Healthy Relationships

[Joz]

That tends to happen after their have been serious changes in other aspects of the relationship, presumably negative. IMHO, of course.

I meant just the physical-ness of a person. I agree that a person can become ugly by their treatment of you.

 

[Joz]

I don't think so, at least not with the word "submit" in there.

So what is your definition of 'submit'? Kow-towing? Giving a man every one of his heart's desires? Being at his beck & call..girl?

 

[Joz]

It could be caused by something on that list, but it's not required. A reduction in any of those 3 qualities could stem entirely from something completely out of the control of your spouse.

Name one.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

So what is your definition of 'submit'? Kow-towing? Giving a man every one of his heart's desires? Being at his beck & call..girl?

I don't see how you can have equality if one should always submit to the other, even if the other is to treat you with complete love and respect. It sounds more like a parent-child relationship. IMO.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Name one.

Death, either in the family or amongst close friends.

 

[Joz]

Death, either in the family or amongst close friends.

Death is not controlable, yes. But how does that cause unattractivenes, disrespect or dishonesty?

 

[Bonnie]

I chatted with an evangelical pastor in a hotel over dinner once, and he said that his wife was supposed to submit or default to his judgement, but that he was supposed to love his wife as though he would God (in order to prevent abuse of his power as a man over his wife).

Thoughts?

Simply stated both partners are eqaul. Husband is in charge outwardly as the head of the househoold but he respects, and loves his wife as he does God therefore he will never keep his wife subservient, he will respect her always as an equal.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Simply stated both partners are eqaul. Husband is in charge outwardly as the head of the househoold but he respects, and loves his wife as he does God therefore he will never keep his wife subservient, he will respect her always as an equal.

I agree. But to the root of the definition, if the tiebreaker always goes to the husband, that is not equal.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Death is not controlable, yes. But how does that cause unattractivenes, disrespect or dishonesty?

I've seen death do very strange, unrational, unexplainable things to perfectly healthy, loving relationships. I don't pretend to understand it, just merely observe it.

 

[Joz]

I don't see how you can have equality if one should always submit to the other, even if the other is to treat you with complete love and respect. It sounds more like a parent-child relationship. IMO.

I'll include what your preacher said in this. A man is to love a woman as Christ loves. That means he would be willing to lay down his life. How many strangers are you willing to do that for? You must know that person intimately. And I do not mean physical, tho I think that is what helps. You know that person's very soul and you love them. Their best interest is above yours. What woman wouldn't submit to that? She would readily have sex, do the laundry, prepare the meals, whatever, because she is cherished by her husband.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I'll include what your preacher said in this. A man is to love a woman as Christ loves. That means he would be willing to lay down his life. How many strangers are you willing to do that for? You must know that person intimately. And I do not mean physical, tho I think that is what helps. You know that person's very soul and you love them. Their best interest is above yours. What woman wouldn't submit to that? She would readily have sex, do the laundry, prepare the meals, whatever, because she is cherished by her husband.

Ah yes. That's what it was. He was to love his wife as God would, not as he would God. My mistake.


I agree, it sounds like a pretty sweet deal. Ultimately though, it doesn't hold up to the definition of equal. IMO.

 

[Joz]

I've seen death do very strange, unrational, unexplainable things to perfectly healthy, loving relationships. I don't pretend to understand it, just merely observe it.

Trust me on this one. Death of a child usually causes a couple to break up. The grief is so all consuming you have nothing to share. It takes everything you have to take your next breath. Yet I met one such couple over the weekend that was able to survive this tragedy. I wasn't able to talk in depth about this as it was at a wedding reception Mm was playing. Not the best topic for the occassion.

 

[Joz]

Ah yes. That's what it was. He was to love his wife as God would, not as he would God. My mistake.


I agree, it sounds like a pretty sweet deal. Ultimately though, it doesn't hold up to the definition of equal. IMO.

How so?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Trust me on this one. Death of a child usually causes a couple to break up. The grief is so all consuming you have nothing to share. It takes everything you have to take your next breath. Yet I met one such couple over the weekend that was able to survive this tragedy. I wasn't able to talk in depth about this as it was at a wedding reception Mm was playing. Not the best topic for the occassion.

My point is, the relationship is built on those 3 principles. The other aspects of your initial post are the usual reasons (and very valid ones) why one of those 3 principles runs astray... but not always.

 

[Bonnie]

I agree. But to the root of the definition, if the tiebreaker always goes to the husband, that is not equal.

But that's the point, the tiebreaker doesn't always go to the husband. I think people take a reference like this very literal and that can be a turnoff to many about religion, specifically Christianity. They read "master and wife". If a man truly loves and honors his wife, he would never always impose his will on her, same holds true for a wife, who, out of love would never hold her husband hostage to her whims either. What the preacher was saying is marriage is a constant compromise but when you love someone it doesn't have to feel like each one is always giving in.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

But that's the point, the tiebreaker doesn't always go to the husband. I think people take a reference like this very literal and that can be a turnoff to many about religion, specifically Christianity. They read "master and wife". If a man truly loves and honors his wife, he would never always impose his will on her, same holds true for a wife, who, out of love would never hold her husband hostage to her whims either. What the preacher was saying is marriage is a constant compromise but when you love someone it doesn't have to feel like each one is always giving in.

I think what turns people off is not so much the concept as the bastardization/abuse of the concept by those using it.

 

[Joz]

No rep points for Bonnie.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

How so?

If the tiebreaker always goes to the husband, that is not equal. Now, if you go by what Bonnie's saying, then fine. But then the question is why there needs to be one party that submits to the other, even if the other always has her best interest in mind (i.e. she's submitting to her own will).

 

[Said1]

Do things ever work out equal? Even with the most progressive couples, once you add kids to the mix, EVERYTHING changes, absolutely everything. Not right away, but slowly, balances shift in different directions.

 

[Bonnie]

I think what turns people off is not so much the concept as the bastardization/abuse of the concept by those using it.

True but I think much of that gets over exagerated as well. People will use that to denograde religion simply because it's a convenient excuse. You have a small but very deifinite demographic of people who are naturally abusive and use religion as a guise to validate abusing a wife or husband. Just as some people use religion period as a cover for their innablility to live a moral life. Happily that is the exception not the rule. Trust me truly religious people would NEVER abuse a spouse of loved one, it's just not in them to do that. Just as priests who abuse kids are not really worthy to be priests in the first place, they are evil period, it was not their true calling.