A wife’s duty is to sexually service her husband

Over at National Review’s The Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez announces that Dennis Prager is writing about marital bliss. Being married, I follow the link.

And I gasp. Prager’s secret to marital bliss: The primary duty of wives, it appears, is to get their husbands off.

Sorry to be so blunt, but really, what can you say about advice like this:

Yet another outgrowth of ’60s thinking is the notion that it is “hypocritical” or wrong in some other way to act contrary to one’s feelings. One should always act, post-’60s theory teaches, consistent with one’s feelings. Therefore, many women believe that it would simply be wrong to have sex with their husband when they are not in the mood to. Of course, most women never regard it as hypocritical and rightly regard it as admirable when they meet their child’s or parent’s or friend’s needs when they are not in the mood to do so. They do what is right in those cases, rather than what their mood dictates. Why not apply this attitude to sex with one’s husband? Given how important it is to most husbands, isn’t the payoff — a happier, more communicative, and loving husband and a happier home — worth it?

What I find interesting here is that there’s no discussion on Prager’s part about the potential responsibility of men to act contrary to their feelings for the sake of their wives.

And there’s this:

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?

Er … because going to work is necessary to pay for the immediate needs of survival? Whereas having sex today is merely something you want to do? Yeah, I know, sex is necessary for the survival of the species. But sex today isn’t.

Praeger frames this in the context of how wives should love their husbands. But don’t husbands have a loving duty to their wives not to be horny narcissists? And isn’t it convenient that in Prager’s universe, the demands of his id constitute an obligation on the part of his spouse, but no reciprocal obligations? What kind of man is he?

Anyway, this is all worth noting because Prager is a widely listened-to radio host, writing on a popular (and populist) conservative website and approvingly linked from National Review, the house organ of intellectual conservatism. You don’t have to be pro-choice to conclude from this that many conservatives don’t really have the best interests of women at heart.