UPDATE: The Forum has been RESTORED! See announcement here. Welcome back everyone!
Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Theme
Discuss and talk about any general topic.
Of course a wife should be submissive to her husband. That goes without saying.
The catch is that the husband must be submissive to God. Otherwise, he will act wickedly towards his wife.
A man who doesn't fear God will assert some imaginary male prerogative, and won't know how to properly behave towards his woman. That's where a lot of the abusive, chauvinistic behavior comes from, like in Asian Confucian cultures. In Western Europe and North America, this lack of fearing God manifests itself as liberal, lax, egalitarian mores. Only a God-fearing man deserves a submissive wife IMO.
your most likely right but lots of guys just want a submissive girl but still be a dick about it.
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: we're no longer interested in finding out the truth." - Carl Sagan
No, I disagree with the Pat Robertson quotation. His statement is vague and incomplete. The husband can't be the head of the wife, unless he accepts the Christian God as his head. Without God, man has no morals, and won't know how to treat women.
I also don't think it's necessary to put a chain and lock around a woman's neck. I know that white American women have sunk to the point where men might understandably feel this way, but you white American men brought this on yourselves. You let your women run free and wild, because you wanted the same for yourselves too. Freedom and independence was your big thing, so you got what was coming.
Gadfly, I think the chain on the neck is meant as a response to the saying, "The man is the head, and the woman is the neck and she turns the head wherever she wants it to go." Even preachers will tell that as a joke, even if it undermines their message. They should at least preach against that saying. Maybe that's what Pat Robertson was saying. I doubt he added the chain meme.
When we are talking about church-going women, a woman saying she doesn't want to submit her husband has a submission issue with Christ. It's a bad sign as far as her faith goes. I know there are feminists who have tried to redefine Greek words in the Bible to make it more feminists and that sort of teaching has effected a lot of churches. But at least on a theoretical level, even in this society, a Christian woman should know that she must submit to her husband. If a Christian man is dating a woman who doesn't see that and won't be persuaded otherwise, I really think that he should consider that being a deal-breaker. How can you function with a wife as a Christian couple if she is in rebellion on this topic, on a subject that will effect your married life?
It may be normal for women to have a struggle with submitting to their husbands, at least the ones raised in this culture, and sometimes the ones raised in those 'submissive' Asian cultures as well. My wife has had to improve in that area, and she's from Indonesia.
There are also church subcultures in the US where wives are really taught to submit to their husbands, girls are raised to be virgins, etc. The Duggars are a famous example of one of those subcultures.
I read posts on another board where the women who had a problem with submission tended to be the ones who thought gay marriage was okay. This was supposed to be a Christian board, too. It would be hard to marry someone with a fuzzy worldly if one wants to follow Christ as a couple. Spiritual qualities are more important than looks.
Character, values, etc. are all more important than looks, even if they may not interest us guys as much. For the long haul, it's easier to get along. I married a physically beautiful woman, and I still enjoy looking at her, but you do get used to how your wife looks. My wife is going to turn 40 this year, and she still looks pretty and she's still thin. I hope she keeps the good looks into old age, but I know we all get worse and worse looking. And no matter how good a girl looks, if she lives long enough, chances are, she is not going to look 25 forever and she's going to age like the rest of them. When she's 60, she's probably not going to be hot by your current standards. If she were only so-so looking to begin with, you'd get used to the looks and be left with her character that you have to deal with every day.
If I had to rank criteria for a wife, it would be something like this.
1. Spirituality and faith (her relationship with God.)
2. Beliefs, values, attitude, and character (closely related to 1.)
3. Virginity (or faithfulness and no fornication before or after marriage if she were a widow.)
That's off the top of my head. Honestly, she'd have to fit my standards for looks before I'd consider the rest. Or at least when I was single that was how it was. You do want to be attracted to your wife. But I know that's not the most important thing.
Skills would include cooking, cleaning, etc.
MrMan: About the thing with soldiers: that style of doing things works well on paper, but in practice it can & does have the effect of atrocities & simple failure- sometimes to prevent atrocities. I think the way soldiers are kind of contradicts any of the thoughts/ideas/strengths/etc... because it's pretty much the soldier following the leader, which is the focal point (or whatever the right word would be). In this style of army (whatever it's called- let's say "Clausewitzian" for ease of reference), the leader is the fixation. Sure, in other kinds there ARE leaders that give strategies, but it's not so centralized.
Apparently, the American snipers were such an issue for the British during the revolutionary war because of this situation. They shot the leaders dead from a distance while or just before the battle was going on to give the Americans the edge. Assassinations aren't the only point, either. There's lack of ability to communicate sufficiently (ex: loud enough, fast enough, at all). There's the fact that the leader COULD always trip & break their neck. There's the situations where they simply can't divide their focus in real time in the way things are happening. There's the possibility of being too arrogant to catch their own mistakes or perhaps feeling too insulated from the consequences to be conscientious. Sometimes a leader even turns into a serial killer by proxy.
Anyway, I DO believe there has to be something other than reflexive conflict for things to work smoothly in a home or in a military action. I think if a woman is instantly clashing with the man in order to feel a sense of independence, that's a problem. Same with the man clashing with the woman to not feel whipped. I guess an issue is that someone can be limited verbally (from them not knowing the words, their specific language not having the words, or language being limited), so the description of the situation would always turn out looking like servility. Tricky thing, life.
I think this is a quality point in which I wholeheartedly agree. I'd also like to point out that being feminine is also a necessity and often partners well with submission, naturally I might add. In other words let me be the man, the physical one, the leader, provider, Mr. Macho... yada yada yada. She can be the support, the pretty one, the mother, and house holder. I'm all for girly girls, not necessarily high maintenance but one's who appreciate keeping a good appearance and dress and act like a female. That doesn't mean to me she can't be intelligent, hold a job or be vocal with things.
There's nothing more unattractive in a female, mentally speaking, than a "one-upper/I can do it too" mantra.
My buddy just dumped a girl who held that mentality and she was hated by all within our group, even by the females. The straw that broke the camel's back was when she grabbed a chainsaw from him and proceeded to "show him the proper way" to cut fire wood, as she ever so violently dug the chain into the ground.
I think it's just so awesome when a woman works to please her man. There's nothing sexier than a woman doing your laundry for you, cleaning your house, cooking your food, and providing you with sex whenever you want. I don't know if that counts as submissiveness, but it's what I like.
You either marry your:
or preferably C) your Sister!
In my opinion a domineering woman/motherly figure is last thing you want...but so many American dudes fall into this trap.
I really like the Idea of personality matching sites such as eharmony.com
Let's have a pact. If none of us find a bitch soon, we'll do each other's laundry.
I've heard it said that men tend to marry women like their mother since that was their model for what a woman was that is imprinted in their mind. The bikini model may be the cultural ideal, but some men actually go for a thicker woman. If not, we wouldn't see men dating and marrying fatter women. This may be because their mothers were fat when they were young. When I was dating, the idea of dating a fat woman or even a woman who was a bit stout was unappealing to me. I'm still not attracted to that. But come to think of it, my mom was very thin during my formative years.
But I agree with you that marrying a woman who tells you what to do and assumes a motherly role is a bad situation to be in. Some guys may go for this when they are dating, but then they have to learn to put up with a woman telling them what to do for the rest of their lives, unless they can flip things around. If my wife ever sounds a bit bossy, I'll subtly correct that. I don't want her getting in that mode.
Could you imagine being married to a woman who was constantly like that? A woman doing something like that doesn't realize she isn't being respectful to her man. A woman needs to realize that she needs to show respect to her man, and not try to show him up before others. Submission and respect aren't exactly the same thing, but they are closely intertwined. If she doesn't respect him enough, then that can cause relationship problems. A lot of arguments are caused because women either don't know to be submissive and respectful or else don't put it into practice.
If you are an authority figure and they have an ethical value of submitting to and respecting an authority figure, then they are careful not to insult you. My wife doesn't have 100% track record on submission and respect, but she's repented and she's done well for several years now. But she has been good enough not calling me insulting names. I read about women calling their husbands or boyfriends a-holes and other names like that. That wouldn't fly in my marriage. I don't call her names either. I need to be protective and caring as a husband, not harsh or cruel. So I don't call her names, and she doesn't call me names. Bad names I mean. 'Honey' is okay.
A woman having an ethical value of showing submission and respect to her husband is something really good to have before marriage. Shalom Schwartz is a scholar whose done research mapping out countries that value certain concepts highly. Some countries rate submission highly as an ethical value. I believe the US and western Europe tend to be low on that, but my memory is a bit fuzzy. Wife-hunting in a place where this is a higher value may be a good idea.
It's also something you can nurture in a girlfriend before you get married and in a wife after you marry. When I lived in Indonesia, I notice that dating couples typically hope to get married and they will talk about marriage more freely than they do in the US. In the US, it creeps a guy out, and I foolishly let that effect me. If I had it to do over again, I'd have spent a lot of time discussing how much I valued submission and respect in a marriage. Which is find to do because Indonesian women don't usually have that feminist knee-jerk reaction where they think you are a chauvinist if you say you think a wife should submit to her husband. You could paint a picture of what you expect, focus on how she talks to you, behaves to you, even tie in the idea of a wife being sexually available for her husband when she wants it. If she wants to marry you, she'll probably think or say, "I can do that" and then she goes into the marriage "programmed" a bit with an understanding of how she is going to respect you, submit to you, obey you, sleep with you when you want, care for the home, and just how she is going to be a good wife in general. And submission and respect are a part of that.
I did well in picking a wife, and she did say she believed in a wife submitting to her husband. But I didn't have a clear vision of where I wanted the boundaries in the relationship, and was a bit too egalitarian and passive setting the tone at the beginning. It can be harder to reset them later on. But the first couple of years of marriage were still wonderful, sexual release for me every day, and intercourse every day or every other day except during her period (except during major illnesses), her working hard to develop her cooking skills for me and having a meal ready when I got home, and maybe two minor arguments that were basically just her being stressed out from PMS. So I didn't feel the need to reinforce or teach anything for the rest of the marriage because things were going so smoothly.
I think it's ok for a woman to be like a mother to a man, but only in those aspects that are compatible with him being like a father (as opposed to being bossy). For example, she can be nurturing and comforting. The fact that it's ok for her to show those qualities proves (sort of) that a man doesn't always have to be strong. She should be like a motherly daughter, rather than a parent to him.