Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 241 of 314 (278664)
01-13-2006 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by iano
01-13-2006 12:13 PM


Re: Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
iano, how do your views on the bibles possition gel with the actuall practices of the cultures who penned them?
Namely, how were women treated by early christians, and early christian cultures?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by iano, posted 01-13-2006 12:13 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Wounded King, posted 01-13-2006 12:25 PM Yaro has not replied
 Message 246 by iano, posted 01-13-2006 1:44 PM Yaro has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 242 of 314 (278666)
01-13-2006 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Yaro
01-13-2006 12:23 PM


It's all in here and its all true!!!!!!
Didn't you read 'The Da Vinci Code'?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Yaro, posted 01-13-2006 12:23 PM Yaro has not replied

IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 243 of 314 (278670)
01-13-2006 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by johnfolton
01-13-2006 2:05 AM


Re: Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
*falls over laughing*
Man oh man oh man, you couldn't make this stuff up!
Ok, on to the point by point discussion...
quote:
The man being the stronger vessel is supposed to have a servants heart like toward the woman. But the woman is supposed to have a servants heart toward the family. When you think your a slave, your missing the whole point of a fundemental marriage. When you take on a job, your a slave (bondsman) but in a marriage your to be of service to your mate.
You keep parroting on about this "stronger vessel" thing - and unless I've been hallucinating, I think I discussed this is my previous post.
How's about you address the concerns I raised there?
quote:
You wouldn't want to deprive your man of sex (I take that back you probably use to manipulate the man).
If you can't lay off the snide remarks in a debate, you're not worth debating with.
Brennakimi's been suspended for a personal attack. I'd suspend you for the same thing, if I was acting in admin mode in this thread.
quote:
In a marriage you need to have a servants heart to love the man, and the man to serve you too in love. Its not about being a slave but a servant. Its about being mature adults not immature about the needs of the marriage.
Since when does a mature adult need to be lead around like a child by another mature adult?
Since when does ANY marraige need one partner to be lead by the other?
quote:
If the man is busting himself for your family he's serving you all with his labor, he being the greater vessel. If he comes home exhausted and you've done nothing all day and then whine (complain) then what are you serving the husband.
Its really not all that hard, you've got Micro-wave, tv dinners, washing machines, Cars, dishwasher, vacuum cleaners, canned food, etc... In the older days they had to everything by hand, you really have nothing to complain about. Right?
What if the husband is out of work and the wife is supporting him? Wouldn't that make her the greater vessel? What if both are working, or neither? Assuming that there is only one version of a happy family is totally naive.
So women have nothing to complain about because they have modern technology helping them to be unpaid maids?
No possible issues with their self-esteem, and worth as a human being, that arise from knowing that they can't overrule their husband's decisions?
quote:
Its not about a leader follower relationship but about two mature people realizing its by serving one another that we show your love one to the other. Your leading by example to your children and those that you have the honor to serve.
Bullshit.
Two mature adults should be capable of compromise, not of one having to submit to the other when they can't agree. All that shows to kids is that wifes are supposed to be powerless sub-humans - and you better believe that treating anyone as any less than an equal is treating them as sub-human.
quote:
The mans the head, your next, then the children. The children ask you, and your not the head because your the softie (estrogen) so need to have the requests filtered through the husband. Dads are not supposed to be effeminate (soft)(tetosterone right?) so the kids will naturally want to deal with the mother. If the mother bends too much to the kids demands then shes being disrespectful to the marriage.
...Are you aware that there are marraiges without children? That some women are not effeminate or "softies"? That, in fact, this is an archaeic stereotype of a family that is largely useless in the modern world? That you seem to be seeing every marraige in black and white terms when most are NOT THAT SIMPLE?
I like iano's response better, at least he's honest that you're only following your god's orders.
Oh and by the way, I've posted twice before to you and gotten ignored.

"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by johnfolton, posted 01-13-2006 2:05 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by johnfolton, posted 01-13-2006 8:05 PM IrishRockhound has replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5048 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 244 of 314 (278673)
01-13-2006 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by iano
01-13-2006 12:13 PM


Re: Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
So, two people turn genuinely to God and seek his guidance. So he gives them opposing answers....?
God's voice is heard differently by everyone. The idea that two people would hear conflicting answers to the same question happens all the time. This is probably why there are many, many, many denominations of the same faith. They all agree on certain principles, but have conflicting ideas about God's answer to certain questions.
What do you reckon is the solution to the problem - assuming Crash's one of initiating divorce proceedings is not considered optimal by you?
Well I think the best answer to the problem is to establish avenues of communication prior to the development of an emotionally fraught situation such as this. I've found that people can generally find an agreement on something if they're able to talk to one another about what they want. I think it also helps if no one points to an omnisicent, omnipotent authority figure in order to give his/her opinion more weight than the other person's. Failing that, I think divorce or, worse, a lifetime of resentment is inevitable if one person's opinion about how to best care for their child trumps the other's due to something as uncontrollabel and arbitrary as gender.
edited to add Even with this there's the possibility that no agreement can be found. And that's a bummer. But at least the two are treating each other as adults.
If we accept for a moment that man as head of the household is God ordained then it is reasonable to suppose that God will honour and seek to enable that which he has instigated. No man can know anything of God unless God reveals it to them - so superiority has nothing to do with it
I don't believe this, but I will grant that if we accept that God has ordained man to be the head of the household, it would be reasonable that God would wind up speaking through him. If we accept this, though, I think it's also important to examine the fact that this provides the man a very, very easy avenue for abuse of this power. Sure, he's accountable to God for these actions, but if he sincerely believes that God is telling him to treat his wife as a servent, how does that help the wife who, say, sincerely believes God wants her to be a pharmicist?
I'm afraid I'm not getting your point about the equanamity found in being a follower vs. the head. You are a follower of God, right? If God came down, proved he was the real God to you, and told you to kill your son, wouldn't you feel like you had to do it? And would your objections about how much you loved your son matter if God decreed it to be his desire? I realize that you probably believe your God would never ask this of you, but setting aside all that benevolent monarchy stuff, how would you feel if God commanded you to kill your son, to commit to the act fully and not cheat by hoping that he would intervene at the last minute as he did with Abraham?
This message has been edited by docpotato, 01-13-2006 10:45 AM

"In Heaven, everything is fine."
The Lady in the Radiator
Eraserhead
One Movie a Day/Week/Whenever

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by iano, posted 01-13-2006 12:13 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by iano, posted 01-13-2006 1:25 PM docpotato has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 245 of 314 (278682)
01-13-2006 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by docpotato
01-13-2006 12:41 PM


NB: A FOLLOWER CHOOSES TO FOLLOW!!
God's voice is heard differently by everyone.
I don't see how this can be. God doesn't have two opposing ways of salvation yet this is what is held by 'opposing' Christian denominations. It is obviously not God people are hearing, but themselves.
Well I think the best answer to the problem is to establish avenues of communication prior to the development of an emotionally fraught situation such as this. I've found that people can generally find an agreement on something if they're able to talk to one another about what they want.
I hope I haven't given the impression that I hold to some kind of man the hunter gatherer / woman at home meekly darning the socks marriage. I'm assuming that the above is part and parcel with a good marriage Christian or otherwise. All the above has been done. They've been to the doctors and discussed the pros and cons, they have different opinions still.
"Finding no agreement" is indeed a bummer but that doesn't solve our problem. What next? To operate on the child or not to operate on the child. The point I am trying to underscore is the need for a decision on whether someone is going to be the one to take ultimate responsibilty at all (be it the man or woman)
Failing that, I think divorce or, worse, a lifetime of resentment is inevitable if one person's opinion about how to best care for their child trumps the other's due to something as uncontrollable and arbitrary as gender.
Surely that would be the indeed be the case if the woman felt that she couldn't abide by this model of marriage but was forced to. However, a Christian woman getting married is under no enforced obligation to conform to the biblical model. It is her free choice to follow: either at all or by the degree with which she feels happy. The consequences are hers here as with any area of her Christian walk where her obedience falls below total. Its not as if she is any different to any other Christian out there: imperfect in obedience. She, just like us all, faces the consequences of it I imagine.
Sure, he's accountable to God for these actions, but if he sincerely believes that God is telling him to treat his wife as a servent, how does that help the wife who, say, sincerely believes God wants her to be a pharmicist?
As above, the woman can choose not to take the mans lead if she wants. A woman can't be forced to follow. She follows because she chooses to follow - lets not forget this. A follower choses for that.
I'm afraid I'm not getting your point about the equanamity found in being a follower vs. the head. You are a follower of God, right? If God came down, proved he was the real God to you, and told you to kill your son, wouldn't you feel like you had to do it?
I can choose to obey God or not. I do both everyday. In doing so I choose to accept the conseqences -even though I might moan about them when they arrive. However the analogy is not a good one: God and me are not equal. Man and woman are created equal. If man is the apple and woman the orange, how can one be more important than the other. Surely in marriage, both are equally necessary in order for it to work
This message has been edited by iano, 13-Jan-2006 06:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by docpotato, posted 01-13-2006 12:41 PM docpotato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by docpotato, posted 01-13-2006 4:17 PM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 246 of 314 (278688)
01-13-2006 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Yaro
01-13-2006 12:23 PM


Re: Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
To be honest I have no idea how early Christian cultures dealt with womens position. I know that the early Christians struggled with many aspects of this newly revealed faith so I imagine that there were carry overs in the treatment of women from the old, wordly order into the faith just as there was with legalism (jews) and paganism (gentiles). We still have it today with male misuse of position with respect to females and female seeking to attain a position not intended for them.
I don't expect there was a time when the true biblical model of marriage reigned. Or that there ever will be. I reckon the best folk can do is to ever work towards but never achieve it. Just as in other areas of the Christian walk
It may sound somewhat glib to say that the challenge for a man is to avoid misuse of position and move towards servanthood and the challenge for a woman is to accept servanthood and avoid seeking a position not open to her. Each will stand before God and give an account of their actions. The significance of some temporal aspects of things should be seen in the light of what matters in eternity.
As noted in the post above, the decision to follow is the womans decision. She is not obliged to follow in the sense that she has no choice. It is not for man to enforce his headship. Biblical headship involves servanthood and love - not force. A man can no more force his headship on his wife that that he can force himself on her sexually. Sex and headship share similar traits. They are transmitted through love

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Yaro, posted 01-13-2006 12:23 PM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by nator, posted 01-14-2006 4:47 PM iano has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 247 of 314 (278689)
01-13-2006 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by iano
01-13-2006 10:12 AM


Re: Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
She has the option of trusting what her God tells her.
You presume, in this situation, that there's some evidence her husband is listening to God, and not himself. If she believes that her will is consistent with God's, and his is not, what is she to do? Trust God's general advice about husbands and wives, or trust God's specific revelation to her about what to do with her children?
How do you figure that people do a lot better of without Gods guidance in marraige. (please don't quote some figures of 'Christian' divorce rates exceedding secular ones at me will ya?)
How else would we determine the success of marriage, except by examining the rates at which they fail?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by iano, posted 01-13-2006 10:12 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by iano, posted 01-13-2006 1:58 PM crashfrog has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 248 of 314 (278691)
01-13-2006 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by crashfrog
01-13-2006 1:50 PM


How can a head be a head if the follower won't follow?
Read the above couple of posts Crash will you. There is a point which I should have raised earlier but didn't. To whit: a follower chooses to do so whether at all or in extent.
Head/helpmeet is an order set up by God which is beneficial to both in the degree in which they choose to follow it. But neither are obliged to. If they follow it they can expect blessing if not they cannot not - possibly, as in other areas, to the degree in which they obey.
But not necessarily
How else would we determine the success of marriage, except by examining the rates at which they fail?
In order to examine the rate of failure of "People Who Say They Are Christians" marriages, one could refer to the data concerning such marriages.
But I'm not sure what light the former statistics would shed on what the situation is with actual Christians. Patently claiming to be something cannot be taken as an indication of fact

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2006 1:50 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Yaro, posted 01-13-2006 3:08 PM iano has not replied
 Message 250 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2006 4:09 PM iano has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 249 of 314 (278706)
01-13-2006 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by iano
01-13-2006 1:58 PM


Re: How can a head be a head if the follower won't follow?
In order to examine the rate of failure of "People Who Say They Are Christians" marriages, one could refer to the data concerning such marriages.
But I'm not sure what light the former statistics would shed on what the situation is with actual Christians. Patently claiming to be something cannot be taken as an indication of fact
Sounds like a "no true scotsman" sittuation. What critera determins someone being a true christian?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by iano, posted 01-13-2006 1:58 PM iano has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 250 of 314 (278730)
01-13-2006 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by iano
01-13-2006 1:58 PM


Re: How can a head be a head if the follower won't follow?
Head/helpmeet is an order set up by God which is beneficial to both in the degree in which they choose to follow it. But neither are obliged to. If they follow it they can expect blessing if not they cannot not - possibly, as in other areas, to the degree in which they obey.
But not necessarily
In other words, "good things may happen if they do this, or they may not; on the other hand good things may or may not happen even if they don't." So, no specific blessing at all can be expected.
In order to examine the rate of failure of "People Who Say They Are Christians" marriages, one could refer to the data concerning such marriages.
So, what you're saying is that the definition of Christian means that no Christian can ever have a divorce, and that if they did have one, they're not a Christian?
What's your Biblical justification for that view? Even Christ himself outlined the situations under which divorce is appropriate, so clearly divorce in some situations has the divine imprimatur. True scotsman fallacy aside - you're free to define "Christian" in any way you can support from the teachings of Christ - what's your support for your view?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by iano, posted 01-13-2006 1:58 PM iano has not replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5048 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 251 of 314 (278733)
01-13-2006 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by iano
01-13-2006 1:25 PM


Re: NB: A FOLLOWER CHOOSES TO FOLLOW!!
It is obviously not God people are hearing, but themselves.
Says the Baptist to the Catholic, the Catholic to the Muslim, the Muslim to the Hindu, the atheist to them all.
I hope I haven't given the impression that I hold to some kind of man the hunter gatherer / woman at home meekly darning the socks marriage. I'm assuming that the above is part and parcel with a good marriage Christian or otherwise.
Not exactly the impression you've given off. Certainly not as much as Golfer.
The point I am trying to underscore is the need for a decision on whether someone is going to be the one to take ultimate responsibilty at all (be it the man or woman)
They both bear the responsibility. If they cannot come to an agreement, and a decision must be made, they bear the responsibility of not coming to an agreement. And they clearly both have a problem there. It is not either of their duties to make the final decision unless the other person willingly abdicates this to one who will willingly take it on.
However, a Christian woman getting married is under no enforced obligation to conform to the biblical model.
I'll go along with this. However I would like to point out that, in my experience, it's very hard for people to jump out of roles they feel they've been assigned to since birth. But you're right, ultimately the woman herself has some responsibility to take care of herself (by rejecting this form of marriage).
I try not to be in the business of telling people what's best for them. And so, I'm sure there are some people so entwined with this type of thinking that they could not be happily married otherwise. And that's fine. But it seems to me that this Biblical model of marriage is an inherently discriminatory and degrading relationship for a woman with any capacity for thinking of herself as an individual.
If man is the apple and woman the orange, how can one be more important than the other. Surely in marriage, both are equally necessary in order for it to work
If both people agree that they're an apple or an orange and are happy with the functioning of their relationship, then more power to them. If an apple marries a tangerine and demands that it act like an orange (stop being so zesty!) then those two should move on to other fruits and, perhaps, even vegetables.

"In Heaven, everything is fine."
The Lady in the Radiator
Eraserhead
One Movie a Day/Week/Whenever

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by iano, posted 01-13-2006 1:25 PM iano has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 252 of 314 (278778)
01-13-2006 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
01-12-2006 12:03 PM


Re: This topic got way too polarized
quote:
In the area of marriage it was a CORRECTIVE to the frequent tyrannical abuse of wives by husbands that prevailed in the pagan world, and in fact still does in many parts of the world.
Do you mean "pagan" like in goddess worship?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 01-12-2006 12:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 01-13-2006 8:07 PM nator has replied
 Message 261 by Nuggin, posted 01-15-2006 11:11 AM nator has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 253 of 314 (278814)
01-13-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by IrishRockhound
01-13-2006 12:36 PM


Re: Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
Since when does a mature adult need to be lead around like a child by another mature adult?
If your more concerned about self than your spouse, then your not a mature adult. Right?
why is a woman's only acceptable concern some man's foul progeny?
If any woman uses sex as a power tool they are not being respectful to the marriage.
i should hope a woman marries a man because she wants to spend all her time with him, not to squirt out his foul progeny. my relationships are thus. i have a life; i have interests; i have desires; i have goals. if a man would like to be part of that life, then that's grand. but it will be to share my life,
i don't actually care what grandchildren my mother wants. i don't want to have kids. if she wants grandchildren, she can adopt them herself.
no. never. his health is not endangered by the pregnancy. he has no say
i am unable to submit. not because i don't want to, but because i can't
why do you keep saying things that assume that my main goal in life
is to have kids? really. i'm not a baby bag with legs.
but i must say this. pregnancy is inherently life threatening...
Brennakimi already said she would always put self ahead of the husband. I don't think Brennakimi should be suspended for getting huffy, she could of at least agreed that she would never use sex as a power tool. In a fundemental marriage what does the woman think, is it appropriate to deny a mate sex to get her way, or spite(punishment), etc...
An Example: A friend of mine had a wife that used this power play and it was devastating. They slept in the same bed 3 years without sex is this your understanding of the perfect marriage. It begs the question is rape in marriage the bigger crime. No my friend didn't rape his wife cause to him the issue was the kids.
Here's a link that says God made the woman for the man, the man was not made for the woman.
Forbidden
----------------------------------------------------
In TV sitcoms, it's usually the woman who uses sex to manipulate her man. "When you use sex as a power tool, it interferes with the pleasure and togetherness it could bring to the relationship," Pitta says. "The beauty of the sexual experience is terribly impeded."
Error | Swedish Medical Center Seattle and Issaquah
----------------------------------------------------
Woman, and the elderly are being taken advantage of by salemen in Canada.
GEORGIE BINKS:
Some car dealers still driving women crazy
Sorry - we can't find that page
It seems to me most couples seen in a car its usually the man thats behind the wheel. With all the sharing of responsibilities I'm in favor of the woman driving an automobile.
However other nations might disagree: The Prince Sultan are asking the men if the woman should be allowed an automobile.
The Statement of Prince Sultan
Daoud Shirian Al-Hayat
http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/OPED/12-2005...
That, in fact, this is an archaeic stereotype of a family that is largely useless in the modern world?
I think most of your other responses are not about mature adults sharing in responsibilities. However in the modern world I agree both the husbands and the wifes are likely behaving more like spoiled children not understanding that getting ones way is not what a fundemental marriage is about. Its about serving the other a concept alien to both sexes in the modern world(its doing a 180). Its not alien to a Christian Fundemental Marriage cause a Christian marriage foundation is not based on selfishness(but Christ), etc...
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shortened display form of 1 URL, to restore page width to normal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by IrishRockhound, posted 01-13-2006 12:36 PM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by IrishRockhound, posted 01-14-2006 9:15 AM johnfolton has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 254 of 314 (278815)
01-13-2006 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by nator
01-13-2006 6:43 PM


Re: This topic got way too polarized
Do you mean "pagan" like in goddess worship?
It's just the generic term used for the entire nonChristian world
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-13-2006 08:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by nator, posted 01-13-2006 6:43 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by nator, posted 01-14-2006 4:51 PM Faith has not replied

IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 255 of 314 (278891)
01-14-2006 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by johnfolton
01-13-2006 8:05 PM


Re: Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
The Golfer's been suspended, so I suppose this is largely irrelevent, but hey...
quote:
If your more concerned about self than your spouse, then your not a mature adult. Right?
...Which has nothing to do with what I asked, to whit: Since when does a mature adult need to be lead around like a child by another mature adult?
What does selfishness have to do with being respected as a person in your own right?
quote:
Brennakimi already said she would always put self ahead of the husband. I don't think Brennakimi should be suspended for getting huffy, she could of at least agreed that she would never use sex as a power tool. In a fundemental marriage what does the woman think, is it appropriate to deny a mate sex to get her way, or spite(punishment), etc...
What the hell makes you think that ANY man has a right to get sex from a woman, even if she's his wife?
Wives have sex with their husbands because they love them and want them to be happy, and they enjoy it too. Anything else is a veiled form of prostitution or at worst marital rape, as far as I'm concerned, and thinking of it turns my stomach.
Let's make this clear - HER body. HER choice. NOT his. The reverse is true as well.
quote:
An Example: A friend of mine had a wife that used this power play and it was devastating. They slept in the same bed 3 years without sex is this your understanding of the perfect marriage. It begs the question is rape in marriage the bigger crime. No my friend didn't rape his wife cause to him the issue was the kids.
So what? Did your friend never consider, in all those three years, that maybe there was something seriously wrong with his marraige if his wife was doing this?
For future reference, my idea of a perfect marraige has only one criterion - that both partners are happy, end of story. So don't go getting half-assed notions of what I think when you know nothing about me.
quote:
Here's a link that says God made the woman for the man, the man was not made for the woman.
Don't care. This is about the practical applications of what your god said, not what he did or didn't say.
As far as I'm concerned your god is a jackass and a lunatic, so don't bother preaching at me about him.
quote:
In TV sitcoms, it's usually the woman who uses sex to manipulate her man. "When you use sex as a power tool, it interferes with the pleasure and togetherness it could bring to the relationship," Pitta says. "The beauty of the sexual experience is terribly impeded."
AAAAAhahhaahahaha - because sit-coms are a perfect representation of reality? Give me a break.
quote:
I think most of your other responses are not about mature adults sharing in responsibilities. However in the modern world I agree both the husbands and the wifes are likely behaving more like spoiled children not understanding that getting ones way is not what a fundemental marriage is about. Its about serving the other a concept alien to both sexes in the modern world(its doing a 180). Its not alien to a Christian Fundemental Marriage cause a Christian marriage foundation is not based on selfishness(but Christ), etc...
Bullshit. Again, since when do you speak for everyone in the modern world? Who are you to call them spoiled children? I didn't suggest that, so you're not agreeing with anything but your own idiot notions, Golfer.
There are people with messed up marraiges who are Christian, and who are not. There are people with great marraiges who are Christian and who are not. The notion of sharing and respect is not alien to those who have great marraiges, regardless of whether they believe in the Christian god or Osiris or Thor or whatever.
iano is right, and at least he's honest - a fundy Christian marraige isn't based on what's best for the husband and wife, it's based on the ancient writings of a book 2000 years old which is supposedly what your god wants.
Even what he wants is something that just isn't good for the marraige.
{edited to fix quote box}
This message has been edited by IrishRockhound, 01-14-2006 02:23 PM

"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by johnfolton, posted 01-13-2006 8:05 PM johnfolton has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024