The man has the final say...or else what?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I got sidetracked into a discussion "Christian" marriages in the last couple of pages of this thread.

Whenever these "man is the head of the household" discussions crop up, I always try to find out what happens if the wife does not agree to this and I never get an answer. I invariably get accused of attacking other peoples' marriages or implying that the man is abusive. I also get responses that essentially deny the possibility of a woman in one of these marriages ever defying her husband's "authority. (kind of scary if you really think about it).

I've asked this question before, specifically in threads about Promise keepers. The man is supposed to go home after one of those blubbering rallies at some football stadium and then order his wife to "submit." (I don't care how you dress it up, that's what it amounts to)

What is the man supposed to do if his wife says no? What if she won't submit? What if she won't agree that he's the head of the household. What is the husband supposed to do with a non-compliant wife? I would imagine that divorce is not an option, so what is the proper course of action?

What if she agrees to live in a marriage like this for a while, but then changes her mind? What if she wants to convert to Wicca, what then?

There must be answers to these questions but I can never, ever get any, please help me out? Is there anything in PK literature that says what to do?

[Polycarp]

Diogenes, you're asking for the application of a standard to a situation not covered by that standard. What happens when you go ahead and divide by zero, anyway? It's a plausible question, but number theory does not admit of an answer (or, actually, sufficiently many contradictory answers that it's simply a forbidden process).

The quick-and-dirty answer is that the "headship" thing, with the caveats I gave there, applies to a "Christian marriage" -- and if one partner in that marriage decides it's no longer a Christian marriage, then the rule doesn't apply.

And, as I pointed out there, it's a mutual-agreement program -- the man has the casting vote in situations where consensus cannot be achieved, to be sure, but his job, before ever getting to that point, is to cherish his wife, to ensure that her needs and wants are fulfilled, to the point that they should almost never get to that point. If he's not doing that on a continuous basis, it's not a Christian marriage as contemplated by Paul; it's a man-as-dictator patriarchal relationship. And it is a choice on both their parts to enter into that sort of relationship. If jarhusband or I are not treating jarbaby and Skulldigger respectively in the manner prescribed, we're failing in our duty and voiding the agreement.

For questions short of an utter break, recognizing that people are not perfect and don't live up to ideals, the recommended policy is patience and acceptance. There are certain things on which one party is prepared to put down his/her foot; if the other party loves the first party, he/she will give in, cooperate, concede for the sake of peace, etc.

The comment that "marriage is not a 50:50 proposition, it's a matched set of 0:100 surrenders" has a lot going for it. If Barb's happiness does not mean more to me than my personal whims, then I'm failing her in a very basic way. And, of course, the reverse is true.

You also need to remember that this was a teaching addressed to a particular group of Greek Christians in a culture where women, while not in purdah, tended not to get out in public, tended not to be educated to the level of their spouses, and in general were usually in need of guidance as to the realities of the world outside their doors, which the husband -- who was both emotionally prepared and divinely commanded to love and cherish her -- was best prepared to provide. Circumstances alter cases; Barb is more knowledgeable than me in a number of areas both intellectual and "street-smarts"-wise, as I suspect may be the case in the Jar-marriage too (no offense to jarhusband!) While we two couples have chosen to apply the Pauline rule, it is in the context of two adult human beings with extensive experience and knowledge in a manner unlike the First Century Greek custom -- and decisions we make will be much more on the consensus model than on the Pauline man-makes-the-rules one.

[Kalhoun]

The people who buy into this think it is written from on high that women be the ones to defer to their husbands in a stalemate. They also aren't given the option of divorce (religious-wise).

Someone in the other thread used an example of disagreeing about where to go on vacation. What if you really HATED where your husband wanted to go on vacation? Do you have the option of saying that you'll go to The Rockies while he goes to New Orleans?

[tiny ham]

Kalhoun, the point is, if I absolutely hate New Orleans I would say so, and he, caring about my feelings would say, oh, ok, where do you want to go then, and discussion begins.

But if we are equally interested in the Rockies and New Orleans, and there are pros and cons to both and we both agree either way would be fine, he decides.

That's all I'm going to say here, because I feel like I've repeated it four hundred times.

And by the by, we are neither fundamentalist Christians, Promise Keepers or Surrendered Wives.

[Polycarp]

BTW, I am not and have no interest in being a part of Promise Keepers, but from what I understand of their program, it's geared more towards making the man recognize his responsibility and duty towards his wife -- the need to honor her desires and emotional needs -- than the "headship" hoohah you note here.

The Pauline-style marriage adapted to today is a simple recognition that in a loving relationship everything should be decided by consensus, but people being less than perfect, there will be occasions when it is not, and in such a case, there should be a way to "break a tie" -- and that that involves one party making a decision in a way that honors the other's wishes.

There's an old, wry joke on this:
"In our family I make the big decisions, and my wife makes the little ones."
"Oh? What do you consider big and little decisions?"
"I decide whether we're going to go to war with Iraq, what the Supreme Court should have decided about the Florida voting case, and important stuff like that; she decides where we're going to live, what car we're going to buy, and little stuff like that!"

[Kalhoun]

Polycarp said, "For questions short of an utter break, recognizing that people are not perfect and don't live up to ideals, the recommended policy is patience and acceptance. There are certain things on which one party is prepared to put down his/her foot; if the other party loves the first party, he/she will give in, cooperate, concede for the sake of peace, etc."

Well, hell...you don't have to be a christian to understand that! That's how all good marriages work. Your description above simply means it is a rule with no substance. If no one is going to follow it, it's no longer an issue. I was under the impression Jarbaby, et al, actually did these things!

And yes, I'm in full agreement that the "rule" was established back in the days when women had no sense of the outside world, and that it would be considered a means of survival to defer to the husband. But as you so clearly stated, them days is gone and don't apply to anyone in modern America. So why keep preaching it and agreeing to it? It just makes no sense to me.

[TVAA]

What's wrong with flipping a coin?

Since gender is an invariant, it's a poor way of breaking a stalemate.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Polycarp said:
The quick-and-dirty answer is that the "headship" thing, with the caveats I gave there, applies to a "Christian marriage" -- and if one partner in that marriage decides it's no longer a Christian marriage, then the rule doesn't apply.

So the authority of the husband has no real weight? The wife can rescind it at any moment?

jarbabyj said:
But if we are equally interested in the Rockies and New Orleans, and there are pros and cons to both and we both agree either way would be fine, he decides.

Why not flip a coin? Why not alternate "tiebreakers?" you decide one time. he decides the next. What's wrong with being a hundred percent equal?

Poly again:
The Pauline-style marriage adapted to today is a simple recognition that in a loving relationship everything should be decided by consensus, but people being less than perfect, there will be occasions when it is not, and in such a case, there should be a way to "break a tie" -- and that that involves one party making a decision in a way that honors the other's wishes.

When I'm at an impasse with Mrs. Diogenes, we have been known to flip a coin, to consult the I Ching (Mrs. D. believes in it) or simply to debate the issue until one of us makes a more compelling case (usually her). three or four times in our thirteen years together I have attempted to "put my foot down" as the man. Every one of these attempts has resulted in either hysterical laughter, stony silence or perhaps a flying object hurled at my head. What would a "pauline " husband do under those conditions?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I'd also like to add, that while what Polycarp and jarbabyj are describing do not sound like abusive or lopsided relationships to me, I think they'd both agree that Paul's verses can also be used as a tool for the manipulation and control of women. I know, I've seen it, and when I see comments like Joe_Cool's assertion that his wife must abide by "his rules," I have to wonder what the "...or else" is.

[Kalhoun]

Precisely my thoughts, Diogenes. It appears that it is yet another way for the christian men to degrade groups of people that they deem lesser than themselves.

Jarbaby said, "But if we are equally interested in the Rockies and New Orleans, and there are pros and cons to both and we both agree either way would be fine, he decides. "

That is not deferring to him. That is "you" not caring one way or the other. From what Poly describes, it never comes down the way the Paulines say it should anyway. The man actually defers to the woman. What's the point??

[Shodan]

The man is supposed to go home after one of those blubbering rallies at some football stadium and then order his wife to "submit." (I don't care how you dress it up, that's what it amounts to)

If you regard the attempt to explain the principles of Promise Keepers as nothing more than a thin layer of rationalization over a thick layer of domestic abuse, I don't wonder that you don't seem to get satisfactory answers.

The short response is that there is no "or else". Christian husbands are not supposed to drive, but lead. A husband who issues ultimatums or threats is not acting as a Christian husband. And abuse is sinful.

Shakespeare said, "Any fool in error can find a text of Scripture to back him up", and abusers are no different in this than anyone else. But abusive husbands are as mistaken about the principles of Promise Keepers as those who claim it is nothing more than justification for wife abuse.

Christian belief - like every other set of principles in the universe - can be misused. But abusus non tollit usum, as St. Augustine said.

Regards,
Shodan

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by TVAA
What's wrong with flipping a coin?

OK, but I get to be heads because I'm the man...

Zev Steinhardt

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Shodan said:
If you regard the attempt to explain the principles of Promise Keepers as nothing more than a thin layer of rationalization over a thick layer of domestic abuse, I don't wonder that you don't seem to get satisfactory answers.

The short response is that there is no "or else". Christian husbands are not supposed to drive, but lead. A husband who issues ultimatums or threats is not acting as a Christian husband. And abuse is sinful.

Shakespeare said, "Any fool in error can find a text of Scripture to back him up", and abusers are no different in this than anyone else. But abusive husbands are as mistaken about the principles of Promise Keepers as those who claim it is nothing more than justification for wife abuse.

Christian belief - like every other set of principles in the universe - can be misused. But abusus non tollit usum, as St. Augustine said.

I'm not trying to imply that PK's are all a bunch of wife beaters, I'm just trying to get some clarification on what "authority" means. You say there is no "or else" and I believe you, but still, what would a PK do if his wife was not willing to follow his "lead?" What does a PK do if his wife doesn't want to be a Christian at all?

[tiny ham]

The only thing mr. jar and I flip coins for is walking the dog in sub zero temperatures, because we both hate it equally

[greck]

When the woman and I were married,
she promised god and everyone present that she would honor and obey me. She had the choice, and she made that promise.

That's our contract. Whether she lives up to it or not, that's between her and god ultimately.

I would never hold her to that promise, because I'd be afraid of the consequences of doing so.

I take that back.

If the safety of my family was at stake, I would order her around and apologize later.

Otherwise, I'd rather be happy than right.

[IzzyR]

Diogenes,

The point you seem to be missing is that there doesn't need to be an "or else" because these wives are agreeing to let their husbands have the final say. Your persistance in viewing this as a coersive relationship underlies the entire question.

Bottom line is that if the wife decides that she no longer wishes to have her husband have the final say, she is as free as your wife is to reject whatever system it is that you are currently working with. But as long as the system is acepted by both sides it is workable, and apparently amenable to many.

[Kalhoun]

But Izzy, if she agreed to this within the boundaries of her religion, she is in fact, defying her god. That in itself is coersive. The threat of your god no longer loving you would make you behave in ways you might not consider equitable. Much like closeted gays being afraid to be who they are because the god they were raised with will no longer accept them. It is abusive to a degree.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

IzzyR,
I am aware that this is how this arrangement is often articulated, but I have heard plenty of fundy men (not in this thread) express it in much more authoritarian and autocratic terms. They are not going to be very amenable if their wives suddenly change their minds.

Also, what is recommended if the wife decides that she no longer wants to be a Christian at all? There must be something in PK literature about non-Christian wives.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

kalhoun said:
But Izzy, if she agreed to this within the boundaries of her religion, she is in fact, defying her god. That in itself is coersive. The threat of your god no longer loving you would make you behave in ways you might not consider equitable. Much like closeted gays being afraid to be who they are because the god they were raised with will no longer accept them. It is abusive to a degree.

It has least has the potential to be manipulative and controlling, especially for a woman who is already weak-willed or non-assertive, to have a "promise to God" held over her head.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by Kalhoun
if she agreed to this within the boundaries of her religion, she is in fact, defying her god. That in itself is coersive. The threat of your god no longer loving you would make you behave in ways you might not consider equitable. Much like closeted gays being afraid to be who they are because the god they were raised with will no longer accept them. It is abusive to a degree.

Of course this applies to any religious principle requiring that one do, or refrain from doing, anything. Essentially you are saying that all religions are abusive because they use the threat of "God no longer loving you" to attempt to modify the behavior of adherents. An extreme position, I think, and in any event, surely another debate.

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
I am aware that this is how this arrangement is often articulated, but I have heard plenty of fundy men (not in this thread) express it in much more authoritarian and autocratic terms. They are not going to be very amenable if their wives suddenly change their minds.

Possibly. But that is not necessarily central to the arrangement. So I don't see your point. You are asking "what happens if the husband insists on A and his wife insists on B, and neither will budge?" Answer: you've got problems.

Also, what is recommended if the wife decides that she no longer wants to be a Christian at all? There must be something in PK literature about non-Christian wives.

I imagine it would also be problematic. What would you do if your wife suddenly decides she wants to become a fundamentalist Muslim? This too seems like a general issue to me.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

IzzyR said:
I imagine it would also be problematic. What would you do if your wife suddenly decides she wants to become a fundamentalist Muslim? This too seems like a general issue to me.

It wouldn't matter a bit to me. We have different views already. (she's a Catholic, I'm an agnostic) It would be radically out of character for her to become a Muslim, and I suppose you can say the same about a fundy woman converting to Wicca, but I don't think it would be especiall radical or unrealistic for a fundy woman to moderate her views over time, or perhaps to simply lose her faith altogether.

[Zoe]

I am a Christian in a good marriage with an Agnostic.

When we entered the marriage, he was a widower who was used to thinking of the man as being the dominate decision maker. I have been a feminist for thirty years.

Eventually he got used to the idea that we both have an equal say in anything that involves both of us. Neither of us has a say in things that involve only the other person.

Then a marvelous thing happened! He began to see the advantages of such an agreement! (There are many.) We remain committed to each other both physically and emotionally. But for each of us as individuals, we are not accountable to the other.

This is what continues to work [/i]for us[/i] after seventeen years of marriage.

If some other arrangement works for another couple -- PK or otherwise-- then good for them! But I do hate to see another generation brought up to think that the man should automatically have the final say.

[Kalhoun]

Izzy said, "Of course this applies to any religious principle requiring that one do, or refrain from doing, anything. Essentially you are saying that all religions are abusive because they use the threat of "God no longer loving you" to attempt to modify the behavior of adherents. An extreme position, I think, and in any event, surely another debate."

Well, I guess you're right in that I find any organization that would consider this control tactic as part and parcel to being a "good person" at least mildly abusive (and insulting). I don't think it's extreme at all to say that telling someone their ideas and preferences will always be second to their "partner" (and I use the word loosely) is not the sign of a god that loves all his children.

[Shodan]

...what would a PK do if his wife was not willing to follow his "lead?"

Continue to lead. By example of godliness, if that makes it any clearer. (I am trying not to be snippy; I just don't know if you are familiar with the PK concepts. Based on some of your OP, I expect not.)

What does a PK do if his wife doesn't want to be a Christian at all?

Attempt to convert her - by example, again.

If she absolutely refuses, Paul advises separation.

The authority of the husband is meant to be modelled by Christ. Christ dedicated His life to the well-being of the Church and all believers, quite literally, since He is the Head of the Church. Same for the husband as head of the family.

The concept is called "servant leadership". "He who wants to be first of all must be servant of all" (Mark 9:35). Husbands are to care for their wives as they do for themselves, as they are "one flesh" (Matthew 19:5).

The authority of the husband is established by his care and concern for his family, to enable him to do so. It is not carte blanche to start treating his wife like a slave.

The husband being the head of the family is for the benefit of the family, not the benefit of the husband.

FWIW. IANAPK, but some of my friends and relatives are. None of them are abusive, or perfect for that matter.

Regards,
Shodan

[Kalhoun]

Why the husband and not the wife? Or the eldest son? Why the husband? What if he is historically a bad decision maker? Do we continue to follow his lead? Why the husband?

[Polycarp]

Originally posted by Zoe
I am a Christian in a good marriage with an Agnostic.

When we entered the marriage, he was a widower who was used to thinking of the man as being the dominate decision maker. I have been a feminist for thirty years.

Eventually he got used to the idea that we both have an equal say in anything that involves both of us. Neither of us has a say in things that involve only the other person.

Then a marvelous thing happened! He began to see the advantages of such an agreement! (There are many.) We remain committed to each other both physically and emotionally. But for each of us as individuals, we are not accountable to the other.

This is what continues to work [/i]for us[/i] after seventeen years of marriage.

If some other arrangement works for another couple -- PK or otherwise-- then good for them! But I do hate to see another generation brought up to think that the man should automatically have the final say.

An excellent point. I cannot speak for Bible-focused people, but our relationship works because (1) Barb wants it that way, and (2) we are individually the sorts of people for whom the Pauline arrangement works -- I want to make her happy, and she wants to have somebody to fall back on, who's prepared to take the responsibility inherent in making a decision when one is called for. I'd say that on average: 55% of what we do, we do individually; 43%, we are either in agreement at the outset or reach a consensus from a brief discussion; 1.99%, we are at odds and discuss at length, reaching a final resolution that does not resemble closely what either of us went into the decision expecting to be the result; and 0.01%, we are at impasse, and by mutual consent, I make the final decision for us.

But the point is that it's what works for us, and another arrangement might work for another couple. (I noted in passing that matt_mcl was wondering, I think tongue in cheek, how one would implement this in a same-sex relationship -- and AFAIK, that would not be an impasse -- it's not by virtue of being a man that the male in a M/F union makes the decisions, it's by virtue of his living out the role of loving husband. There's a significant difference there; it's not a "what you are" thing but a "what you commit to do" thing. I suspect that gay couples have their own means of working through differences, and that for some couples, whichever one is the more decisive, more responsibility-oriented will fall into the "husband" role in the Pauline model.)

I cannot address how a couple would resolve an impasse on a major decision where neither side feels he/she can "give" and she is disinclined to "submit" nor he to sacrifice whatever issues he holds dear in order to please her. IMHO, for such a situation to come up at all means that one or both parties has abnegated what makes the arrangement work at all -- the loving commitment to make that lifestyle work in the first place. At that point, third-party mediation, separation, or something of that sort, or one party deciding that he/she is worth more to her/him than is the issue on which they're at an impasse, would be the only options. But the system is tailormade, if worked by a couple who is committed to each other and to cherish each other, to avoid that sort of an extreme.

I want to stress again that it's something that both parties enter into eyes open, not in deference to a Scriptural command, that the husband has a responsibility to avoid ever having to exercise his "headship" to the extent possible, and that it is the last thing from being a sexist dominance relationship -- it's the mutual support of two people who have decided that this arrangement works for them, that makes it work at all.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I said:
...what would a PK do if his wife was not willing to follow his "lead?
Shodan said:
Continue to lead. By example of godliness, if that makes it any clearer. (I am trying not to be snippy; I just don't know if you are familiar with the PK concepts. Based on some of your OP, I expect not.)
I said:
What does a PK do if his wife doesn't want to be a Christian at all?
Shodan said:
Attempt to convert her - by example, again.

If she absolutely refuses, Paul advises separation.

Thank you [b]Shodan[/b you gave straight forward answers to my questions. It may bespeak a different philosophy of marriage than what I choose to follow, but at least I understand it now.

[Guinastasia]

What the hell is "Promise Keepers" all about? I've done some searches, but it's all very confusing.

[Seldon]

I had a supervisor once who was a PK. At the time, my hubby and I were having problems in our marriage. This guy kinda took me under his wing, before I knew what he was all about, but he turned out to be very sexist, and his wife was one of the most submissive people I've ever met. Because of that experience, and others dealing with Christian men, I distrust and pretty much dislike all of them. Kinda like a guilty until proven innocent but always suspected kind of thing. The only thing he said that made any sense was the "who has the last say" example. I agree with him and some of the opinions above that there would be a use for a family to agree that one person has the authority to make the final decision, but like Kalhoun, I will not accept that the male, by virtue of his maleness, has some innate ability to make the right decision.

[Seldon]

Guinastasia, this is the homepage for the PK, I'm sure you've already come across this and yes, it's not very helpful. (sorry, I don't know how to make the nice links--I have to copy and paste)

http://www.promisekeepers.org/faqs/core/faqscore24.htm

[elfje]

What is the man supposed to do if his wife says no? What if she won't submit? What if she won't agree that he's the head of the household. What is the husband supposed to do with a non-compliant wife? I would imagine that divorce is not an option, so what is the proper course of action?

Ever heard of "the rule of thumb"? I'll come back to that. Marriage is a patriarchal institution. I think it's safe to say that marriage, the way we know it today, has been invented by men, to serve men. But specifically: to oppress women. The words "to obey" would otherwise never have incorporated into the whole ritual of marriage. it seems men wanted their women to obey, and women didn't, until it was cemented into religion. The husband is the head of the household, simply because he is a) pgysically stronger and b) was the only person in the house to earn money, and therefor the family was dependent on him. A husband owned hiswife and kids, they werew litarally "his" to do with as he pleased. In the Middle Ages, wife beating was so common, they even "regulated" it. When a woman was non-compliant, her husband could beat her with a stick, as long as that stick was "no wider than the width of a grown man's thumb". Hence the rule of thumb.

What if she agrees to live in a marriage like this for a while, but then changes her mind? What if she wants to convert to Wicca, what then?

Not possible. Marriages cannot be out asunder by man, so change of mind is simply not an option. Marriage is for life, and for many, it was a life sentence. So suffer in silence


There must be answers to these questions but I can never, ever get any, please help me out? Is there anything in PK literature that says what to do? [/b][/quote]

Marriage severely restricts a woman's liberty of movement, speech and action, even today. The only thing you can do, nowadays,. is have prenuptials, to be reviewed every 5 years or so, with both parties outlining how they expect the marriage to work, and both outlining rules as to how they will behave within the marriage, and what would/could be grounds for divorce.

[Ludovic]

Originally posted by elfje

Ever heard of "the rule of thumb"?

why, yes

[Kalhoun]

Elfje, you may be involved in a marriage that "severely restricts a woman's liberty of movement, speech and action", but most of the free world is no longer subject to your archaic idea of what a life partner is supposed to be. Of course, maybe you were kidding, huh?

[elfje]

Kalhoun,
I'm in no marriage, but have seen it happen with many of my parents' friends and my own friends. people that are married start behaving differently.
My mother has always earned more money than my father, but he acts as the Pater Familias, as the head of the family.
In western societies, the person who earns the most money, is automaticlly also the head of the family, ie the person that gets taxed the most. (well, it's like that in Belgium).
And BTW, what i was describing, wasn't "my idea of what a lifepartner is supposed to be". On the contrary.
And I wish I was joking, honestly.
In a lot of countries and cultures, women are still treated as second hand citizens, and are the property of their father before they become property of their husband.
If you're interested in the fate of women in western europe throughout the MA, I suggest you read this book:

The Prospect Before Her - 1500-1800AD by Olwen Hufton

Interesting read....

[RickJay]

Originally posted by elfje
What is the man supposed to do if his wife says no? What if she won't submit? What if she won't agree that he's the head of the household. What is the husband supposed to do with a non-compliant wife? I would imagine that divorce is not an option, so what is the proper course of action?

Ever heard of "the rule of thumb"?

It took you less than a hundred words to cite a completely phony urban legend. Good job.

I think the answer to "What happens if the wife says no" is simple; she says no. If husband and wife are at a total impasse, the marriage is fundamentally flawed in any event.

[greck]

Originally posted by elfje
Marriage severely restricts a woman's liberty of movement, speech and action, even today.

I'm the one who has to stay home on saturday night, and am forced to watch "trading spaces" instead of the game.

I need to have you explain this to my wife, she doesn't believe me when I tell her.
I go: "woman, go make me some food"
she goes: "yeah food sounds great, make me some while you're up, but not a pizza, make us some steamed vegetables"

and yes, she's in breach of our catholic contract by not obeying me, but I knew we'd never live up to that part of it.

Granted, the institution is abused, but it is also not abused.

[JRDelirious]

Also, there seems to be some confusion as to whether the "divorce is not an option" doctrine applies here. Some brands of Christianity interpret the Gospel's precept of "only in the case of adultery, and then no remarriage" as absolute, but others read it as applying to a marriage entered into between two already observant believers, going in knowing and freely accepting this rule. If this was not the case, though, and either of them wants the rules changed halfway through the game, then you get an "uneven yoke" situation, wherein Pauline teachings advise separation, lest the believer be led astray.

[Evil Captor]

There's a fundamental flaw in the reasoning of Polycarp and others who say that PK women should never be brought to the point where their submission is in any way difficult for them. Which is that there is no point to the rule about the wife submitting to the husband under such circumstances.

To submit is defined at dictionary.com as follows:

1. To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another.

The people who came up with the submission rule clearly envisioned that there would be direct conflicts between wife and husband, and meant to say that in such conflicts the wife should always lose.

It's really that simple. You can gloss it over with blather about "Christian principles of marriage" and so forth all you like, but you can't get away from that bottom line.

It's sexist pig-doggery at its worst, and undeserving of respect from any thinking person.

[Kalhoun]

Thank you, Evil Captor. The voice of reason has finally spoken. I don't understand how seemingly intelligent people can buy into this crap. Amazing....

[istara]

Exactly. It makes more sense in a same-sex relationship, where the role of the Decider and the Submitter are chosen on merit.

What is the wife is a high-paid, mensa exec, and the husband is a drug addled retarded bum? They may love each other to bits, but should he really be the final Decider?

Let both have their areas, compromise where possible, and worst comes to worst, flip a fucking coin. If God is really bothered, He'll make sure it's always Heads Up for the man anyway.

[Kalhoun]

Istara said, "flip a fucking coin. If God is really bothered, He'll make sure it's always Heads Up for the man anyway."

Istara's funny

[Lemur866]

Good grief. Why do people get so worked up over lifestyle D/S relationships? There are plenty of people in D/S relationships, and in many of those the D/S part isn't just in the bedroom, it extends to their whole life. Why get so upset over someone's sexual choices? Because the people in it claim they established the relationship because of the Bible?

[Kalhoun]

There's a big difference between doing it because a diety said to and coming to the agreement based on individual talent rather than sex.

[avalongod]

Originally posted by elfje
Ever heard of "the rule of thumb"? I'll come back to that. Marriage is a patriarchal institution. I think it's safe to say that marriage, the way we know it today, has been invented by men, to serve men.

Hmmm...I'm not sure that's so "safe" to say at all. I'm glad other people mentioned the urban legend about the "Rule of Thumb" but to mention a few other details...as early back as the Code of Hammurabi men were forbidded from beating their wives, and women were clearly given rights to own property, divorce their husbands (although not as easily as today) and own their own businesses. Certainly we can all think of civilization in which women were horribly repressed...and there are still cultures today in which this occurs. For that matter there are and have been many cultures in which both men and women are repressed and treated harshly.

A problem with the Middle Ages and history written about it, is that most documented history during that period pertains almost exclusively to the upper class (who made up I think around 1-4% of the population.) The "law" was simply not handed out to the lower classes in any kind of systematic way, at least not until after the 14th century. It'd doubtful if there was any particular pattern regarding how marriages "looked" during this period. As noted by Barbara Tuchman in "The Calamitous 14th Century", the fact that those old misogynistic monks wrote so volumously about how women should be quiet and obedient suggests that women during this period were anything but obedient and quiet. If they had been, it wouldn't have been worth writing about. If it were commonplace it would be like scolding people for not breathing at least 10 times per minute.

Incidentally I have seen some evolutionary theories that actually suggest marriage is not so much for the benefit of either spouse, but rather for the survivability of the offspring, who benefit from two parents.

Originally posted by elfje
The words "to obey" would otherwise never have incorporated into the whole ritual of marriage.

you can always take this out of the vows. My wife and I certainly did. That brings up an interesting story...my wife is a pretty outgoing person (she likes to talk). When we were chosing readings for our wedding we settled on a nice parable about how a good husband is supposed to act and how a good wife is supposed to act. There is a part in that passage about how a good wife is supposed to remain silent and not speak to often, or something like that. We both found that offensive to our values and decided to remove that bit from the passage. But we forgot to tell the best man, and during the rehearsal he read the entire passage until (knowing how talkative my wife is) began cracking up at the line. Funny time for all, but my wife has wished him fleas in his jockey shorts ever since.

Originally posted by elfje
Marriage severely restricts a woman's liberty of movement, speech and action, even today. The only thing you can do, nowadays,. is have prenuptials, to be reviewed every 5 years or so, with both parties outlining how they expect the marriage to work, and both outlining rules as to how they will behave within the marriage, and what would/could be grounds for divorce.
.

Some of us actually foster our marriages with the ideal of a partnership...which is discussed maturely before the actual wedding. I think my wife and I live up to this rather well.

[Lemur866]

Originally posted by Kalhoun
There's a big difference between doing it because a diety said to and coming to the agreement based on individual talent rather than sex.

Wait a minute, do you really think that the Top in a D/S relationship is/should be more talented or able than the Bottom? No, that's irrelevant...it's just that the Top wants to be a Top and the Bottom wants to be a Bottom. If that's how people want to live their lives, why try to argue with them about their kinky sex practices? So what if they think God told them to engage in kinky sex practices? I would think that WHY isn't really any of our business. If Polycarp enjoys dominating his wife, and his wife enjoys being dominated, let them enjoy their own lives in their own ways.

[Evil Captor]

Lemur, what are you getting at? There's no comparison between a D/s relationship and a PK marriage. The s in a D/s relationship submits because they LOVE to submit, it turns them on. The attraction for them is the CHANCE to submit. Whereas with a PK arrangement, the submission is enforced from above so to speak, whether or not the wife/submissive enjoys it. And D/s relationships are not ALWAYS with the woman as the submissive, sometimes it's the man. Sometimes the man and the woman switch places. Sometimes it's not even male/female. Don't think the PKers are gonna go for that.

It's apples and oranges.

[Lemur866]

Exactly how do you know that's not what's going on? Why don't you think that an appreciable percentage of PK type marriages are D/s relationships? You know, just because it's a God-sanctioned relationship that doesn't mean it isn't kinky. And how is it enforced from above? This is a free country, any woman (or any man) who doesn't want to be in a submissive marriage is free to leave.

Of course not all D/s relationships are male dominant/female submissive relationships, but some are. And if PK's claim to be in such a relationship, how can you say that they aren't?

[Polycarp]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
There's a fundamental flaw in the reasoning of Polycarp and others who say that PK women should never be brought to the point where their submission is in any way difficult for them. Which is that there is no point to the rule about the wife submitting to the husband under such circumstances.

To submit is defined at dictionary.com as follows:

1. To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another.

The people who came up with the submission rule clearly envisioned that there would be direct conflicts between wife and husband, and meant to say that in such conflicts the wife should always lose.

It's really that simple. You can gloss it over with blather about "Christian principles of marriage" and so forth all you like, but you can't get away from that bottom line.

It's sexist pig-doggery at its worst, and undeserving of respect from any thinking person.

Very good point, sir. The Pauline-style marriage works for us because of the particular style of people that the two of us are, with Barb preferring to have the decisions made in her behalf -- with her will taken into account, and because I love her and want to make her happy. I don't look on it as "it's written in Scripture, so that's the only way to do it." If it failed to work for us -- if my ongoing efforts to help her improve her self-image bear enough fruit that she becomes strongly assertive and uncomfortable with it -- why, we'll change it!

"In such conflicts the wife will always lose" is true only in the context of a direct clash of wills -- and the terms in which the husband is supposed to exercise "headship" in Paul's definition of it presuppose that no such direct clash will in fact occur, and that if it's headed for one, it's incumbent on the husband to do all he can to prevent it from happening -- including, at the ultimate, "deciding" to do what she wants rather than what he himself wants.

I can very clearly see the potential for abuse in a aggressive-male/submissive-female sort of quasi-stereotype role imagery. But that's not what we have; it's not what either of us wants. My wife is an equal partner in our decision-making; I merely have the casting vote if we cannot agree, and that on two conditions: that she continues to assent to it, and that it's incumbent on me to hold her wishes as dear as or dearer than my own in making that decision.

As for the D/S roleplaying stuff, just because it looks like a wolf from a distance doesn't make it one; it could be a thylacine. I've tried to define as clearly as possible the difference between what I'm talking about an a "the man is always right" scenario -- if you don't buy it, that's your problem, not mine.

[Essured]

First, I'd like to thank Polycarp, Jarbaby, Shodan, IzzyR and anyone else who I missed that has explained this type of marriage from their perspective. It was fascinating reading for someone to who the whole idea is completely alien. Thank you for clearing up some of my misconceptions

Another question; Does this style of 'deciding' have boundaries, or is everything included from what groceries are bought, where to go out and eat, whether sex is on tonight, what type of house to buy ? Is it an across-the-board way of life, or does it only come into play with the 'big things' ? Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by elfje
Marriage severely restricts a woman's liberty of movement, speech and action, even today.

Cite, please ?
How exactly does marriage restrict a woman's liberty, speech and action ?

[Essured]

Elfje, please read the above as referring to marriage today. Thank you.