Marriage doesn't have to be....

[frederick]

It is incredible how pervasive television programing can be. The holy grove (hollywood) where they worship sin (movies that glorify theft, adultery, homosexuality, feminism, etc.) is sadly where many get their views about life and marriage from.

So true and we see the results of that influence everywhere.

 

[LDremoved]

LD, you seem to pretty much make up your own definitions for the words that we use.
Those definitions aren’t helpful for understanding what we are doing.

What do you mean?

 

[LDremoved]

OK, we were talking about two different things. By "outside looking in," I was assuming outsiders looking in and judging what is going on, in which case using terms that encapsulate what could otherwise require several paragraphs of description. I totally agree with you that this kind of encapsulating would generally be overly awkward (even more awkward than the semantics of this sentence) for a man and his woman as they discussed the nature of their relationship, most especially because the two would have likely addressed issues one at a time at the micro level. For example, a man would only need to even mention a term like 'submission' if his woman had, over a lengthy period of time, stubbornly resisted comprehending all of the subcomponents of what, taken together, demonstrated refusal to submit -- or if, as in my case, in addition to resistance to submit, the man has abdicated his leadership responsibilities so thoroughly for so long that both he and his woman need to start from a foundation of using such a complex term in order to begin the mutual learning process.

When only small things are out of whack, getting polysyllablic is counterproductive, but when so many small things have been permitted to get out of whack, often it's necessary to use a bigger hammer in order to escape getting caught up in playing whack-a-mole.

^^^ What he said ^^^

No one is demanding that you pretend anything (in fact, the opposite is the case). We all recognize that the culture we swim in is very different from the cultures those who penned Scripture were swimming in, but what hasn't changed is the wisdom behind what's included therein. Even with ownership. Feminism does its best to point to the minority of features where they believe feminism presents a positive alternative to the passing of responsibility for females from father to husband, but, in the Big Picture, most of those arguments only function as purposeful distraction from the evidence that women left to their own devices are suffering far more profoundly than they did from the lack of total freedom they experienced in those 'ancient' times.

Don't pretend that things are the same, but, also, don't pretend that being unmoored from leadership and covering is a bed of roses.


Which is a canard. The truth of the matter is that we now live in a culture in which women have the freedom to leave the marriage but not necessarily the ability to do so, evidenced by the fact that only one in a million uncovered women truly provides for herself. Our culture just lets women live in delusion, under the illusion that they are "providing for themselves." Women who don't want to be under the leadership of any man don't even go to the trouble of forming a network among such women who provide everything for each other. If one had to bet one way or the other, the safe bet would be that women couldn't possibly provide for themselves, even collectively. Instead, women simply spread out their dependency among large contingencies of men in their life, more often than not extending that to the men-funded largesse of various government programs, depending full tilt on a swath of men for what they want to pretend they didn't need to depend on from their husbands.

And the point of engaging in this pure lunacy is to divorce oneself from the need for gratitude in order to escape being held accountable for the responsibilities of demonstrating that gratitude.

I wasn't really under the impression that anyone demanded that I do anything. Just expressing my personal preferences and explaining why. Thank you for thoughts though.

 

[paterfamilias]

I was merely giving my personal relationship preferences. For me- actions speak louder than words, in all relationships. For instance i'm submissive and respectful to my parents and older family members yet we don't have to speak about it. There is really no need, the actions are there. The times I see the terms "ownership" and "submission" being used most often are when they're being used to explain the relationship from the outside looking in.

You may have encapsulated part of the issue. "We don't need to speak about it"
Some overtly need to define terms. Some are able to float free and easy with the expectation that all parties are on the same page. Others find it a good idea to get boundaries, expectations and the like clearly expressed at the outset.
As with most, I can't use a better example than myself and how I see the relationship between men and women ideally. I have the expectation that if some woman is smart enough to choose my wife as a sister and looney enough to choose me as a husband, we will sit down and have a frank conversation about the boundaries, expectations and power dynamic within a potential marriage. All clear and no confusion. The last thing I want and I imagine I am not along in this, is discord within a marriage.
Anyway, while I expect to in charge as it were, I absolutely do not wish to ever have to give a single order. I would prefer all adults working hand in glove to create the best circumstances for the family as a whole. By the same token, while yeah I do expect to be obeyed in the event I have to make an unpopular decision, I also get the blame if things go wrong. If you are to be the head of a family then you should accept responsibility for your leadership should it go poorly.

I do like the point about a lot of it being seen via an outside perspective with respect to submission or obedience etc

 

[LDremoved]

You may have encapsulated part of the issue. "We don't need to speak about it"
Some overtly need to define terms. Some are able to float free and easy with the expectation that all parties are on the same page. Others find it a good idea to get boundaries, expectations and the like clearly expressed at the outset.
As with most, I can't use a better example than myself and how I see the relationship between men and women ideally. I have the expectation that if some woman is smart enough to choose my wife as a sister and looney enough to choose me as a husband, we will sit down and have a frank conversation about the boundaries, expectations and power dynamic within a potential marriage. All clear and no confusion. The last thing I want and I imagine I am not along in this, is discord within a marriage.
Anyway, while I expect to in charge as it were, I absolutely do not wish to ever have to give a single order. I would prefer all adults working hand in glove to create the best circumstances for the family as a whole. By the same token, while yeah I do expect to be obeyed in the event I have to make an unpopular decision, I also get the blame if things go wrong. If you are to be the head of a family then you should accept responsibility for your leadership should it go poorly.

I do like the point about a lot of it being seen via an outside perspective with respect to submission or obedience etc

Yes! I remember having this very conversation with you before and appreciating your perspective.

 

[Keith Martin]

Anyway, while I expect to in charge as it were, I absolutely do not wish to ever have to give a single order.

GOLDEN! This is the essence of tribalism being effectively implemented.

 

[southernphotini]

This comment let me know I found the right online community.

...and some find their man more desirable when someone else loves/wants him too. I can't really explain the why, but sexy is when your hubby has the love and devotion of two women....and loves you both!