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 Wife’s 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!
The thing that jumps out from that article is how incredibly inflexible he is in his ideas of sex. He wants it and she doesn’t? She just has to do it. No alternatives, like, say, she pleasures him and he gives her a massage or goes down on her or does something else she’d like, or she puts on that lingerie set he likes and keeps him company while he pleasures himself, or he gets himself off rubbing on her skin but doesn’t penetrate her, or, well, any other kind of lovemaking that doesn’t involve sticking it in.
Nope, his idea of resolution is insults all the way – a ‘wise, loving’ woman would do what I want, honey, so if you say no I guess that makes you cold and stupid.
Which suggests something: if this guy’s idea of seduction is ‘Just let me do it or I’ll call you unfeminine,’ it might explain why his wife wants sex less than he does.
When I read his article I thought of yours about saying no, so perhaps your articles have influenced me to “get it” — thanks!
I also immediately thought about your article about being in the mood to be in the mood when I first heard of Prager’s articles, over in Dispatches.
I similarly noticed that Prager could have written something sensible, but chickened out and reverted to standard christian conservative crap.
I love his idiotic comparison between the “hardworking man” i.e. “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 â indeed, ought to â refuse sex because she is not in the mood? Why?”
Not only is there the implicit gender roles assumptions but he’s basically implying a wife is just a live in prostitute….
From the blowfish blog: “you donât always need to be in the mood when you start sex. You just need to be willing to be in the mood.”
I’ve been married 15 years now and one of the greatest sex devices we discovered early on was “two minutes”. If one of us was in the mood, and the other didn’t seem to be, the person in the mood would ask “Can I have two minutes?” This simple question has allowed us to acknowledge “I’m not in the mood, but I’m willing to be in the mood”. The huge majority of the time, it works (present tense intended because we still use it).
The guy’s way, way off. I mean, there’s something to be said for occasionally doing it when your partner wants it, even if you don’t–but out of love, not obligation. This guy has it wrong.
I like the “two minute” idea. I guess my husband and I have been doing that for years without putting it in words. It’s just basic consideration. And it’s not necessary for both people to want and get the same thing at the same time. That mutual orgasm thing is both overrated and improbable.
I love Rick’s “two minute” idea. However, at first I thought he was going to say that was all the time he would need for sex. So, even if she wasn’t in the mood, could she just consider it for two minutes (a.k.a. quickie).
We’ve been doing this for years. Sometimes, I am SO not in the mood but, I can be considerate of his needs for two minutes (which is all it takes when he’s motivated). Lo and behold I GET motivated during these two minutes and both of us get to have the BEST two minutes of our day.
Thinking of it in this light..I can honestly say that in our 13 years of marriage, I have NEVER turned my husband down or he me. (“he me?, is that correct grammar?).
On all other occasions, we give it the usual 15 minutes. (No, really.)
Good post. It all comes down to partners communicating honestly with each other and being open to gentle persuasion.
There is plenty wrong with Prager’s piece. For example, Ed Brayton commented on the fact that this guy assumes that it is alwyas going to the man who will want sex only to find that his wife is not in the mood, whereas there are plenty of couples in which the woman has a higher libido.
Or couples in which both have similar sex drives, but enjoy different things, and then the compromise comes down to what desires are satisfied during each session.
Prager really does seem to live in his own little world, giving advise to patch up little problems created by the enormous problem and others like him persist in maintaining.
Keep in mind, of course, that Prager’s “expertise” has probably played a part in his two divorces.