« hello, has anyone seen my quagmire? | Main | everybody dance like there's ants in your pants! »

The wednesday edition of "Presented without commentary"

I think Iíll do one of these a day. This one should be fun, as it invovles my favorite psychotic, homophobic reality-deprived shrew.

Husbands need sex, and it's a wife's job to provide it - as much as he wants, whenever he wants it. So contends Laura Schlessinger better known as Dr. Laura, the ever-provocative radio-show shrink - in "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands."

In a galley of her book, coming out in January, Schlessinger describes what she calls "loving obligation" - that is, a spouse's duty to do something whether or not he or she feels like it.

If husbands are expected to "go to work and earn money" and visit relatives they don't like, she argues, why can't their wives put out on demand?

She also describes other ways a woman can make her marriage flourish: by making her husband her No. 1 priority; by not nagging, nitpicking or whining ("Be honest, girls, this is what we do") and by seeing her husband for what he is: "a gift from God," and respecting him accordingly.

Out of touch pscyho or the revival of the happy housewife? You be the judge.


Ok, something about that woman giving advice of any kind in regards to sex makes me feel dirty, and I don't mean in a good way. Ugh. After reading that, I feel a little Britney coming on.
"I'm a SLAAAAAAAVE for you..."

I'll let you know how well her advice goes over as soon as I get back from the hospital to get frying pan disloged from my ass...

It may surprise the good doctor to know that not all men crave sex from unwilling or uninterested partners.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger? Author of "Ten Things Women Do to Ruin Their Lives, Including Letting Creepy Ex-Boyfriends Take Nude Pictures of Them and Post Them on the Internet?"

Her degree is in nutrition, you know.

I prefer the Jewish tradition, by the way, where it is the husband's duty to please the wife, not the reverse.

Dave is The Wise One.

I'm wondering if her husband is laughing his a## off, or if she even let him see the galley.

On the other hand, isn't her husband much older than she? Maybe she can practice what she preaches, unless and until he gets Viagra.


If I am correct, that is actually from one of those films they use to show in grade school to the girls while the boys watched films about FFA and 4H.

I'm with Dave, it is not sex if both parties do not willingly participate. So Dr. Laura is advocating rape?

Hey, got something against a Stepford Wife making it big in the media?

Not all of us are so blessed as Dr. Laura as to be employed in a field where we get paid to nag, nitpick and whine at complete strangers on the radio for three hours each day.

Her vision of "marriage" is one of the reasons I choose to stay in a sinful, non~legaly binding relationship~in which I'm quite satisfied, I may add. She's so frightening in this day and age.

Without disagreeing with Michele or the other posters and a little off topic:

Michele describes Dr. Laura as "homophobic". While I don't know whether she is or not (probably is), I'm getting more and more bothered with the term homophobic.

If someone has an irrational hatred for gays and lesbians; does it follow that this must be based on an irrational fear?.... Take Michael Moore, Ted Rall and/or HRC; like some of y'all, I HATE them (Very un-Christian of me I admit). Does this mean I really sub-consciously "fear" them?

I know a few people; the nicest, most generous (e.g. donating significant time and money serving in soup kitchens and building Habit houses) people you could ever meet. These people, though, don't have the tolerance to a gay lifestyle as I do. Does this make them homophobic? They say neither hate nor fear homosexuals, they just can't abide by the lifestyle. Are they fooling themselves?

Make your hobby hubby
Keep your hubby happy
When he's a little chubby
He's a happy pappy
with Rockenschpeel!

(song of the Happy Housewife)

JFH may have a point here, in that the term "homophobic" is a bit more psychiatrically laden than one might like. Calling someone a racist, say, entails only that they have some odious beliefs or views about other races, but not necessarily that they are rabid or wildly irrational or otherwise 'phobic'. But calling someone homophobic suggests not just that they have odious beliefs or views about homosexuals, but also that they are suffering from at least some mild form of mental illness.

Is there any reason we shouldn't default to "heterosexist" for many cases of people with anti-gay beliefs, and reserve "homophobic" for the type of folks at godhatesfags.com?

I disagree with Dr. Laura that it's owed (after all, she justifies it by saying he goes out to work...so do I!) but I've had loving sex with my husband when it wasn't about my pleasure. And he's done the same for me (although usually without including PIV sex).

Unless you're actively against it (sick, angry, whatever), why not go along with your partner, out of love and a desire to give them pleasure? You don't have to start out sexually excited to have a pleasant and enjoyable experience.

I wonder if this is why she left observant Judaism: because she likes thinking of sex as something she has to do, instead of something she is entitled to.

Eric Jablow writes:

Her degree is in nutrition, you know.

Actually, no. She has a Ph.D in physiology from Columbia. She is, however, still very much a creep.

Physiology is STILL not psychiatry or an MSW or a license in psychology. Ummm, what exactly ARE her credentials again?

That line about "he deserves it because he works" is pure bullshit. The stat is now something like 60-70% of the mothers of young children have jobs outside the white picket fence. I can recall 5 years of working and raising 3 small children while putting my husband (now EX) thru his PhD. At that point in my life I was so exhausted, sleep-deprived and depressed that sex was just "One more DAMN thing that someone WANTS from me today" It's not that I didn't like sex, it's just that I wanted to be CONSCIOUS during the event. If it's a choice between sex and sleep, sleep wins every time. I might even venture to say that "I" was the one that was "owed" -- like a bubble bath and a foot massage and diamonds and...

I almost always disagree with Dr Laura, but I think she has a certain point here.

My girlfriend and I have an agreement that when either of us is in the mood, we do it (barring sickness, inappropriate location, and other common sense restrictions). It is not one-sided; she "calls me on it" as often as I do her. Usually the only reason one or the other is not in the mood is purely being tired, and we've discovered that roughly 1 minute into "things", we are both quite in the mood and enjoying ourselves. (If one partner was truly unwilling, that would be another story I'm sure). We always end up both glad that we "did that".

This may seem barbaric to some people, but I genuinely think it has contributed to our happiness with each other over the years. We really do feel closer for it, and really do feel better cared for by the other. The idea of cheating on her never even occurs to me.

I can not BELIEVE I'm almost agreeing with Dr Laura - but don't knock it until you try it. :-)

I think what some of the commenters that have quasi-agreed with Dr. Laura are missing is that she's defining it as a "duty" and an "obligation".

As part of any sucessful, loving, long-term relationship, partners will occasionally engage in sex when they aren't really in the mood, for the benefit of the other partner. But they do it voluntarily, because they care about and want to please their partner (and, truth be told, because they know that sooner or later the tables will be turned and they dont want to be turned down :) ) , but NOT because it's a duty or obligation.

Well, in my family, I go to work and make money and my husband stays home and takes care of our child... so, who is obligated to whom? Which of us has the right to demand sex?

Midol is not working, I see.

JFH is absolutely correct and not alone in asserting that the term “homophobic” is packed with affirmative hysterisis. Under a more normal situation, when a man talks to another man, they can concentrate freely on the merits of the conversation. However, when a homo enters the picture, the social discourse often turns into an opportunity for the homo to offer the normal person a blow job with more than a passing sublimity, often bordering on queer-ness. There are better words in the dictionary that could be used to accurately describe a hetro's temperament. My demeanor with the lesbian persuasion is of course less pronounced.

How about the fact that I go out and bust my ass day in and day out? Shouldn't my SO provide it for ME whenever I want it? What about the relatives I don't like to visit? Jesus. Get a grip, woman. Pull your ass out of the 50's!


A homo offering the "normal person" a blow job?Your demeanor with the lesbian persuasion is, "of course less pronounced."

Still living with the "gay people aren't normal" idea, but lesbian sex is ok, are we? Because what?.... It satisfies the male porno fantasy of being able to "jump in there"?

Sounds like a double standard fit to serve both a fantasy and a prejudice.

What's "normal" supposed to be these days anyway?

"Hysteresis" is deceleration of a body in motion due to variation in the forces acting on that body.

What is "affirmative hysterisis" and how does it apply to homophobia?

Like that phrase, most of this discussion appears to be without logical or intellectual merit.

Dr. Laura seems to be saying "wives should be nice to their husbands". This notion would appear to be viscerally repulsive to most of the participants in this discussion, analogous to rape, and somehow connected to homosexuality.

I don't see it.

I have one word for the woman: crank.

Mr. Carlos:

“Hysterisis” was an analogy to electrical flux (condensers, induction per se). The momentum of the flux decreasing prevents you from getting the desired level to stop on a dime, so you let the momentum of the increasing flux (the opposite quantity) carry itself further, so as to let the two excesses cancels themselves out. Sort of like a game of tug-of-war. Like when you barter---you give a higher quote because you expect the buyer will reply with a lesser offer. Over-compensation in other words. “Right to Life” versus “Right of Choice,” is an example of overcompensating or bias in the political correctness department . By “affirmative,” I mean that the effect is intentional and in my opinion---a clear and present aberration. That, to dislike queers and fairies and flaming faggots, means that we must also dislike gays and transvestites and transgenders who have surgically removed their ding-a-lings. The term “homophobia” is a designer word meant to pre-empt the normal in our society from disliking the deserving few because the reasons for our distaste will be viewed as haviing stemmed from irrational phobia, instead, of the dry-cleaning bill we received for removing the saliva from the queer licking our zippers in the middle of a conversation. The term “homophobic,” itself, insinuates the existence of paranoia---which is false---and discredits normal people for having normal peev’s whenever the dregs of society crosses our borders of decency.

Ms Deeders:

I find that I can have a conversation with a lesbian and still concentrate on what we are talking about---whether it is about work, play, or the latest news, quite different from me having to smack a queer. If you’re a lesbian---try me. We will have an interesting social intercourse. A while back, I took my friend’s daughter, who is married to a lesbian, to a strip show---something, we had a common interest in. I had already gotten bored with strip shows, so, I did it more for her than myself. I just wanted to have a few drinks. For the past year I have not drank---which is probably responsible for my clarity in certain areas, but then, again, it's a free country.