I admire and respect bonddad tremendously for his prescience and insight into financial matters. I loathe and despise Dennis Prager for his neanderthal-like conservatism. So it is odd for me to find myself saying what I'm about to say: Prager did NOT endorse, advocate, defend, support or justify "marital rape". I forced myself to read Prager's entire column, and in all honesty I saw nothing that would justify such an accusation on bonddad's part. Please allow me to explain.
Rape is one of the strongest terms in the English language. It evokes horrifying images of threat, violence, deep humiliation, degradation, pain, and trauma. Most of us know people who have been victims of sexual violence, either forcible rape or child molestation. Many people have been assault victims themselves. We know how serious an accusation of sexual assault is. Nowhere--NOWHERE--in Prager's article does he imply or suggest that men have the right to FORCE themselves on women. I have, as I say, gone through the whole thing, and what I see Prager saying is that a loving wife will CONSENT to a man's request for sex even if she doesn't feel like it. Now, this may not be my idea of proper communication between wives and husbands. Maybe, if he's getting turned down a lot, the man needs to ask his wife why this is, or if there's some way in which he is disappointing her or being selfish or being inconsiderate. But in all honesty, I cannot accuse Prager of endorsing rape. As much as I can't stand Prager, such an accusation is deeply unjust.
I know my position will be unpopular, but I felt I must speak up. Prager's analysis of the male-female dynamic may be simplistic, it may be old-fashioned, it may be unrealistic. But he does NOT say husbands have the right to rape their wives.
With all due respect, therefore, I think bonddad overreacted and is wrong to accuse Prager of endorsing rape.