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 sexâ€), 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.â€
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.â€
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.
By Granny January 2, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Like my Granny told me, I tell you Gals — if they’s not gettin’ it at home, they’s a-gonna be gettin’ it somewhere.
……….
Y’uns know what I mean.
By Granny January 2, 2009 at 4:00 pm
And when y’all Gals get through digestin’ that age-old wisdom, get somebody out there to figure out what’s going on with all the 18-wheelers spilling their sh*t all over the highways…
Today it’s shoes in Florida.
Yesterday it was eggs in Michigan.
About once a month it’s beer in Colorado.
Last year it was syrup in Texas.
Last year it was also bees in California.
Acid/powder spills in South Carolina last year and the year before…
As you modbots say, >>WTF<< ?
By confused January 2, 2009 at 4:04 pm
no idea what you just said. in my defense, however, you can’t put a picture like that at the top of the page and expect anyone to actually read the post.
By James the Foot Soldier January 2, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Perhaps the secondary defintion of satiety from Houghton Mifflin would be more appropriate since the primary definition as noted above tends to direct monolithic minded men down the wrong fork in the road – not that “fulfilling” the primal urge for the sake of the primal urge is a bad endeavor every now and then.
Unfortunately, the primary fork can lead to life in the wilderness.
The secondary definition being: satiety n, the condition of being gratified beyond the point of satisfaction. Repeat after me, BEYOND the point of satisfaction….
By Give It A Rest January 3, 2009 at 12:09 am
Mande — must the men in your life always endure this much cross-examination? Marriage is not a war — it’s a commitment; a delicate dance; a storm; a puzzle; a never-ending story. Don’t make it so difficult. Men are really very simple creatures. And they don’t like all these tests and subterfuge.
By justsomeguy69er January 28, 2012 at 4:34 pm
A friend of mine quoted a friend of his once; “as soon as the man opens his mouth, he is wrong”. Feminism has not liberated women;it has entrapped them into unrealistic sterotypes of another’s making. It is in fact feminism that has turned women into preening, selfish “me-first and only” creatures, filled with loathing for men and seeing men as walking bank machines, filled them with the notion that men have to “earn them”. translation; WHORE. Most women want everything the man has to offer, without the man attached, essentially, a warm cock on-call when wanted/needed with full access to trust-fund and other accounts and a willing servant to boot. Everywhere I read on the internet, I see articles written by mostly women, stating things like “where have all of the real men gone?” – answer; as far away from money-grubbing whores as possible. Men have mainly turned into sychophants, grovelling to women for the merest chance of approval or affetion. Actual prostitutes are far more desirable from a character standpoint than any woman that is after the house, car(s), 2.5 kids, cottage in the woods, retirement package etc, she is the real whore; a prositute at least is honest and doesn’t charge a man more than she feels it is worth for sexual gratification, no games, just pay and go. The “housewife” type on the other hand holds her husband/significant other hostage for as much gain as possible without any real hint of love and caring and usually the sex disappears once she thinks she has him roped in, the ring goes on or the first child arrives. A man can be by himself, be creative and productive without praise or constant affirmation from others, it is how society has been built up; by industrious men. Women on the other hand produce very little of real value and consume 85% of everything produced (in the “west” at least) and still they want more and are constantly dissatisfied with most everything, men mainly, all the while expecting men to kow-tow to their desires and demands. It is self-destructive behaviour at it’s worst, the main problem with self-destruction by women is that it is akin to a suicide bomber; they have to take others with them when they self-destruct. All that rabid feminists like Gloria Steinem and Andrea Dvorkin have suceeded in doing is to ensure the break-down of the white-western family unit, which was their goal from the beginning. “Empowering women” is a misnomer, by separating them from men, the builders and protectors through false ideals and ridiculous degrees of compatibility with men, all that has occurred is the further limiting and pidgeon-holing of women. Women are reduced to dressed-up playthings by themselves alone via the plastic media scrum, thinking that a manicure or pedicure or streaks in their hair, trips to the gym/yoga class will make them a more complete person, when all it does it affirm their inability to accept who they really are and be happy with what there is instead of always being concerned with what there isn’t or what could be. Men maintain the present and archive the past; women only care about the unforeseeable future, it is the worst sort of day-dreaming and fantasy life. I could go on, but it of course woulf fall on deaf ears, all around me I see women whom in striving for independence, instead become dependant upon false assumptions about what both a man and a woman should be like. Men too wonder, “where have all of the real women gone?” they are all in hiding it seems. Hiding their true self for fear of confirmation that they are no better than anyone else, merely packaged to look desirable with a truly sub-standard product just behind the veil.