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?
Wednesday, February 05, 2014
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)