It takes a certain je ne sais quoi to unabashedly argue in favor of marital rape. Of course columnist Dennis Prager doesn't call it that. No no, he prefers to use some sort of bizarre high school logic about how ladies who really love their man will "give her body" on demand.
It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom.
And here I thought the "if you really loved me" argument was only relegated to after-school specials! How wrong I was.
First, women need to recognize how a man understands a wife's 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).
Haha, because the ideas of men's bodies as commodities is ridiculous, of course! Outside of the insulting notion that men only recognize love through sex, Prager also seems to think that sex is simply about women "giving" their bodies to men. (In fact, he writes some variation of the phrase "give your body" or "deprive your body" multiple times in the article.) The idea that sex could be a mutually enjoyable and wanted expression of love is lost on the dude. Which is actually pretty sad.
Prager goes on to write that men are no more than animals, and that "every man who is sexually faithful to his wife already engages in daily heroic self-control." (Seriously.) But don't worry, gals, Prager has a sensitive side:
Of course, there are times when a man must simply refrain from initiating sex out of concern for his wife's physical or emotional condition.
Talk about a keeper!
Yes Means Yes contributor (and long-time Feministing commenter) Thomas actually has a great essay that gets to the heart of what's wrong with Prager's ideas about sex:
We live in a culture where sex is not so much an act as a thing: a substance that can be given, bought, sold, or stolen, that has a value and a supply-and-demand curve. In this "commodity model," sex is like a ticket; women have it and men try to get it.
In this case, Prager seems to believe that men have an inherent right to the whole frigging box office.
Melissa, Jesse and Jeff have more.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Dennis Prager: Nothing says "I love you" like marital rape.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11121
this is only part I!
"In Part II, I will explain in detail why mood should play little or no role in a woman's determining whether she has sex with her husband."
yes, please explain sexual assault. in detail.
PS Prager is twice divorced. hmmm....
Good Lord, Part II IS bad! (http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/12/30/when_a_woman_isnt_in_the_mood_part_ii)
My favourites:
"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?"
Someone below already said it, but... I'm confused, aren't women the ones who consider sex an act of love?
"What if your husband woke up one day and announced that he was not in the mood to go to work?"
So....sex--optional, supposed-to-be-fun, enjoyable, mood-based sex--is comparable to work--mandatory, not-fun, way-to-eat-and-pay-rent-and-survive work? Um, I don't THINK so.
"The baby boom generation elevated feelings to a status higher than codes of behavior."
Then guys should deal with the resistance and, you know, go whack off or something.
I'm all for give-and-take. Sometimes the unwilling oblige to the willing, but sometimes the willing must respect the desires of the unwilling, whether male, female or somewhere in between.
It sounded to me more like this article was suggesting to women that they should usually consent to sex even if they aren't in the mood, not that men should force sex on their wives even without their consent. I didn't see anything that could be interpreted as supporting rape.
I have a whole separate issue with the constant contradiction of both wanting and not wanting to allow for sex as a commodity.
Of course I think Prager is a moron and everything he writes is basically the inane rambling of
I got cut off but I guess this way you can choose your own insult.
Choosing your own insult is excellent.
The idea of it being rape is the coercive nature of it. It's not the husband holding his wife down and forcing himself on her, but a trap built out of a relationship where you really don't have any say because of the expectations of the marriage. When you start removing a person's ability to honestly say yes or no and have that honored without any sort of emotional blackmail in return, it's hardly consensual, will probably always be resented, and will probably make it very difficult for that woman to ever go on to having a healthy relationship should she finally leave the bastard. I'd imagine the woman feeling very suffocated, ignored, and helpless.
Or, shorter: it's not the "have sex even when you're not in the mood" that's suggesting rape, but rather the full attitude towards women and the utter disregard for them that's being exhibited.
Exactly, it is not like he is going to say "raping your wife is ok, go ahead and do it". The idea is that mutuaility should be the place where sex happens. We don't even have laws that speak of mutuality, only consent. If consent can be bent, then its meaningless, and this article points towards that bend. Dennis should be working towards mutuality, not bending the consent of wives.
I just think there's a danger in over-labeling things as rape. Rape is a serious accusation make of someone. You're likening the husband whose wife doesn't seem that into sex but is going through the motions for his sake in the same basket as a man holding down a struggling woman.
Everything Prager says is highly unhealthy, and not good for anyone, and I would approve of beating him with various blunt objects. But one can't say that a woman's free will has been usurped just by "expectations" within a marriage. A woman still has the responsibility to say and do what she wants. Obviously this doesn't apply to abusive or forcefully coercive relationships, etc., but just saying that there is pressure on a woman to have sex because she's married doesn't amount to rape.
I agree that the whole message is fucked up and the whole way of thinking about relationships is dangerous and disgusting, I just want to be cautious with the use of a very serious term.
Rape is not limited to physically over powering a woman. Rape can also happen via coercion, by authoritative manipulation or impaired consent. One could argue that this article supports all three of those.
I don't think anyone is saying all women who are married are raped, which it seems is terminal end of your agancy concern.
What we are talking about is someone who is writing froma platform about manipulation of consent, which works to justify marital rape. Would you want a guy who agree's with this article on a marital rape jury?
I just think there's a danger in over-labeling things as rape.
Yeah, that's dangerous. It might lead to an environment where men don't get the poon they so richly deserve.
Let me give you an example of how not to be a rape apologist asshat:
"My goodness gracious, Jessica, I never realized before how removing women's sexual agency by advocating a marital relationship where the woman has no right to refuse sex is so close to rape! This point of view, while different from my own, is worth contemplating."
I love you.
How to write a Frumious B comment:
1) Do not carefully read the argument you're replying to.
2) Attack the commenter with a badass flair.
3) Include a slang word for vagina.
Yes, maybe it's CLOSE to rape. But it's not. And that's all he was arguing. He certainly did not deserve to be called a rape apologist asshat.
It's almost like I'm being accused of saying something I didn't say...
How poignant. For example:
He's not advocating that. He's not saying "no right to refuse", he's telling women they should not refuse. I know that this isn't a fun distinction. I know it's easier to get mad and write angry posts when you can just ignore it and pretend he's saying something else. I know it's easy to get mad at me for ruining the fun. So I won't take the insult personally.
He's essentially saying, IF they refuse, they're in the wronger, morally/in terms of being a good wife/whatev.
And I'm pretty sure that's what FrumiousB meant, not the physical incapability of refusing, but the inability to refuse and be considered "in the right" which is a lot like promoting marital rape.
Because think about it.
A husband and wife go to court and she says "he raped me"
And the jury asks "well, were you not agreeing to have sex at that moment? Because if you were, you are a bad wife."
See how that situation becomes a little disfunctional? Assigning blame for a rape becomes difficult if you're operating under an assumption that wives aren't supposed to say "no"... which is exactly why marital rape wasn't illegal until the late 70s.
He's essentially saying, IF they refuse, they're in the wrong, morally/in terms of being a good wife/whatev.
And I'm pretty sure that's what FrumiousB meant, not the physical incapability of refusing, but the inability to refuse and be considered "in the right" which is a lot like promoting marital rape.
Because think about it.
A husband and wife go to court and she says "he raped me"
And the jury asks "well, were you not agreeing to have sex at that moment? Because if you were, you are a bad wife."
See how that situation becomes a little disfunctional? Assigning blame for a rape becomes difficult if you're operating under an assumption that wives aren't supposed to say "no"... which is exactly why marital rape wasn't illegal until the late 70s.
Its like people expect Prager would write "beat you wife and rape her".
He won't and that is why it is SO important to carefully analyze the implications of what he DOES say. What he does say changes the implications of what a wife's ability to consent looks like while married.
Rape doesn't require force but it does require lack of consent, and in all honestly force is under defined, because without consent some type of force is needed, and that type of force is conveinently applied by Prager's article. This article is aimed at changing what a wife is expected to consent to.
Overall it tries to blame the women for thier husbands clamming up, instead of the relationship (which takes two) for being a sexless (or sexlow) one.
I wouldn't expect him to write that. I agree that that's why it's important to analyze the implications. In fact, I agree that all the implications are messed up. I agree with almost everything. But hey, he's still not saying what you said he's not saying. And that is, in fact, all I'm saying.
But the article does say what most of us have shown over and over again, so we'll just have to agree to disagree until someone is able to break it down differently.
When you say "he's telling women they should not refuse" that is proving my point exactly.
Your first comment tried to point out that he is not telling men to disregard consent, but he is telling women to disregard thier own consent. This is blatently trying to change what consent inside of marrige is versus consent outside of marriage. He is saying, you are married, so you should really feel like you have the right to consent becasue your obligation to have sex is more important. That sets up a situation for marital rape.
His second post goes even further to proving my poiint about what he said.
From: http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/dennis_prager_divorce_in_a_bottle/
"This is why Prager’s advocating marital rape, no matter what he says - he accepts that a lack of consent should be honored if given, but then spends his time arguing that it should never be given, because she owes it to the man to always say yes. Accepting a woman’s consent or lack thereof to sex is kind of meaningless if it’s bracketed by the belief that there’s almost never a legitimate lack of consent to be given."
Well, he's not advocating holding-her-down-and-forcibly-penetrating-her, but he's advancing a viewpoint that leads to rape and perpetuating a whole host of misogynist lies about women, men and sex.
For instance:
Women don't like sex, so whether she consents or not she's not going to have a good time.
Men are animals who deserve cookies for using some sexual restraint.
Men conflate sex and love (I thought it was women who did that!).
Sex is a commodity rather than a mutually enjoyable activity.
Blah blah blah PUKE!
I agree with all of this, I just think it's important to note that supporting a view that leads to more people committing rape is not the same thing as supporting rape.
Telling women that they should have sex with their husbands even if they're not in the mood is much different than telling husbands that they should just rape their wives when they won't have consensual sex.
Then we are in agreement. For the record, I do not believe he is promoting marital rape in this article. But the way he thinks about sex is very "rapey" and anti-woman. Following his advice would put one in dangerous, damaging territory.
Supporting a viewpoint that leads to more people committing rape is supporting rape culture. Supporting rape culture supports rape.
Whatever you think you're accomplishing by defending (to whatever extent) the viewpoint that leads to more people committing rape, you're not. You're just contributing to rape culture too (it might be coercion.. it might be almost rape... it might lead to more people committing rape... but don't get so upset everybody, it's not rape!!)
Fewer women would be raped if they were simply monitored at all times. Is one supporting rape culture if they think women should be free to go where and do what they please without constant supervision? Presumably not.
All I'm defending is the willingness to condemn what deserves condemnation without decaying into setting up new straw men to hate when they're not there. Someone telling women to submit to their husbands is bad. But someone telling men to rape their wives is worse. It's still unjust to condemn someone for a crime they didn't commit, even if it's a morally repugnant person in the first place.
Monitored by whom?
Police officers rape!
Husbands rape!
Boyfriends rape!
Your suggestion isn't ethical because you're taking away victims rights. It's not quite the same as telling perpetrators that their reasoning isn't acceptable...
I'm sickened by this. I'm not even able to articulate an eloquent response, that's how sickened I am.
(...)women should not expect men to read their minds. He is her man, not her mother.(...)
I can't even count the number of times he wrote, that the man/husband won't speak his mind to his wife. Oh yes I can: six times. SIX times he wrote that the husband wont tell his wife that he wants more sex (if that indeed isn't something the idiot brewed up himself) or that he is hurt by her refusal. To conclude: the woman should read her husbands mind and be his mother, because he's too hurt and embarrassed by his own male/sexual/animalistic nature to ever speak up himself. Hows about giving some credit to grown up men!
We have morons like this in Denmark too. One in particular holds the idea, that a woman should praise her husbands' penis several times a day or else he will be sad. She must also always consent to sex in the garden, or else he will feel that she is too embarrassed by him to have sex in public/in front of the neighbours. Ha ha.
It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom.
Besides which...who wants to have sex with someone who isn't in the mood? Aside from the equality/feminism aspect of mutuality...how about the fact that sex isn't any fun unless all parties involved...are...well...INVOLVED.
Otherwise...my I suggest masturbation?
You would think, right? But my similar assumption was dashed to bits a few months ago by comments here on an article defending some guy having sex with his wife-in-a-coma.
I'm never sure where the incredulity here comes from. Men widely claim that sex with an uninterested woman is still perfectly enjoyable, and there's much evidence that they really believe it. I'm not sure why anyone insists that what is true for them must be true for others. Alixana's point is poignant, if... disturbing.
The problem is that women are not expected to enjoy sex (or worse, not supposed to). The idea of the female orgasm is still novel to many people. And I'm sorry, a guy that really loves you would and should want you to enjoy the sex to. Maybe you think I'm trying to force my opinion on people, but I think a healthy, equal relationship is what should be pushed in this country.
The views in this article just promote an archaic view of hetero sex that is at best - stupid, immature, sexist and ignorant, and at worst - possessive and dangerous.
I agree with everything you just said.
Don't apologize! That's an excellent point. You should never apologize for your opinions. That reminds me of the stereotype that ladies should be quiet and apologetic when they're not. Unrelated to this subject, but linked through the sexism.
I actually agree. It was really more of a sarcastic "sorry". Like "aw, too bad" if you feel differently.
And there are plenty of men who claim that sex with an uninterested woman ISN'T enjoyable.
Why must the ones most willing to objectify women get to speak for all of them?
OF COURSE plenty of men will be resistant to the idea of a culture where men and women are equal and men lose some of their privilige. That doesn't mean they're IN THE RIGHT. I would think on a feminist site more people would get that. I guess it's easy to take women's advances in status for granted sometimes...
Judging by the popularity of violent, even rape, porn among many men, it's not that hard to believe. For some, an unwilling partner is hotter to fuck than an enthusiastic willing one.
Misogyny exists and almost everyone is infected to some degree.
Hmmm...perhaps I should rephrase.
[What decent human being] wants to have sex with someone who isn't in the mood?
There I answered my own question.
So, the conclusion, if you are uninterested in whether your partner is enjoying the sexual experience you are per se a shitty human being.
But masturbation is WRONG! Jesus prefers you to rape your lady. Even if she's in a coma, or sick, or pregnant, or tired or depressed or just doesn't fucking feel like it. THERE IS NO REASON FOR MARRIED WOMEN TO REFUSE SEX. EVER. Please remember that, gals. Being uninterested, for whatever reason, isn't a one way ticket to no-sex land. Don't even try it.
OOPS! I was trying to reply to Kristen's original comment, the one that suggested masturbation.
A marriage to me is about mutual sacrifice, which involves doing a lot of things you're not in the mood to do. I probably wouldn't marry a woman who didn't understand that we were sexually responsible for one another (this counts for me too!).
However, this involves abandoning the notion of sex-as-a-bargaining-chip entirely. Treating sex as a commodity the man owns is a lot more destructive than treating it as a commodity the woman owns, but I don't think either arrangement is really conducive to marriage.
That's actually really funny. Because one time, when trying to motive my guy to do some work I said as a joke "Don't make me be one of those girls who with-hold sex." and he said, "But that only works with girls who usually have sex when they don't want to anyway. So that doesn't really apply to us." And I was like, oh yeah good point. So that's how that works! LOL
"sexually responsible for one another"?
Most of us live the first 10 or 15 years of are post-adolescent life unmarried.
Maybe kind of sexually frustrated, but not exactly suffering horribly either.
Why should marriage be all about satisfying each others' sexual needs, however, whenever?
That whole idea to me is just a bit "icky". I can take care of my own desires now, while single, and I don't expect that to change. I wouldn't want to have sex with anyone who wasn't feeling up to it at that moment.
First off, it bears mentioning that Prager wrote this for Town Hall...not exactly the bastion of progressive thought. If this were the Huffington Post, I could understand the outrage...but not Town Hall. I mean, really -- this is a website that proudly boasts the following quote on its front page: "When 'Buy American' becomes 'buy from a subsidized welfare recipient' I start to sour in the enthusiasm department." Way to have pride in the unions!
That said...this WHOLE article is a rape apologist article. Consider how he ends it:
"I conclude Part I with this clarification: Everything written here applies under two conditions: 1. The woman is married to a good man. 2. She wants him to be a happy husband. If either condition is not present, nothing written here matters. But if you are a woman who loves your husband, what is written here can be the most important thing you will read concerning your marriage. Because chances are the man you love won't tell you."
If the woman is married to a good man, he WILL tell her if he feels that it's a potential problem spot in their relationship. And if he DOESN'T tell her -- doesn't value her opinion, or their relationship, enough to, y'know, TALK to her -- he's NOT a good man.
I ALSO think this is an issue that Prager himself has had. I mean, really, who would want to have sex with THIS asshole?
And I LOVE, absolutely LOVE, how he compares men to animals. Hey, Prager? NEWSFLASH. Human beings -- male and female -- ARE animals in the scientific sense of the word. (I could always turn this around and say, yes men are animals, but women are Goddesses!...but I believe in equality of the gender-neutral kind...)
Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt are somersaulting in their graves...
You know, I really don't understand this mentality. I don't get how any person, male or female, could get off on anything less than their partner's total and enthusiastic consent. Grudging or coerced 'consent' from one party would really put a damper on things for the other part. You would think. That is, of course, unless like this turd Prager, you view women's bodies as little more than masturbation aids for men. Sheesh!
Again, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't so. You wouldn't apply that attitude to any other view.
Well then, doubleb, how about you EXPLAIN why not acquiring consent from the other party makes it a legitimate experience? (This I gotta hear...)
A "legitimate experience?" What do you mean by that? It's an unethical, immoral, self-centered thing to do, but people do it.
Let me clarify:
What I meant to ask was, how does it make it RIGHT, even though it happens? And nor should we excuse it, or be apologists for it, because it happens within the confines of marriage.
doubleb was arguing, throughout this and other posts, that men claim that non-consensual sex is enjoyable. My challenge to him/her was to present reasons as to why this thought process -- i.e., it's OK to have sex with someone who doesn't want it -- makes non-consensual sex enjoyable.
I didn't say that it's "right", nor would I. I'm just talking about factual situations, not whether they are right or wrong. Can men enjoy sex when their partner isn't enthusiastic? Yes? Then we're done, that was my point.
And this wasn't the original post anyway. The original comment was in response to "enthusiastic" versus "grudging" consent. I grudgingly, not enthusiastically, agree to pick up my drunk roommate from the bar. That doesn't mean I've been coerced, it just means I am doing something I'm not thrilled about because it won't hurt me and he'll really appreciate it. I'm not going anywhere with this that you wouldn't want to go. I'm not setting up some killer anti-woman point. I'm just saying that grudging consent isn't the same as coercion.
Picking up your drunk roommate and having sex really can't be compared.
It's not right, and no one's saying it is.
DoubleB said that some men claim that non-con sex is enjoyable, not all of them.
I assume that male rape fantasies (of being the rapist) work the same way as some women's rape fantasies: it's taboo, for one, and it revolves around power and vulnerability.
Rape and marital rape are motivated by different things: rape is about power and control, far more than it it's about sex or getting off.
Marital rape revolves, I think, around the rapist (usually the husband) feeling a sense of entitlement towards sex -- that it's something he (or she) should automatically get from his (or her) spouse, and will use violence (emotional or physical) to get.
However, a desire to rape that's played out in the form of rape fantasies and rape play is not necessarily a bad thing. Actual rape is completely different -- both illegal and despicable.
You know, I really don't understand this mentality. I don't get how any person, male or female, could get off on anything less than their partner's total and enthusiastic consent. Grudging or coerced 'consent' from one party would really put a damper on things for the other party.
You would think.
That is, of course, unless like Prager, you view women's bodies as little more than masturbation aids for men. Sheesh!
The thing that (well, one of them) makes this article so eerie is a complete lack of concern about why a partner wouldn't be in the mood. If you had a good sex life, and then it stopped, running off and pouting and being hurt would make sense...if you were 5. As an adult in a partnership, you should start being concerned about the other person over yourself. Illness and problems outside the bedroom can manifest inside the bedroom, and if you care less about that than having your genitals massaged, you're just an asswipe.
Of course, that all might be a moot point as Prager seems to be operating from the assumption that only men like sex.
Right. They think only men like sex, so it's not seen as abnormal that a woman wouldn't be interested.
But if a woman is not only disinterested but also unwilling, you'd THINK these men could look in the mirror to see if there's anything THEY'RE doing or not doing that might be putting her off of sexytime. But sexual incompatibility is never the man's fault; it's always a "problem" with the woman. There's really no way out of this sort of mental quagmire.
"But sexual incompatibility is never the man's fault; it's always a "problem" with the woman. "
Well exactly, women are prone to hysteria, you know? Silly women!
Uuuuugh...WTFfffff....
See, my partner may get frustrated when I'm not in the mood, but he deals with it. He's a freaking GROWN MAN. He can control his urges. Or he can sneak off into the bathroom if he really needs to...
The point is that we've discussed it. He said so himself that he'd rather wait for when I'm in the mood because he wants us both to enjoy it. He can't enjoy it very much if I don't. Or he can tell if my mind is elsewhere, and that makes him feel worse. He would rather I be there with him than reduce myself to just a warm hole.
Likewise, I do make a greater attempt to maybe try to get in the mood if I think it's possible. You know, you're not always 100% into the idea, but 60% can possibly be persuaded...(I mean that in a cute way, of course). But if I'm really not into it at all, he backs off. I always give him a reason and he understands and sometimes I'll feel like it in a few hours or the next night.
The point is that men are NOT animals. Saying they are only gives them the freedom to do whatever they want, follow every impulse without consequence. It's the grown-up version of "boys will be boys". Men have self control. Their head won't explode without sex. And if you're in a healthy relationship, then chances are he knows you love him even without "giving yourself" to him nightly. And no, I don't think calling that attitude a "rapist" one is too much, because convincing a woman that she has no choice in the matter is a statutory rape situation. If a woman believe she is in a weak or subservient position, she will often let sex to happen without physical force- but that's not the same as consent. We have such a backwards mentality of what healthy sex and healthy coupling is like in American. And frankly, the law needs to catch up with logic and contemporary reasoning. It was only after Lorena Bobbit that people realized that rape within a marriage was even a concept (assuming that the woman is just obliged to give it up all the time. The idea was that raping your wife was like stealing your own car.)
Dennis Prager aside, the whole "Men are animals and that's why they gotta have sex all the time!" thing is very illogical. At least when paired with the usual "Men are the logical sex. Women are hysterical and emotional".
I mean, if you absolutely need to have sex all the time or otherwise you explode - that's pretty damn emotional, right?
Spock out.
Even my sister's chihuahua, who loves to hump despite having been neutered, knows not to hump the female dog or the cat he lives with. He confines his animal lust to his stuffed animals.
I never thought of it like that. It must kind of suck, the horndog/pure logic dichotomy. Every time someone says that women shouldn't be leaders because we have hysterical uteri I think I'll say that men shouldn't lead because they can't help having sex all the time.
I completely agree. Highly illogical. Live long and prosper.
The thing that really peeves me here is that there is a legitimate issue at hand that he could have addressed.
That issue is people getting into relationships where one person will expect a different amount of sex than the other person does. (This is a subset of the more general problem of different sexual expectations.)
It is perfectly legitimate for a married person to say "I want us to have more sex, or I will be unhappy in this relationship and ultimately leave you." It is not inherently emotional blackmail (though it could be delivered as such).
I think sensible adults should be able to clarify this before getting married or financially dependent on each other. I think Feministing's to-do list hits a lot of things that will help adults be able to have those talks (sex ed, women sexual empowerment, general increased frankness about sex and pleasure).
But, it remains a valid lifestyle choice for there to be a couple in which partner A pleasures partner B largely or entirely for partner B's sake.
I'm not entirely convinced that the point lying beneath this guy's article isn't the above. But I am certain that everything about the way he wrote the article reflects unhealthy sexuality.
What you said makes sense. Maybe times sex is a big problem in the relationship and needs to be dealt with via compromise and actively trying to make a change.
But this article is not advocating a logical discussion about wants & needs between two partners, as you said. He is saying that women should know that men want sex, that men can only know that they are loved if the woman submits to sex whenever asked. He says that the woman should be able to anticipate the wants/needs/thoughts of the man.
He is literally FOR the opposite of what you're saying.
Yeah, what I think happened with that:
1. He had a marriage or two end because he wasn't sexually satisfied, and failed to talk about it well.
2. He assumed most other marriages were the same.
3. Somewhere in his brain, he was thinking, "well, everything would have been fine if they'd just made that insignificant sacrifice for our greater happiness!"
4. Article happened.
(5. ???
6. Profit!)
LOL. Nice South Park reference.
So your saying that this guy used the same principles to "fix" marriages that Freud used to analyze the brain. - Whatever was true for him, MUST have be true for everyone else!
I agree with the feministing to-do list part and that's about it.
Amen.
Some nights I am not necessarily enthusiastic about sex, but it's hardly an offensive or unpleasant idea. If my partner's horny at those times, sure, why not? It might not be the best sex that either of us have ever had, but it doesn't really bother me... and sometimes I'll get more into the mood once we get going.
Granted, what makes this even more different from the kind of relationship that Prager is talking about is that it works both ways. Sometimes my boyfriend is not chafing at the bit, but I am eager. If he has no real objection, we'll have a go.
This is obviously not an arrangement that works for everyone, but it's served us well. We talk about our feelings and desires frankly and both of us can (and sometimes do) say no. In those instances, there's no guilt tripping or coercion-- that's just how it goes.
Relationships involve give-and-take and I don't think labeling all instances of one-sidedly horny sex as rape is accurate. Or that acknowledging that having that kind of sex is one possible accommodation for differences in sex drive between two partners is rape apologism.
Bottom line: No one owes ANYONE sex, period. But there is such a thing as a sexual favor. If given freely, I don't see that as a problem.
I've encountered several men who had the "men are animals, we need women to temper our urges" and I never understood that kind of attitude. I dislike the idea that men are just animals and I don't understand why some men accept the idea and seem to be proud of it. Not only does it exempt them from any responsibility for their actions, it's a really degrading idea, as degrading as the idea that women need men to protect them. Why would you promote that for your own gender?
You answered your own question. It exempts them from responsibility.
True that.
The obvious problem for men who say that is that there are examples everywhere of men who are not animals; so the most any one man can be saying is "I am an animal and don't want to control myself". And it seems like that's usually exactly what they mean.
This is exactly the sort of entitlement minded attitude that is exhibited not only in rapists, but in abusive partners in general. Divorced twice, huh? Gee I am SOOOO surprised!
This loser needs to invest in a Real Doll, not only can a human sized piece of sculpted latex never refuse him, but he's simply not grown-up enough to be in a big-boy relationship with an actual human who has complex moods and emotions.
Allowing Dennis Prager access to a "Real Doll" would an insult to the craftsmanship of "Real Dolls".
They may be made of latex, but they are supposed to be treated with respect by men (and in some cases women) who respect them. Dennis Prager has proven that he is incapable of respecting anything that is even remotely feminine.
Real Dolls are better than Dennis Prager.
assholes...we haz it.
Since Jessica noted that Prager is a precise example of what I was talking about, I posted on this over at Yes Means Yes Blog.
For purely demented reasons, like when you can't throw away old milk without sniffing it first, I am wondering how much Dennis Prager is "getting".
I'm guessing little to none.
I've now posted this onto my blog as well (http://sparliament.wordpress.com), but I've put in a real-world example based on an email a friend of mine sent me a few months ago. It's worth looking at to see how these attitudes really do lead to an environment where saying "no" is not an option, even if you don't consent, either.
Not only do I hate this type of argument in terms of women (us being just "bodies" to be given) but also for men. How demeaning is it for men to still be considered just "animals" at heart? That pigeon-holes them just as much as women as commodities to be traded. I know there are plenty of men out there who want a responsive partner, and arguments like this piss me off on their behalf (not to mention the blatant sexism, of course).
Of note: according to one commenter, contraception "...can be somewhat compared to bulimia" because it's a way of using external forces to fix a problem that can be solved naturally.
Haha... really?
This reminds me. Rabbi Schmuley was on CNN last night and made a comment about the situation. He made the point that usually men spend their marriage making the act unenjoyable to the point that women don't want it anymore. When that happens, they blame game and say that it's her fault for being a woman and not wanting it, when really they have been putting out the fire. He also put away the myth that women don't want sex and admitted that the evidence shows that women have a very powerful libido. I just thought it was interesting note.
Also, I love Rabbi Schmuley!
That's the point I made on my blog too! My friend was pressured into sex and kept giving in all the time until she eventually saw it as a chore and couldn't enjoy or desire it any more. Sometimes boys can be so silly! :p
OK, so lets take this guy seriously and for one moment think that he is right: Men are irrational animals. They can not control their sexual urges.
Would we not then have to conclude that men as irrational child-like creatures who must be overseen by a rational female? After all, he states means sexual desires are more "primitive."
Thus the right to decide when and how to have sex must fall on the more evolved female partner. Because the man is irrational we ought to ignore his silly babble. He is after all an animal and I do not negotiate with my cat on whether it gets to eat canned food or dried food.
Wonderful!
I must say, I am heartened that the most eloquent rebuttals to Prager's arguments come from men.
When I was younger, the pastor of the church my parents dragged me to said that 'women should keep their husbands satisfied so that the men don't stray.' Seriously. Said it in a sermon. He was such an asshole. This is the same fuck that told my mother she couldn't take my sisters and me to counseling after our cousin(who lived with us) molested us. He said my older sister wanted it, and that me and my little sister had lied, because my mom told us to. He told my parents to 'pray about it.' Didn't even advise them to report him, send him to counseling, or send him to live somewhere else. Just told my mother to 'submit' to my father and stop 'making up stories.' Then he suggested that my cousin go live with a different church family, who just so happened to have 2 toddlers. Which is where he went. If I ever see that fuckingsonofabitch again I'm going to tell him everything that my cousin did to me, in detail. He had daughters my age and younger. I wonder what he'd do if they were raped. Probably tell them they shouldn't have been wearing their hair down. Sorry for the rant, I'm just pissed. This comment is more about what turned me away from religion than the story itself, but as you can see, this attitude is connected to other misogynistic ideas about sex and women.
I'm really over this age-old "sex is for men" bit. Really, we're STILL doing this?! I can't believe Prager actually said things like "give him your body," etc. Why can't we just say, "if one partner wants to have sex way more than the other one does, you need to talk about it"? I just love that everything HAS to be gender-specific and that it HAS to be about male pleasure. You can just smell the fear of female orgasm radiating from Prager. "If women are allowed to orgasm, they will take over the world. I just know it. Are you with me, men?!"
I also love how laughably crowded with absurd assumptions the article is. He states all these bullshit things as if they're fact, and expects us to accept them enough to go, "indeed, now please, expound upon this!" Example: his "5 most common responses from women" bit. Where are you getting this?! You just decided that these are probably the most common responses? You asked three of your male friends? The pseudo-research paper style, with not a single hard fact, really gets me. ARGH.
I'm really over this age-old "sex is for men" bit. Really, we're STILL doing this?! I can't believe Prager actually said things like "give him your body," etc. Why can't we just say, "if one partner wants to have sex way more than the other one does, you need to talk about it"? I just love that everything HAS to be gender-specific and that it HAS to be about male pleasure. You can just smell the fear of female orgasm radiating from Prager. "If women are allowed to orgasm, they will take over the world. I just know it. Are you with me, men?!"
I also love how laughably crowded with absurd assumptions the article is. He states all these bullshit things as if they're fact, and expects us to accept them enough to go, "indeed, now please, expound upon this!" Example: his "5 most common responses from women" bit. Where are you getting this?! You just decided that these are probably the most common responses? You asked three of your male friends? The pseudo-research paper style, with not a single hard fact, really gets me. ARGH.
Dammit! Sorry, I didn't mean to reply twice. Can I delete a reply?
I am quite surprised that there is much quibbling about what constitutes rape on a feminist site.
Having been raped twice myself, I can say that I was not "held down" or struggling in either case. Rape (in relationships - and that is what this article is about) usually happens when a man decides he will take no for an answer.
Example: I was continually asked by an ex-boyfriend to do anal sex with him. I continually refused. So one day, he decides to "surprise" me by pushing his penis into me. It hurt so much that I threw him off me - and promptly dumped him and made his name mud. H
e used much manipulation and coercion throughout the relationship to have anal sex with me - and I refused each time. After the rape, I was confused and angry but his manipulation had done it's job. Mental abuse usually precedes physical and sexual abuse - its's how abusers abuse. So any situation where a woman (or man) is coerced or manipulated into sex she does not want is RAPE.
Thanks for sharing your story. I'm sorry it was so horrible. And I agree- it's so strange that most people here think that rape is only physically overpowering someone. Rape is what happens when sex & sexuality are used as vehicles for domination and abuse. This can happen in a number of ways, as I mentioned in another comment.
I think you mentioning this is really important. And I think the legal system is still really behind on defining rape. Additionally, I also find it upsetting that often perps are accused of "sexual assault" instead of rape, which is something not taken seriously since it's such a general term that could mean anything from an unwanted grope to unwanted sex that somehow falls into the grey area of rape.
It only gets better with Part Two: Driving "Have Sex Even when You Don't Want Too" Into the Ground
"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."
I wnat someone to explain to me how this isn't saying women shouldn't believe they have the right to say no. Please.
He doesn't even follow a logical argument, he just says stuff. He hasn't even begun to show how women are't property in a situation where they owe husbands sex. Just the mere suggestion they owe it reinforces the suggestion he is trying to refute. It is amazing feat of logical hogwash.
I don't even understand how these mutual obligations he speaks of are divorced from moods and rights. Partners in a relationship have obligations to each other to uphold each others' rights and acknowledge each others' moods. It's called being in a relationship, which is built on all sorts of things other than just sex.
I don't even like the word "obligations" - yes, we have obligations and duties to our partners, we owe them things, but it's not a transactional nature as those words suggest. We do things because when we love someone, we truly want the things we do to have a positive effect on them, not because we are required to. If my partner is in the mood and I'm not, and I still decide to have sex with him, it's because I want to make him feel good and feel that closeness with him, not because I feel obligated. You know, sharing.
Feeling obligated is for situations like going to visit Great Aunt Ruthie even though she repeats her stories 400 times and smells like cabbage.
Jessica...STOP TREATING WOMEN LIKE CHILDREN! If a woman consents, then it's not rape, even if she's not in the mood. So, what, a woman's mood is now held in higher regard than the woman herself? Unbelievable.