Many contemporary women have an almost exclusively romantic notion of sex: It should always be mutually desired and equally satisfying or one should not engage in it.
Prager clearly doesn't have a high opinion of this notion. Yet I would be shocked if he would approve of someone using this view to advocate that husbands should regularly have sex with their wives which those men don't desire to have and which is unsatisfying to those men.
Desired and satisfying sex for husbands isn't dismissed by Prager as "romantic." Instead it is positioned as a regular requirement because of men's "animal nature." This double standard makes as much sense as saying that men need palatable food but women only find this type of food "romantic."
The solution to a woman's loss of appetite for unsatisfying sex or unsatisfying food is not pushing that woman to submit to more of the same. Having more unwanted and unsatisfying sex isn't a good solution anymore than more unpalatable food is a good solution to a bellyache.
Criminal sexual behavior which often gets dismissed as "boys will be boys" is based on a rejection of this "romantic" notion of sex.
Opposition to mutually desired and equally satisfying sex seems to be the foundation of many an anti-feminist’s beliefs. This explains why rapists who know that their victims don’t want sex feel no obligation to stop trying to have sex with someone who is clearly unwilling.
This "romantic" notion of sex which Prager disdains isn't romantic at all. This is called mutuality. Creating a sexual relationship filled with mutuality will be more than "romantic" it will be more satisfying for those who allegedly "need" sex.
Labels: Violence Against Women