An Open Letter To Men

Conservative columnist Dennis Prager has devoted a series of articles to his case for sex-on-demand.

Prager’s heart is in the right place – the message is right – but he sets it forth in such a way as to get the message shot right along with the messenger.

Besides his tortured turns of phrase (“eight reasons for a woman not to allow not being in the mood for sex to determine whether she denies her husband sex”), Prager’s argument is as hackneyed as one would expect from a man trying to finagle booty.

His argument is mired in the notions of duty and denial, responsibility and right – or, as most women will see it, obliger and obligee.

There is a much better – more intellectually appealing, more appetite-appealing – way to say what Prager is saying. And to do so artfully.

To be fair, though, his point was doomed from the start – which he tries to veer from by throwing a bone, as it were, to the very women who incinerate his kind and his cause. It’s a cheap shot, this little detour, and one that taints the entire article with the marred mark of mass appeal:

“Men need to understand that intercourse should not necessarily be the goal of every sexual encounter.”

Excuse me? This is more than just pandering … this is a complete departure from what Prager sets forth to prove.

With that one sentence, he demotes his argument from a discussion of marital roles to an opus on blow jobs. Simply put, sex-averse women will read within that sentence a singular preoccupation with getting off – basically, as evidence of all they already believe about men.

And that will not get Prager – or you – laid.

So what will?

While Prager’s dogma of “shoulds” appeals innately to men, that kind of straightforward tell-me-the-right-thing-to-do-and-I’ll-do-it directive is abhorrent to women – all women, because that’s just the way we are, but especially to a certain kind of woman.

A woman like most women – like your wives, probably – who likely agree with Prager that marriage should be fulfilling … except that they’re unaware that the word literally means “full-feeling.”

In other words, marriage, we can all agree, is about satiety, fullness – and not to put too fine a point on it but men are filled by filling their wives.

Literality is the point here, people, because as much as women pine for nuance, nobody can deny the naked sense I’m making.

So what’s in it for your woman? Well, besides a good time, she will walk away from the encounter with a sense of … fulfillment!

It turns out that feminists are right: Women and men aren’t so different after all. Both are fulfilled – physically and metphysically – through sex.

I’ve already explained how this works for men, but for women the mechanism is, like most things about women, a little more complicated.

During sex, women’s bodies release the chemical oxytocin – the hormone that facilitates bonding, closeness, adoration, and affection … or, succintly, fulfillment.

See how it all fits together? Your wives will be convinced … and even if they’re not, you’ll still get some.

Why? Just by presenting to her my point, you’ll be initiating and maintaining a conversation about marital fulfillment.

Which, when all else fails, will get you laid.

Comments