# Who Says Women have to Submit?!



## bagdon (Jun 7, 2013)

Trigger words like "submit" & "Obey" are turn offs to some women. This recently came up inside my first thread "She Said W/A Man I Don't Love". 

These words are sometimes abused in the Christian faith. It was a very interesting conversation filled with research and scripture from the Christian bible. I would like to hear other's take on the issue.


----------



## ntamph (Apr 23, 2013)

I don't need a submissive wife just an equal partner who I can talk to and make decisions with together like rational adults.

But that's just me.


----------



## sinnister (Dec 5, 2010)

I'm not going to lie...a submissive wife sounds appealing on the surface. I mean, just think of the possibilities!

But alas, the reality of the situation would be boring, and leaving me feeling less than human to subjugate another to my will.


----------



## herblackwings (May 16, 2013)

The bible was written eons ago by multiple authors into multiple books. then compiled through councils of men who decided which books to include, all the while getting translated and re-written over the centuries to what we have now.. So why would you take the time to argue about some kind of instruction placed in that book? Why would women obey a command set fourth in that book? In my opinion women/wives can do what they want since they have free will. If they love thier husbands then they might obey/submit only in the sense of that's how they express love and it works in that relationship.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## committed4ever (Nov 13, 2012)

bagdon said:


> Trigger words like "submit" & "Obey" are turn offs to some women. This recently came up inside my first thread "She Said W/A Man I Don't Love".
> 
> These words are sometimes abused in the Christian faith. It was a very interesting conversation filled with research and scripture from the Christian bible. I would like to hear other's take on the issue.


I hope your discussion include this scripture: "Yea, all of you *be subject one to another*, and be clothed with humility." 

It really too volatile an issue to me to discuss on this particular forum. My H and I have an understanding on this matter that work for us and I think that's the most important thing -- to be in agreement.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matt. 7:12

Seems to me that if this is "THE" basis of ALL of the law, then a husband should be as willing to "submit" to his wife, as she is to submit to _him_. 

Oh wait...the Bible *does* say that: 

"Be subordinate _to one another _out of reverence for Christ." Ephisians 5:21

The law is about what's _fair_.

Vega


----------



## A Bit Much (Sep 14, 2011)

People like to dismiss the 'to one another' part. *The husband and the wife *should be submitting.


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

The word 'submit' has been redefined by proponents of certain marital philosophies. If it works for you, by all means. Most people want a give and take marriage, not a her giving and him taking one. So I would agree that if anyone does any submitting, it should be both, not just the wife.


----------



## Stonewall (Jul 5, 2011)

Sometimes she submits and sometimes I submit. That is Infact biblical as mentioned above but if you want to view it from a secular perspective; its called compromise!


----------



## bagdon (Jun 7, 2013)

Should there be an agreement that one of the spouses in a marriage be considered the overall leader of the union or should it be a 50/50 split in all aspects of decision making?


----------



## Stonewall (Jul 5, 2011)

Every relationship is different, like snowflakes if you will. No one can give you that answer for yours. You must find your own way grasshopper!


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

bagdon said:


> Should there be an agreement that one of the spouses in a marriage be considered the overall leader of the union or should it be a 50/50 split in all aspects of decision making?


My mother believes that the husband is considered the "CEO" (her words) of the marriage. 

I see marriage more like doubles tennis. There isn't a "leader" per se, in that BOTH people are teammates. Sometimes my husband's ideas will be better than mine; sometime mine will be better than his. This way NO ONE is "superior" to the other.

Problems begin when one spouse tries to *shove his or her opinion/point of view down the other's throat as fact. *

The Bible talks about wives submitting to their husbands and husband's and wives submitting to one another. NO WHERE in the Good Book does it instruct either spouse to FORCE, THREATEN, BEAT, COERCE and/or DECEIVE the other in to "submission."


----------



## A Bit Much (Sep 14, 2011)

bagdon said:


> Should there be an agreement that one of the spouses in a marriage be considered the overall leader of the union or should it be a 50/50 split in all aspects of decision making?


Agreements should be mutual. IMO it doesn't matter which one of us comes up with a solution to a problem, what does matter is that we are both happy with it. This is where submission of both parties come into play. Compromise is about submitting of wills to achieve peace in the relationship.

Be right or be happy.


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work by Gottman has a whole chapter on what to do about overcoming what he calls 'gridlock'. Doesn't involve submission at all. I highly recommend the book - I really believe it figured prominently in saving our marriage.


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

I was raised in a Lutheran household and taught that the husband is the 'head of the household'. In marriage prep this was explained to mean that if it ever came to a point where we had a disagreement that could not be solved, I had to defer to his decision, assuming his decision was made in the spirit of a Christian husband/father and not in contradiction to God's wishes. So abuse, infidelity etc was not something I had to put up with, but if we argued about the kids school for example, I had to give in eventually if he took an honest look at my reasons and still felt his were better. May sound good in theory, but in practice, I am NOT that kind of wife or parent.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Hope1964 said:


> The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work by Gottman has a whole chapter on what to do about overcoming what he calls 'gridlock'. Doesn't involve submission at all. I highly recommend the book - I really believe it figured prominently in saving our marriage.


I LOVE Gottman! Gottman in his studies he talks about superiority in marriage...well, heck. I'll just post the article and let you read it yourselves!

http://voices.yahoo.com/how-destroy-marriage-86985.html?cat=41


----------



## Nucking Futs (Apr 8, 2013)

Vega said:


> "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matt. 7:12
> 
> Seems to me that if this is "THE" basis of ALL of the law, then a husband should be as willing to "submit" to his wife, than she is to submit to _him_.
> 
> ...


Funny you stopped at verse 21. What does Ephesians 5:22 say again? How about 5:23 and 5:24? You're taking it out of context to force it to fit your beliefs.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Nucking Futs said:


> Funny you stopped at verse 21. What does Ephesians 5:22 say again? How about 5:23 and 5:24? You're taking it out of context to force it to fit your beliefs.


No, I'm not taking it out of context. The problem is that attention seems to be paid ONLY to the wife 'submitting' to her husband, while disregarding the husband's responsibility to ALSO submit to his wife.

And no I'm not "forcing" it to fit *my* beliefs (...as if I'm the only person who believes what I believe)

Anyone can believe whatever they want. But if someone tries to force ME into living by HIS/HER beliefs, they're with the _wrong person_!


----------



## badbane (Jun 9, 2012)

GGRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrr I hate when people abuse the word of God. The true message from that particular chapter is really that a man should cling to his wife, seek her council, and make decisions, and a wife should cling to her husband and seek his council. The bible tells us that decisions in a marriage should be reached by both parties. That a man is to do everything in his power to provide for the wife and give her a home. That the woman should do everything to make the home livable. I doesn't say a man should work and a woman should sit in a kitchen. It says that each should do his or her part to make the home successful. You can apply that logic even today. If the man goes out and makes enough money for the house, then the wife should contribute her on her own to make the house livable. So if the man can't make enough money to support the home on his own his wife should fill in the gaps. So what did we learn. That God wants a man and woman to work together to make a happy and healthy home. So just because God tells us that the man should make the final decision doesn't mean he makes it empirically. It also doesn't say that the wife has to go along if she knows it isn't in her or the houses' best interest.
I am sorry if my tone is harsh but it is a sore spot with me because this verse was used to somewhat justify my wife's ex-husband's abusive treatment during their marriage. Look the most dangerous thing anyone can do is read a single verse and infer the entire message of that verse means without the context of the chapter it resides in.


----------



## Blonde (Jan 7, 2013)

Nucking Futs said:


> Funny you stopped at verse 21. *What does Ephesians 5:22 say again? * How about 5:23 and 5:24? You're taking it out of context to force it to fit your beliefs.


Eph 5:22 has no verb in the Greek Ephesians 5 Teaches Mutual Submission

so Eph 5:22 says "wives to your own husbands as to the Lord"

and Eph 5:24, the "submit" verb is passive, so it should read "wives are subject to their husbands in everything"

The passive grammar means that the wife is not acting, her subjection is involuntary ...like when I say *"you are subject to gravity" your subjection to gravity is involuntary.* You didn't choose it and it requires no action on your part. It just is.

A wifes submission is a state of being and a response. Much like a garden passively receives watering, nourishing, cherishing,. The garden is SUBJECT TO the gardener. If tending, nourishing, cherishing, is neglected, the garden wilts and dies.

I suggest that the statement in Ephesians 5:24 should not make wives sweat at all. Rather, husbands should be sweating. She has no power nor control to resist. When she marries, her husband holds her heart in his hands. Will he be harsh and trample her under his feet? crushing her spirit? or will he be Christlike and minister life?

John Gottman (mentioned above by another poster) observed this unique feminine tendency of wives to accept their husband's influence:



> An unequal balance of power is also deadly to a marriage. Gottman found that a husband who doesn't share power with his wife has a much higher risk of damaging the relationship. Why are men singled out? Gottman says his data show that *most wives, even those in unstable marriages, are likely to accept their husband's influence*. It's the men who need to shape up, he says. The changes can be simple, like turning off the football game when she needs to talk. Gottman says the gesture proves he values "us" over "me." The Science Of A Good Marriage - Newsweek and The Daily Beast


----------



## RoninJedi (Jun 22, 2013)

Bottom line - according to Scripture the wife is to submit to her husbands *lead*. That means if there is a decision to be made, and they disagree, then as the head of the household *his* decision is the one that will be followed.

And the husband submits to the wife's *need*. So if she *needs* him to wash the dishes, he washes them. If she *neeeds* him to vacuum, then he should vacuum. If she needs him to change the diapers on this child he helped create with her, then he does it.

I can't stand it when people pervert the Word of God to mean either men are superior to women ("the wife submits to her husband in all things!") or that they are equal with no set boundaries and positions ("they submit to each other equally!"). Both of those positions are wrong.

A husband and wife have set, God-given positions and responsibilities within the marriage. Yes, they submit to each other, but they submit in different ways.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Thank you Bagdon for starting this thread. I would like to reply to Northern Lights. Hope she will find her way here. I wrote about women being led in marriage being important, and Northern Lights protested that women don't want to be led. She wanted to throw up when she read that. Blondie agreed with her and wrote:



> No but the "wants to be led" is paternalistic (and can be very dangerous, IME as a recovering "follower" right to Hell on Earth)
> 
> Bagdon's wife is an intelligent and accomplished woman. She wants to be valued, appreciated, and respected. She wants to be part of a TEAM, a partnership, like two oxen EQUALLY yoked together (ETA- a Biblical allusion).
> 
> Bagdon used to ignore her ideas for his business IIRC?


This is a good point to open the discussion. Oxen are castrated adult male bulls. Yikes. How much more beta can a man end up? You were a male animal and then your gonads were removed to make you quiescently accept the yoke with a female. And the cruel market place of modern life cracks the whip over the pair of you. What misery.

Men and women in relationships are seldom absolute equals. Strength or personality, intelligence, common sense, wealth, education, etc. all come into play in making each more or less equal. My father was had an MD and Masters in electrical engineering (a degree which he got after he become a board certified psychiatrist). My mother was an RN but her primary and secondary school education was rudimentary.

She struggled to get through nursing school in the UK, a clever Italian classmate helped her to study. She coped with anatomy well enough because that involved memorization. My mother never understood biology. She had difficulty dealing with abstract ideas. This is not to say she was unintelligent. Quite the opposite, she is a very sharp person, but her childhood included little intellectual stimulation.

My father felt profound insecure around women. His mother was an illiterate, charming narcissist, who never gave her children unreserved warmth. His father was distant and authoritarian. This loveless childhood badly scarred my father and my three uncles. My father did not want to marry an equal. He wanted someone he could snow with his intellectual superiority.

He was the leader in their marriage and had my mother back footed for many years. He squandered money and energy in various eccentric change-the-world projects. Ultimately he drove our family to the point of bankruptcy, as an expensive consulting firm racked up the hours massaging his ego.

At this point my mother reigned in his madness to some degree. My father was forced to abandon the private practice that he destroyed and scramble and accept a job a prison psychiatrist, a terrible demotion from a professional point of view. What physician would like to start his (her) working day passing through the maximum security check points?

My father would not admit that his practice was gone. He kept a huge building and drove from the prison each night to spend more hours in his office, seeing a few patients and pumping for time and money into his schemes.

By this point my mother realized that my father had no plan of any practicality. And from that point on her role as leader of the family increased until at last my father, his brain plaque-ridden by Alzheimer's, became a child and my mother his caregiver.

My father, though not an ungenerous person, always considered the family's assets his. It was his money that he had a right to waste. When my parents were in their late 60s my mother had more sway over my father's wasteful projects – by wasteful, I mean to the tune of more than a million dollars or maybe two, I don't know how it could be calculated – but she never managed to cut them off, until his health collapsed.

If my mother had early on in marriage issued an ultimatum to end my father's mad behavior, there probably would have been no mechanism for compromise. They would have had to divorce. My father would not have survived divorce. My mother sucked it up and played second fiddle, still saying that my father's fantasies might one day succeed. She felt no conviction about this when he was in his 70s. My parents did not even claim social security until they were in their 80s, so divorced from reality were they.

In some sense my mother was the leader in their marriage after a certain point because she guided my father to earth, though it cost her a great deal of suffering.

In Bagdon's marriage his wife is the impractical one with dreams. In fact, she has done pretty well, certainly better than my father, and her efforts deserve praise and admiration. In some sense she was leading the family by taking on this role as an intellectual. At the very least she was head of her own career and identity.

That career path placed a great burden on Bagdon. And if she had scored a best seller that brought in good income, she would have divorced him in short order to replace him with a new lover. In a way his position was like my mother's, for if my father had succeed he would have become more insufferable.

It is ironic that we followers of Bagdon's thread admire what he has done, in essence he woke up to find that he was not one of a pair oxen, but a lone ox whose partner only tolerated him for the sake of their children. And remember this is a man who volunteered to be sterilized to improve his wife's quality of life. But that sacrifice perhaps even contributed to making him unattractive. 

Machiavelli would say that man must display his testosterone to maintain his sex ranking. If we consider Bagdon the writer, we can say that he is a good one. He has moved us and that is proof. His ability to empathize with his wife even as she utterly rejected him sexually is truly an intellectual and emotional feat. This is also why the people in his church ask him to speak and see him a lay minister.

If Bagdon's wife were to share the reasons that she fell in love with him again, she would no doubt list multiple events: she discovered that he was sexy again once he lost weight. He carried out the physical transformation in a low key alpha fashion. He displayed intelligence, for although he did not share this TAM exploration with her, it shone through. He also acted more decisively in being a leader. He even became a better communicator about sex, something that surprised her.

I think Northern Lights and Blondie would see this multifaceted complexity. The conflict over leadership in their relationship would appear a wise balance of give and take, with mutual respect. However, Bagdon noted many times that she did not respect him.

It is possible to say she did little to save their marriage or that she did a lot by responding to his changes positively once she believed they had substance. The account of what happened, who led whom, depends on your angle and how you judge certain moments.

Re: leadership and male sex appeal
At bottom, although we live in a structurally different world than primitive man, women are generally attracted to masculinity. That was once tied to the ability to hunt prey and fight other males. Out smarting prey and other males also was sexy.

Violence was probably a part of relationships when people were half hungry when the hunt or raids went wrong. Today much of that violence has been channeled off into an elaborate industry of professional sports (and that includes college football, basketball, etc). Those men are the alpha males. The legion of male fans are cast into a beta role.

The beta male may through the institution of marriage believe that he has secured a mate, but there is unstated insecurity. There is a worry that a musician, athlete or rich man who applied himself to chasing his wife could do so. There are many TAM threads about bosses seducing wives. There are also many stories that illustrate the truism that cheaters affair down. It is not entirely simple.

One key question is why are the majority of divorces initiated by women? What does that say about who was leadership?



> Who initiates divorce
> Statistics retrieved from the National Center for Health shows that, from 1975 to 1988, a wife files for a divorce in 2/3 of the cases when the couple has a child, in the US. In 1975 and 1988, the number of divorce cases filed by women was 71.4% and 65% respectively.
> 
> A study which was published in the American Law and Economics Review showed that women are the initiators as far as filing for divorces are concerned, filing 2/3 of all cases. There are variations to this statistic over the different states, and the number has also varied with time, with 60% of divorce cases being filed by women in the 19th century. The number saw a jump as the no - fault divorce was introduced, going up to 70% of cases.
> ...


----------



## Phenix70 (May 6, 2012)

Hope1964 said:


> I was raised in a Lutheran household and taught that the husband is the 'head of the household'. In marriage prep this was explained to mean that if it ever came to a point where we had a disagreement that could not be solved, I had to defer to his decision, assuming his decision was made in the spirit of a Christian husband/father and not in contradiction to God's wishes. So abuse, infidelity etc was not something I had to put up with, but if we argued about the kids school for example, I had to give in eventually if he took an honest look at my reasons and still felt his were better. *May sound good in theory, but in practice, I am NOT that kind of wife or parent.*


Yeah, that wouldn't go well for me either, nor actually for my H.
Neither of us desires to be the leader of the other, we're equal in our marriage, partners, side by side. 
And neither of us is religious, but hey, whatever works for other people, works for them, it's just not something I could do in my own marriage.


----------



## northernlights (Sep 23, 2012)

I'd love to weigh in here, but not tonight. The first of the back-to-school colds have hit and I'm just about ready to crawl into bed.


----------



## Blonde (Jan 7, 2013)

LongWalk said:


> One key question is why are the majority of divorces initiated by women? What does that say about who was leadership?


Danny Silk talks about the 2/3 statistic and nails why IMO. Men's Issues - What has Happened to Men?


----------



## badbane (Jun 9, 2012)

RoninJedi said:


> Bottom line - according to Scripture the wife is to submit to her husbands *lead*. That means if there is a decision to be made, and they disagree, then as the head of the household *his* decision is the one that will be followed.
> 
> And the husband submits to the wife's *need*. So if she *needs* him to wash the dishes, he washes them. If she *neeeds* him to vacuum, then he should vacuum. If she needs him to change the diapers on this child he helped create with her, then he does it.
> 
> ...


your though process is still to narrow. If there is a disagree ment and the husband and wife disagree. The wife does not have to submit. Especially if it will harm the household or the kids. Would a sober wife let a drunk husband lead? NO she wouldn't. There are too many specific situations between a husband and wife to point and say. He will always make the final decision.


----------



## soulseer (Jul 26, 2013)

herblackwings said:


> The bible was written eons ago by multiple authors into multiple books. then compiled through councils of men who decided which books to include, all the while getting translated and re-written over the centuries to what we have now.. So why would you take the time to argue about some kind of instruction placed in that book? Why would women obey a command set fourth in that book? In my opinion women/wives can do what they want since they have free will. If they love thier husbands then they might obey/submit only in the sense of that's how they express love and it works in that relationship.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Very well put
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bagdon (Jun 7, 2013)

Your post is very insightful LongWalk. You've given me even more to consider. I believe leading is in some way important to any man that really wants the best for himself and his family.

I've noticed my wife being very consistent in talking to others about "my/our" company and making sure to restock her supply of the company business cards...I'll admit, I've been treading water in the growth of the company just trying to get my personal life together. I sense it's time to refocus on it now that my marriage has stabilized. She knows this company is a vision that I've had since before we got married. 

I use to sometimes wonder where I would be in my career had I not gotten married...I don't regret my family and my life; I believe this path was the best one for me to fully reach my potential as a father, husband and businessman. I believe all that I am going through is what it takes for me to really be free and the best that God has for me.

So, for me, Leading is a part of that. I'm hearing everyone's comments and weighing what's best for my family. And that's the point right? What's best for MY/YOUR family. The specifics of how we lead our families is not as important as the principles behind how we lead our families (husbands & wives). 

I believe that a man & woman with true understanding of God's principles can achieve good success and prosperity in marriage. First the man though. If the man doesn't "get it" some wives will eventually leave. I know there are nonbelievers that are nevertheless living the principles that I believe God established. And He (God) honors His principles weather you're a believer or not.


----------



## badbane (Jun 9, 2012)

herblackwings said:


> The bible was written eons ago by multiple authors into multiple books. then compiled through councils of men who decided which books to include, all the while getting translated and re-written over the centuries to what we have now.. So why would you take the time to argue about some kind of instruction placed in that book? Why would women obey a command set fourth in that book? In my opinion women/wives can do what they want since they have free will. If they love their husbands then they might obey/submit only in the sense of that's how they express love and it works in that relationship.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's called belief. Why do I believe in the bible and I believe that all those people went to all that trouble because they believed in what the bible says. And you say their is a command set forth yet there is none. The only command is that a husband should do everything in his power to provide a home and security for his family. That a wife should contribute equally to make the house successful. That decisions should be reached by compromise and communication. It also says to cling to your wife and cling to your husband. So why would you obey the command set forth in a book that's thousands of year old. Because it's the same advice all these self improvement books, therapists, and councilors tell you to do. Communicate and compromise unless you decide to take one verse out of a whole chapter. and make an assumption based on something you haven't read or if you have didn't bother trying to understand. That's like taking one paragraph out of self help book and judging the whole book by it.


----------



## Goldmember357 (Jan 31, 2012)

bagdon said:


> Trigger words like "submit" & "Obey" are turn offs to some women. This recently came up inside my first thread "She Said W/A Man I Don't Love".
> 
> These words are sometimes abused in the Christian faith. It was a very interesting conversation filled with research and scripture from the Christian bible. I would like to hear other's take on the issue.


All happy long lasting marriages have a submissive wife, a man that the woman looks up to to guide her. This applies to a happy sex life as well.

man is not meant to be ordered around by his woman. The last thing man wants is to be told he is wrong, and barked at like a child.



LongWalk said:


> One key question is why are the majority of divorces initiated by women? What does that say about who was leadership?


Because most men f#ck up too much and are more concerned with other things than being in a good relationship.

Have you looked at the U.S. population? most divorced dads are not hard working involved and living in the suburbs with a good job divorced by walk away wife. 

Really man do you have any idea how many deadbeats there are



Everyone seems to imagine just suburban people who are stable are the ones who get divorced and they seem to ignore the some 50% of the population that is either poor/pay no income tax/in poverty/or suffering from substance abuse/or job to job


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

Goldmember357 said:


> All happy long lasting marriages have a submissive wife, a man that the woman looks up to to guide her. This applies to a happy sex life as well.


:wtf: Allrighty then.


----------



## COGypsy (Aug 12, 2010)

Not being particularly burdened by religious dictates, I think William Ernest Henley said it best, "I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul."

I am neither a cow with a ring through my nose or some household pet to be strung along by a leash. I want a companion who will walk and work beside me. I have a dad already, don't need to marry one.


----------



## bagdon (Jun 7, 2013)

I don't think goldmember357 was serious... had to be a sarcastic joke. RIGHT?


----------



## badbane (Jun 9, 2012)

I think the key to the issue here is not the word submissive. Okay all good marriages have wife's that trust their husband enough to allow them to make decisions that will affect both her and his life. Likewise a woman can make the same decisions and her husband should trust her decision making as well. But if you are not a christian it is real hard to understand the meaning of 
ephesians 5. The whole point is that Christ is the center of your marriage. Man submits to christ and follows his will. 

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 To make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In 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— 30 for 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.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

That's the problem to understand Ephesians 5 22:25 you have to understand other things. Like what the church is. the Church is all of us. You have to understand what Jesus did. Lived a sinless life and was sacrificed so that we may lay our sins upon him. So that after we die we can enter heaven. And the whole point is that we are to all submit to Christ. If I am leading my family well I will make sure my wife's needs are met, just as if I would make sure my needs are met. My wife submits to my decision making when it comes to finances because I am a business major with an accounting background. When it talks about washing her with the word It is talking about ensuring that you and her read the word or the Bible and keep yourselves clean or away from outside influences that could harm your marriage. 

When a child is sick and she says we need to go to the Emergency room I don't argue because she has a medical background. Went I tell my wife we can only afford x amount spent at the grocery store I trust that she isn't going to blow the budget for the month and force me to put off paying our debts.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

MY 2 cents.. taken from this thread in the spiritual section >> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/relationships-spirituality/61081-head-house.html ( this opening post explains it in a beautiful way that I feel those who abuse MISS totally)...

I copy & pasted my answer to that thread here >> 



> *SimplyAmorous said*: Not long ago ...we had a woman speaker at our Mops Meeting.....what was the Subject.... Being "Submission" to our husbands...
> 
> I thoroughly enjoyed it... agreeing with her every word....(and of course this doesn't mean when the man is abusive in any way shape or form...it was explained as you laid out here >>>
> 
> ...


----------



## RoninJedi (Jun 22, 2013)

badbane said:


> your though process is still to narrow. If there is a disagree ment and the husband and wife disagree. The wife does not have to submit. Especially if it will harm the household or the kids. Would a sober wife let a drunk husband lead? NO she wouldn't. There are too many specific situations between a husband and wife to point and say. He will always make the final decision.


You're correct, I should have clarified that I meant this comment in the context of a christian couple who lives according to biblical teaching. Within *that* context, then yes the Bible teaches the husband is the head of the house, and therefore the wife should submit.

"For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church," - Ephesians 5:23a NIV

So basically, saying that this is incorrect is also to imply that one does not have to submit to Christ, which is also against biblical teaching. That is what I meant to imply. Apologies for the confusion.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Blonde said:


> Danny Silk talks about the 2/3 statistic and nails why IMO. Men's Issues - What has Happened to Men?


Thank you for that link. What Danny Silk says makes sense but never even begins to answer the questions he poses. Men, he warns, must learn how to love their wives, for today divorce is an option. Indeed, it is frequently employed to end unsatisfactory relationships.

Since men cannot intimidate or bind women, they must love them. First off let us be straight men are more difficult than women. Men are more criminal than women, more violent, more disturbing. These traits were at one time partially adaptive because aggression and physical conflict were necessary to hold on to one's share of the kill, one's mate.

Those features are still desired in football players. There aggression is praised. NHL ritual violence was cultivated by TV. Somewhere I read that women are exposed to this sort of violence they are more interested in sex. Ironically, in some countries like the UK or the Netherland, football fans actually are organized into violent clubs that go to games, not to enjoy the sport, but to make war, to fight opposing club supporters. Thus, we see the thirst for violence cannot be entirely sublimated into sport.

Men and women both need sports to be healthy. Men especially need sport to channel aggression into a socially acceptable form. However, what we see is that the urge to physical violence is instead subverted into violent video games, such as GTA. Someone is discussing this on TAM and and example what the game is about came up. A player drives his hotrod. Picks up a street walker. Has sex with her in his car. Then murders her to get his money back.

The wife did not want the husband playing this game. She drew a line in the sand and began the silent treatment. The TAM posters debated what to do. The was the second marriage for both of them and the husband was worried about the affect on their children who had settled into the new family.

Who is at fault here? The husband for not knowing how to love or the wife for deciding to take the role of moral leadership. Can the husband's ego survive his wife dictating his digital recreation?

I can see both sides of it. Why should a woman permit her husband to play a fantasy game that involves the murder of women for their sexual behavior. And from the husband's side why should his wife stop him from playing a best selling game that many, many men and boys play?

The same debate could come up with regards to online porn. Online porn, someone pointed out, creates a virtual harem so that man can stay monogamous with his IRL wife. However, from the wife's point of view pornography and masturbation rob her of intimacy and sex. Worse young men and women see so much pornography today that they are brutalized and have lost their innocence without even having experience a kiss.

So far we can see that society is setting men up to fail when it comes to loving their wives properly. However, it is clear that women consume a lot of emotional porn, romance fiction. The television shows that have created a enormous village of sexual jealousy. The deification of celebrities and the sagas that celebrates their wonderful lives all excite unreasonable expectations among women.

Dissatisfaction sometimes drives up to perform at a higher level. But for many men who have suppressed their aggressive traits to get along in marriage, there is not edge to excel. They are content to have sex with their wife and struggle through their days at work, not really being very ambitious. 

It is no wonder that their wives become attracted to other men and cheat. The surveys show that modern women are much more empowered to cheat than their sisters of a few generations ago. Female infidelity rates are approaching male's. So yes, Silk is right that men fail to love their wives properly. At the same time women are consumers of men. They try men in marriage and then discard them when they don't measure up.

Women often, if we follow TAM threads, feel unhappy and fall out of love, become vulnerable to OM and then get into an EA/PA before they divorce or separate. As Mach puts it when the cheating woman allows the strange to enter her for the first time, in her mind she divorces her husband retroactively to eliminate dissonance.

Bagdon's wife had integrity but she was drifting in exactly that direction. She even had sexual fantasies about another man. This was enormous hurtful for him, but since it was not physical infidelity he fought back. He is our romantic hero for having pulled it off. 

Blondie and Northern Lights never heaped approbation on Bagdon's wife. She seems a somewhat attractive character. She got a law degree and found a whole alternative career. Is this not a feminist model woman in many respects?

To this tremendous confusion about how to be man or women we add anti depressants. We are not even allowed to feel bad about just how imperfect our social organization is.


----------



## Moulin (Jul 30, 2013)

I do believe in submitting and obeying IF my husband places me first.


----------



## bagdon (Jun 7, 2013)

This was very helpful to me Longwalk. (permalink #38)


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Bagdon, I learned a lot from you.


----------



## Blonde (Jan 7, 2013)

RoninJedi said:


> the Bible teaches the husband is the head of the house


Correction, it is a myth that the Bible teaches that the man/husband is the head of the *house*. The only place that occurs Biblically is Esther 1:22 in the account of an edict made by pagan King Xerxes when his wife refused to appear wearing (only?) her crown in front of his drunken buddies. 



RoninJedi said:


> "For the husband is *the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church*," - Ephesians 5:23a NIV


^^is an intimacy metaphor. The husband and wife are connected like a head and a body. Ancient Greeks did not understand "head" to mean "boss" or "master". They understood head to be the *source of nutrition* because the mouth is there (Kroeger, 2006).

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife *as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior* 

28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives *as their own bodies*. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated *their own body*, but *they feed and care for* their body, just as Christ does the church​
Jesus is savior of the church. Jesus is also Lord. Nowhere in Eph 5 does Paul or God tell husbands to lead nor be Lord over their wife. He only tells husbands to love, nourish, and cherish "just as Christ"


----------



## Blonde (Jan 7, 2013)

LongWalk said:


> So yes, Silk is right that men fail to love their wives properly.


Wow, what a very thought provoking post, LW (your whole post! even though I am just clipping a few snippets for reply). 

I appreciate your taking the time to listen to the link and reflect so deeply about Silk's view and your own.



LongWalk said:


> At the same time women are consumers of men. They try men in marriage and then discard them when they don't measure up.


***Some*** women, perhaps. Not this one, and not my five daughters I hope.



LongWalk said:


> Blondie and Northern Lights never heaped approbation on Bagdon's wife. She seems a somewhat attractive character. She got a law degree and found a whole alternative career. Is this not a feminist model woman in many respects?


Nor did Bagdon. I don't recall a disrespectful, resentful, bitter word spoken about his wife by him ever. And I think that is why he turned his marriage around so quickly. He has a great deal of character and I would go so far as to call his attitude toward his wife "love". (the kind Eph 5 asks of husbands)

Another Bible passage directed toward husbands is this: 

"Husbands, live with your wife with *understanding*, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, *that your prayers may not be hindered*." 1 Pet 3:7​I think Bagdon is a good example of a man who lives up to the above so his prayers are being answered.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

lol,
Fascinating thread.

Without submission a marriage cannot function.
The key principle is interdependence and this can be found in reciprocity.
If two people are interdependent , it means that they submit to each other and depend on each other's strengths.

Can anyone here give an example of an egalitarian [ 50/50 concept] society?
No?
They don't exist because it [ egalitarianism ] cannot work.
And it cannot work because "oppression" or whatever terms are used to define the differentials that are inherent in personal relationships, are really relative terms.

A husband earning a less than his wife may feel at a disadvantage , but should he?
Is he really oppressed?
How can a 50 / 50 concept " fix " that?

We have two hands ,a left and a right , yet one hand is more dominant.
If your right hand is dominant, does that mean that you don't need your left, or would you be willing to loose our left and vice versa?

Can you twist the lid off a peanut butter jar with one hand , however dominant that hand may be?
Can you put on your sock , stocking , pantyhose or shoes with your dominant hand alone , if your non dominant side simply refused to cooperate / submit?
But aren't your both hands equal?
Same length , same amount of bones, skeletal muscles , fingers and so forth. So then, why is one dominant most times, if both hands are equal?
They are equal in status , and function, but they have different capabilities, and sometimes it may change their individual roles. 
To function a a complete unit, one or the other must at sometimes, play a minor or assisting role..

The concept of marriage is comparable to that.
No two people are equal in every way, so how can 50/50 approach function to move a marriage forward?
A much better approach is each person doing their individual best to fulfil their roles and function in the marriage. 
Each person giving 100%.
Each person submitting to their partner's desires , and that partner reciprocating that submission it.
It is a closed system.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Vega said:


> "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matt. 7:12
> 
> Seems to me that if this is "THE" basis of ALL of the law, then a husband should be as willing to "submit" to his wife, as she is to submit to _him_.
> 
> ...


Wow. How did I miss this thread?

I used Vega's post as an example of the popular opinion. The Bible does advise Christians to submit to each other, in general. But it also specifically states, several times, that wives should submit to their husbands. It never once states that husbands should submit to their wives.

Arguing that the Bible commands husbands submit to their wives is sophistry.

I know that quoting from the Bible will lead to rending of garments and gnashing of teeth from many. But, I'm just the messenger.


----------



## Blonde (Jan 7, 2013)

PHTlump said:


> But it also specifically states, several times, that wives should submit to their husbands.


Correction, the grammar of the "submit" verb is passive so the Bible states that a wife is subjected to her husband 

In the context of Ephesians 5, husband and wife are said to be connected like a head and a body. And BTW, the Greeks did not consider the head the seat of intellect and will. They considered the heart the seat of intellect and will (studylight). 

In your body, your brain and your heart submit to each other in a passive manner because of feedback loops between them. It would be silly to say that the heart is COMMANDED to submit to the brain or vice versa. Just like it would be silly to say we are COMMANDED to submit to gravity. 

Paul's/God's statement is a description not a prescription. A wife- any wife of any culture of any time throughout history now and forever- is subject to her husband. Her husband has power to either nourish and cherish her toward blooming or tear her down toward wilting.



> Arguing that the Bible commands husbands submit to their wives is sophistry.


IMO a good translation would be "wives are vulnerable to their husbands". With that understanding, would you still want to insist husbands are not subject to their wives? Husbands are not vulnerable to being built up or torn down?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

lol people, 

We need to understand the Bible before we begin quoting from it and applying it to modern situations.

Firstly we should understand that the books of the books of the Bible that were attributed to the Apostle Paul were actually letters he wrote to small groups of new converts to Christianity.
Ephesus was a very wealthy,cosmopolitan , bustling modern city where live sex shows, Polygamy , Polyamorus marriages , swinger type activity and such was the norm.
[ These things are not new.]
Secondly, the original language these letters were written in was Greek. There a two Greek words which translates " submit."
One word is _hupakouete_, which literally means obey. In Eph. 6:1 & Eph 6 : 5 this word, (_hupakouete_) is used ,
_" Slaves obey your masters"_ [6:5]
_"Children obey your parents."_[ 6:1]

However, the word used in relation to wives in Ephesians 5:21-22 does not mean obey, but to be submissive (from hupotassō.) 

The word Hupotassō is a verb with many different meanings and it's interpretation depends on the context within which it was used.
Originally a Greek Military term it meant " to arrange troops in a particular fashion under a commander."
When used in a civilian context it simply meant to listen to , to give ear , or simply to corporate with.

In essence , given the contextual background of the churches addressed by these letters of Paul to the church at Ephesus and Peter to the other churches , which eventually constituted books of the Bible, the verse 
" _wives submit to your own husbands_ " can only mean that a wife should _give ear_ and _corporate_ with her own husband , for the well being of their family.
And yes, Peter also says that husbands should also_ hupotassō,_ to their own wives.
What both Peter and Paul were advocating was / is the sanctity of marriage and the importance of the family unit. Without both parties submitting 
_*to each other exclusively*_ there can be no family unit.

Another thing that might be applicable and worth consideration is the historical context and the sociological discourse that were taking place in the Roman society at that time. Monogamous marriages were not state sanctioned / recognized and the powers that be in the Roman society were considering legally recognizing it as a way of building their society.


----------



## piggyoink (Apr 10, 2012)

some of this sounds like gorean culture


----------



## ReformedHubby (Jan 9, 2013)

My opinion on this is perhaps different and to some of you maybe even controversial. The bottom line is I never told my wife, "woman submit or else!" Honestly it just happened because over time she recognized that I did have a plan for our family. She also saw that other people outside of our home also saw me as a leader. 

In other words what I'm saying is you can't just demand that your wife submit. You have to prove yourself worthy. I honestly do believe that under the right circumstances, any woman would submit if her husband has demonstrated that he is worth submitting to. I don't think woman have to submit. But I do think they will want to submit if they're with the right man. 

Think about it. How many times have you seen one of your friends treat one significant other/spouse like crap, only to chase after another like a love sick puppy. In my opinion even the most hardened fem nazi (as you people say), would submit to the right man.


----------



## bunny23 (May 19, 2011)

Yeah well the Bible was written a LONG time ago 

I married someone from a totally different religion, but I remember the Pastor (I think) that married us did all sorts of weddings.. that were spiritual not religious, and he stated they very rarely use the "obey" and "submit"

The idea of literally reading the Bible and interpreting it is VERY new. I would repeat everything that Caribbean man said ... but I think he explained it.

To be honest? I never liked the modern interpretations of the Bible,especially when used to make others subordinate. BUT maybe 3 years ago I really got into understanding certain passages and I am FLOORED at the things we are not taught. 

In order to understand the Bible you have to look at context, history, old language/translation etc. I can almost 100% guarantee you that if you did this you would be shocked at the differences. If you do this however, you can never go back.

It's like living a lie for the last 30+ years for me.. I just can't believe how much is kept from us under the cloak of "religion".. sorry if I got too philosophical


----------



## bunny23 (May 19, 2011)

ReformedHubby said:


> My opinion on this is perhaps different and to some of you maybe even controversial. The bottom line is I never told my wife, "woman submit or else!" Honestly it just happened because over time she recognized that I did have a plan for our family. She also saw that other people outside of our home also saw me as a leader.
> 
> In other words what I'm saying is you can't just demand that your wife submit. You have to prove yourself worthy. I honestly do believe that under the right circumstances, any woman would submit if her husband has demonstrated that he is worth submitting to. I don't think woman have to submit. But I do think they will want to submit if they're with the right man.
> 
> Think about it. How many times have you seen one of your friends treat one significant other/spouse like crap, only to chase after another like a love sick puppy. In my opinion even the most hardened fem nazi (as you people say), would submit to the right man.


Hmmmm okay... I read this and was offended, but then I wasn't...:rofl:

I always think that marriages are a partnership. And YES in some ways you may be better at certain things, while your wife is with others... that doesn't mean there is submission, it means that there is balance or compromise.

Being a good "leader" is a bit.. um corporate 

What I would caution men about is not encouraging your partner to be your equal. It may work for a short time, but if you are 100% responsible they will eventually resent you and want to spread their wings and do something.

Big question is- are both people happy? And is it submission when one person clearly has a passion for something and does that thing very well? I would let that person- male or female do it... logically. 

And why assume that women cannot be "leaders".. shoot I saved up so much $ and did everything... now he's spending all of it :rofl:

You know why? Because I didn't want to be harsh- and that was the mistake I made.


----------



## ReformedHubby (Jan 9, 2013)

bunny23 said:


> Hmmmm okay... I read this and was offended, but then I wasn't...:rofl:
> 
> I always think that marriages are a partnership. And YES in some ways you may be better at certain things, while your wife is with others... that doesn't mean there is submission, it means that there is balance or compromise.
> 
> ...


Appreciate you not hitting me in the head with a bat. There are of course areas in my relationship that I don't lead. I used to think I was the dominant one sexually, but as she got older I'm pretty much her b!tch.

I guess its just hard to describe. Its not like my wife walks two steps behind me with her head down. Its not like I come home and say, "where's my dinner". I can't really describe it. Its more like she sees that I've done a good job of taking care of whatever her needs are, so why not let me continue to do it?


----------



## bunny23 (May 19, 2011)

ReformedHubby said:


> Appreciate you not hitting me in the head with a bat. There are of course areas in my relationship that I don't lead. I used to think I was the dominant one sexually, but as she got older I'm pretty much her b!tch.
> 
> I guess its just hard to describe. Its not like my wife walks two steps behind me with her head down. Its not like I come home and say, "where's my dinner". I can't really describe it. Its more like she sees that I've done a good job of taking care of whatever her needs are, so why not let me continue to do it?


Right.. but I don't think that's submission.. that's just working together as a team 
Or both people submitting to marriage in general 

Not like you make every single decision and she has to be okay with it "or else" or "because I'm the man"


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Blonde said:


> Correction, the grammar of the "submit" verb is passive so the Bible states that a wife is subjected to her husband


True. 



> In the context of Ephesians 5, husband and wife are said to be connected like a head and a body. And BTW, the Greeks did not consider the head the seat of intellect and will. They considered the heart the seat of intellect and will (studylight).


True. However, they did consider the head of something to be the authority. Zeus was the head of the Greek gods. A king was the head of his nation. A general was the head of an army.

In Ephesians 5, Christ is described as the head of the Church. I very much doubt that Paul was trying to give Christians a status equal to Christ's.



> IMO a good translation would be "wives are vulnerable to their husbands". With that understanding, would you still want to insist husbands are not subject to their wives? Husbands are not vulnerable to being built up or torn down?


Husbands and wives are vulnerable to each other yes. But that's not what the passage means. The passage means that husbands have authority over wives that isn't reciprocal.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Caribbean Man said:


> Firstly we should understand that the books of the books of the Bible that were attributed to the Apostle Paul were actually letters he wrote to small groups of new converts to Christianity.
> Ephesus was a very wealthy,cosmopolitan , bustling modern city where live sex shows, Polygamy , Polyamorus marriages , swinger type activity and such was the norm.
> [ These things are not new.]


True. However, other books in the Bible share the same content of Ephesians. They state that wives should be subject to their husbands.



> Secondly, the original language these letters were written in was Greek. There a two Greek words which translates " submit."
> One word is _hupakouete_, which literally means obey. In Eph. 6:1 & Eph 6 : 5 this word, (_hupakouete_) is used ,
> _" Slaves obey your masters"_ [6:5]
> _"Children obey your parents."_[ 6:1]
> ...


This is where the sophistry comes in. I'm no linguist, but the sources I've studied list few, or no, places in ancient Greek where hupotasso doesn't imply the authority of one over another. And in the New Testament, the word is used in several other instances where it always implies authority.

It is used to describe Jesus being subject to his parents, of demons being subject to disciples, of citizens being subject to Roman authority, of the universe being subject to Christ, of servants being subject to their masters, of Christians being subject to God, etc. Clearly, these relationships aren't ones of reciprocal authority. And they also don't mean simply cases of mutual influence. One party has authority over the other, and not vice versa.

Simply put, ancient Greek readers understood hupotasso to imply authority of one party over another. To suggest that the NT authors used the word in an entirely new way, implying mutual submission, and relied on the readers to cleverly divine the authors' intentions is to use Da Vinci Code logic. I suppose it's possible. But it's much more likely that the NT authors simply used the word as the ancient Greeks commonly used it. And that usage implies authority of one party over another.



> And yes, Peter also says that husbands should also_ hupotassō,_ to their own wives.
> What both Peter and Paul were advocating was / is the sanctity of marriage and the importance of the family unit. Without both parties submitting
> _*to each other exclusively*_ there can be no family unit.


Which verse in Peter are you referring to? The closest thing I see is 1 Peter 3:7 that instructs husbands to live respectfully and honorably with their wives. But the verse doesn't use hupotasso. It doesn't use any word meaning anything similar to submission for husbands.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

2galsmom said:


> The Bible has been translated and rewritten so many times I warn you not to take a literal fundamentalist view of the Greatest Story Ever told ...


I'm not suggesting that the universe was created in six, twenty-four hour periods, or that the Earth is 6,000 years old based on counting generations recorded in the Bible. I'm suggesting that the authors of the New Testament were inspired by the Holy Spirit and actually meant what they wrote in the way they wrote it.

I think it's far more radical to suggest that we should consider the Bible to be a living, breathing document that can mean whatever we want it to mean, given our fads and fashions.



> If Christ wanted you to get caught up splitting hairs and laboring over the written word why didn't He write things down for you?


Maybe because He had people for that?



> Nope, he gave you one prayer and asked you to love one another to keep things simple.


Well, to be fair, He did more than give one prayer. And, He didn't write down the prayer, either. Other people did.


----------

