Alas, a Blog

Remember Dennis Prager? Sure you do! He’s the guy who told women that they really want is to stay home and keep the house nice for their husbands. Prager’s only 0-for-2 on marriage, so clearly he has his finger on the pulse of what makes marriages work. And this week, ladies, he’s looking at you, and what you’re not doing to keep your man happy.

I’ll give you a hint: it’s about sex. But first, grandiosity:

Given our preoccupation with politics and economics, it is easy to forget that for most of us micro issues still play a greater role in our lives. So here are some thoughts that, as heretical as they might sound, have been found extremely helpful, sometimes even marriage-saving, from listeners to my radio show, which features a male-female hour every week.

Awesome! Because the marriage that Dennis Prager can save is worth saving, right?

The subject is one of the most common problems that besets marriages: the wife who is not in the mood and the consequently frustrated and hurt husband.

Now, this is going to happen from time to time. One partner’s gonna be in the mood, the other won’t be. The solution that most of us who’ve been in relationships have settled on is to wait until tomorrow, and check again. Now, if our partner is never in the mood, that may be a problem, but it’s usually a sign of a deeper problem in the relationship.

Oh, and it’s not always husbands in the mood and wives who aren’t, but Dennis will hand-wave that away.

There are marriages with the opposite problem — a wife who is frustrated and hurt because her husband is rarely in the mood. But, as important and as destructive as that problem is, it has different causes and different solutions, and is therefore not addressed here. What is addressed is the far more common problem of He [sic] wants, she doesnt want.

Because the idea that men and women who aren’t interested in sex could have similar reasons for that is completely alien to Prager. If a woman doesn’t want sex, she’s frigid and cold, whereas if a man doesn’t want sex, it’s probably because his partner gained a lot of weight or something. Certainly, it’s not his fault.

Also, I love that He is capitalized, like the man is a god; it’s appropriate.

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.

Well, yes, because, you know, if someone doesn’t want to have sex, then forcing them to have sex would be…oh geez…what’s that word again?

Anyhow, yes, it’s true, most men in relationships don’t want to rape their partners, and so if we’re told that our partners aren’t in the mood, we accept that, because, you know, we’re not rapists. But Prager thinks that women should just lie back, and think of England:

First, women need to recognize how a man understands a wifes 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.

Wait — what? Really? That’s how I know I’m in love — because of the sexy? Because, you know, no, that’s not true. When I was married, I knew I was in love and loved because I was in love. If my then-wife didn’t want to have sex on a given night, I knew it wasn’t because she hated me, but because she didn’t want to have sex on a given night. Heck, there were nights she was in the mood, and I wasn’t. And nights we both weren’t in the mood, and nights we both were, because we’re both human beings with internal drives.

Moreover, I’ve never been “given” anyone’s body. I’ve had sex. But that doesn’t mean I was in possession of anyone’s body save my own.

Which Prager lampshades here:

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).

Of course, because, you know, women don’t own things. Men own women, and their bodies. Women don’t own men’s bodies — silly women, thinking such things!

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

And what are women’s needs? Um…let’s talk about men some more:

This is a major reason many husbands clam up. A man whose wife frequently denies him sex will first be hurt, then sad, then angry, then quiet. And most men will never tell their wives why they have become quiet and distant. They are afraid to tell their wives. They are often made to feel ashamed of their male sexual nature, and they are humiliated (indeed emasculated) by feeling that they are reduced to having to beg for sex.

Interesting choice of words, that. Prager highlights “emasculated,” so let’s go right there. It’s evidently “emasculating” to have to ask your partner for sex. She might say no! Well, yes, she might. Such is life.

But if it bothers you, there’s nothing less masculine than slinking away and not saying anything. Hey, having sex drives that don’t mesh can be a problem for couples. But if you don’t say anything about it, then how is your partner supposed to know? Clairvoyance?

Anyhow, Prager assumes that he knows women so well that he knows how women will react when they find out that their husbands aren’t being honest with them and telling them about their feelings.

When first told this about men, women generally react in one or more of five ways:

1. You have to be kidding. That certainly isnt my way of knowing if he loves me. There have to be deeper ways than sex for me to show my husband that I love him.

You know, it’s funny, but there are, and men are aware of them. You think that all those men are getting married and into long-term relationships for the sex? Hell, no! Yes, it’s a nice side benefit, but men marry women for the same reason women marry men — to join in a partnership, to be together with one person for (at least in theory) the rest of your lives. To build a life together, as friends and partners and lovers.

There are things about marriage I miss, and things I don’t. Sex is on the latter list. I can go out and find someone to have sex with if I so desire. I can’t have a quickie deep, meaningful relationship.

2. If this is true, men really are animals.

Fortunately, it’s not true, because yes, if the only way that men understood love was through sex, then we’d be really emotionally stupid animals.

3. Not my man. He knows I love him by the kind and loving way I treat him.

Yes, he probably does.

4. You have it backwards. If he truly loved me, he wouldnt expect sex when Im not in the mood.

This is, in fact, true. Yes, sex in a long-term relationships has its trade-offs and compromises, just as every other part of long-term relationships does. But there’s nothing that says you can’t go masturbate if you really need an orgasm tonight. Frankly, if your partner isn’t having fun, that’s pretty much what you’re doing anyhow, only you’re making them miserable, too.

5. I know this and thats why I rarely say no to sex.

This, of course, would mean that sex is happening regularly, so yeah.

You’ll be unsurprised to find out that Prager has a brilliant response to each of these strawman answers.

To number one:

The most common female reaction to hearing about mens sexual nature is incredulity, often followed by denial. These are entirely understandable reactions given how profoundly different — and how seemingly more primitive — mens sexual nature is compared to womens.

Christ on a cracker, but Prager is stupid.

You know what, Dennis? Women actually like sex. They like it a lot. I know, that may not be your experience, but trust me, most women actually enjoy having sex with their partners. This is, of course, primative — birds do it, bees do it, educated fleas do it, and Dennis Prager does it — but it’s equal-opportunity primative.

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.

Okay, I’m going to stop snarking long enough to say that yes, I know that there are relationships out there where sex has stopped, on one side or the other. And that this is hurtful to the rejected party.

But that’s not news; physical affection is part of how humans express love, and if one party stops being affectionate, then that’s a sign that there is some rejection afoot.

Here’s the thing, though: if sex is stopping, it’s usually not just because of sex. There’s usually a deeper reason in the relationship. Sex is the symptom, not the disease. If one partner doesn’t want sex, ever, then it’s probable that partner is having a problem, not with sex, but with the relationship itself.

This can only be solved through honest discussion, and indeed, sometimes it can’t be solved at all. But honesty works both ways; if the partner who is interested in sex never pipes up, then we never get to a discussion.

But the question that should matter to a woman who loves her man is not whether this proposition speaks poorly or well of male nature. It is whether it is true. And it is true beyond anything she can imagine. A woman who often deprives her husband of her body is guaranteed to injure him and to injure the marriage — no matter what her female friends say, no matter what a sympathetic therapist says, and no matter what her man says. (Very few men will confess to the amount of hurt and eventual anger they experience when repeatedly denied sex).

Well, it all depends on what “repeatedly” means. And “true,” of course, since there are many, many, many examples of women and men who settle in to a pattern where sex is rare, and both parties are happy — because that’s what their sex drive demands.

And of course, what’s an acceptable amount of sex? Why, Dennis Prager doesn’t know:

Of course, there are times when a man must simply refrain from initiating sex out of concern for his wifes physical or emotional condition. And then there are men for whom sex rarely has anything to do with making love or whose frequency of demands are excessive. (What excessive means ought to be determined by the couple before the refusals begin, or continue.) But the fact remains: Your man knows you love him by your willingness to give him your body.

And how often you “give” it to him is a number that Dennis Prager won’t give you, because you’re just supposed to know.

Now, what of point two — that men are animals? Well, yes, men and women are animals. Homo sapiens, to be precise, unless you’re part of the scientific group that thinks Pan sapiens is more accurate. At any rate, we most certainly are animals, and all humans have an animalistic side.

But while women are expected to control that side of themselves, men — well, we just can’t help it.

Compared to most womens sexual nature, mens sexual nature is far closer to that of animals. So what? That is the way he is made. Blame God and nature. Telling your husband to control it is a fine idea. But he already does. Every man who is sexually faithful to his wife already engages in daily heroic self-control. He has married knowing he will have to deny his sexual natures desire for variety for the rest of his life. To ask that he also regularly deny himself sex with the one woman in the world with whom he is permitted sex is asking far too much. Deny him enough times and he may try to fill this need with another woman. If he is too moral to ever do that, he will match your sexual withdrawal with emotional and other forms of withdrawal.

So ladies, if your man cheats on you, it’s your fault. If he’s emotionally distant, you’re not having sex with him enough. If he’s sexually distant…well, that’s probably your fault too. Men are animals, incapable of controlling themselves. It’s just our nature.

Now sure, some would say that a man who reacts to unhappiness in his marriage by cheating on his spouse is being a jerk, one who should have acted responsibly by discussing problems in the relationship rather than cheating. One might note that sometimes, it’s men who are sexually distant and women who are emotionally distant. One might note that this reads like a bad pop ev-psych paper. But one wouldn’t be Dennis Prager.

But what of the women who say their husbands know they love them? Well, they don’t.

Many women will argue, understandably, My husband knows I love him. He doesnt need me to have sex with him to know that. And this is especially so when Im too tired or just dont want sex. Anyway, my man only enjoys sex with me when I’m into it, too.

Well, yeah, women will argue that because it’s true. Sex really is best when it’s an activity that all parties are cheerfully engaged in. As noted above, if I want to get myself off, I can do so, with a lot less pain for everyone involved.

Of course, women don’t want sex — everyone knows that. But they do want a man with fat stacks of cash:

The importance of mutual kindness to a marriage is impossible to overstate. But while necessary, it is not sufficient. Women can understand this by applying the same rule to men. Most women will readily acknowledge that it is certainly not enough for a man to be kind to her. If it were, women would rarely reject kind men as husband material. But as much as a woman wants a kind man, she wants more than that. If a man is, let us say, lacking in ambition or just doesnt want to work hard, few women will love him no matter how kind he is. In fact, most women would happily give up some kindness for hard work and ambition. A kind man with little ambition is not masculine, therefore not desirable to most women.

Because, you know, men with ambition are rich, and that’s what women want.

Likewise, a kind woman who is not sexual with her husband is not feminine. She is a kind roommate.

Furthermore, a woman who denies the man she loves sex is not kind.

Again, if sex is never happening in a relationship, that’s probably a problem — but it’s deeper than just the sex. Just as if a partner quits work and sits on the couch in his or her bathrobe all day, that’s a problem — but one deeper than the couch.

But what of the women who say that men should understand and respect that no means no? They’re silly:

Every rational and decent man knows there are times when he should not initiate sex. In a marriage of good communication, a man would either know when those times are or his wife would tell him (and she needs to — women should not expect men to read their minds. He is her man, not her mother.)

And in marriages with bad communication, men will just accidentally rape their wives, ha-ha!

But, to repeat the key point, rejection of sex should happen infrequently. And it should almost never be dependent on mood — see Part II next week.

Oh, God, why have you forsaken me? I have to deal with part two of this? Criminy.

Now, you’ll note that Prager doesn’t really manage to lay a glove on this objection. That’s because there’s nothing to attack. It is axiomatic that nobody has the right to anyone else’s body. You do not have the right to have sex with anyone, ever, unless you have their permission.

Prager weakly argues that mood shouldn’t enter into the consideration; that’s insane. I’m sorry, but again and again, I come back to the basic fact that sex is, at heart, a mutually pleasurable activity. If it’s not mutually pleasurable, it’s not sex. It’s masturbation, or rape, or a combination of the two.

Quite simply, I never have wanted to have sex with a partner who didn’t. If it’s not fun for her, that sucks all the fun out of it for me. I can go masturbate.

Now, if someone I’m dating or married to never, ever wants to have sex, then yes, I’d take that as a rejection. But that’s because it would be a rejection. It would be a sign that they’re no longer attracted to me. And at that point, you fish or cut bait. You talk over your problems, you deal with them head-on, and yes, sometimes you call it quits. But that’s how adults deal with their problems. Not Dennis Prager.

As for the fifth “objection,” Prager simply praises the woman who’s always up for a little bored humping:

This is a wise woman. She knows a sexually fulfilled husband is a happy husband. (At the same time, men need to recognize that complete sexual fulfillment is unattainable in this world.) And because a happy husband loves his wife more, this cycle of love produces a happy home.

Or a wife who grows resentful and bitter that her husband is always demanding sex. But whatever!

Prager warns of part two (oy), and then offers this helpful clarification:

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.

Because men are stupid, and we don’t possess vocal chords.

Seriously, that’s what this column boils down to: men are incapable of expressing themselves verbally. Men are incapable of understanding that sometimes, our partners might not be in the mood for sex but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ve stopped loving us. Men are incapable of understanding that love is more than sex, and sex is different from love. Men are stupid beasts who want to fuck, and that’s pretty much it.

I’m sorry. I have a higher opinion of men than that. Again, I’m not saying that sexual incompatibility can’t be a problem — for men or for women, or in gay or straight relationships, for that matter. Physical love is a part of a healthy relationship, as anyone, male or female, who’s been in even a somewhat healthy relationship can tell you.

But we get nowhere when we assume that men will always pursue, and women will always be pursued, even in marriage. The fact is that sex, like all human interactions, is complicated. We can deal with those complications either by building up a deep and impenetrable mythology about them, or we can cut through the Gordian knot with the primary tool at our disposal: our ability to communicate, honestly and openly, with the ones we love.

I know which one I’d choose. And I think it’s obvious which one Prager has chosen.

This Scientific American article on Pop EvPsych is a must-read for anyone who’s become annoyed with “studies” that “prove” that women really like housework and rich men while men are super-promiscuous and only value beauty, and only the sort of beauty that is considered beautiful today. Here’s a taste:

Tooby and Cosmides have argued that because we can be quite certain that our Pleistocene ancestors had to, among other things, “select mates of high reproductive value” and “induce potential mates to choose them,” we can also be sure that psychological adaptations evolved for solving these problems. But efforts to identify the adaptive problems that drove human psychological evolution confront a dilemma.

On the one horn, while it is true that our ancestors had to “induce potential mates to choose them,” for example, such a description is too abstract to provide any clear indication of the nature of human psychological adaptations. All species face the problem of attracting mates. Male bowerbirds build ornately decorated bowers, male hangingflies offer captured prey, and male sedge warblers sing a wide repertoire of songs. Figuring out which strategies ancestral humans had to use requires a much more precise description of the adaptive problem for early humans.

More precise descriptions of the adaptive problems our ancestors faced, however, get impaled by the other horn of the dilemma: these descriptions are purely speculative, because we have little evidence of the conditions under which early human evolution occurred. The paleontological record provides a few clues about some aspects of early human life, but it is largely silent regarding the social interactions that would have been of principal importance in human psychological evolution. Nor do extant hunter-gatherer populations provide many hints about the social lives of our ancestors. Indeed, the lifestyles of these groups vary considerably, even among those who live in the regions of Africa populated by early humans.

Nobody’s arguing that humans haven’t evolved, or that human behavior doesn’t have an evolutionary component to it. But as a species, we have shown amazing plasticity of behavior. Evolutionary Psychology has a legitimate role in helping unearth truths about human behaviors — but only if it’s done legitimately.

(Via Amanda)