« The Right-Wing Freakout Over Franken Begins | Main | A Christmas Wish »
Dennis Prager Gives Some Helpful Marital Advice
By Jeff Fecke | December 23, 2008
Remember Dennis Prager? Sure you do! He’s the guy who told women that they really want is to stay home and keep the house nice for their husbands. Prager’s only 0-for-2 on marriage, so clearly he has his finger on the pulse of what makes marriages work. And this week, ladies, he’s looking at you, and what you’re not doing to keep your man happy.
I’ll give you a hint: it’s about sex. But first, grandiosity:
Given our preoccupation with politics and economics, it is easy to forget that for most of us micro issues still play a greater role in our lives. So here are some thoughts that, as heretical as they might sound, have been found extremely helpful, sometimes even marriage-saving, from listeners to my radio show, which features a male-female hour every week.
Awesome! Because the marriage that Dennis Prager can save is worth saving, right?
The subject is one of the most common problems that besets marriages: the wife who is not in the mood and the consequently frustrated and hurt husband.
Now, this is going to happen from time to time. One partner’s gonna be in the mood, the other won’t be. The solution that most of us who’ve been in relationships have settled on is to wait until tomorrow, and check again. Now, if our partner is never in the mood, that may be a problem, but it’s usually a sign of a deeper problem in the relationship.
Oh, and it’s not always husbands in the mood and wives who aren’t, but Dennis will hand-wave that away.
There are marriages with the opposite problem — a wife who is frustrated and hurt because her husband is rarely in the mood. But, as important and as destructive as that problem is, it has different causes and different solutions, and is therefore not addressed here. What is addressed is the far more common problem of He [sic] wants, she doesnt want.
Because the idea that men and women who aren’t interested in sex could have similar reasons for that is completely alien to Prager. If a woman doesn’t want sex, she’s frigid and cold, whereas if a man doesn’t want sex, it’s probably because his partner gained a lot of weight or something. Certainly, it’s not his fault.
Also, I love that He is capitalized, like the man is a god; it’s appropriate.
It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband.
Well, yes, because, you know, if someone doesn’t want to have sex, then forcing them to have sex would be…oh geez…what’s that word again?
Anyhow, yes, it’s true, most men in relationships don’t want to rape their partners, and so if we’re told that our partners aren’t in the mood, we accept that, because, you know, we’re not rapists. But Prager thinks that women should just lie back, and think of England:
First, women need to recognize how a man understands a wifes refusal to have sex with him: A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by her willingness to give her body to him.
Wait — what? Really? That’s how I know I’m in love — because of the sexy? Because, you know, no, that’s not true. When I was married, I knew I was in love and loved because I was in love. If my then-wife didn’t want to have sex on a given night, I knew it wasn’t because she hated me, but because she didn’t want to have sex on a given night. Heck, there were nights she was in the mood, and I wasn’t. And nights we both weren’t in the mood, and nights we both were, because we’re both human beings with internal drives.
Moreover, I’ve never been “given” anyone’s body. I’ve had sex. But that doesn’t mean I was in possession of anyone’s body save my own.
Which Prager lampshades here:
This is rarely the case for women. Few women know their husband loves them because he gives her his body (the idea sounds almost funny).
Of course, because, you know, women don’t own things. Men own women, and their bodies. Women don’t own men’s bodies — silly women, thinking such things!
This is, therefore, usually a revelation to a woman. Many women think mens natures are similar to theirs, and this is so different from a womans nature, that few women know this about men unless told about it.
And what are women’s needs? Um…let’s talk about men some more:
This is a major reason many husbands clam up. A man whose wife frequently denies him sex will first be hurt, then sad, then angry, then quiet. And most men will never tell their wives why they have become quiet and distant. They are afraid to tell their wives. They are often made to feel ashamed of their male sexual nature, and they are humiliated (indeed emasculated) by feeling that they are reduced to having to beg for sex.
Interesting choice of words, that. Prager highlights “emasculated,” so let’s go right there. It’s evidently “emasculating” to have to ask your partner for sex. She might say no! Well, yes, she might. Such is life.
But if it bothers you, there’s nothing less masculine than slinking away and not saying anything. Hey, having sex drives that don’t mesh can be a problem for couples. But if you don’t say anything about it, then how is your partner supposed to know? Clairvoyance?
Anyhow, Prager assumes that he knows women so well that he knows how women will react when they find out that their husbands aren’t being honest with them and telling them about their feelings.
When first told this about men, women generally react in one or more of five ways:
1. You have to be kidding. That certainly isnt my way of knowing if he loves me. There have to be deeper ways than sex for me to show my husband that I love him.
You know, it’s funny, but there are, and men are aware of them. You think that all those men are getting married and into long-term relationships for the sex? Hell, no! Yes, it’s a nice side benefit, but men marry women for the same reason women marry men — to join in a partnership, to be together with one person for (at least in theory) the rest of your lives. To build a life together, as friends and partners and lovers.
There are things about marriage I miss, and things I don’t. Sex is on the latter list. I can go out and find someone to have sex with if I so desire. I can’t have a quickie deep, meaningful relationship.
2. If this is true, men really are animals.
Fortunately, it’s not true, because yes, if the only way that men understood love was through sex, then we’d be really emotionally stupid animals.
3. Not my man. He knows I love him by the kind and loving way I treat him.
Yes, he probably does.
4. You have it backwards. If he truly loved me, he wouldnt expect sex when Im not in the mood.
This is, in fact, true. Yes, sex in a long-term relationships has its trade-offs and compromises, just as every other part of long-term relationships does. But there’s nothing that says you can’t go masturbate if you really need an orgasm tonight. Frankly, if your partner isn’t having fun, that’s pretty much what you’re doing anyhow, only you’re making them miserable, too.
5. I know this and thats why I rarely say no to sex.
This, of course, would mean that sex is happening regularly, so yeah.
You’ll be unsurprised to find out that Prager has a brilliant response to each of these strawman answers.
To number one:
The most common female reaction to hearing about mens sexual nature is incredulity, often followed by denial. These are entirely understandable reactions given how profoundly different — and how seemingly more primitive — mens sexual nature is compared to womens.
Christ on a cracker, but Prager is stupid.
You know what, Dennis? Women actually like sex. They like it a lot. I know, that may not be your experience, but trust me, most women actually enjoy having sex with their partners. This is, of course, primative — birds do it, bees do it, educated fleas do it, and Dennis Prager does it — but it’s equal-opportunity primative.
Incredulity is certainly the reaction most women have when first being told that a man knows he is loved when his wife gives him her body. The idea that the man she is married to, let alone a man whose intelligence she respects, will to any serious extent measure her love of him by such a carnal yardstick strikes many women as absurd and even objectionable.
Okay, I’m going to stop snarking long enough to say that yes, I know that there are relationships out there where sex has stopped, on one side or the other. And that this is hurtful to the rejected party.
But that’s not news; physical affection is part of how humans express love, and if one party stops being affectionate, then that’s a sign that there is some rejection afoot.
Here’s the thing, though: if sex is stopping, it’s usually not just because of sex. There’s usually a deeper reason in the relationship. Sex is the symptom, not the disease. If one partner doesn’t want sex, ever, then it’s probable that partner is having a problem, not with sex, but with the relationship itself.
This can only be solved through honest discussion, and indeed, sometimes it can’t be solved at all. But honesty works both ways; if the partner who is interested in sex never pipes up, then we never get to a discussion.
But the question that should matter to a woman who loves her man is not whether this proposition speaks poorly or well of male nature. It is whether it is true. And it is true beyond anything she can imagine. A woman who often deprives her husband of her body is guaranteed to injure him and to injure the marriage — no matter what her female friends say, no matter what a sympathetic therapist says, and no matter what her man says. (Very few men will confess to the amount of hurt and eventual anger they experience when repeatedly denied sex).
Well, it all depends on what “repeatedly” means. And “true,” of course, since there are many, many, many examples of women and men who settle in to a pattern where sex is rare, and both parties are happy — because that’s what their sex drive demands.
And of course, what’s an acceptable amount of sex? Why, Dennis Prager doesn’t know:
Of course, there are times when a man must simply refrain from initiating sex out of concern for his wifes physical or emotional condition. And then there are men for whom sex rarely has anything to do with making love or whose frequency of demands are excessive. (What excessive means ought to be determined by the couple before the refusals begin, or continue.) But the fact remains: Your man knows you love him by your willingness to give him your body.
And how often you “give” it to him is a number that Dennis Prager won’t give you, because you’re just supposed to know.
Now, what of point two — that men are animals? Well, yes, men and women are animals. Homo sapiens, to be precise, unless you’re part of the scientific group that thinks Pan sapiens is more accurate. At any rate, we most certainly are animals, and all humans have an animalistic side.
But while women are expected to control that side of themselves, men — well, we just can’t help it.
Compared to most womens sexual nature, mens sexual nature is far closer to that of animals. So what? That is the way he is made. Blame God and nature. Telling your husband to control it is a fine idea. But he already does. Every man who is sexually faithful to his wife already engages in daily heroic self-control. He has married knowing he will have to deny his sexual natures desire for variety for the rest of his life. To ask that he also regularly deny himself sex with the one woman in the world with whom he is permitted sex is asking far too much. Deny him enough times and he may try to fill this need with another woman. If he is too moral to ever do that, he will match your sexual withdrawal with emotional and other forms of withdrawal.
So ladies, if your man cheats on you, it’s your fault. If he’s emotionally distant, you’re not having sex with him enough. If he’s sexually distant…well, that’s probably your fault too. Men are animals, incapable of controlling themselves. It’s just our nature.
Now sure, some would say that a man who reacts to unhappiness in his marriage by cheating on his spouse is being a jerk, one who should have acted responsibly by discussing problems in the relationship rather than cheating. One might note that sometimes, it’s men who are sexually distant and women who are emotionally distant. One might note that this reads like a bad pop ev-psych paper. But one wouldn’t be Dennis Prager.
But what of the women who say their husbands know they love them? Well, they don’t.
Many women will argue, understandably, My husband knows I love him. He doesnt need me to have sex with him to know that. And this is especially so when Im too tired or just dont want sex. Anyway, my man only enjoys sex with me when I’m into it, too.
Well, yeah, women will argue that because it’s true. Sex really is best when it’s an activity that all parties are cheerfully engaged in. As noted above, if I want to get myself off, I can do so, with a lot less pain for everyone involved.
Of course, women don’t want sex — everyone knows that. But they do want a man with fat stacks of cash:
The importance of mutual kindness to a marriage is impossible to overstate. But while necessary, it is not sufficient. Women can understand this by applying the same rule to men. Most women will readily acknowledge that it is certainly not enough for a man to be kind to her. If it were, women would rarely reject kind men as husband material. But as much as a woman wants a kind man, she wants more than that. If a man is, let us say, lacking in ambition or just doesnt want to work hard, few women will love him no matter how kind he is. In fact, most women would happily give up some kindness for hard work and ambition. A kind man with little ambition is not masculine, therefore not desirable to most women.
Because, you know, men with ambition are rich, and that’s what women want.
Likewise, a kind woman who is not sexual with her husband is not feminine. She is a kind roommate.
Furthermore, a woman who denies the man she loves sex is not kind.
Again, if sex is never happening in a relationship, that’s probably a problem — but it’s deeper than just the sex. Just as if a partner quits work and sits on the couch in his or her bathrobe all day, that’s a problem — but one deeper than the couch.
But what of the women who say that men should understand and respect that no means no? They’re silly:
Every rational and decent man knows there are times when he should not initiate sex. In a marriage of good communication, a man would either know when those times are or his wife would tell him (and she needs to — women should not expect men to read their minds. He is her man, not her mother.)
And in marriages with bad communication, men will just accidentally rape their wives, ha-ha!
But, to repeat the key point, rejection of sex should happen infrequently. And it should almost never be dependent on mood — see Part II next week.
Oh, God, why have you forsaken me? I have to deal with part two of this? Criminy.
Now, you’ll note that Prager doesn’t really manage to lay a glove on this objection. That’s because there’s nothing to attack. It is axiomatic that nobody has the right to anyone else’s body. You do not have the right to have sex with anyone, ever, unless you have their permission.
Prager weakly argues that mood shouldn’t enter into the consideration; that’s insane. I’m sorry, but again and again, I come back to the basic fact that sex is, at heart, a mutually pleasurable activity. If it’s not mutually pleasurable, it’s not sex. It’s masturbation, or rape, or a combination of the two.
Quite simply, I never have wanted to have sex with a partner who didn’t. If it’s not fun for her, that sucks all the fun out of it for me. I can go masturbate.
Now, if someone I’m dating or married to never, ever wants to have sex, then yes, I’d take that as a rejection. But that’s because it would be a rejection. It would be a sign that they’re no longer attracted to me. And at that point, you fish or cut bait. You talk over your problems, you deal with them head-on, and yes, sometimes you call it quits. But that’s how adults deal with their problems. Not Dennis Prager.
As for the fifth “objection,” Prager simply praises the woman who’s always up for a little bored humping:
This is a wise woman. She knows a sexually fulfilled husband is a happy husband. (At the same time, men need to recognize that complete sexual fulfillment is unattainable in this world.) And because a happy husband loves his wife more, this cycle of love produces a happy home.
Or a wife who grows resentful and bitter that her husband is always demanding sex. But whatever!
Prager warns of part two (oy), and then offers this helpful clarification:
I conclude Part I with this clarification: Everything written here applies under two conditions: 1. The woman is married to a good man. 2. She wants him to be a happy husband. If either condition is not present, nothing written here matters. But if you are a woman who loves your husband, what is written here can be the most important thing you will read concerning your marriage. Because chances are the man you love won’t tell you.
Because men are stupid, and we don’t possess vocal chords.
Seriously, that’s what this column boils down to: men are incapable of expressing themselves verbally. Men are incapable of understanding that sometimes, our partners might not be in the mood for sex but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ve stopped loving us. Men are incapable of understanding that love is more than sex, and sex is different from love. Men are stupid beasts who want to fuck, and that’s pretty much it.
I’m sorry. I have a higher opinion of men than that. Again, I’m not saying that sexual incompatibility can’t be a problem — for men or for women, or in gay or straight relationships, for that matter. Physical love is a part of a healthy relationship, as anyone, male or female, who’s been in even a somewhat healthy relationship can tell you.
But we get nowhere when we assume that men will always pursue, and women will always be pursued, even in marriage. The fact is that sex, like all human interactions, is complicated. We can deal with those complications either by building up a deep and impenetrable mythology about them, or we can cut through the Gordian knot with the primary tool at our disposal: our ability to communicate, honestly and openly, with the ones we love.
I know which one I’d choose. And I think it’s obvious which one Prager has chosen.
Topics: Feminism | 26 Comments »
December 23rd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Epic fisk.
You know, I don’t have a problem with the idea that women should want to satisfy their husbands. Of course they should. And I don’t think sex is one of those unnecessary, “animal” things that we should evolve past — it’s a crucial part of any marriage. But what creeps me out is Prager’s inability to comprehend that this works both ways. Men should want to satisfy their husbands, too.
All in all, it’s pretty clear why Prager’s marriages haven’t lasted; he seems to believe that “Men are from Mars, women are from Alpha Centauri.” Reading him trying to get inside a woman’s head made me a little bit sadder today.
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Wow. I had a guy like this on my blog the other day.
No lie, he said, “I view sex as part of the commitment that we made when we got married – for example, it is my “job” to keep gas in her car (literally) as it is her “job” to keep me happy in bed. Both “tasks” take 20 minutes and honestly, I don’t get any pleasure out of putting gas in her car while she certainly enjoys parts of her “job”
Like putting gas in the car, sex a couple of times a week keeps the relationship going. Yes it can be a chore and yes there are times when I am sure that she would rather be doing something else. The same holds true for me – standing in the freezing rain Monday night to put gas in her car was not even on my list of things to do but I did it without complaint or comment because that is my commitment to her.”
See, ladies? He puts gas in your car, you owe him sex. How did we all miss that catch? And the lucky, lucky lady who got him is to be congratulated.
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Jeff:
All your suppositions about sex between married spouses rest on a feminist ideology. For all the talk about communication and mutual agreement, underneath this feel-good sentiment is the feminist notion that men and women are essentially the same, just with different sexual organs. Your ideology assumes that men and women reason the same way. It assumes that if there are any differences in the way they think, the reason is either (A) lack of maturity, or (B) expectations of power and privilege.
I submit that feminist ideology is in direct conflict with nature. I believe that feminist ideology is a utopian pipe dream, misguided at best, and — at worst — designed to elevate one sex (women) at the expense of the other.
Women and men are different. They think differently, feel differently, have different expectations of each other, and react differently to disappointments.
For example, take the differing reasons why men and women get married. Ostensibly it’s supposed to be for love — but marriage for love is a socialized convention. The love is part of it, but beyond the love there are vastly different reasons why each sex marries the other. Women marry men for the benefit that they get in return. Sure this includes the emotional benefit (the love), but it also includes a utilitarian benefit. A wife sees her husband as a handyman, a stable provider (especially during/after her pregnancy), a protector (of wife and children), and the epitome of masculine influence (which the wife lacks). A husband’s utilitarian benefit thus provides the wife with a cocoon of security (his physical protection) and stability (his economic provision); these enable the wife to be a good nurturer, unimpeded with the burdens of survival (which the husband bears). You may claim — as many feminists do — that a sound economy and liberalized workforce enable women to have all these things without depending on men. In some ways that is true — but the wife’s natural abilities to nurture are severely curtailed if the kids are in day care while she and the husband both work paid jobs. You will inevitably ask why can’t men be the stay-at-home nurturers instead of women? Why indeed? The answer is because the vast majority of wives refuse to support stay-at-home men in the same way that husbands previously supported stay-at-home women (add to that, one or both spouses often consign the stay-at-home nurturer role to the less-masculine party; it’s reality, and that’s why fewer men jump at the chance to be stay-at-home nurturers compared to women).
So now that we know what roles women expect of men, what do women implicitly (and explicitly) offer in return? The answer is their sexuality — exclusive access by the husband to the wife’s sexuality. If and when she expects provision and protection from him, she justifies these expectations by committing to sexual exclusivity with him (marriage). She knows that her sexuality has now become her bargaining chip, used in order to secure the physical and provisional security that her husband provides. It is women commoditizing their sexuality like this — not patriarchy, not men, not governments, nor any externally-imposed oppression. Women put their sexuality up for sale, and what benefits it reaps for them! Never having to worry about the rent being paid, or one’s job being retained, or whether food will be on the table, or whether a protector will defend her from intruders and threats — survival guaranteed — that is what women implicitly trade their sexuality for. I say implicitly because such a contract is unwritten, but is absolutely understood and promoted by many, many women who desire to occupy that stay-at-home nurturing role. This does not describe feminists — I grant you that; they would much rather work paid jobs and depend on no one. But that’s my point — female feminists project their empowered and independent expectations of themselves onto the rest of womankind, and if you deviate from this, the feminist attributes it to sexist oppression. Wrong. The difference between traditional feminine roles and the feminist vision of non-roles is due to choices that women make — not oppression.
If a man knows that provision of economic and physical security are expected of him — if he knows that she has offered to nurture the family and avail her sexually to him — if this arrangement exists (or is perceived to exist), then that is what creates the expectation that she not deny him her body. Is this offensive to you? Then what should also be offensive is that the husband be treated as a beast of burden — because that’s his role, to provide and protect — never to be questioned by him. Just as you deride sexual expectations by the husband of the wife as the pretext for rape, aren’t the provisional expectations by the wife of the husband the pretext for slavery?
Of course, I would expect you to say something pithy like, “If after all that provision he’s still not getting any sex, he should simply end the marriage.” Divorce — the liberating panacea of feminists — except who exactly does it liberate? And is it actually necessary? Perhaps instead, the husband who does not forsake his role as provider and protector does not have the problem. The wife who manipulatively uses her sexuality as a bargaining chip (even after she’s received the benefits of her husband’s provision) is essentially defrauding her husband, and should certainly be expected to end the manipulation (i.e. “give it up”) or else provide for her own needs.
This has nothing to do with blame, nor oppression, but rather female privilege. It is the privileged woman — the nurturer — who expects continual provision from her husband as non-negotiable but refuses to compensate for his labor by submitting to him sexually. THAT is how I define privilege.
Does the above paragraph smack of some outdated time in your perception? Do women work and provide for themselves now? Perhaps you’re right. Some work because it provides them with more options, but they still pay with their labor (rather than their sexuality). The trade-off merely has shifted; now, instead of “paying” the husband with sex for the cocoon of security that he provided (hardly a payment, really, but an easy life for the wife), women now have to pay by spending 8 hours in a cubicle, or a factory, or an office, or a supermarket check stand. Is it rape that their employers expect this labor from them? Was it ever rape when women of yore were expected to avail their bodies to their husbands?
Enough with the feminist hyperbole about expectations of sex amounting to rape. Rape is the trump card of feminists, designed to silence and shame disagreements with non-feminists. They expect their detractors to shrivel and slink away when feminists intone that non-feminists are promoting rape. Remember, it is women (including, ironically, some self-perceived feminists) who use their sexuality as a commodity. The expectations of reciprocity would stop if such women committed themselves to working the same daily grind as the traditional provider/protector.
But it’s so much easier to live the home life, and “pay” for it by having sex — an enjoyable activity anyway. This is the reality that feminist utopians are committed to disrupting — and it is rooted in our nature as human beings. Women instinctively want to be provided for — self-provision is to them an enormous burden. Don’t believe it? Then try a little experiment. Post a personals ad which paints you as a man seeking to “settle down” with a traditional stay-at-home wife. Paint a picture of the house that you plan to buy, and the domestic fantasy that so many girls dream of. Say that you’re looking for a woman in her early-to-mid thirties, the kind of women who have tasted the “liberation” of the workplace and often found it to be comparative drudgery next to the domestic life. I guarantee you that you’ll get a plethora of responses, because it’s not oppression that you’re offering. It’s your labor, and most women (at that age) will jump at the chance to enjoy that domestic life, if only it would present itself to them. As domestic nurturers, they know exactly what they have to offer in return — and feminists can’t fathom or stand this fact.
December 23rd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Sounds like Gorean philosophy to me…
John Dias – There is so much wrong with your post. You say that women look for someone who will care for them during pregnancy. Well, yes, that’s true. I expect my husband to tend to my needs while I am pregnant. I expect him to tend to my needs whenever I need him to – just as I would do for him. If he is sick, I will make sure that he is comfortable, that he has steady supply of hot tea, and that he keeps warm. This isn’t some sort of quid pro quo contract, but rather something that people who love each other just do.
The idea that the man is some sort of “beast of burden” who must do everything and, in return, his wife only has to give him sex is impossibly wrong, regardless of the century. Traditionally, women did a whole lot more than just “put out” like prostitutes. They cared for the children, they cooked, they cleaned, they managed the household, etc. Nowadays, in equal relationships, the couple shares the responsibilities in the home. Does my husband do most of the handyman jobs? Yes, for the most part. Not because it’s his part of the bargain, but because that’s what he’s good at and it’s what he likes doing. I do the lion’s share of the cooking because that’s what I enjoy doing. We each do our part to maintain our household. Our “books” are already balanced long before we get into the bedroom.
Now I must ask you, how can you possibly be happy in a relationship with someone you don’t view as an equal? If my husband weren’t first and foremost my best friend – the person I talk to, the person I have fun with, my confidant – I wouldn’t bother with marriage. I make enough money on my own to support myself and I could easily replace the physical side of sex with a vibrator. What makes my relationship worth having is companionship.
But you seem to prefer a woman who is little more than a prostitute – someone you pay (either in actual cash or with “handyman” services). In exchange, you get sex that she isn’t the least bit interested in. Do you truly enjoy that? The knowledge that your wife has sex with you because she has to, rather than because she loves you and wants to share it with you? Isn’t that a total turn off? How hideous must it make you feel that you have to barter to get someone into bed with you? Most of all, how can this possibly be the foundation of a happy and mutually-satisfying relationship?
P.S.: Would a lot of women choose the lifestyle you describe? Yes, of course. They would because it’s easy. It’s amazing how appealing the path of least resistance can be. Who among us doesn’t fantasize from time to time about winning the lottery and never having to work again? Being able to sit around and have all our needs taken care of? But you know what? As great as that lifestyle might be for a vacation, it is hell to live day in and day out. It isn’t satisfying and it emotionally stunts women, denying them the opportunity to grow as human beings. There’s a reason it’s called the “Golden Cage.”
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Grimalkin wrote:
I’m stating what I believe to reality. I haven’t actually weighed in with my personal preference. I did say that women are the ones who offer their sexuality in return for a provider — women do that, not men. So if you’re going to shame someone, direct it at the ones who are actually doing that.
But why should anyone feel ashamed for being faithful to their husband, or feel oppressed for being sexual with their spouse even when not in the mood? For all the talk about “give and take” and going things for the other partner out of love, why not include sex? What I hear from Jeff’s post is a lot of personal narcissism, coupled with feminist bullshit about how “doing it” when you’re not in the mood is coercion that’s tantamount to rape. This is why I attack feminism as an ideology, out of sync with daily reality in most relationships. To sit there and call it rape when the husband wants sex and the wife is otherwise not inclined — to say that his mere desire for sex is not only unwelcome but forceful — that is pure ideology. Straight up political dogma. You might as well be quoting from some radical feminist manifesto to make such statements.
Ask any marriage therapist (okay, not any at all, but any effective one) and they’re likely going to say that if your partner wants sex and you’re sort of not into it, just have sex anyway. You never know, you might get into it just by loosening up.
Also, for those who look to the Bible for direction and consider it to be divinely inspired, perhaps the following verse would shed some light on the attitude that married couples should have toward sex:
Now unless you want to call the above passage indicative of sexual oppression (and on this blog I wouldn’t put it past you) I don’t see what the problem is in expecting either party to be sexual even when they’re not feeling it. Denying each other for trifling reasons essentially denies a human need. And unlike both Jeff and you, Grimalkin, I don’t equate sexual intercourse between two consenting adults with masturbation. There’s something unique about sex between two people besides the orgasm at the end, and when you deny the other person sex you’re doing damage to your marriage, and you’re doing damage to your spouse as well. That’s my opinion, but I think it’s very true, and I don’t equate that to some patriarchal expectation of dominance and oppression.
Now as far as your contention that the domestic life is somehow a “golden cage” that is “hell to live day in and day out,” I will say that I think this sentiment is profoundly hostile to women and stay-at-home nurturers. This is why I call feminists utopians; they think they know what’s best for the rest. It’s actually quite sickening when I think about it, how they’re trying to shame women out of the home by implying that it’s drudgery. It’s actually laughable — even absurd — that you call it the “path of least resistance” that so many women would prefer to live the nurturing domestic life if they had the opportunity to do so. How patronizing this is to women who DO choose to do so!
I think that what’s often behind the ongoing feminist campaign to shame women women who prefer the nurturing role is this idea that women who occupy such roles are insignificant, unappreciated, and unnecessary. I, for one, am very grateful for women who have the courage to stand up to the feminist shaming campaign, and stay home to take care of kids instead of dumping them straight into day care. I feel sorry for families who would prefer this, but have to keep up with the American lifestyle by working two jobs just to make ends meet. But I will never try to shame a working woman out of nurturing her family and tending her home. What meddlers feminists are in this respect. They really do deserve the epithet of “utopian” when they discourage stay-at-home nurturers this way.
I encourage you to watch the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGjsfCPU0ew
We need more people to be nurturers. We need less people to be workhorses — both men and women — churning out paychecks until they die. We need less day care and more parenting. How could you disagree with this?
December 24th, 2008 at 12:51 am
John Dias,
If you have such a low opinion of both feminism and of Jeff’s blog, why do you even post here?
December 24th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Don’t forget men, Ben. He has a pretty low opinion of men as well.
I mean, all women in his philosophy are whores, yes, but look what he’s saying about men! Animalistic, immature, brutish beasts of burden incapable of tender emotion. It’s like he’s arguing that men are shaved gorillas, which is an insult to gorillas really, since they are capable of tender emotions.
December 24th, 2008 at 11:20 am
John Dias,
Men and women have more similarities than differences. Focusing and exaggerating those differences is not helpful for any relationship, or for society as a whole. If (and I stress, IF) men and women truly think/behave/hope/dream differently, it is not because of some inherent trait (or flaw, as you seem to think), but because historically, women were subjugated to men. Millenia of sexual and physical slavery (still perpetuated by idiots like Prager) is not easily rectified.
And by the way, elevating the status of women does not lower the status of men. It just means that women get to play on the same field (finally). If you have a problem with that, it probably means you are incapable of competing on that field. That’s not an issue with women so much as an issue with your own inadequacies.
December 24th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Geez, John, got some issues here? Your comment is as long as Jeff’s post and much less interesting, because you seem to think you know what “women” want. I submit you don’t even know what YOU want, except to feel that any woman is so different from you that you don’t need to put any effort into trying to talk to her or have any kind of relationship other than the Victorian one you think is “normal.” Women and men are NOT different kinds of animals. Men and woman DO have the same kinds of needs and desires. And if you’ve never been able to get laid without paying for it in some way, the problem isn’t some woman exploiting your poor, helpless, brutish nature; the problem is you.
December 25th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Anyone want to critique the merits of what I wrote, rather than surmise my motives or values?
No? Typical.
December 26th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
There are no “merits” in what you wrote. It’s total and complete garbage. If you’re looking for a line-by-line analysis, feel free to copy and paste the first two sentences of this paragraph next to every line of your essay.
Consider yourself critiqued.
December 27th, 2008 at 2:49 am
Michael wrote:
I think you were really pleased with yourself after that whiz-bang comeback. But it’s pretty obvious that the only reason you have a low opinion of what I wrote is because you disagree with it.
A political disagreement does not reflect poorly on me at all. But I think that a lack of will on your part to detail your opinion does reflect poorly on you.
December 27th, 2008 at 10:19 am
John Dias – you want a critique? Have it.
“I did say that women are the ones who offer their sexuality in return for a provider — women do that, not men.” – No, society does it. Men expect it, women feel that it is expected of them, mothers train their daughters to behave in such a way, it’s an entire system that forces women into that role. Not only are you being overly simplistic by saying “since it is women who perform the behaviour, it must be entirely their fault,” you are also being intellectually dishonest.
“why should anyone feel ashamed for being faithful to their husband” – Having sex when you don’t want to just because your husband is in the mood is NOT “being faithful to your husband.” It has no bearing whatsoever on faithfulness. So really, I don’t even know where this came out of.
“For all the talk about “give and take” and going things for the other partner out of love, why not include sex?” – Do you not see the difference between “I really don’t want to have sex, but I have to because my husband wants it and it’s my responsibility to give it to him whenever he wants” and “meh, I’m not really in the mood but I don’t really care either way. I guess I’ll go for it and maybe I’ll get in the mood once we get started”? Are these two really interchangeable to you? Because let me explain: the first statement is one of oppression and rape. The second statement is one of natural marital give and take. When a woman finds herself in a situation where she is saying the first statement, there is something very VERY wrong with that marriage.
“To sit there and call it rape when the husband wants sex and the wife is otherwise not inclined” – you are being dishonest. You are minimizing what we are talking about. It isn’t a “I’m just not particularly inclined at the moment” that we’re talking about. It’s “I don’t want to, but I have to do it anyway because I’m a woman and I owe my husband sex.” It is when “doing it” will make the woman UNHAPPY and that she is coerced into doing it anyway by saying that she owes it as payment that it becomes rape. If this is truly a reality in most marriages, that is absolutely horrendous.
“Ask any marriage therapist (okay, not any at all, but any effective one) and they’re likely going to say that if your partner wants sex and you’re sort of not into it, just have sex anyway. You never know, you might get into it just by loosening up.” – Again, there is a huge difference between this and what you are arguing for. Getting yourself motivated to do something that you aren’t totally revved for is COMPLETELY different from being told that you HAVE to do it whether you like it or not, that it is your place as a married woman to do it, that you have to do it whether you enjoy it or not, and that you have to do it even if it makes you unhappy.
I’m not going to bother with your biblical quote because that same letter tells women that they must remain silent in church and defer to their husbands. So while that particular passage may not be indicative of sexual oppression, the overall letter most certainly is.
“I don’t equate sexual intercourse between two consenting adults with masturbation.” – we aren’t talking about sexual intercourse between two consenting adults. We are talking about sexual intercourse between ONE consenting adult, and one adult who doesn’t want to participate but is being forced into it because she “owes” him sex whenever he wants it.
“when you deny the other person sex you’re doing damage to your marriage, and you’re doing damage to your spouse as well.” – BS. As Jeff has said more than once, we aren’t talking about a completely sexless marriage. We are talking about not having sex every single time the husband gets a boner.
“Now as far as your contention that the domestic life is somehow a “golden cage” that is “hell to live day in and day out,” I will say that I think this sentiment is profoundly hostile to women and stay-at-home nurturers.” – Not at all. Most honest stay-at-home mothers will agree. They have to have outlets. It’s a life-style choice that you absolutely cannot just jump into. You have to have hobbies that give you a sense of accomplishment, you have to have a family that appreciates the work you do, you have to have access to social groups (such as classes, church, volunteer work, etc.). You have to have a husband who views the money he makes as family income and not as “his money” or “his paycheque,” unless he then makes up a “her paycheque” that his wife can spend as she pleases.
The problem is that girls are often brought up with the idea that being a stay-at-home mom is really easy because you don’t have the responsibility of work, you don’t have to deal with the depression of getting fired or having your applications rejected, you don’t have to wake up early in the morning, etc. You have your needs taken care of, like a child. All you have to do in return is tidy up a little and take care of kids. It sounds like a breeze! But that isn’t the reality – not at all. It takes a whole lot of work, and half that work is just trying to maintain a social life and not become isolated (which is so easy to do when you have the option to stay at home all day). Worse than that, girls who buy into the idealized image of being a stay-at-home grow to count on that, so they don’t put a lot of effort into academics and skill-building. So when they realize that it can be a “golden cage,” they feel stifled but they can’t do anything about it. They have no experience, no skills, they can’t find work. They are essentially infantilized – which is exactly what you are talking about when you say that they will be taken care of by their husbands.
If a woman (or man) chooses to be a stay-at-home, that’s great. But the vast majority of people who choose that life don’t realize what they are getting into and feel stifled by it. Not to mention all the women who are coerced into that life-style because of the idea that they are “bad women” and “unfeminine” and even “abusive” if they don’t stay home with their children. To use your own terminology: “dumping [their kids] into daycare.” You want to talk about a shame campaign? How’s that for one? If I choose to work, I am seen as “dumping” my kids.
Your hatred for feminists is blinding you to what we are actually saying. We are saying that being a stay-at-home is NOT the ideal, that you can be a woman AND a good mother even if you don’t stay at home, and that if you choose to stay at home, it must be a free choice made with a complete understanding of all that is involved. Most importantly, feminists say that if you do choose to stay at home, you don’t have to be sexually available to your husband at all times because he’s taking care of you so you owe him. Sex should be between CONSENTING adults.
And finally: “We need less day care and more parenting. How could you disagree with this?” – Simple, quality vs quantity. Just because a parent works and uses day care doesn’t mean that they parent any less than a parent who stays home. Just because a parent is “there” all day doesn’t make them attentive, caring, and involved.
December 27th, 2008 at 10:37 am
John Dias – Clicking your name, all your posts start to make sense. Maybe you’ve been wronged in the past (I have no way to judge the veracity of your story), maybe it’s just the way you are – but you hate women. You run an entire website devoted to the hatred of women, particularly victimized women.
The fact that you come here claiming that a husband has a right to sex with his wife whenever HE wants to, that she should be available to him at all times, and that this is neither coercion nor rape (but rather, normal marital “give and take”), makes it very ironic that your website claims that you have been victimized by your wife. You say that you never threatened her, never did anything, but then you claim that forcing your wife to have sex with you is not rape. It certainly puts a perspective to your legal troubles.
Every line of your post says “I was completely innocent and wonderful and perfect, and the screaming bitch just came after me for no reason!” You take no responsibility for anything that you might have done. In your view, as it is written plainly on your website, women are hysterical and vindictive and “out to get” men. No wonder you and I cannot see eye to eye on the issue of marital sex.
December 27th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I need to ask, where is this notion of “force” coming from? An expectation does not equal force. Force is violence. I never noticed anything in the Prager column, nor did I write anything, which advocated violence if you don’t get your way. I challenge you Grimalkin — and Jeff (since he made the same assertion) — to demonstrate where violence has been promoted.
Secondly, never did I even dwell on who is right or wrong, or who is to blame. I simply made a value judgment: Scenario A is superior to Scenario B; Concept A is superior to Concept B; I expressed political and value disagreements, rather than appealing to society or the culture to engage in shaming. Blame, shame, and moral jockeying is not what I’m about, but it’s apparent to me that these are your buttons.
Thank you for addressing a few of my points. I will not critique your counterpoints, because I already stated my view, and it disagrees with yours. Notice that I’m not trying to win a battle of ideas, because in matters of opinion, there are no winners (just social approval, which I would enjoy if I have it, but don’t require).
Lastly, my site has to do with false allegations of domestic violence, and that you should capture evidence of your innocence with indisputable video footage that proves that the false accuser is lying. Why is it “hatred of women” when an innocent man is trying to prevent himself from going to jail on a bogus charge, brought via a false allegation? Oh yeah, the blame and shame thing again; you are analyzing the site not on its merits, but rather in the way that it strikes you feelings-wise. You know, I’ll go so far as to say that this tendency — feelings trumping concepts — is a tendency of women more often than men. Feel free to contradict that statement if you like, but I’ve noticed it to be generally true. It’s another reason why I believe that women are different than men; even the perspective tends to be different. You think with your feelings.
December 27th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Force comes in many forms. What would you use to reinforce your expectation? I would assume it would be a threat (“I will leave you if you don’t”) or something emotionally abusive (“you are damaging me and destroying our marriage if you don’t”). Either way, your wife would be compelled to do something she would choose not to do out of fear. Just because physical violence may not be used doesn’t make it any less a matter of coercion.
“never did I even dwell on who is right or wrong, or who is to blame. I simply made a value judgment: Scenario A is superior to Scenario B;” – How is this not an idea of who is right and who is wrong? You say “scenario A is superior” as though it were fact, clearly with the belief that this opinion is right. This entire paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I have misunderstood. Please explain further.
“I expressed political and value disagreements, rather than appealing to society or the culture to engage in shaming.” – You expressed the idea that a woman HAS to be permanently available to her husband, regardless of her own feelings and desires, and that she is damaging him and their marriage if she doesn’t. How is this not “engag[ing] in shaming”?
“Lastly, my site has to do with false allegations of domestic violence, and that you should capture evidence of your innocence with indisputable video footage that proves that the false accuser is lying.” – With the underlying assumption that WOMEN lie, that the courts favour the testimonies of women, that wives will resort to such methods whenever they feel miffed, that men in these situations are innocent, etc. Nowhere on your site, that I have seen, have you talked about what happens when abuse does occur, or when false charges are brought against women (which most certainly does happen). It simply projects the assumption that men in domestic abuse cases are innocent, that their wives are shrieking harpies who must be “beaten” (in the legal sense), and then proceeds to offer advice on how to do so.
“you are analyzing the site not on its merits, but rather in the way that it strikes you feelings-wise.” – Actually, I analysed it based on what I saw. As I said above, your website makes a series of assumptions that are objectively anti-woman.
“I’ve noticed it to be generally true.” – If you ever have a mind to study psychology, you may be in for a little surprise. When people start off with a stereotype or assumption, they tend to only see behaviours that confirm them. So every time you’ve seen women acting in a logical fashion, you’ve just forgotten about it. When you’ve seen women acting emotionally, you’ve noticed it, pointed it out to yourself, and maybe even shaken your head thinking “silly emotional woman!”
“You think with your feelings.” – Not at all. If anything, I’ve been accused of being too rational. But again, you have an expectation of me, so you interpret everything I say through the filter of those expectations. I suppose it’s a good way of making yourself feel better: If we’re just silly emotional creatures, you don’t have to pay attention to us. You can continue to believe that telling women that they HAVE to be available to their husbands for sex at all times is not sexism, is not coercion, and is not rape.
December 27th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Grimalkin wrote:
Just because emotional coercion is used doesn’t make it rape, at least in my book. I don’t have an expansive definition of rape. But ideologues do.
In my opinion, this/that is better/worse. Get it?
What is the “or else” behind that “HAS to be?” Because if it’s not violence, then she doesn’t “have to be.” She just needs a spine. What you’re trying to promote is shaming of anyone who would have a different view, desire, feeling, urge, or tendency than that woman. If he wants sex and she doesn’t, regardless of how she feels, he is not a rapist until he uses violence on her. Anything short of violence in order to get sex is simply not rape; that’s how I see it.
I think that the way you worded that is telling. The underlying “assumption” was made by you. The underlying implication is that the legal system is hostile to accused men, jailing them or violently separating them from their homes even without a jury verdict. My view is that a man should not suffer arrest or restraint from accessing his home, simply due to an allegation. If you consider yourself to be a victim or potential victim, take responsibility for your safety and you adapt, by leaving. That’s my political view; those are my political values.
By the way, insofar as shaming is concerned, I’m not above shaming someone. You can’t shame me out of shaming. But I myself do not subject my thinking to social approval (at least I try not to). If I tell you that you’re shaming, it’s not to shame you, but rather to point out that you are basing your argument entirely on the supposed social “not-niceness” of my political views. That’s hardly a reasoned position, but your prerogative nonetheless.
December 27th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
“In my opinion, this/that is better/worse. Get it?” – Then justify that opinion. Why do you think that it is GOOD for people to be forced into sex when they absolutely do not want to and when having sex would make them feel very unhappy?
“She just needs a spine.” – This is the same kind of thinking that leads to the dismissing of victims of domestic abuse. “If she really doesn’t like it, she should just grow a spine and leave.” Believe it or not, sometimes things are more complicated than that. We can feel trapped or forced into things without actual violence being used. It can be the threat of violence, or it can be the threat of something else, like “or else I’ll leave you,” “or else I’ll tell your family your secrets,” “or else I will take away these privileges,” “or else I will take the children,” “or else I won’t love you anymore,” etc. There are a whole lot of effective “or elses” that don’t require a single finger lifted.
“What you’re trying to promote is shaming of anyone who would have a different view, desire, feeling, urge, or tendency than that woman.” – Incomprehensibly wrong. There is no shame in wanting sex when your partner doesn’t. The shame is in believing that she HAS to give it to you, whether she wants to or not.
“My view is that a man should not suffer arrest or restraint from accessing his home, simply due to an allegation.” – Which, if the allegation turns out to be true, could put the woman, kids, pets, extended family, etc. in mortal danger. It isn’t uncommon for an abusive man who has been reported to the authorities to then murder his wife (I believe that this may even be one of the top 10 modes of death for women). The authorities have to make a decision – do you wait the months until a trial takes place and risk the death of the woman, or do you separate the family immediately until either the case is withdrawn or the man is found innocent? In the first case, the worst than can happen is the woman and kids are murdered. In the second case, the worst than can happen is the guy is upset, maybe the kids are upset too, and then it’s over.
“the legal system is hostile to accused men, jailing them or violently separating them from their homes even without a jury verdict.” – The legal system is hostile to raped women. The legal system is hostile to parents of both genders if they have been accused by a child. The legal system isn’t perfect. Suggest a solution, by all means, but consider how frequently such cases are found true, the legal system does very little to protect the family, and the wife is murdered. As for violently separating men from their homes, I’m going to assume that this generally happens when they resist arrest. With the exception of a few shocking examples, the police won’t usually become violent unless they perceive you as a serious threat.
“If you consider yourself to be a victim or potential victim, take responsibility for your safety and you adapt, by leaving.” – Says the man who created an entire website dedicated to his victimhood, a man who specifically says that men who feel abused by their wives SHOULD NOT leave their situations. Again, I’m going to quote myself: “things aren’t always that simple.” There’s a whole lot that goes on in abusive relationships. The vast majority of abused women who leave return to their families not because they were just lying for attention, but because things get complicated when your life is entwined with someone else’s – especially when there is abuse going on. Not to mention that if a woman doesn’t resort to the law, she will receive absolutely NO protection if her husband decides to come after her or her children; so “just leave” may well not be an option. In your vision of yourself as a victim, you have completely blinded yourself to the fact that these things are complicated and that the law isn’t specifically designed to take advantage of YOU (but rather, to ensure the protection of those who have been victimized). In most cases, it’s decision is wise. In a few, it isn’t. Nothing is perfect.
“you are basing your argument entirely on the supposed social “not-niceness” of my political views.” – Then you have misconstrued my arguments completely and I can only recommend that you try to read them over. I am not saying that your ideas are wrong because they are “not nice.” I am saying that your ideas are wrong because they put men in a position of power over women’s bodies and completely disregard the feelings and desires of half the population. Your ideas are wrong because, if followed, they lead to the sexual slavery of women. This has absolutely nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with human decency.
December 27th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
MY DIALOG:
“I disagree with your view because…”
YOUR DIALOG:
“I am saying that your ideas are wrong because…”
The difference between the two is that “wrong” is defined by the polis, by the social organism, by consensus. The mentality attempts to manipulate social shaming in order to confer value on one’s own perspective.
Regarding methods of dealing with domestic abuse, I prefer “innocent until proven guilty” as an alternative to “apply force before they can break the law.” I also advise people to stay in the home as a way to escape undue coercion and violence based on fabricated allegations. My site exists to highlight a specific problem — false allegations unsupported by objective evidence — and I choose not to cover every angle of domestic abuse. I also choose not to cover the price of tea in China, as much as that would upset tea merchants there. I guess I’m insensitive that way.
As far as using the word rape to describe a man who considers sex to be each spouse’s duty to the other, it most definitely is hyperbolic shaming tactics, and more significantly, it is the pretext to jail someone. In my state, California, the penalty for rape is life in prison. So if it’s rape merely to expect the wife to “do her duty,” if it’s rape merely to have that expectation, then it’s the slammer for the horny spouse. I’m looking at the implications of your cavalier use and expansive definition of the word “rape.” When you throw around that word capriciously — as I contend that ideologues do — you’re justifying the use of jail as a remedy. Guess what? If she’s so upset that her husband wants her, maybe she’s got a problem and not him. And maybe that’s not a matter for public policy either.
A political debate (which this became the moment the word “rape” was injected into the argument) has as its outcome a political policy. The discussion is moot otherwise. I personally believe that it OUGHT to be moot whether a husband expects sex or not, because unless you can charge him with violating the law, what is the point of debating what married people discuss in the privacy of their own bedrooms?
December 27th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Let me add just one more thing…
The problem is that a married couple is not having enough sex. That’s the problem — not the expectation of sex itself, but the reason why sex is not occurring. The problem is distance between the couple. And it’s THEIR problem, a private matter between the two of them.
So you can take your “rape” hyperbole and stick it where the sun don’t shine. Because what it means for you to invoke that term is jack booted thugs barging into the bedroom and saying, “Is this the man who wanted to get it on with you? Your husband, that is? Come on, buddy. You’re coming with us.”
Butt out! (My humble opinion, of course. :-) )
December 30th, 2008 at 7:47 am
[...] you may recall, last week Dennis Prager wrote a long and tedious column about how women just don’t give up the nookie to their spouses enough, and how everyone would [...]
December 30th, 2008 at 7:49 am
[...] you may recall, last week Dennis Prager wrote a long and tedious column about how women just don’t give up the nookie to their spouses enough, and how everyone would [...]
January 1st, 2009 at 11:58 am
Prager’s sexuality seems to have become arrested at a very early age, when he couldn’t imagine that if girls had the same feeling he was having they wouldn’t be jumping every boy in sight. Then, it seems that he grew up and found that the only women who were attracted to him were really more interested in his fame, his influence, his wallet. And thus, as the problem obviously can’t be with him….
January 6th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
[...] Prager Show tomorrow — yes, you heard me right, the Dennis Prager Show — discussing his wonderful advice on how it’s a good wife’s duty to endure marital rape. I’ll be on with the [...]
January 6th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
[...] Prager Show tomorrow — yes, you heard me right, the Dennis Prager Show — discussing his wonderful advice on how it’s a good wife’s duty to endure marital rape. I’ll be on with the [...]
January 7th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
[...] Jeff Fecke wrote Dec. 23, 2008: [...]