More of the Prager "Marital Rape" coverage.
Jesse at Pandagon has covered part II of the Prager bullshit in a bit more detail.
What if sex with your husband was a job rather than a perk of marriage? Well, then, sex would be a whole different thing. Sex is not a job, it’s not something you’re on call to do - it’s something two people do because they want to. Another way that you know that sex is different from a job? If I don’t work for months at a time, chances are I’ll be hungry and homeless. If I don’t have sex for months at a time, chances are I’ll be whiny and spending a bit more of my income on tissues. If you consider a man the boss of a woman, able to demand her sexual duties be fulfilled at any time and place of his choosing, then sure, this makes sense. However, your fear at newfangled motorized horse carriages and near-orgasmic rage at your wife’s bare calves probably makes her less than horny at the thought of having to service your anachronistic ass.
[...]
We do everything because of moods - how much we let those moods affect us differs based on how vital the task is to our lives. Sex is fun, but unless you’re a prostitute (which may be where Prager is with regards to women), it doesn’t help ensure that you stay alive.
Emphasis mine on that last line.
It's actually an interesting point with regard to the organization of, shall we say, some of the more "traditional" marital relationships. (Likely the ones Prager and his ilk espouse.)
Stay at home wife (and likely mother because this is a "traditional Christian marriage" we're talking about here, not one of these newfangled egalitarian relationships the Liberals like to spout off about). She has no income of her own (or may have very little, especially if she's the one cutting back on outside work to do the day to day child rearing) which equals a lack of economic power for her. So... Don't do what hubby says (re: have sex as often as hubby wants) and you might wind up tossed out on your ear.
In this type of marriage, apparently, the big strong man provides financial care for the wife (and children) and the wife provides pussy whenever her husband wants it or risks losing her financial support system.
(Is this a good place to mention that coerced consent is not true consent.)
And with that said...Prager writes:
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 nature's 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.
He's doing so much for you. He's an absolute hero for not following his penis brain. He's given up so much for you, don't you owe him the pussy?
But, if you don't feel morally obligated (re: guilted) to give up the pussy, maybe you should take stock in the economics of your situation. Don't provide the pussy at every request and he'll--rather than actually talking to you about the lack of sex issue like a grown up, intelligent human being--go find pussy elsewhere. (Because frankly finding new pussy is easier than dealing with an uppity woman. Who wants to take the time to sort through all the baggage and the little emotions that come with proper relationship communication?)
Though, if women don't like or want to have sex...I kind of wonder where all these opportunities to "fill the need with another woman" present themselves.
Jesse sums it up perfectly:
A woman’s “no” must be honored in the sense that she probably shouldn’t be raped after saying it, but it shouldn’t be honored in the sense that she should be able to actually say it or think it. This is why Prager’s advocating marital rape, no matter what he says - he accepts that a lack of consent should be honored if given, but then spends his time arguing that it should never be given, because she owes it to the man to always say yes. Accepting a woman’s consent or lack thereof to sex is kind of meaningless if it’s bracketed by the belief that there’s almost never a legitimate lack of consent to be given.
I wonder...would he say it's a husband's duty and obligation to have (satisfying) sex with his wife, even if he's not in the mood.
Oh, pshaw, I forget, that never happens.
What if sex with your husband was a job rather than a perk of marriage? Well, then, sex would be a whole different thing. Sex is not a job, it’s not something you’re on call to do - it’s something two people do because they want to. Another way that you know that sex is different from a job? If I don’t work for months at a time, chances are I’ll be hungry and homeless. If I don’t have sex for months at a time, chances are I’ll be whiny and spending a bit more of my income on tissues. If you consider a man the boss of a woman, able to demand her sexual duties be fulfilled at any time and place of his choosing, then sure, this makes sense. However, your fear at newfangled motorized horse carriages and near-orgasmic rage at your wife’s bare calves probably makes her less than horny at the thought of having to service your anachronistic ass.
[...]
We do everything because of moods - how much we let those moods affect us differs based on how vital the task is to our lives. Sex is fun, but unless you’re a prostitute (which may be where Prager is with regards to women), it doesn’t help ensure that you stay alive.
Emphasis mine on that last line.
It's actually an interesting point with regard to the organization of, shall we say, some of the more "traditional" marital relationships. (Likely the ones Prager and his ilk espouse.)
Stay at home wife (and likely mother because this is a "traditional Christian marriage" we're talking about here, not one of these newfangled egalitarian relationships the Liberals like to spout off about). She has no income of her own (or may have very little, especially if she's the one cutting back on outside work to do the day to day child rearing) which equals a lack of economic power for her. So... Don't do what hubby says (re: have sex as often as hubby wants) and you might wind up tossed out on your ear.
In this type of marriage, apparently, the big strong man provides financial care for the wife (and children) and the wife provides pussy whenever her husband wants it or risks losing her financial support system.
(Is this a good place to mention that coerced consent is not true consent.)
And with that said...Prager writes:
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 nature's 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.
He's doing so much for you. He's an absolute hero for not following his penis brain. He's given up so much for you, don't you owe him the pussy?
But, if you don't feel morally obligated (re: guilted) to give up the pussy, maybe you should take stock in the economics of your situation. Don't provide the pussy at every request and he'll--rather than actually talking to you about the lack of sex issue like a grown up, intelligent human being--go find pussy elsewhere. (Because frankly finding new pussy is easier than dealing with an uppity woman. Who wants to take the time to sort through all the baggage and the little emotions that come with proper relationship communication?)
Though, if women don't like or want to have sex...I kind of wonder where all these opportunities to "fill the need with another woman" present themselves.
Jesse sums it up perfectly:
A woman’s “no” must be honored in the sense that she probably shouldn’t be raped after saying it, but it shouldn’t be honored in the sense that she should be able to actually say it or think it. This is why Prager’s advocating marital rape, no matter what he says - he accepts that a lack of consent should be honored if given, but then spends his time arguing that it should never be given, because she owes it to the man to always say yes. Accepting a woman’s consent or lack thereof to sex is kind of meaningless if it’s bracketed by the belief that there’s almost never a legitimate lack of consent to be given.
I wonder...would he say it's a husband's duty and obligation to have (satisfying) sex with his wife, even if he's not in the mood.
Oh, pshaw, I forget, that never happens.