Friday, January 9, 2009

Dennis Prager Is an Immature Man


Dennis Prager is both an idiot and an immature, inconsiderate, moron of a man. Bu then this is a religion-based argument that assumes sexual relations between husband and wife are based in divine authority (Blue meme in Spiral Dynamics).

What's my point here?

Prager says that it is a woman's duty to have sex with her husband pretty much whenever he wants (barring illness or emotional distress on her part - like those are the only good reasons to not be in the mood), whether she is "in the mood" or not - it's her DUTY as a wife to surrender control of her body at her husband's whim.

What an archaic load of crap. What century is this guy living in?

A couple of quotes. This is from When a Woman Isn't in the Mood: Part II:

In Part I, I made the argument that any woman who is married to a good man and who wants a happy marriage ought to consent to at least some form of sexual relations as much as possible. (Men need to understand that intercourse should not necessarily be the goal of every sexual encounter.)

In Part II, I advance the argument that a wife should do so even when she is not in the mood for sexual relations. I am talking about mood, not about times of emotional distress or illness.

And this:

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.”

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.

Sex is a woman's obligation according to Prager - this is pretty much a Biblical assertion, based in the idea that a woman is property belonging to a man. It doesn't really matter what a woman wants. Prager thinks that a "wise" woman knows she "owes" her husband sex, which makes her a possession (no matter what Prager says), or worse an employee or slave. Why does she owe him? What is the exchange that garners the notion of owing him anything?

Don't get me wrong here, I think sex is a crucial part of a relationship or marriage. But it should be a natural expression of love between partners, not an obligation that a woman undertakes to keep her husband happy, no matter how she feels. And not something she OWES him.

Prager makes one point that sounds foolish, but is nonetheless true for some immature men. This is from the first article:

But the fact remains: Your man knows you love him by your willingness to give him your body.

2. If this is true, men really are animals.

Correct. Compared to most women's sexual nature, men's 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 nature's 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.

I agree that many men judge how much a woman loves him by how she has sex with him, and that some men will withdraw emotionally if his partner withdraws physically - but these are IMMATURE men, not fully masculine men.

A REAL man honors his partner or wife enough to know that if she is not in the mood to have sex, then the sex will suck. If she is not in the mood, it's not likely she will get properly lubricated to have sex, which sucks for both the man and the woman. And if he is a mature man, he will not withdraw emotionally because he doesn't get laid a couple of times. That's just childish.

Seriously, if a man needs to "get off" that badly, then he should just go into the bathroom and take care of business on his own. A woman married to this man will likely only get her own needs met by taking matters into her own hands, so it's only fair.

But wait, there's more:
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.
When it comes to something as intimate and vulnerable as sex (and if you don't think sex is intimate and vulnerable, then you aren't doing it right), the person who isn't in the mood gets to say NO. And I've been on both ends of this, so I know how it feels to be on either end of the NO. This is simply a matter of respecting your partners feelings - and while Prager argues that the man's feelings need to be respected, too, to insist that the woman have sex even when she doesn't want to do so is to ignore the NO, and that is RAPE. Bottom line. End of story.

Here is another of his 8 reasons why a woman should allow her husband to rape here.
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?
OK, I'm sorry, but taking care of children or friends is not the same as allowing a man to penetrate your body with, well, you get the picture. It simply isn't the same thing. A woman does nothing more intimate with her body than have sex with her husband or give birth - neither should happen against her will.

Next?
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 call bullshit. Woman and men are simply not that different when it comes to sexual desire, so this is a moronic point. From WebMD:
Sexual arousal is easily identifiable -- for men it shows up as an erection, in women, lubrication (and enlargement of the clitoris). "But desire is not just about arousal or frequency -- how often you have sex can depend on so many other circumstances and opportunities: whether you have a partner or not, whether you like your partner," says Koch.

Some researchers have begun to question how we define sex drive -- insisting that we have only looked at it from a male model, so of course women come up short. The male sex drive model resembles a straight line: It is a "linear model of sexual response, where first they have desire, then arousal, then orgasm," says Koch. For women, sexual interest follows a more meandering model. "Their drive is for emotional bonding and caring -- once they feel that, then they get aroused and interested," Koch says. "Women want and enjoy a lot more sex play than men want. It takes them longer to be stimulated through sex play than men," says Koch. What's more pleasurable to women may be affectionate physical contact that may or may not end in orgasm, and this indirectness is not a sign of a lack of sex drive.

Here's the deal - if a man is a good and loving partner, and he pays attention to and gives affection to his wife outside of the bedroom, then he will get all the sex he can handle (assuming a happy and healthy relationship). Women are different than men in how they think of sex, and as long as a man takes the time to understand this about his wife, there won't be any lack of physical affection.

The final bottom line is that a loving man who honors his loving wife with non-sexual affection, with kindness and respect, with true consideration for her feelings, this man will get all the sex he wants. If there is no real love, then all of this means nothing.


4 comments:

ned said...

Thank God someone critiqued those ridiculously juvenile and absurd articles. Prager's an idiot, for sure.

Prager seems to imply that men can't love their wives without having sex with them regularly. But that's absurd -- love and sex are two different things. What happens if the wife becomes terminally ill and can't have sex anymore? Will the husband stop loving her and start having sex with other women? (In fact, immature partners do behave in this way.)

No lasting, loving relationship can be based on sex. True love is independent of sex.

Anonymous said...

what you said is cute but I think sex needs to be more mandated in a relationship because women like to use it as blackmailing tool and can become controlling with their husband about their 'goods'.love is important but sex is par of human biology and waiting for a woman to want sex without the mans incentive sounds more empowering to her is what im saying but whatever.

Anonymous said...

It's not blackmail to need emotional safety with someone to achieve satisfying sex, idiot ^^. Did you even read the article? Only immature, self-centered dicks think of sex in a relationship as necessary for love. If you cared about and respected women you'd WANT them to be empowered. What's between her legs is hers to do with as she pleases, not "goods." What a baby.

Maunderingcabal X said...

How the fuck can liberals scream that women should be sluts when they are not married, but when someone suggests a women should have sex with their husband... they get called a sexist or crazy. Fucking why? Then they complain that women can't find men to marry to raise their illegitimate children, because they are used goods. If you follow common sense shit like that won't happen.