Sunday, June 29, 2008
Most people drive as if the speed limit is merely a suggestion, and a bad one at that. Their egos compel them to drive as fast as they can possibly get away with at all times, even when they're not in a particular hurry or running late to get somewhere.
They hurry up to red lights, then jam on their brakes at the last possible moment. When the light turns green, they jam the pedal to the floor with jackrabbit starts. They weave in and out of traffic so they can get to their destination 30 seconds faster. It's important to hurry, you know! Even when you've got no particular place to go and no particular time to be there.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to spend any more money at the gas station than I absolutely have to. I've got other things to spend money on than gas. I like taking my car onto the highway and driving fast, just like the next guy, but at four dollars a gallon, it won't hurt my ego any to drive the speed limit in around-town driving.
Of course, I get laid regularly, so my ego doesn't need propping up by trying to turn quiet residential streets into Lowe's Motor Speedway.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
10 Gas Saving Tips
1. Don’t speed.
Driving 65 mph instead of 75 mph will increase your fuel economy by about 10 percent.
2. Avoid "jack rabbit" starts.
Flooring the gas pedal wastes gas and leads to drastically higher pollution rates.
3. Anticipate stops. (Don't hurry up to red lights)
Think ahead to anticipate stops so your vehicle can coast down. Accelerating hard and braking hard wastes gas, increases pollution, and wears out your brakes.
4. Keep your tires properly inflated.
For every 3 pounds below recommended pressure, fuel economy goes down by about 1 percent.
5. Avoid rush hour, if possible.
Stop-and-go driving burns gas and increases emissions of smog-forming pollutants. For hybrids that can stay in electric mode at low speeds, the effects of stop-and-go driving are greatly reduced.
6. Travel light.
An extra 100 pounds in your trunk reduces fuel economy by about 1 percent.
7. Combine trips.
Warmed-up engines run more efficiently and generate less air pollution.
8. Leave off the air conditioning, if possible.
AC increases fuel consumption, increases smog-forming NOx emissions in some vehicles, and can involve environmentally damaging fluids. At high speeds, open windows increase drag; use vents if possible. (I must admit this isn't one I follow -- I can't stand being hot. But I try to follow the others as much as possible, so I don't feel guilty about this one).
9. Check your own fuel economy every few weeks.
If you notice the numbers slipping, then think about how your driving might have changed, and consider getting a tune-up or an oil change.
10. Drive less.
Give your car a rest by taking public transportation, riding a bike, or walking. The exercise will do you good.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
The comments about the movie were pretty unremarkable, until the reviewer said that he really liked that there was "no blurring between good and bad" with the characters; but that the difference between bad and good was sharply and clearly defined.
In other words, he liked predictable, simplistic, cardboard cutout, one-note bad (and good) guys that have absolutely nothing to with real life.
Never mind that both "good" and "bad" guys often have mixed motives for what they do: people doing good things for self-serving reasons, and people doing stuff that is normally considered wrong for good motives that serve the greater good (or at least they believe it does).
"Bad" guys don't think they're bad and heroes frequently shy away from being described as such. And no one is all bad or all good; we're all a complex, multifaceted jumble of mixed motives and conflicting desires.
And this is precisely what makes stories about real people more compelling than one-dimensional, "clearly-defined" good and bad guys.
But I'm not surprised that Focus on the Family would prefer this type of character. It fits in neatly with their simplistic, black and white, dualistic and absolute morality worldview, where there is no room for shades of grey.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The golden age of the digital diarist may be over. Have we realized blogging isn't as fun as it sounds? Or that we're not so interesting after all?
As a long-time, successful blogger, I had to comment:
Simplistic and Misleading Article
This article would make a person who knew nothing about blogs believe that all blogs are either badly-written accounts of people's mundane daily lives or commercially driven generic blogs for the purposes of making money.
Both types of blogs exist in spades, of course, but people blog for a wide variety of reasons.
I've been blogging successfully for four years. The original blog was started as a theme blog; a platform to discuss my decidedly alternative approach to sexual ethics. It branched out into an eclectic mix of topics added to the original theme. This blog also has an extensive list of links for those interested in various types of non-monogamous sexual orientations.
I do not often write about the mundane details of my everyday life. My blog is primarily my personal op-ed page where I give my personal take on a wide variety of topics; mainly cultural and social issues, politics, religion, rants, and sex.
My goal is to make people think; to consider things in ways they might not have considered before. Whether or not they end up agreeing with me is beside the point; if they've stepped outside the box, even if just for a moment, then I've done my job.
I know I've done my job when I get emails from people who are struggling with their own non-monogamous leanings who say that my blog has helped them make better sense of things.
I've met lots of like-minded people while blogging, while also making friends with and gaining understanding of those who have a different view of the world.
A couple of blog posts about why I blog:
Making People Think
Blogging Is Its Own Reward
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
More recently, he condemned Barack Obama for his inclusive vision of Christianity, accusing him of "distorting" the Bible. "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology," Dobson said. Apparently the concepts of feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, caring for the sick, and blessed are the peacemakers are not in Dobson's Bible.
Dobson's statements and actions this year clearly show just how extreme and out of touch he is with mainstream America, both liberal and conservative.
The Daily Kos metioned someone that would be more in line with Dobson's values if he were a candidate, but apparently Lord Voldemort might even be too liberal for Dobson, as he's apparently endorsed McCain ;-): Voldemort (R) officially endorses McCain
As seen on the back of Dobson's car:
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
I thought to myself, "here we go again." Yet another expression of the tired opinion that Monogamous = Nice Guy, Non-monogamous = Jerk. Needless to say, I find that black and white assumption to be simplistic at best.
My response to this article follows below:
Sometimes a Cigar Is Just a Cigar
I'm one of those guys who has had a large number of sexual partners since I first became sexually active in the mid-1970s. I'm unmarried and have been for my entire adult life, barring one brief misadventure into marriage in the early 80s.
I don't think I'm a jerk or a narcissist, however. I just have a high libido and I prefer casual sex with a variety of partners, rather than settling down into a monogamous relationship with just one partner.
I'm not a jerk, as I'm honest with women and tell them up front what I'm all about -- they have a chance to walk away if that's not their cup of tea.
Though I'll occasionally have a one night stand and I do have more serious relationships (never monogamous), I'm mainly the "friends with benefits" type for several women concurrently.
That is, there are a lot of women who, for whatever reasons, don't want a serious relationship at various points in their lives, but they still have sexual needs they want fulfilled. These are the kinds of women whom I typically choose for my partners. There's lots of great sex with no strings attached on both sides. And though the cast of characters continues to shift over the years, it's worked well for me -- and for them, too.
And that's what it's all about. People still have sexual needs even if they don't have the time or inclination to pursue a full-blown relationship, monogamous or not.
Monday, June 23, 2008
As a comedian and a social critic, he was almost without peer. I will miss his witty, acerbic observations about life and our society.
I hope he gives them all hell in the afterlife, if, indeed, there is one.
"The whole problem with this idea of obscenity and indecency, and all of these things — bad language and whatever — it's all caused by one basic thing, and that is: religious superstition. There's an idea that the human body is somehow evil and bad and there are parts of it that are especially evil and bad, and we should be ashamed. Fear, guilt and shame are built into the attitude toward sex and the body. ... It's reflected in these prohibitions and these taboos that we have."
When did you consider yourself divorced? In relation to the first question, when did you consider yourself free to date and to get into a new relationship?
Was it when you made the decision to divorce? Was it when you or your spouse moved out? Was it when you got a legal separation (if you did)? Or did you not consider yourself divorced and available to date until the court told you so and gave you the papers to prove it?
The reason I ask this is because I've encountered women who consider themselves married in every way, thus unavailable, up until the moment the judge officially grants the divorce. I don't think I've ever known a man who kept himself closed to new relationships up to that point.
I don't get that. Granted, I'm not monogamous, but if I were, I would consider myself free the moment I knew the marriage was broken beyond repair and that there was no turning back on a divorce. What is the point in remaining "faithful" to someone you no longer love and will no longer share your life with?
In a time when most divorces are of the no-fault variety, I don't see the point of keeping up the pretense of a marriage between the time the couple agrees to divorce and the time the government makes it official.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
I was baffled the first time I saw this. Local Only? What the fuck is that? I thought it meant that I could only access websites that originated in the area where I lived.
But I was soon disabused of that notion. I tried clicking on the site for my town's newspaper and I was just as unable to access that as I was any other website. I discovered that when the connection reads "Local Only", you can't access any websites.
A "Local Only" connection isn't any sort of a connection at all. You are, for all intents and purposes, offline. Using dial-up, when I'm reduced to "Local Only", I have to officially disconnect and then reconnect.
So, going back to my original question: What the fuck does "Local Only" mean? What purpose does it serve? On my two previous computers with Windows 95 and Windows XP, respectively, you were either online or offline. There wasn't any of this "local only" limbo, a connection that didn't connect you to anything.
Perhaps some of the techie geeks here can clear this one up for me.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
I live in a small, conservative city in a strongly red state. The publicly known liberals who live here especially stand out because they are so few.
The man in this picture has been unofficially known as our town's leading liberal voice for as long as I've lived here (23 years). I have yet to have the pleasure of meeting him.
This picture was taken at an annual fishing party he hosts each year on his property for mentally ill patients who live in a local group facility.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Unlucky citizens who fall victim to the U.S. justice system are treated like profit centers to be squeezed without mercy.
To illustrate his point, the author featured the case of a man whose life was permanently ruined after being arrested and stamped with the dubious label of "sex offender." What earned him this classification was for engaging in drunken consensual sex in a parked car with an adult women who later regretted her consent after sobering up and who then pressed rape charges against him.
My response is as follows:
21st Century Witch Hunt
The enforcement of the latest crime category du jour, that of "Sex Offender", has turned into a modern witch hunt almost to the point of hysteria in some instances. The classification paints an absurdly broad brush in true zero tolerance style and, in many instances, leaves reason and common sense behind, where the punishments no longer fit the crimes.
When the average person hears the term, "sex offender", they think of pedophile predators raping five year olds, who, of course, should be punished harshly.
What many people don't realize is that the classification of "sex offender" encompasses many offenses, many of them minor, and some with only the most tenuous connections to sex under its ridiculous broad "umbrella".
A sex offender can be someone who had consensual sex, as in the article, with someone who later regrets their consent for whatever reason and decides to press charges for date rape.
A sex offender can be a teenager having consensual sex or getting a blow job from a slightly younger girlfriend, as in the case of Genarlow Wilson. Millions of so-called sex offenders are simply teenage boyfriend/girlfriend realationships doing what teens have done for hundreds of years. The difference today is that parents turn to the legal system to act in a parental role for them and handle these situations rather than handling it themselves privately, as was done in the past, thus permanently ruining a young man's life for underage consensual sex. The harsh penalties that in no way fit the crime in such cases make the shotgun wedding seem like a more humane solution!
In some states, a person can even be classified as a "sex offender" for the rest of his life if he was arrested for urinating outdoors behind a dumpster! Such ludicrously blockheaded applications of the law fail to distinguish between someone purposely exposing themselves to others for sexual purposes and someone who simply wants to avoid soiling themselves because they cannot wait until they can find a restroom.
Once branded as "sex offenders", such people, few of whom are the true pedophile predators, are relegated to a permanent second class existence in the ways shown in the article. I even heard of several of these men being compelled by the state of Florida to live under a bridge because of all the restrictions on where they may live barred them from any normal housing in the area where they are under probation.
All this sex offender hysteria makes me wonder -- what about murderers who are out on parole, probation, or who have completed their obligations? No one seems to care overmuch where they live, where they work, nor are their movements normally restricted among the general public to the same degree as sex offenders. Do we really believe that someone who has killed another person, sometimes violently, is less of a danger to the public than a 17 year old boy who once got a consensual blowjob from his fifteen year old girlfriend, a public pee-er, or an adult who had drunken consensual sex in a car with a grown woman who later regretted it once she sobered up?
It's time lawmakers applied some rational, common-sense logic to the bloated "sex offender" classification and reserved this label for the true pedophiles and predators out there.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Several months ago, my sister saw fit to relate a conversation to me that she'd had with my father during the last year of his life, where they'd talked hypothetically about how life would be after his death. According to her, he'd told her that he wondered what would become of me after his death. Her implication was that my father was worried about my future happiness because of my lack of vocational success, because I'd not "settled down" into a marriage, and my promiscuous life.
Never mind that my father had not expressed any dire worry about my future to me directly when he had the opportunity to do so.
I have to question her motives of waiting over a decade to mention such a conversation with me -- if it actually happened as she said it did. What earthly good could it have done for her to mention it to me after all that time?
Did she really need to shatter my image of my father and the relationship we'd had by telling me that he'd never had any respect for me, after all? When I told her this, she was quick to assure me that our father had "loved" me, but she apparently doesn't understand that love without respect isn't really love at all.
Today, I find myself reliving this conversation with her and feeling resentful.
From soap ads to elections, looking good is way overrated.
Naturally, I had to comment, which follows below:
As anyone here who has read my comments on Alternet for the last year or so knows, I'm a promiscuous male and I have no problem finding new partners.
I'd like to think I'm above average in looks, but my success isn't really because of that. Good looking people are a dime a dozen.
Rather, I don't limit myself to what my eyes see when I consider what I find attractive in a woman. I have five senses and I use all five when pursuing women, and I don't elevate what I see above what my other four senses experience.
To use an example, a woman can be gorgeous to the eyes, but if she opens her mouth and sounds like Fran Drescher or Janice from Friends, then it all goes out the window for me. I'd much rather have a woman with average to plain looks, but who possesses a sultry voice.
Ultimately, however, what turns me on about a woman is confidence; who knows what she wants and isn't afraid to go after it. A healthy libido and a positive attitude toward sex is also essential. And from sheer experience, I can tell you that "good looking" and "good at it" often do not come in the same package. And I'd much rather have the second than the first!
I think men that go solely by what they see are cheating themselves out of a lot of great women and shouldn't complain when they can't get a date.
Friday, June 13, 2008
--San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom
Newsom made this comment in response to San Diego County Clerk Gregory Smith, who said he may allow those clerks who object to same-sex marriage to refuse to process them, now that California has decided to allow same-sex marriage.
Newsom went on to say, "This is a civil marriage that civil servants have a responsibility to provide, so for civil servants on religious grounds to start passing judgments, they, I think, are breaking the core tenet of what civil service is all about."
"I've got very strong religious beliefs. So now, all of a sudden, I don't have to do certain things, even though that's my responsibility as mayor?"
I think Newsom hit the nail on the head. Marriage license clerks in California, along with pharmacists in every state, who have religious objections to carrying out certain aspects of their jobs ought to consider changing employment. They have a right to their opinions, of course, but they don't have a right to force these opinions on others by refusing to process same-sex marriages in one case and filling birth control and morning after pill prescriptions in the other.
When I was on the police force, there were certain laws I didn't enjoy enforcing, but it was part of the job. If I'd refused to do so, the city would have been well within its rights to fire me, as I'd agreed to enforce all laws when I put on the badge, not just the ones I agreed with. I don't see why it should be any different for marriage license clerks or pharmacists.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
According to E-Podunk.com, the following cities and towns are the most liberal communities in America:
(100,000 or more)
San Francisco, CA
New Haven, CT
New York, NY
Santa Cruz, CA
East Palo Alto, CA
Mount Rainier, MD
Garrett Park, MD
Takoma Park, MD
Bar Harbor, ME
MOST LIBERAL IN STATE
(For selected states)
AZ - Flagstaff
CA - Berkeley
CO - Telluride
CT - Salisbury
FL - Wilton Manors
GA - Decatur
IA - Iowa City
IL - Oak Park
KS - Lawrence
MA - Boston
MD - Mount Rainier
ME - Orono
MI - Ferndale
MN - Golden Valley
MO - Kansas City
NC - Carrboro
NH - Hanover
NJ - Montclair
NM - Santa Fe
NY - Ithaca
OH - Oberlin
OR - Lincoln City
PA - Philadelphia
RI - Providence
TX - Bellaire
VA - Baileys Crossroads
VT - Johnson
WA - Vashon
WI - Madison
I was privileged to have been born in a liberal city (Providence, RI), but the state I live in now is sufficiently conservative that it wasn't even included on the last list of "Most liberal in state". Decatur, GA would be the closest liberal bastion to where I'm currently living.
I'd be curious to know if any of my readers live in any of these liberal communities.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Salvatore de Ciuco, spokesman for Bishop Lorenzo Chiarinelli of Viterbo, Italy said, "No bishop, no priest can celebrate a wedding when he knows of admitted impotence as it is a motive for annulment" of the marriage.
After being turned away by the church, the man and his fiancee, who was aware of his impotence, were married in a civil ceremony in Viterbo.
While I'm no fan of marriage, I'm appalled at this. This denial, totally lacking in compassion, shows that the official Catholic position on marriage is that it must be about having children and that any other reason, including love, is entirely irrelevant to them. Never mind that the world is already groaning under the weight of overpopulation. And never mind that there are millions of children waiting for homes that this couple could possibly adopt.
I'm wondering if they also refuse to marry elderly people past the age of reproduction or sterile people who don't have handicaps that are visually detectable? We already know they won't marry same sex couples, but denying a church wedding to a disabled person is a new one on me.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
I know some areas are getting it worse than me with flooding, tornadoes, and so on, but that's only scant comfort from the heat. I hate hot weather like a cat hates rain. Up until this latest heat wave, temps had been reasonable and I'd been under the (mistaken) impression that we were going to have a mild summer.
I don't feel like doing anything but laying around under the air conditioner. I've reverted to reverse-hibernation mode, rarely going out until early evening. I'm considering moving my bed right under the air conditioning vent, as it's too sticky to even get laid right now. Now, that's HOT!
Even my cats are miserable. They're just laying around listlessly, as close to the AC vent as they can get. Neither them nor I have much of an appetite; it's too hot to eat.
Too hot to eat, too hot to fuck. That's definitely my idea of hell.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
However, one thing the author wrote made me leave a comment that questioned an assumption made even by many liberals: "...the false moral dichotomy of today's manufactured narrative that equates values with conservatives and liberals with libertines."
My response to this was:
I AM a Libertine Liberal
But that doesn't mean I have no ethics, principles, or morality. It's just that I don't accept that to be a moral person that I must live a monogamous lifestyle -- in my book monogamy isn't synonymous with morality.
I'm honest and open about my non-traditional life. I practice what I preach, unlike some of the hypocrites in the so-called "family values" crowd.
Though I don't care about what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, as the "family values" crowd thinks moral people ought to be concerned about, I am concerned with the issues of poverty, health care, the environment, education, and other truly moral issues.
I also raised a child to responsible adulthood as a single parent, with whom I now enjoy a good relationship, so they can't tell me that I don't care about children just because I don't live like Ned Flanders.
I don't want to hear it from either side that I can't be a moral person because I'm a libertine. True morality isn't about what you do in the bedroom, anyway. It's how you treat people in general.
Morality for me is deceptively simple: "Treat others as you would wish to be treated". If that's all a person takes away from religion, then they're doing well in my book.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
First of all, what about enforcing laws against other crimes? There are plenty of other crimes committed that are just as serious as sex crimes. Even though sexual offenses are the latest trendy crime du jour, it doesn't make sense to concentrate on these to the exclusion of less sensational crimes. I'd have give the candidate more credibility if he'd promised to be tough on all crimes across the board.
Second, I'm guessing that a lot of these so-called sex offense arrests are of the "17 year old boy gets a consensual blowjob from his 15 year old girlfriend" types of cases and juries are rightly declining to find such defendants guilty and ruin their lives. The 18 percent who are convicted are likely the true crimes perpetrated by adults against young children, who deserve to go to prison.
Third, because there has been such an increasing emphasis on sex crimes in the last few years, there is a danger of a "witch hunt" mentality occurring among the overzealous. In other words, perhaps a factor in the conviction rate is partially because some hasty, bad arrests made without sufficient probable cause, technicalities that ruin the cases, and so on in response to the current climate of seeing sexual predators behind every bush.
Because these are serious crimes that people typically react to in a particularly emotional manner, it is especially important that law enforcement and the judicial system not take a gung-ho, "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" approach. A prudent approach is essential -- to make damned sure that every procedural i is dotted and every t crossed and that sufficient probable cause exists before any arrest is made. The would help to increase the conviction rate of those arrested, even if fewer actual arrests are made.
And, as I've said before, it would help immensely if sexual activity between consenting teens in relationships were not included under the improperly broad umbrella of "sex offenses". Such matters are better handled by parents, rather than the legal system. If this was done, it would have the dual benefits of being more fair to the teens and would allow law enforcement to better spend its time going after the true predators.
I'm guessing that this politician was merely pandering to the current witch hunt mentality toward sexual offenses, rather than giving any reasoned approach to the issue of crime and law enforcement, simply to get votes.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Forty-six percent said they were enjoying sex more now than they did in their 20s and 30s. Personally, I don't think my sex life is better than it was then, but it's certainly just as good.
34 percent would have sex on a first date compared with 17 percent of singles in "Generation X": those born between 1965 and 1982. I've had more first dates with sex than without.
25 percent were open to engaging in a threesome. I'm not just open to it, I've been there, done that, and gotten the t-shirt.
These results are rather unsurprising because baby boomers grew up and came of age during the midst of the sexual revolution, feminism, and the push for gay rights.
More survey results indicated that 47 percent of single boomers were looking for companionship, while 19 percent were seeking a sex partner.
30 percent were looking for a serious relationship, while 33 percent were looking for casual ones.
Only 10 percent were looking to get married, compared to 60 of those aged 30 to 39.
Baby boomers -- let's hear from you. I'd be curious to read what other generations think as well.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
I had a rather odd dream last night. For some reason unclear to me, I was placed in a jail cell with my ex. It was the jail attached to the police department I worked for, but it looked different than in everyday life. There were two storeys of cells, which was arranged in an open U-shape, looking more like a motel than a jail. Of course, the cells had barred doors, rather than normal motel doors, but otherwise it looked like a motel.
My ex and I had a second floor cell and we each had our own cot and we work denim clothes. I knew we'd been placed in the same cell simply because we'd been married. I managed to slip through the bars and get out of the cell and I found my way down to the first level.
Before I could get away from the jail, the sun came up and I knew the jailer would come along and catch me if I didn't move. I considered going back up the stairs and back into the cell before he made his cell checks, but I figured he would catch me before I could get there.
I suddenly noticed an elevator behind me, at the corner of the U. I grabbed onto the outside of the car, meaning to ride it up on the outside. I did so, holding my breath so as not to get caught along the wall.
I ended up in the lobby of a reception room of some sort. No one was in the room, and I looked back to see a bank of elevators from where I'd come from. I had to figure out which was the right one, so I could get back before I was caught, so I could try my escape the next evening.
The middle elevator opened to reveal that it had doors on both sides. The second set of doors opened to show it had another elevator behind it. I jumped in and rode it back down to the proper floor between the two elevators.
When I got back to the cell, I found that another man had been added to the cell in my absence. I was relieved because this meant I no longer belonged there and knew I had to get out before they found me there where I didn't belong.
Monday, June 2, 2008
He got tired of being described as a playboy, a loser or a commitment-phobe, so he wrote this book, based on surveys of over a thousand unmarried men, to answer the question of why a growing number of eligible men were steering clear of marriage.
The overwhelming conclusion he came to was not that bachelors are afraid of marriage, per se, but rather that they are afraid of making a bad marriage by marrying the wrong person.
In 1980, only about 6 percent of men in their early 40s had never married but this number has now risen to 17 percent. More people of both sexes are opting out of legal marriage, as there are fewer social or religious pressures on people to get married.
In his survey, Weisman found three types of bachelors: 8 percent who never want to marry, 62 percent want to marry but who have unrealistic expectations for a wife, and about 30 percent who are undecided.
Four out of ten bachelors did not want children, three out of ten wanted children, with the rest being undecided.
Financial issues also played a role among these bachelors. Some low-income bachelors chose to remain single because they didn't think they could adequately support a wife and/or family. More affluent bachelors were afraid of a bad marriage leading to a messy divorce with their ex "taking them to the cleaners" financially.
Weisman's research also punctured the myth that unmarried men were necessarily unhappy. "A compelling issue was how many of them had found contentment in a never-married life," he said. "They had created lives full of careers, friends and ambitions. It was not like they walk around all day worried about not being married."
Though he didn't really touch on men like me who remain unmarried by philosophy, I suppose I could be included with the 8 percent who don't want to marry, even though I fit one of the stereotypes he was trying to avoid. (I know, I know, I was once married, but my heart was never in it, and it was so brief, that I feel more like a bachelor than a divorced man).