Timeless Wisdom - Men's Sexual Nature (Part 4): What Men, Women & Society Can Do With Men’s Sexua...

Welcome to Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Hear thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs. And to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles, go to DennisPrager.com.

Know the pain that you can inflict upon the woman whom you are cheating on. That's a good one. It may not be much to you, and women have to know this. This is not a male line. Men can have sex, not know the name, not care a hoot, not recognize the woman the next day that they had sex with on a business trip in Ohio, and love their wives. This is not lines. This is truth. The man is not bluffing. I mean, if he had a long-term affair of love, he's bluffing. But otherwise, that is true. It is quite possible for him to do that. That's the way males are made. At the same time, men must understand that while to them that could be the case, to their wives that's not the case. "Honey, it was just a romp!" is true to him, but not true to her, because belongs to her. Lovemaking with her husband belongs to her, to no other woman on earth. He hugged and entered another woman, which is usually what a nightstand is about. I mean, this is— I have given my body to my lover, to my husband, to the father often of my children. And then she is pained. Men must know this is a factor. It should play a role when men think about the issue. Then there is values. Whatever number we're up to, then there is values. Values, obviously, is a big one. I think it's about as big as it gets. In these matters, where you value marital commitment. But even if you're not married, remember, I was talking about the unmarried men earlier living from woman to woman. But I have other values in life. I want to make a home. I want to make a relationship. I want to be a deeper Dennis. I don't want to die with the largest number of possible, uh, of women that I slept with on my tombstone. I want to die having had love in my life. So values come to bear, and should come to bear, and that is a choice that a man could make. Values versus nature. What are values? Values are what we need to counteract our nature. Who would need values? You don't need— none of you have the value to breathe. It is not a value, right? Because you do it naturally. There is no commandment in the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt breathe." We don't need commandments about things we do naturally. We need laws, moral laws, ethical laws, about things we don't do naturally. And so this is what a value system is about. It is to counteract what you would otherwise do. I said there was one controversial one, and I will talk more about this. in a, in a subsequent session. But there is another, uh, thing that a man can do along with all the other choices. The reason it's controversial is because a lot of religious traditions find it sinful. But I will put it to you in the words of, I believe it was Maureen Dowd, I think, a very witty columnist for the New York Times, writing about the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, she wrote, "Hasn't anybody told the president—" It wasn't her, actually, it was another columnist, another witty columnist, I believe. I think it was— but it doesn't matter. I like to cite the sources, and I'm not sure, but it was either the New York Times or Washington Post, and forget now that I even mentioned that, because you don't care where it came from. But one columnist wrote, "Hasn't anybody told the president about autoeroticism. Autoeroticism is a fancy term for self-stimulation, which is masturbation. Masturbation's issue is a very interesting one, and I will talk about it when we talk about pornography, because that's what pornography is about after all. Masturbation can be used by a committed, a man committed to a woman, for two reasons, and they are both opposites. One, as a substitute for real lovemaking with my wife, or my companion, whatever. Or as a substitute for adultery. Get the difference? The imagination can give to some men the affairs that in real life his value system will not allow for. There is an argument made, and I've had this many times on the radio, and almost nobody likes to cover this because everybody is too embarrassed by the subject except for the past Surgeon General, who thought we should talk to children about it, which I just thought wasn't wise. We should talk to adults about it. Nobody does. Be that as it may, the most common argument is It takes a man's attention, it focuses his erotic energies away from his wife. The studies that I have seen with regard to this, there was a huge study by, I don't remember by whom, but huge study a number of years ago about sex in America. I think it was called Sex in America. And it came out with the following. It may be not true, it may be true. It struck me as quite possibly true. And that is that couples with the most active sex lives also featured masturbation as a part of their sexual repertoire. Not mutual masturbation, but solo masturbation. Mutual as well, quite possibly. But solo. It did not strike me as odd. The notion that it is inevitably a substitute for lovemaking is not true. For some men it is. Then it's not good. Then it's a bad choice. To make love with a woman is infinitely better than to make love with yourself. Of course it's true. But what if you have love with your woman and love with yourself because that is the expression of your male libido allowing itself its fantasy realm? When I was a kid, And I've been reading, aside from thinking about it and living it, I have been preoccupied with these questions since I'm a teenager. I read a lot about these things, and something that was fascinating, because when you're a teenage boy, a teenage girl, you don't know anything. Even if you've had sex, you don't know anything. And you, and so I read, I actually read books on sex. And it was fascinating what one author once wrote. Dennis Prager. And he wrote something to the effect, I don't remember the exact words, he said, "Men have two, most men have two sex lives: with their wife and in their fantasy world. And they can perfectly well coexist." And I don't see why not. Why shouldn't they? In a healthy life. Now, let me add one warning. There are men who become addicted to masturbation and pornography, and we'll talk about porn later. But to masturbation. Absolutely. There are people who become addicted to beer and alcohol. There are people who become addicted to credit cards. There are people who become addicted to drugs. There are people who become addicted to almost anything that causes us pleasure. There are people who are addicted to donuts. Right? Addicted to sugar. Absolutely. I don't ban sugar because people are addicted to sugar. I don't ban credit cards because there are people addicted to credit cards. I don't ban masturbation because there are people addicted to masturbation. If you're addicted, you never do it. You must go cold turkey. Addicts cannot do a little. Physiologically or psychologically, whatever the mechanism is, they can't do any. And they shouldn't. They shouldn't start. But very many people can have moderate sugar, moderate masturbation. I will even offer thoughts when I talk about pornography on what that means. I've thought a lot of this through. I may be dead wrong, but I thought it through. This is another realm. I have talked to man after man after man about this. It is not shameful. It is not necessarily a substitute. Remember, I've worked this sentence out, uh, and I want to repeat it. It could be a substitute for lovemaking with his wife. then it's bad. It could be a substitute for sex with an affair, then it's okay. Alright? Those are all the choices that I could think of, good and not good, with a man's libido. I'll take questions afterwards. Now let me much more briefly go to the other two questions: What can society do? And what can a woman do?

This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this. Now back to more of Dennis Prager's Timeless Wisdom.

All right, what can, uh, which one should I do first? Okay, society. Thank you for answering. So I needed your guidance. What can society do? Well, I'll tell you what society has done. I'll give you one example: cover women up. Remember what our session is about tonight. What do we do with male sexual drive? What do we do with it? So, one thing you can do is cover women from head to toe. It's very hard to stimulate a man if he just sees black cloth. Okay? While there are men who are fetishists about leather, I have never seen a chador fetish in all of my studies of male sexual fetishes. "I must touch a chador" has not appeared in— remember that list I showed you last week? There was leather, there was God knows what, there was no chador listed under fetishes. So, it's a very, very— it desexualizes the environment. The assumption being, if men are never stimulated, they'll stay faithful to the only woman they could ever see her skin of, namely, her wife. Is it logical? Yeah. Does it work? No. It's horrible. First, it's horrible because it dehumanizes women. I must say, I think I'm fairly broad-minded after 72 countries of visiting. Most of them alone, live in different places with different families. I know there are many wonderful approaches to life. The covering of a human being from head to toe is to me dehumanizing. The argument when I have raised this with thoughtful Muslim spokesmen, first of all, it's not Islamic. It is done in Islamic countries, but it is not prescribed by Muslim law. Just as there are many things Jews do that are not prescribed by Jewish law, but have taken on a legal status because of tradition. The fact is that this is Middle Eastern, uh, Muslim. In Indonesia, it is not to be found. In Malaysia, this is not to be found. This is Middle Eastern. Uh, that's one response, and that's fair. It's a non-issue. But the response to the dehumanizing is, you think we dehumanize women covering them up from head to toe? It's you in the West who dehumanize women by having them as sex objects on billboards, and in ads, and in TV, and in film, with their short skirts, and with their halter tops, and their breasts almost showing. You're the dehumanizers, not us. Well, first of all, there is a middle road between miniskirts and halter tops on the one hand, and chadors on the other. There is a middle road. So the answer of, "Well, you also do a bad thing," doesn't negate the challenge that a woman is dehumanized by becoming invisible. I have a picture, when I was in Damascus, Syria, I took a picture of a woman crossing the street toward me. And all— you didn't even— you saw nothing. She was— her face and eyes were covered. She saw the world through a screen. And it was actually eerie. All I saw were hands. The only— I only knew it was a human, for all I know it could have been a robot. That's what I mean by dehumanizing, because I saw hands. If there weren't hands, I would have believed it was, I don't know, a Hollywood set creating some sort of inanimate object walking toward me. That's dehumanizing in my opinion. There's no person. The person's hidden. The person is truly hidden. And there is something— I want to know that there is a female body. I don't think it is beautiful to have a potato sack on a woman, even if you see her face. A woman has breasts, she has every right to show them. I don't mean bare them, I mean show them. Let the— I have breasts, yes. You weren't given breasts to entirely mislead the world into thinking you don't have them, or don't have legs. On the other hand, to wear something where the cleavage is like a ski slope, and, you know, one sees just large globes of flesh only, this is purely sexually provocative. I'll talk about that in a moment, because it has its place, but not generally. Be that as it may, the answer to the dehumanization of putting women behind these things is not, "Well, you have these terrible things in the West." It's that that is not what you do. It doesn't work also because whenever these men ever do then see a woman, even just the face, they go crazy. Ironically, the chadorization of women renders women sexual objects arguably even more than the West has. They are such sexual objects that if you would even see an elbow, you would be aroused. If you would even see a forehead, you would think sex. That's what it's stating, correct? So it's the ultimate statement: women are only sexual arouser. They have no other role. Also, it's pretty odd if I am the problem I, the male, why are you covering up? Maybe I should walk with blindfolds, right? It would seem to me if one is going to take the moral high road, men in Muslim countries should wear blindfolds and women should walk around freely. It was like— I got this from Golda Meir, the one woman who was Prime Minister of Israel, a very strong and brilliant woman, you may recall her. Golda Meir wrote in her memoirs that there was a problem at one time in the Yishuv. The Yishuv was the Jewish community in pre-Israel Palestine. There was a problem with a rapist around. So they decided that the women should stay indoors when the sun went down. So Golda Meir said, "I don't understand. Men are doing the raping." they should stay indoors. So, it's— and I thought I was impeccable logic, you know. You talk to me logic and, you know, I'm just silly putty in your hands. I have no answer to her comment. And that's what I say, if men are going to go crazy because they see women's faces, elbows, legs, then they should wear blindfolds. Not put women into boxes. That's what my answer would be if people really wanted to take the moral high road on that issue. So I don't accept that answer. But please understand, male sexuality being what it is, based on what we talked about last week, the tchador is a logical response. I think a poor response, but it's a logical response. What do we do with male sexuality is society's, one of society's greatest questions. This society denies it because it has taken the idiotic position that males and females are the same. So there is no problem with male sexuality, because to assume that is to assume men and women are basically different, and that doesn't go over well at Dartmouth, or any other college. Uh, another one is the one I told you about, the Latin and European world, Have men marry while having mistresses. Again, this— remember, I'm answering what can society do. Society can encourage men, "Men, you gotta marry. But we know you've got this urge, so on the side you'll have a mistress. But you have the matriarch, the woman that you make a family with and you are devoted to. You don't divorce her." That's another societal response to the problem of male sexuality. And a third one, the one that we have tried in this society, is encourage marriage and fidelity and stigmatize infidelity. That is what we have tried. It has generally worked. That doesn't mean there's no adultery, of course there is. But it means that generally speaking, over the long run of society, that has generally worked. With sins here and there, and sad, those sins, but nevertheless, a sin and a mistake, or whatever you wish to call it, in the context of a value system that a society holds, is livable with. This society has said, "Look, we know people will stray, but we would like to stigmatize infidelity." Right now, it's less stigmatized. It is not quite as stigmatized as it was. Nevertheless, it still is stigmatized. I mean, look at what happened with the President of the United States. If it weren't stigmatized, people would yawn. It's not stigmatized in Europe, and they yawned. And the intellectual elite in this society did tend to yawn. Adultery is not a big deal to many in the intellectual elite of our society. I don't say that as a condemnation, I just say that descriptively. That's what society can do. Society can tell boys that you become a man by marrying. That's how I was raised. Frankly, I don't know what I would have done without my religion and my father. My father as a model, and my religion with its commandments. I don't know what I would have done. I might have given into my nature for a lot longer years and kept deferring marriage to much later. I knew I would get married. I knew I would get married not because my nature compelled me to. I knew I would get married because my religion compelled me to, and because my father provided a model. That's what fathers are for, in large measure, to give boys a model of what to grow up to do. I knew I would get married because that's what a boy's supposed to do. You're not a man until you're married. In traditional Judaism, you are called a bachur, you are called a lad, a boy until you marry. In Ashkenazi synagogues, Orthodox synagogues, unmarried men do not wear a tallit, do not wear a prayer shawl. As a public statement, they're not men yet. We're nice guys, we like them, they're our brothers, our sons, our friends, but you don't marry, you're not really a man. That was the message I got as a kid. To be a man, you marry. You take care of a woman and a family if you can have one. That's what I was taught. That's what I was— boys are not trained that way today. To be a man today, first of all, we don't even use the language "be a man." It's not, it's gone. But to the extent that we even have retained it, oh, what do I— be a man is to be a professional. What'll I do when I grow up? Boys don't think, I'll get married, take care of a family. No. I'll be a pilot, I'll be a businessman, I'll be a professor, whatever it'll be. It's too bad. That's a problem that society needs to address. Society must help boys become men. Society must help men deal with their sexual nature. If it gives a hint to to men, we don't care if you act out your sexual nature. In fact, you'll be on the COVID of People magazine. You'll be considered a, a bon vivant. You will be honored as a playboy. Honored, not stigmatized. Then why on God's earth, where are the rewards? Society must reward men for suppressing their nature. It's got to reward us. And it rewards you not with money, it rewards you with honor. With stigmatizing the alternative. But if it's not honored, and, you know, marriage? It's just a piece of paper. Again, among many of the elite, that is just a thought. What do I need it for? It's just a piece of paper. What's a big piece of paper? If it's so unimportant, why not do it? I've always asked guys who called my show, you know, "Oh, you know, my fiancée, she—" or my girlfriend, excuse me. My girlfriend, she wants to get married. I tell her, what's the difference? It's not that important. To which I've always said, if it's not that important, why don't you do it? I've never had an answer to that question.

This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this. Now back to more of Dennis Prager's Timeless Wisdom.

Finally, what can women do? Women are part of this equation here, after all. Number 1, women can understand their man. I started that way last week, if you recall. That's why I'm so glad that the women have stuck it out so far and come back, though some did not survive last week, apparently. Unfortunately, but others have come back. It is very important, it is very important to your man that, for him to believe that you understand this part of him. Because men are embarrassed by it. I explained that all last week, and I will make that tape available, I'm happy to say. I feel good about it. That is important, because we are not thrilled with our sexual nature. It's not a source of pride. It's a source of drive, but not a source of pride. And so if you can understand it with us, help us by understanding it, by not being embarrassed by it, by not being afraid of it, because I explained last week it could be frightening to a woman. That's a very major help to a man. Let a man open up about it. Not preoccupy the talk with it. I mean, it's because that's ultimately counterproductive. If he commented every time he lusted after other legs, he's going to alienate the love of his life, not get closer. It's just preposterous. But it doesn't mean that it can never be talked about. There's a big difference between always and never. Another thing women can do, which they did until 1967, It's a joke. I mean, I can't give you the year, but roughly, is basically make it harder for men who don't commit to have sex. It's very simple. It's poo-pooed, but I don't understand why the sophisticated think that this is worthy of mockery. If men's nature is what I describe, and they can get sex with no commitment, —then you have to rely entirely either on your awesome ability to get them to the altar, which means overcoming their whole sexual nature, or their value system. And men's value systems will get them married, but a lot of men today don't have a value system like this. They just know if it feels good, you do it. So, it just seems— I'm not saying women should not enjoy sex as much as they want to. They should. It's not an issue to me. I'm just saying, though, logic suggests, just as it suggested that men should wear blindfolds, I'm equally critical of both sex, if you will. Both sexes. So it would suggest here that if men have the availability of women easily, that they will marry less. It makes perfect sense. It's— there's no other way around it. So that is something women have to consider. But of course, a woman— what men will do to get a woman into bed, the lines they will use and put the burden on her. "What, are you sick? Every other woman is doing it. I'll leave you if you don't." So leave me. I mean, a woman should be able to say, "Then leave me. If you loved me, you'd stay with me." It's so obvious to me as a man, I can't believe a woman would fall in for it. But listen, both sexes fall into nonsense that the same sex understands as nonsense. The third thing is, finally, that the sexual titillation bombardment can be modified. You heard my passion against chadors. But at the same time, women must understand that certain skirts and certain tops and certain well, that's basically what there is— or thong underwear to a president in the Oval Office. I felt for him. This was not— I'm not a devotee of the president, in case that's a surprise to you, but I did not have contempt for him on this issue. That is, if anything— in fact, the guy on my radio station kept making this point over and over, and he was right. He said, "If this doesn't prove how powerful the sex drive is in a man, nothing will." A girl shows a thong underwear to the President of the United States. He risks the world, literally, the security of the planet Earth, for a tush. I mean, think about it. No, that is what happened, right? Only a man can fully understand that. A president, president, Oval Office, mobile office, impeachment, impeachment. There is somebody making her tush available with a thong bikini. That is how powerful it is. So there's nothing you can do about it except don't use it unless you want to use it. But the more it is used, the more it feeds into the male problem, which is the origin of the whole issue that we are here talking about. So those are The answer is, I think, what we can do positive and less positive with this awesome problem of male sexual nature. Okay, now questions, comments, brief alternate speeches. Yes. [INAUDIBLE] Oh, that's very interesting. Did you hear that? This is, uh, you've heard that from a sex therapist? All right, okay. Sex therapists, he claims, offer the thought that another possible solution is, while making love to one's spouse, one's wife specifically, to be fantasizing other women. Well, I hope it's women. I mean, not as opposed to men, but as opposed to trees, is what I was thinking of. You know, honey, I really I just have this oak in mind. Well, it's an interesting question. Let me tell you what I heard from a sex therapist whom I interviewed on this subject well before I was married even. She, an Israeli sex therapist that I knew, had a very interesting idea in a different way. She said, take the sexual bombardment of the day and save it up for your wife. I thought that was better advice than that one. Keep all of that arousal material, as it were, in a bank account and let it explode innocuously with your wife when the occasion arises. If a man has to deal with has to do that in order to achieve erectile function, then he'll have to do what he has to do. It is certainly behaviorally better than not making love to his wife. And if he has to, he has to. I think it's sad for him, and certainly would be sad for her if she knew it, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of wives do know it. Women read men very well. not perfectly, but very well and better than they think they're read. I don't have a great answer for you on that. It's better than not having sex with your wife, clearly. I would focus, though, on trying to make my reaction to my wife as lust-filled as possible. That is why I should have put really in here that play-acting in marriage. A rabbi recently wrote a book called Kosher Sex. He's a Chabad rabbi, a dear friend of mine, very Orthodox, and he wrote a— it's controversial among the Orthodox, but I think he's on totally accurate ground halachically, that is on Jewish legal grounds. And he says, "You do anything that it takes to arouse husband and wife to one another. If it means dressing in a French maid's outfit, you dress in a French maid's outfit. If it means hanging from chandeliers, you hang from chandeliers. Whatever it is, so long as you're focused on each other." I think there's brilliance to that. I think too many men and women give up too easily on what can be done. A lot of women, for example, think that if they don't look like Miss July in Playboy, they're not sexually appealing and arousing, period, or to their husband. And that's just not true. Women who want to act sexy with their husband can do so if they want to. And almost any man will tell you this. And there are things that you can do. I know someone who, a couple, and I think it's a great idea, he never sees her nude unless they're making love. So that there's no familiarity with her nakedness. I think it's a great idea. That's one good example. Sexy clothing is terrific. I've heard some women say that, well, you know, this is phony. If he really loved me, he would just love me in my natural naked state. Well, I don't know where you got that from. Is that from Shakespeare? Is that from Plato? It's not from real life. Sex is sex, and sex has fantasy with it. And it's true about the sexiest women on earth, that a little clothing is sexier than no clothing. If striptease artists started out naked, they would close up. They would lose business. And now all of our striptease artists will come out naked to begin with. Ooh, ooh, ooh. It's taking off the clothing that's the arousing element. It's wearing seductive, it's crossing legs with a skirt on. I mean, there are a million things that can be done, and that are in the province of virtually any husband and wife. So I think it gives up too easily to argue that way. They should work, as a last resort, I agree with what you said. But I think that a husband and wife should work at it, and a woman should I mean, there are times where a woman would have to say no. There are sexual, and I will get to that when we talk perversions. Remember, this is for 21 and older, this course. There are things that a woman has a perfect right to say, "Honey, I love you, but that is just not something I can engage in." On the other hand, it depends what it is. To be adult with you, I think a woman has a perfect right to say, "You know what, I really don't want to be urinated on." Okay, if that's his thing. It may be her thing to be urinated on, in which case they're beshert. That's just it. They have met their divine partner. On the other hand, if she says, "You know, it just grosses me out, fellatio," I think that's a problem that has to be be worked out. It should not gross one out to have oral sex. So, you know, you have to use— be open, you have to be honest, you have to use common sense about what goes beyond barriers that are not fair to demand and what is fair to demand. So I would work on that relationship first. It's a very long answer, but you asked a very important question.

This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this. Now back to more of Dennis Prager's timeless wisdom.

Yes, Tammy. Is it my belief that because of male nature, the great composers are all male? Yes, it's because of male nature, but not necessarily male sexual nature. I think males are more abstract. They get passionate about abstractions more than women do. Women get passionate about relationships. By the way, the relationship could even be with an animal. Women are more passionate about their pets than men are. The animal rights movement is overwhelmingly female. Women are into relationships. Men are into abstractions. Music is extremely abstract. It's the most abstract of the arts. Philosophy is abstract. Maybe one day there will be an awesome female philosopher, but it's just not as likely. And it doesn't have anything to do with superiority or inferiority. But yes, I do think that corresponds to male nature, but not necessarily sexual. Yes? [INAUDIBLE] As opposed to the which approach? Harem. Uh-huh. What do I think of polygamy as, for example, in the Mormon approach, as opposed to the harem approach, which is not polygamy, just legal affairs? I believe in monogamy because polygamy is inherently unequal. The Bible has a— the Hebrew Bible, because we're not talking— are you Mormon? Okay, but there are Mormons, and we have the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Bible, the Mormon Bible, the Book of Mormon, so I'll be precise. The Hebrew Bible, whenever it describes polygamy, which was allowed in biblical times, it's fascinating. It describes the following. The one who was loved and the one who was hated. That it was its way of saying polygamy exists, but it isn't healthy. And the best, if you want biblical argument, because we're talking biblical issue because it was Mormons, God's statement in Genesis: "And therefore man shall leave his mother and father and cling unto his wife." and they shall be as one flesh. Not clinging to his wives. This was written when there was polygamy, but it said, and clinging to his wife. Uh, one-to-one is human equality. One-to-two or more is less equal. On the other hand, it is certainly preferable to a playboy life in terms of what to do with male nature. Yes.

I'm single, but when I have a lady in my life, I aspire to find a way to find even nearer all these qualities that you're leading and embracing naturally. And take the solutions that you espouse and apply them in a less fear-based way of replying to humans?

Well, good luck. You know, when you do that, I want you to report back here, and I will sit in that chair and you will stand here. Okay? That's all I can say. I say it is not so terrible to see, uh, this as a demon. It is also a blessing because we don't— and I— and in that way I do agree with you. I did pose it as a demon when I should have said it is also the, the vitality that makes men men. You wouldn't want a man who didn't have this, but now that he has it, it's a problem. Women want men— I'll never forget, this was a very funny thing when I when I was dating. I really wish I had recordings of my dates. I mean, the dinner part. I'm not into aural sex. I'll never forget this woman I was dating, and I asked her what type of man she wants. I always ask that. That too. I had a series of questions I loved asking. And so I said, what kind of man? You know, she would ask me what type of woman I would like to marry and so on. And so I asked her what type of man, and she basically said this. I wish her words were better, but it was essentially this. I want a man who is extremely virile, very sexual, who is very vibrant and has a tremendous drive. And is only attracted to me. And I wished her good luck, very similarly as I wished you good luck. Every blessing comes with a curse. This is a blessing and a curse. Yes? Do you also think that there's an inherent quota that at some point in their life they say to themselves, I've had enough of this, it's time to settle down, and that's one of the reasons why they do get into a relationship with a man and eventually marry him? That's a very good question. Did you hear his question? About men and satiability, he mentioned, but isn't there also in men a sort of quota quote, that at some point they say, "Okay, I've had enough of this. Now I want something deeper." Yes, in a man who wants depth, there is. I will tell you very honestly, that happened to me. I will never forget it. I was on a date. I remember the restaurant. What is that? Mario's. Mario's Italian Restaurant in Westwood. And I was having pizza. I think, because they have very good pizza at Mario's, or they did. Anyway, I was with a very attractive blonde, as it happens, and it seemed to me, at any rate, I don't want to overstate this, that she was attracted to me, and that we could have gotten something on, alright? And I thought, and I remember thinking, wow, If this were even a year ago, let alone 10 years ago, I was then 30. Boy, would I be thrilled to know I could have this woman. This is awesome. But you know what I was thinking to myself? I don't want to go through this over and over and over. It's about time I had something deeper in life. I want to get married. And I remember it was at that dinner I decided I want to get married. I don't want to live this life more. More. But remember, A, I had all these religious values inculcated. B, I want depth in everything in my life. I mean, it's, it's, that's my nature. I, I don't like the superficial in music, in, in thought, in talk, in relationships. I still had that urge, but this was starting to compete. What you just said. And I think that a lot of men do get that at a certain point if they have that depth. That's why women are concerned about the 40-year-old guy who never was married.

This has been Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Visit DennisPrager.com for thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs, and to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles.