Also, he seems to think that there's some sort of epidemic of women constantly refusing to have sex with their husbands. Like, not just once in a while, but that, in most marriages, it happens pretty regularly that the husband wants to have sex and the wife says no. Now, I've never been married, but it doesn't seem likely to me that this is the norm of married life.
Also, the reason he cites pretty frequently for why a woman might not want to have sex is that she's tired from taking care of the kids. It seems like a better solution to this problem would be for the husband to take over some of the childcare stuff, like bathtime and tucking into bed, thus leaving the wife some time to rest, and thus not be too tired for sex. His solution is that the wife should have sex even though she's tired.
I can't agree that trying to influence someone's choice, even in annoying ways, is the same as removing their ability to choose.
God, he wrote a Part 2.!
Seriously, feministing and pandagon link.
For myself wouldn't say that is rape, necessarily, but closer than I want to um, come to it.
Yucch.
And like I said,there's more.
I can't agree that trying to influence someone's choice, even in annoying ways, is the same as removing their ability to choose.
Me neither. I have been known to importune and push a bit to get my way and if J gives in, I don't see it as taking away his choice. If not for some determined endless annoying on my part, he never would have seen Dr. Who or listened to Crowded House. On my side, I only eat salads because he nags me incessantly feels deeply about it.
I can't agree that trying to influence someone's choice, even in annoying ways, is the same as removing their ability to choose.
I said *dubious* consent. I didn't call it rape. I didn't call it removing someone's ability to choose. Let's get that very clear.
There are a lot of gray areas when it comes to sex and power. When you say "yes" not because you want to be intimate with someone else, but because "no" is disregarded, I, personally, consider that dubious consent.
A "no" can be disregarded in ways other than physical violence. Sometimes your only choice is to give him what he wants so he'll leave you alone.
And a choice that some women might be comfortable making -- okay, I'll have sex with him, then I can get some sleep -- might make other women deeply uncomfortable.
My opinion. Everyone is entitled to theirs, and I respect that other people think it's fine to nag and cajole and wheedle a partner into sex. I don't. My. Opinion.
Well, what he seems to be advocating is the woman agreeing to disregard her own choice. Which, once you combine "advocate," "agree," and "disregard," seems like a weird area, consent-wise.
Ok, even if Mr. Prager himself is not a SuperSekrit Rapist, I'm not so sure that this wasn't incredibly irresponsible for him to write.
Cause some fanboy could "Take what was his,"
You know what I mean?
Maybe one should chase the steak with a little more beer or wine at dinner. Just in case.
I said *dubious* consent. I didn't call it rape. Let's get that very clear.
Yes, but you followed that with
Physical force is not the only means by which men rape women.
Which read to me as if some equivalence was being drawn.
I'm not ignorant of other ways in which people can be abused or exploited in a relationship. I just can't put "whining until you get your way" in that category.
I respect that other people think it's fine to nag and cajole and wheedle a partner into sex.
...I see.
