Is Dr. Laura The Only Talk Show Host Who Does This?

Over the last three decades plus, I've listened to a lot of audio talk shows that take calls. I still listen to many.

I have to ask: Is Dr. Laura the only host who either doesn't understand normal over-the-phone dialogues, or does she simply reject the standard etiquette?

Cross talk in such situations is extremely common (as it is with normal phone calls people make to each other). It probably happens on more calls to audio shows than not. There are going to be times a caller starts talking before the host has finished what they were saying (often because it sounded like they were done), or the host will jump in to say something while the caller is still talking and the caller won't notice that the host has started talking. Stuff like that.

Usually, the host or the caller will repeat what they said, or the host will invite the caller to repeat what they said.

That's every show that takes any calls.

Except for the Dr. Laura Show.

She takes it as a personal insult if the caller says anything while she is talking, even if it is just "I agree" or "Right", and she also gets upset if the caller doesn't stop talking the millisecond she cuts in, even if it is the middle of their sentence.

"You can hear me, I know you can hear me!" she'll insist. "You're talking over me!"

She think they're talking over her out of a lack of thoughtfulness or respect. Or, the only other possibility in her thinking is that there are technical problems with the phone lines so that callers aren't hearing her. I feel for the technical personnel who are handling those phones, because every once in a while she'll say on-air that it needs to be taken care of, and if she's saying that on the air, she's probably said it many times during breaks, but not as sweetly. It sounds like nobody has ever sat her down and said that crosstalk, especially on call-in talk shows, is normal.

I've said many, many times on this blog how great her show is and how much I appreciate her. If I didn't listen to every minute of the show, I wouldn't know this stuff about the show. It's a bit sad that she lets this get to her so much. She should listen to a few other shows, especially the kind where things can get heated, and she'll see how common crosstalk is.

A Terse Bottom Line on Marriage

When it is the case that a husband does or will earn more more than his wife (which is the majority of marriages), the only benefit a man gets from marrying that he couldn't get as an unmarried man is at the voluntary generosity of his wife, while women benefit by law. Actually, he could get all of those things at the voluntary generosity of a woman who isn't his wife, too. That voluntarily generosity can be rescinded at any time without legal or financial risk, while a husband can be ordered by a court to keep providing benefits to an ex-wife.

The Prom Is For Girls and Gays

Here we are again. I'm hearing about The Prom again.

Every year now, I note this ritual, which has become another day, along with "Sweet Sixteen" (or other birthdays for certain cultures, at 13, 15, etc.) and wedding days (the the related events) that are all about feeding the narcissism and sense of entitlement of attention-whores and attention-whores-in-training.

Refer back to my "Beware the Prom", and this look at a Dear Abby column, and this look at a different Dear Abby column and now this entry on increasingly showy proposals ("promposals") for dates.

Stop it, guys! Unless you're gay and want to rub it into the noses of some uptight school staff or parents by taking someone of the same sex, you don't really want to go to a dance, do you? You don't really want to take girl to the prom, do you?

It a nutshell, here are my problems with the prom as it is these days:

1) Boys wasting money.

2) Another event where females are princess-ized, which is a problem as long as males are prevented, culturally/socially and often legally, from events that cater to them and are focused on them in a similar way. Go ahead and tell me... what event gives boys the equivalent of the prom, where the activities are all about things he wants to do, with the boys dressing the way they want to dress, the girls dressing the way the boys want them to dress, the girls paying for it and escorting the boys, and where the boys will go hang out with their friends during the event?

If you already have a date for the prom, break up with her. If you were planning to ask a girl, especially with some elaborate production, don't!

Some of you guys think that taking a girl to the prom means she will have sex with you. If she hasn't had sex with you yet, paying her way and being her display piece for the prom almost certainly will NOT make it happen. If she really is the kind of girl who will finally have sex with you because you took her to the prom, it's probably not worth it. You're far better off going straight to one of the "after parties". But even then, you're just asking for trouble, even more so if she's underage (even if YOU are underage). 

You're better off doing something else that night, even staying home and sleeping. If you're a very bad boy, you might want to track down a neighborhood "single" mom whose daughter is off to the prom that night and it has her (the mom) feeling nostalgic and over the hill. Just be careful or you'll end up a very young father.

Limits

It's hard for me to make long-term plans or plans months in advance. I'm not talking about finances. I have multiple investment/retirement accounts going, although I'd like to save more. I'm talking about making plans to be at certain places at a certain time, whether in a professional capacity or a personal one.

It's not a calendar issue. I maintain calendars for both my professional and person life, the latter share with my wife, thanks to technology.

No, the issues are:

1) Between school, activities for the kids, medical and therapy appointments, and of course my work, it's hard to clear any time without feeling like we'd be taking a big risk or neglecting something.

2) The kids fight each other and their mother, which means spending "extra" hours away from home is risky.

3) My wife's mental problems and those at least one of our kids inherited can make for unpredictable problems, which also is a risk and anxiety-making. My wife also has physical problems that can suddenly, unpredictably, prevent her from driving, meaning she won't be able to drive any of our kids somewhere or pick them up.

And aside from these issues, anything that will take both me and my wife out of town is hindered by:

4) The kids not being able to stay together, and the people who are might, possibly, (separately) take them are 45-60 minutes away (so if school is in session, it's not possible).

5) Multiple pets I very reluctantly allowed us to take on. (I've refrained from writing much about that on this blog, but I probably should.)

I never know when there will be a serious problem. Countless times I've had to stop working and drive home or somewhere else, often an hour away.

Sure, something can happen to anyone, but it is more likely to happen to my family or me than the average person.

Only for very rare occasions can we plan well in advance with a determination that one of us will follow through.

I often feel like I'm treading water and have a long to-do list. I think about things I've wanted to do with my kids or offer for them to do (think things like a particular sport), but I already feel so worn out and exhausted and know I'd need my wife to be able and willing to help facilitate their participation, and I simply can't rely on her.

You might read this and think, You have too much on your plate. Drop something.

I need to work, so that can't go.

I'm not dropping my wife or the kids.

I don't get together with the guys (not in person, anyway). I don't take classes. Other than work, what I do outside the home is run errands and do weekly personal therapy at the demand of my wife. I obviously do blog, but I'd go crazy if I didn't.

There's one thing. It's a personal project that will bring in a very small amount of extra income. But I just can't bring myself to drop it. It doesn't take up much time, and it is very important to me.

Sigh.

Don't marry, guys. Don't marry and do get a vasectomy.

Hold Those Hormones

I'm a follower of Christ, and I generally fall in line with the positions held by "conservative Christians" or "the Religious Right" (with a libertarian lean when it comes to government involvement), with a few notable exceptions, such as discouraging rather than encouraging men to legally marry, and not thinking that watching pixels of nude women and people appearing to have sex turns people into serial killers. I'm very familiar with the positions and reasoning used in these circles.

That brings me to something I find a bit frustrating, but I have to paint a detailed picture to explain it.

Here is a composite list of rules, based on what you can find in media featuring prominent leaders of this sort:

Confidential to Anonymous

Someone has sent me a couple of anonymous comments (not for publication) and I wanted to offer you thanks for your comments and I wanted to encourage you to stay strong.

There's nothing wrong at all with your status.

That some people think it is somehow negative or that you're lacking is erroneous thinking on their part.

Continue to think critically. Continue to think of what is best for you. Getting married and having children, if done "right", is about self-sacrifice. Sacrifices shouldn't be made for lost causes. What I mean is, you'd sacrifice yourself and, chances are, the outcome wouldn't be worth your sacrifice.

Remember these pages and posts:

Why You Don't Want to Do That
https://tunasafedolphin.blogspot.com/p/why-you-dont-want-to-do-that.html

Quiz For Men: Should You Get Married?
https://tunasafedolphin.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_30.html

To What Should Males Aspire?
https://tunasafedolphin.blogspot.com/2016/12/to-what-should-males-aspire.html

Why We Should Use the Death Penalty

Here's another one of those all-too-common cases to remember when you see people encouraging others to become parents. It's from Alejandra Reyes-Velarde and it was in the Los Angeles Times:

A Fontana woman previously convicted of child abuse has been charged in the death of her 3-year-old daughter, who died days after being taken to the hospital with injuries that authorities said stemmed from abuse.

Fontana is in the "Inland Empire", which is the part of California that east of Los Angeles county and the OC and west of the border with Arizona and Nevada. There are some fine people who live in the Inland Empire, but it's also home to a lot of people who are wasting their human potential.

Miriam Sandoval, 37, and the child’s father, Richard Rojo, 34, were arrested Feb. 27 after Fontana police responded to a medical aid call in the 9500 block of Madrona Avenue. When they arrived, officers found a 3-year-old girl who was not breathing, authorities said.

Nice. Notice he's the "child's father", so I guess that means they never bothered to marry?

The girl was taken to the hospital and died Sunday, Fontana police spokesman Jay Sayegh said. 

It’s unclear how the girl died, but Sayegh said she had “significant visible body injuries.”

Infuriating.

Sandoval previously was convicted of child abuse after the girl, as an infant, suffered broken bones, including a broken pelvis.

A broken flippin' pelvis. On an infant.

“It’s extremely frustrating,” Sayegh said, adding that the woman was put on probation after a plea deal. “This is a woman who should have never been around those kids again. It’s heartbreaking.”

Gotta love those plea deals. Imagine the life that kid lived.

Sandoval and Rojo have two other children: the dead girl’s twin sister and a boy about 6, Sayegh said. The children are now under the care of the county’s Children and Family Services Department, police said.

Let's hope they don't end up with abusers.

Authorities do not think Rojo participated in the abuse, but Sayegh said the man was negligent.

He knocked the woman up at least twice knowing she was an example of toxic femininity.

“The father took no actions to protect the children,” he said. “That’s his obligation.”

There's something to remember, guys. If you don't protect the children, you're also held responsible. This is something I've had to remember myself. As far as I know, my wife hasn't physically or sexually abused our children, but physical and sexual abuse aren't the only forms of abuse.

At least one of these adults deserves the death penalty, which California still technically has, but it's a joke because the thing has been thwarted by cruel people.

Dr. Laura Gets a Lot of Calls From Shackups

Shacking up is so common and accepted these days that people who don't listen much to Dr. Laura might be surprised that she's against it, and how strongly she condemns it (as do I). She will even hang up on some male callers who are shacking up without bothering to let them ask their question. For other callers, she will usually make an example of them.

During the first hour of the Wednesday, February 27, 2019 show, she took a call from "Michelle" who said she has a boyfriend of a few years and she's moved in with him to what had been his former marital home. She had also been previously married. They both have grown children.

But before Michelle could really get that out, Dr. Laura started in.

So She Has Moved On - Now What?

Guys, has she just dumped you, officially or not?

This is the time of year when a lot of men find themselves dumped, left, served with divorce papers, or that "the woman in their life" has checked out from the relationship or is with other men (online or in the flesh). You were with her for Thanksgiving, maybe with her at your family's place or you being her guy-to-show-off at her family or friend's place. You got her Christmas presents. You were there for her on New Year's Eve, maybe even spending a lot of money. And you made a big deal about Valentine's Day.

But she was planning to leave after she got what she wanted. Or you didn't jump through the hoops right (in many cases, nobody can).

And now you're finding out why I told you to become scarce in November, and you should have listened to me.

So now what?

We're Almost to February 14

Men, if you're not already married, don't let the marketing get to you. Don't let any peer pressure get to you. Don't let any "hints" from women get to you. Unlike most married men, you can survive February 14 without jumping through hoops and spending a lot of money.

If you have a fiancée or girlfriend, you need to think very soberly about what you're facing by allowing that relationship to continue. You CAN back out. Most likely, you should.

You should at least get scarce between now and February 15.

From just before Thanksgiving until February 15, you should not be seeing any woman who is expecting you to marry her, propose to her, impregnate her, move in together, or make a big deal about February 14. And if you're seeing someone whose birthday is in late February or who counts a day in late February as an anniversary with you, avoid her until after that day.

If you were with her through the holidays, that makes it all the more important you get very scarce until at least February 15, if not outright ghosting her permanently.

What's the risk, really? That she'll get with some other guy? Or move on? So what?!?

Let some guy who doesn't value his earnings or is desperate pay for what she wants. You don't want to get suckered into spending a lot of time, money, and effort to get something you can get without doing so. There are attractive, available women who will gladly take the open spot in your rotation if you play your cards right. Whether you want to keep getting with women or not, you probably shouldn't get into a situation in which you're heading for marriage.

Most men shouldn't marry. Most marriages are not both lasting and happy. Having a woman live with you is asking for trouble. You don't need a wife.

Do things right, and you can have a full social and personal life year-round without going to ridiculous lengths to make Valentine's Day, some woman's birthday, anniversaries, and winter holidays (like Christmas and New Year's Eve) some sort of worshipping of a woman.

Problems With Statistics in Selling Marriage to Men

Statistics are about a population, not individuals. What happens in your life either will happen or it won't (usually depending on your choices) - so it is either 0% or 100% for you. Statistics can tell you the odds, all things being equal, but things aren't equal. Let's take college graduates, for example. The average person with a Bachelor's degree is going to earn more than the average person without a college education. Yet some of the people with the highest incomes or the most wealth never graduated from college. This includes tech leaders, professional athletes, entertainers and authors, and various businesspeople. [Please note that this entry was posted several years ago. It still holds up pretty well.]

Statistics usually can't tell you why something is the way it is. For example, statistics will tell you that if you compare 200 people in a hospital and 200 people in an apartment complex across the street, you'll see that you're far more likely to die in the hospital than in the apartment complex. What are we to think as a result? That hospitals are harmful to our health? Or that people who are seriously sick and injured go to a hospital, where some of them are going to die, but more of them would die if they hadn't gone to the hospital?

Talk show host Tom Leykis, like a lot of other people, will tell you that half of all marriages end in divorce, and that more adults are unmarried now than married, as if this is some profound shift in how people look at life. However, most of the shift in married vs. unmarried involves people getting married later in life, such as their late 20s or early 30s instead of their early 20s. Although there is a growing percentage of men swearing off marriage, it is still a small group and most people will get married at some time in their lives. As far as divorce, Leykis has had four divorces. I've had none. If you average us together, that means the average person has two divorces. That's a little misleading. First marriages have about a 40% divorce rate, which is still way too high, but it isn't 50%. It is the high divorce rate for second, third, etc. marriages that skew the statistics. (On the other hand, perhaps even MORE marriages would end in divorce if it were for fatal illness and injuries, murders and suicides ending someone's life before they could divorce – so just because a marriage didn't end in divorce does not mean it was a good marriage.) 40% is the rate for all first marriages. I wonder what the divorce rate is for people who marry into a first marriage: 1) without children from other lovers or a current pregnancy influencing their decision; 2) after about 18-24 months of being a couple (but not too much longer than that); 3) without having shacked up OR being "long distance"; 4) after six months of intense premarital counseling with a LMFT; 5) with the same or compatible religious beliefs or practices and plans for children; 6) with no credit card debt; 7) without substance abuse problems. My guess is that divorce rate for such marriages is very low.

Conversely...

Still Waiting

Another comment was left by another Anonymous woman who didn't bother to address what I actually wrote in this blog's most popular entry, but instead tried (and failed) to shame men for actually caring about their own well being.

Since she left it as a response to another comment, I will look at that comment first.

Here's the original comment.

I'm a man, engaged to the mother of my two children.

Why? Clearly you can have kids without being married. Why bother marrying? What we've been told over the last 25 years in our courts and culture is that marriage isn't about children. So there must be some other reason you're engaged to her. (And that she's the mother of YOUR children, and presumably not another man's, that colors your comment.)

And even in this situation, the children always take priority. You (the significant other) won't always be the priority; and that's fine. We a still love eachother and we're to be married September in 2016.

I wonder how they're doing now? For the kids' sake, I hope well.

I think most of this article is trash. Not wanting to be with a woman because she doesn't have a pre-pregnancy body is incredibly shallow, and speaks poorly to your character.

It's a good thing women aren't shallow, like, say, not dating men who aren't taller than them, or preferring men with fatter wallets. The body issues were a small part of the list. There were many more reasons given, some that should be deal breakers by themselves. Nobody should kid themselves, though. If a man isn't turned on by a woman, it is unlikely their marriage will be a good, lasting, happy one.

If you're really worried about the possibility of a divorce, and the woman getting half of everything you have? Sign a pre-nup.

Judges throw out prenups all of the time. Men should avoid signing a marriage contract or any contract with a woman, especially a single mother.

Into the New Year, Mid February is Coming

Guys, did you make it through Christmas and New Year's Eve without getting engaged? If not, you need to think very soberly about what you're facing. You CAN back out. Most likely, you should. You shouldn't have even been with a steady girlfriend on those days.

February 14 is rapidly approaching. You should not be seeing any woman who is expecting you to marry her, propose to her, impregnate her, move in together, or make a big deal about February 14 - until at least February 15. And if you're seeing someone whose birthday is in late February or who counts a day in late February as an anniversary with you, avoid her until after that day.

What's the risk, really? That she'll get with some other guy? Or move on? So what?!?

Let some guy who doesn't value his earnings or is desperate pay for what she wants. You don't want to get suckered into spending a lot of time, money, and effort to get something you can get without doing so. There are attractive, available women who will gladly take the open spot in your rotation if you play your cards right. Whether you want to keep getting with women or not, you probably shouldn't get into a situation in which you're heading for marriage.

Angry Mom Checks In

Another comment (that didn't actually demonstrate where I was wrong) was left on this blog's most popular entry, which has received hundreds of comments.

I'm assuming this comment was directed at me and not someone else who'd left a comment. This is what SaEatonmomof3 had to say:

You are the most self centered, must be narcissist that I have ever read crap like this from.

Remember guys, if you won't want to ruin your life via someone else's children, you're a narcissist!

How Many of You Are Sick?

Dr. Laura's mind tends to go places most people's minds don't. I love her show, I love her books, and she's usually right but sometimes I scratch my head.

For example, during the first hour of today's (Wednesday 1/9) show,  man called to talk about an annual family vacation for him, his wife, and their grown kids (two daughters and a son).

Since the eldest is now married, he was wondering about room sharing arrangements and he asked Dr. Laura about having (no doubt since the married daughter and her husband would be sharing a room) the other daughter and a son share a room for a week since the daughters would no longer be sharing a room.

Dr. Laura quickly, emphatically, and repeatedly called it "sick". She acted like she was shocked.. She stated she was "horrified".

I can understand calling it impractical, even unfair, or whatever, but why did she call it sick? Why does she apparently think sleeping in the same room equals sex? Many married people who share a bed know it's not true. We can go months, years sharing a room and not have sex. I mean, she's used the work "sick" for other situations before, but I don't think she could possibly mean that the kids are mentally ill or that they'd be beating up on each other, so I assume she's talking about sex.

She continued the call briefly, then decided to pretend it was a phony call.

For most of history, people have NOT had their own rooms. I guess everyone was sick?

I've noticed before that she usually treats the presence of a bed or touching a bed as akin (no pun intended) to having sex with the person who uses it. For example, kids aren't supposed to touch their parents' bed.

Presumably, the brother and sister would not even be sharing a bed. I distinctly heard they would be sharing a room.

I have to wonder what Dr. Laura does with the fact that some people have sex on the couch, on the living room floor, on the kitchen table, in the family minivan, in the shower (which she sometimes recommends), you name it.

Scott Morefield Laments a Lack of Suckers

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

What on earth happened to marriage?

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

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

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

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

Yeah, ain't diversity grand?

Stop Telling People to Have Kids

Concerned with dropping "fertility rates", there are people who encourage others to have (more) children. This is one of millions of examples of why that's a terrible idea.

Hannah Fry reported in the Left Angeles Times...

The city of Napa and Napa County will pay $5 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the father and grandmother of a 3-year-old girl who was tortured and killed in 2014.

The City of Napa and the Count of Napa. That means the taxpayers of Napa. That's because they were supposed to somehow only have government officials and employees who would have prevented this.

Kayleigh Slusher died in a Napa apartment in January 2014 after being neglected and abused by her mother, Sarah Krueger, and her mother’s boyfriend, Ryan Warner. Both were convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison, according to court records.

They should have gotten the death penalty.

After Kayleigh’s death, the girl’s body was stuffed in a duffel bag and stored in the freezer for three days before she was placed in her bed, where police ultimately found her. The girl’s cause of death was multiple blunt-force injuries to her head, torso and extremities. She had suffered a broken rib and damage to her small intestine and was covered in bruises before she died, authorities said at the time.

Don't you tell me that lethal injection is "cruel and unusual". The people who wrote and adopted that phrase into our Constitution would have done far worse to her murderers.

Kayleigh’s father, Jason Slusher — who was serving a prison sentence when his daughter was killed — and her grandmother, Robin Slusher, filed a lawsuit against the city and county in 2015 alleging that despite obvious signs of abuse and neglect, police and child welfare officials did not intervene or remove Kayleigh from her mother’s home.

Why was her father in prison? Was he wrongly convicted? Or was Sarah Krueger just that good at picking men? Whichever it was, Jason made a terrible mistake in knocking up Sarah. And his mother... how did she raise that guy? All that being said, I do recognize that there are legal principles that apply here that say they could be rotten people (not saying they are, but they COULD be) and they still have standing to get big bucks because of what happened to their daughter/granddaughter.

The lawsuit said that in the three weeks before Kayleigh died, Napa police and child services had been called to the girl’s home five times regarding possible abuse and drug use.

When officers visited the home, they “would have seen that she was covered in bruises and in excruciating pain from a broken rib and the intestinal infection that was slowly killing her,” but they did nothing, according to a statement from Slusher’s attorneys.

Is anything being done to the people who responded to these calls? Demotions? Loss of jobs? Criminal prosecutions? Stuff like that has been pursued in SoCal after a highly publicized torture-murder of a boy. Or is Joe Taxpayer the only person who's paying?

I have no idea if the responding personnel were simply callous or jaded or secretly hate little girls, or if they made genuine mistakes, or if they were sincere but completely incompetent. I wasn't there. I wasn't in their heads. It certainly looks like they failed to take action when they clearly should have. It's a terrible position to be in. If you make mistakes, kids die or you take kids out of a loving home, at least for a while.

But let's not forget who put that little girl in that position in the first place. Her own parents. When parents can't or won't protect their children instead of torturing and murdering them, how do we expect a bureaucracy to do it effectively on a consistent basis? Answer: It can't. Which means horror stories are inevitable.

Stop telling people to have children. They really shouldn't, unless they're prepared and willing to be good parents.

Happy New Year!

Going out tonight? Celebrating? (Or, if you're reading this after the fact, did you?)

Not me! I'll be lucky if I can get some sleep.

My wife would want to go anywhere even if we had someone to take care of our kids.

This is married-dad life, guys. I'll be lucky to get a kiss.

My goals for the New Year?


-Keeping my wife from killing herself, at least in front of my kids.

-Trying to save enough money for the future.

-Trying to keep my kids from killing themselves, each other, or their mother.

-Keeping my vehicle, which is over two decades old and doesn't have working a/c, running.

-Keeping social workers and health departments out of my home.


None of these things would be problems if I hadn't married.


I hope you have a great New Year. And if you're not married, DON'T GET MARRIED!!!

Old Time Values Are Now Counterculture

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

Are You Lonely at This Special Time?

Guys, are you feeling down because you think you should have a "special woman" in your life? Maybe as your wife? And you don't?

Does it seem like everyone is happy and together with a partner?

There's a guy I've known for my entire adult life. We're not close, but he's been an acquaintance all along. He gets on social media and complains about being alone. It's pathetic. And if his social media postings weren't obvious enough already, he's started to talk about mental illness.

Doing stuff like that is a good way to drive any potential partners away, at least the healthy ones.

This is a guy who is gainfully employed and living in one the best places to live in the world.

But I get it. Brain chemistry doesn't care if you're better off than most of the world.

There are men out there, and maybe you're one them, who is feeling lonely and you ache for a girlfriend. A wife. You think that's what's missing from your life. You think that having that special lady would make everything better.

Dealing With The Holidays

[Bumping this up for Christmas.] Well here we are yet again, facing another "holiday season" kicked off by Thanksgiving, meaning that unmarried men everywhere (in the USA, anyway) are going to be hounded by family about their marital status.

Since marriage has been the biggest mistake of my life, I don't want any other men pressured into it. You don't need a wife, guys. Most of you shouldn't be husbands or fathers. Most of you really don't want a wife; you might not even want a girlfriend.

In past years, I have posted a reminder about the holidays and almost all of it still holds up. The one change is that I no longer think couples who have children or are expecting should be encouraged to marry. Our culture, especially our oh-so-holy Supreme Court, has declared that marriage isn't about children. It's solely about the feelings of adults at any given moment. As such, nobody should feel any obligation whatsoever to marry no matter what the circumstances. (Sorry, folks, if two men can get "married" then marriage can't be about children. If you thought removing gender integration from marriage wouldn't have any negative consequences, well, you were wrong. You can't demand other people live as though it hasn't changed.)

Cats and Batteries

Part of Dennis Prager’s selling of marriage involves selling women on marriage. To his credit, he doesn’t just focus on selling marriage to men. Fortunately, for him, he got a call to his show, which I heard, that he turned into this column. I have no idea if she was one of those hired callers some shows use.

I found the column at Townhall, which is part of Salem, the company replacing Michael Medved with Sebastian Gorka at the end of the year. There, the column had the headline ”A Message to Young Women from a Career Woman”.

Every Wednesday, the second hour of my national radio show is the "Male/Female Hour." A few weeks ago, a woman named Jennifer called in. For reasons of space, I have somewhat shortened her comments. Every young woman should read them. This is precisely what she said:

Every young woman.

Does Something Have to be Wrong?

The second to last call on the Dr. Laura show yesterday, Monday, November 26, was from a woman who said her 14 year-old daughter told her (prompted by a discussion of about abortion) that she'd engaged in sexual activity a couple of times, and that this wasn't with a boyfriend, but rather these were casual encounters.

The first thing Dr. Laura asked about the girl's father. When the caller indicated that she's married to her daughter's biological father and that he's a good, involved father, Dr. Laura coudn't blame the girl's behavior on a divorce or bad or absent father, so she repeatedly said "Something's wrong!" and urged the mother to get her daughter into therapy.

According to what Dr. Laura said, she was thinking the girl was seeking male approval, but the caller saying what she did about her husband knocked that away.

What I don't understand is how Dr. Laura dismisses the possibility that a hormonal teenaged girl simply wanted to mess around because it is fun and exciting, and her desire to do so outweighed any concerns she had about possible negative consequences? Wouldn't that be NORMAL for most teenagers? Isn't that why some parents and religious organizations spend a lot of time, money, and energy warning teenagers about the risks of young, unmarried sexual activity?

It just seemed like an odd call, but then yesterday Dr. Laura seemed to have less patience or desire to "work hard" than usual. She was hanging up on callers stuff like that.

I'd be interested in the caller following up with another call or letter if she finds out anything unusual.

Dr. Laura will usually blame any deviation from the ideal life plan she teaches (which I largely agree with is the right way to do things) as the cause of whatever she sees as a problem in the caller's life, which is often spot-on but sometimes I'm not so sure. For example, she's told a caller "Your daughter is doing [whatever the problem behavior is] because you divorced her dad and married someone else." But when I remember my sister doing the same things while our biological parents were still happily married, how does that compute? Clearly my sister wasn't doing it because of a divorce and remarriage. And maybe the caller's daughter is doing something for another reason, too.

Don't Be This Guy

Reading the Dear Abby column an result in daily facepalms. Just check out this recent letter by HUNG UP ON THE RING IN RENO:

My girlfriend and I love each other very much and have been living together with our children for five years. 

Ugh. Either they have children together, they brought in children from other relationships, or both. He doesn't say. If she already had minor kids he shouldn't have dated her. If he already had minor kids, he shouldn't have introduced his new lover to his kids. Shacking up is a terrible idea in general, but even more so with kids. And then if they had kids together outside of marriage, that was a horrible thing to do.

We intend to get married soon.

Why bother?

Here is the rub: She's "old school." She believes she should receive a diamond ring as part of the marriage proposal.

MUHUHUHUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! Old school?!? That's a good one. Old school.

OLD SCHOOL WOMEN DON'T SHACK UP!!!

Now Is the Time, Guys

Here in the USA, Thanksgiving is on the way (11/22!!!), and then it'll be Hanukkah, Christmas, Festivus, New Year's Eve/Day, and then Valentine's Day.

Thanksgiving, even more than Christmas Day, is when family gets together. We get two straight days as official holidays, attached to a weekend.

This is where the pitfalls are for a man who wants to be or remain free.

If you spend time with her family/friends, or she with yours, she'll be thinking you are the one she's going to attach to for the long haul. She might even be expecting a ring, or if you've given her one, talk of a wedding. Certainly she'll be expecting expensive gifts and having you jump through a bunch of hoops.

Avoid all of that.

Who needs that expense? Who needs the drama? Who needs a girlfriend who wants to be your fiancee? Who needs a fiancee who wants to be your wife?

You don't want to spend time with her family and friends, or have her spend time with yours. You don't want her getting the idea that you're serious. You need to be a free man.

If she's asking or even just hinting that she wants to move in together, get engaged, get married, have a kid, or even just "define the relationship" or has asked, "Where is this going?", now is the time to become really scarce or outright ghost her, at least until February 15. If she has a birthday or your "anniversary" with her is in late February or early March, extend the break until after that. It will save you so much time, money, and hassle. 

You shouldn't have a girlfriend at all, but if you do, you need to take evasive action NOW. Especially if you're living with her or she's got at least one minor or dependent child.

Please see something I wrote before about dealing with the holidays.

Tom Leykis Has Transitioned

No, not like that.

As he announced he would a month ago, he has ended his live call-in audio show. He last had a regular radio show in 2009, started up this Internet-based call-in audio show in 2012 after his contact with the radio company (and the accompanying paychecks) ended. While that show was placed into subscription podcast format after in ran live on the stream (on which it would be repeated) for free, now Leykis is specifically doing a podcast for paid subscribers, who can also access the content from 2012 onward.

This means he's no longer doing a live, appointment show. It gives him far more flexibility, while trading away caller participation.

While the call-in show generated enough revenue through subscriptions, advertisements, and other ways to more than cover costs (sans a healthy paycheck for Leykis), it is possible he'll make more money from his new podcast format.

How so, given that he won't have as large of an audience for advertisers to reach?

Don't Date Single Mothers - Here is Why

[This is this blog's most popular post. I think it holds up well and is highly relevant in today's world. PLEASE NOTE: If you want to comment, do so here because this entry already had hundreds of comments.]

Not of all of these reasons apply to everyone. Some men are dating for sex, others are dating for marriage and sex, for example. Also, “single mother” can mean different things*.

Men, especially men with game, have a choice in women. Some women have children, some don’t. Unless you’re a pedophile, it is extremely unlikely that a woman with a child has anything to offer that’s of benefit to you that a woman without a child lacks. Conversely, here are the downsides of dating a single mother, in no particular order:

1) The kid(s) will always come first for her, and that’s the way it should be. A woman without a child has much more freedom to be available for you. An unmarried mother should put her child(ren) first. The child is already dealing with not having a mother and father married to each other and living together, and needs parental attention. That child does not need to compete with you, and you don’t need to compete with that child. Even if you were to marry her, the child(ren) will always come first, whereas being with a childless woman means YOU come first. Having children in the mix complicates EVERYTHING!

2) Most relationships end. So you’d bond with her children and then you (and the children) would have to endure the pain of losing or restricting that bond with each other. That’s bad enough for you, but you should not be a party to putting a child through that.

3) Being around the child(ren) exposes you to false charges of abuse. If the child likes you, if you’re nice to the child, that’s no insurance against false accusations. It probably makes you MORE of a target. These children are more likely to have mental and emotional problems. Social workers know that children in these situations are more likely to be abused by their mother’s lovers, so they’ll be more likely to believe you are a culprit. Even if you are ultimately cleared of false accusations, the mere accusation can ruin your life. This reason alone should eliminate single mothers from your consideration.

4) You WILL have to pay more than if you date a childless woman. First it will start off with having to pay for babysitters, and then she will want to have “dates” on which the child(ren) will come along. So not only will you not be getting sex, but you’re going to have to hang out at Chuck E. Cheese’s AND pay for the child’s meals and entertainment. Depending on what is happening with the child’s biological father, how much time the child spends around you, paying for the child, and buying gifts for the child (think birthdays, Christmas, etc.), you can end up getting tagged for child support. All it takes is some judge or government official picking YOU to pay for the child’s needs rather than taxpayers. Finally, if you marry her, you will DEFINITELY be paying more.

5) A woman who has given birth can’t ever have a body close to what she had before carrying a child. This is not saying that having a child isn’t worth it, but this is not about YOU having a child. That child is hers, not yours. Her body was changed by something that is of no benefit to you.

6) You don’t want to be a father. She has demonstrated already that she doesn’t know how to effectively use contraception OR otherwise doesn’t make good choices because she made children with the wrong guy (most likely)*, and has demonstrated that she WANTS to be a mother as she kept the child. Once a woman is a mother, she is less reluctant to avoid pregnancy. She may WANT her child(ren) to have a sibling, and you don’t want to end up being Daddy. It doesn’t matter what she says as far as “I don’t want another child” or “I can’t get pregnant” or “I’m using contraception” or “I wouldn’t ask anything of you.” Women lie or change their minds about this sort of thing all of time**, and even if she doesn’t, a court can make you be Daddy, financially anyway.

7) You don’t want to be divorced. Especially since women are more likely to file for divorce, marrying a divorced woman means you are more likely to end up divorced from her. Second marriages have a higher failure rate than first marriage. Marrying a woman with minor children gives you about a 70% chance of getting divorced. And that's legal divorce. Some people stay legally married, but miserable.

8) You don’t want to deal with the child’s father. Even if you’re just dating her and don’t want to get married, if the father(s) of the child(ren) is/are in the picture, that is likely going to be even more of a hassle for you. Even if a biodad isn't in the picture right now, he can always resurface and wreak havoc unless he's dead.

As you can see, whether you’re just looking for sex or you actually do want to get married (= legally obligating yourself to give at least half of everything you’ll ever earn to a woman, being held legally/financially responsible for any children she births during the marriage whether they are yours or not), you should avoid single mothers. This is written to protect men (and, somewhat, children). None of this is to say single mothers are bad people and certainly not to say all women do the things I listed. Some do, and men should protect themselves.


*Women are “single mothers” for different reasons. While the term should be reserved for never-married mothers, it can also refer to divorced mothers and widowed mothers. Unless she was widowed because her husband was killed through no fault of his own (as opposed to guys who committed suicide, or had unhealthy lives, or were involved in crime), she picked the wrong man and/or treated him like crap. A few single mothers used a sperm donor, and those women think men are not important. [SINCE I HAVE RECEIVED MULTIPLE COMMENTS ON THIS, please see what I wrote here about WIDOWED MOTHERS.]

**Never trust a woman’s claims she can’t/doesn’t want to get pregnant (unless, of course, you WANT to have children with her). Assume she is fertile and will want to have a baby.

[This entry gets a lot of traffic, relative to my other entries. It must resonate with someone. PLEASE NOTE: If you want to comment, do so here because this entry already had hundreds of comments.]

Here's how to exit a relationship with a single mother if you're already in one.

Did Her Needs Change?

This entry is going to explicitly cover some sexual topics. So don't read it if that bothers you.

Not Booked

Someone commenting here reminded me of something I was thinking about the other day.

Wasn't Tom Leykis' book supposed to be released this month? It was going to be about Leykis 101, which essentially teaches men how to get more sex for less money.

It's placeholder has disappeared from Amazon.

I haven't heard the book mentioned on the show lately.

Tom's live, free, call-in show is about to end, but he does plan to start podcasting for paid subscribers.

At this point, it wouldn't be all that difficult for an avid listener to publish a well-organized and annotated book with the exact same information, while avoiding using the name "Leykis" or some of Tom's favorite phrases and personal stories. Granted, that listener wouldn't have Leykis' name recognition or media connection for ready publicity. Tom would probably argue that multiple people have already tried.

It did seem strange that the placeholder listed that the book would be released the same month Tom was ending the current version of his show.

The book could still be used to promote the subscriber podcast and archives, and perhaps Tom is revising the text to do exactly that. Heck, he could string together segments from his archives to compile an audiobook.

Waiting For Marriage is Good But Not Risk Free

[This post is from December 12, 2012. I'm bumping it up because it is still relevant.]

When I last updated here, I wrote this. I'll probably explain things more later, but for now, things are OK. I'm alive, she's alive, the kids are alive.

On yesterday's Dr. Laura Schlessinger program (which I listen to every minute of, because she's great), she opened by talking about the risks of fornication (without using that word) and why, statistically, saving sex for marriage (marrying as a virgin) is good. On her Facebook page, a question was asked of readers (even though she regularly says people should not have personal Facebook pages... they have to be on Facebook to respond on Facebook... but I digress.) Her opening commentary said sexual bonding short-circuits decision-making. But if that's true before marriage, it has to be true after marriage, too.

Then, appealing to data, she said

Compared to the early sex group* those who waited for marriage:
Rated relationship stability higher
Rated relationship satisfaction higher
Rated sexual quality higher
Rated communication higher

*A month of less after meeting/dating. There is a sizable gap between those couples and couples who waited for marriage. I wonder how couples who waited, say, three months or six months would compare?


How was this data collected? How were the questions asked? Were they asked as a couple, face to face with the person collecting the data? Was the "less than a month" or "married" question asked before the others? I suspect couples who waited for marriage, especially if they realize what is being studied, and even more so if done face-to-face and in front of each other, will overstate positives because they are financially, legally, socially, and often religiously invested and don't want to admit to others and especially themselves if they are unhappy with their marriages or something in their marriages. Some of these people may be of the mindset that "speaking it makes it so" and if they believe, as Dennis Prager does, that happiness is a choice and a moral obligation, they have even more incentive to claim things are great. Wouldn't they sound selfish and ungrateful to their spouse and God if they said things weren't going well?

What does it mean when people who've never had sex with anyone else rate the sexual quality of their relationship higher? They have nothing with which to compare it! Now, ignorance may be bliss if they want to stay married for life, but that's hardly an effective statistic to cite to any rational unmarried person about why saving sex for marriage is better: "If your married sex life ends up dull, you'll have no idea how much better it could be!!! Isn't that great?!?"

As with all sociology, correlation does not prove causation, nor the direction of causation, and we can't compare the same people to both circumstances, because they are only in one. For all we know, these same "saved it for marriage" couples would say the same things about their relationships if they had, instead, started having sex with each other right away and got married the same time along in the relationship, especially if they did not buy into a belief that sex is for marriage.

Dr. Laura ended the commentary by saying  "there are a lot of benefits, and no downs".

Really?

I wrote the letter below to her, and I doubt it is going to show up on her website, so here goes...
*****

I now believe sex is for marriage and that the world would be a better place if everyone reserved sex for their one and only spouse, and if widowed, again reserved sex for their next spouse.

But we who believe this should NOT:

1. Overpromise. Just about anyone who believes what we do is very religious or at least socially conservative, and the message we send is that if someone just saves sex for marriage and marries within the same faith, things will generally be great and the sex life will be great. The statistics often cited (including by you) are usually based on self-reporting, which I find dubious. The married-as-virgin people have nothing to compare their relationship to and no idea how things would be for them if they hadn’t married, or married as virgins. Even if accurate, as you recognize, statistics are generalizations. There are many unmarried people having lot of sex and are happy with their sex lives and lives in general, and many married people who are getting little or no sex and are unhappy.

2. Deny there are tradeoffs. Yes, there are. Every day we save sex for marriage is another day we don't enjoy sex, for example, and plenty of people, including women, do find sex outside of marriage enjoyable and it has many of the same benefits married sex does. It is very easy for those of us who are married and having sex to tell those who aren't "You should wait." Many of them see it like we're enjoying a nice meal while they are standing around with growling stomachs and we're telling them "Don't eat that junk food! Wait and MAYBE you'll be seated at that gourmet restaurant." They're hungry NOW, and while they might sit alone listening to good reasons to save sex for marriage, things look very different while sharing a passionate moment with someone they love.

3. Deny or ignore the risks. a) Almost anyone who believes sex is only for marriage also believes divorce is only permissible (and even then, still to be avoided if possible) if there is abandonment or abuse (including adultery and addictions). They may think they are marrying a virtuous, strong person because they are marrying a virgin, only to find they've married someone who has a low sex drive or other physiological problem, a psychological aversion to sex, or is homosexual. b) While people often stay in bad or mismatched relationships too long because they are having sex, there are also people who marry too young, too quickly, or the wrong person because they have a natural yearning for sex and want to be able to say they saved sex for marriage. [After I wrote this and sent this, I got to the 40-minute mark in the 2nd hour of the podcast and she got a call from a woman whose son was marrying too quickly/young/to the wrong person precisely because they were saving sex for marriage, illustrating my point.] c) Sexual incompatibility, especially when these incompatibilities can't be reconciled[1] or one spouse refuses to try to reconcile them. Although YOU wouldn't tell them to, they then think they are compelled by the same religious community and beliefs (including that divorce is shameful) to suffer and struggle through such a marriage.

4. Ignore that we've created a culture in which it takes longer to become established, independent adults and for men to earn enough to provide for a family, while at the same time making it easier to have unmarried sex without unwanted physical or social consequences. In Jewish culture 2,000 years ago, people married a lot younger, usually to someone they'd known all their lives and were pledged to marry, and unmarried sex, casual or otherwise, wasn't so easy to have and keep private as it is now.

Personal disclosure: I married a virgin, even though I did not require that in a wife. I now believe she was able to maintain her commitment to save sex for marriage due to the many medications she takes, as I discovered after we'd married, despite (or perhaps because of) making it clear I didn't want to marry someone who was chronically ill or constantly treating illness. After marrying, there was one situation after another that could be cited as interfering with our love life, and by the time I realized this was the way things were always going to be, we had children. I have crunched the numbers and even with rounding off to the benefit of marriage, I am one of those people who had a more active sex life (as wrong as it was) when I was unmarried, with no pregnancies that I'm aware of, and no STDs, confident I do not have any children from those relationships. If I hadn't had those relationships, I would be more anxious/bitter in my marriage because I would have to live with knowing that I'd never know what it is like to have an enthusiastic lover who wants sex enough to initiate and what it was like to do some rather common things my wife won't do with me. Thanks to you, I at least get some "mercy action" between the times she is willing to actually get naked , let me make love to HER, and have intercourse, but it emotionally feels like me masturbating, only while adding a chore to her day, which makes it less enjoyable to me than masturbation.

I appreciate all you do to encourage everyone to lead better lives. If we're honest about saving sex for marriage, we'll maintain credibility and avoid prompting general disillusionment with people who do not share so many of the positive results of saving sex for marriage.

***** [End of letter]
[1]Off the top of my head, some basic sexual incompatibilities married couples may experience include: 1) Who "may" initiate and how. 2) Who takes the lead 3) Positions for intercourse 4) Whether or not sexy talk is allowed, and just how explicit/which words to use. 5) Use of sex toys or common items household items (whipped cream?) 6) Lights on vs lights off. 7) Role playing
8) Who climaxes when
9) General limitations (examples: Once something has her natural lubrication on it, her mouth will not touch it, or he will refuse to kiss her on the lips if she has gone down on him.)
10) Cunnilingus? Fellatio?
11) Very soft and gentle and slow, or rougher?
12) Frequency
13) Morning, afternoon, or night?
Now, I know there are people reading this who are saying to themselves "They should just talk it over." That only works with someone who is willing to try, or willing to do it to please their spouse (without indicating to their spouse they find it a chore, thereby ruining it for their spouse). I've made it clear on this blog that I love cunnilingus. But what if a woman who more or less needed either that or a vibrator to orgasm married a man who said both of those things were "of the devil"? How likely is he to be talked into providing those things to her?   In my case, my wife has never ever suggested something I've turned down, while she has turned down several things, or has volunteered after the fact, even though she should have been able to tell I enjoyed it, that it, at best, does nothing for her.

Do I Have the Right to Remain Silent?

I probably didn’t handle this in the best way. There’s probably some way I didn’t think of that would have made things better. I’m always open to instruction and suggestions.[This is bumped up from June 2015.]

It is times like this that I am grateful for Tom Leykis and certain "manosphere" folks, and for the fornication of my wayward youth. I know I'm supposed to say I regret my fornication, but thanks to those experiences, and to Leykis and others, I know that my wife's sexual rejection is about her, not about me. Oh, sure, I don't have it as bad as some husbands. I still get some (mostly mercy, mostly vanilla) sex every two or three weeks. That's not enough for me.

I really, really, really wanted a lover who was enthusiastic, curious, adventurous, and generous, because those are the things I bring to lovemaking. I wanted someone who'd indulge with passion, playfulness, and think of marital lovemaking as bonding, a blessing from the Lord, and a shared hobby.

How does one know that's what they're getting if they avoid sexual interaction with each other before they marry? That’s a question I’ve asked before.

When someone calls Dr. Laura and says their spouse lacks interest, she asks how it was before they married.

Before we married, my wife explained that she was a virgin and was determined to be one until she married. I was fine with that. I thought that was ideal. She was passionate with her kisses. We did more than we should have, if going by what’s been esteemed as moral tradition, and she really seemed to struggle holding back. In fact, as I think I've written before, she did something multiple times she hasn't done even once since we married.

The indications were that she was revved up and ready to enjoy married life in this way. But there were a series of challenges life threw at her/us (you know… life) after I signed on the dotted line, and then we had two kids, and she had everything she wanted: She had the title of "wife" and "mother" and the minivan and the house. She had someone paying all of her bills, including for her overused health insurance and medical bills.

Tom's Final Month of Doing a Live Show

At least for now.

Tom Leykis announced on today's show that his last live audio show will be Thursday, October 25, 2018. He has been saying all year that this day was coming.

What he plans to do is keep his library of shows available for paid subscribers only and to do some new content via podcasts, starting October 29, only for paid subscribers.

He mentioned that he's had to cancel (or postpone) two of his dinner events due to a "minor medical issue" and his dinners were what was keeping the business profitable this year. (Haven't heard him mention the 1,900 subscriber mark lately.) He doesn't want to operate in the red, and doing the live show costs approximately half of a million dollars per year, so he's ending the live show. A podcast should cost less to produce, but he insists it will still have a high cost compared to many other podcasts because he wants the quality to be high.

So, with six straight years of profitably, he's calling it a day and making a change.

Of course, there is always the possibility that some company will offer to pay him enough that he'll take them up on the offer. SiriusXM had enough money to buy Pandora, or so it seems. I can't see him doing that unless the deal is very lucrative and/or he is given nearly total control over the show.

As of this writing, his book is still listed on Amazon as being released October 15, which is about three weeks away, even though there is no cover art and minimal information shown.

The Reason Your Child Is Misbehaving

As I've said on this blog over and over again, I love Dr. Laura and her media and mostly agree with her.

One of the areas where I have some questions about how she handles callers is when someone calls with concerns about the behavior of their minor child, and Dr. Laura starts off with questions to determine (as she often does with other concerns) whether or not the child is being raised in a married, intact home with their mother and father. If the caller was never married to the child's other parent, or is divorced, and especially if they are the stepparent or have a new spouse/partner, or the kid is in daycare, THAT is where the call stops, in the sense that Dr. Laura asserts THAT is the reason the child is acting out.

Really? She's not even going to bother to let the caller add that the kid was once run over by a bus, or was once kidnapped and beaten, or was hurt from medical malpractice?

It especially puts me on edge when the problem behavior described in the child is something like what my children are doing. My kids are being raised in a married, intact home by their biological parents. So clearly other things aside from divorce/never married/stepparent/daycare can prompt these behaviors, right?

Isn't it possible... possible... that whatever is causing the behavior in my children is also causing the behavior in the caller's child?

Now, I have to wonder if, in these cases, Dr. Laura feels the truth is less important than what she sees as the more important thing, which is eliminating or limiting the involvement of the new partner or spouse, or getting the kid out of daycare, or whatever, and communicating to the audience that kids need to be raised within their parents' marriage, by a parent. If that is her agenda, and the caller does what Dr. Laura recommends and the child still has the problem behavior, that will at least make the child better off. It just doesn't make anything easier for the parent or eliminate the problem behavior.

Another Reason Husbands Don't Communicate More

Everything I say can and will be used against me by my wife. That I already knew.

But everything anyone one ELSE says can and will be used by my wife to be negative about them and what's going on in our life, causing me a great deal of stress. So I need to remember not to tell her what other people have said. If I need to communicate the actual thing to her, I'm better off masking the source.

Example:

Me: "My sister [who has experience with X] said that we might want to look into X."

My Wife: "Yes, I already knew that. She should just shut up about things. Your family is so screwed up."

Now, let's see how I could have better handled that.

Me: "Have you looked into X?"

My Wife: "Of course I have. You must think I don't care about anything!"

I also need to avoid going to others with what my wife said. I'm not talking about private stuff. That I wouldn't share with others. That's what this blog is for. When I relay what my wife has said, people get pissed off at her. So if it is something that really needs to be communicated, I need to mask her as the source and change the wording and approach.

Sigh.

Guys, this is how I spend my days. I'm begging you: DON'T MARRY. Don't live with a woman. Even if you want kids, you don't have reasonable certainty you can provide kids a lasting, intact, happy, stable, healthy marriage in which to raise them. It's the sad truth. So get a vasectomy and never ever let a woman move in with you. Never move in with a woman. And never ever marry. You're more likely to end up like me than in a lasting, happy marriage.

Young Newlywed Thinks You Should Make the Same Mistake

A young man by the name of Brendan Clarey had an opinion column run in USA Today.

It would appear that he's in llloooooooooooooooove!

You know it's going to be delicious when it has this headline:

Dear fellow millennials, marrying at 22 is the best decision I ever made

Getting married was the WORST decision I ever made, BY FAR!

Getting married as a 22-year-old set me apart from most millennials, but my own experience made me ask: Why does my generation wait so long to wed?

If they marry at all, most don't wait long enough!

But those who do want to marry wait because they can get just about everything they want without marrying. And because they're in debt but want a big wedding. And because marrying in your early twenties or earlier is associated with a high rate of divorce (especially if you're not a member of a cult that punishes you for divorcing) and lower satisfaction in marriage.

Millennials like to take their lives into their own hands. They prove it by posting their travels on Instagram (#WanderLust). They wholeheartedly pursue their jobs and hobbies.

Men who marry young are going to have a harder time traveling, getting better jobs, and pursuing their hobbies.

So Much to Say

There is so much I want to write here. I could update every day, multiple times per day, if I had the time and energy. There is so much that has gone on and is still going on in my life, relating to my wife and children, that could serve as a warning to others.

I just have to be careful because I value my privacy and that of my family even more, which means I need to be vague and generic about some of the things I want to tell you, but that's not always easy or possible.

In the meantime, I'll say what I've probably said in cyberspace before: my time, money, and energy is taken up mostly by things I don't want to do, that I never wanted to be involved with, that I sought to avoid, all because I married and had children. If I had remained unmarried (and, by default, childfree), I could be doing things far more enjoyable and productive. I'm under constant unnecessary stress.

The Truth About Doctor Laura

It's time to expose THE TRUTH about Laura Schlessinger! I've got the goods on her. [This was originally posted in June 2016 and is still relevant.]

My Current Recommendations to Men

Do not marry.

Do not have children.

...unless you have no purpose in your life and you really need drama, aggravation, your days filled  with doing things for others that will often turn out to be complete wastes or received with not only a lack of gratitude, but complaining... AND you WANT to waste your money.

*****

UPDATE August 22, 2018: I first posted that, above, in April 2014. I am more certain than ever that most men should not marry (nor shack up), and since they should not marry, they should not have children.

She Digs Masculine Men

When I saw that today's Prager University video was going to be on masculinity, I braced for another video telling men that they should get married. We last addressed the Prager U videos doing that in this entry.

Let's look at the transcript they provided. (If you want to comment on the video, you can do so on YouTube in addition to commenting below.)

Rape, murder, war—they all have one thing in common: Men.

Taken by itself, this sentence ignores that women rape and women murder. And why does war happen? Sure, territory, resources, power... but why do the men engaged in war want those things? Quite often, a large part of it has to do with women. Women are attracted to men with money, power, and fame. War is one way men get those things.

Aggression, violence, ambition unchecked by conscience—all the stuff of “toxic masculinity,” right? 

And, the solution is obvious: make men less toxic. 

Make men less masculine. 

Make men more like women. 

But I’m here to tell you that this way of thinking is not only wrong, it’s dangerous.

Good.

Here’s why: When you try to make men more like women, you don’t get less “toxic masculinity,” you get more. 

Why? Because bad men don’t become good when they stop being men; they become good when they stop being bad.

Still good.

Aggression, violence, and unbridled ambition can’t be eliminated from the male psyche; they can only be harnessed. And when they are harnessed, they are tools for good, not for harm. 

The same masculine traits that bring destruction also defeat tyranny. The traits that foster greed also build economies. The traits that drive men to take foolish risks also drive men to take heroic risks. 

The answer to toxic masculinity isn’t less masculinity; it’s better masculinity. And we know what that looks like.

Still good.

It’s a young man opening the door for a girl on their first date. It’s a father working long hours to provide for his family.

Sigh. I just knew that was coming!

Guest Post: What Makes a Marriage Work

Someone identified as...

Lois E Brenneman, MSN, FNP

...has been leaving thoughtful comments here on this blog.

One such comment was after this blog's most popular entry, which has literally hundreds of comments, so it was easy to miss. So, I offered to post it as an entry. I want to make it clear that these are the opinions of Lois E Brenneman, not my opinions.

= = = = =

The key to a successful relationship - whether marriage, cohabitation or simply dating - is integrity

1. Don’t expect more from someone than what you are willing to give to them

2. Be clear and honest about what you are willing to do and what you expect from the other individual - no “hidden agendas”

3. Look for fairness and equity when resolving disputes. Don’t look for solutions which benefit only yourself at the expense of the other person.

4. Strive for a relationship where both individuals benefit from being associated with one another - try to create dynamics where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

5. Don’t expect perfection from your partner and realize you have your own set of flaws. Life is not a bed of roses - there will be ups and downs. Try to meet the other person’s needs to the best of your abilities - don’t only look out for your own needs.

There is no “magic formula” or written in stone “set of rules.” They key is to conduct yourself with integrity and expect integrity from your partner. Whether someone is a single mother or otherwise is not significant. The relevant factor is how you both conduct yourselves within the context of the relationship. I have been married for 25 years and it is a solid, healthy marriage. It is not all hearts and flowers and there have been good times and bad times. We are there for each other when the need arises. I was never looking for someone to take care of me. Rather, I was looking for a partner in life and, in return, I strive to be the best partner I can be with respect to my husband. I try to accommodate what is important to him. He has been there for me when I have needed him.

The most important factor leading to the success of any relationship is to put the other person’s needs ahead of your own (within reason, of course). When both parties do so, the relationship works. When it comes to dating and/or marriage, integrity matters above all else. If you are only seeking to have your own needs met - without regard to how doing so impacts the other person - the relationship will fall apart - guaranteed. It is but a matter of time.

= = = = =

There you have it.