When A Woman Isn't In The Mood: Part II (Female Nature, Sex And Men Alert)

Townhall.com ^ | 12/30/2008 | Dennis Prager

[goldstategop]

n Part I, I made the argument that any woman who is married to a good man and who wants a happy marriage ought to consent to at least some form of sexual relations as much as possible. (Men need to understand that intercourse should not necessarily be the goal of every sexual encounter.)

In Part II, I advance the argument that a wife should do so even when she is not in the mood for sexual relations. I am talking about mood, not about times of emotional distress or illness.

Why?

Here are eight reasons for a woman not to allow not being in the mood for sex to determine whether she denies her husband sex.

1. If most women wait until they are in the mood before making love with their husband, many women will be waiting a month or more until they next have sex. When most women are young, and for some older women, spontaneously getting in the mood to have sex with the man they love can easily occur. But for most women, for myriad reasons -- female nature, childhood trauma, not feeling sexy, being preoccupied with some problem, fatigue after a day with the children and/or other work, just not being interested -- there is little comparable to a man’s “out of nowhere,” and seemingly constant, desire for sex.

2. Why would a loving, wise woman allow mood to determine whether or not she will give her husband one of the most important expressions of love she can show him? What else in life, of such significance, do we allow to be governed by mood?

What if your husband woke up one day and announced that he was not in the mood to go to work? If this happened a few times a year, any wife would have sympathy for her hardworking husband. But what if this happened as often as many wives announce that they are not in the mood to have sex? Most women would gradually stop respecting and therefore eventually stop loving such a man.

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?

This brings us to the next reasons.

3. The baby boom generation elevated feelings to a status higher than codes of behavior. In determining how one ought to act, feelings, not some code higher than one’s feelings, became decisive: “No shoulds, no oughts.” In the case of sex, therefore, the only right time for a wife to have sex with her husband is when she feels like having it. She never “should” have it. But marriage and life are filled with “shoulds.”

4. Thus, in the past generation we have witnessed the demise of the concept of obligation in personal relations. We have been nurtured in a culture of rights, not a culture of obligations. To many women, especially among the best educated, the notion that a woman owes her husband sex seems absurd, if not actually immoral. They have been taught that such a sense of obligation renders her “property.” Of course, the very fact that she can always say “no” -- and that this “no” must be honored -- renders the “property” argument absurd. A woman is not “property” when she feels she owes her husband conjugal relations. She is simply wise enough to recognize that marriages based on mutual obligations -- as opposed to rights alone and certainly as opposed to moods -- are likely to be the best marriages.

5. Partially in response to the historical denigration of women’s worth, since the 1960s, there has been an idealization of women and their feelings. So, if a husband is in the mood for sex and the wife is not, her feelings are deemed of greater significance -- because women’s feelings are of more importance than men’s. One proof is that even if the roles are reversed -- she is in the mood for sex and he is not -- our sympathies again go to the woman and her feelings.

6. 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?

7. 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. Therefore, if a couple engages in sexual relations when he wants it and she does not, the act is “dehumanizing” and “mechanical.” Now, ideally, every time a husband and wife have sex, they would equally desire it and equally enjoy it. But, given the different sexual natures of men and women, this cannot always be the case. If it is romance a woman seeks -- and she has every reason to seek it -- it would help her to realize how much more romantic her husband and her marriage are likely to be if he is not regularly denied sex, even of the non-romantic variety.

8. In the rest of life, not just in marital sex, it is almost always a poor idea to allow feelings or mood to determine one’s behavior. Far wiser is to use behavior to shape one’s feelings. Act happy no matter what your mood and you will feel happier. Act loving and you will feel more loving. Act religious, no matter how deep your religious doubts, and you will feel more religious. Act generous even if you have a selfish nature, and you will end with a more a generous nature. With regard to virtually anything in life that is good for us, if we wait until we are in the mood to do it, we will wait too long.

The best solution to the problem of a wife not being in the mood is so simple that many women, after thinking about it, react with profound regret that they had not thought of it earlier in their marriage. As one bright and attractive woman in her 50s ruefully said to me, “Had I known this while I was married, he would never have divorced me.”

That solution is for a wife who loves her husband -- if she doesn’t love him, mood is not the problem -- to be guided by her mind, not her mood, in deciding whether to deny her husband sex.

If her husband is a decent man -- if he is not, nothing written here applies -- a woman will be rewarded many times over outside the bedroom (and if her man is smart, inside the bedroom as well) with a happy, open, grateful, loving, and faithful husband. That is a prospect that should get any rational woman into the mood more often.

[dsc]

“It really doesn’t matter to me who is to blame.”

It should.

I don’t know any of the other circumstances, and so will not comment further.

[rintense]

The singer, Kina, had a great song about this called 'Give and Take':

This is no way to live
Holdin on to the times called better
We gotta fight everyday
But still not wanting to say, "Let's end"

And it's me you say that
Never does the things you want me to do
And I scream, you're not the man that
Said a while back, "All that I need is you"
Oh¡

Oh, if you could give me a rose
I'll go and get you a beer
If you come home more times
Then I'll spend more time here
If we could go for a walk
Sometimes I'd hold your hand
Give me what I need
I'll meet you halfway
If you could share with me
I could see nothing but you
If you could put me first
First of all would be you
We'd be OK
If we remember that it's give and take, ooh
Yeah, yeah, yeah, oh

Let's have a meeting of minds
Just take some time to be one, it's worth it
If you put me before you
And I put you before me, we're fine
So tell me all the things you need
And I'll try to see 'em through
Because it's we (it's not me)
We (it's not you)
Babe, can we call a truce, oh¡

Oh, if you could give me a rose
I'll go and get you a beer
If you come home more times
Then I'll spend more time here
If we could go for a walk
Sometimes I'd hold your hand
Give me what I need
I'll meet you halfway
If you could share with me
I could see nothing but you
If you could put me first
First of all would be you
We'd be OK
If we remember that it's give and take

[Lazamataz]

Marry me.

[exist]

I’m no fan of Paris Hilton but at least she’s ready to get down.

[marsh2]

My goodness (chuckle,) this old Grandma hit your hot button.

You might look up “female hysteria.” All sorts of psychological and female symptoms were included under this Victorian diagnosis.

You must be a young person and did not live through the sexual revelations of the Kinsey Report and the book “What You Always Wanted To Know About Sex But Were Afraid To Ask.”

[Hegewisch Dupa]

I just don’t buy it. If a guy can’t keep some degree of his woman’s passion, then nothing is pretty much what he deserves. Anything else is more akin to making a travesty of the institution.

[Lazamataz]

Now the deal is, we are supposed to provide sex on demand, earn "our share" of the income, do all the housework, remain forever attractive, and still provide sex on demand.

I wuz gonna crack wise, but then I realized, not right now.

No, here's the deal as I see it: I do whatever I can to make her happy. Hopefully she does the same, but it's not required.

No other deals. No stipulations. Just: Try to do whatever would make your partner happy.

Thinking about cheating? Well, would it make your partner happy?

Not quite in the mood for sex, but he or she is? Would it make them happy?

Spend all the money and charge up the credit cards? Would it make your partner happy?

It's a very simple formula, and one that is rife with success, I imagine. I will never do anything except what might make my partner happy. I won't really worry about my needs at all: If I make my partner happy, I am likely to have all my needs met. My needs are none of my business anyways.

[dianed]

LOL

Rodney needs to check his girlfriends thyroid condition!

[malkee]

If it were 2008 Seattle, there’d be nothing but applause from the buddies who had to leave.

[ConservativeMind]

I don’t recall the author advocating infidelity.

Technically, polygamy isn’t a form of infidelity. If you are “faithful” to all of those to whom you are married, you are practicing fidelity.

Adultery is having sex with someone who is not your spouse.

This message is not brought to you by a wayward Mormon. :-)

[Citizen Blade]

“I do” means “I will,” and a wife had better have a damn good reaon to renege on that.

You really should read your statements before posting. This line is just creepy.

[Tax-chick]

Since we’re operating on the assumption that men need to go all the time, and prefer sex to any other possible activity, what’s the problem here? Except that the couple isn’t married, of course, which is a BIG part of the issue under discussion, imo.

[denfurb]

Congratulations, all that any couple needs to know in a nutshell ;-)

[RobRoy]

>>This article says more about the man who wrote it than he probably imagines or would want.<<

Although I can’t speak for him, I suspect it says about him exactly what he wants it to say about him.

I agree 100%. Numbers 3 and 8 are especially revealing. Number 3 nails the “stupid generation”, of which I am an unwilling member. Number 8 reminds me of forcing myself to do a workout when I am not “in the mood”. Funny thing is, I always enjoy the workout, once I get into it. ;)

Both of these were VERY good.

[RobRoy]

>>Sounds like he’s making the case for polygamy.....<<

Certainly not my take. What gives you that impression?

[RobRoy]

So true. Sex is just a tiny part of the intimacy. Take it away though (against one side’s will), and the whole relationship sort of rots away.

Been there, done that.

[RobRoy]

>>He’s telling us more than he knows about himself.<<

In what way?

[RobRoy]

>>This cracks me up as most women I talk to in long term relationships whine that their men aren’t sexual ENOUGH!<<

And maybe that is why they are in “long term” relationships. ;)

[malkee]

“That is the problem with the GOP and why they have such problems attracting and promoting women.”
The problem is that women have been seduced by the glamor of evil. The evil of promiscuity, of contraception, of abortion, of the power of sexual blackmail...and the GOP doesn’t need such women until they get their heads on straight.
“Women are completely objectified.”

I agree with you that promiscuity, contraception and abortion are evils, you might be surprised to learn. But I notice you don't mention premarital sex. That's one place men need to get their heads on straight. Men want to test-drive women before they marry them. And if the women don't measure up, then out they go. Granted, women are as responsible for this as men. But the reality is that most men today wouldn' marry a woman who wouldn't sleep with them beforehand. They wouldn't even date them. Society has changed there, too, but I guess you think that's okay.
As far as the GOP is concerned --perhaps we need to start another thread on this -- the party is going to continue to shrink until it gets fully behind people like Sarah Palin -- and even some women who think like Sarah Palin but don't look as good as she does. Better yet, the party could promote women who don't look like Sarah Palin but might be a little more articulate and a little less cowed by the media. Single women might even be an option. Granted, there aren't many single conservative women, but there are some. The same goes for minorities.

[RobRoy]

>>...as long as you are sure no one can see you and the police can’t cite you.<<

The latter is critical.

The former, less so...