SUITS fans..

What did you think of Racheal Zane's reaction when Mike Ross told her She's now his property after the proposal? For a Lady who can hold her own, secured for life, good family background, great career & independent to boot... I expected a tantrum not a passionate kiss

'You don't own me , ain't superior , Blah blah'

cococandy:


Good question.

Just say you're submissive in all things (exactly the way it is written in the bible) and then go ahead to do your thing. That's the difference.

Nobody wanna hear you say it's not possible to be totally submissive. Just say what coogar wants to hear and do what you want to do.

You know it's the truth that causes wahala.
If all of us had agreed that we are submissive in all things, this thread won't be this many pages long.

It's trouble makers like you and stillfire who feel like saying the truth that are responsible for this

Stillfire:


Don't bring me into this o. I don already post my behavioural pattern on the opening page.
Relationships can exist without the submission principle. I mean if we look at the statistics atheists marriages survive better than christian marriages. What does that tell you? You do not need to apply the submission principle to have a successful marriage. My relationship understands that both parties have equal, legitimate rights. It has served me so far in my relationship.
Submission requires that the wife be silent and yield to authority. Simple English. Every other thing is no more submission.

Provide d stats

Speaking from a religious point of view, doesn't this quote below defy it, or are we going to take the part of the scriptures that suits us and turn a blind eye to others ?

Stillfire:
Adult relationships do not require anyone to bow down to them. Your fellow human being is seen as an equal.
Takes maturity though to achieve this trait.

This is the same reason I initially said I don't argue with non believers ,which is why i ignored that first girl that quoted me ,even if it is quite clear she has the IQ of a puppa of a grass hopper by her lack of moral stand point ,she sarcastically made reference to my sisters and crack" in the bid to pass across a dud point that got her entangled in her own logic with the "1mbecile analogy of a woman marrying one ,and that she shouldn't submit to her man (because he is slow)...

She was the one that made reference with that example and still went on to stipulate that, intelligence should be the only determining factor. Now if someone is intelligent, shouldn't the person know that the intending spouse has enough intelligence to lead her(even though,she is more intelligent than spouse)and rule over her ?

PreciousBro:
Speaking from a religious point of view, doesn't this quote below defy it, or are we going to take the part of the scriptures that suits us and turn a blind eye to others ?




This is the same reason I initially said I don't argue with non believers ,which is why i ignored that first girl that quoted me ,even if it is quite clear she has the IQ of a puppa of a grass hopper by her lack of moral stand point ,she sarcastically made reference to my sisters and crack" in the bid to pass across a dud point that got her entangled in her own logic with the "1mbecile analogy of a woman marrying one ,and that she shouldn't submit to her man (because he is slow)...

She was the one that made reference with that example and still went on to stipulate that, intelligence should be the only determining factor. Now if someone is intelligent, shouldn't the person know that the intending spouse has enough intelligence to lead her(even though,she is more intelligent than spouse)and rule over her ?

could you elaborate on what you mean by non believers?

troy20:

Scould you elaborate on what you mean by non believers?

I think it is self explanatory, non christians or should we say, people that don't believe in God or the teaching of christ...

Like the lady that initially asked where heaven is as though it doesn't exists.

PreciousBro:


I think it is self explanatory, non christians or should we say, people that don't believe in God or the teaching of christ...

Like the lady that initially asked where heaven is as though it doesn't exists.

am also a christian bro.i see you making emphasis on it.i feel its very inappropriate making such discriminations.we have enough as it is.lets just share our opinions instead.

troy20:

am also a christian bro.i see you making emphasis on it.i feel its very inappropriate making such discriminations.we have enough as it is.lets just share our opinions instead.

Emphasis ? How ? .... I don't think you've been reading the prior posts, if you have you would have seen where I'm coming from, opinion should be backed by a valid and reliable institution/school of thought. If your opinion is born out of nothing but just an individual perspective then it is null.

Besides she started with the whole bible quoting,and i just reciprocated. I maintain if this argument is not from a religious background then it is better not discussed.

PreciousBro:


Emphasis ? How ? .... I don't think you've been reading the prior posts, if you have you would have seen where I'm coming from, opinion should be backed by a valid and reliable institution/school of thought. If your opinion is born out of nothing but just an individual perspective then it is null.

Besides she started with the whole bible quoting,and i just reciprocated. I maintain if this argument is not from a religious background then it is better not discussed.

well i hardly think God will disaprove of my individual thoughts or else he wouldnt give me the power of such.we may disagree on opinions make citations according to our beliefs but making such discriminatory remark is quite the extreem of it for a christian.And it is shuddering to think that we may not that be better than ISIS afterall.

Stillfire:

Don't bring me into this o. I don already post my behavioural pattern on the opening page.
Relationships can exist without the submission principle. I mean if we look at the statistics atheists marriages survive better than christian marriages. What does that tell you? You do not need to apply the submission principle to have a successful marriage. My relationship understands that both parties have equal, legitimate rights. It has served me so far in my relationship.
Submission requires that the wife be silent and yield to authority. Simple English. Every other thing is no more submission.

Stilly, how far? Pondering your submissions here - not your usual high standard .

1. First your claim of atheist marriages doing better than christian ones is at best reaching - not least because lots of people tag themsewlves christian in a merely cultural sense.

2. Even if we could objectively distinguish between atheist and christian unions, there is no way of knowing which do or do not incorporate submission into the dynamic of their union, or which fail due to incorporating it - or not, as the case may be.

3. Your equating submission to unquestioning servility/slavery is at best disingenious - no one has ever claimed that. It's even worse when you take a wordly definition and then try and apply it in a christian context.

4. Worse because of your own acknowledgment that love is paramount in christianity. The flip side of the submission coin - within marriage - is of course love. One can never treat as a slave or servant one that he or she loves.

Stillfire:
Mr Man, I hope you don't think I'm in support of you sha. Nothing comes before love as a christian. The foundation of Christianity is LOVE!

Outside of what christinaity outlines for marriage, no one has said that a marriage cannot work without submission. It depends on the worldview and personas of those involved.

Having said that, it is worth noting a number of things;

1. Females are drawn to men of higher status - more tellingly they respond to dominant behaviour (not force or aggrssion, more like assertiveness, boldness and other alpha traits). Even more importantly it feeds a mans attractiveness to a woman. A marriage with a supplicating man at home and a dominant male boss/colleagues at work, or church (outside the home in short) is in possible danger. Hence why some women stray or are tempted to - or use the old "Pastor says" argument to deal with their husbands.

2. There are typically no egalitarian relationships. Even with same sex couples, one typically assumes a senior/leadership/dominant role. So women claiming equlity/equal rights in marriage are probably not talking out of a lived experience, or lying, or of course forming baddest e-fem that ever liveth !

Let me mop up here


TV

It's funny how no one - male or female - has ever disputed the biblical injunction of men to love their wives. To cherish them, honour them and treat them like their own flesh.

Why then is there so much clamour and rebellion against the call for women to submit to their husbands? The bible is clear, wives are to submit unreservedly to their husbands. Not due to the fact they are older, richer, taller, from better backgrounds or more intelligent - just by virtue of the fact that he is your husband.

Even if he is not loving you as the bible commands - or as you wish . Although it is obviously easier to do so if he is. But doing it becuase he is, is not obedience, it's eye-service, and again is not a pre-requisite for your submission, that is by virtue of the fact that he is your husband.

What haven't we heard in order to wish away the clear instruction to submit? Everything from attacks on Paul, to re-interpretation of scripture, to butchering of the same; from "submission is mutual", to "submission actually means love".

What is it about a woman being led by her husband that cuts aginst the make-up of males and females? When indeed, it is actually perfectly aligned with our individual make-up and complimetary design. Why is the clamour for "equality" - which as I've pointed is rarely possible, even with the best intentions - and not for women to lead?

Afterall, thats what most are submitting and others affirming - even if only implicitly. I particularly like those who claim their husbands "earn" leadership . Pray tell, who decides when he's earned it? Where and in what type of relationship does the leader get graded by those lesser in authority?

Do direct reports determine the pay of their managers or is it the other way round? Those who truly determine the "earnings" of their husbands, are in fact leading those marriages - be it by stealth or manipulation.

As ever, people are free to live their relatiosnhips as they see fit - and they can deem them successful by their own criteria. But the bible is clear, and for good reason. I take no exception to peoples individual dynamic and arragngements, only to peoples butchering of the scripture.

I read one thread where someone told Pickabeau1 that when they couldn't agree, they called on a 3rd party - can you make this stuff up .


TV

TV01:
It's funny how no one - male or female - has ever disputed the biblical injunction of men to love their wives. To cherish them, honour them and treat them like their own flesh.

I asked a question one time and not many men answered. Most men that also claim to love their wife don't love her as Christ loved the church. How many men can die for their wife's sin. How many men here will die in place of their wife if she was sentenced to death for committing murder. Also you don't hear people talk about men loving their wife because you hardly see women opening a thread like this asking what it means to love.

PreciousBro:


This logic will defy your initial stand on this argument, submissiveness is required, otherwise, the love will be incomplete and there would be issues....

You have to understand that even as christians with the mantra "love your neighbour as your self" it should actually be enough,but on a realistic background,it isn't ,because marriage as an institution is another world on its own and thus the teachings" of marital strength. That is why God said this and that.

We just have to obey for things to go smoothly

Of course I do believe a woman should love her husband, but I threw in that argument to counter your logic, that if it's only the woman that should submit, then that woman is not required to love her husband. So do you agree or not agree that a wife should not love her husband because her duty is just to submit?
How can you be a Christian and when it comes to marriage, love does not take a precedence before anything? That totally goes against the tenets of Christianity.

Nicely said TV01, that is why my argument with coogar was centred on "Intelligence not being the whole and all" reason ascribed or the determinant for submisiveness because two people, being intellectually different or with the intelligence compatibility margin width of the pacific ocean can still relate, communicate, love each other and marry.

This doesn't in anyway take away the headship or autonomy ascribed to man over his woman(wife). Although I do agree that intelligence is one criterion amongst other criteria and hence the man requires sufficient mental power to lead his woman, the woman knowing this, even more intelligent than him ,has to accord him that right to assert authority over her(because she trusts him).

The primordial existence has in itself,intelligence but that isn't the sole force to acquire authority over one's woman(wife) ,God isn't stup!d, what is intelligence to God before wisdom, it doesn't take intelligence to know this,rather wisdom. My agreement with him on this was me being sarcastic hence mocking that premise, because if I agree with that, that would mean, some men have to submit to more intelligent women too.(Which defies the command of God).

There are no drawn lines to these things, intelligence is relative, the comparative ration between couples of different intellectual level could be low, and even if wide, It'll be her issues because the institution shouldn't shift ground on its stand.

I kinda also agree with coogar's line of argument too being that , that is why a woman should get married to a more intelligent man ,age difference or not ,but it still doesn't cut it in all entirety,if we can agree that when the difference is just a meagre margin in intellect between both spouses ,with the woman of course being more intelligent and the man having sufficient intelligence to lead.

Some times, people are allowed to make mistakes, leaders or not, we aren't all perfect and some learn from their flaws, in this case scenario of man and wife, it'd be the man's mistake, and corrective measures would be set in place.

Stillfire:


Of course I do believe a woman should love her husband, but I threw in that argument to counter your logic, that if it's only the woman that should submit, then that woman is not required to love her husband. So do you agree or not agree that a wife should not love her husband because her duty is just to submit?
How can you be a Christian and when it comes to marriage, love does not take a precedence before anything? That totally goes against the tenets of Christianity.

Before i referred you to Ephesians, chapter 5 verses, 22- 24, I already saw 21

I agree, however, I am alluding to the situation whereby conflict arises, a woman should there fore bow/surrender and place that authority to her man.

Two heads can't make a body ,it'd be beastly. I mean, what kinda being would that be even in its appearance.

And again, I was speaking of precedence in marital settings, love Supersedes all , but marriage is a different union that requires teaching. That is why we have different bible pages/scriptures on the emphasis to submit.

Please go further and read 1 peter 3, 1-7" and tell me what you understand there.

Damn! Why do you women cringe with disgusts ,fear and annoyance by the mention of submissiveness ?

Men are not bad na lol, we love our women and we don't make it a slavery affair when our wives are to submit to us like TV01 opined, its complimentary and it is something that binds nd completes us as a couple with love and peace.

Bottom line is , when it comes to disagreement, pride,ego and power struggle, the woman ought to place hers down for her man.

His ego should come first. That is where the need to submit comes into play....

babygirlfl:
I asked a question one time and not many men answered.

Not many? So some did? If the question was worthy of exploring, why not pursue it?

babygirlfl:
Most men that also claim to love their wife don't love her as Christ loved the church.

How did you ascertain this? And even if they don't, the biblical injunction on women to submit to their husbands is not dependent on their husbands first loving them, or on their determining if their husbands have "earned" their submission or his leadership

babygirlfl:
How many men can die for their wife's sin. How many men here will die in place of their wife if she was sentenced to death for committing murder.

Really? Perhaps think about how you phrased those questions. I spoke of the make-up of males and females - not that one requires great insight, deep biblical understanding or even spiritual discernment to know this; in times of danger men typically put women first - at the expense of their own lives if need be.

What happened on the Titanic? Abi you haven't watched that movie a zilion times ! Women and children first - it's universal, not just Christian. Women do not put themselves in danger for their husbands or members of the opposite sex in any way near the same rate as men.

You are in the UK, so this is near to home for you - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3140847/Just-tell-children-daddy-loves-Fiancee-tells-hero-father-used-body-shield-bullets-shot-four-times-stomach-terror-gunmen-Tunisian-massacre.html

babygirlfl:
Also you don't hear people talk about men loving their wife because you hardly see women opening a thread like this asking what it means to love.

That's besides the point - no one is disputing it are they? At worst, there'd be a discussion around the particulars, not the actual command


TV

PreciousBro:
Nicely said TV01, that is why my argument with coogar was centred on "Intelligence not being the whole and all" reason ascribed or the determinant for submisiveness because two people, being intellectually different or with the intelligence compatibility margin width of the pacific ocean can still relate, communicate, love each other and marry.

Thanks.
I've been clear on my thoughts around intelligence, or any other supposed criteria. But if it's key for a women, she should be happy with her intendeds IQ - as she is to submit regardless.

PreciousBro:
Damn! Why do you women cringe with disgusts ,fear and annoyance by the mention of submissiveness ?

It's a deadly retro-virus. Man made like HIV and deadlier than ebola. Those infected should be quarantined. It's called feminism !

PreciousBro:
Men are not bad na lol, we love our women and we don't make it a slavery affair when our wives are to submit to us like TV01 opined, its complimentary and it is something that binds nd completes us as a couple with love and peace.

Leave them - by demanding equality in men who are truly men, or getting it from men who have been taught to supplicate to women, women get less than they should and not what they want .

PreciousBro:
Bottom line is , when it comes to disagreement, pride,ego and power struggle, the woman ought to place hers down for her man. His ego should come first. That is where the need to submit comes into play....

I don't agree here. A mature man - which is the pre-requisite for being a husband, not intelligence - will not let his family affairs be a matter of pride or ego. Funnily enough, when a woman is dragging authority with him, there are more likely to be times of conflict and power play.


TV

[quote author=TV01 post=35431369]
Stilly, how far? Pondering your submissions here - not your usual high standard .

1. First your claim of atheist marriages doing better than christian ones is at best reaching - not least because lots of people tag themsewlves christian in a merely cultural sense.

2. Even if we could objectively distinguish between atheist and christian unions, there is no way of knowing which do or do not incorporate submission into the dynamic of their union, or which fail due to incorporating it - or not, as the case may be.

I will use your own words to answer this...

Outside of what christianity outlines for marriage, no one has said that a marriage cannot work without submission. It depends on the worldview and personas of those involved.

Marriage outside christianity tenets have worked for some people.

3. Your equating submission to unquestioning servility/slavery is at best disingenious - no one has ever claimed that. It's even worse when you take a wordly definition and then try and apply it in a christian context.

There are already two christian views on this subject...
One from precious bro who is a christian like yourself on submission without question and your view on submission with having a say. You can see the danger you put christian women in with such dissenting views. I would like for you to address Preciousbro postulations. There are too many christian brothers like that, that is one of the many reasons I reject the word.

The English language is clear in it's definition. Also remember the bible was written in an era where women do not have as much rights as they do now. It is perfectly OK to assume the servility in the relationship.

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
Most churches don't live by this quote by Paul. Why do Christians forget this quote? are we picking and choosing? If indeed we are picking and choosing, I should be allowed to pick and choose as well.

4. Worse because of your own acknowledgment that love is paramount in christianity. The flip side of the submission coin - within marriage - is of course love. One can never treat as a slave or servant one that he or she loves.

The argument from Precious bro was that submission come first before love. I had to remind him that despite both genders are independently called to do their own bit, nothing comes before love in the Christian faith. Do you or do you not agree?

Having said that, it is worth noting a number of things;

1. Females are drawn to men of higher status - more tellingly they respond to dominant behaviour (not force or aggrssion, more like assertiveness, boldness and other alpha traits). Even more importantly it feeds a mans attractiveness to a woman. A marriage with a supplicating man at home and a dominant male boss/colleagues at work, or church (outside the home in short) is in possible danger. Hence why some women stray or are tempted to - or use the old "Pastor says" argument to deal with their husbands.

2. There are typically no egalitarian relationships. Even with same sex couples, one typically assumes a senior/leadership/dominant role. So women claiming equlity/equal rights in marriage are probably not talking out of a lived experience, or lying, or of course forming baddest e-fem that ever liveth !

Let me mop up here

What you forgot to mention is that Dominant behaviors are not the exclusive of men. In some marriages today, some women are better off leading the institution.
Only kids wants to have the final say all the time. In adult relationships you win some you lose some, life goes on.

TV01:


As ever, people are free to live their relatiosnhips as they see fit - and they can deem them successful by their own criteria. But the bible is clear, and for good reason. I take no exception to peoples individual dynamic and arragngements, only to peoples butchering of the scripture.

I read one thread where someone told Pickbeau1 that when they couldn't agree, they called on a 3rd party - can you make this stuff up .


TV

I was shocked when I saw it
Modern women

LOL

Stillfire (couldn't quote you due to the error in your quoting me),

Marriage outside christianity tenets have worked for some people.

I acknowledged that – that is not the point in dispute. It is primarily Christianity and the bibles position on submission. Not even the practicalities or particulars of submission, but if it is actually required. But how can we get to the practicalities or the particulars, when it is wholesale rejected as a command?

There are already two christian views on this subject...

Nope, there is just the one correct reading. Feel free to point out an alternative and I’ll respond. In any event, why is rejecting scripture the answer to misreadings of it?

The argument from Precious bro was that submission come first before love. I had to remind him that despite both genders are independently called to do their own bit, nothing comes before love in the Christian faith. Do you or do you not agree?

I believe I actually made that point - in fact I have done so repeatedly

What you forgot to mention is that Dominant behaviors are not the exclusive of men. In some marriages today, some women are better off leading the institution.

But for a harmonious balance we need masculine and feminine traits. For a woman to “dominate” means the man must reciprocate in a supplicatory manner. And that’s fine from one point of view, but note the following;
1. It will likely kill the love/respect the woman has for the man - hypergamy has been mentioned
2. It’s essentially an argument for “genderlessness”
3. And it’s not egalitarian is it?

Only kids wants to have the final say all the time. In adult relationships you win some you lose some, life goes on.

That is your prejudice speaking. No one has said leadership means the husband always has the final say. Niether does is mean there are win-lose situations. Good leadership typically forestalls win-lose situations - it's why it's needed .


TV

TV01:

Not many? So some did? If the question was worthy of exploring, why not pursue it?

actually only one answered

How did you ascertain this? And even if they don't, the biblical injunction on women to submit to their husbands is not dependent on their husbands first loving them, or on their determining if their husbands have "earned" their submission or his leadership

Most men wouldn't die for their wife.

Really? Perhaps think about how you phrased those questions. I spoke of the make-up of males and females - not that one requires great insight, deep biblical understanding or even spiritual discernment to know this; in times of danger men typically put women first - at the expense of their own lives if need be.

Christ loved the church so much that he died on behalf of the church to atone for their sin. Men where asked to love their wife as God loved the church.

What happened on the Titanic? Abi you haven't watched that movie a zilion times ! Women and children first - it's universal, not just Christian. Women do not put themselves in danger for their husbands or members of the opposite sex in any way near the same rate as men.

You are in the UK, so this is near to home for you - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3140847/Just-tell-children-daddy-loves-Fiancee-tells-hero-father-used-body-shield-bullets-shot-four-times-stomach-terror-gunmen-Tunisian-massacre.html

Please lets not mix Nigerian and English men up. These two group of men are so so so different. I believe the English man loves more genuinely. I know English men who married women who are terminally ill of cancer. How many Nigerian men will do that. These men love genuinely. I read the story. It was touching. I shed a tear and marvelled. Only these kind of men deserve to expect submission. Funny enough, these kind of men don't even care about submission. It's the Nigerian cheating man that would force submission.

TV01:
3. Your equating submission to unquestioning servility/slavery is at best disingenious - no one has ever claimed that. It's even worse when you take a wordly definition and then try and apply it in a christian context.

What is your definition of 'Submission'?

Since the dictionary definition doesnot apply

@5minsmadness,

You have not said what 'submission' means to you

Freedom.
Time to make some people pay...

bukatyne:
@5minsmadness,

You have not said what 'submission' means to you

I was unjustly banned.
For reasons best known to some people.
Brb. I have things to take care of.

Ewuro4:
SUITS fans..

What did you think of Racheal Zane's reaction when Mike Ross told her She's now his property after the proposal? For a Lady who can hold her own, secured for life, good family background, great career & independent to boot... I expected a tantrum not a passionate kiss

'You don't own me , ain't superior , Blah blah'

Going by the bolded, my husband is a carnivore and I should be scared when he says... 'baby let me eat you'.

I should even be very scared of Yoruba's popular

'E ma lo ra yin gbo; e ma lo ra yin pe'

You both will use yourselves old; You both will use yourselves for long.

Context matters

bukatyne:
@5minsmadness,

You have not said what 'submission' means to you

To me Submission means "Obedience and humility".
I like using the example of A Team and Teamleaders.
Anyone in the team can make a suggestion, some suggestions good, some not so good.
But at the end of the day, the final decision is taking by the Teamleader.
In the instance of marriage (sic, Christain marriage), the teamleader is the husband as ordained by God.
There are many marriages in which the woman is the breadwinner and dominant member of the partnership, we are not addressing those marriages here.
But even in those marriages one of the members is dominant while the other is "submissive", to say they are both exactly equal is to believe in a mirage, to deny reality. IT IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE.

A woman ought to be submissive to her husband i.e she can give suggestions and advice and if the man sees it to be good he can take it, there is no harm in that. But the main aim and direction of the marriage is determined by the man. IF a woman does not trust a man well enough to allow him make the right decisions concerning how thier home will be run, then she shouldn't have married him in the first place.

Let's not decieve ourselves, hypergamy is the watchword when a woman wishes to marry, unless of course when she is desperate in which case she marries whoever comes along to satisfy her whims to procreate or answer Mrs to the satisfaction of herself and society. A woman naturally seeks out a man that impresses her both physically and financially and also intellectually as well. No woman here will agree to marry a dunce, unless he is an extremely rich dunce. A woman always marries upwards. It therefore stands to reason that the person she marries has something she doesnt have (the person is a level above her in sommething---sounds ugly but its true) and so she will be more willing to submit to the higher level, nay, it is natural for her to do so, for bringing the man down to her level defeats the whole purpose of her wanted something greater than herself.


The last passage may be difficult for some ladies to hear but it is the plain truth. For those of you married you married your husband because there was something you admired, something you saw that made you feel he would be a great leader in your journey together through life. Whether it be money, leadership skills, intelligence, godly behaviour, managerial skills etc it doesnt matter. SO it is natural for him to be the head, natural for him to lead, and natural for you as the woman to follow(submit to)him.

5minsmadness:


To me Submission means "Obedience and humility".
I like using the example of A Team and Teamleaders.
Anyone in the team can make a suggestion, some suggestions good, some not so good.
But at the end of the day, the final decision is taking by the Teamleader.
In the instance of marriage (sic, Christain marriage), the teamleader is the husband as ordained by God.
There are many marriages in which the woman is the breadwinner and dominant member of the partnership, we are not addressing those marriages here.
But even in those marriages one of the members is dominant while the other is "submissive", to say they are both exactly equal is to believe in a mirage, to deny reality. IT IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE.

A woman ought to be submissive to her husband i.e she can give suggestions and advice and if the man sees it to be good he can take it, there is no harm in that. But the main aim and direction of the marriage is determined by the man. IF a woman does not trust a man well enough to allow him make the right decisions concerning how thier home will be run, then she shouldn't have married him in the first place.

Let's not decieve ourselves, hypergamy is the watchword when a woman wishes to marry, unless of course when she is desperate in which case she marries whoever comes along to satisfy her whims to procreate or answer Mrs to the satisfaction of herself and society. A woman naturally seeks out a man that impresses her both physically and financially and also intellectually as well. No woman here will agree to marry a dunce, unless he is an extremely rich dunce. A woman always marries upwards. It therefore stands to reason that the person she marries has something she doesnt have (the person is a level above her in sommething---sounds ugly but its true) and so she will be more willing to submit to the higher level, nay, it is natural for her to do so, for bringing the man down to her level defeats the whole purpose of her wanted something greater than herself.

The last passage may be difficult for some ladies to hear but it is the plain truth. For those of you married you married your husband because there was something you admired, something you saw that made you feel he would be a great leader in your journey together through life. Whether it be money, leadership skills, intelligence, godly behaviour, managerial skills etc it doesnt matter. SO it is natural for him to be the head, natural for him to lead, and natural for you as the woman to follow(submit to)him.

Thanks for the robust reply

Do you think humility is only expected from the wife?

The problem most women have with submission is when it applies to men in whom they have no regard for, or situations in which it seems the woman is being treated more as a slave than as a submissive partner. Women hear of men who come home from work and order thier wives about, telling her to cook, clean, do the dishes, serve his food, sweep the house, empty the dustbins, feed the kids, put them to sleep, while she is six months pregnant, and then he beats her up for good measure when she hints that she is getting tired.
A man that collects the woman's salary and uses it to drink beer while his children starve at home, a man who cheats on his wife continually and uses the little money she earns to buy clothes and gifts for his mistress while the wife scrubs the floor in her rags.

The above situation is not an ideal situation and should not be treated as the norm. Women when they hear the term "submissive" invariably draw a picture similar to that above as if that is how all men bahave.If a man loves you he wouldn't treat you badly, he wouldnt abuse the power he has over you as his wife. A loving man would nurture his wife and take decisions that benefit both himself and his wife and the entire family. Which is why women must choose wisely before they enter into the institution of marriage. Also entering marriage with a good man, a man you know is decent, only for you to put on your boxing gloves and scream "no man is going to make me submit!" at the slightest inclination will only bring out the worst in your husband as no man wishes to be usurped in his own home. IT is the nature of man to become aggressive when faced with rebellion, especially rebellion he knows he an easily crush at any time. It does not augur peace when a woman comes into her marriage proffessing to love her man but baring her fangs at the slightest indication of the man's headship. No man wants that.

bukatyne:


Thanks for the robust reply

Do you think humility is only expected from the wife?

No.
A wife is humble to her husband's decisions.
A husband is humble to the position his wife has recognised in him i.e the position of a leader.
Pride should come from the woman towards her husband and not from the man towards his position.
A proud man is impervious to the suggestions of others. If he is someone who is "always right" it might work in his favour, but ultimately he is bound to make a mistake and fall. Pride does not allow for growth.

5minsmadness:


No.
A wife is humble to her husband's decisions.
A husband is humble to the position his wife has recognised in him i.e the position of a leader.
Pride should come from the woman towards her husband and not from the man towards his position.
A proud man is impervious to the suggestions of others. If he is someone who is "always right" it might work in his favour, but ultimately he is bound to make a mistake and fall. Pride does not allow for growth.

Thanks for the response...

I modified my post but I guess it did not go through...

What are the instances of obedience?