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]

Earlier: Conservative Dennis Prager Knows It's Not Rape If His Wife "Submits"

Like Tucker Carlson before him, Prager thinks the key to a successful marriage is just doing it even when you don't want to. In Prager's case, he means "whenever your husband wants," regardless of your "mood," which shouldn't matter. Of course, you could be in that mood because your husband is a liar and a cheat, or because he's just driven your family into debt or hit you (not too hard, of course, but things happen), but as long as he wants to fuck, well, you should suck it up and submit.

According to Prager, women just don't understand that men view your willingness to "submit" to his penetration of your body as the way that you show love.

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. 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). 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.

I mean, of course women don't desire sex for the sake of, you know, "pleasure" (and certainly not in Dennis Prager's house), so it's obviously all about love. Deep, deep love, which your husband returns so deeply that he has to stick his dick in you all the time whether you want to or not!

Prager adds that women should just accept that men are filthy dirty pigs about sex even when they love you, and women are not being kind if they refuse to let their husbands penetrate them vaginally anytime their husbands want. I mean, look at all the self-denial husbands engage in by not fucking every other woman in the world!

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.

I mean, right ladies? Your husband could be regularly having sex with other women [Ed.: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA] so it's your solemn duty to shut up, lie down and spread them whenever he wants to thank him for that daily, nay, hourly sacrifice of not fucking other people like he promised to do "for richer and for poorer and in sickness and in health." Otherwise, you know...

Deny him enough times and he may try to fill this need with another woman.

Also, by the way, his desire for constant fucking regardless of your needs or desires is, after all, why you didn't marry a pussy.

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.

See, if your husband is understanding of your sex drive and needs, he's just a pussy and you didn't date a pussy because you wanted some asshole with enough drive to take care of your material needs like all women do, so put out already, Jesus. Quid pro quo, ladies.

I mean, not that it's actually enough to only tell your husband "no" so infrequently that he barely notices. Because, really, even once will mean he's unfulfilled and will fuck around on you anyway.

But, to repeat the key point, rejection of sex should happen infrequently. And it should almost never be dependent on mood...At the same time, men need to recognize that complete sexual fulfillment is unattainable in this world.

So, as long as you never refuse to have sex, happily accommodate his every sexual whim and never think about what you want or need sexually, Dennis Prager will happily inform your husband not to seek actual complete sexual fulfillment because he'll never have that no matter how much you "submit."

Gosh, it must be so much fun to be married to Dennis Prager, what with all the submission and fucking and being told what to do to make him happy even if you can never fulfill him sexually. Guess that's why he's been divorced twice.

When a Woman Isn't in the Mood: Part I [Townhall]

Related: Dennis Prager [Wikipedia]

Earlier: Tucker Carlson's Guide To Not Getting Divorced

At least Hollander admitted to the New Yorker that he's got better luck with women when he can talk to them rather then when they get a look at his mug — though he refused to cop to his age, his résumé suggests he turned 50 since his divorce. He says, post-divorce, "I tend to be attracted to black and Latin chicks, and Asian chicks," so all you ladies of color out there, he likes to hang out at the Copa and salsa dance, which I'm sure he's, like, totally good at.

But to today's tall tale of woe from the man that feminists forgot — or tried to, anyway. He looks like that creepy guy that used to go to the 19+ clubs in college and stare at all the girls who wouldn't fuck him. But, obviously, that's not his fault for being a creepy bastard trying too recapture his lost youth by boning drunk chicks half his age, it's Feminism's fault for convincing drunk chicks half his age that they could do better. Way better.

And where does feminism inculcate women to eschew boning creepy old dudes that will divorce you in 10 years for the younger model because there will always be a younger model? Why, Columbia University, where Roy Den did his M.B.A. If you can't get laid at Columbia as a 40 year old asshole-y MBA student, really, it's the fault of the goddamned Women's Studies Department. So he's suing them for "using government aid to preach a 'religionist belief system called feminism.'" Feminism, as we all know, teaches us to hate Men, "spreading prejudice and fostering animosity and distrust toward men with the result of the wholesale violation of men’s rights due to ignorance, falsehoods and malice." Also, it "demonizes men and exalts women in order to justify discrimination against men based on collective guilt." Thus, since Feminism is a religion dedicated to violating the God-given rights of men, Columbia's program violates the Constitution of the United States and must die a litigious death.

Look, I took a women's study class in college, with a woman who considered herself a prominent first-wave feminist. If there was any class that taught me to dislike and take with a grain of salt any first-waver who said she was out there to help me, it was that class with that arrogant, undermining, fake-nice woman who gave me the lowest grade in the class (despite the highest marks throughout) for daring to disagree with her policy prescriptions and political philosophy during class discussion. I got my feminism from my dad, jerk-face, who taught me that I am any man's equal and many men's better and that I don't have to and never should kowtow to a man for anything, including sex, money, love or support.

So, look, I would almost feel bad for you that your ex-wife conned you into marrying her so she could get her green card, but you're such a jerk I kind of don't. But your friends in Russia said that if you're so damned desperate to get back to a society in which women are considered 2nd-class citizens and the "rights" of men are respected by the courts over the rights of women (especially in cases of date rape, which you so lovingly advocate in your New Yorker profile as the way things ought to be), you can always go back to Russia. I'm sure we'd even take up a collection to help buy you a plane ticket.

Roy Den Hollander's Résumé [Roydenhollander.com]
Lawyer Files Antifeminist Suit Against Columbia [NY Times]
Hey La-a-a-dies [New Yorker]

Nothing symbolizes spineless deference more than a man on bended knee proposing marriage to his girlfriend.

If this was the start of an argument about why there should be more equality in marriage rituals, I'd be all for it. But, sadly, no. It's just about how getting on one knee is "emasculating" rather than respectful. And, while he notes that women file about 70 percent of the divorce claims in this country (up from 62 percent in 1867!) and claims that it's to extract money and vengeance from their husbands, he neglects the research in the article he posts on his own site that shows that most women end up less well-off after their marriages than during and that women are significantly less likely than men to re-marry. But that's okay because it doesn't prove his thesis that women are money-hungry, deceiving harpies out to take men's balls.

Supposedly, the basis of marriage has changed over time — evolving from parentally arranged unions focused on property, wealth, station, and lineage to modern ones in which the fiancés freely choose each other out of love and compatibility.
In reality, the more things have changed, the more they’ve stayed the same. Marriages, in 2008, still are about money and children, as their dissolutions ultimately prove.

Well, if Marc's right, then this must explain why I'm single because I have my own money and no great urge to breed... except, then, by Marc's reasoning men should be falling at my feet and I'm still single. Also, back to the thesis that women marry to extract money and offspring through men and then leave them, despite all the evidence that women end up financially worse off after a divorce. Is anyone else starting to get the sense that Marc had an alimony or child support payment due this week? It is the first of the month.

Despite all the talk about feminism and equality, Americans, via outmoded chivalry and unconstitutional reproduction, child-custody, rape, and domestic-violence laws, keep women in perpetual childhood. Yes, American women have grown accustomed to being spared risk, pain, and disappointment.
Because most men have been raised to make women happy, to close that painful gap between expectation and reality, the penalty for failing is tremendous.

What is unconstitutional reproduction, anyway? Also, yes, Marc, laws which punish men for forcibly inserting their penii into any of my orifices against my will with or without the use of a deadly weapon are keeping me in perpetual childhood. Guess that makes my rapists child rapists. And, gosh, those laws have SO spared me disappointment, risk and pain since they've totally kept me from being raped or physically assaulted by a boyfriend, not that they actually, you know, did or anything. And I'm sorry your wife got custody of your kid(s), but the more I read this, frankly, the more I'm thinking the judge made a good call.

Women just don’t like to admit that feminarcissism is the rule, not the exception. Why is this? Most men tolerate and enable it out of false necessity: they naïvely believe that women have weak libidos. Such ignorance about female sexuality drives all irrational male behavior

Riiight. Well, we all know that some of us have damn strong libidos and, if I can personalize this just as much as Marc has, my willingness to have sex has definitely not stemmed any tide of irrational male behavior. Also, I think a lot of people [cough, Marc Rudov, cough] are pretty damn narcissistic.

Why is it that women who falsely accuse men of rape or domestic violence are never prosecuted?

Because this happens exactly how often? More or less than actual crimes, including rape? Less, right? Ok, so, let's call that a distribution of resources, especially since I'm going to just guess here that Marc's also one of those Republicans who doesn't like paying taxes so much. Also, "winning" a court case or having a prosecutor decline to prosecute doesn't mean the victim was lying — or that the defendant is innocent. He's just "Not Guilty." God knows no one ever gets away with crimes in this county.

In fact, Clinton is a hypocrite. Her presidential campaign and Website were all about women, women, women — which is overt sexism.

Yes, God forbid a candidate for President reach out to 51 percent of the citizens of this country.

Tell a woman she’s too weak to be an executive in your company or commander in chief of the US Armed Forces, and see how fast you get a call from the EEOC. Now, tell her she’s too strong to require special protection from VAWA, the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act that Joe Biden, the US Senate’s biggest woman-pleaser, created. Now, watch her victimhood side emerge to explain her vulnerabilities. Basically, women are strong when it suits them and weak when it suits them, and men, suffering from vaginaphobia, just go along with it.

Did he just call Joe Biden a playa? And, yes, domestic violence requires no special laws or anything which is why we've so successfully stamped it out in this country. And men who recognize that it does are scared of not getting laid. Also, since when is brute strength required to be a CEO or a military commander? I'm sure that Marc would also argue that the 100 American women killed in Iraq only got killed because they were weak.

A man’s welfare, in this gynocracy that men built, depends on a woman’s mood, her ethics, the state in which she lives, and the reluctance of an unknown future judge or jury to “disappoint” her. The playing field is unlevel because men — afraid of being called misogynists and afraid of not getting laid — allowed it to happen, continue to tolerate it, and won’t fight it.

Well, at least he isn't still claiming that women built the so-called gynocracy, even as he claims that a society which pays women 80 cents for every dollar men earn is female-dominated. Of course, "getting laid" is also a part of a man's welfare, so I'm guessing Marc has rather limited interests. Has he ever heard of masturbation?

This is, annoyingly, part of a larger trend in which people "bemoan" the loss of some past in which men were Men, women were home and society and every about it was perfect and hunky-dory and no one had any problems. Of course, that perfect society spawned the feminist movement because it was just a false facade of a perfect society. There was still adultery, divorce, domestic violence, drug abuse, rape and women getting custody of their kids by rote (one of Marc's apparent pet peeves). Of course, the problem was no one talked about it or did anything about it, so it seemed better than today when people are talking about it and trying to do things about it and some of those things require that men and women adjust to changing gender roles and social expectations. What it doesn't require, as Marc suggests, is that men "grow a pair."

I'm all for having an honest discussion about the way that judges and courts seem to privilege mothers in custody cases regardless of the situation which, it can be argued, is rooted in sexism about a woman's "proper" role in the family and manifests itself as sexism about the role of fathers. But when it comes with this kind of sexist, misogynist "men need to grow a pair and give women the sexing they won't admit they really want but just look at what she's wearing" baggage, well, this is why the father's movement keeps losing the battle. Epic fail, Marc.

Thou Shalt Not Disappoint Her [The No Nonsense Man]
"These Boots Are Made For Walking": Why Most Divorce Filers are Women [American Law And Economics Association]

Photo(shop) courtesy of Shakesville