PDA

View Full Version : "Biblical" Marrages? are people really okay with this?


Incubus
08-24-2011, 12:56 PM
I have a particular friend who is married with two young children. Hes been married for nine years. He describes his marraige as a "biblical" one. He converted to christianity a few years back, seems pretty happy with it and respectful of others beliefs.

Him and his wife agreed on having "traditional" gender roles. This means he works and she stays home with the kids. He does zero cleaning, only cooking he does is bbq, and blows off his wife when we are around.

I discussed his marraige with a mutual friend of mine, who adamantly defended my "biblical" friend on every point. He said our friend and his wife had agreed on this arrangement from the get go, and they've.been married for nine years, so everything must be great, right? I'm not so certain.

Thing is, whenever we visit, his wife always seems exasperated, irritated at doing a thousand things while her husband is showing us some toy he bought. She is EXTREMELY grateful when we help her, and very apologetic about any messes, dinner being late, etc.

One day friend invited fiancee and I, other friend and his wife over for dinner. We offered to pick up stuff since apparently biblical friends wife didnt know she was cooking for eight till the last moment. We come over, help put groceries away, help cook, my fiancee entertains friend's kids and gets them to put their toys away. The whole time biblical friend is in the garage painting models. When dinner is ready, he goes in, fills a bowl with literally half the spaghetti we made, and plopped on the couch while his wife feeds their kids. He then shows us a funny (but graphically violent) show that his wife doesn't want their kids watching. She objects, but he just ignores her, creating this awkward tension. After the show, is over he puts on more age apprpriate stuff. Then he decides to go to the toy store to get some collector toy while its on clearance before the store closes. His wife finally goes to get food but it turns out her her husband had barely left any for her. Fiancee and I offered to help clean up so she could put her kids to bed but she said its ok, thank you for offereing.

I felt like the evening was a big red flag. I discussed it with my other friend who was there but he wrote off the incident, saying, "well, we dont know what she says to him when we're not around". I'm kind of :dubious: about that. Is this normal?! Biblical friend is a fun guy to be around, but it sounds like hes really stretching the rationalization to be lazy and publically dismiss his wife by suggesting, "shes okay with it"

RTFirefly
08-24-2011, 01:05 PM
Seems he's using 'Biblical roles' as cover for being an out-and-out jerk.

RealityChuck
08-24-2011, 01:12 PM
Seems he's using 'Biblical roles' as cover for being an out-and-out jerk."Jerk" is the mildest thing I can think of calling him. Taking half the spaghetti for himself is hardly biblical.

tdn
08-24-2011, 01:22 PM
Taking half the spaghetti for himself is hardly biblical.

But hardly non-traditional. I understand that in a lot of farming households, then men ate first, as they had spent the day out in the fields working up a huge appetite. The womens folk had it easy, spending the day indoors doing the easy chores, such as laundry, child-rearing, baking, cleaning, sewing, etc., so if they didn't get to eat, no biggy.

Is Biblical guy a farmer?

Jack Batty
08-24-2011, 01:23 PM
'Biblical' friend sounds like an asshole. Even if he tells the wittiest jokes in the world, why would you want to hang around with someone who treats his wife like shit?

That tells me a lot more about a person than how fun he is to hang around with.

Slithy Tove
08-24-2011, 01:33 PM
He'll be happy to discover that divorce is also straight out of the Bible: the court takes a sword like Solomon and cuts all his assets in two.

silenus
08-24-2011, 01:35 PM
The dude is an exploitative asshole, which is hardly Christian. Drop him like a live grenade and hope the police don't question you when his wife snaps and goes after him with a Garden Weasel.

perfectparanoia
08-24-2011, 01:35 PM
Biblical my ass.

Omar Little
08-24-2011, 01:37 PM
Your friend doesn't sound "biblical" to me. Are you assuming that your friend is behaving like others that claim to be in a "bibical marriage" and wanting other's opinions about biblical marriages in general, or are you inquiring if your friend is following the principles of a principled biblical marriage?

I would say that people in true biblical may have traditional gender roles, where the husband works and the wife stays at home with the kids. But a husband in a biblical marriage should be respecting his wife, assisting with the kids in the evening, respectful of guests, etc. None of which your friend exemplified in your OP.

Two Many Cats
08-24-2011, 01:45 PM
This is not a "Biblical" marriage. This guy is a jerk.

In the Bible, a husband is supposed to treat his wife thusly: "honoring her as the weaker vessel." He is supposed to be respectful of her, and take care of her, since as a weaker vessel, she can't be expected to take care of herself.

Getting "taken care of" is supposed to be ample reward for being a "submissive" wife. That's some crappy reward, in my opinion, but to each his own.

But in no way, does "Biblical marriage" mean "wife is slave to jag-off husband."

Jack Batty
08-24-2011, 01:53 PM
The dude is an exploitative asshole, which is hardly Christian. Drop him like a live grenade and hope the police don't question you when his wife snaps and goes after him with a Garden Weasel.

I go with this.

The whole situation reminds me of a similar pickle I found myself in, albeit more easily resolved (at least on my end). I was trying to reconnect with an old friend and he invited me to play poker at his friend's house. As it turned out this friend of his was a brother of a guy I'd gone to college with, so it all seemed to wrap up in a nice package.

Then I discovered what a douche this guy was. First there was the typical guy-banter, you know the usual discussions of big tits and sexual conquests ... whatever, it's what guys do. But then he was going on and on about all the chicks he's cheated on his wife with, in the most unflattering terms. Basically, it was like listening to Andrew Dice Clay, but less refined.

Then when his wife came downstairs to see if anybody wanted anything, he thought it would be funny to call her a cunt to her face in front of us.

I excused myself mid-hand and left. I told my friend that I'd love to hang out some more, but not at this asshole's house. I remember telling the douche-bag, as I left, "good luck when your wife stabs you in your sleep."

Who needs shit like that?

Claire Beauchamp
08-24-2011, 01:55 PM
The womens folk had it easy, spending the day indoors doing the easy chores, such as laundry, child-rearing, baking, cleaning, sewing, etc., so if they didn't get to eat, no biggy.

You've GOT to be kidding. Ever do laundry without machines? Or any of the other "easy" chores you so callously dismiss? Even with machines, running a farm household -- with kids underfoot -- ain't a stroll in the park.

Jack Batty
08-24-2011, 01:56 PM
You've GOT to be kidding. Ever do laundry without machines? Or any of the other "easy" chores you so callously dismiss? Even with machines, running a farm household -- with kids underfoot -- ain't a stroll in the park.

I think you nailed it with the first sentence.

dangermom
08-24-2011, 01:57 PM
There's a whole patriarchal movement in conservative Protestant circles, with words like Biblical marriage, wifely submission, quiverfull, complementarian, and so on being thrown around a lot. If you want to see some of the material, try googling Vision Forum, Douglas Phillips, No Greater Joy or Debi Pearl, Douglas Wilson, or the terms above. I can't remember others just now. Oh, Nancy Campbell is another one. Above Rubies, I think her thing is called.

In theory, the husband is supposed to love and serve his wife as Jesus Christ loved the church--that is, he's supposed to be acting as a really good husband in order to deserve her submission to him. In practice, AFAICT the whole system often works to turn even the nicest man into a monster of selfishness. It's horribly easy to turn into an abuser under this philosophy.

The trouble is that if the system goes off the rails--as it clearly has here--the wife has little recourse. Everyone will tell her that the problem is that she's not submissive enough, and if she just 'dies to self' and stops being so selfish and demanding, then her husband will respond by improving himself. This, of course, rarely works.

But in order for this particular marriage to improve, the wife will have to realize that the system is fatally flawed, and she'll have to take steps to get her family out. The husband has little incentive to change, after all. And if she is unlucky and he doesn't mend his ways, she'll end up a single mom supporting a bunch of kids, and she probably doesn't have any skills--if she's really hardcore, then she completely eschewed higher education in favor of homemaking skills.

Incubus
08-24-2011, 02:00 PM
Well, my relationship with my future wife is so different I didn't know for certain if it was the contrast that made it so concerning to me. plus, my other friend and his wife were so ambivalent, it made me wonder if I was making something of nothing.

another red flag: many months ago, I asked him for advice (in hindsight, a questionable decision) about planning my wedding. My fiancee was unhappy because I was dumping most of the planning on her. I was willing to do more, but simply lacked the vision and planning to manage to make a wedding with so many people on a tight budget. So we were both frustrated. I asked friend how much he contributed. How much? Nothing :eek:, his wife did EVERYTHING. I felt like less of a deadbeat in comparison. His advice was for me to simply put my foot down and refuse to do anything I either didnt want or didn't know how to do. His advice was very unhelpful and said volumes about his attitude.

elbows
08-24-2011, 02:01 PM
Jerkishness disguised as 'biblical'. aside, who the hell invites people over then spends his time painting models in the garage? Or eats on the couch while everyone else in at the table? Or leaves and goes to the mall while his guests are there?

This guy appears to have the social skills of a bear!

And you call this person a friend?

tdn
08-24-2011, 02:03 PM
I think you nailed it with the first sentence.

Exactly, though I was pretty sure that at least one person wouldn't get it.

tdn
08-24-2011, 02:10 PM
I excused myself mid-hand and left. I told my friend that I'd love to hang out some more, but not at this asshole's house. I remember telling the douche-bag, as I left, "good luck when your wife stabs you in your sleep."

Good for you. I probably would have sheepishly stayed, or politely excused myself.

Kalypso
08-24-2011, 02:12 PM
I lived exactly like this for the first year after my daughter was born. It wasn't an agreement, just that my husband was a jerk. It was awful. Babies are a full time job in and of themselves, add to that all the cleaning, cooking, dishes, laundry and such and I was exhausted. I was also very very lonely because I was by myself at home all day.

When I got my own apartment and a full time job and had custody of the baby full time it was less work, I guess because I wasn't trying to cater to all my husband's domestic needs.

On the other hand I knew someone who delighted in keeping her home and raising the children mostly by herself while her husband worked. She even got up at butt-crack of dawn o-clock in the morning to cook him breakfast and make his lunch, so to each her own.

Can someone befriend the wife and find out how she's doing? She may love her role, or she may just not be able to see her way out of it. It's hard to make that change when you've been isolated in the house, your marketable skills stagnating, and perhaps no access to the family finances.

Incubus
08-24-2011, 02:15 PM
In theory, the husband is supposed to love and serve his wife as Jesus Christ loved the church--that is, he's supposed to be acting as a really good husband in order to deserve her submission to him. In practice, AFAICT the whole system often works to turn even the nicest man into a monster of selfishness. It's horribly easy to turn into an abuser under this philosophy.

The trouble is that if the system goes off the rails--as it clearly has here--the wife has little recourse. Everyone will tell her that the problem is that she's not submissive enough, and if she just 'dies to self' and stops being so selfish and demanding, then her husband will respond by improving himself. This, of course, rarely works.

But in order for this particular marriage to improve, the wife will have to realize that the system is fatally flawed, and she'll have to take steps to get her family out. The husband has little incentive to change, after all. And if she is unlucky and he doesn't mend his ways, she'll end up a single mom supporting a bunch of kids, and she probably doesn't have any skills--if she's really hardcore, then she completely eschewed higher education in favor of homemaking skills.

This is the concern I have. His wife only worked one retail job before she met him, married at 18. The only things she does are take care of her kids and do church activities. She doesnt seem to have friends.

And youre right, the more I think about it, the more selfish he seems...its weird my other friend and wife are so passive about it. I guess they dont want to make waves- too all their credit, they've seen my relationship drama and reserved judgement on the matter.

brazil84
08-24-2011, 02:24 PM
Is this normal?!

I would guess it's pretty common. I'm like that with my wife. I cook sometimes, but just for fun. She does the normal cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc.

Any work which is dangerous, or dirty, or involves heavy lifting or operating machinery is mine. If we drive somewhere as a family, I do most or all of the driving. If there is a large insect which needs to be killed, I normally am the one who does it. I mow the lawn. If animals wander onto our property, I deal with them which includes cleaning up their s*** sometimes. I do minor maintenance on her car. I'm the one who get the computer working if it has problems. If there is a blizzard, I am normally up at the crack of dawn clearing the driveway and our cars while my wife is in the house drinking hot chocolate with the children.

I work a job which is much more demanding (and higher paying) than my wife's government job. I also bear the burden of leading the family.

The point is that just because the guy seems to be chilling out when you are over and the wife is doing all the work doesn't mean that labor is divided unevenly or unfairly.

Also, they may not admit it, but a lot of girls appreciate a man who insists on taking his traditional role.

Incubus
08-24-2011, 02:25 PM
Jerkishness disguised as 'biblical'. aside, who the hell invites people over then spends his time painting models in the garage? Or eats on the couch while everyone else in at the table? Or leaves and goes to the mall while his guests are there?

This guy appears to have the social skills of a bear!

And you call this person a friend?

Clarification: when we arrived he was painting. He was showing off his models to us. I excused myself to go put groceries away and help his wife. My fiancee offered to keep an eye on her kids in the other room, during which she played a "game" that got them to put all their toys away in the family room where we planned to eat. after his wife had a handle on it, I went back out to the garage offering beer I had brought. We all ate together in the family room.

Later, biblical friend, other friend/wife decided to hit the store before closing time. They invited us to join but we declined. Wife declined further help so we decided to say our goodbyes, wife stayed behind to put kids to bed (apologized to us for the mess)

panache45
08-24-2011, 02:34 PM
Biblical friend is a fun guy to be around . . .

When you weigh this statement against everything else you've said about him . . . why is this person your friend? I feel bad just having to share the planet with jerks like him, and you actually choose to associate with him.

Jack Batty
08-24-2011, 02:35 PM
Good for you. I probably would have sheepishly stayed, or politely excused myself.

Well ... it's not like I made a big show of it. I just basically said, 'Welp ... gotta go, see ya." And my crack about him being stabbed was said humorously enough that I don't think he thought I was serious.

Believe, me, I would have loved to have gone up one side of him and down the other ... I just don't normally do stuff like that.

puddleglum
08-24-2011, 02:39 PM
Have your tried asking him about it? In my experience religious people like to talk about their beliefs.

Anaamika
08-24-2011, 02:42 PM
I have heard of this movement "Created to be His Helpmeet", which still sounds more insane than anything I'd want to do, but like Two Many Cats says, it's about protecting the so-called weaker sex as much as anything.

guestchaz
08-24-2011, 02:42 PM
nah, this isnt a biblical marriage by any stretch of the truth, only by a stretch of the imagination. I am in a biblical marriage. Yep, single income family, with a stay at home parent who does the majority of houswork and daily child rearing. Then when my wife gets home from work, she helps out around the house with our little guest and what ever chores need doing so we can both have a lighter load. Somedays I have a light load and greet her with a drink and back rub, somedays its reversed. OP's "freind" is an abusive shit

kanicbird
08-24-2011, 02:44 PM
To me it seems they are following Old Testament rules and laws, a system designed by God to fail. So it is a biblical marriage in the respect it is laid out to try to make it work and find that it can't. Usually the sooner it fails the better, perhaps the marriage can be reformed in mutual Love for God and each other, but perhaps divorce is going to be the conclusion. Either way they need to be broken out of that mold to truly live IMHO

Incubus
08-24-2011, 03:00 PM
One theory my other friend has is that he is putting us on. "who knows how they act when nobodys around" is what he says often. That he messes with his wife in front of us, and that his wife is in on it.

But wouldn't it make more sense that its the other way around? Honestly I can only imagine- that hes even more bossy/apathetic.

As for bringing it up to him, I'm torn. He's been married for nine years- and i'll just be GETTING married next month. I feel like.hes confident he has a succesful marraige because of what hes doing. I think itll be easier to convince my other friend how disrespectful he is being and sit down with biblical guy as a combined front- that might get the message across.

Jack Batty
08-24-2011, 03:07 PM
Inc -- can I call you Inc? -- I doubt you're going to make much headway. It's not like you're going to sit down with this dude, and open his eyes to what a dick he's being. He knows he's being an asshole to his wife, he just doesn't care because he has a nice excuse bound in leather, with gilt edges, provided by the Gedeons.

I say cut him loose and find some normal people to hang out with.

Omar Little
08-24-2011, 03:08 PM
I've always found it best to stay out of other people's relationships. Your friend's wife is a grown woman. I'm sure that she's heard of the options that she has available to her. What you've described doesn't appear to fall into the category of physical abuse.

Lead by example in how you treat your own wife (fiance') when you are around them.

Omar Little
08-24-2011, 03:09 PM
he has a nice excuse bound in leather, with gilt edges, provided by the Gedeons.

That's bullshit. There's no biblical foundation for the manner in which he's treating his wife. The friend is just a jerk.

Jack Batty
08-24-2011, 03:12 PM
That's bullshit. There's no biblical foundation for the manner in which he's treating his wife. The friend is just a jerk.

I agree with you. Incubus's friend does not.

pbbth
08-24-2011, 03:19 PM
Is your fiance friends with his wife? She might be able to feel out the situation from the wife's point of view and see if she really is happy in her situation or if she is miserable and doesn't know how to leave.

raspberry hunter
08-24-2011, 03:57 PM
Huh. I know one couple that has an explicitly "biblical marriage" (their words) and lots more that wouldn't put it in those words but have a religiously-based marriage where one partner works and the other predominantly takes care of the kids -- and not one of them sounds like the one in the OP. In all of them the working partner is respectful to the non-working one and helps out with the housework and kids.

The dad in the explicitly biblical marriage, in fact, is the most involved working dad I've ever seen.

kayT
08-24-2011, 04:13 PM
Also, they may not admit it, but a lot of girls appreciate a man who insists on taking his traditional role.

I wonder why it is that MEN are MEN but women are GIRLS. Funny, I feel all growed up myself. Maybe that is why I would not "appreciate..." etc.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-24-2011, 04:23 PM
I work a job which is much more demanding (and higher paying) than my wife's government job. I also bear the burden of leading the family.
What does "leading a family" mean?

dangermom
08-24-2011, 04:24 PM
I have heard of this movement "Created to be His Helpmeet", which still sounds more insane than anything I'd want to do, but like Two Many Cats says, it's about protecting the so-called weaker sex as much as anything.

Yep, that's the Debi Pearl/No Greater Joy book. The Pearls, BTW, are some of the most awful people on earth--look up "To Train Up a Child" if you want proof.

I think everyone probably agrees that the couple doesn't actually have a marriage that a normal person would call "Biblical" as in something the Christian God would approve of. Even the people promoting this system (which is a modern re-interpretation of scripture from a very narrow and particular POV) probably wouldn't say that this is a working "Biblical marriage" as they define it--the husband is supposed to be serving and protecting his wife and making her happy within the structure they've adopted.

The trouble is that the system the patriarchalists promote is very prone to breaking down in exactly this way. The burdens are nearly always placed disproportionately on the woman, and whatever problems arise are generally blamed on her too. It's not a good system for men either--they're completely responsible for all the income and the leadership, and don't have an equal to bounce things off of.

And it's a hard system to get out of, because it's designed so that the main sufferer (the wife) has also placed all her belief and self-worth into a system that tells her that this is the only right way to live and if she doesn't manage it, it's her fault for not being righteous enough. Assuming (hypothetically) that the wife in this case is unhappy, she almost certainly blames herself for that while simultaneously believing that this is the only way God approves of.

That's not to say at all that a marriage with a SAHM and a working dad is bad; I've mostly done that myself. IMO the problem is the specific philosophy called patriarchalism/Quiverfull/etc.

miss elizabeth
08-24-2011, 04:35 PM
What does "leading a family" mean?

It means he "bears the burden" of having a slave to his every whim and has the awful task of judging whether someone else's hard work lives up to his standards. Much like being a CEO, this job is much, much harder than it looks. Really. And, this hurts me more than it hurts you.

AClockworkMelon
08-24-2011, 04:35 PM
What does "leading a family" mean?Making all the decisions. He's like Christian Bale from 3:10 to Yuma!

Except the decisions are probably more what color curtains to get rather than whether to pay the rent or get tuberculosis medicine.

B. Serum
08-24-2011, 04:39 PM
What does "leading a family" mean?

+1

Der Trihs
08-24-2011, 05:34 PM
Another vote for "exploitative jerk". I also agree with dangermom; even if the man in question means well at first, such patriarchal arrangements are very prone to collapse into one sided exploitation.

But hardly non-traditional. I understand that in a lot of farming households, then men ate first, as they had spent the day out in the fields working up a huge appetite. The womens folk had it easy, spending the day indoors doing the easy chores, such as laundry, child-rearing, baking, cleaning, sewing, etc., so if they didn't get to eat, no biggy.I realize you were joking (especially about it being easy for women); but to be fair the women also had food right there the whole time if they got hungry. I doubt the men detailed a guard to stay back home and make sure the ladies weren't snacking. And it's my understanding that according to the psychologists men really are more inclined towards a feeding pattern of a few large meals, while women are more prone to lots of snacks.

Two Many Cats
08-24-2011, 05:48 PM
The Jehovah's Witnesses are big into this too. It was a huge issue for me.

Over and over I was told that a good husband would take his wife's feelings into account for all of the decisions he made, and that was how it was best to be.

Finally, I explained to my mom the fallacy in this with this example:

Okay, there's a husband and wife. Wife has always wanted a sporty convertible to ride around in. She tells husband. Husband considers wife's feelings and says no. We don't have the money for a convertible. Wife uses joint checking account to put down payment on convertible. Wife has sinned against her husband and her god.

Husband, on the other hand, has always loved boats. He sees spiffy new boat that costs about the same as the convertible. Husband tells wife about the boat. Wife says they don't have enough money for a boat. Husband considers his wife's feelings, but decides to use joint checking account to put down a down payment on the boat anyway. Husband is acting in his headship role in the family. He has committed no sin against his wife or his god.

I asked my mom, "Can you see where this might be a problem?"

She admitted I had a point. It's the closest I've ever gotten to winning an arguement about this.

njtt
08-24-2011, 06:06 PM
Everybody knows the Bible is set in 1950s America.

Farmer Jane
08-24-2011, 06:13 PM
I know lots of people that are in mostly traditional gender role marriages.

Their marriages are nothing like that. That guy is just a douche.

BaneSidhe
08-24-2011, 06:25 PM
This guy isn't a Christian, he's a flaming assmonkey who is using religion to excuse his being a flaming assmonkey.

Kolga
08-24-2011, 06:30 PM
That marriage sounds like hell (for the woman), so maybe that's the Biblical part?

If anyone wants to read stories of women who were in the Quiverful movement (the movement that the Duggars are part of), there's No Longer Quivering (http://nolongerquivering.com/). It was created by a woman who escaped the Quiverful movement and writes about that experience. Other escapees have also posted their stories.

YogSothoth
08-24-2011, 06:36 PM
One can have happy and decent marriages while sticking to traditional roles. However, I doubt that traditional roles include showing up the wife in front of company, taking most of the food, and acting like an entitled ass. The guy doesn't want a wife, he wants a mother he can occasionally fuck

BaneSidhe
08-24-2011, 06:54 PM
That marriage sounds like hell (for the woman), so maybe that's the Biblical part?

If anyone wants to read stories of women who were in the Quiverful movement (the movement that the Duggars are part of), there's No Longer Quivering (http://nolongerquivering.com/). It was created by a woman who escaped the Quiverful movement and writes about that experience. Other escapees have also posted their stories.

I read about half of the stuff on the site you linked and now I'm sick to my stomach with rage. How could...never mind. :mad:

Jack Batty
08-24-2011, 07:43 PM
The guy doesn't want a wife, he wants a mother he can occasionally fuck

I'm sick of these motherfuckers.

Rand Rover
08-24-2011, 08:23 PM
Meh. There are all sorts of ways for people to organize their lives and have a marriage. If the OP's friend's wife is happy with their arrangement, then who am I to say she's chosen "incorrectly"? She may do all the housework because she's essentially a workaholic and a control freak--maybe the husband tried to help in the past and the wife got on his ass for not doing it right.

This thread is just more evidence of the absolutely worthless way that many dopers look at the world. They think their way of doing things is the only way and their opiion is all that matters.

brazil84
08-24-2011, 08:24 PM
I wonder why it is that MEN are MEN but women are GIRLS.

Lol, probably because I'm a male chauvinist or something.

Maybe that is why I would not "appreciate..." etc.

Another thing to keep in mind is that girls (or women if you prefer) are frequently pretty lousy at assessing what they are attracted to in men. It's like the old story of the girl who says she wants a "nice" guy but turns around and dates men who are jerks. Perhaps these stories are a bit exaggerated, but I do think there is a significant element of truth in them.

brazil84
08-24-2011, 08:28 PM
What does "leading a family" mean?

Basically it means being responsible for making the important decisions. Kind of like the manager of a business except that the goals are a bit different.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-24-2011, 08:30 PM
Meh. There are all sorts of ways for people to organize their lives and have a marriage. If the OP's friend's wife is happy with their arrangement, then who am I to say she's chosen "incorrectly"?
She clearly isn't happy.

And just because a woman gets cowed by religious brainwashing into accepting an abusive/controlling spouse doesn't mean she's really "choosing" it.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-24-2011, 08:32 PM
Basically it means being responsible for making the important decisions. Kind of like the manager of a business except that the goals are a bit different.
You're the "manager" of your wife? What if your wife wants to make a decision for herself? Does she have equal say in every decision or do you get to be the decider? is she equal to you or subordinate to you?

brazil84
08-24-2011, 08:34 PM
It means he "bears the burden" of having a slave to his every whim and has the awful task of judging whether someone else's hard work lives up to his standards.

It's unfortunate that you view leadership this way. Do you think that leadership is never a demanding job? Do you think that all leaders just act selfishly to further their own interests?

brazil84
08-24-2011, 08:45 PM
You're the "manager" of your wife? What if your wife wants to make a decision for herself?

Usually it would be no problem; I don't micromanage people. Larger decisions she consults with me on, particularly if they involve the children.

Does she have equal say in every decision or do you get to be the decider? is she equal to you or subordinate to you?

She is subordinate and I have the final say. She knows that I put the family first, especially the children, and she trusts my judgment.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-24-2011, 08:46 PM
Who appointed you a "leader?" What happens if your wife decides to disregard one of your edicts?

Diogenes the Cynic
08-24-2011, 08:47 PM
Usually it would be no problem; I don't micromanage people.
The imperious, sexist arrogance here is astounding.
She is subordinate and I have the final say.
Or else what?

Czarcasm
08-24-2011, 08:49 PM
She is subordinate and I have the final say. She knows that I put the family first, especially the children, and she trusts my judgment.1. Are you saying she doesn't put the family first?
2. Why don't you trust her judgement?

Rand Rover
08-24-2011, 08:56 PM
She clearly isn't happy. What's your evidence for that?

Rand Rover
08-24-2011, 09:00 PM
Who appointed you a "leader?

His wife did.

Look Dio, some people do things in a way that is not 100% Dio-approved. That doesn't mean they are necessarily doing anything wrong.

j666
08-24-2011, 09:17 PM
His wife did.

Look Dio, some people do things in a way that is not 100% Dio-approved. That doesn't mean they are necessarily doing anything wrong.
Or her church did.

Look, RR, there are a lot of people in this world who find the idea of one adult being subservient to another at least disgusting if not wrong.

My spouse insists on performing some traditionally gender specific tasks; so do I. We think it is cute. The wife does not remove dead rodents; the husband does not do laundry that requires bleach.

We trust each others' judgements. We believe in relying on each others' strengths. We are partners who strive to ensure the whole is more than the sum of the parts. The husband puts food on the table and the wife keeps house - in our case that means the husband does the cooking and the wife does the wallboarding and painting.

No way in hell do we think either one of us has the right to tell the other what to do. We're grown ups here. And we were when we got married.

Rand Rover
08-24-2011, 09:36 PM
Or her church did.Which she chooses to keep attending.

Look, RR, there are a lot of people in this world who find the idea of one adult being subservient to another at least disgusting if not wrong.I'm fully aware of that. It's just that those people are idiots who think their way of doing things is the only possible way and anyone who would agree to do things any other way is an idiot.


We trust each others' judgements. We believe in relying on each others' strengths. We are partners who strive to ensure the whole is more than the sum of the parts. I'm sure the OP's friend and his wife would say the exact same thing.

The husband puts food on the table and the wife keeps house - in our case that means the husband does the cooking and the wife does the wallboarding and painting.If a traditional Muslim or an Orthodox Jew read that, they may think you are idiots who aren't running your life properly. Why do you think they are wrong when talking about you but you are right when talking about the OP's friend's marriage?

Diogenes the Cynic
08-24-2011, 09:43 PM
Any belief system that subordinates one gender to another is fucked up and stupid, and religion is no justification (nor is it an indication of real consent), and I'll judge the oppressors in those relationships all I want.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-24-2011, 09:44 PM
I'm sure the OP's friend and his wife would say the exact same thing.
I doubt either one of them would say that.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-24-2011, 09:45 PM
His wife did.

Look Dio, some people do things in a way that is not 100% Dio-approved. That doesn't mean they are necessarily doing anything wrong.
Any adult who sets himself up as lord and master of another adult is doing something wrong. That's my opinion. What are you going to do about it?

AClockworkMelon
08-24-2011, 09:54 PM
1. Are you saying she doesn't put the family first?
2. Why don't you trust her judgement?He does trust her judgment, Czar. Her judgment (which he trusts) finds that his judgment is sound enough to lead the household. If he didn't trust her judgment he wouldn't accept her judgment that his judgment is worth trusting and he'd have to trust her judgment as leader of the household. It's so simple! Do you get it now?

Rand Rover
08-24-2011, 09:54 PM
Any adult who sets himself up as lord and master of another adult is doing something wrong. That's my opinion. What are you going to do about it?

Point and laugh at your complete failure of a worldview, that's what I'm going to do about it.

Also, we're still waiting on your evidence that the wife is unhappy.

Czarcasm
08-24-2011, 09:55 PM
He does trust her judgment, Czar. Her judgment (which he trusts) finds that his judgment is sound enough to lead the household. If he didn't trust her judgment he wouldn't accept her judgment that his judgment is worth trusting and he'd have to trust her judgment as leader of the household. It's so simple! Do you get it now?No, but I will once I find the Tylenol 3 tablets.

AClockworkMelon
08-24-2011, 09:55 PM
Also, we're still waiting on your evidence that the wife is unhappy.Would you require evidence that she's unhappy if we'd been told that the husband was, say, beating her?

Czarcasm
08-24-2011, 09:56 PM
Yeah. Moving this from IMHO to Great Debates.

AClockworkMelon
08-24-2011, 09:57 PM
No, but I will once I find the Tylenol 3 tablets.I still can't operate any heavy machinery...

Rand Rover
08-24-2011, 10:03 PM
Would you require evidence that she's unhappy if we'd been told that the husband was, say, beating her?
There's a big difference between the two situations. Do you see why?

Diogenes the Cynic
08-24-2011, 10:04 PM
No.

Czarcasm
08-24-2011, 10:05 PM
There's a big difference between the two situations. Do you see why?One is mental subjugation and abuse, and the other is physical subjugation and abuse?

Rand Rover
08-24-2011, 10:06 PM
He does trust her judgment, Czar. Her judgment (which he trusts) finds that his judgment is sound enough to lead the household. If he didn't trust her judgment he wouldn't accept her judgment that his judgment is worth trusting and he'd have to trust her judgment as leader of the household. It's so simple! Do you get it now?
So she clearly can't choose the cup in front of her . . .

Diogenes the Cynic
08-24-2011, 10:06 PM
I doubt she's allowed to.

Rand Rover
08-24-2011, 10:11 PM
One is mental subjugation and abuse, and the other is physical subjugation and abuse?
People. This thread so illustrates the typical liberal doper's worldview. The woman is choosing to do something that you wouldn't choose to do, so of course she shouldn't be allowed to choose it.

Take payday loans. A typical liberal doper wouldn't choose to borrow at such high interest rates, so of course the payday loan places are "predatory lenders" and should be put out of business. Never mind that many people actually choose to take out those loans because they believe the alternative is worse (i.e., getting a car impounded or getting evicted).

By the way, the difference I was going for was that actual physical abuse is illegal, whereas choosing to live in a "Biblical marriage" is not illegal.

Czarcasm
08-24-2011, 10:15 PM
People. This thread so illustrates the typical liberal doper's worldview. The woman is choosing to do something that you wouldn't choose to do, so of course she shouldn't be allowed to choose it.

Take payday loans. A typical liberal doper wouldn't choose to borrow at such high interest rates, so of course the payday loan places are "predatory lenders" and should be put out of business. Never mind that many people actually choose to take out those loans because they believe the alternative is worse (i.e., getting a car impounded or getting evicted).

By the way, the difference I was going for was that actual physical abuse is illegal, whereas choosing to live in a "Biblical marriage" is not illegal.
1. The people that go to these predatory lenders usually find out that they made the wrong choice in the long run.
2. Physical abuse, if consensual, is not always illegal...putting it on par with "Biblical" marriages, wouldn't you say?

Revenant Threshold
08-24-2011, 10:15 PM
This thread is just more evidence of the absolutely worthless way that many dopers look at the world. They think their way of doing things is the only way and their opiion is all that matters. Isn't considering that there are many ways of doing things itself a way of doing things? Likewise, isn't believing that there are many opinions that matter also an opinion that seems to be regarded as being all that matters?

Diogenes the Cynic
08-24-2011, 10:18 PM
Choosing, my ass. This woman is simply cowed by religious brainwashing.

Exploitation and emotional abuse (which is what we're actually talking about) are still morally reprehensible whether they're legal or not.

AClockworkMelon
08-24-2011, 10:22 PM
People. This thread so illustrates the typical liberal doper's worldview. The woman is choosing to do something that you wouldn't choose to do, so of course she shouldn't be allowed to choose it.

Take payday loans. A typical liberal doper wouldn't choose to borrow at such high interest rates, so of course the payday loan places are "predatory lenders" and should be put out of business. Never mind that many people actually choose to take out those loans because they believe the alternative is worse (i.e., getting a car impounded or getting evicted).

By the way, the difference I was going for was that actual physical abuse is illegal, whereas choosing to live in a "Biblical marriage" is not illegal.Hey, you don't have to lump me in with those guys. I've been in BDSM slave/master relationships, where we just come out and use those terms rather than calling it "traditional family roles" or whatever. But the thing is, I was a dom looking for a sub, they were subs looking for a dom. "Traditional family roles" often seem forced on people (particularly women) because it's just what they think is expected of them and the guy the OP describe sounds like a total douchebag (and that last point is a big one - I don't think people would really be getting their panties into twists if he didn't seem like a complete asshole). Feel free to think I sound like a total douchebag, too, I won't argue. :) But that's how I see it.

Mosier
08-24-2011, 10:34 PM
It seems like you visited his house at the time busiest for her (while she was preparing and cleaning up after a meal) and the most relaxing time for him. If you visited him at 11am on Thursday while he's at work and she has a few hours to rest before the kids come home from school, it might seem like she's the lazy one and he's the hard worker.

You can't really judge a person's entire lifestyle by a snapshot.

Mosier
08-24-2011, 10:37 PM
This woman is simply cowed by religious brainwashing.

You can't know that. You hardly know anything about these people!

Mosier
08-24-2011, 10:39 PM
This thread is just more evidence of the absolutely worthless way that many dopers look at the world.

Somehow you manage to insult us in almost every post you make.

Miller
08-24-2011, 11:15 PM
People. This thread so illustrates the typical liberal doper's worldview. The woman is choosing to do something that you wouldn't choose to do, so of course she shouldn't be allowed to choose it.

I don't really see anyone saying she shouldn't be allowed to choose it. Is anyone arguing that there should be a law against the kind of relationship these two people are having?

Because that really sounds more like a Conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29) worldview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Proposition_2_%282005%29) to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Amendment_2) me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Sanctity_of_Marriage_Amendment).

But maybe that's just me. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_status_in_the_United_States_by_state)

anya marie
08-25-2011, 05:07 AM
Right now, whith the bit of information I get from the OP, THIS husband is a douchetruck.

But I could be wrong. Maybe he gets her flowers every week.

Douchiness lies in many things, like taking a huge pile of spaghetti knowing full well that there are guests and small children who need dinner. Turning the TV channel to crap, and running out to buy a toy when his wife could have uses help also screams douchey.

I think this marital arrangement can lead to dickish behaviour from the man, it seems to make it easier to start a bad habit. Its' not what I am looking for and it's 2 cents from someone who isn't married.

Icerigger
08-25-2011, 06:26 AM
Christianity requires that women submit to the authority of the man in marriage. The Catholics put it this way.

26. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that "order of love," as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church."

Casti Connubii

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html


I love the way the Catholics put things, willing obedience & ready subjection, how romantic.


The Baptists this way.

A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=2510

Waxwinged
08-25-2011, 06:26 AM
Right now, whith the bit of information I get from the OP, THIS husband is a douchetruck.
...
Douchiness lies in many things, like taking a huge pile of spaghetti knowing full well that there are guests and small children who need dinner. Turning the TV channel to crap, and running out to buy a toy when his wife could have uses help also screams douchey.


That. There's nothing inherently wrong with house/outside-the-house division of labor, as long as both parties have a healthy dose of respect for one another and their respective field of expertise.

Candyman74
08-25-2011, 06:34 AM
Him and his wife agreed on having "traditional" gender roles. This means he works and she stays home with the kids. He does zero cleaning, only cooking he does is bbq, and blows off his wife when we are around.

The blowing off the wife in company sounds pretty bad (though I'm not clear on what that entails exactly).

The rest - I think it's OK if both are happy with it; and that the reverse would be equally OK. I know a couple of couples who do the opposite - the man stays at home and the wife works (one is because the guy is trying to become a writer - not sure about the other one, but her job is pretty high-powered).

I did that for a short while myself when I was laid-off. I was without work for only a couple of months, but had no problem with handling all the domestic stuff while job searching.

I do think it's often beneficial if at least one parent is at home with the kids; I'm not a fan of nannies or all-day daycare and the like.

But the "blowing off the wife" in company sounds rude and disrespectful.

Cat Fight
08-25-2011, 08:05 AM
Everybody knows the Bible is set in 1950s America.

With 2011's satellite package!

Love Rhombus
08-25-2011, 08:14 AM
"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=2510

So the "husband" is never around to help out, and leaves the "wife" to deal with the kids? Probably not the interpretation they were wanting.

RTFirefly
08-25-2011, 08:18 AM
I remember telling the douche-bag, as I left, "good luck when your wife stabs you in your sleep." I won't go so far as to say, "Best. Exit. Line. Evar.", but it's definitely way up towards the top of the list.

brazil84
08-25-2011, 08:57 AM
Who appointed you a "leader?"

Nobody, that's just how our relationship has been since we started dating many years ago.

What happens if your wife decides to disregard one of your edicts?

It would depend on the circumstances, but if she were unable to accept that I'm the boss in the relationship I would have ended the relationship long ago.

brazil84
08-25-2011, 09:02 AM
1. Are you saying she doesn't put the family first?

No.


2. Why don't you trust her judgement?

Who says I don't? She is probably capable of leading the family although she probably would not be as good as me.

Freudian Slit
08-25-2011, 09:06 AM
It would depend on the circumstances, but if she were unable to accept that I'm the boss in the relationship I would have ended the relationship long ago.

Question -- why do you want to be in a relationship with someone who sees themselves as subordinate? If you're in a relationship with them, presumably you see them being intelligent/having good judgment, so wouldn't you want them to realize they're just as awesome and smart as you? Assuming you don't think she has as good judgment as you, why do you want to stay with her? Why intentionally put yourself in an inequal relationship?

Also, if you have daughters, do you worry about them getting bad ideas about relationships? It's not uncommon to date a lot of assholes when you're young. What if she sees herself as inherently subordinate just because she's a woman to a guy who's a real jerk?

Diogenes the Cynic
08-25-2011, 09:06 AM
Nobody, that's just how our relationship has been since we started dating many years ago.



It would depend on the circumstances, but if she were unable to accept that I'm the boss in the relationship I would have ended the relationship long ago.
So you would be incapable of being in a relationship with a person who would not subordinate herself to you? Why are you afraid of an equal partnership?

Annie-Xmas
08-25-2011, 09:09 AM
I once knew a wife who had a Biblical marriage. The one time she dared to defy her husband, he beat her so badly she had to go to the hospital. Church members showed up there to let her know it was her own damned fault for not listening to her husband, but they had talked to him and he forgave her, so when she got out of the hospital, she could go right home and concentrate on being a better wife.

She filed assault charges and got a divorce.

Rand Rover
08-25-2011, 09:41 AM
Isn't considering that there are many ways of doing things itself a way of doing things? Likewise, isn't believing that there are many opinions that matter also an opinion that seems to be regarded as being all that matters?

It sounds like you are implying that I'm being hypocritical. If that's the case, then make an argument for that position and I will respond.

brazil84
08-25-2011, 10:02 AM
Question -- why do you want to be in a relationship with someone who sees themselves as subordinate?

Mainly because it's my preference and also because most girls prefer to be led, although many will not admit it and are not even aware of it themselves.

If you're in a relationship with them, presumably you see them being intelligent/having good judgment, so wouldn't you want them to realize they're just as awesome and smart as you?

It's not really a matter of capabilities as preferences. Even if my wife were just as smart as me I would still prefer to be boss. If her judgment were better than mine then I would give more weight to her input.

Assuming you don't think she has as good judgment as you, why do you want to stay with her? Why intentionally put yourself in an inequal relationship?

Why not? It's not like it's carved in stone somewhere that all relationships must be equal. Besides, the laws of statistics pretty much guarantee that there will be a huge male/female imbalance at the upper reaches of the intelligence distribution.

Besides, don't you think you are being a bit judgmental? Would you ask a gay friend how he could possibly like the idea of being in a relationship with another man?

Also, if you have daughters, do you worry about them getting bad ideas about relationships?

No I don't. My daughters see me working hard and exercising leadership for the benefit of the family. I hope that that they men with these qualities for marriage partners.

brazil84
08-25-2011, 10:04 AM
So you would be incapable of being in a relationship with a person who would not subordinate herself to you?

I wouldn't say "incapable," but it's my preference.

Why are you afraid of an equal partnership?

It's not fear, it's my preference.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-25-2011, 10:15 AM
Mainly because it's my preference and also because most girls prefer to be led, although many will not admit it and are not even aware of it themselves.
Cite?

Freudian Slit
08-25-2011, 10:16 AM
Mainly because it's my preference and also because most girls prefer to be led, although many will not admit it and are not even aware of it themselves.

The first point -- we've established you prefer it. I'm asking why?

The second point gets a little creepy. If women are saying they don't like to be led and don't even know they like it...how do you know what they like? I mean, if I told you that deep down you'd prefer a strong, independent woman, you'd think that was obnoxious.

Why not? It's not like it's carved in stone somewhere that all relationships must be equal. Besides, the laws of statistics pretty much guarantee that there will be a huge male/female imbalance at the upper reaches of the intelligence distribution.

Why do you assume that?

Besides, don't you think you are being a bit judgmental? Would you ask a gay friend how he could possibly like the idea of being in a relationship with another man?

No, because sexual attraction can't be changed. I don't think preference for a subordinate partner is nearly as fixed.

No I don't. My daughters see me working hard and exercising leadership for the benefit of the family. I hope that that they men with these qualities for marriage partners.

Sure, but teenagers have notoriously bad judgment. I'm not even talking about marriage. What if one of your daughters was going out with a guy pressuring her into sex, as teen boys are wont to do? How can you teach her to stand up to herself when you're saying at the same time men should lead?

Rand Rover
08-25-2011, 10:17 AM
I don't really see anyone saying she shouldn't be allowed to choose it. Is anyone arguing that there should be a law against the kind of relationship these two people are having? The type of folks I'm talking to typically don't make actual arguments for any position. But at least one has implied that it's abuse, and others have said that it just shouldn't be done, which is tantamount to saying it should be illegal.

Because that really sounds more like a Conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29) worldview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Proposition_2_%282005%29) to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Amendment_2) me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Sanctity_of_Marriage_Amendment).

But maybe that's just me. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_status_in_the_United_States_by_state)
Yes, thank you, that is the exact right parallel to draw. The typical liberal doper can't stand when social conservatives tell others how to run their lives, but they revel in telling others how to run their lives when it comes to economic matters. They think it's groovy for people to let their freak flag fly on social matters, but on economic matters they are worse than Ward Cleaver. This thread presents an interesting example where the two worldviews get mixed up a bit, so I thought it would be a good teaching moment.

brazil84
08-25-2011, 10:22 AM
Cite?

Mainly my own general observations and those of other men I have talked to. I doubt any scientific research has been done on this point.

woodstockbirdybird
08-25-2011, 10:26 AM
Lol, probably because I'm a male chauvinist or something.


I'd say that about covers it.

Czarcasm
08-25-2011, 10:30 AM
Mainly my own general observations and those of other men I have talked to. I doubt any scientific research has been done on this point.You seek out subservient women that you feel are inferior to yourself in intellect and judgement, and use these contacts to determine that women in general are inferior. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what kind of household you were raised in.

Musicat
08-25-2011, 10:31 AM
But hardly non-traditional. I understand that in a lot of farming households, then men ate first, as they had spent the day out in the fields working up a huge appetite. The womens folk had it easy, spending the day indoors doing the easy chores, such as laundry, child-rearing, baking, cleaning, sewing, etc., so if they didn't get to eat, no biggy.Doesn't work that way around my farming community. The wives work in the same fields as the husbands, driving the same tractors, milking the same cows.

Then they come in and fix dinner for everyone. The "womens folk" work harder than anyone else.

kunilou
08-25-2011, 10:36 AM
Leaving aside whatever Biblical justification there may be, I knew a woman who was the very happy sub in a dom/sub relationship. She was by no means intellectually or socially inferior. I don't get the dynamic, but two consenting adults and all that.

ETA: she made it clear that her relationship extended beyond sexual relations, and that her dom was the dom in all aspects of their life.

brazil84
08-25-2011, 10:45 AM
The first point -- we've established you prefer it. I'm asking why?

I don't know. Why do you prefer one particular flavor of ice cream over another?

The second point gets a little creepy. If women are saying they don't like to be led and don't even know they like it...how do you know what they like?

Because I can observe their reactions.

I mean, if I told you that deep down you'd prefer a strong, independent woman, you'd think that was obnoxious.

Maybe I would think so, but if you consistently observed the girls I pursued and noticed such a pattern, then that's reality.

Why do you assume that?

Assume what?

No, because sexual attraction can't be changed. I don't think preference for a subordinate partner is nearly as fixed.

What makes you think that?

Sure, but teenagers have notoriously bad judgment. I'm not even talking about marriage. What if one of your daughters was going out with a guy pressuring her into sex, as teen boys are wont to do? How can you teach her to stand up to herself when you're saying at the same time men should lead?

The easiest thing to do would be to tell them that they have the right to say "no." I do concede the possibility that I am increasing the chance that they will be pushed around in relationships. I kinda doubt it since my observation is that the girls who are the most promiscuous; the most abused; etc are from families which were female led. My observation is that girls from traditional families are less likely to be promiscuous; less likely to end up as single moms; etc.

woodstockbirdybird
08-25-2011, 10:49 AM
The easiest thing to do would be to tell them that they have the right to say "no." I do concede the possibility that I am increasing the chance that they will be pushed around in relationships. I kinda doubt it since my observation is that the girls who are the most promiscuous; the most abused; etc are from families which were female led. My observation is that girls from traditional families are less likely to be promiscuous; less likely to end up as single moms; etc.

What a load of bullshit. According to my "observations", the most "promiscuous" (or, for a less sexist term, "liberated") girls in high school were the ones from 2-parent devoutly Christian families. So I guess my observations cancel yours out.

brazil84
08-25-2011, 10:55 AM
You seek out subservient women that you feel are inferior to yourself in intellect and judgement,

No, I would be okay with a girl who was smarter than me. I would still insist on wearing the pants, so to speak.

As far as subservient goes, that's not entirely correct. Like a lot of guys I went through a "nice guy" phase where I treated (or tried to treat) girls as equals. And like most guys, I discovered that girls don't respond very well to this treatment.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what kind of household you were raised in.

And what kind of household is that?

Vinyl Turnip
08-25-2011, 10:57 AM
I don't know. Why do you prefer one particular flavor of ice cream over another?


Because vanilla is just vanilla, but chocolate helps me sublimate my deep-rooted feelings of inadequacy and fear of a hostile world I can't control.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-25-2011, 10:58 AM
This is for Brazil84 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=14181950#post14181950)

woodstockbirdybird
08-25-2011, 10:59 AM
As far as subservient goes, that's not entirely correct. Like a lot of guys I went through a "nice guy" phase where I treated (or tried to treat) girls as equals. And like most guys, I discovered that girls don't respond very well to this treatment.


Neither I nor any of my guy friends have had this experience. Quite the opposite. But then, we have relationships with women, not girls. You would remain dateless in the San Francisco Bay Area, I assure you.

Stanislaus
08-25-2011, 11:11 AM
Meh. There are all sorts of ways for people to organize their lives and have a marriage. If the OP's friend's wife is happy with their arrangement, then who am I to say she's chosen "incorrectly"? She may do all the housework because she's essentially a workaholic and a control freak--maybe the husband tried to help in the past and the wife got on his ass for not doing it right. .

Indeed, but that's a big IF, considering the following:

Thing is, whenever we visit, his wife always seems exasperated, irritated at doing a thousand things while her husband is showing us some toy he bought. She is EXTREMELY grateful when we help her, and very apologetic about any messes, dinner being late, etc.

[snip]

He then shows us a funny (but graphically violent) show that his wife doesn't want their kids watching. She objects, but he just ignores her, creating this awkward tension. After the show, is over he puts on more age apprpriate stuff. Then he decides to go to the toy store to get some collector toy while its on clearance before the store closes. His wife finally goes to get food but it turns out her her husband had barely left any for her. Fiancee and I offered to help clean up so she could put her kids to bed but she said its ok, thank you for offereing.

This is not, on the face of it, a description of a happy woman. In particular, if she is a control freak who has banned her husband from helping out for not doing it right, why is she extremely grateful for offers of help? Why are offers of help necessary? Under this scenario, she should be running things the house the way she wants, and neither need nor be grateful for assistance with it. She's apologetic for the mess - clearly, then, not actually happy with the situation. Why, based on that description, would you think she might be?

Do you believe she was happy with the decision the husband made to keep watching the graphically violent show in front of the children? Do you think she was happy to be left with hardly any food?

Freudian Slit
08-25-2011, 11:16 AM
Assume what?

A huge male/female imbalance at the upper reaches of intelligence.

What makes you think that?

Because I think our experiences shape who we are in terms of who we choose as a partner. Look at girls who grow up in abusive families who as adult women choose abusive males as their own partners. Or men who conversely seek out people they view as weaker/vulnerable/better victims.

The easiest thing to do would be to tell them that they have the right to say "no." I do concede the possibility that I am increasing the chance that they will be pushed around in relationships. I kinda doubt it since my observation is that the girls who are the most promiscuous; the most abused; etc are from families which were female led. My observation is that girls from traditional families are less likely to be promiscuous; less likely to end up as single moms; etc.

You can tell them they can say no, but you're showing them that in a relationship men have the final, ultimate say. I do think it's odd that you're equating "having sex" with promiscuity, though. Most teenagers and young people will have sex -- do you think they're all promiscuous?

Capitaine Zombie
08-25-2011, 11:16 AM
Another thing to keep in mind is that girls (or women if you prefer) are frequently pretty lousy at assessing what they are attracted to in men. It's like the old story of the girl who says she wants a "nice" guy but turns around and dates men who are jerks. Perhaps these stories are a bit exaggerated, but I do think there is a significant element of truth in them.

A wife that thinks she's marrying a "nice guy" but ends up with an abusive jerk? Yeah, I'm sure there's some "significant element of truth" there. Unfortunately you're the one providing the evidence.

Rand Rover
08-25-2011, 11:19 AM
You are accepting one biased reporter's account as the absolute objective truth. No response to each of your individual questions is necessary.

Shodan
08-25-2011, 11:21 AM
What a load of bullshit. According to my "observations", the most "promiscuous" (or, for a less sexist term, "liberated") girls in high school were the ones from 2-parent devoutly Christian families. So I guess my observations cancel yours out.No, I am afraid they don't, because your observations are wrong and his are correct.

Girls in one-parent families are twice as likely to have
an out-of-wedlock birth. (http://jkalb.freeshell.org/rants/illegitimacy.html)

Regards,
Shodan

Marley23
08-25-2011, 11:24 AM
This is for Brazil84 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=14181950#post14181950)
And with that, this thread is to continue without personal remarks about brazil84, anyone advocating on his behalf, or the posters criticizing him.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-25-2011, 11:25 AM
No, I am afraid they don't, because your observations are wrong and his are correct.

Girls in one-parent families are twice as likely to have
an out-of-wedlock birth. (http://jkalb.freeshell.org/rants/illegitimacy.html)
Out of wedlock births does not correspond to promiscuity. You're equating them and they aren't the same thing.

Bloodless Turnip
08-25-2011, 11:32 AM
I've noted that men in these "biblical" type marriages complain the most about large alimony settlements handed out by family courts.

woodstockbirdybird
08-25-2011, 11:33 AM
Out of wedlock births does not correspond to promiscuity. You're equating them and they aren't the same thing.

Besides which, there's nothing in there that equates out-of-wedlock births to be the result of the fact that the family is "female-led", which was the claim. That kind of sexism is entirely absent from the findings.

Capitaine Zombie
08-25-2011, 11:36 AM
Besides which, there's nothing in there that equates out-of-wedlock births to be the result of the fact that the family is "female-led", which was the claim. That kind of sexism is entirely absent from the findings.

Well, if it's a single parent family, and the single parent is the mum, it is logically a "female-led" family. That said I have never witnessed what is a family led by only one of the parents, but I was born into the XXth century, not the XIXth. Might explain that.

woodstockbirdybird
08-25-2011, 11:39 AM
Well, if it's a single parent family, and the single parent is the mum, it is logically a "female-led" family. That said I have never witnessed what is a family led by only one of the parents, but I was born into the XXth century, not the XIXth. Might explain that.

Yes, but it says nothing about out-of-wedlock births being the result of anything to do with the gender of the single parent, and I'd bet money there's no correlation.

Freudian Slit
08-25-2011, 11:40 AM
Getting back to the OP, I do think the guy seems like a jerk because the wife may have signed on for the husband acting this way, but his guests didn't sign on for the spaghetti incident. Besides, isn't being a good biblical host all about letting your guest eat plenty of food/wine? (And also not sodomizing them after they go to bed.)

Bloodless Turnip
08-25-2011, 11:42 AM
Well, if it's a single parent family, and the single parent is the mum, it is logically a "female-led" family. That said I have never witnessed what is a family led by only one of the parents, but I was born into the XXth century, not the XIXth. Might explain that.

How do we know that the out of wedlock births weren't a result of the abuse received by the now absent father?

Really Not All That Bright
08-25-2011, 11:42 AM
I think you're supposed to let your guests bang your daughters, too.

you with the face
08-25-2011, 11:43 AM
Out of wedlock births does not correspond to promiscuity. You're equating them and they aren't the same thing.

I find it more faulty that he's using single-parent households as a proxy for "female-led" households. As if having a wife be in charge of household decisionmaking is equivalent to there being no father in the home at all.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-25-2011, 11:44 AM
"Out of wedlock births" also includes women who are in committed relationships, but just aren't legally married. That's fairly commonplace these days. "Out of wedlock" doesn't necessarily mean a one parent household.

Una Persson
08-25-2011, 11:51 AM
Even without the "Biblical" marriage aspect of it, the husband in the OP sounds like someone who mentally is still sitting in Cheetos-stained Fruit-o-the-Looms in his parent's basement playing WoW.

Vihaga
08-25-2011, 11:52 AM
I think men who subscribe to the fallacy that most women want to be led have a hard time finding the middle ground between being a passive, pushover "nice guy" and a domineering "head of the house."


Because I don't think most women want a submissive spouse any more than they want a dominant one. However, being an equal, standing up for yourself and also not walking over one's partner, is much more mentally demanding than rolling over all the time or being overbearing. So, when they note that women aren't responding to their "nice guy" act, they assume it's the opposite extreme and completely ignore the third option.

Really Not All That Bright
08-25-2011, 11:55 AM
Even without the "Biblical" marriage aspect of it, the husband in the OP sounds like someone who mentally is still sitting in Cheetos-stained Fruit-o-the-Looms in his parent's basement playing WoW.
Warcraft is the devil!

Shodan
08-25-2011, 12:44 PM
"Out of wedlock" doesn't necessarily mean a one parent household.One-parent household, however, does mean one-parent household.
Besides which, there's nothing in there that equates out-of-wedlock births to be the result of the fact that the family is "female-led", which was the claim.No, that wasn't the claim. You said ...the most "promiscuous" (or, for a less sexist term, "liberated") girls in high school were the ones from 2-parent devoutly Christian families.The vast majority of single-parent households are a single mother with her child(ren). (http://www.singleparentcenter.net/single-parent-statistics.html) Children who are raised in single-parent households - not 2-parent families, as you alleged - are twice as likely to have illegitimate children. Therefore, your observation is wrong.

Would you like to try to shift the goal posts to something else? Suppose we define "promiscuous" based on age at first intercourse.
...adolescents living with both biological parents reported a later median age at first intercourse (17.6) than adolescents living in any other family situation (16.2-16.6). No, this was not because of poverty -
There were no significant differences in the age at first sex according to household income or mother's education.
Cite. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3012198.html)

Would you like to define promiscuity by number of sexual partners (or "liberation", if you prefer)? Women with a non-resident father have greater numbers of sexual partners as well (cite (http://public.wsu.edu/~rquinlan/Quinlan%20E&HB%2024%286%29.pdf) - pdf).

It appears the best you can hope for is to represent your allegations as unfalsifiable and thus meaningless. If you meant anything at all by it, it was wrong.

Regards,
Shodan

Diogenes the Cynic
08-25-2011, 12:49 PM
Nah, the preachers daughters just lie about it. And they take it in the pooper so they don't get pregnant (and they can still say they're "virgins").

StusBlues
08-25-2011, 12:51 PM
Nah, the preachers daughters just lie about it. And they take it in the pooper so they don't get pregnant (and they can still say they're "virgins").

Cite?

Diogenes the Cynic
08-25-2011, 12:52 PM
My dick is my cite.

Czarcasm
08-25-2011, 12:54 PM
My dick is my cite.Please do not link to your cite.

StusBlues
08-25-2011, 12:59 PM
My dick is my cite.

You've had anal sex with preachers' daughters?

Bloodless Turnip
08-25-2011, 01:02 PM
...adolescents living with both biological parents reported a later median age at first intercourse (17.6) than adolescents living in any other family situation (16.2-16.6).

Not a huge difference there. I was expecting a larger gap.

I wonder though, if kids in one group or the other are more prone to lying about what age they first had sex.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-25-2011, 01:23 PM
You've had anal sex with preachers' daughters?
You haven't?

Diogenes the Cynic
08-25-2011, 01:24 PM
Not a huge difference there. I was expecting a larger gap.

I wonder though, if kids in one group or the other are more prone to lying about what age they first had sex.
There's probably an economic factor here too.

Kearsen
08-25-2011, 01:29 PM
Is it too late to ask my wife for this "Biblical Marriage"?

woodstockbirdybird
08-25-2011, 01:37 PM
No, that wasn't the claim. You said The vast majority of single-parent households are a single mother with her child(ren). (http://www.singleparentcenter.net/single-parent-statistics.html) Children who are raised in single-parent households - not 2-parent families, as you alleged - are twice as likely to have illegitimate children. Therefore, your observation is wrong.

Would you like to try to shift the goal posts to something else? Suppose we define "promiscuous" based on age at first intercourse.


As has already been pointed out to you, "having illegitimate children" does not equal "being promiscuous". I never said jack shit about children in 2-parent households having more illegitimate children. I said, in my experience (since brazil was arguing from his "observations"), teen girls from 2-parent families with a religious upbringing slept around more (with me and my friends, anyway) in high school. The fact that we didn't have illegitimate children had to do with proper sex education and use of birth control. Who's moving goalposts, again? You have literally proven nothing I said to be false.

Vinyl Turnip
08-25-2011, 01:41 PM
Is it too late to ask my wife for this "Biblical Marriage"?

I couldn't really say without knowing your wife biblically.

Jack Batty
08-25-2011, 01:41 PM
I said, in my experience (since brazil was arguing from his "observations"), teen girls from 2-parent families with a religious upbringing slept around more (with me and my friends, anyway) in high school.

Yeah, but that's only because they wanted you to lead them into subordination and then eat all their spaghetti ... if I'm understanding the Bible correctly, that is.

Really Not All That Bright
08-25-2011, 01:45 PM
Nah, the preachers daughters just lie about it. And they take it in the pooper so they don't get pregnant (and they can still say they're "virgins").
I concur.

Freudian Slit
08-25-2011, 01:47 PM
Yeah, but that's only because they wanted you to lead them into subordination and then eat all their spaghetti ... if I'm understanding the Bible correctly, that is.

Can't have any pudding if you don't eat yer spaghetti...

woodstockbirdybird
08-25-2011, 01:48 PM
yeah, but that's only because they wanted you to lead them into subordination and then eat all their spaghetti ... If i'm understanding the bible correctly, that is.

I'm eating your spaghetti!

The Second Stone
08-25-2011, 02:12 PM
Where can I advertise for one (or more) of these submissive wives? I, too, do not like house work and want sandwiches made for me. Does anyone have a catalog?

Miller
08-25-2011, 02:54 PM
The type of folks I'm talking to typically don't make actual arguments for any position. But at least one has implied that it's abuse, and others have said that it just shouldn't be done, which is tantamount to saying it should be illegal.

So, let's recap. In an effort to demonstrate that liberals want to outlaw things they don't agree with, Rand Rover a conservative, has demonstrated an inability to distinguish between "I don't think people should do that," and "I don't think people should be allowed to do that."

I don't think I've ever seen an argument annihilate itself as completely as that.

Burton
08-25-2011, 02:58 PM
Sounds like more like a Taliban marriage to me.

aruvqan
08-25-2011, 02:59 PM
You've had anal sex with preachers' daughters?
I know my brother did on at least 2 occasions with 2 different PKs in his high school class. I know both of the ladies in question well enough to have fairly personal gossip sessions with them about their dating habits. [this was in 76-78]

Jack Batty
08-25-2011, 03:02 PM
Your brother fucks place kickers?

Capitaine Zombie
08-25-2011, 03:39 PM
I concur.

What? You two met in the same asshole?

Bryan Ekers
08-25-2011, 04:04 PM
... and hope the police don't question you when his wife snaps and goes after him with a Garden Weasel.

Well, Noah had the foresight to have a pair of garden weasels on the ark, so I guess it's fitting.

Vinyl Turnip
08-25-2011, 04:17 PM
Your brother fucks place kickers?

Promise Keepers. I always suspected they were on the down low.

Kearsen
08-25-2011, 04:18 PM
I couldn't really say without knowing your wife biblically.


I'll make you the same deal I made with the last guy. If you pick up half the bills, you may!

Stanislaus
08-25-2011, 04:30 PM
You are accepting one biased reporter's account as the absolute objective truth. No response to each of your individual questions is necessary.

I half-expected you to say this. If you're going to doubt his tale in precisely the aspects that make your position more plausible, why not go the whole hog and doubt everything he says?

Does he have a friend who's got a biblical marriage? Did he go round there for an impromptu dinner? Did the guy paint models? Does he have kids? If you believe Incubus is accurately reporting these facts, why are you so ready to doubt him on other aspects of his story?

The facts as related support the unhappy, bullied wife theory much more than they support the happy control-freak wife who forces her husband to watch inappropriate TV while she does the washing up theory. You can choose to claim that Incubus has been inaccurate in a way that makes the second theory more plausible if you like, but if you're coming into the thread with this level of doubt about the OP, your position boils down to "Hey, maybe it was all a dream. What is truth, anyhow man?" Which is, frankly, pretty inane.

rogerbox
08-25-2011, 04:33 PM
This thread is just more evidence of the absolutely worthless way that many dopers look at the world. They think their way of doing things is the only way and their opiion is all that matters.

Why do you post here?

Der Trihs
08-25-2011, 05:20 PM
Besides, the laws of statistics pretty much guarantee that there will be a huge male/female imbalance at the upper reaches of the intelligence distribution.

Why do you assume that?

Assume what?

A huge male/female imbalance at the upper reaches of intelligence.To my knowledge, it's true but pretty much irrelevant for the purpose of this conversation. Males statistically vary more in intelligence and have more people near the extreme bounds of mental function; more geniuses, but also more idiots and lunatics. However, as far as I know the difference becomes "huge" only near the very edge of ability; not "says clever stuff on a message board" smart, but "discovers relativity" smart.

aruvqan
08-25-2011, 06:53 PM
Your brother fucks place kickers?
PK, preachers kids. Common east coast nickname for the type.:rolleyes:

brazil84
08-25-2011, 07:28 PM
You would remain dateless in the San Francisco Bay Area, I assure you.

Haha, I met one of my first girlfriends in the Bay Area. She was (and is) a bona fide submissive.

j666
08-25-2011, 07:40 PM
[O]thers have said that it just shouldn't be done, which is tantamount to saying it should be illegal.
That is the silliest thing I have read in this thread, and that is saying a lot. Lots of things 'shouldn't be done' that no-one wants to make illegal. Failing to write thank you notes or cleaning walls before painting them come immediately to mind.
And with that, this thread is to continue without personal remarks about brazil84, anyone advocating on his behalf, or the posters criticizing him.
[I'm okay, aren't I? It was the post, not the Poster, I criticized.]
To my knowledge, it's true but pretty much irrelevant for the purpose of this conversation. Males statistically vary more in intelligence and have more people near the extreme bounds of mental function; more geniuses, but also more idiots and lunatics.In a totally non-aggressive or doubtful way, I must cry 'cite' - that sounds interesting.

[Though, I admit, I will immediately try to parse out the cultural reasons.]

brazil84
08-25-2011, 08:46 PM
A huge male/female imbalance at the upper reaches of intelligence.

It's not so much an assumption as an inference based on my understanding that men have a significantly higher variance and slightly higher mean. As well as my personal observations.

Because I think our experiences shape who we are in terms of who we choose as a partner.

So you are saying that any sexual or romantic preference which is informed by experience is one which can be changed; and that homosexual preferences are not informed by experience?

You can tell them they can say no, but you're showing them that in a relationship men have the final, ultimate say.

Perhaps, but you could say the same thing about anything you teach your children. For example, if you teach them to be kind, they are vulnerable to being scammed by a stranger with a phony sob story. If you teach them to be polite, they might end up holding the door open for a criminal who assaults them.

I do think it's odd that you're equating "having sex" with promiscuity, though. Most teenagers and young people will have sex -- do you think they're all promiscuous?

I would say it depends on how you define the word "promiscuous." I was using it in the sense of engaging in sexual relations outside of a serious committed relationship.

brazil84
08-25-2011, 08:50 PM
A wife that thinks she's marrying a "nice guy" but ends up with an abusive jerk?

No, the scenario I described was "girl who says she wants a 'nice' guy but turns around and dates men who are jerks."

brazil84
08-25-2011, 09:07 PM
So I guess my observations cancel yours out.

Possibly. It's difficult to be sure of anything when you look at social science research. There are too many possible missing variables; opportunities to confuse cause and effect; and political agendas at play.

Rand Rover
08-25-2011, 09:20 PM
So, let's recap. In an effort to demonstrate that liberals want to outlaw things they don't agree with, Rand Rover a conservative, has demonstrated an inability to distinguish between "I don't think people should do that," and "I don't think people should be allowed to do that."

I don't think I've ever seen an argument annihilate itself as completely as that.
Nope. That's a shitty recap from the get-go--the bolded part is not what I'm saying.

I am not using this thread to show that liberals want to outlaw things they don't agree with. That part has been demonstrated by the very many other instances in which (wait for it . . . ) liberals actually do want to outlaw things they don't agree with. (Economic things, that is, not social things.) I used this thread as a teaching moment to show how stupid that viewpoint is, and I thought it was interesting that this viewpoint was crossing into something more in the social realm than the economic realm.

Sampiro
08-25-2011, 09:35 PM
PK, preachers kids. Common east coast nickname for the type.:rolleyes:

I was ready to call animal services in your area to protect the paraphlegic kangaroos.

A friend of mine who was a part of the commune movement in the late 1960s said that relationships like the one in the OP were actually very common among the hippies and in fact caused some of the breakdown of the commune experiments. There was evidently a great deal of misogyny in the Peace-Love-Drugs scene.

Of course the OP also sounds a bit like a monogamous version of the fundamentalist Mormons with their rigid sex roles and general lack of respect by men for women. Odd how the extremes at both ends of the spectrum exhibit the same negative qualities.

Miller
08-25-2011, 09:48 PM
Nope. That's a shitty recap from the get-go--the bolded part is not what I'm saying.

I am not using this thread to show that liberals want to outlaw things they don't agree with. That part has been demonstrated by the very many other instances in which (wait for it . . . ) liberals actually do want to outlaw things they don't agree with. (Economic things, that is, not social things.) I used this thread as a teaching moment to show how stupid that viewpoint is, and I thought it was interesting that this viewpoint was crossing into something more in the social realm than the economic realm.

Which would be a good point, except insofar as it reflects neither anything that has been said in this thread, or anything that's going on in the real world.

But other than that, you're spot on. Keep up the good work!

tumbleddown
08-26-2011, 01:45 AM
Coming back to the actual issue of "Biblical marriage" if we might...Leaving aside whatever Biblical justification there may be, I knew a woman who was the very happy sub in a dom/sub relationship. She was by no means intellectually or socially inferior. I don't get the dynamic, but two consenting adults and all that.
As someone with both D/s experience and a long history in the sorts of churches that expect this notion of "biblical marriage" and "servant leadership" in households, you pinged on the major difference between a D/s power exchange relationship (even a 24/7 situation) and one of those marriages: the ability to withdraw consent and change the entirety of the relationship in literally the span of a conversation.

Barring an abusive situation (wherein a dominant keeps his submissive in complete isolation, ignores safe words, etc.) when and if a sub decides that they no longer want a 24/7 arrangement, when and if they decide they no longer want a relationship with their dominant, when and if particular aspects of the relationship are no longer suitable, they say so, and things are either ended or renegotiated. It's the hallmark of how these sorts of relationships are arranged and safely managed. If the dominant ignores the needs of the submissive to feel safe, fulfilled and satisfied within the relationship, they've crossed the line into abuse.

And the kinky community talks about these things, in detail. Doms talk amongst themselves, subs do too. What's too much? What's appropriate? How far is too far? People in 24/7 relationships socialize one with another and, in my experience, hold one another accountable if things seem awry.

In the Christian community, though, despite a number of tomes being written about how these sorts of marriages are important, and ordained by God himself, there is very little discussion about what it means to be a "servant leader" in the actual day to day living of it. There is very little definition of what it means to conform to the "Biblical" gender roles that are mandated, to be a proper Christian husband or wife, so the default is to some caricature of "tradition" where all of the keeping of the house (food, laundry, cleaning) and basic management of the children is left to the wife, repair work, outside maintenance and ultimate disciplinary authority over the children is the husband's, and the obvious inequity there is exploited so that the wife is doing for everyone else almost continually from when she awakes until she goes to bed while her husband is doing things which fulfill and benefit himself, both in the workplace and during the hours when he's at home and she's working and he's not.

And there is no out. There is no safeword, there is no real room for renegotiation, because this is sold as how God wants things. The wife is to be the "helpmeet" not to be the one getting help. If she's feeling unfulfilled, burdened or unhappy, she's failing to properly submit herself to her husband and God (who will unfailingly take care of her), she's not praying enough, she's being willful and acting of the flesh, not the spirit, she's in a state of sin.

That's a powerful hold to put over someone; they're not just displeasing their husband, they're displeasing their entire church community (which is often the only community/social outlet the wives really have) and God himself. And no, you can't just leave, because not accepting your God-ordained "role" in your marriage is a sin, a rejection of what God has personally planned for you. And divorce is a sin, to be limited only to situations that are abusive (where abusive means physical violence) and only then if the husband fails to properly "repent."

And if you look for "marriage counseling" it'll be from a pastor or a Christian counselor who follows these same precepts. They may tell a husband "help more around the house" and suggest that he take on certain tasks, but the problem isn't just the inequity of labor, but the poorly defined hierarchical structure that the entire relationship is built upon.

Vinyl Turnip
08-26-2011, 09:27 AM
Haha, I met one of my first girlfriends in the Bay Area. She was (and is) a bona fide submissive.

Only wanted it doggy-style with all the lights off, lots of neckwear concealing a curiously prominent Adam's apple...

StusBlues
08-26-2011, 09:31 AM
I know my brother did on at least 2 occasions with 2 different PKs in his high school class. I know both of the ladies in question well enough to have fairly personal gossip sessions with them about their dating habits. [this was in 76-78]

Interesting. I would have thought that oral was much more common. Perhaps it is now.

Rhodes
08-26-2011, 09:58 AM
Of course the OP also sounds a bit like a monogamous version of the fundamentalist Mormons with their rigid sex roles and general lack of respect by men for women. Odd how the extremes at both ends of the spectrum exhibit the same negative qualities.

Or like the mainstream Mormons, where in the temple ceremony men swear an oath of absolute obediance to God while women swear an oath of absolute obedience to their husbands.

Dangerosa
08-26-2011, 10:44 AM
I was ready to call animal services in your area to protect the paraphlegic kangaroos.

A friend of mine who was a part of the commune movement in the late 1960s said that relationships like the one in the OP were actually very common among the hippies and in fact caused some of the breakdown of the commune experiments. There was evidently a great deal of misogyny in the Peace-Love-Drugs scene.

Of course the OP also sounds a bit like a monogamous version of the fundamentalist Mormons with their rigid sex roles and general lack of respect by men for women. Odd how the extremes at both ends of the spectrum exhibit the same negative qualities.

Yeah, I knew a pagan poly household organized along the same lines. Not my cup of tea. Eventually, most of the women left - last I heard the two core personalities (the man and primary wife) were still together - she had a really strong personality and I can't imagine she was doing anything she didn't full well consent to (in fact, that was really the issue with the other wives - her personality was so strong - and theirs fairly weak - that they were willing to accept the situation as 'normal' because she did.)

But here is the thing - the OP does know - although he suspects - the wife in question is not happy in this arrangement. So he doesn't have many choices.

He can continue with the status quo and just accept that this is ok with all parties involved.

He can cut his relationship with the husband since the relationship this guy has with his wife creeps him out.

He can (and this is what I would probably do), cut his relationship with the husband but first reach out to the wife letting her know that if she is unhappy, this way of treating her is not OK - and that plenty of good Christian men treat their wives a hell of a lot better. And let her know that she can find places to go if she wants to get out. Women in relationships that are abusive (this one may or may not be) often don't see their situation as abusive or abnormal. It takes many people talking to her to get her to take action.

Another option would be talking to this guys pastor about what he has seen in the house. There is a decent chance that the pastor would not approve.

brazil84
08-26-2011, 12:11 PM
prominent Adam's apple...

Lol, a stunning rebuttal.

Indygrrl
08-27-2011, 04:41 PM
No, the scenario I described was "girl who says she wants a 'nice' guy but turns around and dates men who are jerks."

In reality, that means a woman who wants a man with a backbone who will be her equal instead of a milquetoast kiss ass. In my experience, self-proclaimed "nice guys" are usually anything but.

razncain
08-27-2011, 06:34 PM
It’s amusing how some think they are following biblical marriage, and as if it was a good thing. Pretty much all the OT patriarchs were polygamous. Besides their multiple wives, many had multiple mistresses. While Jesus in the NT preferred no wife and celibacy. Paul seemed to only recommend marriage as a last resort. Conservatives love some of his misogynist teachings, taking the submission to men to new levels. Seriously, what men in the bible make up good family role models anyone should look up to?

I doubt this biblical guy gets laid much.

brazil84
08-27-2011, 07:06 PM
In reality, that means a woman who wants a man with a backbone who will be her equal instead of a milquetoast kiss ass.

I think this is roughly analogous to someone who insists that advertising has little or no effect on their purchasing decisions. It's very common for people to state this, and yet companies spend lots of money on advertising. The reason, I think, is that a lot of people have poor understanding of what motivates them. So too with the sexuality of the female of our species, i.e. they are attracted to men for various subconscious reasons and then offer rationalizations for that attraction.

If you want to know what motivates people to buy a particular soft drink, is it better to ask the people themselves, or to ask someone who makes his living advertising soft drinks?

But let me ask you this: What exactly is the problem with a man who is timid or unassertive? Do you find such a man unattractive and if so, why?

brazil84
08-27-2011, 07:13 PM
Itís amusing how some think they are following biblical marriage, and as if it was a good thing. Pretty much all the OT patriarchs were polygamous.

Well probably people who want biblical marriages really mean that they want traditional marriages as envisioned by more recent religious teachings. For the last thousand years or so, polygamy has fallen out of favor (for the most part) in Judaism and Christianity.

Actually, I would say that modern Judaism and Christianity, although based on the Bible, is also heavily informed by later thought. For example, Orthodox Jews regularly attend synagogues even though there is nothing mentioned in the Hebrew Bible about synagogues.

Indygrrl
08-27-2011, 08:32 PM
I think this is roughly analogous to someone who insists that advertising has little or no effect on their purchasing decisions. It's very common for people to state this, and yet companies spend lots of money on advertising. The reason, I think, is that a lot of people have poor understanding of what motivates them. So too with the sexuality of the female of our species, i.e. they are attracted to men for various subconscious reasons and then offer rationalizations for that attraction.

If you want to know what motivates people to buy a particular soft drink, is it better to ask the people themselves, or to ask someone who makes his living advertising soft drinks?

But let me ask you this: What exactly is the problem with a man who is timid or unassertive? Do you find such a man unattractive and if so, why?

I agree that people, by and large, don't always understand what motivates them. However, it's patronizing to suggest that women don't know their own motives while implying that men do (or that you do!). I don't think human motives are that mysterious, and it shouldn't be that difficult for a person of average intelligence to figure out what is behind their reasons for seeking certain qualitites in a mate.

I'm not attracted to timid, unassertive men because I'm not typically attracted to that type of person for any type of relationship. Those traits annoy, and in a relationship, actually enrage me at times. I like a man who is straightforward, confident, intelligent, and able to be my equal. I have a dominant personality, and my husband less so, however, he still has the qualities I find attractive in a mate.

I've found that it takes a strong man to be with a strong, independent woman, and a lot of guys aren't up to it. It's the sort of thing a lot of men are initially intrigued by and attracted to, but after awhile those traits they found so sexy aren't as appealing to them in the long run. My best friend has always been ambitious and independent, and her husband of almost 10 years ended up asking her for a divorce because she wouldn't just "settle down" and be the traditional wife and mother he thought she should have turned into by then. It was shitty, and it hurt her a lot, but she wasn't about to change who she was to make him happy.

As for myself, I'm not always easy to be with, because along with my positive traits I can be hot-tempered and opinionated. One of the things I fell in love with about my husband is that he doesn't let me push him around, or indulge my bitchier tendencies, for lack of a better description, haha. He's not an asshole, and he's not a "nice guy," he's somewhere in the middle, and I feel lucky to have found someone who complements my personality so well.

If you want me to delve into the psychological reasons I sought a mate with these qualities, it's partially the basic biological reasons for attraction, and partially the things I've learned from trial and error from the years I was single. I've dated different "types," and by far I'm least compatible with unassertive, timid types. Guys like that bring out the very worst of my personality traits, and it becomes almost irresistable to be a cruel bitch to a guy who is such a kiss ass. And I don't want to be with someone whose wimpiness brings out such ugliness in me. I'm sure there are women out there who do want a guy like that (I don't know any of them, but I'm sure they're out there, haha.), but not me.

brazil84
08-27-2011, 09:06 PM
I agree that people, by and large, don't always understand what motivates them. However, it's patronizing to suggest that women don't know their own motives while implying that men do (or that you do!).

It may be patronizing, but it's true and when you think about it, it actually makes sense. After all, I have made sexual advances towards dozens of girls (or women if you prefer) over the years if not more. So I'm in a much better position to understand what motivates them sexually.

I'm not attracted to timid, unassertive men because I'm not typically attracted to that type of person for any type of relationship.

Perhaps, but I think it's fair to observe that (1) timidity and unassertiveness in a man is pretty much a universal turnoff sexually. (Perhaps even more so than if the man is short, fat, or bald); and (2) it's not the case that timidity or unassertiveness are a universal turnoff for men.

gatorslap
08-27-2011, 10:44 PM
Actually, I would say that modern Judaism and Christianity, although based on the Bible, is also heavily informed by later thought. For example, Orthodox Jews regularly attend synagogues even though there is nothing mentioned in the Hebrew Bible about synagogues.

Well, Judaism also has the Talmud.

SnakesCatLady
08-27-2011, 10:50 PM
It may be patronizing, but it's true and when you think about it, it actually makes sense. After all, I have made sexual advances towards dozens of girls (or women if you prefer) over the years if not more. So I'm in a much better position to understand what motivates them sexually.

*snip*

No. You are saying it's true, but your statement does not make it so.

Capitaine Zombie
08-27-2011, 10:55 PM
No. You are saying it's true, but your statement does not make it so.

You're a lady, he's a man, so it is true.

Indygrrl
08-28-2011, 01:44 AM
It may be patronizing, but it's true and when you think about it, it actually makes sense. After all, I have made sexual advances towards dozens of girls (or women if you prefer) over the years if not more. So I'm in a much better position to understand what motivates them sexually.

That makes no logical sense whatsoever. I've worked in nightclubs for 15 years, and have had conversations with 1000+ men about everything from sex to raising kids. Does that mean I know more about what motivates men's behavior than men do? I don't believe so. I definitely know more about it than most women, but it would be pretty arrogant to act like I know more about men's psyche than the men themselves.

You remind me of a guy I got into a debate with on a friend's FB a couple of weeks ago. He was trying to tell us that he knows more about what turns on and pleases women sexually than women do themselves, even going so far as to say he could definitively tell us what type of orgasm is superior. When we tried to explain to him that sexuality and certain types of pleasure over others is highly subjective, but he kept stubbornly arguing his ridiculous point.

My friend and I both think he's probably lousy in bed, but that's another issue.:D

Perhaps, but I think it's fair to observe that (1) timidity and unassertiveness in a man is pretty much a universal turnoff sexually. (Perhaps even more so than if the man is short, fat, or bald); and (2) it's not the case that timidity or unassertiveness are a universal turnoff for men.

Isn't that what I just said?

brazil84
08-28-2011, 04:07 AM
No. You are saying it's true, but your statement does not make it so.

I'm not sure what your point is here. I'm not claiming that my statement per se demonstrates the truth of my claims. I'm simply claiming that (ironically?) a man is in a better position to understand female sexual motivation.

brazil84
08-28-2011, 04:27 AM
That makes no logical sense whatsoever. I've worked in nightclubs for 15 years, and have had conversations with 1000+ men about everything from sex to raising kids. Does that mean I know more about what motivates men's behavior than men do?

Possibly, but were you trying to seduce all of these 1000+ men? If you were, I would concede that you were in a better position to understand mens' sexual motivations than men themselves.

Isn't that what I just said?

You seemed to be implying that your preference for (relatively) assertive and confident men was special to you because of your own personality. But actually the preference is pretty much universal. (But only half universal since it's not a turn-off for guys to meet a girl who is unassertive or timid.)

Jack Batty
08-28-2011, 05:01 AM
How does you wanting to get laid make you an expert in female sexuality?

brazil84
08-28-2011, 06:01 AM
How does you wanting to get laid make you an expert in female sexuality?

How does wanting to sell soft drinks make you an expert in customer behavior?

The answer, of course, is that it doesn't. However, if you are reasonably smart and spend a lot of time trying to sell soft drinks you can learn quite a lot about customer behavior. Similarly, if you are a reasonably smart guy who spends a lot of time hitting on girls you can learn quite a lot about female sexual preference.

BigT
08-28-2011, 06:32 AM
The thing is, you didn't say that women want assertive, confident men. You said they wanted men to lead them. That's a completely different concept. And you cannot say that you meant something different, since you clarify your meaning. You mean that all women want men to make the final decision. They are the boss, and the "girl" is the subordinate. And you claim that most women are happy with this.

This is what you have to prove. You made a statement, and your only backing is that you know it's true from experience. Your experience is worth jack in determining what most people want. This is not good enough for many reasons: your mate selection is going to be biased. Your particular location is going to create a bias. And you are obviously going to be subject to confirmation bias.

If you want to assert that women want to be led, let's see the citations from psychologists that back you up. Heck, even a magazine where women reveal what they secretly want would be better than what you've given us.

BigT
08-28-2011, 06:35 AM
It sounds like you are implying that I'm being hypocritical. If that's the case, then make an argument for that position and I will respond.

Easy. You are asserting that what two adults agree to is perfectly okay, and that we are wrong to question it. Yet we are adults on this board who have agreed to being able to say what we think about these people. Therefore, it is wrong for you to question us.

brazil84
08-28-2011, 07:00 AM
The thing is, you didn't say that women want assertive, confident men. You said they wanted men to lead them.

Agreed.

That's a completely different concept.

No, I don't think it's completely different. Why do you think it is that confidence and assertiveness is so valued in men but not the other way around?

. You mean that all women want men to make the final decision. They are the boss, and the "girl" is the subordinate.

Not all, but most.

This is what you have to prove. You made a statement, and your only backing is that you know it's true from experience.

Basically yeah. Personal experience and general observations. I doubt that there has been much scientific study of this issue.

Your experience is worth jack in determining what most people want. This is not good enough for many reasons: your mate selection is going to be biased. Your particular location is going to create a bias. And you are obviously going to be subject to confirmation bias.

Would you say the same thing about any claim which is made on the basis of simple experience and observation?

Ann Onimous
08-28-2011, 07:11 AM
Promise Keepers. I always suspected they were on the down low.

I think in this case, PK stands for Preacher's Kid.

Ann Onimous
08-28-2011, 07:19 AM
And that's what I get for not reading one more page before replying. Carry on.

Waxwinged
08-28-2011, 09:41 AM
Not all, but most.



My experience as a woman and a close friend of numerous other women suggests otherwise.

brazil84
08-28-2011, 11:57 AM
My experience as a woman and a close friend of numerous other women suggests otherwise.

I'm skeptical, but for better or worse there is no practical way for either of us to verify the other's experience. Also, I doubt there has been much serious scientific research on this issue and if there has, it would be difficult to separate out all the different variables.

Two Many Cats
08-28-2011, 12:36 PM
Tell me Brazil84, when hitting on a "girl" as you call us, do we tell you to hit the road nine out of ten times? But that tenth time is so magical and wonderful you forget about the other nine times?

'Cause that's all I can think of to support what you say.

(Reasoning from SNL's skit on Liberace and Michael Jackson giving tips on picking up women, circa the Eddie Murphy years. I always credit my sources.)

Chicagojeff
08-28-2011, 01:04 PM
Tell me Brazil84, when hitting on a "girl" as you call us, do we tell you to hit the road nine out of ten times? But that tenth time is so magical and wonderful you forget about the other nine times?

'Cause that's all I can think of to support what you say.

(Reasoning from SNL's skit on Liberace and Michael Jackson giving tips on picking up women, circa the Eddie Murphy years. I always credit my sources.)

Hey baby.. can i jump your bones?? (SNL SKIT)

Concur with indygrrl on a couple of levels. This is the point I'm driving home on my 14yr old son.. be very deliberate and don't hesitate.. Sensitive guys get to the one she tells her guy issues too.. That only works in a Julia Roberts movie..

And hitting on a lot of women would hardly qualify as having a special insight.. Have you ever considered that you might hit on the same type of women.. in the same manner.. Wouldn't that possibly open up a scenario where their's a type of woman who's completely beyond you? Like dudes who only do bicep curls in the gym.. or going to the same section of the bookstore by instinct.. habit.

brazil84
08-28-2011, 01:35 PM
Tell me Brazil84, when hitting on a "girl" as you call us, do we tell you to hit the road nine out of ten times? But that tenth time is so magical and wonderful you forget about the other nine times?

I would say that my success with girls increased significantly as my attitude became more dominant and chauvinistic. Believe it or not 3 of them -- all in their 20s, attractive, and childless -- have asked me to marry them over the years.

Keep in mind that being the leader ("wearing the pants," if you will) is not the same thing as being abusive.

Two Many Cats
08-28-2011, 01:43 PM
I would say that my success with girls increased significantly as my attitude became more dominant and chauvinistic. Believe it or not 3 of them -- all in their 20s, attractive, and childless -- have asked me to marry them over the years.



Huh. Asking you to marry them. That's not very submissive. I'm surprised a big macho stud like you would put up with that kind of talk from a woman....oh, excuse me, girl.

brazil84
08-28-2011, 01:50 PM
Huh. Asking you to marry them. That's not very submissive. I'm surprised a big macho stud like you would put up with that kind of talk from a woman....oh, excuse me, girl.

It doesn't bother me.

Indygrrl
08-28-2011, 05:25 PM
Possibly, but were you trying to seduce all of these 1000+ men? If you were, I would concede that you were in a better position to understand mens' sexual motivations than men themselves.

Even better, I was "seducing" them for their money, and all they got in return was flirty conversation and lapdances. And night after night, for 15 years, I was able to do this with considerable skill.

You seemed to be implying that your preference for (relatively) assertive and confident men was special to you because of your own personality. But actually the preference is pretty much universal. (But only half universal since it's not a turn-off for guys to meet a girl who is unassertive or timid.)

Actually, what I said was, "And I don't want to be with someone whose wimpiness brings out such ugliness in me. I'm sure there are women out there who do want a guy like that (I don't know any of them, but I'm sure they're out there, haha.), but not me."

Evidently you missed the point I was making, and that's how me and all of the women I know prefer confident, self-assured men over the kiss ass, wimpy types. It's funny to me that you somehow translate this preference into thinking that women want a domineering daddy type. All of the strong, independent women I know want EQUALS in their relationships, not someone to dominate them. Nor do they want to have to be "in charge" at all times, and make all of the decisions, which is inevitably what happens when a woman is with a wimpy guy.

And of course it's not a turn off for you to meet an unassertive, timid woman, because that's the only type who would put up with the sort of dynamic you like in your relationship. There are plenty of men who would find that sort of woman boring. It's not fun to be with someone who can't stand up for themself, or always acts like a doormat and gives in when there's a conflict. It's probably hard for you to believe, but lots of men enjoy being with someone who challenges them, just as women do.

I don't have an issue with the way your relationship is, that's entirely between you and your wife. What I do take issue with is your assumption that women in general subconsciously desire a man who will dominate them and be the "boss" in the relationship. You can't use your dating history to make blanket statements about women. Well, you can, but you'd be wrong.

Indygrrl
08-28-2011, 05:36 PM
I would say that my success with girls increased significantly as my attitude became more dominant and chauvinistic. Believe it or not 3 of them -- all in their 20s, attractive, and childless -- have asked me to marry them over the years.

Keep in mind that being the leader ("wearing the pants," if you will) is not the same thing as being abusive.

Did these three women all know about the "biblical" way you planned to run your future marriage? Because if that wasn't brought up and discussed in detail, I wouldn't take these so-called proposals as proof that women want to be dominated and defer to the "pants in the family."

brazil84
08-29-2011, 05:39 AM
Even better, I was "seducing" them for their money, and all they got in return was flirty conversation and lapdances. And night after night, for 15 years, I was able to do this with considerable skill.

Ok, so you provide a good example. If you were to claim that "Most men are really turned on by X, even though they usually won't admit it," I wouldn't dismiss your statement on the ground that you are not a man.

Evidently you missed the point I was making, and that's how me and all of the women I know prefer confident, self-assured men over the kiss ass, wimpy types.

No, I didn't miss the point. I am simply addressing the deeper question of "why." You seem to say that your preference is because of your own personality type, but that does not ring true since the preference is pretty much universal.

And of course it's not a turn off for you to meet an unassertive, timid woman, because that's the only type who would put up with the sort of dynamic you like in your relationship. There are plenty of men who would find that sort of woman boring. It's not fun to be with someone who can't stand up for themself, or always acts like a doormat and gives in when there's a conflict. It's probably hard for you to believe, but lots of men enjoy being with someone who challenges them, just as women do.

Well let me ask you this: Will you agree that confidence and assertiveness is far more valued in men than by men?

You can't use your dating history to make blanket statements about women. Well, you can, but you'd be wrong.

Why is it wrong for me to generalize based on my experiences? Surely you yourself have some ideas about what men like and don't like, based on your own experiences.

brazil84
08-29-2011, 05:50 AM
Did these three women all know about the "biblical" way you planned to run your future marriage?

Sure of course. They all knew that I prefer to assert the traditional role of a man, i.e. to be the boss in the relationship.

Because if that wasn't brought up and discussed in detail, I wouldn't take these so-called proposals as proof that women want to be dominated and defer to the "pants in the family."

I wouldn't take it as proof either.

Bryan Ekers
08-29-2011, 10:56 AM
I dunno if the OP's original question is still in play at this late date, but I'm "okay" with "bible marriages" simply because being "not-okay" with them accomplishes nothing desirable.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-29-2011, 10:59 AM
"Not OK with" implies a desire to prohibit them. I have no desire to prohibit them, but I still reserve every right to think it's stupid, and I don't have to respect the guys that do it.

Bryan Ekers
08-29-2011, 11:02 AM
And what does THAT accomplish?

Diogenes the Cynic
08-29-2011, 11:08 AM
And what does THAT accomplish?
Why does it have to accomplish anything? It's not a message or a call to action, it's just a personal dislike.

People have a right to hold Klan rallies, but that doesn't mean I have to like those people, and not liking those people is not about "accomplishing" anything, so I don't really understand your question.

Bryan Ekers
08-29-2011, 11:14 AM
Hey, good for you. [slow, sarcastic applause]

Diogenes the Cynic
08-29-2011, 11:26 AM
Who was asking for applause? I was answering the OP.

Really Not All That Bright
08-29-2011, 11:31 AM
And what does THAT accomplish?
It makes me feel better about Dio. That's got to be worth something.

Indygrrl
08-29-2011, 04:33 PM
Ok, so you provide a good example. If you were to claim that "Most men are really turned on by X, even though they usually won't admit it," I wouldn't dismiss your statement on the ground that you are not a man.

The difference would be that while I could probably name some things about men's subconscious desires, I would never claim to know more about it than men themselves. Nor would I use my limited experience to make blanket statements about all men in general.



No, I didn't miss the point. I am simply addressing the deeper question of "why." You seem to say that your preference is because of your own personality type, but that does not ring true since the preference is pretty much universal.

I don't think there's a big mystery why women like an assertive, confident man over a wimpy one. No one is arguing about that. What we are arguing about is how you seem to be translating that into "women want to be dominated and have a man be the boss of the house."

Well let me ask you this: Will you agree that confidence and assertiveness is far more valued in men than by men?

Are you asking whether confidence and assertiveness are more attractive to women than to men? I think it depends on who you are talking to, but in my experience, both women and men like those traits. It's impossible to generalize though, because attraction is a subjective thing.

Why is it wrong for me to generalize based on my experiences? Surely you yourself have some ideas about what men like and don't like, based on your own experiences.

Again, I can certainly deduce certain things based on my personal experiences, but it would be foolish of me to try to generalize about all men based on that. It's like they say, the plural of anecdotal evidence is not data.

brazil84
08-29-2011, 05:37 PM
The difference would be that while I could probably name some things about men's subconscious desires, I would never claim to know more about it than men themselves.

If you did make such a claim, I would not reject it simply because you are not a man.

Similarly, one can envision advertising men who know more than anyone about what motivates people to buy feminine hygeine products, even though those guys
have never bought such products in their lives.

Nor would I use my limited experience to make blanket statements about all men in general.

So you have no general view about what approaches will motivate men in general to spend money in nightclubs? If so, I find it hard to believe.

The fact is that everyone generalizes from their experiences and for the most part, it's pretty non-controversial.

If I had said "Be sure to do something nice for your girlfriend on her birthday -- she may say she doesn't want anything, but don't believe her," I doubt anyone would have replied that it's a mistake for me to generalize based on my experiences.

I don't think there's a big mystery why women like an assertive, confident man over a wimpy one.

Then why? Why is it that assertiveness and confidence are so attractive in a man?

Are you asking whether confidence and assertiveness are more attractive to women than to men? I think it depends on who you are talking to, but in my experience, both women and men like those traits. It's impossible to generalize though, because attraction is a subjective thing.

Well will you at least concede that some qualities are valued more highly in one sex than in the other? For example, youth.

Capitaine Zombie
08-29-2011, 05:54 PM
If you did make such a claim, I would not reject it simply because you are not a man.

No, you'd reject it because she's a woman, and they're none too bright.

brazil84
08-30-2011, 04:00 AM
No, you'd reject it because she's a woman, and they're none too bright.


Lol a stunning rebuttal.

Waxwinged
08-30-2011, 06:56 AM
Then why? Why is it that assertiveness and confidence are so attractive in a man?




The same thing that makes those qualities so attractive in a woman. I'd think that most people would want a mature partner in marriage, not a doormat or a child.

brazil84
08-30-2011, 07:23 AM
The same thing that makes those qualities so attractive in a woman. I'd think that most people would want a mature partner in marriage, not a doormat or a child.

So in your opinion, being timid and unassertive is just as much of a detriment to female attractiveness as it is to male attractveness?

Shin Ji
08-30-2011, 08:29 AM
I once knew a wife who had a Biblical marriage. The one time she dared to defy her husband, he beat her so badly she had to go to the hospital. Church members showed up there to let her know it was her own damned fault for not listening to her husband, but they had talked to him and he forgave her, so when she got out of the hospital, she could go right home and concentrate on being a better wife.

She filed assault charges and got a divorce.

I am so glad that the story had a happy ending. I have known many traditional/deeply religious couples, but the rule seems pretty much true that to the degree to which the husband is not a jerk, he helps out at home.

There is no coorelation that I have observed between helping with housework and degree of religiosity. It's just another excuse in the husband's quiver (so to speak).

Cat Fight
09-05-2011, 10:43 AM
The same thing that makes those qualities so attractive in a woman. I'd think that most people would want a mature partner in marriage, not a doormat or a child.

Perhaps, instead of always asking why so many women want confident, successful partners – especially since these are generally valued traits, in and out of romantic situations, and the general value of confidence or financial security barely needs to be questioned – more people should be asking why some men don't want women with the same characteristics. (Though perhaps the answer's too obvious, especially in light of this particular thread?)

Frylock
09-05-2011, 06:37 PM
Because vanilla is just vanilla, but chocolate helps me sublimate my deep-rooted feelings of inadequacy and fear of a hostile world I can't control.

Winner.

Frylock
09-05-2011, 06:40 PM
So in your opinion, being timid and unassertive is just as much of a detriment to female attractiveness as it is to male attractveness?

Hard to say since I'm never attracted to males, but my guess would be yes. An unassertive woman is like a limp handshake. Just yech.

Frylock
09-05-2011, 06:42 PM
So you have no general view about what approaches will motivate men in general to spend money in nightclubs?


Men in general spend money in nightclubs?

Indygrrl would certainly be going too far if she thought so on the basis of her experience. (I am sure she (unlike you) wouldn't make that leap, though.)

brazil84
09-05-2011, 09:09 PM
Men in general spend money in nightclubs?

Apparently so. Who woulda thunk it?