« The Seventh Annual Golden Brownies | Main | Hometown Pride Fail »
Dennis Prager: Men are from Mars, Women are Frigid Bitches
By Jeff Fecke | December 30, 2008
As 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 be happier if only women would stop worrying about whether they liked sex, and start just having it as part of their marital duties, because — and I think I speak for everything — there’s nothing hotter than having sex with someone who is doing so with the same excitement and joy that one brings to filling the dishwasher.
Anyhoo, Prager left off by threatening to continue his insane rant. Many of us hoped that disaster could be avoided, but alas, Prager has now followed through, writing a follow-up that is, remarkably, even more pointless. I’m not sure even where to begin, other than to say that I think it will soon become clear why Prager’s wives divorced him.
After a brief reminder that Prager actually has written things before, he launches right into the “eight reasons for a woman not to allow not being in the mood for sex to determine whether she denies her husband sex.” They begin in truly awesome fashion:
1. If most women wait until they are in the mood before making love with their husband, many women will be waiting a month or more until they next have sex. When most women are young, and for some older women, spontaneously getting in the mood to have sex with the man they love can easily occur. But for most women, for myriad reasons — female nature, childhood trauma, not feeling sexy, being preoccupied with some problem, fatigue after a day with the children and/or other work, just not being interested — there is little comparable to a man’s “out of nowhere,” and seemingly constant, desire for sex.
Wow. Just…wow.
Dennis — can I call you Dennis? — many of us have been in relationships. With women. Go figure. And you know what? Those women were, you know, in the mood more than once a year. I know, it’s crazy, but it’s true — women like sex. They like it a lot. Not being a woman, I can’t say for sure whether they like sex as much as men, but it’s pretty close, and frankly, I don’t know why we’d waste time arguing when we all could use that time to have sex.
Now, if your wife wants to have sex with you once a season, that is a sign that there’s something wrong in your relationship. Indeed, it’s a sign she might not be sexually attracted to you — because unless your wife is one of the small percentage of asexual Americans, for whom sex is simply not appealing, it’s vanishingly unlikely that your wife has not desired sex in a weekly span. If she doesn’t desire it with you, then there are problems in your relationship — but not the sort of problems that can be solved by insisting that she should just have desireless sex.
Prager really could just stop here — it’s pretty axiomatic that anyone who thinks women have no sex drives to speak of doesn’t so much understand anything about the human race, but he continues on:
2. Why would a loving, wise woman allow mood to determine whether or not she will give her husband one of the most important expressions of love she can show him? What else in life, of such significance, do we allow to be governed by mood?
Um…everything, Dennis. Everything. You think you don’t make decisions based on your emotions? Of course you do. You chose your job because you love to lecture and moralize — that’s an important decision, and one that clearly wasn’t made based on your actual talents.
Prager wants to make “mood” into something silly and frivolous. And sometimes, it is — I’ve had sex when I wasn’t “in the mood,” but wasn’t not in the mood either. I think everyone has. Nobody is rarin’ to go all the time, but sometimes, if your partner is interested, you decide to get interested, because even if you’re not that into it, you want your partner to be happy. If Prager had simply written that sentence and spared us the evolutionary psych bullcrap, he would have a point.
But there’s “not really into it” and “actively not desiring it,” and the fact is that those two moods are on a continuum. Emotions are not binary, discrete things, as anyone who has emotions can tell you. Should you occasionally indulge a partner when you’re not that excited, but you aren’t that opposed, either? Sure — and that holds whether we’re talking about sex or a trip to the local farmer’s market. But should you feel obligated to do something you really don’t want to do tonight? No — and again, that’s true of sex and farmer’s markets.
Of course, Prager manages to make this point more offensive:
What if your husband woke up one day and announced that he was not in the mood to go to work? If this happened a few times a year, any wife would have sympathy for her hardworking husband. But what if this happened as often as many wives announce that they are not in the mood to have sex? Most women would gradually stop respecting and therefore eventually stop loving such a man.
Because, as everyone knows, sex is to women as work is to men. It’s a duty. A responsibility. Moreover, it’s what men and women want. Men want sex, women want fat stacks of cash. Quid pro quo, ladies, quid pro quo.
What woman would love a man who was so governed by feelings and moods that he allowed them to determine whether he would do something as important as go to work? Why do we assume that it is terribly irresponsible for a man to refuse to go to work because he is not in the mood, but a woman can — indeed, ought to — refuse sex because she is not in the mood? Why?
Because if I refuse to go to work, eventually I lose my house and die of starvation, whereas if my wife refuses to have sex with me, at worst she’s risking divorce. I’m glad we had this chat.
So what gives women the idea that they have the right not to want to have sex? The sixties, of course! The decade that keeps on giving (to conservatives) made women believe they actually have, I don’t know, bodily autonomy or some crap:
3. The baby boom generation elevated feelings to a status higher than codes of behavior. In determining how one ought to act, feelings, not some code higher than one’s feelings, became decisive: “No shoulds, no oughts.” In the case of sex, therefore, the only right time for a wife to have sex with her husband is when she feels like having it. She never “should” have it. But marriage and life are filled with “shoulds.”
Again, there’s “feels like having it” and “feels like having it.” Nobody — nobody — is saying that a relationship involves no compromise, ever. But compromise is a two-way street, and while it’s okay for partners to try to balance everyone’s needs — indeed, it’s requisite — it’s also important that partners take each other’s feelings into consideration. Again, I’d rather masturbate than have sex with someone who really didn’t want to, but was doing it out of pure obligation. And I really don’t understand people who feel differently.
4. Thus, in the past generation we have witnessed the demise of the concept of obligation in personal relations. We have been nurtured in a culture of rights, not a culture of obligations. To many women, especially among the best educated, the notion that a woman owes her husband sex seems absurd, if not actually immoral. They have been taught that such a sense of obligation renders her “property.” Of course, the very fact that she can always say “no” — and that this “no” must be honored — renders the “property” argument absurd. A woman is not “property” when she feels she owes her husband conjugal relations. She is simply wise enough to recognize that marriages based on mutual obligations — as opposed to rights alone and certainly as opposed to moods — are likely to be the best marriages.
A woman doesn’t owe her husband sex.
If things in a marriage are happening because they’re “owed,” then there’s been a breakdown in the relationship itself. Women in healthy relationships desire sex, as do men. There may be some variance as to how much, but that’s something to work through before getting married — which, might I note, is a strong argument for sex before marriage.
Prager notes that a woman can always say “no,” because even he won’t go so far as to advocate spousal rape, at least not overtly. But what he argues is that women can say no, but really shouldn’t, you know, ever. Sex should be an obligation, like mowing the lawn or balancing the checkbook — it’s not something you skip. That sex is qualitatively different than a chore never seems to have gotten through Prager’s skull. I can’t imagine why he’s divorced. Twice.
5. Partially in response to the historical denigration of women’s worth, since the 1960s, there has been an idealization of women and their feelings. So, if a husband is in the mood for sex and the wife is not, her feelings are deemed of greater significance — because women’s feelings are of more importance than men’s. One proof is that even if the roles are reversed — she is in the mood for sex and he is not — our sympathies again go to the woman and her feelings.
Okay, that’s just nonsensical. You know why women’s feelings tend to get more play? Because men are still told by Prager and his compadres that emotion is a silly thing that’s best stifled and ignored. Men are logical and rational, except when we are angry, but that’s totally okay. Oh, and men always want sex, because if you don’t, you’re either gay or a woman.
Women’s feelings come up more because the feminist movement recognized that feelings are not something to be ignored. Incidentally, feminism says that about men, too — men’s feelings are indeed valid. And if a mismatch in sexual compatibility leaves one partner feeling rejected, he or she has every right to that feeling — and every right to tell their partner of that feeling.
But of course, back in the first column, Prager said that men aren’t supposed to have to express their feelings, that women should just divine their knowledge of men from fat man skinny woman sitcoms and Dennis Prager columns, and that asking men to express their feelings is somehow wrong. Okay, fine. But if you don’t express your feelings, and your partner does, you can’t be surprised when your partner’s feelings get more discussion because — and this is important — your partner has no idea you feel that way.
In a healthy relationship, with open discussion, a partner can say, “you know, I really would like to have sex more often — I feel kind of rejected when you turn me down.” The other partner could respond to those feelings, both by reassuring and by talking about how to find a compromise that makes everyone happy. But that requires communication and honesty about emotions — something Prager says men should not be required to do. Because sex is important. Honesty and openness? Not so much.
6. Yet another outgrowth of ’60s thinking is the notion that it is “hypocritical” or wrong in some other way to act contrary to one’s feelings. One should always act, post-’60s theory teaches, consistent with one’s feelings. Therefore, many women believe that it would simply be wrong to have sex with their husband when they are not in the mood to. Of course, most women never regard it as hypocritical and rightly regard it as admirable when they meet their child’s or parent’s or friend’s needs when they are not in the mood to do so. They do what is right in those cases, rather than what their mood dictates. Why not apply this attitude to sex with one’s husband? Given how important it is to most husbands, isn’t the payoff — a happier, more communicative, and loving husband and a happier home — worth it?
You know, again and again, Prager shows that he really doesn’t understand sex, or love, or feelings, or the 1960s, or human beings. I really can’t even snark here.
7. Many contemporary women have an almost exclusively romantic notion of sex: It should always be mutually desired and equally satisfying or one should not engage in it. Therefore, if a couple engages in sexual relations when he wants it and she does not, the act is “dehumanizing” and “mechanical.” Now, ideally, every time a husband and wife have sex, they would equally desire it and equally enjoy it. But, given the different sexual natures of men and women, this cannot always be the case. If it is romance a woman seeks — and she has every reason to seek it — it would help her to realize how much more romantic her husband and her marriage are likely to be if he is not regularly denied sex, even of the non-romantic variety.
I’ll joint Prager up to this point — there’s a difference between Movie Sex and Real Sex, and it’s destructive. But not the way Prager thinks. In Movie Sex, both partners know everything about each other through psychic connections. Because they both read the script, they know exactly what to do to turn the other one on. Because they have stage hands, they have 10,000 candles burning around the sunken marble bathtub filled with rose petals in which they are expressing their softly-lit love for each other.
In real life, of course, sex is less scripted, and getting things right requires — I know, this is crazy — communication. Discussion. Talking about what works and what doesn’t. It can and should be good-natured discussion, but communication is going to need to happen.
And incidentally, being romantic? That’s something both partners should try if they want a good relationship. There’s nothing bad about showing your partner that you love them. And indeed, there’s nothing bad about doing that even if it doesn’t lead to sex.
All right, you ready for Prager’s big finish? Bring home the crazy:
8. In the rest of life, not just in marital sex, it is almost always a poor idea to allow feelings or mood to determine one’s behavior. Far wiser is to use behavior to shape one’s feelings. Act happy no matter what your mood and you will feel happier. Act loving and you will feel more loving. Act religious, no matter how deep your religious doubts, and you will feel more religious. Act generous even if you have a selfish nature, and you will end with a more a generous nature. With regard to virtually anything in life that is good for us, if we wait until we are in the mood to do it, we will wait too long.
Wow.
You know, if you “act happy,” that won’t make you happier. It’s true! Indeed, it may make you sadder, as you try to bottle up your feelings and show a façade that is at variance with what’s going on inside. If you “act religious,” that’s nice — but if there’s a God, I misdoubt that She would rather deal with an honest agnostic than someone who cloaks themselves in piety. If you “act generous,” you may feel more generous — but if you do so resentfully, you won’t feel more generous for long.
Indeed, there is something to be said for being honest with oneself about what one wants out of life, and how one feels — and acting that way.
The best solution to the problem of a wife not being in the mood is so simple that many women, after thinking about it, react with profound regret that they had not thought of it earlier in their marriage. As one bright and attractive woman in her 50s ruefully said to me, “Had I known this while I was married, he would never have divorced me.”
I don’t know if it’s true, but I do know this — if the bright, attractive woman’s husband never told her his feelings, she can’t be held responsible for being a mind-reader. If he never told her that he felt rejected, then she can’t be faulted for not knowing it. And indeed, we don’t know that he did feel rejected — we don’t know anything about this case, other than Prager’s neatly-plucked quote.
That solution is for a wife who loves her husband — if she doesn’t love him, mood is not the problem — to be guided by her mind, not her mood, in deciding whether to deny her husband sex.
Except a mood is part of the mind. We can’t separate the two. I know, “emotion” and “logic” are supposed to be separate things, but they aren’t. We all have one brain, and one brain only.
If her husband is a decent man — if he is not, nothing written here applies — a woman will be rewarded many times over outside the bedroom (and if her man is smart, inside the bedroom as well) with a happy, open, grateful, loving, and faithful husband. That is a prospect that should get any rational woman into the mood more often.
Because sex is not a desirable end for women, not really, but maybe they can use it as a carrot to get their guy to go to work and maybe watch the kids once a week.
Prager doesn’t understand women, not in the least — nor men, as far as I can tell. His columns might have some value for women who are unaware that humans are sexual creatures, but that value is more than swamped by their stubborn insistence that men will suffer silently, because that’s how men are.
Here’s an alternate solution: you need to be honest about your emotions. You need to be direct with your partners. You need to communicate your feelings. Those are your responsibilities. And they’re far more important than simply having sex whenever your partner wants it.
Prager seems to think that sex is owed in a relationship, but emotional honesty is not. That’s a recipe for disaster, no matter who is wanting sex and who is hiding their emotions. The fact is that a relationship only works as long as both partners can stay on the same page, and that can only happen if both partners are aware of where the other is. A relationship can handle disagreements about the amount of sex that should be had. A relationship can’t survive, however, if one or both partners is simply not showing enough interest in the relationship to take the time to express their feelings.
Topics: Feminism | 19 Comments »
December 30th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Down with long, tedious columns.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:23 am
I agree for the most part, but only so-so on the bit about faking it. You’re right that if you are systematically unhappy, acting happy will make it worse. However, if you’re just feeling a little down temporarily, acting happy and up-beat is one of the best cures.
For example, I never act unhappy when I’m at work. If I have an issue going on at home, I leave it at the door and I come in smiling. If I have a run-in with my boss, I leave it in my boss’s office and I come out smiling. As a result, I am liked in my office. My co-workers are conditioned to greet me with smiles. When I am at work, I am happy no matter what else is going on in my life because I have created a little magic bubble of happiness.
The same is true when I’m at home. If I’ve had a hard day at work, I come home, I greet my husband with a smile and a kiss, I act cheerful. Then I will confide in him what made my day hard, what I struggled with, he offers me advice or sympathy (depending on which I need) and then we go make dinner together.
But see, that’s the difference – I don’t ignore my unhappy feelings. I deal with them, I fix them when I can, and then I put my smile back on. Even if I’m still feeling some residual anger or sadness, it goes away fairly quickly because, by not acting angry or sad, I’m preventing myself from wallowing in those feelings (which will not help – it will only prolong them).
So I agree with Prager that the best cure for being unhappy can be to act happy – HOWEVER you cannot ignore your problems/feelings. They have to be dealt with, fixed to the best of your ability, and then consciously set aside. Furthermore, it just isn’t fair to drag other people down by acting depressed. For example, if I have a problem at home, it is not fair to bring that into the office with me and to put it onto my co-workers’ shoulders. Again, the exception is when someone has voluntarily accepted the responsibility of sharing my problems – as my husband has. But again, I can’t just harp on something. It’s important to know when it’s time to intervene with your feelings and to let them go. Continuing to whine because I had a run-in with my boss, after my husband has already given me all the advice and sympathy that he can, for example, is only going to hurt him and make me feel worse.
So at the risk of making this comment as long as your post, I just want to say that I disagree with your complete dismissal of that point.
December 30th, 2008 at 10:08 am
There’s really just one deep problem at the root of Prager’s problems here. It effects a lot of righties, but maybe none more than Prager.
When you can’t conceptualize any concept as being more complicated than two distinct, black-and-white, binary choices, you can’t really have intelligent thought.
December 30th, 2008 at 11:14 am
now I think I know why your wife divorced you too
December 31st, 2008 at 10:28 am
Prager seems to believe in life led inauthentically. The husband should go to work, and never question if that work is for him. The wife should have sex, and never question her needs for mutuality. Both should define their personhoods and mutuality itself in the narrow confines of roles: his, work; hers, sex-mate for husband. All possibility of choice is denied. Niether husband nor wife ought to look at each other and connect as authentic human beings. That would disrupt the system, and get in the way of the husband getting his sex.
Sad way to live a life.
January 1st, 2009 at 10:05 pm
“A relationship can’t survive, however, if one or both partners is simply not showing enough interest in the relationship to take the time to express their feelings.”
That may be the biggest departure between your position on marriage and Prager’s – he believes that wives should withhold their feelings, for fear of harming the fragile male ego.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
I find it so hilareous what people do to try and defame others. Especially a cool cat like Prager. I heard a lot of female callers give really good feedback when he talked about this on his radio show. Prager is frankly one of the few political talk show hosts I can stand listening to because he tackles issues like sex in marriage and personal happiness.
I think you guys should start trying to have a legitimate dialog about the issues he raises, agreeing and disagreeing respectfully. All this just to defame someone is just a waste of everyone’s time and helps no one think or grow.
Prager rocks, wish there were more people like him.
—
I will break it down for you guys, you apparently are third graders and cannot figure it out on your own.
Prager is saying that mood should not be a deciding factor for anything, it is temporary and generally an unimportant in the big picture. His point is that partners should work hard to mutually provide for each others needs even if one of the two is not in the mood at the moment. He focuses here on a woman possibly considering her choice to giver herself to her husband even at times when she is not feeling like it. The reasoning is sound and informative, and entirely not being harsh or demanding. Assuming also that the wife loves the husband and that the husband is a good person worth pleasing. Assuming these two things, Prager is giving the male side of the issue by being honest that to most men, sex = love and to deny sex is to make a choice to deny love.
Frankly this is a good discussion. I am saddened that weirdos like you guys are unable to take that in good faith and actually have something worth reading to say in return. Instead all I read is taking someone else out of context. Shabby, you guys act like children.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:25 am
My suggestion to the writer of this blog: THE PROPER CARE AND FEEDING OF HUSBANDS, published by Harper-Collins. Both husbands and wives have moral and loving obligations to each other that supercede moods…loving is about giving; loving is about caring to make the spouse’s life worth living…with you; loving is about rising above moods to bring happiness to your spouse…
January 7th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
I just heard you on the Prager show and the first thing I noticed is that you’re not as sny when someone can respond to you directly as you are in your one-sided blog. That being said, your primary missunderstanding in the above response is that Prager is not addressing run of the mill relationships where you stay with someone until you’re bored with them. Rather, Dennis is only referring to lasting and committed marriages. Perhaps in Minnesota there isn’t anything better to do than commit voter fraud and have sex, but in other parts of the country a couple’s sexual relationship can strain after 10 or 15 years of committed marriage. These are the types of relationships Dennis is addressing. I take it you didn’t get to that point in your marriage; after reading this blog and listening to you on the radio the failure probably relates to your inability to understand the respective male and female natures. I suggest you tune into Dennis Prager more often on Wednesdays at 1pm EST; you might like the Happiness Hour too on Fridays. Dennis Prager’s understanding of the complex dicotomy between the respective male/female natures and personal and relationship happiness is somthing that can benefit us all. Your other option, of course, is to just sit and wait for your happiness check to to arrive in the mail from Obama.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:54 am
Wow, Jeff, talk about some nasty, tedious, and boring writing yourself here. Feel free to disagree with Dennis (and according to the radio show today, the notion that men and women are different — are you bi?) but your blog post is so . . . loud, obnoxious, and shallow, it makes me wonder why Dennis asked you on his show. He usually chooses the best representatives of opposing viewpoints he can find. “Anyhoo,” if you’re the “moderate Left” then I shudder to think what the full-Left is, much less the extreme Left. But then again, as Dennis has pointed out (and I’ve long since concluded) in the modern era, there is little distinction between liberals and leftists. They have, for the most part, merged.
January 9th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Logic and emotion are the same? This is one of the most clueless remarks I have ever seen. Do you think noone has ever acted on their emotions and them later regreted what they did after they had time to think in a logical manner? If a parent gets angry and strikes a child or says something really nasty and hurtfull to the child is that not counter to logic. Yes we have one brain but the mind is complex and people sometimes do things that are not at all logical when they act on their emotions.
February 12th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Except a mood is part of the mind. We can’t separate the two.
Think of it this way- mood = short term. Mind = long term.
And a better analogy than work for women would be listening. There were times I didn’t feel I had time to listen to what my girlfriend had to say about her day. I did, because to not listen, remember, consider and respond would be inauthentic for someone who loved her. But if I never wanted to listen then yes, there’s a problem in the relationship.
>I can’t imagine why he’s divorced. Twice.
So if you’ve ever broken up with a lover, that invalidates your opinion? I’d be more persuaded if you gave some evidence of why Praeger is divorced twice.
Some people don’t believe in sex outside marriage. For someone of that view, a person who slept with and broke up with 8 girlfriends/boyfriends would have the equivalent of 8 failed marriages. How many lovers have you broken up with in your lifetime?
March 13th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Jeff Fecke,
What bullshit, yourself; based on the superficial rantings of your own, contained herein, you know little, if anything, more than Praeger…
Unless you’ve had a sex change recently, you wouldn’t know anything more about a woman’s psyche than Praeger… so don’t shit a shitter, eh??
June 5th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Prager is an exceedingly wise man who’s not afraid to call a spade a spade. As pointed out, he’s providing advice on a specific type of relationship (a marriage) operating under specific circumstances (the husband is worth loving, the wife wishes to save or improve the marriage). In my own experience, women routinely misunderstand men. The fact that men misunderstand women is commonly accepted; the fact that women understand men no better is in need of wider acceptance. It’s entirely probable that men view sex differently then women. No one is saying a woman owes her husband sex….do not pervert the message because you don’t agree with it. Prager is saying a women who wants a better relationship with her husband should consider consenting to sex more often. Not give into coersion, or fear him so much she feels compelled against her will, but consent. This message is obviously for mature women who understand their own free will is exactly that, their choice. A wife listening to her husbands requests for sex and her concern over making the right choice should not be mixed in with concepts like rape, coersion, force, etc. These are excuses, and they’re as unbecoming of a woman as they are of a man….right? Perhaps some cannot comprehend a women who owns her own choices and who decides to “give in” to her husband’s position for more sex. Everyone gives in, everyone compromises to some degree. It doesn’t make you less a person (woman or man). It’s still your choice. People who attack those who point out the choice don’t remove that choice from reality.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
I love that Pragerites are still whining about this months after I wrote it.
October 19th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Long and tedious huh how many times did you read it. How MANY TIMES were you maried?
October 20th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Wow… Even Dr. Laura comes to Fecke’s blog.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:51 am
its a very touchy subject and i can understand why people especially women are ranting about the article, but it does have alot of truth to it…. i have been divorced twice and my third marriage works for many of the reasons outlined in his article
its not to say a man can jump his wife when ever he feels like it, which is the meaning that the feminists seem to have taken from the article.
it simply means that if a women is closed to sex and bases her decisions on moods then probably the marriage won’t last, as any decision based on mood is probably going to be a bad one
what if the husband is not in the mood to help with the kids, or go to the theatre or have lunch with the parents in law, should he just go to the local bar with his mates instead ?
what if the US president is in the mood for war ? should he order an attack ? damn that russian president is a big headed fool, i feel like nuking moscow ?
the point the article is making is simply that mood is not a good basis for making a decision and the second point the article is making is that women should be more open to sex because if they are not most likely their husbands will firstly feel hurt, secondly close up and thirdly look elsewhere.
we all know that girls are not always instantly readily like us men, so perhaps if you try allowing your husband to make love to you, you might warm to it. if you constantly block him before he has the chance then you are probably both done for.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:24 am
What is with this idea that men have some kind of sexual quota that needs to be filled, and that women don’t desire or actively pursue sex at all? Men and women both want sex because they are in the MOOD for it, so how come Prager acts like when a man is in the MOOD (not that he would admit that this is why men desire sex, because unlike women, men NEED sex, right?) for sex it is his wife’s job to please him, but for women mood is a silly thing that needs to be supressed for the greater good for her man’s needs? Nowhere doess prager suggest that the husband should reciprocate by having sex with his wife when she is in the mood, even when he isn’t. The subtext that I’m picking up is that what the wife wants and feels is unimportant, but fulfilling all of the husband’s wants and desires is what keeps the marriage alive. I call BS on Prager and I totally agree with Jeff’s analysis of this creepy list of suggestions. Marriage is a two way street.
Oh yeah, and unless you pay your wife for sex, her refusing it is not the same as ditching work!