Dennis Prager's Conservative Man's Guide to Sex

Remember how, a while back, Ann Coulter would rant about how married couples have better sex lives than singles. And you couldn't help but wonder, "How would she know?" Dennis Prager has thoughtfully provided us with the answers: Married women have a better work ethic. (At least if they want to stay married.)

It seems almost gratuitous to make fun of Prager, not that it's going to stop me. He's apparently in the grip of a bizarre form of the whore-madonna complex for which the only cure is his demand that madonna "put out". According to Prager, here's how women think:

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.

Here's how men react:

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.

Prager admits that there are rare occasions when a husband "should not initiate sex", although the exceptions to his "24/7" policy aren't enumerated. But make no mistake, as much as the husband may be writhing in undisclosed self-doubt if his wife doesn't put out all the time, it's the woman's job to clearly communicate those times when the husband shouldn't ask for sex ("women should not expect men to read their minds"). I'm thinking Prager might forgive a wife's lack of accommodation at times of severe illness although, on the other hand, if she's already in bed....

Seriously, rather than writing columns lecturing women that, even though it's not in their nature to like sex very much, and certainly not very often, they should accede to their husband's sexual demands on almost all occasions he could have written a column lamenting to men, "Women don't like sex very much, perhaps not at all, so don't let your feelings get hurt when they say 'no'." Sure, people would still make fun of him, but maybe not quite as much. But at least it would be honest.

What sort of marriage does Prager envision, where a wife is to "give her body to" her husband as she acts "happy no matter what [her] mood", all the while keeping secret the fact that he isn't sexually attractive to her? For all of his whining about how women allow themselves to be "governed by feelings and moods", implying that men are rational beings, why not simply encourage men to be rational, accept their women for what they are, and build a marriage premised on mutual respect? Under Prager's logic, isn't it men who are being irrational, becoming angry, distant, ashamed, and unfaithful because they aren't willing to learn or accept basic "facts" about female sexuality?

This is where it gets interesting. When madonna doesn't "put out", the Pragers of the world feel justified in seeking out that other type of woman. Except Prager's already told us that there's really only one type of woman - there's no evil vixen of "the kind you don't take home to mother" who actually likes sex. According to Prager's columns, sex for women is always a quid pro quo. They don't get a great deal of pleasure from it, so they need to get something else. When Prager warns wives,

To ask that [your husband] 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.

What type of woman is he suggesting would "fill his need"? Prager's attentions always turn to the material:

What if your husband woke up one day and announced that he was not in the mood to go to work? If this happened a few times a year, any wife would have sympathy for her hardworking husband. But what if this happened as often as many wives announce that they are not in the mood to have sex? Most women would gradually stop respecting and therefore eventually stop loving such a man.

Or maybe she would tell him, "Honey, you hate your job. Let's work on your résumé, and help you find a new one where you won't be so miserable."

What woman would love a man who was so governed by feelings and moods that he allowed them to determine whether he would do something as important as go to work? 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 - indeed, ought to - refuse sex because she is not in the mood? Why?

I almost wish there were a webcast of this, as I would like to know how much anger, fear, frustration, even rage at God explodes out of Prager as he cries, "Why?" But there you have it. Women benefit from men going to work and providing them with material stability, geegaws and doodads. And a woman's equivalent responsibility in marriage is to willingly "give her body to him" pretty much any time he asks. If only women worked for a living, maybe then they would understand....

In the rest of life, not just in marital sex, it is almost always a poor idea to allow feelings or mood to determine one’s behavior. Far wiser is to use behavior to shape one’s feelings. Act happy no matter what your mood and you will feel happier. Act loving and you will feel more loving....

Okay, Dennis, if that's truly what you believe, how about trying this at home: "Act like you're getting lots of sex from your wife." Don't blame her when you feel dissatisfied in the marriage, feel insecure, or start picking up hookers.

As one bright and attractive woman in her 50s ruefully said to me, “Had I known this while I was married, he would never have divorced me.”

I can almost imagine the conversation:

Woman: "I am so upset. My husband was cheating on me, sleeping with prostitutes, and now we're divorced."

Prager: "If he was sleeping with prostitutes, he obviously wasn't getting enough sex at home."

Woman: "Well, he would come home from work late, reeking of alcohol, lipstick on his collar. It was a real turn-off. Not to mention I was concerned about sexually transmitted disease.

Prager: "He went to work, and you still didn't reward him with sex on demand? It's the same thing, you know. We all have jobs we hate, but we gotta do 'em. He goes to work every day for the pay and, when you think about it, he's merely asking you to do pretty much the same thing. By rejecting him for sex you're making him feel ashamed and emasculated, and the only way he can recover from that is by getting sex somewhere else. Since women don't like sex very much, are you really surprised he sometimes had to pay for it?"

Woman: "Had I known this while I was married, he would never have divorced me."

Prager: "I told my ex-wives the same thing, and boy are they sorry now."

And there you have it - everything Prager knows about sex. Don't you feel silly now, that you were afraid to ask?

Religious and Secular Education

Today, Dennis Prager tells us that everybody in America is brainwashed. First, he argues,

Ask some non-religious liberal friends how they would describe a person who attended only fundamentalist Christian or ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools from preschool through graduate school. "Brainwashed" and "closed-minded" would be their most likely answers, and they would often be right. Most people assume that any person who is exposed to only one way of looking at the world for all of his or her life can hardly be regarded as open-minded.

So even though he's talking about evil "non-religious liberal" people", he concedes that in this context "they would often be right". He then proceeds to argue that the same holds true for people who attend only secular schools:

If a person is to be considered brainwashed for having only received a religious education, a person who has received only a secular or liberal (as in politically liberal) education should be regarded identically.

Well, no. Because a good secular education doesn't carry any particular ideology, and is consistent with the holding of religious beliefs. Unquestionably, any course of studies (religious or secular) will contain some amount of bias, but of itself that's not "brainwashing". The purpose of a sectarian education is to advance a particular religion, in most cases in addition to (and in some cases instead of) providing a broader education in reading, writing, and 'rithmatic. A particular religion and religious agenda will be advanced. In the secular world, classes may be taught by people with a wide range of political and religious beliefs, and in many cases those beliefs will color their teaching, and the student is exposed to a much broader range of ideas. Religious instruction intends a bias toward religious matters, and toward a particular religion, and it is considered to be a positive result if the preferred biases take root in the student body. Secular education has no similar agenda. While any course of education will result in biases, graduates of secular institutions have opinions across the political and religious spectrum - and secular institutions traditionally regard that as a good thing.

Further, as is often the case, children who attend secular schools often also attend religious instruction outside of school hours. Sunday School and Hebrew School, for example, are common. There is no equivalent for children in religious schools - they don't attend Saturday or Sunday classes which teach the science of evolution, for example, if their particular religion asserts a literal interpretation of Genesis. Prager continues,

In fact, when secular people and those on the Left deny this, it actually illustrates that they probably have been brainwashed. The secular/Left immersion they underwent has been so effective that it has rendered them incapable of realizing that they have been so immersed.

Again, Prager misses the boat. He asks that you pose the question to a group of people with a particular mindset, anticipates the answer based upon that mindset, and makes the circular argument that this somehow proves his larger point. Yet even Prager knows that if he were to pose that same question to a person who had attended only secular schools, but who was of a religious or neo-conservative mindset, the answer would be very different. Find somebody along the lines of Ann Coulter, and you might even hear the person brag about how the public schools "tried" to brainwash him, but how he overcame the insidious tendrils of secular humanism.

Without any basis for his assertion, Prager next asserts that most secular people have had no exposure to religion or religious subjects, while most religious people have had exposure to secular influences. Meanwhile, Prager tells us, religious schools usually teach subjects like reading and math - sometimes taught by secular teachers - and many religious people watch network television and Hollywood movies, presumably filling their lives with secular values. But even assuming his first point is correct (and in my experience, it is not), the type of "secular" exposure he is describing is far from a secular counterpoint to religious teachings. It is in no way analogous to formal education, and does not involve the type of power structure, authority and expectations imposed upon students by any given school system (secular or religious). Obviously Prager would not argue that somebody who watches The Simpsons is receiving a religious education - despite the strong family and religious values advanced by that show. But he would argue that it provides an education in secular values? Oh, the hypocrisy.

Prager continues with his unsupported (and absurd) assertions:

The same holds true for liberals and conservatives. Virtually every conservative reads a liberal newspaper, watches liberal newscasts, reads liberal magazines, and has been taught in liberal schools by liberal professors. Few liberals have read a conservative newspaper (there are almost none anyway), read a conservative magazine, studied in conservative schools or been taught by a conservative professor (of whom there are also almost none).

While I could point Prager to my own personal experiences, anecdotal evidence, or to surveys of media preferences or viewer misconceptions, but what would be the point? If it weren't previously obvious that he is "making stuff up as he goes along", it certainly is now.

Prager concludes,

Just as many liberals and secularists can only imagine a religious person being brainwashed, not a liberal or a secular one, they likewise can only imagine religious extremism, never secular extremism. One can easily be too religious, but never too secular. Yet, we have far more secular extremism than religious extremism in our society.

The ACLU is one such example. The organization recently threatened to sue the National Park Service over two little plaques at the Grand Canyon that had Psalms written on them. That most Americans do not consider a lawsuit over something so trivial a manifestation of extremism only proves how effective the secular brainwash is.

If Prager were informed (or if he is informed and chose to be honest), he would acknowledge that throughout its history the ACLU has defended our rights and freedoms at their margins - taking up the small cases and the unpopular causes, to stop encroachments on our civil rights and liberties before they affect the masses. If Prager were honest, he would have presented at least one more example: The legal activities of the NRA. You know, those "secular" NRA types who will litigate against even "tiny" encroachments on the right to keep and bear arms. Also, if Prager were honest, he would acknowledge what David Brooks described only yesterday - the role of the devoutly religious in advancing the fight for civil rights and freedoms. Or he might have acknowledged that "conservatives", including his beloved "conservative media", have been known to bring absurdly frivolous lawsuits. At least the ACLU's suit has merit. And, with all due respect to Prager's defense of all things Biblical, perhaps he should take a deep breath and realize that although the Constitution is a secular document, there is an enormous value to society in defending and upholding its precepts.

Comments

Who Said "Conservatives" Can't Be Funny?

This column is funnier than the column it attempts to explain - Dennis Prager, a radio talk show host, offered his brand of parody, suggesting that Jimmy Carter responded to the Lord of the Rings trilogy by condeming the movie, attributing statements such as,

"Who knows what might happen if enough young people start thinking that war is an option, or that some people or countries can be labeled 'evil,' or that there is something noble about a soldier who kills for a 'just' cause?"

Although it seemed obvious to me that Prager was trying to be funny, his only overt notice was at the conclusion of his piece, "This story is fictional, but not false."

Now he reports receiving feedback from four groups: (1) those who thought he was funny, (2), those furious for his false attribution of various statements to Carter, (3) those who didn't recognize the joke, and thanked him for bringing Carter's comments to light, and (4) those confused about the last line, asking "What part of your column was fiction?". Prager explains that the last line was meant to label the piece as a parody, as was the false news service line he used. He then compares himself to Bill Safire, who has parodic, fictional conversations with public figures in his columns (without this type of confusion, presumably, by virtue of being a better writer). Then he complains that he has never and would never falsely attribute quotes. But this is the funny part:

Jonah Goldberg, an astute observer of contemporary life, actually excerpted my column, "Jimmy Carter: 'Compassion for Mordor,'" on his National Review Web site.

Yup. How's that for astute. Goldberg's readers set him straight.

Okay, this part is funny, also - Prager complains about those who did not understand his final line - declaring that he, like "Shakespeare, Dostoevsky and other great writers revealed great truths through fiction, and I guess everybody should have realized that he kept such rarified company. (I wonder if poor Bill Safire felt the sting of not being referenced in that list of great writers.) He of course concludes with an overt attack on Carter as "deeply morally confused about good and evil, who damaged his country as president, and who hurts it today." Um... I guess if you're as self-important as Prager, or as he now demands to be called "Shakespearevsky", you have every right to judge.

(Incidentally, if you found the original piece to actually be funny, please speak up.)

Comments