I missed the second part of Dennis Prager's "advice to women" column, which is just as well. Thinking about Prager and sex in the same moment has a tendency to ruin my day and I really wanted to enjoy the holidays.
He pretty much says that women need to agree to have sex on command because it is their contribution to the well being of the family, just as it's a man's obligation to go to work. (Apparently, Prager doesn't realize that women have an obligation to go to work too these days, but no matter.) A woman needs to give it up whenever her man wants it because it's her very special familial duty, akin to cleaning the toilet or taking out the garbage, which in the case of Prager is obviously pretty much the same thing. The problem is that ever since the 60's women have been acting like spoiled children who fail to understand that men need sex and failure to give it to him whenever he demands it is immature self-indulgence. (Yes, you read that right.)
I was struck by the notion throughout this embarrassing little screed that Prager actually seems to think that all women just don't like sex and so they allow themselves to be ruled by their silly, childish emotions and refuse to submit when they should be mature and think of England. Considering that fundamental error, it's not surprising that he also clearly believes that a man has no obligation to be concerned with his partner's sexual pleasure, which he fails to mention as being any kind of inducement to frequent sex. No wonder he can't get any of his wives to fuck him.
I have to blame his wives also, however. One of them should have asked him at some point if he would willingly have sex on command with a creepy wingnut if he never even had an orgasm. But then Prager doesn't seem to know that women have them in the first place so maybe they knew it was a lost cause.
Anyway, conservative religious wingnuts probably shouldn't opine publicly about sex. It often turns out badly: