Why Children Are In Danger

On Wednesday, February 21, 2007, Bill O’Reilly, host of Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor, appeared via satellite on a special Oprah show about the pandemic of abused children and tepid prosecution in some quarters of the perpetrators.

O’Reilly is on a respectable, admirable mission to save the children from this deplorable, embarrassing danger in our society, and he displays amazing passion and emotion in his quest. Bill recommends a three-pronged strategy for achieving his goal:

1. Pass Jessica’s Law in all 50 states — it requires that any adult who abuses a child get a minimum of 25 years in prison. According to O’Reilly’s Website, only 21 states (including DC) have passed the law or its equivalent.
2. Teach children to be aware of their surroundings, to distrust strangers, and to fight back with full force if abducted
3. Admonish all fathers to reassure their children that, no matter what danger they may face, their fathers will rescue them.

I laud Mr. O’Reilly’s first two points. But, having just written “Celebrating Male Irrelevance,” I am finding O’Reilly’s third point problematic. First, Bill implies that mothers (women) lack the power and the responsibility to save their own children — even though Hillary Clinton wants to command America’s armed forces. Second, O’Reilly is ignoring a basic reality in this country: fathers (men) are irrelevant, and children know it.

There are two anti-male commercials currently running on television, sponsored by Pella Corporation and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, respectively. Allow me to provide brief synopses:

• Pella: a wife demonstrates her new Pella in-window shades to her female neighbor. These shades, embedded between the window panes, don’t take up space on the room’s wall, and they never need cleaning. While the wife is raising and lowering the shade for her friend, her idiotic, bumbling husband is visible — through the window containing the Pella shade — in the back yard, barbecuing and minding the dog simultaneously. Because he is a typical incompetent husband, he ends up knocking over the barbecue grill, falling on the ground next to the grill, entangled in the dog’s leash. In accordance with America’s low opinion of men, Pella felt comfortable demeaning men in its aim to sell more window treatments. Would Pella ever show an incompetent woman in its commercials?
• Liberty Mutual: a husband is trying to enter the security code into his home-alarm system. He can’t remember the code, so he yells to his off-camera wife for the code. She responds by yelling back that the code is their anniversary date. Naturally, as a typical man, he doesn’t know their anniversary date. He stares at the keypad, quizzically, then enters the wrong number thereby tripping the alarm. Would Liberty Mutual ever show an incompetent woman in its commercials?

Children watch these commercials, too — their messages consistent with what children see in everyday life: divorced mothers badmouthing their fathers who got hammered in family courts. Also, children watched three innocent male lacrosse players, from Durham, North Carolina, get unfairly and unconstitutionally skewered in public, while the felonious rape accuser faded into obscurity, with impunity. Where are children going to get the impression that fathers (men) are worth calling in an emergency? Where, I ask you?

When flying in an airplane, the flight attendant always reminds parents, in an emergency, to place the oxygen masks on themselves first, BEFORE helping their children. Why? Because, if the parents become incapacitated, they are powerless to help their children. The same is true in life, is it not?

On March 9, 2006, the National Center for Men (NCM) filed a lawsuit (Roe vs. Wade for Men™) in the US district court in Michigan, to gain for men the right to make reproductive choice, to decline parenthood in the event of an unintended pregnancy — the same right that women have.

On that day, Bill O’Reilly had Mel Feit, NCM’s executive director, on The O’Reilly Factor. Bill predicted that the lawsuit would be thrown out (it was, four months later) and told Mel that, regardless of a woman’s fraudulent behavior in getting herself pregnant, the man should step up to take ultimate responsibility. In other words, the man belongs in the shovel brigade of a woman’s parade. This is just another example of male irrelevance. Again, children are aware of this imbalance.

The reason, Bill O’Reilly, that American children are in danger is that our so-called legal system has rendered the father — more fundamentally, the man — irrelevant. Society has cut the man’s oxygen supply. Women own the preponderance of reproductive rights, civil rights, child-custody rights, alimony rights, paternity rights, and child-support rights. Again, children are aware of this imbalance.

NoNonsense Bottom Line

If we want to save our children, we must make the father — the man — relevant, once again. We must allow men to have the same rights and privileges that women enjoy. By cutting off the man’s oxygen, we have destroyed his ability to be effective, respected, and relevant.

Many mothers make it impossible for fathers to see their children in non-emergencies; how can these fathers rescue their children in emergencies?

What children see is a country of ineffective, ridiculed men with no rights, and entitled women with too many rights. They know the system is unjust, unfair, and unbalanced. Unless and until children view their parents as equal partners with equal rights, who mutually support each other, they will NOT feel safe trusting them in emergencies.

Instead of admonishing irrelevant fathers to save the day for children, Bill O’Reilly, I recommend that you work as tirelessly as you do to pass Jessica’s Law to restore legal oxygen to men. Men do not deserve the horrific treatment America gives them, and you have the power and the platform to help them.

When fathers have rights equal to those of mothers, when parents fight together to keep their children safe, child abusers will be afraid to harm children. Right now, predators have no fears — because they face a system that, in many quarters, gives more rights to them than to fathers! If you can help fix this, Bill O’Reilly, instead of unfairly supporting mothers’ rights, you can accomplish your mission to save children.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 45+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables™ (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth™ (ISBN 0974501719).

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

America’s VD

When watching certain events — the Super Bowl, NASCAR races, military battles, and joint sessions of Congress — one might get the impression that we live in a male-dominated society. Nothing could be further from the truth. America is a gynocracy, and it is plagued with a pandemic disease: VD, or the vilification & devaluation of men.

Ironically, men are responsible for spreading this VD, because they perpetuate and tolerate it at all levels of their lives, and they don’t protect themselves. It all begins with deference towards women. Last week, we witnessed the pinnacle of this phenomenon: the emasculating, obsequious stampede to do something, anything to please women on Valentine’s Day, also VD. So, what kind of rewards are men receiving for their deference?

According to a recent survey of 3,000 married women by Woman’s Day magazine and AOL, more than 50% of participants said they probably wouldn’t marry their husbands again, more than 33% said they definitely wouldn’t pick the same spouses again, and 39% admitted to constantly flirting. The average divorce rate is 50%, and women bring 70% of divorce actions. For the first time in US history, fewer than 50% of homes are headed by married couples, and fewer than 50% of women are married. But, 37% of children, on average, are born out of wedlock — so, that’s a lot of child support that MEN have to pay.

According to Allianz Group, women will control 60% of US wealth by 2010, 33% more girls than boys graduate from college, 60% of female MBAs outearn their husbands, and women comprise 50% of shareholders. Women hold top positions in government, prestigious universities, and Fortune 500 corporations. In other words, women are doing extremely well in this country and have proven themselves to be able peers.

Yet, on the day of “love,” it is all about her — as if a woman is more important than a man, and he is reduced to passive investor in his own relationship. If the “rules” of Valentine’s Day were reversed, in 2008, whereby each woman would be required to treat her man to an all-expenses-paid night on the town, the restaurants and theaters would be empty, Vermont Teddy Bear bankrupt.

Unfortunately, the metrics and societal messages don’t provide any evidence that men are getting positive rewards for their deference. Why, then, do men so blindly subordinate themselves to women?

In most homes with fathers present, boys were taught to worship their mothers and sisters, and to think of themselves as lesser beings. Sisters were allowed, unilaterally of course, to taunt their brothers with impunity. But, boys had to restrain themselves when their sisters hit them or stole their toy trucks — an obvious double standard. In today’s fatherless homes — caused by endless divorces and rampant illegitimate births — single and unwed mothers tend to convey to their children negative messages about men.

According to telephone-industry statistics, Mothers’ Day yields the highest volume of paid long-distance calls in the calendar year, while Fathers’ Day yields the highest volume of collect long-distance calls in the calendar year. What does that say about VD America? Everything.

In almost every divorce, the father is forced to move out of the marital home, while mom stays there with the children. Such inequitable experiences crystalize for children that mothers outrank fathers, that fathers (men) have little or no value. So, it should surprise nobody that boys grow up with inferiority complexes, dysfunctionally sycophantic to women, while girls grow up feeling artificially entitled with dim views of men.

These “contaminated” kids ultimately become editors of newspapers and magazines, and producers of TV sitcoms, TV commercials, and Hollywood movies. They become police officers, legislators, judges, jurists, mayors, governors, district attorneys, defense lawyers, presidents. Accordingly, they publish anti-male articles, produce anti-male movies, and pass so many anti-male laws — all of them unconstitutional — that women now have the preponderance of reproductive rights, civil rights, child-custody rights, alimony rights, and child-support rights. In essence, men have worked side by side with women to make themselves irrelevant.

Equality may be law in the workplace but not outside of it. Sadly, in the typical relationship, the man defers to his woman through its five phases: dating, engagement, wedding, marriage, and divorce. He doesn’t feel worthy enough to assert himself. Yes, the man in our society is the default provider of cash and the default protector of our streets and borders. His reward? He will be the default scapegoat in failed relationships and marriages. But, watch him dash like a subservient, kowtowing madman to buy those overpriced roses on Valentine’s Day.

It’s Not a Big Deal

On the eve of this Valentine’s Day, I appeared on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto to urge men to boycott this farcical, female-centric retail extravaganza. It was a fun and revealing exchange for both debators, but Neil’s adversarial prodding at me, while delivered humorously, reinforced the underpinnings of male irrelevance.

To me, Valentine’s Day — compelled giving, expected generosity, female entitlement, and fear of female retaliation — is not the elevation but the denigration of women. Worse, it is an annual “celebration” of male irrelevance, symptomatic and emblematic of it. I didn’t have enough time to fully develop my arguments (see “Boycott Valentine’s Day!”), but I made enough valid points to hit my target.

Mr. Cavuto introduced the segment, which ran just under four minutes, in anticipation that it would make neither his wife nor any woman happy — a telling comment. I intend not to regurgitate the entire interview here but only to extract the salient points.

After welcoming me, Neil asked why I want to boycott Valentine’s Day. Borrowing from the Fox News credo, I rejoined: “It’s unfair and unbalanced.” Neil then inquired: “What’s wrong, really, with just buying your honey, your wife, your girlfriend something for Valentine’s Day? It’s not a big deal.”

Not a big deal? In other words, according to Mr. Cavuto, despite being a unilateral anachronism, Valentine’s Day is a female right, and men should just go along with it. Society’s pressure on men to give compulsory deference, as if women are delicate flowers, is an outmoded, divisive, insulting cliche. Also, “just going along with it,” over time, is precisely why men have seen their rights evaporate!

Notwithstanding that Condoleeza Rice is America’s top ambassador and was the national security advisor, that Nancy Pelosi is #2 in the succession chain to run the US Armed Forces, and that Hillary Clinton wants to run the US Armed Forces, most people in our society still embrace double-standard deference to women — she can be your boss at work and your helpless maiden at home. And, this double standard, what I call nonsense, is the chief reason why male-female relations are at an all-time low. Many people just don’t get the connection.

My reply to Cavuto was that “the holiday is all about the woman.” Cavuto responded: “So, what’s wrong with that? We all have women in our lives who mean a lot, right?” I then began to enumerate the high-powered women in our country, as well as stats about women having greater wealth and a higher college-graduation rate than men. I expressed my belief that, “if a woman can send our troops into combat, I think she can pick up a dinner check.” But, Neil would have none of that (his wife was watching, remember?). Now, I realize that Mr. Cavuto, a skilled and amiable host, was giving me the jazz for effect and humor, but I take this subject seriously, as you will see in subsequent paragraphs.

Continued Cavuto: “Would you acknowledge that a lot of women do a lot for a lot of men, and it’s not acknowledged or not even written, not even debated; they just do it? And, so if there’s a day in the year where they get something a little extra, what the hell?” My rejoinder: “The problem is, Neil, it’s not just one day in the year. Also, Valentine’s Day is needlessly expensive, it’s artificial, it’s compulsory…”

Well, this gave Neil his opening to suggest that I’ve had hard relationships and that I’m angry — the classical feminist ploy. There is an 11th commandment in this country for men: Thou shalt not criticize a female. Violate that and risk accusations of anger and bitterness — I get this with every media appearance. The best policy, according to most men, is to do whatever makes women happy. More male irrelevance.

Do men do a lot for women that goes unacknowledged, unwritten, or undebated? Absolutely. In addition to being the default providers and saviors, men are largely responsible for designing, building, and delivering most of the staples and luxuries women take for granted: roads, buildings, bridges, stadiums, trash pickups, automobiles, TVs, radios, stereos, jets, yachts, cruise ships, appliances, jewelry, clothes, shoes, babies, homes, furniture, stores, restaurants, courthouses, the Internet, computers, cellphones, Google, YouTube, and MySpace — to name a few. Where’s the gratitude? I never hear it. If springing for dinner on Valentine’s Day to show appreciation is no big deal, Neil, why don’t the majority of women do it for men?

Valentine’s Day is a Real Hit

Unbeknownst to me during my exchange with Neil Cavuto, there was a horrific Valentine’s Day graphic on the Detroit News homepage. Posted by that newspaper to help Detroit-area men find florists, candy, jewelry, and restaurants for women, this graphic featured a man with a black eye and a woman in front of him wearing red boxing gloves, her right fist extended to his face. The caption read: “Don’t let this be her response.” In other words, wine & dine her on Valentine’s Day or she’ll punch you. The Detroit News was overtly advocating female violence towards men. Surprised? Don’t be.

Because America has VD, people think that violence towards men is perfectly acceptable, especially if a woman is the source of that violence. Can you imagine any newspaper advocating male violence towards women? How about a TV sitcom or a movie? Yet, there are plenty of Seinfeld and Everybody Loves Raymond episodes containing women hitting and slapping men.

In the 2006 movie, The Last Kiss, Michael (Zach Braff) is engaged to a pregnant Jenna (Jacinda Barrett). Feeling trapped into getting married too soon, Michael has a dalliance with a college girl. When Jenna discovers this, she slaps and holds a butcher knife to Michael — battery and assault with a deadly weapon. Would Hollywood, would America, allow a man on the silver or small screen to behave likewise with a cheating woman? Not a chance.

Leslie Gold, host of CBS Radio’s Radio Chick in New York City, reported on the air a few months ago that she had undergone eye surgery, which temporarily left her with a black eye. Deciding not to cover it with sunglasses or makeup, she ventured out into the streets one day. She was shocked at all the women, total strangers, who approached her to ask if her boyfriend had hit her. When Leslie explained the eye surgery, these women accused her of covering up for her abusive boyfriend. This is America with VD, where men are presumed to be violent villains — valueless, worthless, irrelevant.

The Domino Effect

Like falling dominoes, deference begets VD, which begets male irrelevance. Yes, the same attitude that compels a man to wine & dine a woman ultimately compels him to pass and interpret laws that protect her like a child, to metaphorically preserve her in a frozen state of adolescence where she has almost no responsibilities for her behaviors or choices. I will call this legislacial (legislative + judicial) cryogenics. Pathetically, these insecure men need women to remain girls. Their hangups, unfortunately, translate into my loss of rights.

Because men comprise the majority of lawmakers and prosecutors and judges and mayors and governors and presidents, I hold them responsible for a host of anti-male rights, privileges, and laws:

• Roe v. Wade, which gives women the unilateral and exclusive right to opt out of parenthood. This violates the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment
• The right of women to engage in maternity fraud by lying about their fertility, use of birth control, and the real father of their children — just to collect child support
• The right of teenage girls to have abortions without notifying their parents
• The right of mothers, through safe-haven laws, to drop off their newborn babies at local fire stations — no questions asked
• VAWA (Violence Against Women Act), which stipulates that women are entitled to more protection in domestic violence than men, even though women are equally culpable in DV incidents. VAWA, which has all but eliminated presumption of innocence for men, violates the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, women in this country illegally — felons who, technically, have zero rights – have more rights because of VAWA than male citizens. This is a double violation of the 14th Amendment! Because of VAWA, women who falsely (feloniously) accuse men of rape are almost never prosecuted.
• Michigan’s CAPA, the Coercive Abortion Prevention Act, which stipulates that a man living with a woman — wife or girlfriend — may not, upon learning that she is pregnant, move out of their residence. He is forced, by law, to continue living with her, against his will. Why? She could “interpret” his leaving as coercion to abort the child. Poor girl. CAPA violates the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery in 1865.
• In the famous Duke rape case, District Attorney Michael Nifong presumed guilty the three male lacrosse players accused of rape. By doing this, Nifong violated the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, which grant the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings. At the same time, he presumed innocent the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, a stripper whose body contained semen from five different men, none of them involved in this case, at the time she accused the lacrosse players of rape. Obviously, Crystal Gail Mangum, a woman, bears no personal responsibility for her behavior or choices. DA Nifong is currently under investigation for suppressing evidence and unethical conduct — amazing, given that he was engaging in the commonly accepted practice of American VD.
• In a bizarre case (Maouloud Baby v. State of Maryland), Maouloud Baby, 16, was convicted of first-degree rape and sentenced to 15 years in prison because, allegedly, he didn’t withdraw himself from the accusing woman, 18, within five seconds of her request to stop the sex act, according to an insane Maryland law. He is appealing this case. As in the Duke rape case above, this female accuser also bears no personal responsibility for her behavior or choices. She had climbed into the back seat of her car with two guys, fooled around with both at once, then had sex with the unaccused man while the accused man waited outside the car. Then, the unaccused man left the vehicle, and the accused man got back into the car. He claims he failed in his attempt to have sex with her; she claims he succeeded but didn’t pull out on time. Yet, despite her supposed resistance to him, she gave him her cell number! But, wait, a Boston College professor of nursing can explain that: rape-trauma syndrome. Wow.
• In May 2005, in Boston, Massachusetts, the state appeals court ruled that a woman isn’t legally responsible for injuries her boyfriend suffered while they were having consensual sex. The man filed suit against the woman in 1997, claiming she was negligent when she suddenly changed positions, landed awkwardly on him, and fractured his penis. The man underwent emergency surgery in September 1994, “endured a painful and lengthy recovery,” and has suffered from sexual dysfunction that hasn’t responded to medication or counseling. Although the woman may have exposed her boyfriend to “some risk of harm,” the three-judge panel said her conduct during the sexual encounter wasn’t “wanton or reckless” and can’t support a lawsuit. The man’s lawsuit already had been thrown out by judges in Salem District Court and Essex Superior Court. “There are no comprehensive legal rules to regulate consensual sexual behavior,” Justice Joseph Trainor wrote. “In the absence of a consensus of community values or customs defining normal consensual conduct, a jury or judge cannot be expected to resolve a claim that certain consensual sexual conduct is undertaken without reasonable care.” The appeals court’s judges ruled against the man on slightly different grounds than the lower courts, stating that the woman didn’t owe her boyfriend a “duty of reasonable care” during consensual sex. And they didn’t find any evidence she knew her conduct was likely to harm him. Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, that the judges would have ruled likewise had the genders been reversed? There is no way.

NoNonsense Bottom Line

I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist, but, because of the abundance of artistic talent in my gene pool, I can recognize patterns. The patterns are clear to me: men are constantly encouraging, tolerating, and forgiving bad female behavior and absolving women of personal responsibilities. On the contrary, they hold men responsible for their own behavior and for protecting women from danger … and from themselves. Women are not only not responsible for themselves, they’re not responsible for how they treat men, either. This is beyond lunacy.

As I’ve stated previously, deference towards women leads ultimately to male irrelevance. In my opinion, deferential men are either still pulling on apron strings or threatened by female equality, or both. These eunuchs don’t want, and can’t handle, women as peers; they prefer little girls in adult bodies. This way, they can feel manly and superior. But, this superiority is ephemeral — because there is no male power without male rights, dummies!

If women are such delicate flowers who need special protections, we shouldn’t be allowing them to run our biggest institutions. But, they are running our biggest institutions and have proven that they are competent to do so. But, men in the electorate keep voting for the politicians who, despite female equality, write laws aimed at destroying men’s rights. And on and on. Folks, this is VD America, home of the irrelevant male.

So, Neil Cavuto, this is why boycotting Valentine’s Day, with its female centricity and artificial romance, is a big deal. Valentine’s Day, like an iceberg, appears to be innocuous, but it represents a force much bigger than what the eye can see. As I wrote above, it is emblematic of male irrelevance, an annual celebration of male irrelevance. No day on the calendar makes men look more pathetic and irrelevant than Valentine’s Day.

If men want to become relevant again, they can start by killing Valentine’s Day. This will cause the dominoes to fall in the opposite direction. End deference to women; wipe out VD. The question is, How badly do men want to be relevant? We shall see next February 14th.

What will you do?

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 45+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719).

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

Compelled to Give

It’s February again. This can mean only one thing: the dreaded, compulsory Valentine’s Day is just around the corner. If you forgot, fear not: the onslaught of TV and radio commercials will remind you and remind you and remind you. There is no escaping them, and they all share a common theme: women are entitled to receive; men are compelled to give. Nothing quite captures the essence of love like female entitlement.

Ask the typical woman to define romance. I’ll lay odds that she’ll describe a man buying and/or doing something for her, without a word about spoiling him. Why such narcissism? Simple. Most women are raised to be self-absorbed takers, and insecure men continue to tolerate and enable them.

Are men worthless? Only if they never demand fairness and reciprocity from women — and many men don’t. Valentine’s Day, and all of its pathetic rituals, represents the failure of men to stand up to women — who, ironically, don’t respect these eunuchs and don’t sexually crave them, either.

Visualize the annual V-Day ritual: women clucking around their office water coolers and late-morning Pilates classes in anticipation of receiving Vermont Teddy Bears or long-stem roses, while men are wringing their hands, dreading this day, resenting the pressure, wondering what, if anything, would please their wives and girlfriends. Why such anxiety? No man wants to end up in the proverbial doghouse without sex.

What a pathetic picture: women using sex as a weapon; men living in fear. The evidence of “romance heaven” is clear: alimony and child-support cash registers are ringing nonstop, the marriage rate is falling, infidelity is rampant, the out-of-wedlock birthrate is skyrocketing, and children — society’s future parents — are more dysfunctional and immature than ever.

Tribute to Legal Prostitution

What is Valentine’s Day, really? An annual tribute to legal prostitution. After all, traditional dating and marriage are the chief platforms of an age-old prostitutional bartering system through which women receive gifts, cash, bling, stock, cars, meals, homes, vacations, clothes, college tuition, business partnerships, and spa memberships in exchange for sex.

Accordingly, Valentine’s Day is the capstone of legal prostitution — its epitome — because of the inescapable, pervasive societal and commercial pressure to perform that it imposes on men. Think I’m crazy? On February 14th, will your woman withhold sex if you don’t roll out the red carpet for her? Think about it.

Men humiliate and emasculate themselves by worshipping women throughout the year. And, it’s totally unnecessary: women are more sexual than men, and men must learn how to turn the tables. But, the groveling is never so acute as on Valentine’s Day, when men pay premiums for flowers and dinners and baubles. For what? To avoid a fight? To get laid?

What’s worse is that women continue to crave and demand these gifts that they know, by definition, are given insincerely and begrudgingly. Nothing quite defines romance like perfunctory obligation, as men told me in a survey I conducted in 2005 (read “Why Men Dread Valentine’s Day”). Expected generosity, the crux of Valentine’s Day, is oxymoronic and moronic!

NoNonsense Bottom Line

Never, ever allow your woman to be the center of your relationship, as is too often the case. If that’s your unfortunate situation, you have no balls and no relationship. Valentine’s Day is the least of your troubles.

My solution to cure your Valentine’s Day blues is this: boycott it. That’s right, stay home. If February 13th and February 15th aren’t happy days for you, why would February 14th be an exception? If she insists on wasting money on February 14th, she’s a selfish, immature golddigger.

Here are three, quick rules to gauge your relationship’s temperature on Valentine’s Day:

• If she’s a selfish taker who expects you to entertain her, dump her. Valentine’s Day is the perfect day to do that.
• If your woman threatens to break up or withhold sex if you don’t take her out on this commercial occasion, end it with her on February 13th. Imagine what she’ll tell the girls at the office the next day!
• If your “relationship” is so utterly boring and empty that you use February 14th as an excuse to pretend that all is well, break up ASAP — do yourselves a big favor.

Real romance is about spontaneity, choice, and reciprocity. Valentine’s Day, on the other hand, is contrived, commercial, unilateral nonsense. If you want to do something special and genuine, choose her birthday and other times when she least expects it. Anything done on Valentine’s Day is a joke.

Parting words: If you kiss a woman’s ass, at any time and for any reason, especially on Valentine’s Day, you can kiss your own ass — and the wallet attached to it — goodbye.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 45+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables™ (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth™ (ISBN 0974501719).

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

Below are my scheduled (subject to change) media interviews for February 2007:

• 04th @01:00AM PT: Sex With Emily — KIFR 106.9FM (FreeFM): San Francisco
• 06th @08:00AM ET: Bax and O’Brien — WAQY Rock 102.1FM: Springfield, MA
• 12th @04:00PM ET: Covino & Rich — Sirius Satellite, Maxim Radio, Channel 108: New York City
• 13th @07:18AM ET: Mitchell & Morley in the Morning — WFTL 850AM: Ft. Lauderdale
• 13th @12:20PM PT: Dave & Jeff Show — 103.7FreeFM: San Diego
• 13th @04:30PM ET: Your World with Neil Cavuto — Fox News Channel: New York City
• 14th @07:18PM ET: The John Gibson Program — Fox News Radio, Sirius ch. 121, XM ch. 168: New York City
• 14th @05:05PM PT: Roger Hedgecock Show — KOGO 600AM: San Diego
• 24th @01:00PM CT: Deborah Rowe Program — WLS 890AM: Chicago

WATCH VIDEOCLIP of Marc Rudov advocating the boycott of Valentine’s Day on Your World with Neil Cavuto — Fox News Channel (02.13.07)

Political Compartmentalization

If you haven’t yet heard about the sex scandal of Gavin Newsom, flamboyant mayor of left-wing, politically correct San Francisco, you’ve been living under a rock. The news is everywhere. People in his quirky administration are shocked. Local TV anchors are shocked. The editors of local newspapers are shocked. I, on the other hand, expected it.

There is an oft-heard rationalization in our shallow, superficial, narcissistic, libertine culture that one can justifiably comport himself in one way at the office and in another way outside the office — as if to bifurcate, or compartmentalize, himself ethically. In other words, one can be honest in his profession while a liar in his personal dealings. Or, putting it another way, he can be politically compartmentalized, or PC. Really? Two words come to mind: Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton, our illustrious former president, had a sexual relationship with an intern, right in the Oval Office. Had any of the military officers in Clinton’s command done likewise, they would have been summarily dishonorably discharged. Any corporate CEO caught in an affair with an employee is almost always fired or forced to resign. When Clinton dallied with Monica, however, it was considered “private” behavior — even though it occurred in a taxpayer-funded office. It matters not that Clinton perjured himself, leading to an impeachment and an Arkansas disbarment: today, he is a rock-star.

Yesterday, I called into the popular Armstrong & Getty radio show, on which I had once been a guest, to enter the heated debate about Mayor Gavin Newsom’s duplicitous behavior. Underscoring and reinforcing the unprincipled and masochistic nature of many people, the caller ahead of me in the queue admitted that, while she is hopelessly in love with her husband — a man in law enforcement, by the way — she knows he would cheat on her in a heartbeat. Yet, she stays with him. Go figure.

When I got my turn on the air, I made the following points: Gavin Newsom gave the finger to California law when he permitted illegal gay marriages in San Francisco — all of them since nullified. Gavin Newsom gave the finger to United States laws when he refused publicly to assist the feds with prosecuting illegal aliens. So, why should anyone be surprised when Gavin Newsom gave the finger to the laws of friendship by choosing to fornicate with the wife of his good friend and campaign manager? Surprisingly and naively, people are stunned.

Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty believe in political compartmentalization. They expressed on the air that, in matters of the heart, the rules of behavior are just different; people can’t be faulted for their foibles and transgressions — and, in no way can philandering be a harbinger of poor job performance. So, after hearing me make my points, they dismissed me and terminated the call. No debate. No thought. Just dismissal.

Many in America agree with Armstrong & Getty, as I’ve heard this raging debate on numerous other talkshows. We also heard it, ad nauseam, during the Clinton era, and we heard it years after the death of John F. Kennedy, another philandering president. The critical question, in my opinion, is: Does integrity matter?

San Francisco Values

Integrity is the polar opposite of political compartmentalization. Integrity connotes honesty and is “the quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.” Someone with integrity is honest, trustworthy, and dependable — 24/7. But, in a city saturated with “San Francisco Values,” to quote Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, anything goes at any time.

This city is a mess, and so is its leader. That is why I was not shocked when hearing the news that he hubristically betrayed his friend and created an uncomfortable work environment, to say the least. A guy with Newsom’s looks, charisma, brains, money, and power could have made so many wiser choices. Why didn’t he?

Newsom’s arrogance led him to ignore the inevitability that his affair with an employee and wife of a trusting friend would become public. But, as I asserted above, his professional track record of disrespecting rules and boundaries led him to make this inexcusable choice. I do not believe people can separate their professional and private behaviors: they either have integrity or they don’t.

At some point, the lines between appropriate and inappropriate become blurred; people either respect boundaries or they don’t. It matters not whether these boundaries exist on the job or off the job. Now, Mayor Newsom, who, in humiliation, had to explain himself in front of cameras, realizes that boundaries and the law of unintended consequences DO matter.

The woman in this saga is now blaming the affair on substance abuse (I am disappointed: I was hoping for the usual bipolar-disorder excuse), the campaign manager has resigned, Newsom’s reputation is in tatters, and employees, friends, and families are in pain.

NoNonsense Bottom Line

Gavin Newsom’s saga reminds me of the ending of Ocean’s Eleven, starring George Clooney (Danny Ocean), Andy Garcia (Terry Benedict), and Julia Roberts (Tess Ocean). Danny Ocean, estranged from wife Tess, is a professional thief who was just caught in a major heist of Terry Benedict’s Las Vegas casinos. Terry has been living with and, allegedly, madly in love with Tess. Before being taken to jail, Danny asked Terry the $150M question: would he give up Tess if he could get all of his money back? Without hesitation, Terry replied in the affirmative. Through a closed-circuit cable system, Tess witnessed this confession and immediately left Terry to rejoin Danny. Apparently, integrity is relative.

If you believe that dishonesty in love in no way translates to job performance, then, as a consistent, logical man, you have to believe also that dishonesty at work does not translate into the relationship domain, right? Integrity has symmetry. So, please ponder the following hypothetical situation.

Imagine that you meet a woman in a professional encounter and are very attracted to her. You two don’t work for the same company, so becoming romantically involved is “safe.” One day, though, you observe her doing something unethical or illegal in her job. Your initial desire for her was beyond a one-night stand. Now that you know what kind of person she is, given her behavior and value system, do you still want her in your life?

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 45+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables™ (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth™ (ISBN 0974501719).

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.