Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Radio Host Calls Sex a "Wife's Selfless Duty": What Century Is This Again?

By Greta Christina, The Blowfish Blog. Posted January 9, 2009.


Dennis Prager says sex is a wife's 'duty', tapping into a toxic mythology that made both men and women miserable for decades.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The fascinating thing is this.

There's this ... thing on the Internet. A pair of columns by conservative writer/ radio host Dennis Prager, exhorting wives who aren't in the mood for sex with their husbands to suck it up and do it anyway, pretty much whenever he wants. You really have to read it for yourself (if you have high blood pressure, be sure you've taken your medication first), but here's the gist:

A man knows that his wife loves him by "her willingness to give her body to him." Therefore, she should only rarely refuse to have sex with him when he wants it. And her decision to accept or refuse sex should have nothing to do with whether she's in the mood for it, or whether she thinks she's going to enjoy it. A considerate husband will of course recognize that "there are times when a man must simply refrain from initiating sex out of concern for his wife's physical or emotional condition" ... but apart from "those times," a wife should pretty much never say "No." And her mood should have nothing to do with that decision. Sex is an obligation that a wife owes to her husband, and for a wife to refuse it simply because she's not in the mood is just plain selfish. (Oh, and by the way: This isn't just how nature made us. It's how God wants it.)

No, really. I'm serious. It'd be laughable if it weren't so appalling. I could scarcely believe it was written in this decade. It reads like a marriage manual from the '50s ... and not a very modern marriage manual from the '50s at that. It almost makes me want to call parody on it and invoke a sexual version of Poe's Law ("it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that can't be mistaken for the real thing").

But the fascinating thing is this.

If you take out all the content about gender roles?

If you take out all the sexist, retrograde, "sex is an obligation that women owe to men," "women's sexual desires are less important than men's," "close your eyes and think of England," Total Woman dreck? If you leave out the creepy, oft-repeated language about a woman "giving her body"? If you disregard the bizarre assumption that sex is always something men initiate and women either accept or reject? If you ignore the unsubstantiated at best, blatantly wrong at worst assertions about women's and men's sexualities ... including the assertion that experiencing sex as a sign of love is somehow exclusive to men? If you overlook the idea that sex with a passive, compliant meat puppet will make men feel loved and satisfied? If you pass over the glaring omissions ... such as the idea that men have an obligation to pay attention to women's sexual pleasure, and if women are repeatedly saying "No" to sex, maybe it's because their men are inconsiderate lovers who treat sex as something women do for them, instead of something they both do for each other?

If you can squint real hard and somehow ignore all that?

What he's saying is not radically different from stuff I've said in this very blog.

I, myself, have argued that you don't always need to be in the mood when you start sex. You just need to be willing to be in the mood. If you always wait until you're both in the mood -- especially if either or both of you are stressed, getting older, parents, a couple who's been together for a while, or just insanely busy -- you may wait a good long while, and will wind up having a lot less sex than either of you wants. But starting to have sex can get you in the mood, even if you weren't in the mood to start with. It's a good idea sometimes to let yourself be seduced, to start having sex before you're in the mood and let yourself get drawn in it as you go.

I've even argued -- very controversially -- that if a person unilaterally and permanently refuses sex to their partner without being willing to discuss or negotiate it, it is not automatically the worst moral choice for that partner to seek out sex elsewhere. An argument that was based on the idea that sex -- not sex on demand whenever and however you want it, but some amount of some kind of sex -- is one of the things we have a right to expect in a romantic relationship. (And no, I don't want to start that argument again. Please, for the sweet love of Loki, let's not start that argument again.)


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: sex, women, conservatives, men, dennis prager

Read more of Greta Christina at her blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Prager,huh...
Posted by: Quannah on Jan 9, 2009 7:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I were Prager's wife, it wouldn't be my "wifely duty" to have sex with that pig, rather is would be TORTURE!

Oh, Jeezus... I think I'm going to throw up...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Prager,huh... Posted by: willymack
» RE: Prager,huh... Posted by: john mont
More like "thankless duty"
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Jan 9, 2009 10:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in this Prager douchebag's case, I'm sure.

#@!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great Article
Posted by: curiousdwk on Jan 10, 2009 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really liked your article. However I think you give him too much credit to think that he even had the germ of a good idea. I think his main idea was the role of the woman rather than the responsibilities of good sex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LOL!!!!!!
Posted by: rick702 on Jan 11, 2009 4:28 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story was laughable and proves the author does not have even the most basic fundamental understanding of men.

Quote: "It's certainly possible that, on average, men tend to want sex more often than women. (I haven't seen any good research on this one way or the other ... but it wouldn't shock me.)"

Do you need research to prove the night sky is black too, or that the sun rises in the east? Because the fact that men desire sex more than women is as fundamentally proven as those two facts.

To prove my point to the obtuse among us, who commits more sex "crimes", men or women? Which is the largest connoisseur of pornography? Which gender is more commonly a prostitute, and which one is paying for their service? You don't need research to know the answers to these questions, just common sense.

Men are very simplistic, I know because I am one. Men's basic needs at the most core fundamental level are food and sex. Scientific studies have proven that men think about both consistently throughout the day. I would even go as far to say that men would live in caves or cardboard boxes if it wasn't a preventative to attracting women and acquiring sex.

Women, I will argue, desire security and stability at the core fundamental level as much as men desire sexual satisfaction. The human species has survived because of these fundamentals. Prehistoric man did not "need" prehistoric women for anything else, besides sex, as it was the only thing prehistoric man could not provide for themselves. Prehistoric man was capable or providing both food and shelter for himself, but the desire for sex made him seek women to share those resources in exchange for sex, which is a good thing because it kept the species going.

I will further argue that while both genders have evolved to be self-sustaining, the primitive desires of both sexes remain with us today. Men work to provide for and fulfill women's most primitive desires in exchange for the fulfillment of their own. You don't need scientific research and studies to prove this point, just watch MTV for an hour and it will be clear what both genders portray as their currency of trade.

Where I do agree with the author, because I as a man have evolved from this primitive mentality, is that women should not be forced to have sex if they do not so desire. However, as with basic physics, ever action has a reaction and those consequences should be weighed in the decision of telling your partner yes or no. The primitive desires within us all balance like a scale, and when one side tips too much out of balance, the other side may seek someone else to fulfill those primitive desires and balance the scale on both sides.

Furthermore, it must be said, I found the authors opinion to be very anti-male, bordering on the opinion of that to be expected form a man-hating feminist lesbian that lacks the basic understanding of sexual relations between men and women do to a bias hatred for men as sexual beings. That being said, I took as much offense to the moronic nature of this article as the author did to the writings of Dennis Prager, for whom I also do not agree with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: LOL!!!!!! Posted by: classylady
» RE: LOL!!!!!! Posted by: daniel347x
» RE: Not always. Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Not always. Posted by: Joni50
» RE: I'll take your word on it. Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Not always. Posted by: terrizosia
» RE: Where does it even come from? Posted by: mandiwrite
» hunter-gatherer societies Posted by: rick702
» RE: LOL!!!!!! Posted by: laoma
» RE: LOL!!!!!! Posted by: rick702
» RE: I used to think that way too! Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: LOL!!!!!! Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» You beat me to it! Posted by: LeeAnnG
» RE: LOL!!!!!! Posted by: rick702
» RE: LOL!!!!!! Posted by: aebartle
» RE: LOL!!!!!! Posted by: rick702
» RE: LOL!!!!!! Posted by: WingedGryphon
» RE: LOL!!!!!! Posted by: rick702
PRAGER IS A GAY MAN
Posted by: classylady on Jan 11, 2009 9:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wifely duty is rat poison in your dinner for any person who believes what Prager is quoted to say here ... Orgasms for all, when WE want them! Prager needs a real woman to teach him about authentic female desire. It is a WOMANS fault this opinion exists, its our duty to not tolerate this viewpoint. All are responsible.

AMY - Age 35 - Hetero - Married 4 Years

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You call that sex advice? Puhleaze!
Posted by: rickiey on Jan 12, 2009 2:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's some actually useful sex advice from an expert (myself) based on my over-a-decade marriage:

If you are a man, and you want laid, do your wife's share of the housework without her asking.

Not only is it more effective at getting the results you want, but the resultant quality of the sex will be better, do the the available energy and interest of said wife.

Cuz regardless of what the idiot in the above article, and the other article think, sex with a woman who is "doing her wifely duty" is more boring than masturbation. (Except when you are in your early years and still shocked you are getting laid in the first place).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» NAILED IT Posted by: Chaimirija
» LISTEN TO THIS MAN! Posted by: cyr3n
No REALLY Mean NO
Posted by: jmmartin on Jan 12, 2009 5:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a growing number of states, no really means no. If a husband forces himself on his wife, he can be charged with rape. This talk show host is full of baloney. His bull is based on the Bubble. Once folks learn the truth -- that the Bubble was written by patriarchal chauvinists and cannot be the word of "God" because there isn't one -- this nonsense will hopefully stop.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Simple solution
Posted by: wardropper on Jan 12, 2009 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cut off his gonads and hang them in front of his workplace.
Otherwise the stupid animal might breed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Holy Monkey! Cool it with the caps, no one likes to be yelled at and basic rights are never a waste
Posted by: thekidde on Jan 12, 2009 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of discourse. Duh!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Calling Lorena Bobbitt.
Posted by: thekidde on Jan 12, 2009 7:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Calling Lorena Bobbitt. Posted by: Cybershaman
What about...
Posted by: jdavis on Jan 12, 2009 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...men who expect their wives to "perform" whenever they want, but when the wife is in the mood, he often brushes her off and says, "I don't feel like it." Then if he does manage, he leaves her feeling like he did her a big favor.

Who wants to be intimate with a MAN who's just "doing his duty"?

I've been married for a long time and I doubt there's hope for change, but just stated my thoughts, anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Equal opportunity
Posted by: BST on Jan 12, 2009 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women's desires are NOT less powerful than those of men. With the right guy, eyyyooowwh.

When a woman or man quits being eager or even interested, the SO may be the problem. Time for introspection and a heart-to-heart.

These are the only duties.

Signed, a woman who knows

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Level playing field, LOL
Posted by: BST on Jan 12, 2009 8:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BTW, I concur with LOL, above, on one point, the one about balancing acts.

A number of women friends have left their marriages to do just that with other livelier men. They didn't get what they needed at home.

Modern working women can now indulge their desires since they need men less than they once did for financial security and stability.

It's leveled the playing (and loving) field back to basics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Level playing field, LOL Posted by: rick702
the sex in a relationship will probably resemble its other aspects
Posted by: Suzon on Jan 12, 2009 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A partner's insensitivity and coldness in bed is likely to experienced in the rest of the relationship.

Fortunately, a loving and interested partner will please you in bed and elsewhere (and you will willingly respond in kind).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stop using Sex as a weapon in Relationships.
Posted by: mapthinking on Jan 12, 2009 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nobody got the point I think Dennis Prager was trying to make.

First, it was likely addressed to the wives/ S.O.'s of men who would never force themselves on anyone!

So let me reiterate the heart of the problem Prager is addressing and quote Ms. Christina.

"I've even argued -- very controversially -- that if a person unilaterally and permanently refuses sex to their partner without being willing to discuss or negotiate it, it is not automatically the worst moral choice for that partner to seek out sex elsewhere"

And THAT is exactly the problem. Prager's audience is mostly religious or have sentiments that agree with most of the precepts of Judaism or Christianity.

There is no choice but to go without. Seeking sex elsewhere is not a moral choice, period.
Even to most masturbation is off limits. You can argue what you want based on this but is is what it is for many.

While I don't have statistics to back this up at hand (would they be correct for this audience anyways?) I know this is a common issue from the amount of time dedicated to this topic in books and on Christian programming. One popular book for men even admonishes husbands to stay faithful and stay married even if his spouse never has sex with him again.

So why would a woman deny herself her own pleasure?

Some of it is remnants of Victorian thought that taught women that sex was dirty and sinful and should not be enjoyed.

Another take on that is that Sex is not supposed to be important which seems to be the 2009 take on the subject in religious.

Both limit frequency and also experimentation so the spouse can learn her body (also considered off limits even to herself) and learn to enjoy herself fully.

Let's make this worse.

Some women bring Abuse to relationships. This must be treated with compassion and counseling.

But others bring baggage, hurts (not abuse), or predispositions towards men that reduce or eliminate their desire. Sometimes it lays dormant and awakes when women become mothers. Others use it as a power play and get some satisfaction from denying their spouse. In most cases, the spouse is unwilling to seek the counseling or treatments that would promote healing that would allow them to enjoy sex again.

With that last example in mind, I wonder if Ms. Christina would also say "Suck it up" and get healthy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's about the framing. Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: It's about the framing. Posted by: mapthinking
» RE: It's about the framing. Posted by: WingedGryphon
What is He Talking About?
Posted by: nen on Jan 12, 2009 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My wife is perpetually horny. No really. Like, five minutes after we've had sex she wants it again. All the time. 24/7, unless she's sick. I've just had major surgery and I really can't have sex right now due to the amount of pain I'm in and trust me, I'm really feeling the pressure. I'm feeling like a bad husband for not satisfying her sexual needs.

Thankfully, we're in an open relationship so we can have some "swinging" friends over to play with her and I can be pleased by watching her enjoy herself. But I have to say that this Prager fellow is full of crap. I don't even think that my experience is uncommon. My wife and I practice the Tantra and I wholly believe that Shakti (the female sexual energy) is powerful, alive, and very much full of passion and desire. ACTIVE desire.

Don't get me wrong, she does all sorts of cute things to seduce me and I love it. But sometimes I'm tired or hurt or pissed off about something and I really don't feel like the horizontal mambo. It's much better to have her help in dealing with whatever is bothering me so we can have some fun, or just let me sleep. She's not stupid. She knows when I'm not into it and to me, it really dishonors the act of lovemaking when you just give a half-assed effort.

Sex is not my job. You know what we call people who have sex as a job? Prostitutes. If they owe sex to you, you owe them money. Just remember that. There's no love involved when someone "owes" you sex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What is He Talking About? Posted by: mainspark
It should be the hubby's duty, too
Posted by: harpy on Jan 12, 2009 10:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey guys, admit it. You've been married for a while and the only time (many) of you guys want sex is the quickie, usually doggy style, which does absolutely NOTHING for the wife or girl friend. Oh yeah, and that's usually in the morning when testosterone is way up, and it leaves the woman with a "wet spot" in her panties the rest of the day. (yuck!) Wham, bam, thank you, ma'am! Maybe if some of you guys would take the time to get your groove on at bedtime or before when there's time to relax and enjoy it, you'd get a better response.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: RIGHT ON SISTER! Posted by: Pirate1
» RE: IGHT ON SISTER! Posted by: terrizosia
masturbation solves this problem
Posted by: billwald on Jan 12, 2009 11:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peanut Farmer's surgeon general who advocated teaching masturbation a generation ago? She was right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

who cares what radio jocks say?
Posted by: luzmejor on Jan 12, 2009 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They are the least reliable source of anything normal in relationships or in any other line of reasoning.

People like that spend a lot of time thinking about what might make people hot under the collar. They can then say it on the air and be free of the unpleasant or dangerous consequences of their deliberately cruel sniping at others.

I bet that is one way they satisfy their own needs to feel superior.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brenda Kay Winters
Posted by: brenniewinters on Jan 12, 2009 3:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a marriage, sex is for pleasure and procreation. Never it is a duty when you love someone. Women are more sexually complicated. She looks at her ulgy man and has to think,"Do I want this man's children?" "Do I want to risk my life? "Many,of both sexes, cheat. It is better to be single that catch an incurable disease, which you may catch by kissing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why even give a guy like this collumn space?
Posted by: Pirate1 on Jan 12, 2009 3:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sad thing is, though, that in many parts of this country people unquestioningly believe this to be true! Their churches reinforce it, too many of the marriage laws imply it if they don't say it blatantly.

People who come to these pages assume that everyone else thinks Praeger is an ass whereas they'd be shocked, I think, to find his views are considered correct to most people who follow the Bible, the Koran or the book of Mormon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Huh?
Posted by: 4changenow on Jan 12, 2009 8:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excuse me --I was not listening real well -- did this come from a Rush LImbaugh satire? Thank you

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When, and ONLY when
Posted by: willymack on Jan 12, 2009 8:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're BOTH in the mood, do it with plenty of affection and tenderness, and do it S-L-O-W-L-Y..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: When, and ONLY when Posted by: WingedGryphon
Fundies and other conservo whackjobs
Posted by: DaBear on Jan 12, 2009 10:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It never ceases to amaze me that for a bunch of "traditionalists" that fundies and conservotrons purport to be, they more often than not throw out centuries of their own respective "traditional" culture....

Prager musta forgot his Judaism... where "traditionalist" Orthies claim that sex is a woman's right not a man's. Only the male is "obligated" to have sex with his wife, on her terms.

But of course that might seem feminist and Prager and his ilk just can't have any of that shit smoking around in their parlors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ha
Posted by: MDS on Feb 7, 2009 12:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's why he is a radioshow host and I'm in HR at a company. He deals the bull and I have to clean up his mess.

GET A REAL JOB RADIO MAN!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re:
Posted by: day080209 on Feb 8, 2009 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
prom hairstyles 2009

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]