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.
[QUOTE=Freudian Slit]
Why do you assume that?
[/quote]
[QUOTE=brazil84 ]
Assume what?
[/quote]
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.
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.
[I’m okay, aren’t I? It was the post, not the Poster, I criticized.]
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.]
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Coming back to the actual issue of “Biblical marriage” if we might…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?