Should wives be submissive to their husbands?

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I think that wives should generally be submissive to their husbands. I DON't think husbands should abuse this though and I don't mean like a dictator "Go do the dishes. Do the laundry. etc." but more out of respect, like if the wife is mad and yelling at someone and the husband grabs her arm and says "stop it!", she should.

/flamesuit on

Discuss.

How long have you been single?

Forever.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I think that wives should generally be submissive to their husbands. I DON't think husbands should abuse this though and I don't mean like a dictator "Go do the dishes. Do the laundry. etc." but more out of respect, like if the wife is mad and yelling at someone and the husband grabs her arm and says "stop it!", she should.

/flamesuit on

Discuss.

Why can't you be equals?

I didn't say you can't be equals. I didn't say things should be different if the roles were reversed.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
Is this a joke? I don't get it.

KT

I guess it has something to do with the previous thread on mexicans... but I have no idea what

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
LOL. I am not suggesting wife beating at all. I said, grab her arm, not pimp slap.

I'll tell ya this much, if you did this to one of my sisters I would do a lot more than grab your arm.

Also, you're a chauvinistic moron. If I did this to my fiance and she didn't kick me in the balls for it I would leave her for being a spineless pushover.

I seriously hope one day a woman does that to you when you go on some pissy rant to a stranger (and let's be honest, men embarrass women in this way FAR more than women embarrass men), and when you question it she tells you she couldn't look like she didn't have control of her husband.

Explain?

yea.. please explain... wtf internet tough guy? Did you read my OP? So what you are actually saying is that if your wife had a bad day, and started going nuts on someone, you wouldn't stand up and stop her? So, you'd be the spineless pushover?

Stop her from what? Going off about her bad day? For fucks sake....is your next step to suggest we should yank their voting privledges too?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I think that wives should generally be submissive to their husbands. I DON't think husbands should abuse this though and I don't mean like a dictator "Go do the dishes. Do the laundry. etc." but more out of respect, like if the wife is mad and yelling at someone and the husband grabs her arm and says "stop it!", she should.

/flamesuit on

Discuss.

Why don't you try having a first date with anyone prior to contemplating a marriage?

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
LOL. I am not suggesting wife beating at all. I said, grab her arm, not pimp slap.

I'll tell ya this much, if you did this to one of my sisters I would do a lot more than grab your arm.

Also, you're a chauvinistic moron. If I did this to my fiance and she didn't kick me in the balls for it I would leave her for being a spineless pushover.

I seriously hope one day a woman does that to you when you go on some pissy rant to a stranger (and let's be honest, men embarrass women in this way FAR more than women embarrass men), and when you question it she tells you she couldn't look like she didn't have control of her husband.

Explain?

yea.. please explain... wtf internet tough guy? Did you read my OP? So what you are actually saying is that if your wife had a bad day, and started going nuts on someone, you wouldn't stand up and stop her? So, you'd be the spineless pushover?

Stop her from what? Going off about her bad day? For fucks sake....is your next step to suggest we should yank their voting privledges too?

Yea, I want to bring back suffrage. I'm saying, if the woman is acting unreasonable and out of line, and making a fool out of herself, do you let your wife go on and do that and potentially start a bigger fire, or pull her to the side and tell her to stop, and if she doesn't, no nookie that night???

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Speaking theoretically as I am single:

First of all, she's not "my" woman. I do not "own" her in any sense. She is an independent person who can make her own decisions; she is, in short, a free adult. If she were making a scene, I would, at most, place a hand gently on her shoulder and calmly (i.e. no exclamation points) ask that she take some time to calm down so that she can address the situation rationally.

"Grabbing" her and harshly telling her to "stop it!" is inappropriate unless she is threatening someone with physical violence (in which case there are larger issues at play and such actions would be indicative of serious mental imbalance). It shows that you do not respect her as a fully-functioning adult and instead view her, emotionally and intellectually, as a child. Those feelings are an unsuitable basis for a marriage and a man who resorted to such actions looks like an imbecile.

Very bluntly, the opinion of any person who would criticize my choice to treat my wife as an equal is simply not worth acknowledging. Why should I care if some moronic neanderthal thinks I "can't keep my woman in check"?

ZV

Ah. But ZV what would you do if she were to ask you to make a choice between her and your Porsche.

Find one who wouldn't make demands like that?

I used to think that, but lately I've decided that the answer is more nuanced.

If it's an ultimatum laid down at the start of the relationship apropos of nothing, then I'm inclined to consider such a demand to be unreasonable.

On the other hand, there are situations where such a request (phrased as a request and not a demand) would indicate a legitimate issue that needed to be resolved. For example if I were spending so much time working on the car that I was neglecting my partner's needs then the request would show that there is a real need for me to re-evaluate my priorities. As much as I like my cars, I should be loving my wife/girlfriend/fiancee more.

Similarly, with the motorcycle. I love riding; it's one of the greatest joys in my life. But I understand that some people are very much worried about motorcycles and the risks associated with them. If my choice to ride were something that was causing large amounts of worry and stress for the woman I love, then it is my responsibility to reconsider that choice and perhaps even give up the motorcycle.

There are of course the mundane reasons as well; there is a need to accept the fact that it can become necessary to sacrifice a "toy" in order to be able to meet the financial needs of a family.

ZV

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I think that wives should generally be submissive to their husbands. I DON't think husbands should abuse this though and I don't mean like a dictator "Go do the dishes. Do the laundry. etc." but more out of respect, like if the wife is mad and yelling at someone and the husband grabs her arm and says "stop it!", she should.

/flamesuit on

Discuss.

Why can't you be equals?

I didn't say you can't be equals. I didn't say things should be different if the roles were reversed.

/facepalm Then what is the purpose of this thread?

 

[AreaCode707]

For the conservative Christians in this thread that I have seen post... I assume that a fair amount of your commentary comes from Ephesians 5:

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church? 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery?but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND THESE VERSES.

I want to point out there is a huge difference between "submitting" and being "submissive."

- Submitting can mean that you have a rational discussion as adults and equals and, if you cannot reach an agreement, one person agrees to let their point of view go in favor of the other person's opinion, even if they still think it's wrong. It's not an uncommon situation in marriage. (And can go both ways, as I'll discuss in a minute.)
- Submission means not even having that discussion, abdicating your rights and responsibilities as an intelligent adult and allowing yourself to be treated as a child.

Wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord. The Lord doesn't make wrong decisions or do things that are harmful. You've got an issue right there; what happens when the husband, unlike the Lord, does something wrong or harmful? The wife then has a responsibility to step up and act rightly. You don't just bow down and follow submissively and meekly into error.

Also note that husbands are supposed to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Remember what Christ did for the church? Self-sacrificed in every way and then eventually gave his life. In these scriptures husbands have the obligation to do everything for their wives to an amazingly and impossible self-sacrificing degree.

What this set of scriptures boils down to is a common-sense design for a relationship. Both parties strive to love, respect and serve each other first and themselves second. When practiced as designed you have a really great marriage. When one side abuses it (like a husband expecting to be in control over his submissive wife) it gets really messed up and unhealthy. Unfortunately, humans being humans, it's very often misinterpreted and messed up.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
LOL. I am not suggesting wife beating at all. I said, grab her arm, not pimp slap.

I'll tell ya this much, if you did this to one of my sisters I would do a lot more than grab your arm.

Also, you're a chauvinistic moron. If I did this to my fiance and she didn't kick me in the balls for it I would leave her for being a spineless pushover.

I seriously hope one day a woman does that to you when you go on some pissy rant to a stranger (and let's be honest, men embarrass women in this way FAR more than women embarrass men), and when you question it she tells you she couldn't look like she didn't have control of her husband.

Explain?

yea.. please explain... wtf internet tough guy? Did you read my OP? So what you are actually saying is that if your wife had a bad day, and started going nuts on someone, you wouldn't stand up and stop her? So, you'd be the spineless pushover?

Stop her from what? Going off about her bad day? For fucks sake....is your next step to suggest we should yank their voting privledges too?

Yea, I want to bring back suffrage. I'm saying, if the woman is acting unreasonable and out of line, and making a fool out of herself, do you let your wife go on and do that and potentially start a bigger fire, or pull her to the side and tell her to stop, and if she doesn't, no nookie that night???

And what if it's the husband that's acting unreasonable and out of line? Can the women grab him by the nuts and tell them to knock it off? Or is that not be submissive and the man can be unreasonable but not the woman?

 

[Insomniator]

This thread is retarded.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: spidey07
For the most part yes. The man leads, the woman follows. But it's done out of mutual respect.

ITT: Spidey actually being serious.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
For the conservative Christians in this thread that I have seen post... I assume that a fair amount of your commentary comes from Ephesians 5:

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church? 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery?but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND THESE VERSES.

I want to point out there is a huge difference between "submitting" and being "submissive."

- Submitting can mean that you have a rational discussion as adults and equals and, if you cannot reach an agreement, one person agrees to let their point of view go in favor of the other person's opinion, even if they still think it's wrong. It's not an uncommon situation in marriage. (And can go both ways, as I'll discuss in a minute.)
- Submission means not even having that discussion, abdicating your rights and responsibilities as an intelligent adult and allowing yourself to be treated as a child.

Wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord. The Lord doesn't make wrong decisions or do things that are harmful. You've got an issue right there; what happens when the husband, unlike the Lord, does something wrong or harmful? The wife then has a responsibility to step up and act rightly. You don't just bow down and follow submissively and meekly into error.

Also note that husbands are supposed to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Remember what Christ did for the church? Self-sacrificed in every way and then eventually gave his life. In these scriptures husbands have the obligation to do everything for their wives to an amazingly and impossible self-sacrificing degree.

What this set of scriptures boils down to is a common-sense design for a relationship. Both parties strive to love, respect and serve each other first and themselves second. When practiced as designed you have a really great marriage. When one side abuses it (like a husband expecting to be in control over his submissive wife) it gets really messed up and unhealthy. Unfortunately, humans being humans, it's very often misinterpreted and messed up.

I read a verse, I think it's 1 Peter chapter 12 maybe.. not sure, that says the opposite. That a woman should still be submissive even if the husband isn't acting in line with the church.. I'll go find it. It causes quite an uproar in a previous discussion.

EDIT: 1 Peter chapter 3

In a similar way, you wives must submit yourselves to your husbands so that, even if some of them refuse to obey the word, they may be won over without a word through your conduct as wives.

 

[Taejin]

YATBJKT

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Speaking theoretically as I am single:

First of all, she's not "my" woman. I do not "own" her in any sense. She is an independent person who can make her own decisions; she is, in short, a free adult. If she were making a scene, I would, at most, place a hand gently on her shoulder and calmly (i.e. no exclamation points) ask that she take some time to calm down so that she can address the situation rationally.

"Grabbing" her and harshly telling her to "stop it!" is inappropriate unless she is threatening someone with physical violence (in which case there are larger issues at play and such actions would be indicative of serious mental imbalance). It shows that you do not respect her as a fully-functioning adult and instead view her, emotionally and intellectually, as a child. Those feelings are an unsuitable basis for a marriage and a man who resorted to such actions looks like an imbecile.

Very bluntly, the opinion of any person who would criticize my choice to treat my wife as an equal is simply not worth acknowledging. Why should I care if some moronic neanderthal thinks I "can't keep my woman in check"?

ZV

Ah. But ZV what would you do if she were to ask you to make a choice between her and your Porsche.

Find one who wouldn't make demands like that?

I used to think that, but lately I've decided that the answer is more nuanced.

If it's an ultimatum laid down at the start of the relationship apropos of nothing, then I'm inclined to consider such a demand to be unreasonable.

On the other hand, there are situations where such a request (phrased as a request and not a demand) would indicate a legitimate issue that needed to be resolved. For example if I were spending so much time working on the car that I was neglecting my partner's needs then the request would show that there is a real need for me to re-evaluate my priorities. As much as I like my cars, I should be loving my wife/girlfriend/fiancee more.

Similarly, with the motorcycle. I love riding; it's one of the greatest joys in my life. But I understand that some people are very much worried about motorcycles and the risks associated with them. If my choice to ride were something that was causing large amounts of worry and stress for the woman I love, then it is my responsibility to reconsider that choice and perhaps even give up the motorcycle.

There are of course the mundane reasons as well; there is a need to accept the fact that it can become necessary to sacrifice a "toy" in order to be able to meet the financial needs of a family.

ZV

Thanks for making my point so well.

Wife submitting: "my husband loves these activities and it helps relax him and I'm delighted to see him happy. I may be worried about this or a bit lonely sometimes but I'm happy he's got something making him happy." Note that she's not in charge and doesn't think she can command him to give this stuff up.
Husband loving his wife: "she's worried and a bit lonely; maybe I should give up these activities to help make her life happier overall." Note that he's more concerned about her good than his own.

Guess what results from this genuine concern for each other's needs? A discussion that can result in a resolution that benefits both parties. Being more concerned for your own rights than the other person's well being is more likely to result in an argument.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I used to think that, but lately I've decided that the answer is more nuanced.

If it's an ultimatum laid down at the start of the relationship apropos of nothing, then I'm inclined to consider such a demand to be unreasonable.

On the other hand, there are situations where such a request (phrased as a request and not a demand) would indicate a legitimate issue that needed to be resolved. For example if I were spending so much time working on the car that I was neglecting my partner's needs then the request would show that there is a real need for me to re-evaluate my priorities. As much as I like my cars, I should be loving my wife/girlfriend/fiancee more.

Similarly, with the motorcycle. I love riding; it's one of the greatest joys in my life. But I understand that some people are very much worried about motorcycles and the risks associated with them. If my choice to ride were something that was causing large amounts of worry and stress for the woman I love, then it is my responsibility to reconsider that choice and perhaps even give up the motorcycle.

There are of course the mundane reasons as well; there is a need to accept the fact that it can become necessary to sacrifice a "toy" in order to be able to meet the financial needs of a family.

ZV

Thanks for making my point so well.

Wife submitting: "my husband loves these activities and it helps relax him and I'm delighted to see him happy. I may be worried about this or a bit lonely sometimes but I'm happy he's got something making him happy." Note that she's not in charge and doesn't think she can command him to give this stuff up.
Husband loving his wife: "she's worried and a bit lonely; maybe I should give up these activities to help make her life happier overall." Note that he's more concerned about her good than his own.

Guess what results from this genuine concern for each other's needs? A discussion that can result in a resolution that benefits both parties. Being more concerned for your own rights than the other person's well being is more likely to result in an argument.

Apparently I do learn. It just happens very, very slowly.

ZV

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Whoever assumes the stance of dominance first should be submitted to.

 

[Miramonti]

I can not imagine my wife ever yelling at someone and them not deserving it.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
For the conservative Christians in this thread that I have seen post... I assume that a fair amount of your commentary comes from Ephesians 5:

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church? 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery?but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND THESE VERSES.

I want to point out there is a huge difference between "submitting" and being "submissive."

- Submitting can mean that you have a rational discussion as adults and equals and, if you cannot reach an agreement, one person agrees to let their point of view go in favor of the other person's opinion, even if they still think it's wrong. It's not an uncommon situation in marriage. (And can go both ways, as I'll discuss in a minute.)
- Submission means not even having that discussion, abdicating your rights and responsibilities as an intelligent adult and allowing yourself to be treated as a child.

Wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord. The Lord doesn't make wrong decisions or do things that are harmful. You've got an issue right there; what happens when the husband, unlike the Lord, does something wrong or harmful? The wife then has a responsibility to step up and act rightly. You don't just bow down and follow submissively and meekly into error.

Also note that husbands are supposed to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Remember what Christ did for the church? Self-sacrificed in every way and then eventually gave his life. In these scriptures husbands have the obligation to do everything for their wives to an amazingly and impossible self-sacrificing degree.

What this set of scriptures boils down to is a common-sense design for a relationship. Both parties strive to love, respect and serve each other first and themselves second. When practiced as designed you have a really great marriage. When one side abuses it (like a husband expecting to be in control over his submissive wife) it gets really messed up and unhealthy. Unfortunately, humans being humans, it's very often misinterpreted and messed up.

I read a verse, I think it's 1 Peter chapter 12 maybe.. not sure, that says the opposite. That a woman should still be submissive even if the husband isn't acting in line with the church.. I'll go find it. It causes quite an uproar in a previous discussion.

EDIT: 1 Peter chapter 3

In a similar way, you wives must submit yourselves to your husbands so that, even if some of them refuse to obey the word, they may be won over without a word through your conduct as wives.

Got there just as you did. Note the context: "In the same way." In the same way as what?

- To every authority instituted among men (the king and governors)
- as free men (people)
- as servants of God
- bearing up under suffering
- committing no sin or deceit
- entrusting yourself to the one who judges justly

The verses in 1 Peter 2 lay out a pattern where you, whether man or woman, slave or free, living under a good government or a repressive one, are called to act responsibly and respectfully. Does that mean to never disagree or attempt to change your government? No. Does it mean to never work to free yourself if you're a slave? No. Does it therefore mean that women have no moral obligation to make decisions for themselves? No. The instructions are to act in a respectful way, putting their husbands first even when their husbands are non-believers.

It was a necessary point to make at the time, when women were converting to Christianity and their husbands were not, and when the woman questioned whether they had the right to basically turn into bitchy know-it-alls because their husbands were "ignorant of the truth". The advice plays very specifically into the idea that these wives would make converts of their husbands better by acting respectfully and with love than as bossy scolds.

[edit] My translation says "same way", yours says "similar way". I'm assuming we can roll with the linguistic punches here.

 

[rasczak]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: JTsyo
I think couples should decide early on who wears the pants in the family. Not all husbands are meant to be in charge and there are plenty of assertive women. You need to find your balance if things are going to work out.

Why does one (and only one) person need to "wear the pants?"

Because too many chiefs=chaos

i think a family unit should have both husband and wife on equal footing in ALL aspects of the marriage. If not then the chaos will truly reign.

 

[rasczak]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
For the conservative Christians in this thread that I have seen post... I assume that a fair amount of your commentary comes from Ephesians 5:

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church? 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery?but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND THESE VERSES.

I want to point out there is a huge difference between "submitting" and being "submissive."

- Submitting can mean that you have a rational discussion as adults and equals and, if you cannot reach an agreement, one person agrees to let their point of view go in favor of the other person's opinion, even if they still think it's wrong. It's not an uncommon situation in marriage. (And can go both ways, as I'll discuss in a minute.)
- Submission means not even having that discussion, abdicating your rights and responsibilities as an intelligent adult and allowing yourself to be treated as a child.

Wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord. The Lord doesn't make wrong decisions or do things that are harmful. You've got an issue right there; what happens when the husband, unlike the Lord, does something wrong or harmful? The wife then has a responsibility to step up and act rightly. You don't just bow down and follow submissively and meekly into error.

Also note that husbands are supposed to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Remember what Christ did for the church? Self-sacrificed in every way and then eventually gave his life. In these scriptures husbands have the obligation to do everything for their wives to an amazingly and impossible self-sacrificing degree.

What this set of scriptures boils down to is a common-sense design for a relationship. Both parties strive to love, respect and serve each other first and themselves second. When practiced as designed you have a really great marriage. When one side abuses it (like a husband expecting to be in control over his submissive wife) it gets really messed up and unhealthy. Unfortunately, humans being humans, it's very often misinterpreted and messed up.

what if the word "submissive" were used instead of the two aforementioned?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: spidey07
For the most part yes. The man leads, the woman follows. But it's done out of mutual respect.

ITT: Spidey actually being serious.

Why wouldn't I be? My girl wouldn't have it any other way. We actually have this hanging on my fridge. She put it there to remind her and me of how she wants our life to be. I'm the king and she's the queen and we both have our roles.

http://www.alcade.net/me/junk/housewife.jpg

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: rasczak

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
For the conservative Christians in this thread that I have seen post... I assume that a fair amount of your commentary comes from Ephesians 5:

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church? 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery?but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND THESE VERSES.

I want to point out there is a huge difference between "submitting" and being "submissive."

- Submitting can mean that you have a rational discussion as adults and equals and, if you cannot reach an agreement, one person agrees to let their point of view go in favor of the other person's opinion, even if they still think it's wrong. It's not an uncommon situation in marriage. (And can go both ways, as I'll discuss in a minute.)
- Submission means not even having that discussion, abdicating your rights and responsibilities as an intelligent adult and allowing yourself to be treated as a child.

Wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord. The Lord doesn't make wrong decisions or do things that are harmful. You've got an issue right there; what happens when the husband, unlike the Lord, does something wrong or harmful? The wife then has a responsibility to step up and act rightly. You don't just bow down and follow submissively and meekly into error.

Also note that husbands are supposed to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Remember what Christ did for the church? Self-sacrificed in every way and then eventually gave his life. In these scriptures husbands have the obligation to do everything for their wives to an amazingly and impossible self-sacrificing degree.

What this set of scriptures boils down to is a common-sense design for a relationship. Both parties strive to love, respect and serve each other first and themselves second. When practiced as designed you have a really great marriage. When one side abuses it (like a husband expecting to be in control over his submissive wife) it gets really messed up and unhealthy. Unfortunately, humans being humans, it's very often misinterpreted and messed up.

what if the word "submissive" were used instead of the two aforementioned?

I'm using the submit/submissive language distinction for the point of this debate, to make myself clearer. I wouldn't argue that there's no scriptural basis for a close linguistic distinction. I do think that the intent of the scripture is not to command women to be a lesser partner.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: buck
What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?

"tell anyone what really happened and I'll show you what REAL pain is....now go put on some make up and cover that shit"


thats my normal response......I own a lot of stock in Maybeline....got to keep it inflated somehow.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: jjsole
I can not imagine my wife ever yelling at someone and them not deserving it.

Same here. I usually grab a lawnchair and watch the fireworks. She doesn't doesn't go into full blown nuculur meltdown mode often, so it's quite a site to behold when she does.