Stop Using Stupid Arguments Against Adult Media

I've added a new page, prompted by an exchange I had with @porntruth - an Twitter account that blocked me after I asked a single question.

UPDATED the page on January 27, 2016 with how to clear away red herrings and why someone objecting to porn should explain what they mean by "porn".

UPDATED the page on Monday, February 1, 2016 explaining a bit about male sexual nature, especially in contrast to female sexual nature.

UPDATED the page on Tuesday, February 9, 2016 critiquing some of the arguments often used.

UPDATED the page on Wednesday, February 12, 2016 critiquing more of the arguments often used.

February Means...

Hey ladies... do you have a man in your life? A husband, a steady, a romantic partner?

Does he care about the Super Bowl? If so, did you help make it a great day for him? If he doesn't care about the Super Bowl, is there some other annual day other than his birthday that you give him an especially good time?

If not, why do you expect him to make a big deal about Valentine's Day?

Valentine's Day is NOT for men. It just isn't. It is a day when men are expected to make a huge fuss about romancing a woman. There's dinner reservations, entertainment, gifts, chocolates and candies, flowers, cards, etc. Now, sure, a man who is genuinely happy in his relationship wants to give the woman what she wants. However, a scheduled and expected (demanded) communal thing means more hassle, more expense, etc. Who needs that? If it is truly about celebrating your love, it can be done any day of the week, when there won't be crowds and jacked up costs.

If you have a man who makes a big deal about Valentine's Day, I hope you reciprocate on another day or you at least make it worth his effort.

And guys, if you're going to be proposing (see this before you do), do NOT propose on Valentine's Day, her birthday, or any other gift-giving occasion, or it makes it more likely she can keep the ring if things don't work out. You want that ring to be considered conditional.

Still Fighting the Tide

So far, the Dr. Laura Show this week has had a lot of women calling who are shacking up, and Dr. Laura attempts to shame these women, including pointing out that their children are seeing them shack up. One of the reasons given as to why this is bad is that it makes the children more likely to shack up. But this reasoning doesn't work on callers (or listeners) who don't see anything wrong with shacking up in the first place. Dr. Laura can run down a list of reasons she opposes shacking up, but she doesn't always do it.

One problem is, shaming doesn't work on people who have no shame for their actions. Since old time values are now counterculture, postmodern influence is widespread, and selective moral relativism is so prevalent, they look at Dr. Laura's reaction as akin to someone saying, "Chocolate ice cream? I don't like that flavor. How could you let your kids seeing you eating chocolate ice cream?!?" For many of these women, they prefer shacking up to living alone.

In Case You Were Wondering

I've added a page explaining why I'm still married.

A Few Quick Notes

I finally got active on a Twitter account to accompany this blog. I'm here: http://www.twitter.com/TunaSafeDolphin

I'm following a bunch of MGTOW and MRA accounts as well as a lot of accounts ministering to marriages and families and  advocating people marry, and hysterical anti-porn accounts. Those last categories I follow mainly for laughs and blog/tweet fodder. You know, like when an account tweets out that people shouldn't watch porn 'cuz human trafficking, and I can tweet back and ask if people should avoid wearing clothes for the same reason (human trafficking in the garment industry).

On the plus side, my wife has been in a good mood lately and has been verbally (text, mostly) expressing her appreciation of what I do. No, it hasn't meant more or better sex - we're averaging about once every two weeks these days. She did have some of her medication adjusted recently so it is likely related to that. Our family therapist has been urging her to get individual therapy, which she has resisted even though it is clear she needs it because it has become apparent that she's letting her mother's alcoholism during her childhood have significant negative influences over her interactions with me and our kids. She did see our family therapist alone for a session and had been planning to do it again. But since it has only been one session my guess is that the improvement is due to her medication.

On the sad side is that she has suffered a series of concussions lately just doing normal things around the house. She's not even 40 and I figure between the recent and past concussions, the medications, her history of mental illness, and some other factors, I shouldn't be surprised if she demonstrates significant cognitive impairment within a few years. I'm bracing to sit her down with our family therapist sometime soon and ask her to seriously consider her preferences would be if/when 1) she can no longer drive the kids to school, which is her most significant contribution to the family these days; 2) can no longer be left alone in our own home (not that her preferences will be accommodated, but I figure it would be good to know them); and also having her document her wishes for end-of-life care, funeral preferences, and what should happen with her body. Of course, with that last one, everyone should do that because none of us is guaranteed another day, no matter our age or health.

Inconsiderate

Now, apparently, it isn't enough to sexually reject me, even after I jumped through all of the hoops. Now she deprives me even more of sleep (after she'd been allowed to sleep for eleven hours or so) by staying in our bedroom to binge watch a reality show until several hours after I should have been asleep peacefully. She usually has done her binge watching in a common room of the house. Hey, but she tells me that she loves me, so what am I complaining about, right?

Attention unmarried men: What are you waiting for?!? Don't you want this life???

Playing in Traffic

One of these days, I'll have to compile a list of bad arguments against porn.

One bad argument is that "porn causes human trafficking." I can see how this could be a valid argument if we're talking about certain subgenres. But what if a guy only views porn involving independent citizen women who are well into adulthood, and doesn't involve any coercion whatsoever?

You know what else often involves human trafficking? The garment industry. But you know, it's funny, I don't see the people who say nobody should view porn because of human trafficking also saying nobody should wear clothes.

Now, an argument could be made that shunning or banning all porn would reduce human trafficking, but you know what else would? Drastically lowering the quality of life/standard of living in the USA, because then there were would be fewer people who'd want to come here illegally.

An argument can also be made that shunning or banning all porn would INCREASE human trafficking, because it would be contraband and it can be easier to produce and distribute contraband by involving human trafficking.

Try one of these more honest objections:

"I don't like porn because I think the women are more sexually attractive than me and they do things I won't do."

"I don't like porn because I've been told I'm not supposed to."

"I don't like porn because men get auditory and visual erotic stimulation without having to spend a lot of money or deal with relationship hell."


Side note: You can now find me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/TunaSafeDolphin

The Cycle

It's quite interesting how the system is rigged.

My wife generally puts off sex until the same time once per week, provided she's not on the rag or being especially hostile to me or ill in some way, as she frequently is.

Usually, this is a day I won't be working. This means she will sleep most of the day and I will be with the kids most of the day.

The kids can't be together for more than a couple of hours without hurting each other to the point of tears. Usually it involves head injuries. This probably irritates me more then it would otherwise because my wife keeps giving herself concussions and I'm resigned to the idea that she's going to be fully demented to the point of not being able to take care of the kids or drive herself. 

The kids fighting is enough to mean I'm going to have to go another week without sex.

Then there's my reaction. After I've warned them to cut it out and leave each other alone (and pointed out one or both of them is going to get hurt) and they still keep it up and then one of them get hurt and is crying in pain, I often yell at them. And yelling, you see, it worse than kids giving each other concussions. It gives my wife the perfect excuse to reject me another week, and nag me about my reaction and demand I change some unrelated things about me.

I'm going to start pushing for sex a day earlier. It probably won't work, because she's deliberately set it up this way, but I have nothing to lose I'm not already losing by wanting sex at all.

By the way, my wife's way of handling things with the kids, if she does at all, is to announce some unrealistic punishment that punishes us, especially me, more than the kids.

Mind you, my wife was really happy with me the day before and the day after this latest rejection, and telling me how much she loves me. But sex was not to be had. Because it wasn't the appointed day.

But, you know, I'm minding less and less when my wife sexually rejects me, because it really isn't much better than masturbating at this point, so rejection is getting to be less and less of a punishment. Yes, I enjoy a woman's body (the look, the feel, the smell and taste), yes, I like bringing pleasure to a woman, especially so my wife, but with her, it's a lot of work (no doubt thanks to medications) and the payoff is ...eh. It's like she doesn't care if she orgasms and when she does, it's like she tries to react as little as possible. It's like she doesn't enjoy sex, and does it out of duty. If I try to turn it up a notch or try something different, I feel like a pervert because she doesn't react one way or the other. Getting her to do anything but a corpse impersonation means I have to verbally ask her to do whatever it is I want, knowing that she's only willing to do a very few things and only certain ways, and the signals I get is that she either couldn't care less or dislikes whatever it is that we're doing.

Attention unmarried men: You, too, can sign a contract to give away over half of everything you'll ever earn in exchange for a lifetime of this.

He's Not Late, He's Just Holding Onto the Ball

The opening of each Tom Leykis Show is now like a Phil Hendrie bit, only Hendrie would do it much better. Leykis refuses to actually start his show until he has over 1,000 people listening live. Unlike terrestrial radio, he knows exactly how many people are listening to him live at any moment, because his show is done via the Internet, and since he is self-employed, he can decide when to start the show. This has proven to be handy when there has been something going on in the evening and he wants to do the show earlier.

So now... the interstitial music will play (a metal-ish instrumental piece) and every so often he'll speak up and say he's not going to start the show until there are enough people listening. Listeners do tend to "tune in" late, six, seven, eight minutes or more into the show, perhaps, for some, because Leykis himself has often started a little late in the past.

It sounds a little funny, almost like a toddler saying he's going to sit on his rubber ball until the other kids nearby do what he wants.

At the other end of the show, Leykis also often threatens to cut the show short for the day due to a lack of calls even though he often will talk for 90 minutes without taking call (and sometimes to tell a story he could tell in much less time). He has indeed cut the show short a few times, but on the other hand, he's sometimes honored "we'll keep going until the calls stop" the other way, too, by doing an extra hour or more. That makes for an interesting show.

I also find the show interesting when he'll tall to his crew for an hour. He won't announce that's what he's going to do; instead, it sounds entirely spontaneous. I used to tune out when he did that on corporate terrestrial radio, because it never was of any interest to me, but since he's now self-employe and running his own company and free of FCC broadcast restraints, those discussion are fascinating, especially when they talk "inside baseball" about the show, dealing with fans, and the radio industry.

While I do pick at his show here and there and have a few serious disagreements with him, I strongly appreciate his business model, professionalism, and ingenuity. If I know an hour is not going to interest me, I won't listen, but he does have some of the most interesting talk show content to be found anywhere. And everyone should listen to his regularly weekly "bonus hour" at 6 p.m. Pacific Time on Tuesdays with an attorney who gives free legal advice and alternates criminal law discussion with family law discussion.  To be fair in getting back to the opening line of this entry - Hendrie and Leykis have completely different objectives, in that Hendrie does stuff like that to entertain, and Leykis does it to try to train his audience.

Men: When Someone Tells You That You Should Get Married

Here's a hopefully helpful page I've added that may help in responding to people who tell you that you should get married.

My Unmarried Peer Doesn't Have to Deal With Marital Therapy

When people try to convince men to act against their own best interest and get legally "married" (the USA no longer has marriage licenses, but rather "any two of-age people who aren't in this contract with someone else and aren't closely related" contracts), they cite a bunch perks or benefits or conditions that are either false or iffy promises, or things men can easily get now without being married.

But what about all of the crap you have to do, put up with, and pay for because of being married?


Case in point: Marital Therapy.

If you're dating someone, they might try to get you to go to therapy or counseling with them, but you can decline and say that since they're obviously not satisfied with the relationship, they can simply stop seeing you. If you're running game, and thus only making booty calls, it would be ridiculous for her to suggest couples counseling.

Technically, we're going to family therapy, not specifically marriage therapy.  But there are times  when we go without the kids and it is just the two of us.

This last time that we did that, I was (correctly, it turned out) not looking forward to it. My intuition is getting better. Based on my wife's behavior lately, I had nothing to worry about. She'd already asked that we go on a date after the session. That's a good sign, right? And she's seemed happy with me, in that she hasn't been hostile toward me. The most recent target of her dissatisfaction was her brother and his wife, so that kept the focus off me. As far as I knew, there was nothing bothering her about me lately other than the usual stuff.

I, on the other hand, could go on and about things that should be different, but my general policy, especially when it comes to my wife, is not to bother expressing anything less than positive or neutral - complaining of talking about being hurt or neglected or whatever, if it isn't going to ultimately bring about positive change, is to be avoided, because it will just make things worse for me.

I kept my mouth shut this time. It isn't like I had a real choice.

We spent the first half of the session talking about the kids. Then we got to me and how I need to change, blindsiding me. My wife's latest proposal is a about half a day weekly during which I do not access my phone or tablet. Why? Well, really, it is just to mess with me and control me. However, since that doesn't sound right, it is presented to be so that I'm a more attentive, involved husband and father.

The problem with this is that it confuses the cart and horse. I'm often using those devices because I'm not doing other things. If everyone else in the family is happily engaged in other activities, I'll occupy myself with the devices. I never neglect anyone in the family. My wife and kids know they can always come to me to engage with me or request something from me, as evidenced by the fact that they constantly do.

I don't watch TV on a television screen. I'm getting less and less time on the family desktop. I need to be accessible and constantly informed for my career. The way I keep up with my friends I hardly ever see in person any more is through social networking. I go places "virtually" now instead of going to places in-person. These devices are also how I write and make notes both personal and professional. They also keep me from falling asleep.

So would it be better if I was carrying around a dumb phone, newspapers, magazines, books, a notepad, a calendar, an address book, and all of the other things these devices replaced?

My guess is that this will turn out like so many other similar ideas my wife comes up with: she'll be busy on the desktop or playing games on her tablet, and sending me out to do errands. It is most likely NOT going to turn into some great quality time with the whole family together. One of the reasons I readily agreed for my wife to be a stay-at-home-mom was so that she could organize family things with and without me involved. This is one of the many areas where I'm being asked to change because she's especially limited (due to things I was deceived about before).

I don't neglect my wife or kids. The electronics use is almost always "filling in the gaps" with moments here and there, allowing me to be more personally and professionally productive. What's the harm in that? I know the retort - "Then why not go without for half a day every week?" Because there is no harm in using them. It is just one more thing where I'm being asked to change and she doesn't have to change at all.

My wife is trying to feel like a better mother not by actually being a better mother, but by telling me to do something she thinks will make me a better father.

So, I was sitting there, trying not to let on that I was not happy about this session, and dreading that I was now going to take my wife out on a date afterwards (knowing full well that no form of lovemaking was going to follow). I was well aware that I wouldn't be spending my time and money doing this if I wasn't married. And  then our time was up, but before the therapist could say so, and I could clearly see that our time was up, the therapist asked me if I had anything to talk about. Really? In the ten second left?!? Oh sure, here let me plunge my wife into a horrible mood with no hope of any benefit coming out of it... yeah, sure, right at the end of the session, right?

No thanks.

Don't worry. I'll still hand over my credit card.

One Bad Argument Against Porn

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




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

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

One of those bad arguments is some variation of this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Itches and Scratch

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

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

Because Some People Care

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

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

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

Some Men Are Masochists

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

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

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

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

Sacrificing Much-Needed Sleep For Lackluster Lovemaking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Bites

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

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

A Trap I Keep Avoiding

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

Their daughter.

There are many reasons I avoid this trap.

In no particular order:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

Trolling for adultery in the workplace cafeteria is OK?

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

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

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

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

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

You Can Still Get Together Even If Dishes Are Dirty

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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