Your first question, however, as an eagle-eyed reader, is probably something along the lines of, "Why is this post illustrated with a picture of a Dutch Slutty-Tranny-Claus?" And, frankly, that's because we wondered the same thing when reading Prager's new advice column.
Have we finally figured out the source of his malfunction?
But, onto the column, which delves into why women shouldn't be selfish and refuse their husbands sex just because they aren't in the mood when their husbands are in the mood to, um, selfishly demand sex. Wait, no, let's glide over that little cognitive dissonance just like Prager does and stick to attacking what he does bother to say.
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.
Yes, ladies, just like you only have sex for procreation, you only want to have sex when it's possible. Or it's possible that you're just fucked up, which really shouldn't stop your husband from slaking his animal lust on your prone form, not that him doing so would, say, tend to fuck you up or anything.
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.
Yes, and just because you have unresolved feelings about your molestation and/or rape, have body issues, are stressed out or have medical problems (including medication or undiagnosed yet curable disorders) doesn't mean you should see a doctor or a therapist and resolve those issues so that you want to have sex with your husband, you should just have sex with your husband.
Also, the female equivalent to "a man's 'out of nowhere,' and seemingly constant desire for sex" is a woman's 'out of nowhere' and seemingly constant desire for sex. But, like not all women constantly want to be fucking, not all men constantly want to be fucking (as my series of long-term relationships have most certainly taught me). Lots of people have good relationships without perfectly compatible sex drives — and it's by no means always the man jerking off.
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?
Really? Sex isn't just "an expression of love," it's also a physical act with physical consequences. Sexual desire isn't just a mood swing, it is intimately related to whether the sex act is not just pleasurable but related to whether it is actually painful. If you aren't "in the mood," your vagina often doesn't lubricate, your tissues don't swell, and the act is — at the VERY best — exceedingly unpleasant even if you do love the person. And if, as Prager barely gives lip service to, you are a survivor or molestation or rape, having someone forcibly penetrate your unwilling and unready body (your not-in-the-mood body) can well bring back bad memories or flashbacks. Not being in the mood is not the same as not wanting ice cream, it's an unwillingness to engage in sex. "In the mood" is a fucking euphemism for a willingness or desire to be aroused to engage in sex.
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.
Actually, she'd probably tell him to get a job he didn't fucking hate so much that he had to whine about it every morning, which — if she is always not in the mood — is exactly what her friends are telling her about her marriage.
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 a job pays your bills and unwanted sex is something that can hurt, humiliate, shame and ruin your fucking relationship. I have been to enough church weddings of enough religions to know that there is nothing in the damn vows which requires a woman to give up ownership and autonomy of her pussy any more than it forces a man to do the same to his genitals. It's her body. Period. And when sex is your job, that's when you're a sex worker.
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.”
Yeah, like you "should" treat your wife with appreciation, thoughtfulness and respect, and she should treat you with the same. And you should respect that there are maybe really good reasons she doesn't want to have sex with you that have nothing to do with being fickle or whatever.
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.
Oh, right, just because she can say no, even though Prager is arguing she never, ever should means he doesn't think women's vaginas are the property of their husbands, nosireebob. And just because she should feel emotionally blackmailed into it, that's not a problem either. Yeah, no wonder this mythical straw woman doesn't fuck her husband enough for Dennis Prager's liking. I wouldn't want to fuck that guy either.
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.
And, here's the cognitive dissonance part — Prager seeks to reverse this to the exact opposite. A woman should always have sex regardless of her feelings, since her husband is always feeling in the mood. But, obviously, it's different because his desires are supposedly biological and hers are always in her head.
Therefore, many women believe that it would simply be wrong to have sex with their husband when they are not in the mood to.
Not "wrong," just painful, unpleasant, not intimate, not bonding and possibly bad-memory triggering. There's a fucking difference. Also, by the way, constantly putting up with having one's husband treat one as a semi-wet hole into which to stick his dick isn't exactly going to have most women liking sex more or getting "in the mood" more.
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.
Uh, no. "Romantic" sex is not the same as "sex which provides mutual pleasure." While I would certainly argue that — given the number of women who rarely, if ever, orgasm — more women should be orgasming, plenty of women have satisfying sex (to them) without orgasm. The problem is not that women always have to be screaming their heads off in pleasure riding their husbands in practically orgiastic multi-hour sexual sessions of romantic love. It's that lying down and letting someone stick it in and hump away without regard to you as a person or whether you want to or are even physically prepared to do so is the opposite of something that someone that loves you would ever ask you to do.
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.
Or, you know, you'll spend your whole life lying to everyone around you, pretending to be someone you aren't, never form a real emotional connection and probably never be in the mood for anything until you die a bitter and unhappy person. But, hey, you'll have a smile on so other people will think you are happy. That's the same.
*By the way, Dennis Prager and I will be discussing this on his radio program at 1:00 ET on January 7th. You can call in, too.
When A Woman Isn't In the Mood: Part II [Townhall]