Dennis Prager, who often writes about family values, is notorious for dressing up ugly misogyny in the guise of deep spiritual and psychological concern for women. He’s outdone himself at the end of the year, however, with two particularly lamentable pieces: When a Woman isn’t in the Mood (part one) and When a Woman isn’t in the Mood (part two).
Fortunately, Prager’s appalling views receive the careful fisking they deserve from two splendid pro-feminist men. Here’s Jesse Taylor’s post, and here’s Jeff Fecke’s. (Cap tap for the former to Sarah.) Both Jeff and Jesse have a lot of sensible things to say about men, women, sex and relationships, deconstructing the three odious lies that Prager peddles: one, that the “I will” of the wedding day binds a woman to relieve her husband’s needs regardless of her own feelings; two, that women are, at their core, less libidinous than men; three, that men are uninterested in and incapable of deep emotional connection. Read both posts.
I’ve written about marriage and sexual obligation a few times: here, here and here. Jesse and Jeff write from secular pro-feminist perspectives, and I write from a slightly more theologically-tinged viewpoint, but we’re all on the same page.
I find Dennis Prager frustrating to listen to. I like him on some things, but it seems that his One Basic Rule (and the first example he mentions when he rails against modern universities) is that “men and women are fundamentally different.” This accounts for the three odious lies you cite here, Hugo.
DP is proud and studious of his Jewish heritage, which is great. Amazingly, though, if someone were to call his show screaming “Death to Israel” I think DP would keep his cool. The few times I’ve heard him lose his temper are when a caller has opined that “men and women are pretty much the same.” Then DP flies off the handle because someone is challenging his precious thoughts on men being visual and women being emotional (see Lies One and Three), men needing sexual fulfillment while women mostly just like to chit-chat (see Lies One and Two), etc..
Not long ago, he was discussing men over 30 who still aren’t married, operating (of course) under the false assumption that all such men are out playing the field or “sowing their oats” (a phrase that Hugo and I both find revolting). That doesn’t hold true for all guys over 30, of course, but why get in the way of a good stereotype, eh?
He strikes me as a man who has difficulty connecting on an emotional level, and therefore decides that every other man must be exactly the same as him. If it’s not something inherent in his gender, then maybe it’s a problem within himself, and yikes, wouldn’t THAT be scary? Sex doesn’t equal a relationship, or the reason people share their lives.
His suggestions seem to avoid the most obvious one - talk. Work. Make it happen. Fight for your relationship and figure out how to bridge your differences. Only little kids would expect someone to read their minds and then pout if they don’t.
I wanted to add, it’s very powerful that men are loudly debunking him.
If the first page is anything to go by, Prager’s article is a bizarre meeting of misandry and misogyny, so i didn’t bother going to page two.
Yeah, I had the same thought–he’s repulsing men in far greater numbers than one usually sees, including my husband, who didn’t let me get 1/4 of the way through the second article before he was grabbing his ears and begging me to stop, stop!!
I may be talking more aside the issue of Prager’s assumptions than against them, but I wondered if they arise as much out of the expectation, cultural, religious, or whatever, that someone has to stay in a dysfunctional marriage or other relationship in which the people involved just can’t or won’t “click” on that level. That goes for the critiques of his piece as well, who perhaps assume a bit too much malleability to people’s desires. Hey, if the relationship has both people doing great, then super! If it isn’t quite doing so just yet, but it might with a little work, or communication, or something, then here’s to the ol’ college try. But it can be the case that some people are just sexually incompatible. Call it an irreconcilable difference. Rather than the missus sucking it up and doing her “wifely duty” on command, or the husband being bored to tears by what the missus calls foreplay, there really isn’t anything wrong with cutting bait and moving on in search of someone more compatible these days.
I think that if you read the comments on the Townhall article rather than the fisking and commentary on Feministing (which likens any sex offered by the female under anything but ideal conditions of desire and mood to “rape”), you will see that there are a large number of female commenters who agree with Prager.
It seems the feminist position on this is that there is no reason whatsoever for a woman to have sex with her husband (in the cases where she has a lower libido). If one instance of denial becomes several, and then a habit, and then the default mode of the marriage, this is the man’s fault too, either because he was inadequately communicative or that he should find other ways to stay in love with his wife without sex.
Call Prager’s position appalling or wince-inducing all you like, marriages without sex in cases in which there are mismatched libidos generally deteriorate into dire situations. If a woman is unwilling to have sex unless she is in the mood and she is never in the mood, then the only solutions are for the woman to change her mind about when she is in the mood, divorce, or a life of having a roommate instead of a spouse. Once you throw kids into the mix, having four divorces becomes a much more painful option.
“…you will see that there are a large number of female commenters who agree with Prager.”
When pity wars with disgust…
Prager’s position, Married Tom, judging from the second column in his series, is that the normal state of marriage is for a woman not to want sex more often than once a month. And for her having sex to be equivalent to her husband going to work - something she should be regularly doing without complaint even if the normal state of her sex life is as uninspiring as the normal state of many people’s jobs. And, judging from his first article, his positions is also that, if a man wants sex drastically less than his wife, that disparity can be waved away airily with a suggestion that yes, in a few rare instances such things happen, but we won’t bother to talk about them now (or probably ever) because the (unstated) causes and solutions would be completely different if the sexes are reversed.
Now, I’m all for mutual accomodation in marriage. And that may sometimes mean (if you’re the spouse, man or woman, who wants sex less) having sex when you’re not in the mood - as long as “not in the mood” is of the “not already in the mood but I can get in the mood if we get started” variety, rather than of the “not in the mood to a degree that any sex I can offer right now will make both of us miserable” variety. Or it may mean other things - such as checking into health problems that may be causing your sudden decline in libido, or talking our relationship problems that may be causing said decline, etc. At the very least it should mean some sympathy for the spouse you’re expecting to stay faithful without getting much in the way of sex - even if there are good reasons why the two of you will never be matched in your drive (and to some extent, I think dealing with sexual mismatches is part of “in sickness and in health”). (Jeff Fecke’s response is good in drawing the distinction between this kind of mutual accomodation and what Prager’s calling for.)
But accomodation that’s based on the assumption that sex normally shouldn’t be expected to be much fun for women, but we should put out anyway - yes, that’s appalling and wince-inducing, and yes, I can see why, with an attitude like that, Dennis Prager has had, apparently, both sexually unenthusiatic wives and more than one divorce.
Mismatched libidos can happen to any of us; there’s no magic guarantee that your marital sex life won’t die. Not sleeping together before marriage to see that you’re sexually compatible, because people change. Not trying to communicate with your spouse, or being loving and kind in the ways that they like, or doing things that some entirely different person might find totally seductive, because some people, for various reasons of their own, shut off sexually regardless. Some men - and some women - are going to have spouses who don’t much want sex no matter what they do.
But if there’s no magic guarantee that your marital sex life won’t die, there are certainly things you can do to help it along that path - and assuming both that women just can’t be expected to like sex and that men just can’t be expected to talk about their feelings strikes me as a recipe for failure.
Me, I’ll happily have sex much more often than once a month, but not if I had a husband who thought like Prager.
Lynn, an excellent response. Your penultimate paragraph rings especially true.
Wrong, Married Tom. As a feminist, I have to say that *all* sexual relationships should be completely consensual. No one is saying that men should be forced to love women who don’t want them sexually. She shouldn’t be forced to have sex with you, and you’re not forced to love. Easy! Just don’t be married if you’re unable to have a healthy sexual relationship with a woman.
Lynn, it seems to me that Prager and Married Tom and most sexists think the mutual accommodation is this: Women accommodate male sexual desire, and in turn, men lower themselves to at least pretending to love the inferior female. They also financially support them in exchange for sex, because the only relationship between men and women is transactional.
Having fought the good fight over at Townhall…with little to show for it, I thought I would share the thoughts of a happily married buddy here.
Waaay back in the day, (early twenties) Cleo’s man, John, couldn’t get enough of the hot monkey love, and he made sure that he kept Cleo’s attention. Time went by, and John still was into the hot monkey love, but it was becoming a trifle one-sided…as in “wham, bam, snore.” Cleo’s subtle hints were lost on John, and when the frank discussion finally occurred, John was pouty and defensive. Apparently, John had found his comfort zone.
But Cleo noticed that when she went out with her girlfriends sans John, John’s motivation returned with tsunami-like intensity.
Happily, John did grow up, and ceased viewing sexual pleasure as male entitlement. Cleo got past her frustration with John’s unthinking selfishness and they have gone on to make a good life together.
Cleo’s hilarious theory? Way back, John was like a dog with a well-chewed squeak toy, ignored unless another (wholly imaginary) dog was around.
The good news is that young men do grow up. The bad news is that sometimes young women have to slog through the valley of bad sex to get up the mountain of mutual appreciation.
Married Tom - in addition to badly misstating The Feminist Position, you are amusingly convinced that any Townhall commenter who claims to be a woman really is. You must be new to the Internet.
That said, the “Why Your Wife Won’t Have Sex With You” is a much more honest, thoughtful, kind and practical series about mismatched libidos and sexual disagreement in marriage. It doesn’t assume that women and men are identical, which you should approve of, but you may not like the way it doesn’t suggest that the most important thing in the world a wife can do is put out on command.
bmmg - I get the strong impression from Prager that his Jewish heritage is mostly a credential card he flashes when he fawns all over the Christianist right. No, see, I’m a Jew, people, it’s OK!