Why Men Cheat

Every couple of news cycles, much like celebrities dying in threes, we get a perfect storm of high profile divorces and infidelity tales that make the average married dude's life much harder. Because when Schwarzenegger fathers a bastard child with his housekeeper, suddenly men around the world hear insane things like, "If you ever have a child with another woman I will kill you," from their usually stable significant other. As though we are at risk of impregnating a maid we don't have.

Or when John Edwards faces criminal charges for misappropriation of public funds to cover up an affair, so that his wife who was dying of cancer wouldn't find out we're greeted with peppy responses such as, "Ugh, men are such pigs!"

Of course, when Rep. Weiner is both stupid enough to distribute pictures of his man parts to every decent looking FaceBook slag he can wrangle, and then compounds the error by being unaware of the difference between a public and private post, you can be sure that just about every dudes cellphone and Social Media accounts are attacked by their "trusted" partners with the intensity of an ANONYMOUS hack looking for evidence of wrong doing or shady dealings.

So these events always bring up the question, WHY DO MEN CHEAT!!

Which is missing the point a bit, because really the issue is,

"Why do people cheat?"

As you'll see at the link above, over 1/2 of all people, men and women admit to cheating, and around 3/4's would have an affair if they thought they could get away with it.

So why is it mostly men that we see in the news cycle. Mostly because a woman having an affair is going to be significantly more discreet about it on balance than a man. So really men are the ones with the greatest reason to be paranoid about their partner. A woman may cheat on you and you'll have no particular way of knowing. If a man is doing it, there are probably going to be signs, often obvious signs, that something hinky is afoot.

But for today we are focusing on what's up with the menfolk and their apparent inability to keep their pants zipped. Now there are many reasons for these shenanigans. And most of them you ladies can't do anything about I'm afraid. There's the asshole factor, where a guy like Weiner, fresh off a new marriage simply continues illicit relationships that he probably never had any intention of ending once he got married. Instead of respecting the institution and his future wife enough to not enter into a contract with false intentions, he wanted his cake and blah, blah, blah. That makes him an asshole. Actually a lying asshole.

Advice - Don't marry a lying asshole.

Then of course comes the power argument. Men are typically more accomplished later in life, but often make marriage choices early in life. So as they become more accomplished, they become more attractive to the opposite sex and now a world of options that wasn't available when they were younger opens up to them. Since just about every accomplishment a male can achieve has the fantasy award of all women will want you, it's no surprise that as men achieve greater power they will also often decide that they deserve the rewards of power, even if it means breaking their marriage vows.

Advice - Be aware that a highly successful male probably thinks a multitude of sweaty young women is the ultimate confirmation of true achievement.

So if your dude's a player, an asshole, or a power reaching alpha male then you can pretty much just assume you are going to get cheated on. Sorry ladies. As yummy as those guys may be, there's a cost. Your choice if you want to pay it.

Now, we finally come to the category you can do something about. The average slightly frustrated married male. Why is the average married male slightly frustrated? Because sex is a maintenance function for men. Anything less than 3 - 4 times a week for most dudes and they are going to spend an exorbitant amount of time thinking about it, because the lack of it makes it a big deal.

Because early on men had to learn how to pursue women if they wanted to get laid. And believe me, we want to get laid. Most men also have studied, like graduate students, sex and how to make it better for the woman. How to get a woman excited, how to perform oral sex, how to last longer, what positions work best with different equipment and body types, the best way to introduce new ideas into lovemaking, and of course working out body and mind to be ready to impress the opposite sex with whatever their preferred focus is. Any decent male lover out there has literally put in PhD level hours to get that way, especially since much of the study is theoretical since you ladies aren't particularly freewheeling with your charms.

And all that work feels totally worth it at first just to have that opportunity to have sex with you. And we're happy to focus totally on you because it gives us a chance to show off all the skills we've acquired.

But as a relationship progresses, and the thrill of the hunt fades, an ugly truth often comes to the surface. Many women just aren't that good at sex. I know you think you are, because every guy you've ever met tried to bed you, and none of them ever complained when you gave it up, but the reality is that most women approach sex very passively and demand that their partner does all the heavy lifting.

Now this is not totally your fault. All you had to do to attract a mate, if you are even Top 50% on an attractiveness scale, was be a woman. You didn't have to dress nice, have a good personality, show financial aptitude, or even shower regularly in order to easily find a moderately attractive partner who wanted to be with you.

So you never really learned to value sex. You never really learned to think of your partner as someone deserving of your abject lust. You learned that your partner should have to last longer, rather than learning how to train your body to get excited faster. You learned that your pleasure is someone else's responsibility instead of your own.

You learned that it's ok to casually brush aside your partner's advances because hell, he'll still be interested later whenever you feel like it, and maybe he'll try to do extra nice things to get you in the mood anyway.

Problem is, since you never had to face the soul crushing terror of putting yourself out there, in someone else's hands, hoping that they deem you worthy, you have no idea the anger and irritation that your partner feels when even after establishing a long term relationship they still have to "work at it" to get in your pants. And that they must usually be the one instigating things, hoping to catch you at a good time.

This is not to say that sex shouldn't be special, and that we men don't want to treat the women we love as princesses. For the most part we do. But that doesn't mean we wouldn't love to have you come on to us like some crazed, lust-addled creature who seems to want our cock more than air. Do you have to think hard about when the last time you did that to your partner was? Then that's a big FAIL on your part.

'Cause here's what's gonna happen. Unless your partner is a hermit, at some point he's going to come across a woman who does feel that way, who decides to pursue him despite his relationship status because he turns her on, and she's not scared to show it. And when that happens, many menfolk are simply ill-equipped to fight that off. It's flattering to be wanted, and it ties in with what we are taught from childhood which is that sexual mastery is the greatest end. What greater sexual mastery is there for a man than to have a woman lustfully throwing herself at you. The answer is none.

Why do you think Hugh Hefner is such a hero? He's kind of a pathetic manchild pursuing sex with women up to 60 years younger than him. 60! But that is the male ideal as sold in our culture.

So if your guy isn't one of the "will definitely cheat on you" types mentioned in the first part of the article, then it is somewhat your responsibility to create an environment in your relationship where he wouldn't want to cheat. Let him know you want him. Learn a new trick here and there (just not from Cosmo). Do some research. Get good in bed. Surprise him.

Not only will this keep his attentions focused on you, but it will also likely lead to him doing a much better job of taking care of things you wish he would focus on because he'll want to do things for you. He will be grateful believe me.

And if after all that he still cheats on you, there was nothing you could do to stop it. He was a cheater straight down to the bone and you're just as well to be rid of him. But with all that you've learned, pick a better guy the next time and your openness and sexual creativity will hook him deep.

How Do You Determine a Teacher's Value? (hint: it's got nothing to do with how she looks, perv)

Right now on a talk show or news program somewhere in this country, people are arguing over what a teacher should be paid. They're not looking at the education system and what the strengths and failures of it are, they're not talking about what the inherent value of education is, or how we value it in this country. They're certainly not talking about student and parent responsibility.

Nope, they're just arguing over teacher salaries.

Which raises the question of, why?

I think the argument over what teachers get paid is an attempt to attach a value to what a single educator is worth, or more specifically, what they contribute to society through their work. The reason we have to look at what a teacher's value is to the country instead of to an individual is because of how they are paid. Taxes fund the government paid, teacher salaries so their financial worth is dictated by the "greater good" argument. If education were strictly privatized then teacher salaries would be determined by a market rate. But that's not the case, and the private school system cannot be used as a model for that because the requirements to be a teacher in a private school system do not align with the much more stringent requirements to be a public school teacher.

So, what is the best way to determine a teacher's worth? Unfortunately it is a difficult question to answer because there are far too many variables to address for a workable model to be feasible. Of course you have teacher ability, but you also have student ability, home support, quality of educational tools available, sense of student safety, peer group influence, strength of school, strength of school district, educational effect of extracurricular activities, etc.

Simply put, a good teacher effects students positively, and a bad teacher effects students negatively, but good luck proving either of those positions.

So if we cannot quantify a teacher's worth through a traditional numbers model, what IS the best way?

This is an area that would better lend itself to intelligent debate about the educational system than the eye-rolling, party line nonsense getting spouted out on daytime TV, but since it is currently not being discussed much I'll just tell you what I think. The worth of an educator in the public school systems is really a question of philosophy. There are many shades of how people feel about teachers, but for simplicity lets break it down into the two broadest camps -

1) Those who feel that teachers are part time babysitters who get three months of paid vacation a year.

2) Those who feel that teachers are the architects of our country's intellectual infrastructure.

I think we can all agree that those two job descriptions would lead to a massive difference in income expectation can we not?

Personally, I feel position 2 is correct, and that teachers are as crucial to the intellectual health of our country as doctors are to the physical and lawyers are to the legal. The main difference is that it does not feel like we have to pay teachers out of pocket so we are never forced to consider their inherent value. As with many things, if something seems cheap then we will treat it as though it is. A free education is such a phenomenal and generous gift that many treat it with about as much respect as a gum wrapper.

Further complicating things from a philosophical standpoint is that when a teacher is effective their work is largely invisible. Bad teaching is obvious, when students come through that cannot read or write, or pass basic math skills and then face a lifetime of accumulative failures because they were not adequately prepared to fit in with society as envisioned by the founders.

But good teaching, that sends out accomplished, motivated, self-starters who own their intellectual ability, put it to good use and succeed against doubters and long odds because of the strong sense of self confidence and reliance that a solid education helped to instill in them, that kind of teaching is not flashy.

We see the product, but don't make the leap to thank the craftsperson.

So teachers largely toil in secret, seeing their successes laid at the feet of their charges and seeing their failures placed squarely on their own shoulders.

Perhaps this is why it is usually the dedicated who choose this profession. After all, if this were truly a cushy cash cow, common sense would seem to indicate that those working long hours as middle managers and VP's would be equally drawn to the high living lifestyle of an educator. We should never ignore the obvious simply because it doesn't support our viewpoint. If teachers were overpaid lazybones, it would be a much more competitive field to get a job in.

The fact that most teachers do not actively complain about their income probably means that it is currently in a range that teachers find acceptable, maybe not ideal, but at least acceptable. Which in my opinion is a bargain since most working professionals with the education and experience of long term teachers make 6 figures. As a country we're getting a great bargain, and right now, in my opinion, some folks who haven't thought the issue through to its logical conclusion are going to cost us. They will either cost us in worldwide competitiveness by driving the best teachers out of education, or cost us in the pocketbook when teachers stand up and demand the full bill for what they feel they are worth.

At this point we must also look at the idea of merit pay. On the surface it seems like a pretty good idea. Maybe drop the base salary of teachers, but reward the best generously through performance metrics. Yes, many will argue that standardized tests are a poor measure and are racially and gender biased. That may be true, but we do need some way to measure student performance - and for now that's what we've got so I'm not going to broach that subject.

The problem with merit pay is a question of equality. If the merit is only determined by test scores then teachers in higher scoring test districts have a natural advantage that has nothing to do with their ability and everything to do with the population attending their school. This puts teachers in the schools serving students who need the most help at a distinct disadvantage and will drive highly capable teachers away from the students who need them most.

On the other hand, if you base merit pay on percentage of student improvement, it certainly would give you a good idea of how effective an individual teacher is. But it also puts the teacher in a higher scoring district at a disadvantage. If a class is full of 95th percentile students there is only so far they can improve. If a teacher has a class of non-English speaking students, the ability to raise their test scores is huge because the starting point is guaranteed to be extremely low.

What about a fusion of the two? Giving merit pay based on percentage increase in schools with a pre-defined low achievement rate, and based on test scores in general in pre-defined high achievement schools. Well, good luck with coming up with those details and not running into an unworkable set of racial and social obstacles.

Oh, and in case we forgot, what exactly are we going to do about Art teachers, Music teachers, P.E. teachers and so on. Shall we simply discount them because their subject may lack an easily measurable effect on student achievement?

So what do we do?

We could all just stop complaining about the high on the hog, rock n roll lifestyle of today's teachers and let common sense in regards to their value rule the day, but that seems unlikely.

So if they idea is to rework the educational system, change teacher incomes, or bring increased accountability to the whole process, can we at least be open to the fact that it's an extraordinarily complex issue instead of making teachers into financial scapegoats for the widespread and endemic spending of a government acting like a college kid with their first credit card.

Maybe the best thing we could all do is stop trying to passive aggressively punish the teachers we didn't like, and go talk to the teacher who had the biggest effect on your life. Sit down, thank them for all they did, and then explain to them why you think they're an overpaid fat cat.

But then again maybe it's too hard to apply critical thinking to a difficult issue when you can just turn it into a screeching match over what teachers get paid. If that's the case it probably does make sense to you for teachers to be paid less, because it is a damn shame that you weren't taught better.

Public Debate and Anal Sex (aka How To Deal with an Asshole)

Alright, first things first, you may not like the content of this particular blog post for so many reasons that to continue on from here is strictly at your own risk.

'Cause we're gonna talk about anal sex, and political debate, and how learning to deal with one can help you learn to deal with the other. Sound too icky? Then for goodness sake stop reading. Seriously.

Right now.

OK, you're still here? Let's get to it.

Despite what the news media and porn would have you believe, it's not just freaks and apoplectic weirdos who engage in these activities. Lots of people try both, and many find the experience unpleasant because of a simple lack of know-how. Of course some are a natural at it, and others will simply never even consider it. That's all part of the broad beauty of humanity. But if you've been curious about either, let's look at some of the realities involved.

In both public debate and anal sex, you are going to have to spend the majority of your time dealing with assholes. That's just the way of it. Many people choose not to participate in either activity because they are so put off by assholes that they simply cannot deal with them. So they say things like, "I'm not political," or "I'm not interested in any pee pee/pooper action."

That's fine, but it's often fear of the unknown, or disinterest in facing a notable challenge that leads to these attitudes rather than a patent inability to enjoy either if suitably prepped.

And preparation is truly the key in both cases. You gotta look at both sides of the issue and see what does and doesn't belong in the discussion, clean out the pipes of misinformation if you will. You gotta lube things up to make sure the info you have flows smoothly and works they way you intend. And it's very important to make sure that what you're bringing to the party is a good fit for the discussion at hand.

Failure to do any of these things will lead to a painful, shitty experience that will likely end with both people involved swearing off the whole damn concept.

There are certainly assholes you simply cannot deal with no matter how hard you try. If someone is truly unwilling to do their due diligence in the matter, if they will not engage in intelligent prep work and only come to the party with their unclean, shitty assholeness in tow, then you cannot engage with them reasonably.

At first you are going to view the person you're engaged with as an opponent, as nothing other than an asshole. Barely human and hard to differentiate. But there are many different types of assholes. And a good clean asshole, while perhaps presenting a view that is different or uncomfortable from what you are used to, may just give you an opportunity to see things from a different perspective. Find some new wrinkles that you hadn't thought of and bring them to a positive light. Hell, you might even come to a point where you don't see an asshole at all anymore, just a unique and engaging experience.

On the other hand, a dirty asshole, someone coming at you with lies and filth, possessing nothing but undigestable kernels of misinformation mixed in with their outright bullshit; they would much rather disgust you than discuss with you because they are too lazy to engage in the activity at hand in a reasonable and adult way.

These dirty assholes are the people who argue for Creationism, and that Obama wasn't born in the U.S. Completely irrational viewpoints that gleefully reject facts, common sense and critical thinking. To paraphrase Bill Maher - childbirth vs. delivery by stork is not a debate.

On the other hand, the immigration debate, health care debate, and even the question of whether or not it matters if the PUSA is a Muslim, are all good, legitimate, clean opportunities for discussion. I may disagree whole heartedly with your take on these issues, but a nice rowdy exchange of viewpoints is good for all of us, may even teach us all something about ourselves, and provides an experience that can grow us as a person. Plus it's an intellectual safety area that provides us a non-committed play opportunity before moving on to the real deal traditional sex of policy development, and the violent childbirth of law making.

Ultimately your partner has to have the same respect for the activity that you're about to engage in as you do or it simply cannot happen. There will be screaming and accusations and a lot of bad feelings afterwards. And you have to be able to listen if you want to be successful.

So consider this a primer if you've found yourself scared to participate. Get you some facts, research, lube and easily washable sheets. Have a rousing bout of backdoor action and rowdy public debate. Anyone, with proper preparation and motivation can do it.

All night long!