Could lack of submission on the part of women responsible for numerous problems in marriages and relationship today? Bearing in mind this injunction, "submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.For the husband is the head of the wife, Pls your comment could go a long way thanks
I don't think so. Problems in marriage usually occur due to lack of communication. You might want your wife to "submit" to you at your will, but submission has to be a voluntary act based upon love and trust, she has to "want" to be dominated and she has to communicate that to you. You must also love respect, and trust her enough to accept her will before you force you will on her. Forcing yourself upon your wife is not conducive to promoting a good relationship, domination must be employed with love, trust and respect and good communication.
I think religion should stay out of relationships, because the view of religion is bias to the control factor men should have over women and it's absurd.
Equality in a relationship is a requirement to make them work.
But for some is absolutely shared in a relationship, or can be, therefore making that bond even stronger.
In nature there is no equality. Two forces in equal opposition are static. Equilibrium is unnatural. To produce anything requires struggle a give and a take. Winds do not blow without an area of high pressure and one of low, the tides wouldn't flow without the moon pulling on the Earth and the Earth pulling back. Nature requires imbalance and so do lovers.
I disagree with you totally about keeping religion out of a relationship. I believe that when two people have a spiritual connection, the bond between them is greater. The bible says that women are to submit to their husbands, but it also says that men are to love their wives as God loves the church- a love that is greater than anyone could imagine. Love cannot be equal, nothing is equal. In every situation you need a leader. In a group setting you need a leader to delegate and make sure everything is going smooth. In every given situation in life, there is always an appointed leader because it creates order. God appointed men to lead their families. But in that leadership position, he is to love his wife so much that he should be willing-without thinking- to lay down his life for her.
no, of course not.
however i do like strong confident men and they just make me wilt a little like a flower.
not arrogant pushy men.
naturally confident men.
there IS a difference.
I am glad you quote to the Bible, but my problem with your quote is you did not quote the other part of that text. The other part that says, husbands you are to love your wives as Christ loves the church. If you have experience the love that Christ has for the church, you would know what great a love, then, husbands are to have for their wives. That whole text is like a circle. Husbands love their wives, who intern submit to their husbands and respect them and what they stand for. Think about Christ love, when you come face to face with it, you can hardly be the same person you used to. The love a husband has for his wife will do the same thing in encouraging her in her role as a wife. Also, I find many husbands use this text out of context and demand submission and respect from their wives; but only enrage her creating hatred and disrespectfulness. With that being said, a marriage can only work as it suppose to only if both parties knows and understand their role according to that text.
I have no problem submitting to a man, as long as he does what I tell him to! heehee
The word 'submission' makes me shudder. Equality and compromise is what a marriage should be about. A woman should be no more submissive to her husband than he should be to her. Sure you can quote the Bible, but we are living in the 21st century. I bet there's a whole lot of rules in there you choose not to follow. I'm sorry, but I think a man expecting his wife to be submissive would be responsible for more problems than the women failing to be so.
Honestly I am angered by the question becuase it implies that because a woman is not submissive there are numerous problems in a marriage. In the previous verses it says to be filled with the spirit. No one can truly submit without the spirit. Second the scriptures says for both to submit. I have to agree with one of the top comments; scripture told the man to give himself to the woman this. Why do men automatically go to the scripture about wifes submitting to the husband but look over being filled with the spirit and the scripture that says submit to one another and why don't we see the husband giving himself as submission.
Our definition of submission and head and authority doesn't fit the description of Chirst and the church. Submission is not submission when it is forced, coerced, manipulated etc. The purpose of submission is not so that men can get their way all the time. Unfortunately thats what we have been taught. The man having the last word in everything is not the heart of the scripture either. When we are at odds why don't we go to the lord and ask him instead of the two trying to get their way or defend their position. I agree that decisions should be according to the spirit and sometimes this is according gifts and callings of each person.
I am totally for the man being head of the household. My husband prefers that I'm in charge of the house, the calender and the cash though.
I think relationships should be about compromise and partnership not one person being in charge though.
yea, both parties can bring something to the table. Im good with organizing, hence, im very good with the money and the bills. He (not right now, but has and prob will again when he gets back) is better at going out and earning as he can make more than i.
Please can you throw more light on what you mean by dieing to me
To a certain degree, I say yes. To clarify, what I mean is that the women's lib movement caused a shift in what women expect from their relationships. Combine that factor with the spoiled generation of today, having been several generations removed from the Great Depression, and what you have is a whole lot of people being told that they can do and have whatever they want and settling should never be an option-'your happiness is everything'.
What that has done to the marriages today is create a situation that is not conducive to healthy relationships. Today's society practically demands that the woman of the house work too and that adds pressure. A lot, not all, women have grown up expecting to be pampered and obeyed in their marriages thanks to being raised like little princesses. Why should they expect less?
Conversely, men aren't being raised much differently in that they still expect to be the king of their castle, the primary breadwinner, and the man with the final say. This leads to a lot of butting heads and bruised egos and not much compromising. Women aren't taught that being submissive isn't about being a mindless slave, it's about respect and compromise. I wouldn't go so far as to say a lack of submissivness is solely responsible for the decay of the modern marriage, but I'd say a healthy dose of it would go a long ways towards helping more of them last.
Marriages lasted longer because women would put up with a lot more crap back then. If that's what you consider submissiveness, then yes... women changed over time. Thank God! It's unfair to ask women to suffer and be unhappy so that the marriage can last a lifetime. There is absolutely no point in living this way. I don't care what the bible says, I doubt that God would want women to suffer in a marriage where the husband cheats or mistreats her. The texts from the bible were written at a time when women's submissiveness was seen as a virtue. Times have changed. God knows this and understands. I am sure.
I certainly do see a lot of unhappy women though.
oh yea, to bring up to your husband that he was having an affair was like not heard of...you just took an asprin, and resumed vaccuming. I like it alot better now, that we have gone out into the worl, work, and can open our mouths, because we can stand on our own. back then, if the marriage was over, how would she survive? I think marriage for women back then was 35% survival.
"Could lack of submission on the part of women responsible for numerous problems in marriages and relationship today? Bearing in mind this injunction, "submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.For the husband is the head of the wife, Pls your comment could go a long way thanks"
I don't understand why anyone would want anyone to 'fear' them in the first place. As for submitting - i guess it depends on how someone defines it...to me it is defined as 'surrending' myself...what would I surrender myself to and why?...sounds like I'm giving up? why?.. I have the opinion that marriage is a partnership, a union of two people who love each other and work together and move together through life - hand in hand...not me walking behind someone...or in front of them...but beside them....together.
The marriage should ebb and flow - like life...sometimes one person could take on the responsibility of e.g. paying the bills and then later the other takes it on...all depends on what is happening in life...give each other breaks from certain responsibilities from time to time.
As for the feminist movement..and that was a loooooong time ago now.....what's wrong with a woman being able to think for herself....divorce laws in Canada fortunately were changed to help those women that were in really abusive situations with no way out...they used to have to prove that their spouse was beating them or mentally abusing them...and so some women stayed in their abusive relationships because they couldn't get out...they had no where to turn....luckily that changed for those in awful awful situations....but this is another topic.
The passage begins with: submitting yourselves one to another
I think problems begin when neither party is willing to submit to the other and one is forced to become dominant while the other is forced to become submissive.
Yes Rafini it is true that the verse proceeding stated that, however, the one partaining to the wives is to submit to your husband in everything then the ultimate which is for the Husband is to love your wife even unto death. So if there is submission and there is love what do you think marriages will look like?
Over time I have come to realized that people have not being able to reconcile the peculiarity of this two species.
If there is submission and love, what do I think a marriage would look like?
50/50 cooperation all the way with give and take.
Exactly! The very act of making love is an act of domination and submission. The woman surrenders herself to the man, and this is what the verse refers to. At the same time the woman is in a position of dominance and power, because she alone decides if she will accept the advances of her lover, and he submits to her will when she accepts him.
This is the dance of courtship, it can not be forced one upon the other.
The gravity of force, no matter which direction it comes from, declares war upon the other - not an act of love.
Gravity is a force of attraction, but so is love, attraction each to the other and passion is the energy released in the collision of those two souls, and love is the light given off in the after glow where two are now one.
Keep in mind the gravity of force is negativity in action while gravity as a force of attraction is a positive reaction where love lives and passionate energy belongs.
Yes which is how I meant it to apply. It is through the force of attraction that one willingly submits, not the gravity of force to compel submission, that is a perversion of the concept of love, and a violation of trust.
WOW, leeberttea, I'm impressed by everything you've said here. There is a lot more to you than just a hot looking avatar.
Well thank you! I should hope there is more to all of us than an avatar and part of that is what we share here with our words, thoughts, and feelings.
There is a simple way to solve that problem. Remove completely the concept of submissiveness from a relationship. Done deal.
There are a few things wrong with this scripture -
"submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." First of all, you can't love God if you fear God. The fact that God is seen as a threatening, imposing force, makes us want to run and hide. I don't understand how a father can threaten his child and still expect him to have a strong connection to him - to love him, trust him, respect him, and be close to him.
"Submit yourselves unto your own husbands as unto the Lord." - This text was written with a chauvinistic mentality, at a time when men dared to compare their authority with God's.
I don't think there is anything wrong with that scripture. Now reconcile the aspect of the man to that scripture i.e. for man to love his wife even unto death. Than talking about God threatening His children that is not true the fear assuming now is not the one being talk about. Is the fear of His commandments to obedience.
I think the commandments should be respected, not feared. In any case, I believe the verb used is not the appropriate one. I can respect the rules that my father has set for me. I can respect the rules at work, but if I 'fear' the rules, then it's because I feel threatened. You see where I'm coming from?
I think that if a man is insecure and/or is just totally selfish and unkind, a submissive wife makes it easy for him to live in a delusional world that feels like it is more in his control. That kind of man really can't handle being wrong, and he really can't handle having a woman smarter than he is or even just one that can think and point out flaws in his reasoning and logic sometimes. His weakness makes those sorts of things unbearable, drives him to fury. There are some great ways to keep a woman from thinking and stuff, however. Deprive her of education, maybe keep her out of sight. Stuff like that. So, for guys into that sort of control thing, there are religions and places where that medieval... heck pre-medieval mindset still goes on. To each his/her own.
Personally, a woman who was submissive all the time would annoy the crap out of me.
Just respect is all, although sometimes like disturbia said it is nice being submissive -- sometimes it is good to be submissive in bed (role playing). I am at your spell hehe, do this in the name of LOVE --- (wink)
maybe other term not submissive -- should be mutual respect is more alright!
there is no challenge if the other one is always submissive, she should know how to bite and know what is right for her.
Just my personal opinion here but I would like to make a few points...
First, the act of submission in a partnership can come about in one of two ways. It can be given by the choice of the one being submissive in which case it should be treated with respect as anything so precious that is given. Conversely (sp... can't spell to save my life, dyslexic, so I hope you are fluent in typo), submission can be an act of a weaker person being preyed upon by a dominant one. This is more akin to a win/loose situation which is a sad state of existance for a relationship.
Secondly, since the topic in question stays w/in the boundaries of relationships, i.e. man and wife, I must point out that the book quoted also states that the "dominant" husband is to "cherish" the submissive wife. In such an instance I do not see where giving in to the man's wishes, usually, would be a problem. I think the problem would come in when two people really might not have known each other well enough to start w/ and have vastly differing veiws on really important things such as children.
Third point, and I do NOT mean this to be a blanket statement about all or even most men... but it should be brought up if this is the topic. The quote in question has been used for hundreds of years to justify such things as beatings, taking property and money, rape and other abhorent behaviors.
Basically, I can only say what I said in the first place. It is a choice that is to be respected and cherished.. not abused. I think finding the balance between the two makes for a good union. Leaning either way too much makes for a loss of self for the submissive persona in one direction and viloence in the second. With that being said guys and gals I suppose the moral of this little rant is simply know your partner well and be sure you think somewhat alike before you commit. Just my opinions.
Third point, and I do NOT mean this to be a blanket statement about all or even most men... but it should be brought up if this is the topic. The quote in question has been used for hundreds of years to justify such things as beatings, taking property and money, rape and other abhorent behaviors
Well said, this is the very area that people have to weary of, when people pick a particular quote and use it to their own advantage while closing eye to their own responsibility. Just as I have said before the love and the submissiveness must be balance for any marriage to work. I do not see a situation when a man will say I love my wife even unto death and at the same time turn around cheat, beat the same person he said, 'bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh' just lack of proper understanding the truth.
I know people who think that submitting to their husbands means saying "Yes, dear" to everything he says. That's not marriage, that's being a servant and sycophant, and it does neither partner any good.
I "submit" to my husband when I know he is better qualified to judge something than I am, when he has stronger beliefs about a question than my own, and when we both have strong beliefs but he convinces me through rational argument that his are superior.
My husband "submits" to me when he knows I am better qualified to judge something than he is, when I have stronger beliefs about something than he does, and when we both have strong beliefs but I convince him through rational argument that mine are superior.
When we can't agree on something, he theoretically has the final say, but in practice it has rarely come to that, and when it has he's usually deferred to my wishes or decided on some intermediate route.
In short, as others have said, a good marriage is based on respect for the other spouse, not the notion that one partner (either husband or wife) should submit unquestioningly to the authority of the other. Marriage should be a partnership of equals, not a dictatorship, no matter how "benevolent."
I do not interpret that clause in the Bible to be one that in any practical (as opposed to symbolic) way mandates a wife's submissiveness to her husband... as it is followed directly by:
"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her"
It sounds like,if anything, the husbands role is to be just as submissive.
I believe in equal submissiveness - at times the man should lead and at other times, the woman. It all depends on the situation and total submission on a woman's part is a little 'whacked' in my opinion. It perhaps is permissible in certain cultures and religions and even desirable but in my house - it'd last about 2 seconds and the male part of the equation would be much like the praying mantis male - headless! Sorry but I don't 'do' submissive just because he's male and I'm not.
I have to agree with Buckie (AKirchner). I think, however, it's fun to play the submissive sometimes - if you know what I mean. (wink, wink) But that's just role playing. In real life, I'm very assertive. In some areas, hubby is more assertive. As someone else said, yin and yang. It's all about a good balance!
I refuse to submit. Absolutely will not submit to anyone, let alone some big hunky guy! Not ever! You hear me? No, I say
what are you doing?
well, hmmmmmmmm ok that's nice
ooooooooooooh. do that again! purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!
Not every romantic relationship is a marraige, not every marraige is Christian, and not every Christian marraige is based on the wife being submissive. If a man wants a submissive wife he sould marry a submissive women and *deserve* that degree of respect and obedience. But that is not the only way to be happt together. Ya-know, some men (and some women) like to be submissive, some like to be egalitarian.
by mikelsisi 8 years ago
Males submissiveness (a.k.a. femdom)Love your hubs! I especially enjoy your writing and attitudes about crossdressing. Many of us love submission to women, and domination may be an untapped adventure for women. From forced crossdressing and erotic humiliation to more adventurous things like...
by Jewels2940 3 years ago
I know that getting married young was probably the first sign that marriage was maybe a bad idea, but a marriage isn't going to work when only one person is putting forth an effort to make it work. I was 22 when I got married; I thought that I was happy until my husband quit his job. I understand...
by lyricsingray 6 years ago
or marriages?Would you be willing to remain in an open relationship? Would you like it?
by Dot 2 years ago
Should women be submissive to their husband or boyfriend ?
by Vegas Elias 4 years ago
Why are Indian women submissive by nature?This problems baffles me from childhood. Do Indian women have enough brains or they think it is their duty to be suppressed? Why do they agree to marry at the will of their parents at a young age? Why can't they speak out? I feel every Indian woman should...
by kirstenblog 6 years ago
Do you guys think it is ever possible for a relationship where one person tries to control the other using manipulation and/or threats can ever become a happy healthy one? Is it even possible?
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|