Get PJ Media on your Apple

Dr. Helen

A Classic Example of White Knighting

July 22nd, 2014 - 5:04 am

So Dave Swindle here at PJM writes a reply to my post on the man with the spreadsheet being disappointed in his lack of a sex life with his wife:

I’m actually going to take the wife’s side in this dispute. I have absolutely ZERO SYMPATHY WHATSOEVER for this loser. Why?

Because it’s not a wife’s responsibility to be her husband’s happy whore, eagerly providing him with his orgasms on demand.

Dissatisfied husbands, want to know the secret to having sex with your wife whenever you want? It is not your wife’s responsibility to be ready to go on command, it’s YOUR responsibility to know your wife so well that you are capable of seducing her anytime. When you want to have sex with her you don’t ask her, you put her in the mood yourself. It’s really that simple: know you wife well enough so you can push the right buttons, say the right things, and create an environment where sex just naturally happens.

Unfortunately, that’s more work than most men are used to for getting orgasms.

This response is classic white knighting where the spreadsheet guy is a failure and this is why he can’t get sex. Note the word loser that is used in Dave’s first paragraph. Of course it’s important to white knight and call the guy a loser because that means that a man that doesn’t get upset if his wife won’t have sex with him is a winner! A convenient excuse to tell oneself on yet another sexless night. And of course, as Dave notes, it is always up to the man to take responsibility for any problems in the couple’s sex life. Wife doesn’t put out? It’s your fault, man. You lack self-control. Really?

I have a few questions for you, Dave. What if the man does all of the things you suggest such as put her in the mood, goes through all of the rituals etc. you suggest and then ends up with nothing? Then what? The man should then continue in a sexless marriage? Bask in the glow of his “self-control” as he wonders where the sex went? According to you, he alone (the loser!) is to blame. It takes two to tango, if you blame him alone for their lack of sex, you see women as having no responsibility and no agency in sex. Isn’t this a little sexist?

Update: Dave Swindle responds.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
"There are no frigid women, only clumsy men".

Hahahahaha! What a ridiculous and untrue generalization.

Over the years I've listened to way too many friends, female and male, complain about their partner's disinterest in sex and inability to become aroused. Sometimes the reason is a mystery, but often it's something physical or psychological that can be overcome if the person is willing to confront the problem. Sometimes things go back to "normal" all by themselves.

But to say that the fault is always with the man is laughably false.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Indeed. The "traditional" right is basically Feminism with a few bible verses thrown in now.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yup, White Knighting.

Dave is the one good man who can teach all the other men/losers how they should act. A true chivalrous hero for all the little ladies. Kind of Hugo Schwyzerish.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (101)
All Comments   (101)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Dr. Helen,

Men (and women) can certainly benefit from increasing their value to their partner. However, Mr. Swindle's approach of a man simply "serving" his partner with that value and "hoping" she reciprocate is often not effective or empowering for the man (as you also note). Instead, it is better for the man to have his wife earn his value and reward her with it, after she cares for his needs. This would help to re-balance the power in the relationship, which is the central problem facing this couple (and many others).

For my thoughts on this matter in more detail, please see here:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201407/husband-tracks-sex-spreadsheet-does-wife-owe-him-more
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thanks for your comment, interesting post at PT. Helen
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yo Dave, whiteknite extraordinaire, you're a pussy beggar, that's what you are! Pathetic!

It's a wife's duty to give sex to her husband, if she can't do that, she needs to allow him a mistress or she shouldn't be getting married in the first place.

Thank you, Dave, for providing ample proof that marriage is such a bad idea, that only losers partake in it!

I'll keep the champagne on ice for your eventual divorce! You deserve it!
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually Dave, I take that back, you're not a "Pussy Beggar" but a Pussy Worshiper, you're an idol lover!

17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
When a wife no longer performs her wifely duties, you get a mistress or two. Simple.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
Are you okay with the wife getting a boyfriend or two when hubby cannot perform his husbandly duties?
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
As long as we're in the everything-has-to-be-exactly-equal department, are you OK with a woman who sits at home on her butt getting out and being the breadwinner for the entire family?
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
You bet I'm okay with it! The point I was making is that it's unlikely Femhater would be ok with a wife taking a lover or two when hubby doesn't meet the mark. Double standard.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think the whole topic is more than a bit distracting since sex is not even an option for most of the men I know in that we are not married and can not secure partners who won't kill our children and we can't afford to maintain households in any case, but for the sake of discussion;

The problem is the man was not getting sex and the wife had excuses, but no legitimate reasons for not giving him sex. That is selfish and suspicious.

I suspect adultery. Not everyone has a high sex drive, but everybody wants sex from time to time for the comfort of the experience if nothing else. That means if she's not willing to have sex with her husband she's cheating and will leave him soon enough. It really is that simple.

Dave is correct that her career has become an idol to her, but we all have idols and they don't always interfere with our sex lives. Her job is simply an excuse either to justify her getting sex elsewhere or to distance herself from her husband who she regrets marrying in the first place.

Her real job, according to God himself, as a wife, which is an occupation she committed her whole life to by oath, is to serve her husband. If she didn't want to have sex with him she shouldn't have married him. She is bound to him and must serve him to maintain a good relationship with God, fulfill her oath, and find meaning in her life. She wasn't forced into marriage. She chose that man. She has to live with that decision.

The same is true of him. She is a selfish woman. He married her knowing full-well what sort of woman she was, and don't tell me he didn't. I've seen this dozens of times.

She had to have shown clear signs of selfishness before the marriage because it's a fundamental character trait that is visible during dating or courtship. Typical conversations in the car go, "Me, mine, I want, I need, my career, my future, I'm going to be an actress, a doctor, a lawyer, my school, my class, my friends, my car, my apartment, I have needs, oh what's that? you? No, I was talking about me, me, me."

We have courtship to give each person time to learn the character flaws of their suitors so that they can decide with full knowledge whether or not they want to marry each other. The courtship removes all excuses for divorce due to ignorance. This man must have seen the signs of selfishness and yet he married her anyway. And now he has to live with her.

Although I suspect adultery, which would provide a legal and moral reason to be done with her, it must be said that if she's simply without natural libido that's his burden to bear. Before no fault divorce it was a high burden to grant divorce on sexless grounds if the marriage is consummated even a single time, although it was allowed if the burden could be met. Even Henry VIII had trouble with a suit for divorce due to lack of sex because under God's law a lack of sex was never a justification for divorce.

As we age almost everyone finds regular sex difficult, especially when stress and responsibility is high. Never in any marriage is the desire for sex entirely equal between spouses. It's part of the natural give and take in a relationship which waxes and wanes for better or worse till death do you part. Right now he's frisky, she's not. She's your wife man. Deal with it.

However from God's perspective even if she has a low sex drive she should care enough for him to give him sexual attention either way, with passion, out of love, as her duty to her husband and to God, not just out of necessity, and not simply as a matter of obligation by simply lying on her back.

Her sex drive may be low but withholding sex from him altogether can be a sign of vindictivenes, which again is not grounds for divorce, but rather should have been detected during courtship. He should have married a better woman or stayed single. The Bible warns men about marrying contentious women. He should have listened. Now he's being forced to live an abstinent lifestyle while bound to a selfish woman. That's not anybody's fault except his own for disregarding God's word in planning his life.

Dr. Helen's point that men's needs are not being addressed in many relationships is valid and it's unfortunate, but the problem is spiritual for as Dave pointed out people in a selfish relationship will always be unhappy.

Divorce will not rectify this man's problems because his problem is also spiritual in that he can not discern a righteous woman from an evil one. He will just chose another selfish woman again and again until he regards God's words regarding relationships. I have learned through observation that people who can't live single for any length of time are like broken records.

The way to address the problem of an unhappy relationship is by applying God's solution. God already addressed each of these issues explicitly in his word, but modern Americans are ignorant of God's words, so I leave you with them to pour over. Charity begins at home.

Ephesians 4:2
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
"That means if she's not willing to have sex with her husband she's cheating and will leave him soon enough. It really is that simple."

You're making a massive assumption. Sure, it is possible she's fooling around. But to say she must be fooling around because she won't have sex with him isn't fair and may be flat-out incorrect.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
Guess I'm too late to comment,(been too busy at work all week), but I noticed that Swindle has nothing to mention about women who complain about their husbands not giving them sex or dragging their husbands to divorce court over lack of sex. What does he have to say about such women? Does he think they are at fault for their lack of sex or are the husbands abusive for denying them sex...if he says it is the fault of the woman for not maintaining her figure etc or putting off her husband, I'll at least give him credit for being consistent and not hypocritical, else, the guy just deserves to be kicked in his nuts for being a total feminist hypocrite.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
This situation is obviously about more than sex. It is about their relationship. I think we'd all agree that these people have a serious communication issue.

Everyone keeps talking about this like it's a choice between her putting out and him seducing her properly. I disagree that that is the case. This seems to be about consideration on both sides. In general it seems that within a committed relationship, to the man, physical intimacy is a big part of how the woman shows her love at the start. To the woman, physical intimacy is the result of the love, at the end. Therefore many relationships wind up in a pattern of her not being in the mood because she's not feeling the love, and when he's not feeling the love he, in turn, feels rejected which does not compel him to show his love in other ways, which makes her feel less amorous, until they aren't speaking. Someone spoke about running his hand down her arm. For some women simply doing the dishes without being asked is enough to show her he loves her and relieve her stress to the point that she's jumping him as soon as the last plate is put away.

Most married women I know have had sex when they didn't really want to, partially out of a feeling their man needed the expression of her love. In this way I agree with the people who say it is her responsibility to put out. But the husbands in these cases reciprocate in the way their wives need. Once again it might not be in sexual ways but both parties are feeling the LOVE, not the arousal.

Does she need to play the happy wh*re? No. But when she is only putting out once every three weeks I'm going to say SHE has an issue. Even if he weren't even asking, she would have a responsibility to her marriage to seduce her husband. Because by that point it has nothing to do with his abilities. He's not whining because he's getting it three times per week instead of daily. He's been cut off for all intents and purposes and I don't care if he's a fat slob who drinks beer all day, she needs to put out or get out. If he has truly fallen in her esteem to the point that she has so little desire for him, then she needs to get the two of them to therapy. But instead she's confused that he thinks there's anything wrong. And his romeo skills were seemingly good enough to marry him as the report I saw said they were dating for three years before marriage. The likelihood that they were sexually active before marriage is high.

I also noticed her excuse was "I'm working a lot and tired" not "I'm worn out from doing all of the household chores because he's a big fat slob." nor "But he just expects me to go from nothing to turned on with no foreplay." She is allowing external stuff to dictate (and I don't buy the "he's not seducing her well enough" argument) and is confused that he's not happy with it.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
Dave Swindle and his White Knighting are not as much of a problem here - just an irritating person describing his high-minded service to women, policing of men and twisting-and-turning adaptation of religion to suit his personal needs.

But there are Dave Swindles working as social workers and police officers and family court judges. There are Dave Swindles jacking over men and assisting damsels in distress; who cares about picky adherence to laws or basic notions of fairness when he can swell in pride that he helped women and stuck it to men. In fact, let's even try to make neutral-sounding laws that are intended to apply to men only (they haven't perfected that combination yet), like in the area of domestic violence.

Dave Swindle and his ideological companions really are the problem, not feminists. Feminists would just be a laugh number if men weren't manipulated by them, men like Dave Swindle. It's not just a clueless person to be irritated by, it is men like him who are causing active damage to other men in society.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
As soon as someone says "man up" you can be assured the rest of what he/she says is bullsh*t.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yup. When a woman says it, I watch my wallet to make sure money doesn't get transferred to her, and I also wonder who she wants me to attack or defend her from.

When a man says it, I just tune out. Dopiness for his own benefit, he just looks so swell defending innocent women, is sure to follow.

I had to laugh when I saw that the politician Diane Feinstein, in her frustration, was trying to insult Vladimir Putin in that way. She was telling him to "man up" and other, similar things. Frankly, I think ol' Vlad is more of a man than she is, or will ever be, so she should probably shut her mouth or think up a different set of impotent insults.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
I love it when male feminists conclude only men have agency and anything a woman does is only in response to the actions of men.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
My reply to Mr. Swindle:

Interesting, you say you champion religious marriage and find the lack of sex the husband's fault.

In a weird bit of symmetry yesterday's Epistle reading for the Orthodox was as follows:

1 Corinthians 6:20-7:12 (Epistle)

20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.

4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.

7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.

8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am;

9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband.

11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.

12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her.


It sounds to that in putting "Biblical marriage on the table" claiming "A sexless marriage is not an actual problem" is incorrect. At least in part a function of marriage is to provide resistance to the temptation of fornication and abstention "except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer" is a danger to that function.

Perhaps Jews, Catholics, or Protestants (I assume given your championing of Biblical marriage you're one of those. I'm not assuming Orthodox as you wrote this the day after the reading I just quoted and would have defended against it having just read it) consider watching "Friends" a form of fasting or prayer. I feel relatively safe in saying the Orthodox do not.

The only deeper issue we absolutely know is the incredible disrespect for the privacy of this marriage and for her husband the wife holds. How do we know this? Her reaction is to air her dirty laundry on the Internet in a search for allies. That doesn't sound very Blblical to me but perhaps you can show me which of the Prophets, which of the Disciples, or where God himself (as the Father in the Old Testament or the Son or Holy Spirit in the New) said such was proper behavior for a bride or bridegroom.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Just as a note, re Paul and the Corinthians quote: Paul was probably a widower (since Saul was a Pharisee he would have been married), and the "good for a man to not touch a woman" is his preference for those who would dedicate themselves to God's word. He - as a very zealous preacher of the Word, had the ability to do this. However, as Luther says quite plainly, the ability to do this is not for everyone, nor should it be.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
Reposting my reply to you. Interesting that you don't include that disgusting last line in your reposting of it here.
You're a little late in making this point. The very first commenter cited that verse too and I answered it. http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/07/21/would-you-want-a-husband-this-incompetent-at-turning-you-on/?singlepage=true&show-at-comment=792299#comment-792299
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/07/21/would-you-want-a-husband-this-incompetent-at-turning-you-on/?singlepage=true&show-at-comment=792393#comment-792393
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/07/21/would-you-want-a-husband-this-incompetent-at-turning-you-on/?singlepage=true&show-at-comment=796058#comment-796058

I don't value Paul higher than the Torah the way Pagan Christians do. This is a theological disagreement about which verses are more important than others.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
You say that as if you yourself aren’t a pagan. By your own definition of your smorgasbord religion you are a pagan.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
No, my religious practice is a rejection of Paganism. Pagans worship Nature. I worship the God of Israel.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
Dude, you even look like a d@uche!
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
"I don't value Paul higher than the Torah the way Pagan Christians do. This is a theological disagreement about which verses are more important than others."

No, this is you placing Paul in an inferior position of teaching authority when he was guided by the same Holy Spirit that revealed the Torah. But then, you've said you're not a Christian so that's the root of our disagreement. We respect the full deposit of faith given by the Holy Spirit, you apparently don't.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
"No, this is you placing Paul in an inferior position of teaching authority when he was guided by the same Holy Spirit that revealed the Torah."

Paul was specifically about rejecting Judaism. You are the one choosing Paul above Moses and ignoring the fact that I have named the Biblically-based answers that I find greater value in instead. The Bible and the Judeo-Christian tradition is filled with ideas about marriage and male-female relationships. Paul does not get the last, final word and these few verses should not be your idol. The New Testament and the Old present fundamentally different moral visions. Most Christians today choose to over-rely on the New while ignoring the Old, instead of trying to integrate them together. I regard them as Pagan Christians since they treat Jesus and the Bible like idols instead of worshipping God.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
Treating Jesus as an idol instead of worshiping God? Do you have any idea how ironic that is as an insult against Christians?
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's not an insult against Christians. I'm not against all Christian theologies, just some of them that are too primitive and Pagan. It's a description of the immature faith of some so-called Christians who obsess over the good feelings that they get from focusing just on the image of Jesus and on the ideas of the New Testament read in isolation from the Old.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
Man, do you have the wrong view of Christianity.
I highly recommend the various podcasts at
http://issuesetc.org/archive/
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
So which single theology is the one right view of Christianity, Paul? What is the one single correct way to read the Bible?
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
Oh, and for the "man up and use your real name" comment:

Herbert H. Nowell.

herb DOT nowell AT google's mail service.

So, got those verses or do you just kiss ass in hopes of getting pussy?

Happy now?
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All