Documenting Prager's Lack of Panic About Adult Media

Dennis Prager has correctly noted many panics that are pushed by the Left. I haven't heard him note that "porn panic" is primarily driven from the Right (with some piling on by misandrists on the Left). I listen to his radio show via podcast, but don't have time to watch hardly any of his Fireside Chats or the podcast he does with a very young woman. So, it is entirely possible I've missed him mention porn panic and it's push from the Right.

His Prager University has made a deal with The Daily Wire. The Daily Wire has show hosts/columnists who buy into, and perpetuate, porn panic. Indeed, Candace Owens is or has been a Prager University personality, but she buys into porn panic. For that reason, I'm documenting here some of what Dennis Prager has publicly proclaimed as far as male sexual nature and erotica, in case anything starts disappearing. To Dennis Prager's credit, as of this posting, he hasn't backed down despite negative reactions over the years from a core audience of his: conservative churchgoing women and the men who are trying so score points with them.

On March 2, 2015, Prager University posted a video hosted by Dennis Prager with the title "He Wants You." Here's the transcript they provided:

The London newspaper The Daily Mail listed the top ten problems experienced by couples on vacation together. And topping the list was: The man looking at other women in bikinis on the beach.

Now, in another Prager University course, I explain the sexual power of the visual on men. And as I show, and as anyone readily understands unless they've been misled by a politically correct college course the power of the visual to excite men has no analogue in women. Women don't get excited by virtually every male body at the beach. Male legs don't turn them on like female legs turn men on. Etc. etc.

It takes massive willpower in fact for a heterosexual man not to look at bikini-clad women. And few men -- even the nicest, finest, and most monogamously faithful and loving -- have such willpower.

So, the Daily Mail notes, this frequently causes problems when a couple's itinerary includes a visit to the beach.

And what exactly is the problem? The problem is that the wife or girlfriend feels threatened by his looking. And why does she feel threatened? Because she thinks he is comparing her to those women. And why does this disturb her?

Here are three reasons.

First, virtually every woman, no matter how attractive, thinks that when her man is looking at other women -- other women in general, and in bikinis especially -- he is finding them more attractive than her.

Second, she thinks that he is therefore dissatisfied with her, which in turn arouses the unspoken but primal fear that he might leave her.

And third, she is sure that her man will continue to think about these women long after they have disappeared from sight.

So now, let's analyze these reasons.

First, does the husband or boyfriend find these women on the beach -- or for that matter anywhere else -- more attractive than he finds his wife or girlfriend?

Well, since I believe that only honesty works in the long run, the answer is sometimes, yes. He may very well find some of those women more physically attractive than his woman. But, here's the point that most women, again understandably, don't know: with very few exceptions, it doesn't matter!

You heard me right. Of course, when looking at these other women, he may find some of them more physically attractive than the woman he is with. But -- and here's the good news -- SO WHAT??

Presuming he is attracted to you -- and if he isn't, it doesn't matter if you're vacationing in a monastery and all he sees are monks -- he wants YOU. I repeat, he wants YOU.

And if he does, all these other women don't amount to a hill of beans.

There's another thing women need to know. Within seconds of her disappearing from view, he has no memory of any of these women. When in sight, they can take over his male mind. But out of sight, they are out of mind. It's as if they never existed.

Yes, the visual gets men's total attention in a matter of seconds, but as soon as the woman he was focused on vanishes, most men forget what they saw in an equal number of seconds.

Why does this come as news -- and hard to believe news, at that -- to most women? Because you, the woman, remember the women your man looked at. And you therefore think that he, too, remembers them. But let me assure you he doesn't. Most men under torture couldn't identify the women they looked at that the hour before, let alone the day before if they were shown photos of them along with photos of women they had never seen.

And more good news! His seeing women who he thinks for that moment are more attractive than you has no bearing whatsoever on his being "dissatisfied" with you.

Men find other woman attractive in large measure just because they are other women. Men are programmed by nature to want variety -- indeed endless variety. That's why God-fearing King Solomon had 700 wives and another 300 concubines, and secular Hugh Hefner had at least that many lovers.

In sum, then, when your man looks at these other, perhaps even "more attractive" women, he is:

A) Not comparing you to them
B) Not in any way becoming dissatisfied with you, and
C) Certainly not thinking of them later.

He looks at them because they are other women, whether they are more attractive, just as attractive, or less attractive. They are women in bikinis. So he looks.

Where there is basic domestic harmony and mutual physical attraction, more than anything, your husband wants you. When he looks, he isn't comparing, he isn't getting dissatisfied, and he won't have a clue later as to who he saw. So when you're back in your hotel room, put on your own bikini, and tell him you want him. Because again, more than anyone else in the world, he wants you.

And if you don't believe me, ask him. You'll be glad you did. And so will he.

I'm Dennis Prager.

On January 28, 2016, Prager University posted a video, another one hosted by Dennis Prager, with the title "Men and the Power of the Visual." Here's the transcript they provided:

Every year men spend billions of dollars to look at women with little clothing on -- such as the annual Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue -- or with no clothing on -- such as on Internet sites and in so-called men’s magazines. Women, on the other hand, spend virtually nothing to see unclothed men. Why?

Some say that the reason is that men are socialized into viewing women as sex objects and that women are socialized into not viewing men as sex objects. But if that’s true, how do these people explain gay men? They are as aroused by pictures of naked men as heterosexual men are aroused by pictures of naked women. Obviously, then, it’s not socialization. It’s that men are programmed by nature -- not by society -- to respond sexually to the visual.

This is an area in which men are so different than women it's probably impossible -- no, not probably, just outright impossible -- for a woman to truly understand. Of course women find some men attractive. And of course a woman can have an intense reaction to seeing a very appealing man. But there’s still no comparison.

The visual alone arouses men. It takes far more to arouse a woman than seeing naked men. If that’s all it took, most husbands would walk around the house naked whenever possible -- or at least every time they wanted sex. And the average heterosexual man is excited countless times a day simply by seeing women -- in person, on billboards, in magazines, on television, and even in his imagination.

This is not the case for women. Yes, there are some male strip shows for women. But few women ever go, and the few who do attend them in groups, a “girls’ night out.” And for every one of those shows there are probably ten thousand female strip shows for males, most of whom attend alone, not as a participant in a guys’ night out.

Let's be honest. There is no magazine featuring men's legs for women to look at and get aroused by. But there are websites and magazines of women's legs for men. And are women paying to view topless men? Men pay good money to look at topless women.

Again, that doesn't mean women never get turned on by merely looking at some men. Of course they do. But it’s only some men -- on rare occasion a stranger, and more usually a celebrity. Men get turned on by any sight of female flesh on almost any female.

The effect of the visual in men is so powerful that it even amazes men. A man came over to me after hearing me lecture on male sexuality and said: “I've got a story to tell you. I was in front of a department store and in the window was a seated mannequin. I couldn't believe it, but I found myself looking up her skirt.” Here was a perfectly normal, responsible man -- who found himself looking up a skirt on an inanimate object shaped like a woman. That's how instinctive it is for men to look at female flesh.

It’s perfectly understandable that women cannot fully relate to this. But if a woman wants to understand male sexuality, the first thing she has to understand is the power of the visual. That's why you see ads on billboards, on TV, and in magazines for every sort of product a man might buy accompanied by a scantily clad woman -- or, sometimes, just part of her. I recall a famous liquor ad that showed a woman’s legs and a bottle of tequila. No face, just beautiful legs. Would you ever see an ad showing men's legs? People would laugh; it would be considered absurd. An ad with women's legs is not absurd—it's alluring.

None of this is in any way meant to excuse inappropriate male behavior. Men must always control themselves. But to deny the power of the visual on men is like denying that the earth is round.

I'm Dennis Prager.

A column of Prager's was posted at NationalReview.com on December 13, 2016 with the title "Yes, Men View Women as Sex Objects."

One of the proofs that “higher” education makes people more foolish, more naïve, and often even more ignorant about life than those who never attended college is the widespread belief among the well-educated that when men sexually objectify women, it means that they are misogynists, haters of women.

So, here is a list of eight truths about males and sexual objectification for those who have a degree in any of the “social sciences.”

1. It is completely normal for heterosexual men to see women to whom they are sexually attracted as sex objects.

2. That such sexual objectification is normal and has nothing to do with misogyny is proved by, among other things, the fact that homosexual men see men to whom they are sexually attracted as sex objects. If heterosexual men are misogynists, homosexual men are man-haters.

3. One reason for this is the almost unique power of the visual to sexually arouse men. Men are aroused just by glancing at a female arm, ankle, calf, thigh, stomach — even without ever seeing the woman’s face. Those legs, calves, arms, etc. are sexual objects. That’s why there are innumerable websites featuring them. There is nothing analogous for women. Of course, a woman can be aroused seeing a particularly handsome and masculine man. But there are no websites for women to stare at men’s legs or other male body parts.

4. Every normal heterosexual man who sees a woman as a sexual object can also completely respect her mind, her character, and everything else non-sexual about her. Men do this all the time.

5. Most heterosexual women also see sexy women as sex objects — and they are hardly misogynists. Ask your wife or girlfriend which would turn her on more: watching a male strip show in front of a female audience or a female strip show in front of a male audience.

6. Lucky is the couple in which the man can sexually objectify his partner. The longer a husband can at least occasionally regard his wife as a sex object, the better their marriage. It is not always easy to perceive the woman you see every day, the mother of your children, as a sexual object.

7. The whole purpose of lingerie and other sexual attire is to render the woman a sex object in her partner’s eyes. Are all the women who wear lingerie, bikinis, cheerleader outfits, or whatever else turns their partner on — and hopefully them as well, one might add — haters of women?

8. If your husband denies these assertions, he is lying to you because he is afraid you will react angrily or because he is afraid of hurting your feelings. He may also be lying to himself — after all, he, too, may have gone to college or reads liberal opinion pieces on misogyny, and he wants to be an “enlightened” male.

He goes on to say the Leftism denies reality in an attempt to avoid pain, eventually concluding:

It is also reality, not an expression of misogyny, that men see the objects of their sexual desire as . . . sexual objects. But this is too painful for feminists and other leftists.

And it violates feminist theory, which insists that seeing a woman as a sexual object makes one a misogynist, and that men and women are essentially the same.

Therefore, leftists reject the reality.

It is interesting that he doesn't mention that porn panic from the Right frequently invokes the "objectification" criticism.

Way back in June of 1999, Prager addressed the resignation of the Dean of Harvard University Divinity School, who had resigned after adult images were found on his computer and the president asked for his resignation.

There is not the slightest suggestion that the dean ever acted improperly toward a female, whether student or employee. Indeed there is not the slightest suggestion that he ever did anything improper at all. This Harvard University dean was told to give up his position because of what he looked at, not what he did.

We have entered an era that is beyond what George Orwell imagined in Nineteen Eighty-Four: a time wherein the fantasy life of citizens is monitored by authorities.

Prager went on to write feminists at the university were the ones who applied the pressure to remove the dean.

This brings us to the second and most important argument -- that men who use pornography demean women, or regard them as second-class beings, or simply harbor some conscious or unconscious hatred of them.

Those who make this argument either know very little about men's sexuality or are afraid of male heterosexuality (which is understandable -- it can be frightening) and therefore demonize it. The plain fact of life is that normal and honorable heterosexual men enjoy looking at partially clad and naked women. I feel a bit silly having to write in a publication read by college graduates what my unschooled grandmother knew. But the denial of unpleasant realities is one of the features of the highly educated at the end of the twentieth century.

Enjoying looking at pictures of naked women no more means a heterosexual man loathes women or wants them demeaned than looking at pictures of naked men means a homosexual man loathes men or wants them demeaned. In fact, it means absolutely nothing.

Further down:

But Harvard cannot tolerate a dean who is married, who is the father of two children, who, to the best of Harvard's knowledge, is faithful to his wife, yet who, in private, looks at pictures of naked women!

People can pay to hear Dennis Prager's lectures on male sexual nature. At "Pragertopia Unlimited" there is a recording with this description:

Dennis observes that women are women are afraid of the reality of male sexual nature and men are afraid of women’s reaction to it. It is one of the most difficult problems of the human race but it is scariest when not confronted. Dennis deals with it head on and offers some life changing solutions to this vexing issue.

Major points of the lecture:

1. Female human sexuality is much more elevated than male human sexuality. Men’s sexual nature is much closer to that of a rooster than it is to women’s sexual nature. If men follow their nature, they will not be happy. Being with a woman (i.e. one woman) humanizes a man, not being with a lot of women.

2. Gay men are the proof of the reality of male sexual nature (versus nurture). Gay men view and objectify men the same way that heterosexual men view and objectify women and always desiring sexual variety.

3. The visual is so powerful that we have some societies that cover their women from head to toe. Instead of covering women up, Dennis argues that men and women must learn to live with the sexual tension.

4. Pornography is proof that the urge for variety is in male wiring. If men did not need variety, one Playboy magazine should suffice. Instead men need a new issue of Playboy every month with different female faces and bodies.

5. How can men avoid adultery? Dennis advises to avoid temptation. For example, when eating in a restaurant, sit facing the wall so you can give your wife/girlfriend your undivided attention. If you are on a diet and ice cream is your favorite food then do not work in an ice cream shop!

6. Pornography and masturbation are not necessarily sick. They are bad if they are substitutes for intimacy with the wife. They are not bad if they are substitutes for adultery.

Time: 1:57:31 – Talk is 1:27:05 followed by Q and A.

At the online Prager Store, there is this:

Men’s Sexual Nature 3: Pornography: What Is It and Why Men Use It

Dennis defines pornography and explains why it causes people to think so unclearly. He shows how an understanding of male sexuality can make pornography less ugly and scary. While Dennis agrees that there are no great arguments to make in favor of pornography, he counters several arguments made against it.

Time: 1:31:12

Major points of the lecture:

1. Dennis is not in the business of turning people into saints. Thus, he tolerates pornography as one of the many legal vices available in a free society.

2. Dennis explains why women in general are not debased when women are portrayed as sex objects in pornography.

3. He shows why pornography doesn’t necessarily lead to violence and why it doesn’t have to become addictive.

4. According to Dennis, pornography is a danger if it is used as a substitute for real love. It is not dangerous if it is used as a substitute for adultery.

You can watch Dennis Prager talk about these topics for free, but he spends less than 30 minutes doing so, in Fireside Chat number 87.

In that Fireside Chat, he say things like:

• Men and women are different
• It's the hardest thing for women to understand male sexual nature
• Male sexual nature is frighting to women, and it is frightening when it isn't controlled
• Without rules men have been taught and choose to live by, or police, men would grab women and do what they want
• Men generally can enjoy non-committed, non-emotional sex while most women tend to be depressed by it
• Sex is on male minds a lot, and men are easily prompted to think about sex
• Men and the power of the visual
• Male sexual nature is normal, it isn't sick
• When men hide their sexual nature from the woman in their live, it isn't a real relationship
  

There is much I could write about what I've documented here, but that's not what this already long posting is for. Perhaps I analyze these things later. I'll just add that Dennis Prager, a practicing Jew who reveres the Torah, has indicated that non-intercourse sexual activity is permissible for people who aren't married. He has said intercourse is better reserved for marriage, although I haven't heard or read him appealing to the Bible to make that point.

UPDATE May 1, 2023: The above was posted on September 20, 2022. Lately, Dennis, who as far as I could recall had "never" discussed the "dangers" of porn in his columns or on his radio program or any form of Prager U video including his fireside chats, received much backlash for NOT pushing porn panic. His most recent fireside chat includes a bit about what he considers a negative about porn. I expect we will see more and more anti-porn talk from him.