And it’s a discussion of how simple the difference can be between a sane, reasonable piece of sex advice for couples with sexual differences… and a grotesque regurgitation of a retrograde sexual system that made sex and love a misery for centuries, for both women and men.
You don’t want to miss this one, people.
It’s titled Sex, Moods, and a Wifeâs Selfless Duty: And We Are in What Century Again?, and here’s the teaser:
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.
To find out what this almost hilariously archaic piece of sexist dreck could possibly have in common with my own sage pieces of sex advice — and what the differences show about Prager’s real motivations — read the rest of the piece. Have fun!