About Me

Name: Playful Walrus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

More Monogamy Musings

The Los Angeles Times ran a blowback piece by Sharon M. Scott, responding to David P. Barash's take on monogamy. My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.
But I agree that children are better off being raised by a mother and father who are monogamous with each other. (By the way - if they aren't haven't sex with each other, that's not monogamy.) Monogamy reduces the possibilities of conflicts of interests between the parents and between parent and child, keeps loyalties and resources within the family, avoids paternity fraud and "illegitimate" half-siblings causing situational instability, and avoids STIs. It promotes bonding between the parents and keeps the parents focused on each other and in-tune with each other.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Lawyers Will Never Allow a Divorce Ban

In an interesting move of political satire, there's a guy collecting signatures to get a divorce ban on the California ballot. If the comments on this Los Angeles Times blog  are any indication, a lot of people mistakenly assume that this guy is part of the "traditional values" political crowd. He isn't but, he claims to adapt the arguments of the campaign in favor of the California Marriage Amendment towards his "movement" to ban divorce in California.

As a married California man who is the sole income earner in my family, a divorce ban would be to my benefit. I don't focus on that, though, in the two blog entries I posted today at The Opine Editorials. First, I wrote in general about the situation here, and then I get into some of the reasons why an ardent supporter of the California Marriage Amendment is not obligated to support a ban on divorce, especially as proposed by this guy, though we could probably do well with some legal reforms in family law.

I turn the question back around, though.
Come to think of it, is there a single prominent voice against divorce that the marriage neutering advocates have ever been anything but hostile towards?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Letterman and Lust

This pretty much lines up with my thoughts on the David Letterman situation.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Divorce is Bad For You - Who Knew?

Yet another study indicates that divorce is harmful to those divorcing - never mind what it does to children and the larger fabric of society.  For sure, though, if someone is abusive, divorce can be the best thing to do.  But not marrying an abusive person would be even better!  My advocacy of marriage does not include a belief that all individuals should marry.  My analysis of the article on the study is over at The Opine Editorials.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another Study on Why Some Marriages Last

Surprise, surprise - age, the presence or not of children, family history, marital history,  and the man's employment status all matter.  My analysis of a new study is over at The Opine Editorials.

Also see this entry by On Lawn about how shacking up indicates a greater likelihood that the marriage will be troubled.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Seeking Weddings, Not Marriage

Joan Frawley Desmond has a piece titled "Same-Sex Marriage: In-Laws Optional?", in which she notes that bride+groom couples who are overly showy and focused on the wedding ceremony don't seem to have long, happy marriages.  She ties this in to the push to neuter marriage.  My comments are over at The Opine Editorials.  I promise this is the last time I will direct you over there... today.  I just couldn't resist doing another post that would end up on the "cotton swab news" website.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sam Schulman Explains the Harm of Neutering Marriage

Sam Schulman had a piece in the Weekly Standard titled "The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage".  He claims that same-sex "marriage" will wither away, but could very well remove marriage from the larger kinship system in process, with disastrous effects. The piece has many concepts that we have examined over at The Opine Editorials, where you can find my analysis of Schulman's piece.

I fully expect this post to be yet another one of mine that ends up on that one website that sounds like a cotton swab.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Michael Jackson

My sympathies go out to all of his loved ones.

He was an extremely talented, innovative, and influential entertainer who deeply touched millions of people around the world and generated a lot of money for a lot of businesses.

With Neverland, he built an elaborate private park/playground for children that was especially accommodating of disabled children.  He often welcomed children there, thereby giving children, especially disabled, sick, and dying children, some joy.

He was generous in cooperating with people like "Weird Al" Yankovic, who hilariously parodied Jackson multiple times.  This showed that he had a sense of humor about himself and his work.

He made a very big and very public mistake by briefly dangling his youngest child from a fourth-floor balcony; thankfully, he did not drop the child.  This act was like speeding on an unnecessary errand without strapping the child in to a car seat.

His abuse of/addiction to medications may have killed him and should be a warning to all.

By his own statements, he had an inappropriate way of relating to children.  By the accounts of many, his was emotionally immature or somehow maladjusted.  Yes, he was a child performer and by some accounts he was horribly abused by his father (and his mother allowed this), but other child performers and victims of abuse have gone on to be healthy adults, some of them continuing to work in the entertainment industry.

Although investigated more than once and taken to criminal trial, he was never convicted of assaulting or molesting children.  I don’t know of any conclusive proof that he committed such crimes.  If he did commit such crimes (and I hope to God he didn't), then he committed grievous evils.  The parents of those children would also share some blame for not properly supervising their own children.

On a positive note, we don't hear stories about him fornicating with woman after woman, as is so common in entertainment – and especially pop music.

His arrangement with Debbie Rowe and decisions to create and raise three children without providing them with a healthy, stable home headed by a married mother and father cheapened the institution of marriage and wrongfully deprived those children.  No amount of money or doting by a father replaces a mother, or the dynamic between parents who are husband and wife.

Ultimately, Michael Jackson was a sinner like the rest of us, falling short of the holiness of God.  He is much better off if Jesus Christ was his Lord and Savior, and thus his representative, than if he has met God as his own representative.  None of us knows for sure if he had this relationship with Jesus or not.  All of us fall short if judged on our own merits.  As for me, I'm thankful Jesus Christ is my representative in judgment.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Politicians and Infidelity

Politics attracts the egotistical, the arrogant, narcissists, opportunists, and compromisers.  Politicians often think they are better than everyone else, and getting elected confirms that thought in their mind.  They think they are special, and that God or fate or luck or whatever is smiling on them.

This is one big reasons the founders of our union adopted a Constitution that separates powers, has checks and balances, and limits government.  This system was designed to prevent any one power-hungry person with an entitlement mentality from gaining too much influence over our union.

Now, not all politicians are like that, but many are, or allow themselves to become that way.

When it comes to male politicians, add in the fact that there are women who are attracted by power, which politicians do have, and fame and money, which politicians can find more easily than the average Joe.  Many of these types of women are willing to "trade" sex for access to these men, or to allow themselves to think they are falling in love with a man they see as special.

What you have here is a recipe for infidelity on the part of politicians.  But what is the infidelity rate in the general population compared to elected officials?  I suspect either a lot of elected officials aren't getting caught or their infidelity rate may actually be less than the general population - if only because of a lack of privacy.

Some people say infidelity by elected officials doesn't matter.  Many of these people cite European politicians who are "open" about their infidelity, and public acceptance of it.   Other people say it only matters if that politician has previously championed "traditional values".

I don't care how they do it in Europe.  America was started by people who weren't happy with Europe, and over the years, we filled up with people who weren't happy with how things were in Europe or people from places once controlled by Europe who aren't happy with the way things are in those places.  We are NOT Europe.  And violation of personal vows by an elected official in a public institution (marriage) should matter, because character matters.

Sure, if I have the choice between a Governor who consistently supports limited government and one who consistently pushes for increased statism and they are both cads, I'm going to choose the former.  But we're not limited to those options.  Surely we can find people of character and get them elected.

Previously: Breaking Marital Vows
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Breaking Marital Vows

I do not excuse the breaking of marital vows.  But have you listened to the marital vows?  Having sex with someone other than your spouse is just one of many, many ways people break marital vows every day.  Again, I do not excuse cheating on your spouse, but we don't really know what has gone on behind closed doors.  Sometimes... SOMETIMES... not necessarily in any particular case in the news lately... the spouse being cheated on has already broken the marital vows in some serious ways - even if none of those ways included sex with someone else.

Unfortunately, we often find out about sexual contact with someone else, because there are so many people involved.  And because we, as a society, are obsessed with sex.  That's why there are strip bars, prostitutes, "adult" media, and the term "sexual harassment", when there are so many other ways to harass someone that are not given their own name.

Some people cheat because they are lousy people.  Some people cheat because they react poorly to being wronged.  Either way, cheating is wrong.  But sometimes, the other spouse is also to blame - even if it is just for picking the wrong person to marry.

We need politicians who do not have something to hide, something distracting them or that can be used to blackmail them.  We need politicians who can be true to their family obligations.

Are they really so hard to find?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Infidelity Does Not Justify Marriage Neutering

Sorry, marriage neutering advocates.  Governor Sanford's infidelity does not justify marriage neutering - even if he cheated as often as JFK.  That he, or anyone else, is bad at keeping their vows in no way necessitates that we neuter marriage, any more than a track sprinter being busted for steroids means motorcycles should be allowed in a foot race.

That Sanford violated the sanctity of marriage does not mean we should water down marriage into oblivion.  Would you say it is okay for a cop to beat a suspect who injured himself, since he was already injured?

And there are many marriage defenders who have kept their vows.  It just doesn't make headlines.

So go ahead and take glee in your mocking of Sanford because he has stated the truth about marriage and yet hasn't been true to marriage.  It still doesn't make a brideless or groomless pairing marriage.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Give Governor Sanford a Reality Show

It is better to do two things wrong, or one thing?  One thing, right?  Well the Left doesn’t think so.  You see, the Left thinks it is okay for a politician to have an extra-marital affair (one wrong) if the politician failed to publicly encourage morality (another wrong) before that affair.

For the Left, perceived hypocrisy is worse that marital infidelity.  So look for the Left, especially Democrats, to condemn Sanford not for the affair, but for being a Republican who somehow promoted in the past the idea that it is good to behave in a morally upstanding manner.

I do condemn sex with someone other than your spouse as morally wrong, so I don't excuse Sanford.  I also know that we do not know the inner working of his marriage.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pro-Choice When it Comes to Marriage

I'm pro-choice when it comes to marriage.  If people want to get married without religion, they are free to do so.  Likewise, if people want a religious ceremony without state involvement, they are free to have it.  But they should not be able to force the rest of us to neuter state marriage licensing, nor to remove marriage from state law entirely.  More on this over at The Opine Editorials.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservatives Shouldn't Ignore Male Concerns

It's been a while since I've called attention to men who are not content to be punching bags/ATMs/sperm donors for irresponsible women and male-hating feminists, or who simply aren't willing to be the "nice" guy who pays a woman's way through life as she cavorts with bad boys or tries to find herself in a career.

These men are reacting to modern feminism and big government – and those two things are related, there's no doubt about it.  They reject the idea that a man should fulfill traditional roles and meet traditional obligations and expectations while dealing with women who reject their traditional obligations.

These men are aware that most of the MSM, academia, religious organizations, and the workplace are geared towards the sensitivities of women, and often hostile to men, boys, and masculinity.  They are aware that laws, government policies, and courtrooms more often favor women at the expense of men (and children).

Some of these men are godless hedonists, who revel in easy access to fornication that many women now provide outside of any obligation.  Others are devoted followers of Christ who believe that sex is for marriage.  Some fall into some other category.  Most of them, though, are fed up with female dependency on their tax dollars, with women who continue to birth kids out of wedlock, paternity fraud, the child support system wrongfully burdening innocent men, and double standards in sexual harassment and domestic violence issues.

They reject a system and a culture in which a woman can get away with killing their children; in which a woman can all too easily prevent a father from seeing his own children; in which there is a high divorce rate and women are far more likely to file for divorce; in which pre-nup clauses agreed to by an adult woman being represented by an attorney can be dismissed by a judge; in which a wife can discourage and sabotage her husband's career advancement and still claim half of what he earns; in which she can commit adultery, give birth to another man's child, divorce her husband, shack up with her lover, and exact both alimony (for life!) and child support (for her lover's child) from her ex-husband, and get that child support amount increased if her ex-husband remarries.

Whether they call themselves Men's (or Father's) Rights Advocates, marriage strikers, Men Going Their Own Way, or whatever, they are fed up.  It is wrong (but all too easy) to dismiss all of them as women-haters.  While there are some bloggers out there who are the male equivalent of man-hating feminist extremists – with both sides seeing the other sex as inherently the enemy - there are men out there (some married, some fathers, some not) who generally enjoy women and appreciate femininity, but have legitimate concerns about today's world.  Others are simply men who enjoy living alone and don't want to be punished or attacked for doing do.

Disclaimers:
  • I certainly don’t agree with everything these guys say, how they say it.  There is a broad spectrum of expression in these areas.
  • I don't excuse men for their dependency on government, their sins, or their mistreatment of women, nor do I excuse a man if he picks the wrong woman.  But I also do not blame a man for what a woman does.
  • I like that women have real choices in their lives and do not think that ALL women should get married, stay home, make babies, and handle all domestic chores.
  • If you're a guy who got married 40+ years ago and is still happily married (congrats to you), this stuff may be foreign to you or you might not relate to it.  But ask your sons, grandsons, nephews, younger male coworkers, or other young men about the women they are encountering, and the cultural environment when it comes to gender relations and gender politics.  Shifts in the law, economy, and culture in general, while they have made things much easier for guys who just want casual sex, have made it much more difficult for a man who wants a lasting, happy marriage to find the right woman to join him in that goal, and to stick to it.
We owe it to our sons and daughters to inform them of today's realities, and to assess and address the issues as they are today.

One excellent site is Biblical Manhood.  You can get where that guy is coming from by reading his three part series (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3), his New Gender Deal, and his disclaimer about his view of women.   Also of note: Cultural Conservatives and the Religious Establishment Do Not Care About Men.

Other sites of interest (again, I don't necessarily agree with their tone or all of their positions):
Glenn Sacks (a real pro)
The Elusive Wapiti
Triton Unleashed
The Hawaiian Libertarian
Marriage Strike Central
Men Going Their Own Way
Marky Mark's Thoughts

Related content on The Playful Walrus:
Women Have Encouraged the Child-Man
Toxic Bachelors
Marriage Strike
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Let's Not Revel in John Edwards' Marital Problems

So Elizabeth Edwards appears on the Oprah Winfrey Show today, and will talk about how her husband, former presidential candidate and U.S. Senator John Edwards (D), did her wrong.  This Associated Press article previewing it fails to note that John is a Democrat.  Hmmmm.  I have to rely on the article... I can't watch Oprah or my man parts might shrink, and I can't stand the New Age nonsense she often promotes.
Winfrey also asks Edwards, "Is it a day by day thing?" And Edwards says, "Neither one of us is out the door so I guess it's day by day, but maybe it's month by month."
Please stick with me here.  If Elizabeth Edwards really cared about her marriage, writing a book and then doing publicity, talking about John's affair out in public, is not the way to go.  It doesn't help the marriage.  It doesn’t help their kids.  All it does it humiliate her husband and get her attention and sympathy, allowing her to wallow in her status as victim.

Let's assume that Elizabeth Edwards was the perfect wife and upheld all of her vows with shining excellence, and yeah, John is a creepy jerk of a cheater.  He was wrong to break his vows.  It would have been wrong even if Elizabeth had broken her vows first and was a horrible wife.  (And I’d like to remind everyone that sexual fidelity is just one of the promises encompassed in marital vows.)

In most likelihood, Elizabeth probably has done things that John could complain about.  Again, that doesn't make it okay for him to cheat.  But it also wouldn't be okay for him to write a book about it and then do publicity tour, all while staying in the marriage.  Even if she has no interest in being John's wife anymore, she should be handling things differently for the sake of their family, even though his actions were harmful to the family.  Her book may be helpful to those dealing with cancer - and it would be different if it was published posthumously, or even just after a divorce.

We don't need the cheating-on-a-sick-and-dying-wife thing, or even whatever condemnations come out of the related investigation into his campaign finances, to know that John was no good.  We already knew John was no good because of what he did in the courtroom and his campaign rhetoric.

So while it is tempting to some of us to delight in his humiliation on national television, let's not.  It isn't good for marriage, cultural decency, or decorum.  John deserves ridicule for his incitement of class warfare and what he's done to good doctors.  We don't need to get in the gutter and we really don't know what what their marriage was like.  All we know is that Elizabeth Edwards either didn't satisfy her husband or that she married a horrible guy, or both.  I suspect she married a horrible guy.  The more she talks about his sins in public, however, the more indication we have that things were generally not right in their marriage before John cheated.

I'll end by again saying that John's cheating was a scummy thing to do.
(Corrected the post title to be grammatically correct.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678Next »