I am missing something. What is offensive, or even remarkable, about Dennis Prager's column?

Didn't want to post this on the original Toussie thread, since it seems to have died. But there have been developments... Bush has *reversed* the pardon. I guess he must have felt slighted by the measly 28.5K they were trying to buy him with and decided to "larn" them a lesson. Dangle the pardon in front of them and, once it made the rounds of all political blogs... Yank it back! Merry Christmas, suckers, heh, heh, heh.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/bush-reverses-brooklyn-developers-pardon/?hp

Kinda reads to me like ol' Dennis ain't gettin' any and is feeling hurt and frustrated. Might be because is appears clueless about how to build a strong emotionally bonded and fulfilling relationship with a woman, as opposed to making sure she's hot to trot whenever he feels like it.

exlibra - You're very polite to wait, despite what that paulbot said about you earlier today. Merry Xmas.

For those who do not see what might be wrong with Prager's piece, ask yourself: is it always the woman at fault? P seems to think so. The unwritten assumption running through the piece is that husbands are invariably wonderful (clean, considerate, thoughtful, subtle, sexy, and on and on) and that marriage apparently eliminates the need for flirting, seduction and so forth. The reality in a politically egalitarian world: Nobody, male or female, young or old, married or single, should have to have sex -- which a lot of us call making love, although that idiom doesn't seem to be Prager's preferred term -- if we don't feel like it. FOR WHATEVER REASON. The additional reality in the world of love making: charm and enticement and seduction are never out of fashion. And mood matters. Sex and/or making love is not just a physical exercise. It involves, if it is between caring people, feelings and emotional passion. Finally, the "heroic" restraint that P says married men exert is not, although clearly he thinks that his experience is universal, common to all men. I have known men who adored their wives so utterly that they really did not have to think twice, or put on any other brakes, in declining to drool over other women. I'm not sure this is a career ender for P, as Steve suggests, but it is embarrassing and, given its adolescent and dull take on life, something that would make grown-ups doubt any other opinion he might have.

* Dennis Prager's piece on marital sex is so offensive, I'm a little surprised Prager published it with his name on it. This is the kind of piece that looks like a career-killer.

What? What article did you read? I'm not saying he's right about everything in it, but it's hardly "so offensive" as to be a career-killer (!). In fact, I could easily see somebody like Dan Savage writing essentially the same thing.

Pennis Drager is married?

To a human being?

Yeesh.

I assume a shot gun, twelve pounds of HEX and a chainsaw were all needed to get the bride to the altar.

I view his piece (of shit) as a desperate attempt to attract really desperate neo-con groupies.

When I saw the others associated with Prager on the website linked, I could see that it is not a place I would care to visit, again. Coulter? Thompson? Why bother? I've already forgotten the URL.

peace,
st john

A 'career-killer'?? Sadly, no. I defy anyone to write that many words on that subject, and cover that much ground, and not offend at least 10-20%. Most people of both sexes who are not on some sort of gender crusade, understand that and will not be unduly outraged. If it causes dialog in couples with problems, it could actually do some good.

Ah, poor Dennis Prager. One can tell by reading his post that he's not doing it right. The fact that he's been divorced repeatedly confirms it. He (and the men who relate to him) are to be pitied, not reviled.

He simply doesn't understand sex at all. His post is an unintentional cry for help. For Prager to have reached this age and still not know the manly art of love is a tragedy.

Is there something out of the ordinary about Prager's column that I'm missing? He was born a bloated bonehead and he'll likely die a bloated bonehead. His fellow boneheads at Clownhall probably find this column "edgy" or "provocative".

Christopher Cox I almost feel sorry for. I hope to some day refer to my own fucking off on the job as "restraint."

Somebody at the Christmas traditions story needs a proofreader: turkeys could NOT have been imported to England in 1526 from the US, as reported. There was no US. I assume a typo, and it's 1726 or 1826.

Happy whatever you celebrate, all.

Is it too late to send more troops to Afghanistan?

Yes. I don't find the arguments that there was an early window of opportunity plausible in the least.

Again, through all the yap to wade through I didn't see any mention of a guy's arm being blown off for nothing or a 21 year old girl dead in her armored vehicle. What about them?

What about them!? What the fuck is it with this place? They count too. Really, motherfuckers, they do.

Re: Prager

Just one word: Ick. No, wait I have a few more words to say about it.
Ick ick ick ick ick ick ickety ick.

Prager's column essentially boils down to: if you want to keep your husband happy being married, it would behoove you to have sex with him on a regular basis, even when you're not necessarily in the mood. Again, this is basically what Dan Savage tells his readers all the time. The stuff about "giving him your body is the only way he knows you love him" is a little strange, but it is Dennis Prager.

I suspect what really offends people about the article is the thought of Dennis Prager having sex, per ajaye.

This is the kind of piece that looks like a career-killer.

As can be seen by the comments here by men who have no idea what could possibly be offensive about the idea that wives should be required to have sex whenever their husbands want no matter how the wife feels about it, Prager's career will be just fine.

Prager's article is clumsy and creepy as always, but it's basic points are pretty much in line with nearly every book I've read analyzing marital problems and common male psychology (and, as others note, decidedly non-conservative crazy Dan Savage).

Of course, Savage has the unique advantage of having buttfucked Lawrence Ferlinghetti and numerous other beatniks in the loamy furrows of hippy-dippy gayhomoland, and his distinctive stentorian voice results from still feeling icky about that, why I don't know, it's OK to blow sensitive poets, as far as I know, especially if all your listeners are manly men who just never get a break so they're total pathetic failures in life, and they're straight as arrows.

Prager's column is directed towards unhappily married couples i.e. roughly half of the population. There's nothing ground-breaking or deeply troubling in his piece; instead it's mildly creepy and painfully misguided. I find it offensive live I burnt sugar cookie: the result is regrettable but the intent was sincere.

As for those comparing it to a Dan Savage article...I hesitate to compare the two. Savage certainly advocates for consensual, open sexual dialogue. He also continually hammers on the point that sexual compatibility is essential to any relationship. What he doesn't do (and what Prager does throughout his entire article) is assume that men (and women) are a uniform and homogeneous group who all find love in the same way. Savage disputes this notion in nearly every column. What he doesn't dispute is that sex matters.

Prager's column does not suggest that wives are "required" to do anything. He is pointing out what he perceives to be different mindsets toward and attitudes about sex that (some) husbands and wives have, and cautioning that a husband who is unhappy with the carnal part of the marital relationship may not be forthcoming about his unhappiness.

Decisions regarding physical intimacy, like most other interpersonal decisions, have consequences. Men regard sex as a sign of acceptance, which is more important than women realize. Women who say "I do" but then don't should be aware of the kind of consequences that may engender. A woman who is not prepared to participate fully and enthusiastically in the conjugal part of married life may well be better off remaining single.

Unemployment continues to bleak?

Well, yeah! I have boycotted the stores for christmas. Why? Big Business lobbyed U.S. Chamber of Commerce for cheap labor, unfair trade policies, unfair labor policies.....

As far as I'm concerned, let the big businesses scramble and figure out how they are going to pay their bills like the millions of Americans they left hung out to dry.

It sounds harsh, but hey, they need a taste of their own medicine, only the strong will survive. Just as they feel some people shouldn't have bought homes, well, maybe some people should have a business.

It's only when Boy George came into office that businesses have really screwed the American people - like the old store gift card scheme, monthly fees eat up the value.

BTW, GE loaned Air Canada $195 million dollars, didn't GE Capital get TARP funds?

At last I understand why conservatives are so bitter - they just don't get enough sex. I feel sorry for Mr. Prager.

Here is another story about ethanol from algae:

http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/advantages-affordable.html

briefly: (1) uses salt water; (2) produces 10,000 gallons per year per acre; (3) does not compete with food production. The year 2009 should provide a good test of commercial viability.

If Obama puts 2.5 million Americans to work producing energy, then energy costs will stay low. Obviously, not all 2.5 million will produce energy. But every developed and developing nation is increasing its investments in alternative fuels. With petroleum inventories high (and supertankers filling up faster than being emptied, even sitting at the pumping stations waiting for the oil to be purchased) it is likely that petroleum prices will not rebound rapidly. Savings on fuel might alleviate the recession in the future, as they apparently did in November.

Cheers,

Matthew

anjell: BTW, GE loaned Air Canada $195 million dollars, didn't GE Capital get TARP funds?

Yes. The financial institutions that receive TARP money are supposed to lend it to businesses.

Does it matter that the loan is to Air Canada? If Air Canada makes good use of it, the profits accrue to GE, for further lending.

MatthewRMarler,

Yes it matters if they got U.S. taxpayer dollars to lend to another country!!!

The TARP money was supposed to be used for getting rid of subprime (toxic) loans to start lending to the American consumers for mortgages, car loans & other types of consumer credit.

MatthewRMarler,

Does it matter to you what's happening to Americans?

Americans are losing their jobs to illegal immigrants and outsourcing.

Americans are up to their ears in student loans and the jobs available is not worth the money spent on loans - can the Americans get their student loans forgiven?

Americans file bankruptcy due to medical bills, yet illegal immigrants get better care without medical insurance. Yes, some of the illegals pay cash, but others don't.

I don't think you are looking at the whole picture.
Our financial institutions went bust
Student loan institutions went bust
Car manufacturing are about to go bust

oops, wrong Savage, it was Michael Savage who had homosexual sex with the beat poets etc. It wouldn't be nearly as funny if it was Dan Savage who did it.

Not sure what is offensive about Pranger's piece. Sure, it's not PC, but it reflects reality and what most men feel, even if they dare not say it. But to call it 'so offensive' is, in itself, laughable, and denotes clear ideological bias.

anjell: Does it matter to you what's happening to Americans?

Of course. But I don't think that the TARP was a good idea, and I think that the other interventions are likely to fail. If GE capital makes money by lending to Air Canada, that will probably be better than most of what is accomplished by the many "stimuli". For all we know, they are re-lending to Canadians money that Canadians lent to the U.S.

I can't look at the whole picture in one post, but sympathy for Americans is no adequate justification for bad policies for America.

Meanwhile, it is Christmas Eve.

Merry Christmas to you. And for now, good night.

Matthew

A woman who is not prepared to participate fully and enthusiastically in the conjugal part of married life may well be better off remaining single. -- John in Nashville, @21:16

A man who thinks that a woman should perform on demand -- enthusiastically, yet! -- no matter what, might be better off remaining single and proppping up the economy by supporting the red light district (also local restaurants, dry cleaners, etc).

At least Prager doesn't ask for enthusiasm; simple submission a la Victorians ("close your eyes and think of England; it'll be over soon") would, I think, suffice, according to his lights.

"but it reflects reality and what most men feel"

See, that's the problem. It neither reflects "reality" nor "what most men feel." It's a bunch of unhinged misogynistic crap that says a lot about Prager but nothing at all about "reality." I don't think it will be a career-ender, though; I just think it's an embarrassment.

A man who thinks that a woman should perform on demand -- enthusiastically, yet! -- no matter what, might be better off remaining single and propping up the economy by supporting the red light district (also local restaurants, dry cleaners, etc).

"A man need not be single in order to do that."

That's not what exlibra wrote. He/she wrote that a man "who thinks that a woman should perform on demand" would be BETTER OFF remaining single and frequenting prostitutes . Big difference.

It would be helpful if those who insist that the column is deeply offensive would point to what parts of it, exactly, are so offensive - not just summarizing it in your own words in an obviously loaded way (E.g., "wives should be required to have sex whenever their husbands want," which is pretty obviously not what the article said).

I feel like a douche for defending Denis Prager, who I am familiar with as a scumbag of the first order. But there is nothing offensive in this piece. To claim that it is so offensive that it amounts to a "career-killer" you have to have simply read something that wasn't there. I know it's Prager and we expect him to say heinous things, but this time he just didn't.

"but it reflects reality and what most men feel."

And you know "what most men feel" how exactly? Since when are you the spokesman for the men of the world?

"THAT MOTHERFUCKER!! The soufflé fell."

A three-hankie tale of woe from a Madoff victim.

Re: Prager

Career killer? That's how he BUILT his career. He's writing to an audience that will lap that stuff right up and beg for more. Don't you remember Marabel Morgan? Thinking people tore her to shreds and made fun of her in print and on the airwaves, but her first book sold 10 million copies, and it said essentially the same thing Prager said in that article.

Re: Obama's Holiday Message

I'm too realistic to think that promoting "shared citizenship" is going to have any effect on the right-wing fringe, but I'm certainly up for a renewed sense of genuine patriotism (unlike the scary nationalism espoused but the aforementioned fringe) that celebrates and authorizes American ideals like individual freedom, personal responsibility and opportunity, and government policies that make things better for all Americans. It'll be nice if our new president can reclaim the position of "statesman" rather than being seen as a cynical, hyperpartisan jerk.

There was an article in the Atlantic about 5-10 years ago on this topic. It was hardly seen as "offensive." Yeah, but that was the Atlantic Monthly, for goodness sake, not a conservative commentator!

What is offensive about the Prager article?

Here's one part that offends me:

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). This is, therefore, usually a revelation to a woman. Many women think men's natures are similar to theirs, and this is so different from a woman's nature, that few women know this about men unless told about it.

This may be true for some men; it may even seem true to many men, but it is a drastic oversimplification of how relationships really work, and it is essentially demeaning to both women and men. Why in the world would two people of reasonable intelligence decide to get married if they have no better idea of their partner's personality and values than this implies? And is it fair to say that most men, even sexually frustrated men, are always going to interpret a wife's refusal to have sex as a sign that she doesn't love him? That's such a cop-out, and so is saying that this is the reason that most men "clam up." Men do clam up (so do women) for a variety of reasons, and in my experience (years of experience as a family systems counselor) there's a lot more to it than sexual frustration.

Or how about this part:

Incredulity is certainly the reaction most women have when first being told that a man knows he is loved when his wife gives him her body. The idea that the man she is married to, let alone a man whose intelligence she respects, will to any serious extent measure her love of him by such a carnal yardstick strikes many women as absurd and even objectionable.

That's because it IS absurd and objectionable. In may be that in our culture, some people find it easier to separate love and sex than others, but I don't think this has anything to do with this sexual "nature" of either men OR women; it has to do more with our cultural tradition of conflating sex and love. Sex can be a sign of love, but it doesn't have to be; love can result in a sexual relationship, but that isn't automatic. Sexual frustration is a sign of sexual frustration, and it can lead to feelings of inadequacy, rejection, and resentment, but that's true of both sexes. There are also plenty of people who choose to be celibate, and they manage their sexual frustration (if they have it) and live perfectly well-adjusted lives.

Perhaps the most offensive comment is this, already referenced above:

Every man who is sexually faithful to his wife already engages in daily heroic self-control.

This assumes that the woman has a lower sexual appetite than the man; it isn't necessarily true, nor is it part of any sort of sexual "nature," but let's let it slide for the sake of argument. Men, by denying their animalistic sexual nature, are "heroes," but women, who are being true to their more civilized sexual nature, are morally inferior. He's trying to make the argument that if men are "heroes" because they don't go around indiscriminately boinking anyone who's willing, women can only be heroes by having sex when they don't want to.

There's plenty more to object to, but those are the basics for me.

Uh, I met Dennis Prager maybe 20 years ago. He is so full of crap I'm amazed you read anything he writes, frankly.

Just a heads-up... the "holiday history" link goes to an ad for online auto insurance, not an article about Christmas traditions.

After 2 bitter divorces and a lifetime of clearly wanting way more sex than he's got, Dennis Prager has sagely concluded that the problem isn't with himself, the blue-balled, twice-dumped loser, but with Women. Women, he whines, just don't understand how important sex is to men, or how much it hurts their feelings when women don't 'give men their bodies' (!) when asked. His solution to this allegedly universal problem of male desire and female disinterest is, unsurprisingly, that women should just have sex, when requested, to make men feel better and loved. The End.

Possibilities that Prager apparently, hilariously, hasn't considered include:

1. The reason women in general, and his wives in particular don't want to have sex with Prager is because he's really crap in bed.

2. Women in general, and his wives in particular, DO know how important sex is to Dennis, and how crucial it is to his feeling loved, but THEY DON'T CARE. They're just not that into you Dennis.

3. Women in general, and his wives in particular, don't appreciate being treated like their bodies are insensate balms, on tap, for fragile male egos.

4. Billions of women and men are currently having much better sex, marriages and relationships than Prager ever has, and he should be asking for THEIR advice.

reading Dennis Praeger makes me realize how good my marriage is. maybe if he were as good company as my husband is, his wife would feel attracted to him.

no way that will be a career killer, if this unspeakably offensive column wasn't (trigger warning):

The Rape of a Name is Also Rape
http://world-o-crap.com/blog/?p=488
(sorry, have no idea if my hyperlink worked!)

for those who don't want to follow the link, our friend Dennis argues that it is just as traumatic for a man to be falsely accused of rape as it is for a woman to be raped.

Dennis Prager is a complete asshole.
He is also right and insightful in his article.

Marriage is tough. It takes work. I think a lot of the people who attached him in the comments are not married and do not know what it takes to work at a relationship from both sides. His piece focuses on women (so it may sound like he is blaming them), I am sure someone could write a piece that would be accurate for men. Sorry. Even a stopped clock is right once a day.

You people bug me no end sometimes.
Prager is one of the most moderate conservatives out there but because he's right of center, he's to be destroyed.

READ the words. He phrased things carefully and you glossed right over it.

A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost Not ONLY as one commenter said.
If this ISN'T the case, what DOES take the blue ribbon? A home cooked meal? Looking after the kids? What? If Prager had said home cooked meals were the best demonstration of love a woman can provide and every woman should cook once in a while, could you imagine the reaction here? Perhaps on both sides. There'd be fat jokes galore, I suppose. Instead, everyone declares him sex-starved. Put a gun to my head and ask me when I feel most loved by the Mrs.??? If I said when making love, you'd think I was sexist? It's implausible that this would be a majority of men's answer? Why all the jokes around the water cooler about how married men never get enough then? Why is something that is rumored to be true to the point of ubiquity distasteful if a conservative says it?

One commenter complained a woman never needs to give in. Prager agrees. He merely suggests that such decisions are not without consequences. Is Prager's hypothesis that infrequent marital sex produces affairs implausible? Do we deny without reservation that a mercy bonk might prevent at least a few men from wandering?

Another commneter complained that it's the man's fault sometimes. Prager covers that: 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.

Lastly, the snide looking down your nose at Prager reinforces the silence sexually frustrated men are expected to produce. Speak up about the unmet need and be met with criticism for not adequately suppressing repugnant animal instincts. Keep the stiff upper lip. They either have affairs or they do stay silent and glum, wistful, regretful, resentful. Probably anything but content. Why is this GOOD?

Let it fly. I'm pathetic, sex starved, a really bad lay, and divorced six times too. Wives would NEVER turn down their husbands if they were only skilled enough! What message does this kind of vitriol send?

What is "a mood"? How do they come about? If we wish for men to suppress their sexuality for the sake of courtesy to their beloved wives, why is it so unthinkable that we suggest women would do well to find out how to enhance their own libidos to meet them half way? Figure out what makes "a mood" happen. If you don't know, how the heck should he? If you do know, but won't say, how is that his fault and why is he being punished? If you HAVE told him, but you didn't get "in teh mood", perhaps you'll want to figure out somethign taht will. If you do know, and it DOES work, but he doesn't oblige.... well, yeah... (Don't) Screw him! If it sounds forced or formulaic, fine but it sounds like there's a whole lot of criticism going on and not much in the way of ideas to counter Prager with. Normally, criticism without better ideas to suggest is the hallmark of conservatives.

Lastly, anyone suggesting that undersexed, faithful men would have been better off frequenting prostitutes insults marriage and belittles the attraction of the fulfilling, emotionally complex art that constitutes high quality lovemaking.

Not That Dennis on December 25, 2008 at 9:34 AM

I cannot believe you are a family therapist or have ever been married. Your inability to form any empathy from the argument "Every man who is sexually faithful to his wife already engages in daily heroic self-control." shows that you have little experience being honest and open with men. Sure, he is generalizing, but to suggest that an AVERAGE man's libido is not in a completely different class than the AVERAGE woman's libido is clueless.

toowearyforoutrage on December 25, 2008 at 3:19 PM

Thank you

Well said!

Hmmm. It seems like a lot of people aren't necessarily offended by what Drum calls "something so offensive as to be...a career killer".

Now, I understand that one person's offense is another person's innocent observation; but it's hard to believe how one person's unholy abomination can another person's casual utterance, without one of those persons being seriously deluded in some way. Stalinism or Nazism or bestiality have defenders; and most would concede that they are depraved in some way. Likewise, there are those appalled by Christmas trees in schools or Christian religion in and of itself, considering both a travesty. These people, most would say, are deluded is some way.

So the question is, who is deluded? Kevin Drum, or those who would say that what Prager is saying, while questionable, is by no means evil. Prager is not saying that women should service their husbands regardless of circumstance, and he takes great pains to point out that he is not saying this. He does say that women should make an effort to perform conjugal duties. If he means that they should have sex out of pure duty, then he is IMO out of line, though not depraved. If he is saying that they might make some effort to get in the mood so as to have a mutually satisfying experience, or to at least make an effort to maintain a sex life through communication and mutual commitment, then it's just common sense. Of course, Kevin Drum's sensibilities are very delicate and fragile. Perhaps he should seek therapeutic advice to lighten up a bit.

Pauly - fair enough. But Kevin doesnt live here any more.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/

Wow! I haven't been to this site in awhile, and I just think of it instinctively as Kevin's. Embarrassing brain fart on my part. Hope it can be forgiven.

I stand by my point, though.

A wife should just learn to control her urge to chat when her husband isn't in the mood to listen.

And if she finds her husband is never in the mood to listen, then it's entirely her own fault for being such an uninteresting conversationalist.

The idea that she should measure her husband's love for her by his willingness to subject himself to her incessant yapping is offensive, and reflects an exceedingly narrow and backward understanding of the subtleties of the marital relationship.

I cannot believe you are a family therapist or have ever been married. Your inability to form any empathy from the argument "Every man who is sexually faithful to his wife already engages in daily heroic self-control." shows that you have little experience being honest and open with men. Sure, he is generalizing, but to suggest that an AVERAGE man's libido is not in a completely different class than the AVERAGE woman's libido is clueless.

My, such animosity. I can only say that your inability to believe that I am what I am doesn't surprise me; you have a cause you want to champion, and my suggestion that sexual desire is more complicated than merely measuring libido doesn't reinforce your preconceived notions, and it's pretty clear that your clinical knowledge of the topic is limited. I stand by my earlier comments, and I add this: if two physically and emotionally healthy people are married, and one of them always wants sex and the other one never wants sex, there's something much more wrong than can be attributed to anyones gender-specific "sexual nature." It's silly to suggest that this would happen merely because the woman is ignorant of the man's need to be boinked now and then so he'll know he loves her. In any healthy relationship, each partner's level of sexual interest will wax and wane for a variety of reasons; if one partner's level of desire shuts down completely, something else is wrong.

At the end of the article, as someone noted above, Prager notes: 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.

There are a lot more conditions than those two that would have to be met in order to make his argument work. People are complicated; there are thousands of factors that can affect sexual desire at any given moment. I find that most sexual incompatibility problems have more to do with underlying systemic emotional problems than with any sort of gender-related libido trope.

I think you wrong me in saying I have no empathy for the sexually frustrated; I've been there from time to time, and I have loads of empathy. That isn't the same as believing that a man who stays faithful to his wife is a hero for doing so; a hero is someone who does something extraordinarily brave, wise or noble, and being faithful in marriage is a minimal expectation. To suggest that it is heroic is to suggest that cheating is normal, and while it is all to common, it isn't the standard to which 'average' men should aspire if heroism is beyond them.

It's silly to suggest that this would happen merely because the woman is ignorant of the man's need to be boinked now and then so he'll know he loves her.

My apologies; that should have read "...so he'll know she loves him."

I'm amazed at how many comments come from people who think having sex with an unwilling or unenthusiastic partner makes for good sex. Why not grab a copy of Hustler and go to the bathroom? At least you'd be with a willing partner.

And that's aside from the issues around what's really going on when you compel sex from an unwilling partner.

Obama's holiday address was beautifully written.