinion, even though it resulted in exactly what I figured it would - she's feeling hurt and upset, and nothing's going to change for the better. Everyone in my family has always urged us to stick the kids into "pre-school". It is clear they think she's a crappy mother, or at least unable to be a good mother. Yet my sisters also urge me to discuss my concerns with my wife - whether with this or anything else. But it is pointless. The only thing it changes is that it diminishes her happiness/satisfaction, and I take no pleasure in that. Why make both of us less happy?
As unromantic or selfish or otherwise wrong that it seems or may be, I married because I wanted (one of us) to raise my own children in the best circumstances and because I like sex and I wanted an enthusiastic lovemaking partner who would enjoy how I loved her and would enjoy loving me, and I wanted to live by what I'm convinced is the the truth: sex is for marriage. How many Christian men are in the same boat? Don't give me "You're supposed to marry someone because you can't live without them." Please. Most marriages in the Bible and in history were not about that. And clearly, considering how well I was doing and how long I had lived on my own, I could live just fine without any woman as my wife.
Both of those reasons I married are dead. The kids will grow up, and if they turn out badly, they'll be society's problem, not mine. I don't count on the situation with the sex getting any better. Ever. It's not important to her, and what I want isn't as important to her as her own preferences, and again, talking about it will not change that, it will only make her feel bad.
Here's where things get a little more adult. You are warned.
If that sounds like strange first date banter, that's because our fist date happened a few months after I was introduced to her and after we'd since communicated some important things about ourselves to each other, including that we were looking for an eventual spouse.
After I told her that strangers would be raising my children, I told her I was flexible about how that would be accomplished. I was open to being the one to stay with the kids, for example. She quickly said she'd be the one to stay with the kids. As it turns out, her three main goals in life were to work in the profession she did, to marry, and to be a mother, and by be a mother she wanted to mother, not hire other people to babysit/raise her kids five days a week.
The other day there was a call to Dr. Laura from a woman who wanted to put her four year-old into a weekday program at their church that took preschoolers several hours a day three days per week. Dr. Laura quickly identified it as daycare, insisted that children do not like such programs, and pointed out that nobody cares about a child as much as that child's mother.
I agree, at least with the last phrase. However, I do think some children may actually prefer these programs over being with mom if being with mom means being stuck at home, without friends at that.
The problem is, when Dr. Laura is making these comments, she's thinking of only one child being involved (she only had one) and she's envisioning a mother taking their one child on bicycle rides and walks, to the park, etc. That also what I thought I was getting - a wife who'd be that kind of mother to our children. After all, she had a full-time job working with children and knew about child development and the needs of children, and she wanted to be a stay-with-kids mother.
Our daughter is in grade school. My wife is homeschooling her. We also have a son. My wife wants to stick our son into pretty much the same program the caller described, only for two days a week instead of three. She says it is just too difficult to teach our daughter when our son delights in interfering, especially when it is to torment his sister (at which he excels). And she says it is just for this school year, since he'll have his own schoolwork to do next year.
I can hear Dr. Laura's first solution in my head: do the schoolwork at a park where the boy can play nearby.
But my wife doesn't feel she can do that safely - not with two children.
Then how about letting grandma take the boy twice a week?
My wife's mother is a drunk and forbidden by my wife (with my full support) to look after our children. My own mother lives an hour away and has other responsibilities.
Why not move closer to my mother?
This is the house my wife wanted.
Why not move closer to her now?
Our excellent credit has been tarnished due to decisions by my wife. We're not moving anywhere.
Why not stick the daughter in school?
Public schools suck in our neighborhood and our state has turned public schools into madhouses in general.
Why not stick the daughter in private school?
I don't have the money. In part because of all the money I pay to fund the unusable public schools.
Why not become a stay-with-kids dad and have the wife go to work?
She is done working. She's not going to go back full-time, and we can't disrupt my work situation because we need the insurance due to my wife's medical situations.
Why did you pick her to be the mother of your children if she is incapable?
She seemed capable. She had no children yet, so how could I be sure? There's much she and her family did not reveal to me until after we were married and had children.
Why did you have two children instead of one?
My wife insisted that she didn't want our daughter being an only child, and I had no idea that having two children instead of one would be such a problem for her.
Tell her to bite the bullet and be a mother to her son.
Well, yeah, except she has the trump card.
I expressed my opinion, even though it resulted in exactly what I figured it would - she's feeling hurt and upset, and nothing's going to change for the better. Everyone in my family has always urged us to stick the kids into "pre-school". It is clear they think she's a crappy mother, or at least unable to be a good mother. Yet my sisters also urge me to discuss my concerns with my wife - whether with this or anything else. But it is pointless. The only thing it changes is that it diminishes her happiness/satisfaction, and I take no pleasure in that. Why make both of us less happy?
As unromantic or selfish or otherwise wrong that it seems or may be, I married because I wanted (one of us) to raise my own children in the best circumstances and because I like sex and I wanted an enthusiastic lovemaking partner who would enjoy how I loved her and would enjoy loving me, and I wanted to live by what I'm convinced is the the truth: sex is for marriage. How many Christian men are in the same boat? Don't give me "You're supposed to marry someone because you can't live without them." Please. Most marriages in the Bible and in history were not about that. And clearly, considering how well I was doing and how long I had lived on my own, I could live just fine without any woman as my wife.
Both of those reasons I married are dead. The kids will grow up, and if they turn out badly, they'll be society's problem, not mine. I don't count on the situation with the sex getting any better. Ever. It's not important to her, and what I want isn't as important to her as her own preferences, and again, talking about it will not change that, it will only make her feel bad.
Here's where things get a little more adult. You are warned.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Lie to Me
Is acting a form of lying? Where’s the line between acting or pretending or “living a lie”?
I know there are people who claim to be “radically honest” to the point of almost never ever telling a lie, no matter how “little” or “white” it is. If someone asks a question you don’t want to answer because you think it will hurt their feelings or start a right, these people advise using ways of responding to the question without lying.
Most people do not follow such a method.
Even if they did, I’m not sure most marriages could possibly be happy ones if someone always told the truth.
For example, when a woman dreamily asks a man, “What are you thinking?”, chances are, she doesn’t want to know the truth, unless the truth is that he’s thinking about a blissful future of catering to her every whim and or he’s remembering how they fell in love. Most likely, he’s not thinking about that. “I was thinking about how nice it was when you were giving me the silent treatment” isn’t an answer that will help.
When someone asks, “How are you?” or Howsit goin’?” they usually don’t really care. They are just being polite. Even if they do care, is it really a good idea to answer with, “Not so good. My wife is being a real bitch.”? Not if she is there! And not if you think is is usually not a good thing to complain about your wife to others.
I did NOT get married because I needed my wife, or any woman, to be happy and get through life. I got married because I wanted to be a father and raise children in the way best for them AND because I like sex and, convinced that sex is for marriage as part of the design of God, I couldn’t be an honest, sincere Christian going through life fornicating. I didn’t want to go without sex; I like sex, I like pleasing and experiencing a woman sexually, especially one I love, and so I found what I thought was the right woman for me, and married her. That isn’t exactly something to say to your wife.
As far as the mothering part, things are much better than they used to be, but I still think my wife is doing things right, or enough things, or enough things right. I think the children are spending too much time in front of television. My wife sleeps in long after the kids are up. She thinks she can only take them out together under certain circumstances. Her parents and a brother are the only family a short drive away, but we won't leave our children with her parents and her brother has a life. So, too often the kids are stuck at home. Then I get home and I'm tired and would really like some alone time, but I need to tend to the needs of the kids.
As far as the sex, we've been down to about once per week for a while now, scheduled. If anything happens she doesn't like during the day two before our standing appointment, then I’m "punished" with her telling me I can forget about sex. For the longest time she was going without orgasms (on top of lack of desire/enthusiasm), and she blames her medications. Sure enough, after talking with one of her doctors, she started going without that specific medication for two days in a row each week (unless she forgot to NOT take her med), in anticipation of scheduled sex. And, that worked. Unfortunately, it also makes her bitchy. In fact, it has been when my wife has had problems with her meds that she has been all too honest with me, saying and doing things she may not even remember later, but that I won’t ever be able to forget. Someone may argue that the lack of meds was making her say things she didn’t really believe or feel, and I’d like to believe that to be the case, but I don’t believe it is the case.
So, I need her to lie to me.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
An Arrest Warrant For What?
There was an arrest warrant issued for Ric Flair for failing to pay spousal support or alimony - thousands of dollars per month.
If you don't know who Ric Flair is, read on.
Regardless of what anyone thinks of what is known as professional wrestling, it is not an easy profession. It is part of show biz, live theater-in-the-round, and that is where my mostly sporadic, casual interest has come in over the years. I've read a couple of Mick Foley's nonfiction autobiographical books and own the documentary "Beyond the Mat". Making it big in the industry not only takes skill and lots of hard work, but it takes luck and an ability to navigate the politics. Making it big can be lucrative, but it also means a lot of hard work, working day in and day out almost every day of the year, lots of traveling to get from one venue to the next, and a lot of pain from very real strains and injuries.
Ric Flair is someone who had a major back injury in (if I recall correctly) an airplane crash, but he managed to go on to have multiple of a top-notch career after that. Men and women like him have worked liked dogs. This guy is going to be living with serious aches and pains the rest of his life.
Like many other top professionals in his industry, his personal life has not been a smooth one. His latest wife he married in November 2009. About 34 months later (less than three years, Sept. 2012) it was over and Flair was headed for his fourth divorce.
Why is he supposed to pay a grown woman thousands of dollars each month because she was married to him for almost three years? Is that part of a prenup? If so, it is a lousy one. This isn't the 1920s. She has access to education and employment and banking so she can make and manage her own money. It isn't like he's had her at home for the last 20 years cranking out babies and raising them. His income today is based on scores of years of literally backbreaking work on his part, accumulating a professional legacy and achieving legendary status as a money-making draw for his employers. He's to pro wrestling what Kobe Bryant is to the NBA or what John Williams is to the world of Hollywood film scores. She played no part in that. Why is she entitled to his earnings?
I'm not saying he shouldn't live up to contracts or abide by court orders.
I'm saying there's a problem with premise that she is entitled to $4,000 a month to begin with.
If you don't know who Ric Flair is, read on.
Regardless of what anyone thinks of what is known as professional wrestling, it is not an easy profession. It is part of show biz, live theater-in-the-round, and that is where my mostly sporadic, casual interest has come in over the years. I've read a couple of Mick Foley's nonfiction autobiographical books and own the documentary "Beyond the Mat". Making it big in the industry not only takes skill and lots of hard work, but it takes luck and an ability to navigate the politics. Making it big can be lucrative, but it also means a lot of hard work, working day in and day out almost every day of the year, lots of traveling to get from one venue to the next, and a lot of pain from very real strains and injuries.
Ric Flair is someone who had a major back injury in (if I recall correctly) an airplane crash, but he managed to go on to have multiple of a top-notch career after that. Men and women like him have worked liked dogs. This guy is going to be living with serious aches and pains the rest of his life.
Like many other top professionals in his industry, his personal life has not been a smooth one. His latest wife he married in November 2009. About 34 months later (less than three years, Sept. 2012) it was over and Flair was headed for his fourth divorce.
Why is he supposed to pay a grown woman thousands of dollars each month because she was married to him for almost three years? Is that part of a prenup? If so, it is a lousy one. This isn't the 1920s. She has access to education and employment and banking so she can make and manage her own money. It isn't like he's had her at home for the last 20 years cranking out babies and raising them. His income today is based on scores of years of literally backbreaking work on his part, accumulating a professional legacy and achieving legendary status as a money-making draw for his employers. He's to pro wrestling what Kobe Bryant is to the NBA or what John Williams is to the world of Hollywood film scores. She played no part in that. Why is she entitled to his earnings?
I'm not saying he shouldn't live up to contracts or abide by court orders.
I'm saying there's a problem with premise that she is entitled to $4,000 a month to begin with.
Clooney's on a Marriage Strike
[I am bumping this up because Clooney continues to prove this to be true with a recent breakup.]
I saw on my online portal something about "why George Clooney won't get married". I didn't need to read the story. The reasons why Clooney won't get married should be readily apparent. He's considered one of the sexiest men alive. He's rich and famous. In my estimation, he won't get married because there's nothing in it for him, in his way of thinking. He can get everything he wants without being married. In fact, not being married makes it easier for him to get everything he wants. Nobody in the public or the media is going to give him grief no matter how many women he has sex with. Contrast that with Tiger Woods. Because Tiger Woods was married, it was a problem. Nobody would have given Woods grief over all of his flings and affairs if he hadn't been married.
Clooney is one of those men who women will admit they would have sex with him if all the time they'd ever have with him would be ten minutes. Some of these women insist they need romance, wining and dining, and a lot of foreplay, maybe even a "committed relationship" to have sex, but within a minute of meeting Clooney they'd be naked and on top of him.
Actually, by saying he's not going to get married, it's like a challenge to some women who are convinced that if they just try hard enough (= give him a lot of good sex and doting and no drama), then he'll change his mind and marry them.
All kidding aside, I have heard from someone who has dealt with him in person. We're not talking about a model or someone Clooney needed to butter up. From what she said about him, it sounds like he's a genuinely nice guy who really does care about people. I wish him the best, and I hope he's gotten snipped. If he doesn't want to get married, he should make sure he's not going to get anyone pregnant. Especially at his age.
I saw on my online portal something about "why George Clooney won't get married". I didn't need to read the story. The reasons why Clooney won't get married should be readily apparent. He's considered one of the sexiest men alive. He's rich and famous. In my estimation, he won't get married because there's nothing in it for him, in his way of thinking. He can get everything he wants without being married. In fact, not being married makes it easier for him to get everything he wants. Nobody in the public or the media is going to give him grief no matter how many women he has sex with. Contrast that with Tiger Woods. Because Tiger Woods was married, it was a problem. Nobody would have given Woods grief over all of his flings and affairs if he hadn't been married.
Clooney is one of those men who women will admit they would have sex with him if all the time they'd ever have with him would be ten minutes. Some of these women insist they need romance, wining and dining, and a lot of foreplay, maybe even a "committed relationship" to have sex, but within a minute of meeting Clooney they'd be naked and on top of him.
George's retort: "I hate to blow your whole news story, but I was married, so I gave it a shot."This is not why he won't remarry. If failing or having a bad experience at something caused Clooney to quit it, then he would have stopped acting long ago, because even the best actors have the projects they regret – if not because of the final product then because of the process of creating it.
Clooney and Italian actress/model Canalis, 32, have been dating since 2009.And when he's done with her or she's done with him, he won't have to pay her alimony. If they actually stay together, then what has he lost (in his eyes) by not being married to her? (When we no longer shame sex outside of marriage, this is a natural result.)
Actually, by saying he's not going to get married, it's like a challenge to some women who are convinced that if they just try hard enough (= give him a lot of good sex and doting and no drama), then he'll change his mind and marry them.
All kidding aside, I have heard from someone who has dealt with him in person. We're not talking about a model or someone Clooney needed to butter up. From what she said about him, it sounds like he's a genuinely nice guy who really does care about people. I wish him the best, and I hope he's gotten snipped. If he doesn't want to get married, he should make sure he's not going to get anyone pregnant. Especially at his age.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Knocking Up Teacher
Melissa Pamer and Tony Shin at NBC’s Los Angeles O & O has this story which has been all over the news around here:
So there's yet another criminal case that's hit the news lately about a young female teacher "having sex" with multiple minor male students. Unless the teacher is decidedly unattractive (this latest one isn't), one of the common responses to this is along the lines of:
A Redlands high school teacher accused of having a baby allegedly fathered by a teen student pleaded not guilty Tuesday to 41 counts of sex and oral copulation with a minor.Later:
Laura Elizabeth Whitehurst, 28, was arrested July 1 after the mother of a Citrus Valley High student contacted school officials about the suspected relationship between her son and the English teacher.
She was charged Monday with crimes alleged to have involved the boy -- who was 16 when the relationship began, according to police -- and two other teen students who are now adults.
Authorities said Whitehurst had given birth June 18 to a baby fathered by the student with whom she had had a nearly year-long affair. The boy attended the baby’s birth, according to court documents.Later:
Then, at least two other men came forward and said they had had sexual relations with Whitehurst in 2007 and 2008.Finally:
One of the alleged victims spoke to NBC4 Southern California, saying he never felt victimized but wanted to share his story so that others might come forward to tell police about their experiences with Whitehurst.
Whitehurst is charged with 30 counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, and 11 counts of oral copulation of a person under 18.
If convicted as charged, Whitehurst could face up to 29 years in state prison, the District's Attorney's Office said.
So there's yet another criminal case that's hit the news lately about a young female teacher "having sex" with multiple minor male students. Unless the teacher is decidedly unattractive (this latest one isn't), one of the common responses to this is along the lines of:
Thursday, June 13, 2013
On the Couch
I'm getting counseling.
My wife has repeatedly demanded I get counseling for the times I have lost my temper and yelled. I resisted, figuring if I had time to get counseling, I should instead spend that time doing something I wanted to do. Previously, every time she demanded I get counseling, she dropped the demand or forgot about it completely, because each time she made the demand it was she, in retrospect, who had a problem.
My wife even took video of me during one of my rants. This was to show me how awful I was. I knew that even as it was going on. She demanded I watch it and sent it to me (we weren't in the same place when she made the demand). So I did. And you know what? While she was expecting me to see that things were worse that I realized, when I saw the video I didn't look nearly as bad I had in my own mind.
Anyway, I agree I can handle some situations better, and choosing my battles, I recently relented and agreed to get counseling. So now, for a hour each week, I sit on a couch and talk with a man without anyone else around. Heck, even if he wasn't a therapist that hour would be better than an hour being given marching orders at home, or with the kids fighting with each other and petitioning me for this or that. Sure, let me talk with another man for a hour!
Still, I'd rather be doing something else with the time. Even getting a nap, since I don't enough sleep. Gee, I can't imagine someone is who sleep-deprived ever losing their temper.
My wife has repeatedly demanded I get counseling for the times I have lost my temper and yelled. I resisted, figuring if I had time to get counseling, I should instead spend that time doing something I wanted to do. Previously, every time she demanded I get counseling, she dropped the demand or forgot about it completely, because each time she made the demand it was she, in retrospect, who had a problem.
My wife even took video of me during one of my rants. This was to show me how awful I was. I knew that even as it was going on. She demanded I watch it and sent it to me (we weren't in the same place when she made the demand). So I did. And you know what? While she was expecting me to see that things were worse that I realized, when I saw the video I didn't look nearly as bad I had in my own mind.
Anyway, I agree I can handle some situations better, and choosing my battles, I recently relented and agreed to get counseling. So now, for a hour each week, I sit on a couch and talk with a man without anyone else around. Heck, even if he wasn't a therapist that hour would be better than an hour being given marching orders at home, or with the kids fighting with each other and petitioning me for this or that. Sure, let me talk with another man for a hour!
Still, I'd rather be doing something else with the time. Even getting a nap, since I don't enough sleep. Gee, I can't imagine someone is who sleep-deprived ever losing their temper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)