Archive | Marriage RSS feed for this section

How to Pick a Wife – 2.0

25 Mar

When I first wrote my post How To Pick a Wife, I failed to take into consideration the very real, and potentially devastating legal environment that marriage occurs within. Devastating for men, that is. Marriage is, and remains, the sweetest gig a woman can possibly get, which is the primary driver, I think, behind the MGTOW wars. MGTOW men hate marriage, because it is just so damned unfair to men, given the current environment. Changing that environment is one of the principle aims of the MRM, and one that will happen, although it will take time.

In the meanwhile, for humans who are deeply drawn to pair-bonding (and that’s most of us), here is an updated list of how to pick a wife, aka mitigating risk factors. Many men will never marry, until reproductive, marriage and divorce laws become fair, and that’s a rational response to an irrational bias towards women and against men. I intend no shame towards those men who reject marriage and women outright, although that is obviously not a strategy that is going to work in the long-term. It’s nihilism.

There are ways to make marriage safer. And even bringing these topics up for discussion will let you know very quickly just what your beloved has on her mind. A day for a Princess or a life for a Queen?


  1. Ask her about circumcision

Prepare for a great deal of ignorance, because many women (and men) have given this zero thought at all. A woman who is instinctively repulsed by the thought of harming a child in this way gets one gold star. A woman who declares that a mutilated penis pleases her sense of aesthetics should immediately be shown the door. A woman who mistakenly believes genital mutilation is about sanitation and health is merely ignorant. She should be given an opportunity to learn and demonstrate her compassion for infant boys. Not caring about hurting babies is a deal-breaker, IMO.

  1. Find out her thoughts on abortion

This is obviously deeply personal and complicated. I’m not even sure what I think about abortion, but I have never faced needing one. My chain of thought at the moment is that at some point that little clump of cells divides to the point that a person exists.

There is a difference between this:


And this:

12 week

A tiny little brain becomes active, even at a primitive level, and an “I” exists.  I would like to see us be able to detect that using prenatal imaging, at which point I am very comfortable banning all abortion for any reason. That is no longer your body, and no longer your choice.

Whatever your personal feelings about abortion, you will be able to deduce a lot from a woman based on her opinions. You can’t legally prevent a woman from aborting your child, so if that’s a deal-breaker for you, you need to find out sooner than later.

  1. Never trust her with birth control

Sorry, just don’t. You are legally fucked if you do. There is no way around that except to take control of birth control yourself.

birth control

An exception might be if she has an implantable birth control device because you can physically feel that under her skin. You buy (or acquire) the condoms yourself, and you never let her touch one.

When I was writing this post about birth control sabotage, I poked well over 40 holes in a condom, right through the package. Neither me nor my husband could detect a single one, not even in bright light. Try it yourself.


She never touches the condom.  Never leave a used one anywhere she can get it. You will be held legally responsible if she is able to impregnate herself with a used condom. Calculate the value of child support based on your income over the course of 18 years. Think of your used condom as a little pile of cash for that exact amount. Would you leave that cash out where she can get it?


Have emergency birth control on hand. If a condom breaks and she refuses to take it: pray. That is your only option. No matter what happens, never legally marry a woman who refuses to involve you in her reproductive decisions.


  1. How do you want to raise children, if you want them?

My husband I both wanted our children raised at home and we were explicit about that pretty much from day one. We met in MBA school and I agreed to shelve my career ambitions (which I honestly had few of to begin with) to make that possible. It’s a personal decision, but if you are both not on the same page, you need to know that up front. Ultimately, you will have to use your judgement, since she can renege on her side of the bargain, any damn time she likes.

  1. Sign a prenuptial

A woman who balks at a fair prenuptial is, to quote Taylor Swift, a nightmare dressed as a daydream. Prenuptials should include:

  • A financial settlement that reflects what you have both put in to the marriage
  • Child custody arrangements
  • Division of assets based on your mutual earnings

You should only consider getting married in a state where your prenuptial will be enforceable.

I can imagine most women reacting to these conditions:



When you find one willing to consider why these are of vital importance to men, a woman who understands she has a loaded gun and is willing to give you the bullets, that is a woman worth considering.

Many of you will read this list and say oh hell no, and that’s a valid response. For those men who do long for a mutually beneficial marriage that lasts for the long term, or in the alternative, isn’t completely life-destroying, these are vital considerations.

How to choose a wife? With your eyes open and your armor on. It doesn’t guarantee you victory, but it helps prevent the most grievous injuries.

Sad, when war has become an appropriate metaphor for marriage.



Determination won’t matter much. But preparation will.

Most of all, be prepared for a lot of women calling you a misogynist for caring about fairness and equality.

Par for the course, I’m afraid.

Lots of love,


Newlywed woman kills her husband after 8 days of marriage by shoving him off a cliff from behind, and still only gets a second degree murder charge. Because she totally didn’t mean to kill him, right? Lots of people survive being shoved off cliffs. :/

11 Sep


Jordan Graham, 22 years of age, had been married to Cody Johnson, 25, for just eight days when he “fell” to his death off a cliff located in Glacier Park, Montana.

Jordan initially spun a web of pure and utter bullshit, and then eventually admitted that oh, oops, she pushed Cody off the cliff. Because they had been arguing and he beat her mercilessly grabbed her arm. To the surprise of no one, including Cody’s family, Jordan is up on murder charges.


Because the crime happened in a federal park, she is not being charged under Montana statutes, but under federal ones, which distinguish between different types of murder.

First degree murder is when a killing is planned and carried out.

Second degree murder is when someone is killed, but it wasn’t planned.

Jordan lied about what happened, pushed Cody FROM BEHIND and most importantly, she left him there to die. And prosecutors don’t think they can make a first degree charge stick?


Occam’s Razor:  the simplest explanation is likely correct.’s_razor

Jordan wooed Cody to the edge of the cliff and when his back was turned, she shoved him over.  She planned it.  Picked a good spot and got him to turn his back.

And then he fell for her all over again.

The way we treat people in the criminal justice system is ground zero in the definition of human rights. Justice is blind.  Any time justice sees skin color or class or ability or gender and applies a harsher penalty to some humans on the basis of one of those factors, that human’s basic rights have been violated.

A conviction for first degree murder in the United States carries the possibility of the death penalty.  I don’t agree with the death penalty precisely because it is not applied to ALL humans fairly and equally.

The people most likely to receive the death penalty?

Black men who kill non-blacks.


And that is bullshit.

Who is least likely to receive the death penalty?



One percent of men convicted of murder are sentenced to death, while only one tenth of one percent of women convicted of murder are sentenced to death.

In general, both the death sentencing rate and the death row population remain very small for women in comparison to that for men. Actual execution of female offenders is quite rare, with only 571 documented instances as of 12/31/2012, beginning with the first in 1632. These executions constitute about 2.9% of the total of confirmed executions in the United States since 1608.

Curious silence from the feminist brigade when it comes to making sure men and women are treated equally before the law, no?  In fact, it’s quite the opposite.  Feminists argue that women should not be in jail, period. In the UK, the Women’s Justice Taskforce is making headway in eliminating women’s prisons altogether.

Roma Hooper, director of Make Justice Work, which campaigns to reform short-term prison sentences, said: “The increasing incarceration of women is a disgraceful situation which must be challenged.”

Well, that’s one way to eliminate gender disparity in sentencing.  Just make sure women don’t get sentenced at all.

Lest anyone think that such a blatantly discriminatory and sexist policy is beyond the tolerance of the government and the British public, it should be noted that it was only last year that British judges were recommended to issue lighter sentences to women offenders, regardless of their offense. That recommendation was issued by the Equal Treatment Bench Book, published by the Judicial Studies Board (JSB).

Yes, that is correct, the Equal Treatment Bench Book recommended that half the population, based solely on sex, should get lighter sentences for the same crimes than the other half.

Gee, what can go wrong with that?  Women will really be able to “Lean In” to their criminal careers in the UK, won’t they?  Those two guys who slaughtered Pt. Rigby in broad daylight only need to get their girlfriends to wield the machetes next time.


Oh, but wait, women never commit those kinds of atrocities, right?

lady terror

Sweet little ole grannies would never hack an intruder to death with an axe, right?  Maybe granny was well justified, but the idea that women don’t engage in brutal bloodshed when provoked is a joke.

The question is “what provoked her”?

Mens rea.  It means “guilty mind”.  Criminal intent.

And that really should be the only thing that factors into deciding if Jordan is guilty of first degree murder.  But it’s not.

Jordan is a woman, and therefore she gets a pass.  It begins with not even facing the harshest penalty.  2nd degree murder?  And it will continue right up to conviction and sentencing.

Male violent offenders receive, on average, an additional 4.49 years on their sentences compared to women, while gender differences for property and drug crime (3.14 and 2.35 years, respectively) are considerably lower. (p. 335)

Why is this? Why do women get the pussy pass?  What is the rationale behind lenient sentencing for women, even when they commit the exact same crime as men?

The Chivalry Thesis posits that women are seen as less morally culpable than men, and are therefore treated delicately and absolved of responsibility.


The Chivalry Thesis posits that gendered stereotypes about both women and men influence sentencing outcomes according to the sex of offenders. Sometimes called paternalism, chivalry asserts that women are stereotyped as fickle and childlike, and therefore not fully responsible for their criminal behavior. Women therefore need to be protected by males who, with all due gallantry, are portrayed as wanting to minimize any pain or suffering women might experience. (p.320)

The Chivalry Thesis predicts that women will receive more lenient sentencing for stereotypically female crimes, like shoplifting. The more “feminine” the crime, the more men will feel the need to protect the poor darling, and make sure her sentence doesn’t cause her any suffering. When women commit manly crimes like murder, the Chivalry Thesis predicts that women will be treated harshly because they are violating gender norms as well as the law.

But that doesn’t seem to be the case.  Women get even more lenient sentencing when their crimes are strongly associated with men and masculinity.

So what is going on?  Why do we, as a culture, sentence women more lightly, assuming we can even be bothered to charge and convict them?

Females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.

It’s tempting to jump on the “women are helpless and never responsible for anything they do” meme because it is so strongly related to feminist thought.  #rapeculture

But disparity in sentencing has been going on for a very, very long time.

Here’s my theory:  it’s a key part of the Myth of Male Dominance aka “patriarchy”.  A word on “patriarchy”, if I may.  At no point in our collective North American history has it ever been acceptable to kill a woman for no reason OTHER than the fact that she’s a woman with two notable exceptions, one of which is not an exception at all, and one of which is a “right” fiercely protected by feminists.

1.  During slavery, it was acceptable to kill a woman if she happened to be black.  In other words, it was acceptable to kill SLAVES.  Men and women alike.

2. It is acceptable, and remains acceptable to this day, to kill women who are not yet born.

You have to go all the way back to the Salem Witch Trials to find the wholesale slaughter of women, and even then, a sham trial was enacted.  The principle of justice may have been adulterated beyond recognition, but it still held enough sway to convince adjudicators that a “trial” was required.


Oh, and a shitload of men were killed in Salem, too.

salem men

I’ve written about this research before, but it’s such a hidden gem of ignored scholarship that I think it’s worth quoting at length again.

…although peasant males monopolize positions of authority and are shown public deference by women, thus superficially appearing to be dominant, they wield relatively little real power. Theirs is a largely powerless authority, often accompanied by a felt sense of powerlessness, both in the face of the world at large and of the peasant community itself.

…a non-hierarchical power relationship between the categories “male” and “female” is maintained in peasant society by the acting out of a “myth” of male dominance.

The perpetuation of this “myth” is in the interests of both peasant women and men, because it gives the latter the appearance of power and control over all sectors of village life, while at the same time giving to the former actual power over those sectors of life in the community which may be controlled by villagers. The two sex groups, in effect, operate within partially divergent systems of perceived advantages, values, and prestige, so that the members of each group see themselves as the “winners” in respect to the other.

Neither men nor women believe that the “myth” is an accurate reflection of the actual situation. However, each sex group believes (or appears to believe, so avoiding confrontation) that the opposite sex perceives the myth as reality, with the result that each is actively engaged in maintaining the illusion that males are, in fact, dominant.

Now, the reality is that men still overwhelmingly control the justice system in the United States.

Most police officers are men.


In 2007, about 1 in 8 local police officers were women, compared to 1 in 13 in 1987.

Most judges are men.


State Final Appellate Jurisdiction Courts: 116 women / 361 total (32%)

State Intermediate Appellate Jurisdiction Courts: 316 women / 977 total (32%)

State General Jurisdiction Courts: 2,768 women / 11,049 total (25%)

State Limited and Special Jurisdiction Courts: 1,596 women / 5,072 total (31%)

State Court Judges in the US: 4,711 women / 17,489 total (27%)

Most criminal defense lawyers are men.


Today women make up 31 percent of practicing lawyers in the United States and just over 20 percent of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) members.

Men are very firmly in control of the judiciary, which is an institution of formalized power.  It’s an area where the myth of male dominance plays out – a trade we all make to disguise the fact that women continue to wield a disproportionate amount of the real power.

Feminism is interested in hanging on to all the traditional, informal power of women, and indeed tries hard to formalize that power into laws where women and men’s power intersect:  child custody, divorce and alimony being prime examples, while attempting to wrest formal power from men.

family court

Feminists want both powers:  formal and informal.

Two problems with that little project:

Where does that leave men?

What do you think the world will look like if feminists succeed in making men socially powerless and then humiliating them to boot? Feminists are nowhere near that goal when it comes to the men who command the formal institutions of power, but they have certainly created a world in which men who don’t have access to those formal institutions – meaning MOST men – have indeed been rendered powerless.

The G8 leaders pose for a group photograph at Lough Erne, Northern Ireland

Second problem?  Feminists have not considered what they will be giving up when the “myth” is shattered.

To put it bluntly, they will be giving up the privileges that have always accompanied women, including the right to lenient treatment when sisters go off the fucking rails and shove their husbands off cliffs.

The reason the judiciary is still enmeshed in treating women more leniently is precisely BECAUSE the judiciary is still in the control of men, with the exception of family courts.

The myth of patriarchy ultimately protects women, even the ones who are very, very unworthy of protection.

But it requires a trade.

Given the fact that peasant women actually wield considerable amounts of power, several anomalies remain: both men and women behave publicly as if males were dominant, while at the same time male peasants seem to be characterized by a felt lack of power. I suggested a model to explain these apparent contradictions, in which male dominance is seen to operate as a myth, while a balance is actually maintained between the informal power of women and the overt power wielded by men. Furthermore, the power of both depends on the persistence of the myth, which itself is maintained by a degree of ignorance on the part of both groups as to how the system actually operates.

Ultimately, it comes down to understanding, and respecting one another.  And understanding that when humans fail, men or women, we embrace the myths of our society so we can all keep functioning.

The most important point to be made is that it is only when we stop looking at male roles and forms of power as the norm and begin to look at female arrangements as equally valid and significant, though perhaps different in form, that we can see how male and female roles are intertwined and so begin to understand how human societies operate.

In the case of lenient sentencing for women who are monsters, powerful men send a message to all the other women that they will not be held accountable for the actions of monstrous sisters.  All of which depends on women being, by and large, not terribly monstrous.

Men sentence other men more harshly because they hold them to a higher standard when it comes to respecting formal power, because formal power IS male power.

Modern, liberal feminism has shattered the myth.  Feminists rage and scream and cry at the power men wield in the formal institutions that govern our world, but refuse to relinquish one iota of their traditional informal power.


Of course there is a price to pay for surrendering formal power in favor of informal power.  It means that our sons, our brothers, our fathers, our nephews, our cousins, our friends can be shoved off a cliff and the murderess will face little to no consequence for that.

In return for that sacrifice, we get the protection of men.

Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.

Warren Buffett

It’s really what it comes down to.  Do you value men or do you not?

It’s seems almost obscene to say that valuing men means you are willing to sacrifice a few to murderous women, but in truth, the only obscene thing is that women are prepared to sacrifice those men without giving up any of their own privileges.


Pick one.  Men protect us.  Or they sentence us.

In equal measure.

death penalty

We cannot have both.

Lots of love,


Is Dear Prudence going through menopause? What a fucking cunt!

29 Aug


I have a weakness for Emily Yoffe who writes as Dear Prudence over at Slate, and I usually find something to disagree with in her “advice”, but she really takes the cake in today’s column!  Seems like Prudie has been hitting the haterade a little hard these days.

Here’s the first letter:


I’m a 28-year-old male and have a 4-year-old daughter with my partner of nine years (we’re not married but completely committed). My daughter was not planned and I had serious reservations about having a child at such a young age, but there’s a lot of love in our family and everything has worked out. But since taking a new job several months ago, I’ve started feeling differently. All of my co-workers are young and I’ve made a few good friends, but I often have to decline invitations to events I’d really like to attend because of my family obligations, or because I can’t afford it. I’m the only one with a full plate of adult responsibilities, including supporting my partner, who is an artist and doesn’t bring home a paycheck every week. So I have to say no to joining them on road trips or at exclusive restaurants, because my weekend consists of toddler birthday parties and visits to the playground. It’s making me rueful that I’ve missed my 20s and worried I will wind up bitter no matter how much I love my family. How do I get out of this funk and regain happiness with my circumstances, and how do I face my co-workers every day when they’re a constant reminder of what I’m missing?

-Longing for Lost Youth

Okay, so Prudie starts off her answer by pointing out that while the letter writer has jumped the gun on the having kids stage of life, sooner or later most of his co-workers will catch up with him, and he can have a good chuckle at their bleary eyed shock when they find out babies aren’t really fond of the whole “sleep for eight hours on a corporate schedule” thing and then blissfully enjoy sleeping through the night.


Fair enough.  That’s what I would have answered, too.  You get your twenties or your forties, and quite frankly, there’s something rather nice about having the energy to take care of your children because you had them young enough, and knowing that by the time they are off to college, you yourself will still be young enough to do all those things you missed out on when you were younger.

Not to mention that couples who have their children while still relatively young are unlikely to find themselves facing the utter heartbreak of “Oops!  We left it too long and the eggs done flew the coop!” Infertility is a brutal sorrow, and the couples we know who decided that material possessions and fabulous experiences were far more important than children are now left with the bitterness of an album full of great vacation pics and a nursery that will never hold anything more than dreams.


But rather than point out all that, Prudie goes off onto a rant about how his lazy-ass partner better ruck up and start earning some cash, mostly to protect herself from the inevitable day when the letter writer decides to leave his child to starve in the gutters.

Now that you have a child, you two need to be more deliberate about what you want out of life. It’s fine if your child is an only, but if you want to expand your family, that’s a discussion you should be having. Being an artist can be a dream career, but since your partner is not make a living at it, it’s time she applied her skills to more remunerative endeavors, especially as your daughter gets ready for full-time schooling. If something happens to you, your partner will be completely financially vulnerable.

Oh, it’s time she applied her skills to more remunerative endeavors, is it?

Fuck you, Prudie.

And if by “something might happen to you” Prudie meant the letter writer might die or become disabled, she might have suggested the precaution of some insurance policies.  The implication is that the woman is vulnerable simply by virtue of being dependent on a man.  Because you know men, right? There’s nothing they enjoy more than walking off into the sunset and leaving a beloved child to suffer wretched poverty and a broken heart.

Rather than expressing gratitude for a man who is supporting his family and allowing the woman to whom he is committed to pursue her artistic dreams, Prudie instead insults both of them by casting her as a leech and him as someone not to be relied on.


And it gets better!

Here is another letter:

My husband’s friend is a perpetual bachelor. He dates a girl for a few months, introduces her around, brings her to group functions, etc., and then dumps her once it has gotten too serious. Because the friend and my husband are close, I become the new best friend for the girlfriend du jour during camping trips, double dates, sports games, and happy hours with our group. The bachelor is charming and has the women believing everything is perfect until the breakup blindside. Then they are devastated and I end up having to deal with tearful phone calls and get-togethers while they ask me what went wrong. The most recent breakup involved a fragile woman with no close friends or family in town. I felt rude for not returning all the frantic calls and texts of this woman, but I’m frustrated that this draining duty always seems to fall on me. I’ve talked to the bachelor about it, and he says no one is forcing me to become friends with his girlfriends. That’s true, but it’s hard not to act like a decent human being to these women. How can I avoid this pitfall in the future?

—Sick of the Bachelor

A charming man dates women, introduces them to his social circle and has a habit of NOT stringing them along endlessly when he discovers they are not The One.  If the ladies in question are “blindsided” by the breakup, that strongly suggests that no lengthy period of playing games and putting up with squabbles and quarrels simply to get as much sex out of each relationship as possible is going on.

Bachelor dates women, and the minute he realizes he’s not with the right one, he breaks it off.

break up

I dunno.  Seems to me to be EXACTLY how dating should happen.  When you know the relationship is not going to work out, put an end to it and move on.

What does Prudie think?

As was said of one character on King of the Hill, “He’s going to make some woman very happy. Until he makes her very sad.” You’ve talked to the bachelor about this problem, but I think you should bring this up with your husband. I hope by this point he’s getting a little squeamish about his friend’s manipulative and even sadistic pattern, and is willing to have a frank discussion. Whatever happens, you could also request your husband see the bachelor alone for lunch more often, for example, and have fewer group outings with him and his latest. But if inevitably there will be occasions when you’re with the new Patsy, I think you should give it to her straight. Do that thing where women go off to the bathroom in pairs. While there, as soon as she makes some noises about what a great guy Dick is, let her know he’s a cad. Explain you’ve been through this with endless women. He charms and misleads them and when they think things are going somewhere, he dumps them. That’s how he gets his thrills. Say you’re being so blunt because you just can’t stand to nurse anyone else through the inevitable. She’ll probably dismiss you because she knows this time it’s different. She might even report what you said back to Dick. If he brings it up with you, just tell him you look forward to being proven wrong.

Let’s take this apart, shall we?


As was said of one character on King of the Hill, “He’s going to make some woman very happy. Until he makes her very sad.”

Oh goodie.  Let’s begin with a reference to a very popular, very funny show about god-fearin’ ‘Murrican trash! We know what Prudie thinks of this whole crew right off the bat.

You’ve talked to the bachelor about this problem, but I think you should bring this up with your husband. I hope by this point he’s getting a little squeamish about his friend’s manipulative and even sadistic pattern, and is willing to have a frank discussion.

Manipulative and sadistic.  Manipulative and sadistic?  Are you fucking kidding me?  Nope, nope, nope.  Stringing women you have ZERO intention of pursuing a serious relationship with is manipulative and sadistic.  Keeping the booty call on stand-by while you scout for new talent is manipulative and sadistic.  Letting someone believe there is potential when there is NOT is manipulative and sadistic.

Finding a long series of women inadequate is neither of those things, but it sure pisses Prudie off, doesn’t it?  It’s almost like the Bachelor is working his way through some women who suck, and he refuses to settle.

What an asshole!

Whatever happens, you could also request your husband see the bachelor alone for lunch more often, for example, and have fewer group outings with him and his latest.

Oh, yes.  Interfere with your husband’s relationship with his friends.  Make him really uncomfortable and start determining where, when and under what circumstances he is allowed to see his friend. And if hubby doesn’t agree, you can always ground him or take away his phone privileges.


Excellent advice, Prudie.  I’m sure her husband will be thrilled.

But if inevitably there will be occasions when you’re with the new Patsy, I think you should give it to her straight. Do that thing where women go off to the bathroom in pairs. While there, as soon as she makes some noises about what a great guy Dick is, let her know he’s a cad. Explain you’ve been through this with endless women. He charms and misleads them and when they think things are going somewhere, he dumps them. That’s how he gets his thrills. Say you’re being so blunt because you just can’t stand to nurse anyone else through the inevitable.



Just no.

Do not do this.

First of all, you are betraying your husband by betraying his friend.  Why the fuck should you care what happens to the Bachelor’s women?  Where do your loyalties lie?  With other women deemed unacceptable?  You will stab your both your husband and his friend in the back to protect some woman that means nothing to you in the long run?

I can’t believe Prudie would suggest this.  And how does she know that the Bachelor gets his thrills by dumping women?  How does she know he is a cad?  And what is a cad anyways?





A man who behaves dishonorably, esp. toward a woman.


scoundrel – boor – scamp

Again, how is it dishonorable to dump women you are no longer interested in?  Prudie just can’t wrap her mind around the fact that lots of women are simply not worth a man’s time.

I wonder what the Bachelor does for a living?  How exactly does he find all these women?  Who wants to bet he has a fairly high social status in his group?  A good income?  A bit of nice property?  Speculation, but no amount of screaming in the world is going to change the fact that men tend to value beauty and women value status.  If Bachelor has women lined up, it’s a pretty safe bet that he has something that women value.


And who is behaving dishonorably here, again?

She’ll probably dismiss you because she knows this time it’s different. She might even report what you said back to Dick. If he brings it up with you, just tell him you look forward to being proven wrong.

She MIGHT report what you said back to Dick?  Oh, honey, she most certainly WILL.  And no, you should not respond with some smug cunty statement like “I look forward to being proven wrong”.  All you are doing is making it clear that YOU think Dick the Bachelor IS a dick, and again, you are not going to please your husband or Dick by insulting him to his face.

You might just get your husband wondering why HE wasn’t a little more picky.

Here is what Prudie should have said:

Dick’s romantic life is really none of your business, and as an adult, you should assume he knows what he is doing and is perfectly happy with how his relationships work. If and when discarded ladies text or call you, you respond with this:

I’m really sorry things didn’t work out, but I am not the person you should be talking to.


I’m really sorry things didn’t work out, but I am not the person you should be talking to.


I’m really sorry things didn’t work out, but I am not the person you should be talking to.


I’m really sorry things didn’t work out, but I am not the person you should be talking to.

Repeat until she gets it.  Refuse to comment on anyone’s love life but your own.  And as an aside, you should make a special effort to welcome any woman Dick decides to introduce you to.  It’s actually a compliment.  He wants to see how the women he dates interact with the people he loves most, and whose company he values.

Couple In Front of Campfire

I hope Sick of the Bachelor ignores Prudie and decides that Bachelor really is capable of handling his own affairs.  She will be making a big mistake to interfere with her husband’s friendship and the Bachelor’s love life.

You know, even if I have this dead wrong, and the Bachelor IS the kind of guy who is thrilled by the chase and loses all interest once it is over, the letter writer should STILL back the Bachelor.  You never takes side against your husband’s friends.  Not ever.

The people we marry come to us in a web of relationships, and it is not up to us to decide on our partner’s behalf which friends are acceptable and which are not.  I wouldn’t necessarily pick all my husband’s friends as my own, and some of my friends grate on his nerves, too.

I have, in fact, let friendships lapse because I could see that Mr. JB wasn’t particularly enamored of the friend in question. But that was MY decision. I am the one who stopped to consider if his dislike was grounded in any facts, and when I discovered that he had a REASON to dislike the person, I chose to let them go.

Because I know where my loyalties lie.


And that’s what it comes down to. Be loyal. Anything less is hard to forgive.

I place an enormous premium on loyalty. If someone betrays me, I can forgive them rationally, but emotionally I have found it impossible to do so.

Richard E. Grant

And don’t listen to Dear Prudence.  Her advice sucks.

Lots of love,


%d bloggers like this: