NationStates Jolt Archive

As promised to a few people yesterday (and a few more about 2 weeks ago) I am starting a thred about my choice to submit to my husband. I know it creeps out a lot of people and confuses them, and well some people just think it's wrong.

I know you all have questions, I will try to answer them. I also am wondering why people seem to think it's their job to point out to me the "error of my ways" when it's not okay for me to run around trying to criticize other people's life choices, I mean seriously if we are two consenting adults, does it really matter to you how we structure our relationship?

Your life hun, live it the way you want.

There's nothing 'wrong' with your choice if it's what makes you happy.

Your life hun, live it the way you want.

There's nothing 'wrong' with your choice if it's what makes you happy.

Ditto.
However just remember you can change your mind if you want to. :cool:

i don't understand. how do you 'submit' to someone? do you mean like you'll do whatever he tells you any time whatever it is and never say or do what you want? or is it something less extreme than that?

Define 'Submit', exactly; ie, in the context your using it. What does it involve, exactly?

As promised to a few people yesterday (and a few more about 2 weeks ago) I am starting a thred about my choice to submit to my husband. I know it creeps out a lot of people and confuses them, and well some people just think it's wrong.

I know you all have questions, I will try to answer them. I also am wondering why people seem to think it's their job to point out to me the "error of my ways" when it's not okay for me to run around trying to criticize other people's life choices, I mean seriously if we are two consenting adults, does it really matter to you how we structure our relationship?

Well, according to and episode of CSI, it's the submissive that has all the power anyway ;)

i don't understand. how do you 'submit' to someone? do you mean like you'll do whatever he tells you any time whatever it is and never say or do what you want? or is it something less extreme than that?
If he asks me to do something I do it. If we are making a big decision, after discussion whatever his choice is we do it.

I choose to recognize him as authority over me.

If you trust him THAT much, is ok. I mean, it is your decision and choice after all. I don't support anyone entirely submitting to another human, but...

If the both of you find it pleasing and a solution to make your lives better, then it's wonderful.

Ok. I know your submissiveness is based on the passage from one of St. Paul's letters. But is there any other reason you are submissive, besides that?

I don't think I understand what you mean by "submissive wife". You hardly seem downtrodden or oppressed by your posts on the forum? I know you're quite the traditional "housewife", but that's not so uncommon nowadays, is it? You're not exactly chained to the sink or anything...

Don't you ever have the occassional strong feeling for something and feel that it wouldnt be right to decide otherwise?

What if he, for example, asks you to be quiet about the affair he's having with a younger woman, what would you do about it?

It's an hypothetical question. (Is that spelled right?)

If he asks me to do something I do it. If we are making a big decision, after discussion whatever his choice is we do it.

I choose to recognize him as authority over me.
If you ask him to do something, does he do it?

Is his decision usually a compromise, or simply what he thinks is best after having had thoughtful discussion.

So how far does he have to go before you give up on this concept of submission? I assume that he doesn't push the limits by taking advantage too much.

What if he, for example, asks you to be quiet about the affair he's having with a younger woman, what would you do about it?

It's an hypothetical question. (Is that spelled right?)

Or what if he asks you to have an affair with a younger woman...while he watches?

I don't support anyone entirely submitting to another human, but...
why not?

Ok. I know your submissiveness is based on the passage from one of St. Paul's letters. But is there any other reason you are submissive, besides that?
Paul writes on it a lot, there are a few letters in which it is mentioned. I went back and studied Eve's curse in Bible Study once and it became clear to me that part of her curse (the part right after the pain in child birth) was that she would desire to be head of the family. It causes conflict for two to be independently pulling in a different way, we are on the same road, heading in the same direction we should work together, someone has to be the leader, I choose him.

Other than those things, the Bible says many times that we are to submit to eachother, and to God, I feel like I am submiting to God by being less selfish, less concerned with my own desires, I am submiting to my husband and he submits to God, this makes our family life flow smoother, we are all working to the same goal, my husband has the interest of the family first, and most of the time, it's in the best interest of the family to keep me happy LOL

I don't think I understand what you mean by "submissive wife". You hardly seem downtrodden or oppressed by your posts on the forum? I know you're quite the traditional "housewife", but that's not so uncommon nowadays, is it? You're not exactly chained to the sink or anything...
it's a loving submission, I am not doing it because I have to, or because he "makes me" I do it because I want to. I am his helpmate, I am here to serve him, and he is here to serve the family, by leading.

So how far does he have to go before you give up on this concept of submission? I assume that he doesn't push the limits by taking advantage too much.

The fundamental aspect of such a relationship is typically the understand that the person of authority will not go beyond what he/she knows the other would ultimitly do.

I have no problem or find no fault in women who choose to submit authority to their husbands, but not in a million years would I ever want to be in a family structure where that happens, nor do I want my children to be subjected to it.

It is a personal choice and I respect that. I, however, do not respect those who try to tell me that my family structure is somehow corrosive or tainted because I do not subscribe to it.

I have no problem or find no fault in women who choose to submit authority to their husbands, but not in a million years would I ever want to be in a family structure where that happens, nor do I want my children to be subjected to it.

It is a personal choice and I respect that. I, however, do not respect those who try to tell me that my family structure is somehow corrosive or tainted because I do not subscribe to it.

but are you saying that the family structure of a submissive environment IS corrosive or tainted?

If he asks me to do something I do it. If we are making a big decision, after discussion whatever his choice is we do it.

I choose to recognize him as authority over me.
i see. well you know what you want with your life so go for it. it'd be interesting to see how long you could remain satisfied with such an arrangement tho, from your posts on here you seem a very independent minded person with a clear idea of what you think is right. but then you could just be regurgitating your husbands opinions, what do we know *shrugs*. good luck with it :)

why not?


Paul writes on it a lot, there are a few letters in which it is mentioned. I went back and studied Eve's curse in Bible Study once and it became clear to me that part of her curse (the part right after the pain in child birth) was that she would desire to be head of the family. It causes conflict for two to be independently pulling in a different way, we are on the same road, heading in the same direction we should work together, someone has to be the leader, I choose him.

Other than those things, the Bible says many times that we are to submit to eachother, and to God, I feel like I am submiting to God by being less selfish, less concerned with my own desires, I am submiting to my husband and he submits to God, this makes our family life flow smoother, we are all working to the same goal, my husband has the interest of the family first, and most of the time, it's in the best interest of the family to keep me happy LOL


it's a loving submission, I am not doing it because I have to, or because he "makes me" I do it because I want to. I am his helpmate, I am here to serve him, and he is here to serve the family, by leading.

OK, hrm, your concept of submission and my concept of submission (or rather, the reasoning for it) vary greatly. Let me at least say that in my version of d/s god has NOTHING to do with it.

As promised to a few people yesterday (and a few more about 2 weeks ago) I am starting a thred about my choice to submit to my husband. I know it creeps out a lot of people and confuses them, and well some people just think it's wrong.

I know you all have questions, I will try to answer them. I also am wondering why people seem to think it's their job to point out to me the "error of my ways" when it's not okay for me to run around trying to criticize other people's life choices, I mean seriously if we are two consenting adults, does it really matter to you how we structure our relationship?
The only thing I question is your reasoning for submitting.

Setting aside the issues I have with superstition (because they're a whole other topic), it appears that you submit based on gender. You appear to believe that your husband is meant to lead by virtue of his maleness, while you are meant to submit based on your femaleness. This then begs the question: what is it about maleness which makes your husband more qualified to lead? What is it about femaleness which makes you less qualified to lead? If you are equally qualified to lead, then why do you shirk your responsibility as a leader within your family?

Because I cannot believe a human being can hold all the answers, and because I don't think a human being can be always right. Also, I don't think a human being can place my well being above everything all the time. Why I don't believe those things?, because I don't hold the answers, I am not always right, and I cannot place the well being of another human above all things all the time.

Mostly, that's why I do not support noone's total submission to another human being.

Don't you ever have the occassional strong feeling for something and feel that it wouldnt be right to decide otherwise?
If I have any desires or wants, I go to my husband with them, unless there is a demonstratable (sp?) reason why it would be hurtful to the family for me to have them, then he doesn't deny me what I want.

So how far does he have to go before you give up on this concept of submission? I assume that he doesn't push the limits by taking advantage too much.
he doesn't take advantage at all.

If you ask him to do something, does he do it?

Is his decision usually a compromise, or simply what he thinks is best after having had thoughtful discussion.
I don't ask him to do things, he asks me what he can do to make my life easier and I tell him, he is pretty good about noticing when he can help me.

We have discussions about everything, it's kinda a "think tank" atmosphere, if my way is better for the family then we do my way, if his is better we do his way.
What if he, for example, asks you to be quiet about the affair he's having with a younger woman, what would you do about it?

It's an hypothetical question. (Is that spelled right?)
he would not cheat on me. If he did I would assume that we would go to counseling.

The only thing I question is your reasoning for submitting.

Setting aside the issues I have with superstition (because they're a whole other topic), it appears that you submit based on gender. You appear to believe that your husband is meant to lead by virtue of his maleness, while you are meant to submit based on your femaleness. This then begs the question: what is it about maleness which makes your husband more qualified to lead? What is it about femaleness which makes you less qualified to lead? If you are equally qualified to lead, then why do you shirk your responsibility as a leader within your family?
it's a fundamental misunderstanding to think that I submit to him because he has a penis, it has less to do with gender and more to do with where I place him in my life. I submit to him because he is my husband, not because he is male.

Because I cannot believe a human being can hold all the answers, and because I don't think a human being can be always right. Also, I don't think a human being can place my well being above everything all the time. Why I don't believe those things?, because I don't hold the answers, I am not always right, and I cannot place the well being of another human above all things all the time.

Mostly, that's why I do not support noone's total submission to another human being.
Yeah, for me it is about taking personal responsibility. I don't believe it is responsible of me, as an adult, to expect somebody else to be "in authority" over me in this manner. I think it would be selfish and inappropriate for me to expect a romantic partner to be "in authority" over me, or for him/her to shoulder the burden of being sole "leader" in our household. It is not my partner's responsibility to be my Mommy or my Daddy.

it's a fundamental misunderstanding to think that I submit to him because he has a penis, it has less to do with gender and more to do with where I place him in my life. I submit to him because he is my husband, not because he is male.

Would you submit to your lesbian lover? How would you determine who was the dominant sex? It appears, and I may be wrong, but it appears you place dominance in the fact that he is male, or he wouldnt be your husband. If that makes sense.

it's a fundamental misunderstanding to think that I submit to him because he has a penis, it has less to do with gender and more to do with where I place him in my life. I submit to him because he is my husband, not because he is male.
But the reason you submit to him, and not he to you, is because he is male and you are female. Because the male spouse is the one defined as the leader, and the female spouse as the "helpmeat."

Paul writes on it a lot, there are a few letters in which it is mentioned. I went back and studied Eve's curse in Bible Study once and it became clear to me that part of her curse (the part right after the pain in child birth) was that she would desire to be head of the family. It causes conflict for two to be independently pulling in a different way, we are on the same road, heading in the same direction we should work together, someone has to be the leader, I choose him.
Is he always the leader?

I understand why ultimately someone has to have the final say in a decision making process. But generally, wouldn't it be possible for you to both walk on the same road, side by side, instead of him leading. (I know thats not what you may want, I'm just curious....)

OK, hrm, your concept of submission and my concept of submission (or rather, the reasoning for it) vary greatly. Let me at least say that in my version of d/s god has NOTHING to do with it.
you are talking about sexual submission? that is a different thing entirely.

Because I cannot believe a human being can hold all the answers, and because I don't think a human being can be always right. Also, I don't think a human being can place my well being above everything all the time. Why I don't believe those things?, because I don't hold the answers, I am not always right, and I cannot place the well being of another human above all things all the time.

Mostly, that's why I do not support noone's total submission to another human being.
he is not responisble for my well being, he is responsible for the family's well being. He does not need to know all the answers, he needs to know how to lead, and he needs to lead selflessly.

Would you submit to your lesbian lover? How would you determine who was the dominant sex? It appears, and I may be wrong, but it appears you place dominance in the fact that he is male, or he wouldnt be your husband. If that makes sense.
it's difficult to answer that, I would never have a lesbian lover.

Jesus calls us to submit to all people, to be meek, to have humility, to put other's well being above our own.

you are talking about sexual submission? that is a different thing entirely.

Yes, quite a different thing. Having no experience in discussion of submission of a household authority based on religion and....well, let's say being familiar with sexual d/s relationships, my assumption first went with what I was familiar with.

As a parenthetical aside, what you refer to as "sexual" submission often has nothing to do with sex.

it's difficult to answer that, I would never have a lesbian lover.

Jesus calls us to submit to all people, to be meek, to have humility, to put other's well being above our own.
So why does your husband not submit to you?

he would not cheat on me. If he did I would assume that we would go to counseling.

What if you grow old enough?, perhaps he will long for touching a younger body, it happens all the time, believe me.

And if you suggest counseling after he told you to be quiet about it...Wouldn't you be against his position and stop being submissive?

I think you are more in the lines of being submissive to him as lng he works in the best interests of both you and your family. That would be a conditional submission in any case.

Yeah, for me it is about taking personal responsibility. I don't believe it is responsible of me, as an adult, to expect somebody else to be "in authority" over me in this manner. I think it would be selfish and inappropriate for me to expect a romantic partner to be "in authority" over me, or for him/her to shoulder the burden of being sole "leader" in our household. It is not my partner's responsibility to be my Mommy or my Daddy.
I am responsible for my own choices and feelings.

it's difficult to answer that, I would never have a lesbian lover.

Jesus calls us to submit to all people, to be meek, to have humility, to put other's well being above our own.

Ok

So why dont men submit to US then?

and put our well being above theirs?

Jesus hasn't been around for a couple of hundred years, times have changed :)

why not?


Paul writes on it a lot, there are a few letters in which it is mentioned. I went back and studied Eve's curse in Bible Study once and it became clear to me that part of her curse (the part right after the pain in child birth) was that she would desire to be head of the family. It causes conflict for two to be independently pulling in a different way, we are on the same road, heading in the same direction we should work together, someone has to be the leader, I choose him.

Other than those things, the Bible says many times that we are to submit to eachother, and to God, I feel like I am submiting to God by being less selfish, less concerned with my own desires, I am submiting to my husband and he submits to God, this makes our family life flow smoother, we are all working to the same goal, my husband has the interest of the family first, and most of the time, it's in the best interest of the family to keep me happy LOL


it's a loving submission, I am not doing it because I have to, or because he "makes me" I do it because I want to. I am his helpmate, I am here to serve him, and he is here to serve the family, by leading.
the thing i find interesting about this reasoning here is you state that the bible says we should submit to each other and to to god, and yet you interpret this to mean that you should submit to your husband and he should submit to god, therefore, i assume you are submitting to god by default. what i want to ask is, why can't you both submit to each other like your bible says (i.e. compromise, any relationship requires compromise to run smoothly) and then both submit to god directly? wouldn't that give you a closer relationship to your god also?

What if you grow old enough?, perhaps he will long for touching a younger body, it happens all the time, believe me.

And if you suggest counseling after he told you to be quiet about it...Wouldn't you be against his position and stop being submissive?

I think you are more in the lines of being submissive to him as lng he works in the best interests of both you and your family. That would be a conditional submission in any case.
Hell, I'm "submissive" to a certain point...I submit to my partner's decisions whenever he is deciding to do what I want. :D

So why does your husband not submit to you?
he submits in the sense that he puts the family priorities over his own feelings, he is selfless, his wants and needs are last on his list, as mine are last on my list.

Hell, I'm "submissive" to a certain point...I submit to my partner's decisions whenever he is deciding to do what I want. :D

lol

:cool:

he submits in the sense that he puts the family priorities over his own feelings, he is selfless, his wants and needs are last on his list, as mine are last on my list.
he doesnt need to have wants and needs because you do everything for him

I'm not criticising, just trying to understand it a little better.

I am responsible for my own choices and feelings.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Which is why I find "submission" of the sort you describe to be unacceptable.

What if you grow old enough?, perhaps he will long for touching a younger body, it happens all the time, believe me.

And if you suggest counseling after he told you to be quiet about it...Wouldn't you be against his position and stop being submissive?
I will never be old hahahahaha


I think you are more in the lines of being submissive to him as lng he works in the best interests of both you and your family. That would be a conditional submission in any case.
conditional in the sense that if he abuses me in any way at any time I am out the door.

Wow, you just managed to give me two of the biggest surprises I've had in a while on NS.

First, reading that you're a "submissive wife" in the first place - I obviously read all the wrong threads, because this is the first time I heard you talk about this. I really should look into more of the serious threads...

Secondly, by the way you define "submissive". I have never actually met someone who lived like that (that I know of) nor was I actually aware that the concept existed, to be honest.
To me, "submissive" is solely confined to sex. So far, you haven't even mention sex. I would normally not ask you that, but it definitely seems askable in this context, so I just will: does the submissiveness include your sexual relationship, too?

I'm still rather stunned and still trying to really understand what you say. I don't think I ever thought one could make a decision to live like that. I'm curious to see if I can end up understanding it.

he doesnt need to have wants and needs because you do everything for him

I'm not criticising, just trying to understand it a little better.
why do you think I do everything for him?

and why do you think he doesn't have wants and needs based on the fact that I put his wants and needs first and he puts mine first

he submits in the sense that he puts the family priorities over his own feelings, he is selfless, his wants and needs are last on his list, as mine are last on my list.
So does your husband submit to you, as Jesus instructs? You said Jesus "calls us to submit to all people," so I assume your husband obeys Jesus and submits to you. Right? Or are you not a person?

Pardon me if I'm being foward and blunt, but this is different than the typical sexually based Submission, correct? You mentioned Paul, so you had me worried you had suddenly become a rabid Baptist. :D
I am southern baptist, and yes this is different than sexual submission.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Which is why I find "submission" of the sort you describe to be unacceptable.

Why would you find a choice, any choice, made by two consenting adults, to be unacceptable?

It's their life to live, not yours. People have said the same thing about gay marriage, more...erm...."traditional" d/s relationships, and a whole slew of other things. If it's not your life, why care?

So does your husband submit to you, as Jesus instructs? You said Jesus "calls us to submit to all people," so I assume your husband obeys Jesus and submits to you. Right? Or are you not a person?
he puts my own feelings and needs over his own, so in fact he is submitting his will to the me, in the fact that he puts me above himself.

it seems to me that submission is great when your husband is making decisions that you agree with.

when you hit a stretch where your husband makes decisions that you dont agree with over and over again, you might find that you arent as submissive as you think you are.

but are you saying that the family structure of a submissive environment IS corrosive or tainted?

no, that is not at all what i said.

it conflicts with my values and the values i try to raise my children with, however i recognize that it does not conflict with the values of others and respect their right to live that way.

Why would you find a choice, any choice, made by two consenting adults, to be unacceptable?

It's their life to live, not yours. People have said the same thing about gay marriage, more...erm...."traditional" d/s relationships, and a whole slew of other things. If it's not your life, why care?
that's my thing, I don't understand why it's wrong for me to question a swinging couple, or a gay couple, or even a BDSM couple........but it's okay for people to tell me I am "wrong" and "bad" and "naive"

To me, "submissive" is solely confined to sex.

Oh trust me, even more "conventional" d/s relationships (being, those that are not based on religious beliefs) often have to do way more than just sex.

he puts my own feelings and needs over his own, so in fact he is submitting his will to the me, in the fact that he puts me above himself.
but does that not contradict you submitting to him?

my interpretation of this, is that you both submit to eachother at times that suit for varying reasons.

That's not submission

That's just marriage :D

Why would you find a choice, any choice, made by two consenting adults, to be unacceptable?

It's their life to live, not yours. People have said the same thing about gay marriage, more...erm...."traditional" d/s relationships, and a whole slew of other things. If it's not your life, why care?
Perhaps I wasn't clear: I was talking about my own beliefs on the subject. I was talking about why I, personally, feel it is inappropriate for me to "submit" to my partner. I don't especially care if somebody else wants to run their romantic relationships another way, as long as everybody involved is consenting. Sorry if that was unclear.

I am southern baptist, and yes this is different than sexual submission.

Dang, you answered it before I deleted it. I'd figured out what you were aiming at. I'm not worried, from your replies you seem to have the conditions worked out.

I won't interrupt the thread again.

that's my thing, I don't understand why it's wrong for me to question a swinging couple, or a gay couple, or even a BDSM couple........but it's okay for people to tell me I am "wrong" and "bad" and "naive"

Honestly? I think it is somewhat wrong for you to question a swinging couple, or a gay couple, or a BDSM couple, in the context of their relationship.

And in believing that, I likewise think it wrong to question yours.

he puts my own feelings and needs over his own, so in fact he is submitting his will to the me, in the fact that he puts me above himself.
So you're saying he's pretty much just a figurehead, then?

He's the "leader," but he is obligated to put your wants and opinions ahead of his own, so he's basically in the business of "approving" decisions that you make behind the scenes?

it seems to me that submission is great when your husband is making decisions that you agree with.

when you hit a stretch where your husband makes decisions that you dont agree with over and over again, you might find that you arent as submissive as you think you are.
it can be a struggle for some people. I have only run into him making a decision I didn't agree with a few times, but in the end it didn't really adversely affect me and it was better for the family, so it was in essence a good decision, other than I have this prideful selfish streak that presents itself every once in a while.

no, that is not at all what i said.

it conflicts with my values and the values i try to raise my children with, however i recognize that it does not conflict with the values of others and respect their right to live that way.

I didn't say you had said that. I asked the question to clarify the point you made in my own mind :)

(it gets cloudy in there some days)

Perhaps I wasn't clear: I was talking about my own beliefs on the subject. I was talking about why I, personally, feel it is inappropriate for me to "submit" to my partner. I don't especially care if somebody else wants to run their romantic relationships another way, as long as everybody involved is consenting. Sorry if that was unclear.

Well perhaps, sure. But in that way you may be incapable of submitting in the same way you're incapble of being a lesbian (erm..you're not, right, if so, statement retratcted).

Just not who you are. I could never play a submissive role, either in a more common use of the term in a BDSM setting, nor in a religiously motivated household setting. Not who I am.

But, if it's consentual....

Oh trust me, even more "conventional" d/s relationships (being, those that are not based on religious beliefs) often have to do way more than just sex.
Well, I'm sure there are relationships like that (i.e. where the D/s roles are in effect outside the bedroom, too), it's just that I honestly would think they're a relatively small minority - plus, mainly, that still would be different from what Smunkee is describing here, because the reasoning behind it is oviously a *very* different one, like you implied.

If he asks me to do something I do it. If we are making a big decision, after discussion whatever his choice is we do it.

I choose to recognize him as authority over me.

I can't help but be appalled. Nothing you should give a crap about, of course, but that sort of arrangement is anathema to my ideal of what a relationship is.

he puts my own feelings and needs over his own, so in fact he is submitting his will to the me, in the fact that he puts me above himself.
so, when you say you are going to be a submissive wife what you mean is you're tired of making decisions so you're going to let him have all the final decisions and the consequences of those can be on his consience, rather than you're just going to be completely passive in your relationship. i can fully understand that as i am lazy and indecisive and if i thought i could get away with it i would do that to. but since i am male and not attracted to bossy people i don't think i'm going to get away with it :D ;) .

p.s. not saying you're lazy, i know you're not. but everyone gets sick of having unltimate responsibility for themselves and their family at some point. completely understandable.

that's my thing, I don't understand why it's wrong for me to question a swinging couple, or a gay couple, or even a BDSM couple........but it's okay for people to tell me I am "wrong" and "bad" and "naive"
It isn't ok for people to tell you that. Those that do should be dismissed.

Submission as you define it sound like co-equal partnership and cooperation.

So you're saying he's pretty much just a figurehead, then?

He's the "leader," but he is obligated to put your wants and opinions ahead of his own, so he's basically in the business of "approving" decisions that you make behind the scenes?

Without knowing the framework of this relationship, lemme take a stab at it.

She submits to his decisions because she knows that his decisions will be in her, and her family's best interest.

She doesn't make the decisions...it's more of a trust thing.

So you're saying he's pretty much just a figurehead, then?

He's the "leader," but he is obligated to put your wants and opinions ahead of his own, so he's basically in the business of "approving" decisions that you make behind the scenes?
no he is the leader.

my priorities go as follows
1 God
2 him
3children
4 others
5 self


his go as follows
1 God
2 me
3 children
4 others
5 self

if he asks me to do something, or says I can not do something I know it is for my own good or the good of the family, I submit by obeying. He submits by being selfless.

I can't help but be appalled. Nothing you should give a crap about, of course, but that sort of arrangement is anathema to my ideal of what a relationship is.
I am sure you understand the feeling of people being appalled with your lifestyle...;)

Well, I'm sure there are relationships like that (i.e. where the D/s roles are in effect outside the bedroom, too), it's just that I honestly would think they're a relatively small minority

Without explaining or elaborating on my own erm....experiences in those particular relationships, let me just say...it's often more complicated than that.

plus, mainly, that still would be different from what Smunkee is describing here, because the reasoning behind it is oviously a *very* different one, like you implied.

Well yes, fundamentally VERY different, based both on object and rationale.

Just want to be sure I'm reading this right...

You put your husband's needs and desires above your own, trusting his final decision to be the best course of action.

Your husband puts your family's needs and desires above his own, trusting your input to help him choose the best course of action.

If I am understanding, I don't see why people are taking issue. Is it the word "submission"? Is it because you decided this arrangement because of your faith? It seems to me that you're both sacrificing your own desires and needs to improve the family unit as a whole.

Isn't self-sacrifice for the sake of the family kinda the point?

my priorities go as follows
1 God
2 him
3children

his go as follows
1 God
2 me
3 children

You actually have priorities that are higher than your kids? I'd... better... not... say anything else.

Well perhaps, sure. But in that way you may be incapable of submitting in the same way you're incapble of being a lesbian (erm..you're not, right, if so, statement retratcted).

I cannot be exclusively gay, so that much is true.


Just not who you are. I could never play a submissive role, either in a more common use of the term in a BDSM setting, nor in a religiously motivated household setting. Not who I am.

But, if it's consentual....
It's not about whether I'm capable of submitting or not. Personally, I think it would be a little TOO easy to be "submissive," since it would allow me to abdicate much of my responsibility to myself and to my family. It would be great to make somebody else be in charge of the tough decisions. It often feels really good to have a choice made for you, since then you don't have to blame yourself when something goes wrong.

If my partner has the authority to make the final decision, then if his decision is wrong he bears the responsibility for that. However, if we are equally responsible for making the final decision, then we bear the responsibility equally if things don't turn out the way we wanted. I prefer to share both the credit and the responsibility for decisions regarding my relationship and my household.

However, I don't think it would be right for me to "submit" simply because it could feel really good. Making tough decisions for myself is part of being an adult. Taking equal responsibility for the fate of my household is part of being an adult. I may not always like it, but that's part of being an adult too. :)

Just want to be sure I'm reading this right...

You put your husband's needs and desires above your own, trusting his final decision to be the best course of action.

Your husband puts your family's needs and desires above his own, trusting your input to help him choose the best course of action.

If I am understanding, I don't see why people are taking issue. Is it the word "submission"? Is it because you decided this arrangement because of your faith? It seems to me that you're both sacrificing your own desires and needs to improve the family unit as a whole.

Isn't self-sacrifice for the sake of the family kinda the point?
you got it.

the bolded part is the part that people have issue with, because they fail to understand the rest of it. (for clarity, bold added by me)

it can be a struggle for some people. I have only run into him making a decision I didn't agree with a few times, but in the end it didn't really adversely affect me and it was better for the family, so it was in essence a good decision, other than I have this prideful selfish streak that presents itself every once in a while.
Okay, I don't really think I want to go and criticize your choice to live your life - I think we'll just have to agree to disagree and I won't really be able to "understand" it after all, so please take everything I say more in the spirit of "here's what I don't get and why I know that wouldn't work for me" than "OMG that's ridiculous!". :)

In your post I quoted, 2 questions come up for me:

1) does your husband really have the wisdom to always make decisions that are infailingly good for the family? That's rather superhuman, I'd think. Wouldn't your disagreements be helpful sometimes? You're anything but stupid - I can't quite believe he always knows exactly what's the right thing to do and you're always on the wrong track.

2) "the prideful selfish streak" - that's what I would call "me", I guess. You know? Is it really prideful and selfish to have your opinion on things just because it runs counter to his opinion?

no he is the leader.

my priorities go as follows
1 God
2 him
3children
4 others
5 self


his go as follows
1 God
2 me
3 children
4 others
5 self

if he asks me to do something, or says I can not do something I know it is for my own good or the good of the family, I submit by obeying. He submits by being selfless.
It sounds like "submission" really is semantics, then. It's just that you and your husband refer to his submission as "selflessness." You both submit equally to one another, but your husband is told that he isn't really submitting, he's choosing to be selfless. I don't know why you are comfortable saying you "submit by choice" and your husband isn't comfortable saying the same, but whatever.

you got it.

the bolded part is the part that people have issue with, because they fail to understand the rest of it. (for clarity, bold added by me)

To be honest, I think it's just in the word Submission and what it implies.

I am sure you understand the feeling of people being appalled with your lifestyle...;)

Sure, but as you no doubt don't do either, no crap is given (ooh, look at grammar going out the window, there). It's just the "his decision is final" and "authority" bits that strike me as antediluvian anachronisms.

Is it the word "submission"? Is it because you decided this arrangement because of your faith? It seems to me that you're both sacrificing your own desires and needs to improve the family unit as a whole.
that's about it for me. submission doesn't seem quite the right word for what smunkee is describing. not sure what is tho. her relationship with her husband seems to be completely errr... symbiotic? sympathetic? (you know what i mean) except for the fact that the weight of responsibility is on her husbands shoulders rather than hers.

you got it.

the bolded part is the part that people have issue with, because they fail to understand the rest of it. (for clarity, bold added by me)

I got the gist of it. Were I to use my terminology I would call this less a submissive relationship and more of a...I dunno, trust relationship. It's not a submission for submitting (certainly not in the BDSM context, although you mentioned having religious reasons for submission for the sake of submission) it is more like...recognizing and trusting another's abilities to make decisions based on input, sometimes rejecting input, but generally always making the right one.

1) does your husband really had the wisdom to always make decisions that are infailingly good for the family? That's rather superhuman, I'd think. Wouldn't your disagreements be helpful sometimes? You're anything but stupid - I can't believe he always knows exactly what's the right thing to do an you're always on the wrong track.
he makes the final decision, and I submit to his judgment, I am in on the "decision making process" being that my opinions and feelings are considered.

2) "the prideful selfish streak" - that's what I would call "me", I guess. You know? Is it really prideful and selfish to have your opinion on things just because it runs counter to his opinion?
no, it is prideful to want what I want because I want it, and discard everyone else's well being.

I didn't say you had said that. I asked the question to clarify the point you made in my own mind :)

(it gets cloudy in there some days)

i see that on re-reading it. my apologies for getting snappy! :)

i see that on re-reading it. my apologies for getting snappy! :)

meh, ya get used to it ;)

that's about it for me. submission doesn't seem quite the right word for what smunkee is describing. not sure what is tho. her relationship with her husband seems to be completely errr... symbiotic? sympathetic? (you know what i mean) except for the fact that the weight of responsibility is on her husbands shoulders rather than hers.

As I said, I dont think submission as the word works here, especially as it has other contexts.

you got it.

the bolded part is the part that people have issue with, because they fail to understand the rest of it. (for clarity, bold added by me)
That makes sense to me. Kind of sounds like any healthy relationship. I guess its simply the word submission that confused me.

It sounds like "submission" really is semantics, then. It's just that you and your husband refer to his submission as "selflessness." You both submit equally to one another, but your husband is told that he isn't really submitting, he's choosing to be selfless. I don't know why you are comfortable saying you "submit by choice" and your husband isn't comfortable saying the same, but whatever.
in the end he is the leader of the household, if he makes a decision it is my job to follow through, and realize that just because it may not be the way I wanted it, that it is better for the family.

that's about it for me. submission doesn't seem quite the right word for what smunkee is describing. not sure what is tho. her relationship with her husband seems to be completely errr... symbiotic? sympathetic? (you know what i mean) except for the fact that the weight of responsibility is on her husbands shoulders rather than hers.I'd probably go with "sympathetic", I guess.

Really, giving someone "final say" doesn't strike me as a terrible idea. At some point a decision needs to be made and somebody has to back down. Since discussion seems to be a major part of the decision-making process, it all seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's not like he's coming home from work and saying, "Oh, by the way, I bought a monkey."

that's about it for me. submission doesn't seem quite the right word for what smunkee is describing. not sure what is tho. her relationship with her husband seems to be completely errr... symbiotic? sympathetic? (you know what i mean) except for the fact that the weight of responsibility is on her husbands shoulders rather than hers.
Yeah, that's the only bit that sounds unfair to me. It sounds like they both have the same set of priorities, and they both submit equally to the welfare of the family (and to each other's needs), but her husband gets stuck holding the bag when it comes to the final decisions. They actually are both submitting to one another, but hubby is the one who has to put his name on the final draft...so if something goes wrong, he's the one who made the call, and therefore it's his bad choice (rather than being both of them who made a mutual decision).

You know, come to think of it, it's a pretty brilliant set up. I wish I could get my partner to fall for this kind of scheme! I'd get all the perks of an egalitarian relationship, but my partner would bear all the blame for our (mutual) mistakes!

in the end he is the leader of the household, if he makes a decision it is my job to follow through, and realize that just because it may not be the way I wanted it, that it is better for the family.

The thing is, though, that it boils down to his decision being "better for the family" because he has a penis and you don't. That's the part that's so hard to understand and take seriously.

in the end he is the leader of the household, if he makes a decision it is my job to follow through, and realize that just because it may not be the way I wanted it, that it is better for the family.

I do have a bit of a problem with this one.

I dont see, that just because he's the man of the house, that every decision he ever makes is better for the family if other options are never offered up and his idea's are never challanged.

in the end he is the leader of the household, if he makes a decision it is my job to follow through, and realize that just because it may not be the way I wanted it, that it is better for the family.
But since your husband will always put you ahead of himself, he will never make a decision that you don't like. So no worries!

As I said, I dont think submission as the word works here, especially as it has other contexts.
Main Entry: sub·mit
Function: verb
Inflected Forms: sub·mit·ted; sub·mit·ting
transitive verb 1 : to yield or subject to control or authority
(from Webster's dictionary)

he is my authority, my submissiveness to my family and my submissiveness to him while they overlap are not quite the same thing.

I'd probably go with "sympathetic", I guess.

Really, giving someone "final say" doesn't strike me as a terrible idea. At some point a decision needs to be made and somebody has to back down. Since discussion seems to be a major part of the decision-making process, it all seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's not like he's coming home from work and saying, "Oh, by the way, I bought a monkey."

There's a point to this, unless you can compromise on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE (impossible) eventually somebody is going to get his/her decision over the other one. If you recognize and trust the other person to make the best decisions, then allowing that person to make the decision would seem almost...rational.

I do have a bit of a problem with this one.

I dont see, that just because he's the man of the house, that every decision he ever makes is better for the family if other options are never offered up and his idea's are never challanged.
Yes, it sounds very irresponsible.

"If my husband decides that we should beat our children with a bat, it is for me to obey and follow his decision even if I disagree."

Um, no, it's your responsibility to put your children's welfare first, even if that means telling your husband to get the fuck away from them with that goddam bat.

Main Entry: sub·mit
Function: verb
Inflected Forms: sub·mit·ted; sub·mit·ting
transitive verb 1 : to yield or subject to control or authority
(from Webster's dictionary)

he is my authority, my submissiveness to my family and my submissiveness to him while they overlap are not quite the same thing.

Yes your word is TECHNICALLY a proper one. However, when I see "submissive wife"....I think other things.

I'd probably go with "sympathetic", I guess.

Really, giving someone "final say" doesn't strike me as a terrible idea. At some point a decision needs to be made and somebody has to back down. Since discussion seems to be a major part of the decision-making process, it all seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's not like he's coming home from work and saying, "Oh, by the way, I bought a monkey."
haha, that'd be hilarious! roflmao!!1

Yeah, that's the only bit that sounds unfair to me. It sounds like they both have the same set of priorities, and they both submit equally to the welfare of the family (and to each other's needs), but her husband gets stuck holding the bag when it comes to the final decisions. They actually are both submitting to one another, but hubby is the one who has to put his name on the final draft...so if something goes wrong, he's the one who made the call, and therefore it's his bad choice (rather than being both of them who made a mutual decision).

You know, come to think of it, it's a pretty brilliant set up. I wish I could get my partner to fall for this kind of scheme! I'd get all the perks of an egalitarian relationship, but my partner would bear all the blame for our (mutual) mistakes!
you and me both, haha! i'd love it if i could hoodwink someone into taking responsibility for the decisions i manipulated them into making. that's not been the case since i left home. lol:D

I do have a bit of a problem with this one.

I dont see, that just because he's the man of the house, that every decision he ever makes is better for the family if other options are never offered up and his idea's are never challanged.
where did you get the idea that other options are never discussed?

it can be a struggle for some people. I have only run into him making a decision I didn't agree with a few times, but in the end it didn't really adversely affect me and it was better for the family, so it was in essence a good decision, other than I have this prideful selfish streak that presents itself every once in a while.
what do you think you will DO when the day comes when your husband makes a decision that is stupid, selfish, unreasonable and potentially ruionous?

do you go along with it because you submit to him or do you put your foot down and say "NO we aren't going to do that"?

no one is perfect. there will come a day when he makes a very bad decision for you and your family. in non-submissive households its the other spouses job to stop that kind of bad decision. (although sometimes it can't be stopped and sometimes both people agree on a very bad course of action)

"If my husband decides that we should beat our children with a bat, it is for me to obey and follow his decision even if I disagree."

I think the fundamental understanding here is that if there is some decision which seems so fundamentally wrong as to not POSSIBLY be in the best interest of her family, then the dynamic of the relationship is broken.

Well, I will say that I have rarely disagreed seriously with my fiance, but I can't see a situation in which I would accept something that involves doing something against my wishes/philosophy/morals.

A very silly but recent example: I dislike horror movies intensely. He wants to see The Descent. I expressed doubts about seeing it and said, "Go see it alone." He wants to see it WITH me (because all the fun of seeing a horror movie, according to him, is having your lady cuddle up with and clutch you). I watched the trailer and I REALLY do NOT want to see this film since my overactive imagination will have me having nightmares.

Is he going to see it? That's his choice. I hope he is, since he will enjoy it. Is he going to see it with me? Not very likely.

Have I seen films with him I really did not want to see? Well, yes, of course, and I know he's come with me to films he wasn't that interested in. But while compromise is well and good, I feel that both partners should have the right to say no to something they really feel strongly about.

"If my husband decides that we should beat our children with a bat, it is for me to obey and follow his decision even if I disagree.""Submissive" wife. Not "brain-dead criminally negligent" wife.

Yes your word is TECHNICALLY a proper one. However, when I see "submissive wife"....I think other things.
which is why I started this thred.

My submission is Biblical, I submit to him, he loves me like Christ loved the church, williing to lay down his life for my well being.

The submission that runs around today under the guise of a "Biblical relationship" is not at all what is meant by Paul, it usually is a man, who is selfish, abusive and just plain an ass, lording over a woman, who is weak, and broken, and useless.

I don't want to be associated with that.

There's a point to this, unless you can compromise on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE (impossible) eventually somebody is going to get his/her decision over the other one. If you recognize and trust the other person to make the best decisions, then allowing that person to make the decision would seem almost...rational.
Compromise =/= submit.

I can allow my partner to "get his way" on a particular household issue, even if I don't in any way recognize him as being in control or in authority over me (or our household). Hell, my parents used to reach compromises with me all the time, and I was NEVER in authority over them!

I very much think that "submissive" is the right word to describe it. It doesn't automatically imply a judgement on if it's a good thing or a bad thing to be submissive, so I don't see a problem there.

And she *definitely* submits to her husband, no matter the reasoning behind it or the fact that she says he only does what's best for her anyway.

My mind has been blown. Personally, I could never, never imagine to live like that. It feels wrong to me for so many reasons, I wouldn't even know where to start. I'll just step softly back out of the thread now.

Well, I will say that I have rarely disagreed seriously with my fiance, but I can't see a situation in which I would accept something that involves doing something against my wishes/philosophy/morals.

A very silly but recent example: I dislike horror movies intensely. He wants to see The Descent. I expressed doubts about seeing it and said, "Go see it alone." He wants to see it WITH me (because all the fun of seeing a horror movie, according to him, is having your lady cuddle up with and clutch you). I watched the trailer and I REALLY do NOT want to see this film since my overactive imagination will have me having nightmares.

Is he going to see it? That's his choice. I hope he is, since he will enjoy it. Is he going to see it with me? Not very likely.

Have I seen films with him I really did not want to see? Well, yes, of course, and I know he's come with me to films he wasn't that interested in. But while compromise is well and good, I feel that both partners should have the right to say no to something they really feel strongly about.

I think the point, that everyone seems to be missing, is that she's NOT a doormat who just blindly goes with WHATEVER he says.

She submits to authority based on decisions for the family, based on trust that these decisions would be in the best interest of the family. Substituting his ultimite judgment over hers.

HOWEVER I highly doubt that should a decision be made that is fundamnetally, absolutly, irrevocably against what she feels is in the best interests, and can in no way rationalize it as such (hey let's beat the children) then the agreement doesn't stand.

where did you get the idea that other options are never discussed?

because you said you always accept his decision

which suggests its never challanged

and if he knows you'll go along with it anyway. he's probably just going to stick to his guns

what do you think you will DO when the day comes when your husband makes a decision that is stupid, selfish, unreasonable and potentially ruionous?

do you go along with it because you submit to him or do you put your foot down and say "NO we aren't going to do that"?

no one is perfect. there will come a day when he makes a very bad decision for you and your family. in non-submissive households its the other spouses job to stop that kind of bad decision. (although sometimes it can't be stopped and sometimes both people agree on a very bad course of action)
usually we discuss major decisions beforehand, and my opinion is welcome, and in the confines of that conversation I am honest and I can say "you are a freaking idiot if you think thats a good idea" (you know if that's what I thought) but in the end what he decides is basically law, if it's a big decision I trust him to take my opinion into account, if it's a small decision I could really care less if he looks like an idiot. ;)

I think the fundamental understanding here is that if there is some decision which seems so fundamentally wrong as to not POSSIBLY be in the best interest of her family, then the dynamic of the relationship is broken.
But that's the key, isn't it?

It's one thing to say, "I trust my partner and believe he is making good decisions, so I support him." That doesn't require "submission" at all.

It is another to say, "The reason I support my partner's decisions is because I believe that he is in a position of authority and control over me." That requires that you support your partner's choices not because they are good choices, but because he is the one making them. You are supporting the choices not by virtue of their merits, but by virtue of the fact that you do not have the authority to question them.

The submission that runs around today under the guise of a "Biblical relationship" is not at all what is meant by Paul, it usually is a man, who is selfish, abusive and just plain an ass, lording over a woman, who is weak, and broken, and useless.


Fundamentally disagree with that, the typical meaning of BD/DS (bondage and disciplin, dominance and submission) have NOTHING to do with religion what so ever. Nor does it have to do with selfishness, abuse, or assholery, and very few "subs" (and you're assuming all subs are women) are weak, broken, and/or useless.

The thing is, though, that it boils down to his decision being "better for the family" because he has a penis and you don't. That's the part that's so hard to understand and take seriously.
it only works when the penis is attached to a man who always makes good decisions. it doesnt work at all when you are submitting to a jerk who decides to buy a sports car when your family needs a mini-van.

its the wise submissive woman's job to make sure she only marries a man whose decisions she would submit to.

like all relationships, it works only until it doesnt work any more.

because you said you always accept his decision

which suggests its never challanged

and if he knows you'll go along with it anyway. he's probably just going to stick to his guns
he is not so selfish to make a major decision without discussion, but yes, I submit to his judgement.

"Submissive" wife. Not "brain-dead criminally negligent" wife.
Well, then what's her limit? She says she "submits" to his decisions. To what extent?

If she feels spanking is wrong, and he feels it is right, will she spank her children because he tells her to?

If she feels it is wrong to slap her kids, but he feels it is right, will she slap the kids?

If she feels it's wrong to use the belt on kids, but he feels it is right, will she use the belt?

She is saying that she submits BECAUSE her husband is in authority over her. She has specifically stated that her husband sometimes makes decisions she doesn't agree with, but she goes along with them anyhow. If he's really in authority over her, then she doesn't get to pick and choose which of his decisions she obeys, right?

So, if that is true, then she would beat her children with a bat if her husband concluded that this is best for the family.

Fundamentally disagree with that, the typical meaning of BD/DS (bondage and disciplin, dominance and submission) have NOTHING to do with religion what so ever. Nor does it have to do with selfishness, abuse, or assholery, and very few "subs" (and you're assuming all subs are women) are weak, broken, and/or useless.
I am not talking about the sexual end of BDSM. I am not talking about sexual things at all.

When you see a wife on TV, and she says "I am submissive to my husband because I am a Christian, and he is the head of the household" and then they show him disrespect her, make poor decisions based on his own wants and needs, yell to her in the kitchen "bring me another beer bitch" and she head down, broken brings him a beer, and then he hits her...........you get the idea.

That is not a Biblical submissive relationship, but it's what passes for one in the world, and when people hear that I am a submissive wife, they literally see in their minds eye, me being abused, chained to the sink, barefoot and pregnant, no self esteem, broken, useless, stupid and blind.

Well, then what's her limit? She says she "submits" to his decisions. To what extent?

If she feels spanking is wrong, and he feels it is right, will she spank her children because he tells her to?

If she feels it is wrong to slap her kids, but he feels it is right, will she slap the kids?

If she feels it's wrong to use the belt on kids, but he feels it is right, will she use the belt?

She is saying that she submits BECAUSE her husband is in authority over her. She has specifically stated that her husband sometimes makes decisions she doesn't agree with, but she goes along with them anyhow. If he's really in authority over her, then she doesn't get to pick and choose which of his decisions she obeys, right?

So, if that is true, then she would beat her children with a bat if her husband concluded that this is best for the family.

as I said earlier, it is conditional submission in the sense that if there is abuse in any way, shape or form, I am out the door.

usually we discuss major decisions beforehand, and my opinion is welcome, and in the confines of that conversation I am honest and I can say "you are a freaking idiot if you think thats a good idea" (you know if that's what I thought) but in the end what he decides is basically law, if it's a big decision I trust him to take my opinion into account, if it's a small decision I could really care less if he looks like an idiot. ;)

which didnt answer my question

unless the answer was "yes i will submit to his stupid decision hoping that it will turn out right in the end even though i know it will be a disaster for me and my family"

you have another 50 years of marriage ahead of you. he WILL make a stupid, selfish, disastrous decision sometime in those 5 decades. do you follow him over the waterfall or do you grab the oar and steer the boat to the nearest shore?

which didnt answer my question

unless the answer was "yes i will submit to his stupid decision hoping that it will turn out right in the end even though i know it will be a disaster for me and my family"

you have another 50 years of marriage ahead of you. he WILL make a stupid, selfish, disastrous decision sometime in those 5 decades. do you follow him over the waterfall or do you grab the oar and steer the boat to the nearest shore?
follow him over the waterfall.

I am not talking about the sexual end of BDSM. I am not talking about sexual things at all.

When you see a wife on TV, and she says "I am submissive to my husband because I am a Christian, and he is the head of the household" and then they show him disrespect her, make poor decisions based on his own wants and needs, yell to her in the kitchen "bring me another beer bitch" and she head down, broken brings him a beer, and then he hits her...........you get the idea.

That is not a Biblical submissive relationship, but it's what passes for one in the world, and when people hear that I am a submissive wife, they literally see in their minds eye, me being abused, chained to the sink, barefoot and pregnant, no self esteem, broken, useless, stupid and blind.

Ahh, see, you think people view submission by religion in some way, and you wanted to dispell that version as applied to you.

When I saw "submissive wife" that's not the image I had either. When I read submissive wife I think neither the version you are under, nor the abused broken woman following her husband through ANYTHING because she is under some feeling of religious obligation.

What I thought of when I saw "submissive wife" was...erm...a lot more fun. Although chains may have been involved...

And as I said before, BDSM in the sense I use it in is not always about, nor necessarily primarily about, sexual things.

I think the point, that everyone seems to be missing, is that she's NOT a doormat who just blindly goes with WHATEVER he says.

She submits to authority based on decisions for the family, based on trust that these decisions would be in the best interest of the family. Substituting his ultimite judgment over hers.

HOWEVER I highly doubt that should a decision be made that is fundamnetally, absolutly, irrevocably against what she feels is in the best interests, and can in no way rationalize it as such (hey let's beat the children) then the agreement doesn't stand.

usually we discuss major decisions beforehand, and my opinion is welcome, and in the confines of that conversation I am honest and I can say "you are a freaking idiot if you think thats a good idea" (you know if that's what I thought) but in the end what he decides is basically law,

follow him over the waterfall.


See, that's the part that's hard for me to handle. Smunkee admits that even when she thinks a major decision is not in the family's best interest, the decision is final because he said so. (And for the record, I never connected sexual proclivities with Smunkee's statement of being submissive.)

as I said earlier, it is conditional submission in the sense that if there is abuse in any way, shape or form, I am out the door.
Well, what about other areas?

If your husband feels that the family finances should be invested in a particular stock option, but you feel it is unwise, do you allow him to over-rule you?

If your husband feels that your family savings should be spent on snazzy new sports cars that only he may drive, do you accept his decision?

If your husband decides to take the money that would have been spent on the kids' birthday presents, and instead spend it on a massive stockpile of toothpicks, do you submit?

Really, Smunkee, it doesn't sound like you actually "submit" based on your husband's perceived "authority" over you. You "submit" to decisions that you feel are wise or appropriate, and you reject decisions that you know to be harmful or dangerous or wrong. Your husband has only as much authority over you as you decide to grant him, and you're perfectly prepared to over-rule him when you feel it is appropriate to do so.

That's pretty much what everybody ends up doing in monogamous relationships, it's just that most of them don't claim to be "submitting" because their husband is their master. You may have a lower threshold for what you consider to be unacceptable decisions, but that's just about where you fall on a continuum. It's not like you are in a totally separate category of relationship.

follow him over the waterfall.

At no point do you become instinctivly concerned for the welfare of your children that you'd think 'to heck with him, he's made a stupid choice' and do the less harmful / disruptive alternative?

I can appreciate your stance on the relationship, and your reasons for why the relationship is the way that it is, but I'm sorry, that last statement ignores your responsibility as a parent first and foremost.

Well, what about other areas?

If your husband feels that the family finances should be invested in a particular stock option, but you feel it is unwise, do you allow him to over-rule you?

If your husband feels that your family savings should be spent on snazzy new sports cars that only he may drive, do you accept his decision?

If your husband decides to take the money that would have been spent on the kids' birthday presents, and instead spend it on a massive stockpile of toothpicks, do you submit?

Really, Smunkee, it doesn't sound like you actually "submit" based on your husband's perceived "authority" over you. You "submit" to decisions that you feel are wise or appropriate, and you reject decisions that you know to be harmful or dangerous or wrong. Your husband has only as much authority over you as you decide to grant him, and you're perfectly prepared to over-rule him when you feel it is appropriate to do so.

That's pretty much what everybody ends up doing in monogamous relationships, it's just that most of them don't claim to be "submitting" because their husband is their master. You may have a lower threshold for what you consider to be unacceptable decisions, but that's just about where you fall on a continuum. It's not like you are in a totally separate category of relationship.

I actually would submit in all those areas. In fact he made a stock decision that I thought was risky a few years back, I was very uncomfortable with it, but in the end we had 40% gains for 4 years, so I guess I can trust him more next time, if however we had lost the money, it's only money, and my relationship with him is much more important.

See, that's the part that's hard for me to handle. Smunkee admits that even when she thinks a major decision is not in the family's best interest, the decision is final because he said so.
She says that, but I don't think it's entirely accurate.

She has clearly expressed that she DOES NOT submit to her husband's decisions purely because he said so. She submits to his decisions because she thinks THE DECISIONS are solid. She has clearly state that she will reject certain decisions, even if he is the one making them. So her acceptance of his decisions is not BECAUSE he said so. It's because the decisions are really hers as much as his, and he happens to be making the decisions she supports.

At no point do you become instinctivly concerned for the welfare of your children that you'd think 'to heck with him, he's made a stupid choice' and do the less harmful / disruptive alternative?

I can appreciate your stance on the relationship, and your reasons for why the relationship is the way that it is, but I'm sorry, that last statement ignores your responsibility as a parent first and foremost.
I put my marriage relationship ahead of my kids. As long as they are not being abused or neglected, then really they are okay.

She has clearly state that she will reject certain decisions, even if he is the one making them.
when? show me.

Can I just ask;

Is the reason you dont question his juedgement because you believe that his decision is guided by his faith, and therefore wouldn't be detrimental to the family?

What makes him superior though? What makes his decisions better?

Can I just ask;

Is the reason you dont question his juedgement because you believe that his decision is guided by his faith, and therefore wouldn't be detrimental to the family?
pretty much.

follow him over the waterfall.

good luck with that.

I actually would submit in all those areas. In fact he made a stock decision that I thought was risky a few years back, I was very uncomfortable with it, but in the end we had 40% gains for 4 years, so I guess I can trust him more next time, if however we had lost the money, it's only money, and my relationship with him is much more important.
I wish I could figure out a non-harsh way to say this, but that sounds unbelievably selfish to me.

You would sacrifice the safety and security of your children just so that you can have a good relationship with a husband who wants to squander your savings on sports cars? You would allow your family to face poverty so that you can be all snuggly with a man who very clearly is not concerned with anybody other than himself?

It's fine for a childless person to fuck up their own life, but I have a problem with any parent who puts their own happiness ahead of their children's welfare. That's just fucked up.

What makes him superior though? What makes his decisions better?
he is not superior other than I have put him in that position. His decisions are not "better" but they are final.

I wish I could figure out a non-harsh way to say this, but that sounds unbelievably selfish to me.

You would sacrifice the safety and security of your children just so that you can have a good relationship with a husband who wants to squander your savings on sports cars? You would allow your family to face poverty so that you can be all snuggly with a man who very clearly is not concerned with anybody other than himself?

It's fine for a childless person to fuck up their own life, but I have a problem with any parent who puts their own happiness ahead of their children's welfare. That's just fucked up.
To be fair, my husband wouldn't make any of those decisions (well, the toothpick ones, or the sports car ones) because he puts the family ahead of himself.

I would assume if he were that selfish though that there would be some type of abuse or neglect and then I would have left.

pretty much.
ah .. of course

because in the presence of God people dont make mistakes.

Do They?

ah .. of course

because in the presence of God people dont make mistakes.

Do They?
everyone makes mistakes, we are human. I am willing to see him through his mistakes.

he is not superior other than I have put him in that position. His decisions are not "better" but they are final.

But why? What makes his input final?

But why? What makes his input final?
I choose to submit to his final decision.

conditional in the sense that if he abuses me in any way at any time I am out the door.

Then you are not submissive, then. You just happen to trust him a lot. At least that's the way I see it.

everyone makes mistakes, we are human. I am willing to see him through his mistakes.

Personally, I couldnt live in a relationship like that.

There is no way that I would let someone else make decisions on my behalf that would harm me or my children, either physically or emotionally or financially. If I truly believed that a decision made on my behalf was flawed, I wouldn't allow it, and I certainly wouldn't follow someone blindly because my faith says I should.

God gave me the ability to choose and judge situations for myself I think I'll take full advantage of this ability.

If he wanted me to submit, he'd have taken away my right to have an opinion.

To be fair, my husband wouldn't make any of those decisions (well, the toothpick ones, or the sports car ones) because he puts the family ahead of himself.
But what if he did? What if your husband decided that your family should literally throw all your money into the garbage, and then go live in a filthy slum?

You would support that decision?


I would assume if he were that selfish though that there would be some type of abuse or neglect and then I would have left.
What if there were no other abuse? Would you still be ok with your kids living in filth, having no medical care, attending terrible schools, and dwelling in a dangerous and violent area? Or would you decide that your husband's "authority" doesn't include his right to make this kind of choice?

What if your husband decided you needed boob implants? What if he decided that you needed to have a few ribs removed, so that you could have a more pleasing shape for him? What if he decided that he wants you to donate both of your kidneys and live on dialysis for the rest of your (very shortened) life?

What if he decided your kids needed to do so?

I know you have limits. You "submit" to a husband who has only so much authority as you choose to give him. And you know it. You don't recognize him as having final authority at all, because you know that you will over-rule him whenever you feel it is necessary.

Now, your definition of "when it is necessary" is different from many women, it's true. But that doesn't change the fact that your husband's decisions are only as final as YOU decide they are.

Personally, I couldnt live in a relationship like that.

There is no way that I would let someone else make decisions on my behalf that would harm me or my children, either physically or emotionally or financially. If I truly believed that a decision made on my behalf was flawed, I wouldn't allow it, and I certainly wouldn't follow someone blindly because my faith says I should.
hurting my children physically or emotionally is abuse. I would leave if there were abuse.

God gave me the ability to choose and judge situations for myself I think I'll take full advantage of. If he wanted me to submit, he'd have taken away my right to have an opinion.
God gave me the ability to choose, and judge situations, I married someone whom I trust enough to submit.

Then you are not submissive, then. You just happen to trust him a lot. At least that's the way I see it.
so for a woman to be truely Biblically submissive you think she must be abused?

Then you are not submissive, then. You just happen to trust him a lot. At least that's the way I see it.

There's no such thing as a true submissive, everyone has their limits.

Trust him a lot, and willing to go with his decisions is, within this context, pretty much the same thing s submission.

But what if he did? What if your husband decided that your family should literally throw all your money into the garbage, and then go live in a filthy slum?

You would support that decision?


What if there were no other abuse? Would you still be ok with your kids living in filth, having no medical care, attending terrible schools, and dwelling in a dangerous and violent area? Or would you decide that your husband's "authority" doesn't include his right to make this kind of choice?

What if your husband decided you needed boob implants? What if he decided that you needed to have a few ribs removed, so that you could have a more pleasing shape for him? What if he decided that he wants you to donate both of your kidneys and live on dialysis for the rest of your (very shortened) life?

What if he decided your kids needed to do so?

I know you have limits. You "submit" to a husband who has only so much authority as you choose to give him. And you know it. You don't recognize him as having final authority at all, because you know that you will over-rule him whenever you feel it is necessary.

Now, your definition of "when it is necessary" is different from many women, it's true. But that doesn't change the fact that your husband's decisions are only as final as YOU decide they are.
I think forcing medical procedures counts as abuse.

But what if he did? What if your husband decided that your family should literally throw all your money into the garbage, and then go live in a filthy slum?

You would support that decision?

I think her point is, she knows him well enough where, he wouldn't. She married her husband because she had a faith in him to make the right decisions, in a way I imagine if he started making decisions that are outragiously wrong, he wouldn't be the man she married, and willingly submitted to.


What if there were no other abuse? Would you still be ok with your kids living in filth, having no medical care, attending terrible schools, and dwelling in a dangerous and violent area? Or would you decide that your husband's "authority" doesn't include his right to make this kind of choice?

What if your husband decided you needed boob implants? What if he decided that you needed to have a few ribs removed, so that you could have a more pleasing shape for him? What if he decided that he wants you to donate both of your kidneys and live on dialysis for the rest of your (very shortened) life?

What if he decided your kids needed to do so?

I think the whole point is, he wouldn't.

I know you have limits. You "submit" to a husband who has only so much authority as you choose to give him. And you know it. You don't recognize him as having final authority at all, because you know that you will over-rule him whenever you feel it is necessary.

Now, your definition of "when it is necessary" is different from many women, it's true. But that doesn't change the fact that your husband's decisions are only as final as YOU decide they are.

Isn't that ALWAYS true? Unless her husband has freaky mind control powers, that is. The whole fundamental aspect of submission, in whatever form, is that it is submission up to a point. And that this submission is absolute, to that point.

Your hypotheticals are kind of irrelevant, because part of the logic of her submission is that he would NEVER DO THAT.

I think forcing medical procedures counts as abuse.
Well, now it's just a semantics game. You say you will "submit" to anything that's not abuse, and then you get to define "abuse" to include whatever you won't submit to.

This thread cleared up a good bit for me.

I think its a perfectly fine way for someone to live their life and marriage, though I doubt I would ever be comfortable living that way myself.

My 2 cents: Smunkee wouldn't have married him if she did not trust that he is a good man and would be a good father. It seems to me, that you submit in the sense you accept decisions even though you may disagree with them. But doesn't that happen in every good reationship? So long as his heart is in the right place, he will only make decisions that he honestly believes are best for his family. And why shouldn't she agree? No one is perfect, including her. So either he makes bad decisions occassionally, or she does, and in her relationship, her husband does. There is often no way of knowing before hand which option would be the best one, especially if both are thinking about what's best for the family. So the odds are pretty much 50/50. If her husband ever stopped submitting to God and doing what he thought was best for the family, it seems Smunkee would stop submitting to him.

Of course, thats my take on it, I don't really know.

Anyway, thanks so much for clearing this up, and putting up with my badgering questions.

I think her point is, she knows him well enough where, he wouldn't. She married her husband because she had a faith in him to make the right decisions, in a way I imagine if he started making decisions that are outragiously wrong, he wouldn't be the man she married, and willingly submitted to.

My point is that, in that case, she is not "submitting" to his "authority." She is choosing to trust the judgment of a person she married.

I think the whole point is, he wouldn't.

No, the point is that if he did, SHE wouldn't. She does NOT submit to him because he is an authority; she submits to his decisions because she feels they are good decisions. If he (the supposed authority) made a decision she felt strongly enough against, then she would not submit to it.


Isn't that ALWAYS true? Unless her husband has freaky mind control powers, that is. The whole fundamental aspect of submission, in whatever form, is that it is submission up to a point. And that this submission is absolute, to that point.

It's not so much about whether or not she is "submitting," it's about what she is submitting to.

Pretty much everybody "submits" to other people's decisions at one time or another. But that doesn't mean you submit to the other PERSON. Smunkee submits to decisions that are made by her husband, so long as those decisions meet her standards. Should his decisions not meet her standards, she will not submit to them.

The thing is, there is no such thing as 100% submission. Even the BDSM community as a whole recognizes that fact. Well, there is a fringe group within that community that argues that the only real submission is total submission, and that one is not a submissive until (s)he submits in all things. Most people reject that idea however...

There is NO SUCH THING as true, 100% submission, and to say she's not really submissive fails to recognize the point that there is no absolute in such a thing. She is, to a point, which she defines....well however the hell she wants to define it.

hurting my children physically or emotionally is abuse. I would leave if there were abuse.


God gave me the ability to choose, and judge situations, I married someone whom I trust enough to submit.


so for a woman to be truely Biblically submissive you think she must be abused?

No, don't place yourself at the defensive. Looks like you're quite proud of your submissive condition, and I already said I have nothing wrong with that.

For me, I don't know in the biblical sense, but being submissive is accepting another wishes above of your own. You are just plainly accpeting your husband's judgment because it helps you with your interest, which is the welfare and care of your family as a whole. Then for me, you are not being submissive by accepting something against your own judgment, but just things that actually go with your wishes and your codes.

I rest my case.

Pretty much everybody "submits" to other people's decisions at one time or another. But that doesn't mean you submit to the other PERSON. Smunkee submits to decisions that are made by her husband, so long as those decisions meet her standards. Should his decisions not meet her standards, she will not submit to them.

Perhaps to a point everyone is submissive to everyone else, to an extent. Howeer if we decide this baseline as "normal" then beyond that is "more submissive than normal".

And if her standards are set far, far narrower than other people, we can define her as "more submissive than normal".

In which case that's the same thing as "submissive beyond the baseline of normal" or "submissive relative to normal". Which is kind of a mouthful so it may serve to just say submissive.

Yes, everyone is, to an extent, and nobody is 100%, but I think there's a range beyond the normal, but not 100% which we can call, if only just for semantic purposes, "submissive", at least relative to baseline normal.

She says that, but I don't think it's entirely accurate.

She has clearly expressed that she DOES NOT submit to her husband's decisions purely because he said so. She submits to his decisions because she thinks THE DECISIONS are solid. She has clearly state that she will reject certain decisions, even if he is the one making them. So her acceptance of his decisions is not BECAUSE he said so. It's because the decisions are really hers as much as his, and he happens to be making the decisions she supports.

I'm only reacting to what she is writing. It's not anything at all against Smunkee (I should think by now it should be obvious to her that I agree with a lot of what she says) but she even said she'd follow him over the waterfall knowing it was disasterous.

How else can one interpret it?

It reminds me of some friends of mine who tell their daughter that she can decide to do X or Y, and discuss all the reasons why they prefer X over Y, and she tells them why she has decided to do Y (with reasons) and then they say, "No, you're doing X!"

Sure, she had input into the conversation, but if they've already decided what the course of action is, why bother to allow the illusion that she has a choice?

for me, you are not being submissive by accepting something against your own judgment, but just things that actually go with your wishes and your codes.

I rest my case.

Accepting something against your own judgment, because you think that someone's wisdom is better than yours, or is in a position where his decision should override yours, is SUBMITTING to that wisdome or authority.

You're playing semantics, if she lets his decision about the family be final, then she is SUBMITTING to his will over hers. Why she does so is somewhat irrelevant.

Personally, I see no problem with Smunkee's relationship (but my GF might disagree :D ). Obviously, she trusts her husband to make the right decisions. There's something else to consider. Perhaps the trust she places in her husband encourages him to make better decisions. Since he knows she'll go along with his choice, maybe he takes a little extra thought to make sure it IS the right choice, not only for him, but also for her, and for the family.

I think her point is, she knows him well enough where, he wouldn't. She married her husband because she had a faith in him to make the right decisions, in a way I imagine if he started making decisions that are outragiously wrong, he wouldn't be the man she married, and willingly submitted to.

I think the whole point is, he wouldn't.

Isn't that ALWAYS true? Unless her husband has freaky mind control powers, that is. The whole fundamental aspect of submission, in whatever form, is that it is submission up to a point. And that this submission is absolute, to that point.

Your hypotheticals are kind of irrelevant, because part of the logic of her submission is that he would NEVER DO THAT.

thats delusional thinking on her part

people change over time. he wouldnt do anything grievously wrong TODAY but in 25 years when he hits his midlife crisis he might well decide that a corvette is worth more than their life savings. (they really should have more than the price of a corvette saved up by then).

he only makes good decisions until he makes bad ones.

to put a better face on bottles example, he could come home from work tonight and announce that he is moving the family to darfur to do missionary work among the refugees. their children will be living in the filth disease and danger of a sudanese refugee camp.

all she would say is "how much can we take with us and when are we leaving?"

thats delusional thinking on her part

people change over time. he wouldnt do anything grievously wrong TODAY but in 25 years when he hits his midlife crisis he might well decide that a corvette is worth more than their life savings. (they really should have more than the price of a corvette saved up by then).

he only makes good decisions until he makes bad ones.

to put a better face on bottles example, he could come home from work tonight and announce that he is moving the family to darfur to do missionary work among the refugees. their children will be living in the filth disease and danger of a sudanese refugee camp.

all she would say is "how much can we take with us and when are we leaving?"
No, I think he'd come home and say "Lets have discussion about moving"
And he would list all the reasons he thinks it a good idea. And she would point out all the reasons its a terrible idea. And he'd mull over it. And if eventually he decided that it really was the best thing for the family, she would trust his judgement. Unless she considers putting children in that environment abusive, which it may be.

thats delusional thinking on her part

people change over time. he wouldnt do anything grievously wrong TODAY but in 25 years when he hits his midlife crisis he might well decide that a corvette is worth more than their life savings. (they really should have more than the price of a corvette saved up by then).

he only makes good decisions until he makes bad ones.

to put a better face on bottles example, he could come home from work tonight and announce that he is moving the family to darfur to do missionary work among the refugees. their children will be living in the filth disease and danger of a sudanese refugee camp.

all she would say is "how much can we take with us and when are we leaving?"

Your argument is that she's not submissive becuase she wouldn't do EVERYTHING he says to. Nobody is, to define that would strip the word "submissive" in interpersonal dynamics of all usefulness.

One could argue that she put her faith in him to make the right decisions based on who he was when they got married.

If his personality shifts to the point that her faith in him becomes misplaced, he is no longer that person, and that understanding is irrelevant. Her own point is that she trusts him NOT to make those decisions, and if the trust no longer exists, then the dynamic may cease to exist.

Accepting something against your own judgment, because you think that someone's wisdom is better than yours, or is in a position where his decision should override yours, is SUBMITTING to that wisdome or authority.

You're playing semantics, if she lets his decision about the family be final, then she is SUBMITTING to his will over hers. Why she does so is somewhat irrelevant.

I am not playing semantics. Plus, I am arguing with Smunkee here, not with you, but if you want to be included. I guess you are a submissive housewife too.

I had a relationship pretty similar to Smunkee's once. It proved to be wrong, so that's why I am against it, although I respect the choice of Smunkee, due to the fact that humans are pretty different, and that not all husbands, or fiancees are the same.

If she agrees with her husband, and wouldn't protest until he does something abusive, then she's not being submissive in my personal view. She just has a lot of trust in him.

Accepting something against your own judgment, because you think that someone's wisdom is better than yours, or is in a position where his decision should override yours, is SUBMITTING to that wisdome or authority.

You're playing semantics, if she lets his decision about the family be final, then she is SUBMITTING to his will over hers. Why she does so is somewhat irrelevant.
thank you.

This is, of course, a joke?
fucking moron
Given that Christianity perpetuates a moral code and social system designed to ensure the survival of a culture nigh on 200 years ago, surely such notions as endorsed and mutually accepted mysogony are a tad anacronistic?

I am not playing semantics. Plus, I am arguing with Smunkee here, not with you, but if you want to be included. I guess you are a submissive housewife too.

I had a relationship pretty similar to Smunkee's once. It proved to be wrong, so that's why I am against it, although I respect the choice of Smunkee, due to the fact that humans are pretty different, and that not all husbands, or fiancees are the same.

If she agrees with her husband, and wouldn't protest until he does something abusive, then she's not being submissive in my personal view. She just has a lot of trust in him.
So, to be truely submissive I must offer myself over to being abused?

This is, of course, a joke?
fucking moron
Given that Christianity perpetuates a moral code and social system designed to ensure the survival of a culture nigh on 200 years ago, surely such notions as endorsed and mutually accepted mysogony are a tad anacronistic?
:confused:

*gets dictionary*

For the record -- I don't think it's that we're all thinking you're a doormat, more than trying to understand it and (at least some of us) being a little worried about what position you'll be in if God forbid it goes sour.

guess you are a submissive housewife too.

I am neither submissive, nor a housewife (you got your roles and genders reversed).

However having some experience in "other" forms of relationships involving submission, my input may be worthwhile on the subject.

She just has a lot of trust in him.

If she has faith in him, and trust in him, that she would defer to his judgment even if she thinks it unwise, then guess what? That's submission.

For the record -- I don't think it's that we're all thinking you're a doormat, more than trying to understand it and (at least some of us) being a little worried about what position you'll be in if God forbid it goes sour.
Would you likewise worry about any one else's relationship in the same way?

I am just wondering why (especially outside of this thred, since I did start the discussion this time) my life choice to submit, is questioned, and other's life choices in their relationships are not.

This is, of course, a joke?
fucking moron
Given that Christianity perpetuates a moral code and social system designed to ensure the survival of a culture nigh on 200 years ago, surely such notions as endorsed and mutually accepted mysogony are a tad anacronistic?

I think there is more wisdom than it seems. To me, it's not so much that Smunkee accepts his decision because he's a man. It's that both parties put the other first! If Smunk had married a jerk, submitting to his wishes would be a disaster, but if he's the right kind of man, he'll put her wishes first and not take advantage of the trust she's placed in him.

You guys argue that "trust" and "submission" are different things. They're really not. One exists for the other, you trust, therefore you submit..

OK, since I've hinted I may as well be upfront. I've been...eh, fairly active in the BD/DS community for, a while now, and have had (and am currently in) a relationship that could be described as one with a dominant/submissive dynamic (maybe relationship is a hard word....think fuck buddy with ropes).

Now my role is quite the opposite of the OPs, call me the (d) in my relationship (which is based on prinicples having NOTHING to do with religion). I suppose that's when I saw "submissive wife" my mind went in that direction.

To talk about my relationship with the "sub" involved. She has her limits and lines. She trusts me not to cross those lines. If I accidently do, she tells me, and it stops.

She is capable of submission because she trusts me not to cross those lines. If I continually cross them without care of her, then that trust is violated.

You can not have submission without trust, they are inoxerably linked.

If he asks me to do something I do it. If we are making a big decision, after discussion whatever his choice is we do it.

I choose to recognize him as authority over me.


Yeah...

So what exactly are you trying to accomplish with this thread?

Would you likewise worry about any one else's relationship in the same way?

I am just wondering why (especially outside of this thred, since I did start the discussion this time) my life choice to submit, is questioned, and other's life choices in their relationships are not.
Yes, if I thought the relationship had the potential to be harmful to anyone in it, I would worry about the person and their relationship.

From this thread (in addition to all your other posts) its obvious that this needn't be a concern.

I think there is more wisdom than it seems. To me, it's not so much that Smunkee accepts his decision because he's a man. It's that both parties put the other first! If Smunk had married a jerk, submitting to his wishes would be a disaster, but if he's the right kind of man, he'll put her wishes first and not take advantage of the trust she's placed in him.
that rings true. We have had discussions where he says "if I had my way we would do this..." and I say "well, if I had my way we would do this..." and then we have to backtrack to what is good for the family, and most of the time it's not really my ideal situation or really his either, it's often times something completely different, a whole new animal so to speak.

We have talked about his struggle with his own selfishness, and how he fights to keep the family interest first, and how my trust in him and my submission makes him fight even harder against his own selfishness.

Your argument is that she's not submissive becuase she wouldn't do EVERYTHING he says to. Nobody is, to define that would strip the word "submissive" in interpersonal dynamics of all usefulness.

One could argue that she put her faith in him to make the right decisions based on who he was when they got married.

If his personality shifts to the point that her faith in him becomes misplaced, he is no longer that person, and that understanding is irrelevant. Her own point is that she trusts him NOT to make those decisions, and if the trust no longer exists, then the dynamic may cease to exist.
no thats HER definition. she said she would follow him over the waterfall. it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable example of a disastrous decision that a religion man might make.

the delusional part is where she (or the post i was quoting when i used the word delusional) thinks that there willl never be a time in the next 5 decades where she MUST stop his terrible decision. its delusional to expect a man to always do the right thing forever. its just not human to never do stupid selfish things.

Yeah...

So what exactly are you trying to accomplish with this thread?
people had questions, I try to answer.

no thats HER definition. she said she would follow him over the waterfall. it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable example of a disastrous decision that a religion man might make.

the delusional part is where she (or the post i was quoting when i used the word delusional) thinks that there willl never be a time in the next 5 decades where she MUST stop his terrible decision. its delusional to expect a man to always do the right thing forever. its just not human to never do stupid selfish things.
I never assume that he won't make a selfish decision, I know he will. I wouldn't have married him if I thought it would be a problem though. He is as selfless as I have ever seen a person. I don't expect him to ever be perfect, I can live with his imperfections.

Would you likewise worry about any one else's relationship in the same way?

I am just wondering why (especially outside of this thred, since I did start the discussion this time) my life choice to submit, is questioned, and other's life choices in their relationships are not.
probably simply because it seems to be a regression from all the social advances made by liberalism and feminism over the last century or so. or at least it does til we actually uncover how your relationship really works i.e. that you have a fairly egalitarian relationship but you just palm off the responsibility for decision making to your husband and appear to consider his decision making capabilities superior to your own for whatever reason.

I never assume that he won't make a selfish decision, I know he will. I wouldn't have married him if I thought it would be a problem though. He is as selfless as I have ever seen a person. I don't expect him to ever be perfect, I can live with his imperfections.

I think the problem is that when you said you'd follow him "over the waterfall" people took that to mean that you'd not just follow him if he made a selfish decision, but you'd follow him through a decision you KNEW would be CATASTROPHIC.

As in, not just a bad decision, but one with a very clear potential of great harm (IE I follow you over the waterfall, even knowing I"m going to be dashed to bits and killed through it).

I think that's what's giving people concern...

you are talking about sexual submission? that is a different thing entirely.


he is not responisble for my well being, he is responsible for the family's well being. He does not need to know all the answers, he needs to know how to lead, and he needs to lead selflessly.
That sounds less like submitting more like going with the flow with veto power … you add qualifiers (his benevolence) to what you will or will not follow. This is less “submissive” in my mind really (and more healthy)

probably simply because it seems to be a regression from all the social advances made by liberalism and feminism over the last century or so. or at least it does til we actually uncover how your relationship really works i.e. that you have a fairly egalitarian relationship but you just palm off the responsibility for decision making to your husband and appear to consider his decision making capabilities superior to your own for whatever reason.
nice cynical view you got there.

Would you likewise worry about any one else's relationship in the same way?

I am just wondering why (especially outside of this thred, since I did start the discussion this time) my life choice to submit, is questioned, and other's life choices in their relationships are not.
online everyone's life choices are questioned.

how hard its debated is dependant on the personality of the people invovled. (for example, i didnt participate in deep kimchis thread on swinging even though i think its one of the most stupid decision a couple with small children can make)

I think the problem is that when you said you'd follow him "over the waterfall" people took that to mean that you'd not just follow him if he made a selfish decision, but you'd follow him through a decision you KNEW would be CATASTROPHIC.

As in, not just a bad decision, but one with a very clear potential of great harm (IE I follow you over the waterfall, even knowing I"m going to be dashed to bits and killed through it).

I think that's what's giving people concern...
as long as I consent and am not being abused then why should they care?

Would you likewise worry about any one else's relationship in the same way?

I am just wondering why (especially outside of this thred, since I did start the discussion this time) my life choice to submit, is questioned, and other's life choices in their relationships are not.
You kidding I question a lot of lifestyles … this one is just more “Mulled over” because it is more “Traditional” and has more members then just about any out of norm lifestyle. It is also a concern to many that have fought for equality (rightly or wrongly it is a concern)

That sounds less like submitting more like going with the flow with veto power … you add qualifiers (his benevolence) to what you will or will not follow. This is less “submissive” in my mind really (and more healthy)
my only qualifier is that he is not abusive.

nice cynical view you got there.
only cuz i know i'd be the same, i'm just bitter cuz i don't think i'd get away with it ;). i know that most people have a greater faculty for decision making than me but people don't seem to let me shirk my responsibility as much as i'd like to.

You kidding I question a lot of lifestyles … this one is just more “Mulled over” because it is more “Traditional” and has more members then just about any out of norm lifestyle. It is also a concern to many that have fought for equality (rightly or wrongly it is a concern)
I don't see my submission as making me "less of a person" though.

as long as I consent and am not being abused then why should they care?
Because we care about people? We care about society and all the harm a twisted version of what you have harmed it (not saying exactly like yours but a form of submissiveness harmed a lot of people in the past)

I don't see my submission as making me "less of a person" though.
You don’t, no but yours is an awfully similar lifestyle to those that did enable women to be treated as a second class citizen. Some people are scared that we will shift back into that because that sort of society removed their choice to NOT be able to choose what they wanted.

Because we care about people? We care about society and all the harm a twisted version of what you have harmed it (not saying exactly like yours but a form of submissiveness harmed a lot of people in the past)
true. I started the thred to seperate "my form" from the popular view of what it means to be submissive.

my only qualifier is that he is not abusive.
Its still a qualifier … personally I would have a lot more then that

I never assume that he won't make a selfish decision, I know he will. I wouldn't have married him if I thought it would be a problem though. He is as selfless as I have ever seen a person. I don't expect him to ever be perfect, I can live with his imperfections.
good luck with that

i prefer a system where equal partners hold similar values and plans for their family and work together to keep each other from making those horrible decisions. you will have to work hard to repair the damage done in either system, its easier if you didnt let him make the mistake.

So, to be truely submissive I must offer myself over to being abused?

In my opinion, to be truly submissive, yes.

To be relatively submissive, no. To be conditionally submissive, you just need to do exactly what you are doing now.

To be biblical submissive, well...I have no idea

true. I started the thred to seperate "my form" from the popular view of what it means to be submissive.
I know and I am trying to be honest and clear as much as I personally detest that sort of lifestyle (sense we are being honest I had to say it … so you know where I am coming from)

So I am being intellectually honest that there are some differences (not enough in my opinion) between what you are choosing and what used to happen. Exactly for that reason you had the CHOICE to do as you wanted

People are worried that as it used to be their choice will be removed … we are still quite a ways from equality in the sexes and if the female side gives up they may never achieve it

good luck with that

i prefer a system where equal partners hold similar values and plans for their family and work together to keep each other from making those horrible decisions. you will have to work hard to repair the damage done in either system, its easier if you didnt let him make the mistake.
in the end all I can really do is voice my opinion, absent of any mind control I can't make him decide something the way I want it, so how is that different than they type of relationship you describe?

In my opinion, to be truly submissive, yes.

To be relatively submissive, no. To be conditionally submissive, you just need to do exactly what you are doing now.

To be biblical submissive, well...I have no idea
A Biblically submissive relationship requires actions from both partners.

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

I’ve only been following this thread sporadically, so my apologies if I’m asking something that’s already been addressed…

Why do you believe that being a submissive wife is a preferable family structure choice to one where both spouses share authority in making family decisions, neither “submitting” to the other? Is there a reason beyond biblical scripture that you’ve made this choice?

in the end all I can really do is voice my opinion, absent of any mind control I can't make him decide something the way I want it, so how is that different than they type of relationship you describe?
Only in the effect that you wont do anything about it if he makes a bad decision. Personally I find that a weakness in a relationship.

I have no problem letting my GF decide just about anything, I am often indecisive in the small things (where we going to eat what you want to do sort of things) but in the end if she makes a bad big decision I am willing to fight it to make sure that we both are better off. I have saved us a few times by speaking up and will never give up my ability to make her listen to reason (well not make but motivate) when I know something she is doing is wrong

If thats what you like, so be it.

I’ve only been following this thread sporadically, so my apologies if I’m asking something that’s already been addressed…

Why do you believe that being a submissive wife is a preferable family structure choice to one where both spouses share authority in making family decisions, neither “submitting” to the other? Is there a reason beyond biblical scripture that you’ve made this choice?
I believe that both partners should put the general good of the family above their own desires, therefore my husband submits his will to God, making decisions that are best for the entire family and I submit my will to him, trusting in those decisions.

A Biblically submissive relationship requires actions from both partners.
Yeah but it provides no exception clause … you are required to be submissive regardless if he fulfills his end of the bargain (and conversely he is required to fulfill his part regardless of your submissiveness)

http://www.surrenderedwife.com/

Anyone mentioned that URL yet?

Personally, speaking as someone with a penis, I'd be damned uncomfortable with someone who was so submissive. Then again, horses for courses...

Only in the effect that you wont do anything about it if he makes a bad decision. Personally I find that a weakness in a relationship.

I have no problem letting my GF decide just about anything, I am often indecisive in the small things (where we going to eat what you want to do sort of things) but in the end if she makes a bad big decision I am willing to fight it to make sure that we both are better off. I have saved us a few times by speaking up and will never give up my ability to make her listen to reason (well not make but motivate) when I know something she is doing is wrong
I speak up before the decsion is handed down (so to speak) I am included in the decision making process, I get to make my case, we discuss everything in detail, but in the end he makes the final decision.

I believe that both partners should put the general good of the family above their own desires, therefore my husband submits his will to God, making decisions that are best for the entire family and I submit my will to him, trusting in those decisions.
But in the end he will fail … even if he with all his heart thinks it is the right decision if he fails to listen to you, you have given up your power to make sure that what he is doing is truly right for the family.

A Biblically submissive relationship requires actions from both partners.

I think that's the part people overlook. They see you use the word "submissive", but they don't think about the husband's desire to be worthy of that trust. It has to work both ways.

I believe that both partners should put the general good of the family above their own desires, therefore my husband submits his will to God, making decisions that are best for the entire family and I submit my will to him, trusting in those decisions.

so do you believe that when two people share authority, that they are unable to put the good of the family above their so-called personal desires?

I speak up before the decsion is handed down (so to speak) I am included in the decision making process, I get to make my case, we discuss everything in detail, but in the end he makes the final decision.
And if he thinks his decision is right and yours is wrong, but in truth his is wrong you have given up your ability to also see that what is right for your family is what is actually done.

To me if that happened not only would he have failed but you would have too, you gave up on what you knew was right to submit to him and your family is worse off for it

in the end all I can really do is voice my opinion, absent of any mind control I can't make him decide something the way I want it, so how is that different than they type of relationship you describe?
the difference is that i will NEVER accept a stupid, selfish disastrous decision. i wont go along with a big decision that i know is wrong, i will do whatever i can to stop it.

he can still decide things that apply to him alone, like quit his job without having another one lined up, for example. i couldnt stop him from doing that no matter how loudly i objected. but i could keep him from selling the house and moving us all to darfur.

so do you believe that when two people share authority, that they are unable to put the good of the family above their so-called personal desires?
if you put yourself first you are unable to at a basic level even understand what would be "good for the family" because you are always looking out for what's "good for you"


btw I would never try to force this lifestyle on anyone.

I think that's the part people overlook. They see you use the word "submissive", but they don't think about the husband's desire to be worthy of that trust. It has to work both ways.
But this is not stated with exception clauses … if he fails on his part where does it say what should happen? Should she continue being submissive even though he has not up healed his part? I see no part in the quoted scripture that would say that.

if you put yourself first you are unable to at a basic level even understand what would be "good for the family" because you are always looking out for what's "good for you"


btw I would never try to force this lifestyle on anyone.
There is absolutely nothing that says that both partners cant put their family first.

okay, I have to go to work now. I will be back later....

http://www.surrenderedwife.com/

Anyone mentioned that URL yet?

Personally, speaking as someone with a penis, I'd be damned uncomfortable with someone who was so submissive. Then again, horses for courses...

Understandable. I like to joke that I'd like my GF to submit to me, but if she really did, I'd feel pressured to make the right decision. I think it could work for the right couple, but it not only requires a lot of trust for the woman, but puts a lot of pressure on the man. And of course, with the wrong man it would be a disaster.

Understandable. I like to joke that I'd like my GF to submit to me, but if she really did, I'd feel pressured to make the right decision. I think it could work for the right couple, but it not only requires a lot of trust for the woman, but puts a lot of pressure on the man. And of course, with the wrong man it would be a disaster.
I trust my girlfriend with my life … I also trust her to be human and fail even through no fault of her own. I therefore think it is stupid to give up my ability to help determine the future when I know a certain decision is wrong.

I could never be in such a relationship, but if that's what floats your collective boats it's not my place to tell you not to.

i don't understand. how do you 'submit' to someone? do you mean like you'll do whatever he tells you any time whatever it is and never say or do what you want? or is it something less extreme than that?Who cares about all that stuff..

Tell us about the Sex, + all the juicy details :D

if you put yourself first you are unable to at a basic level even understand what would be "good for the family" because you are always looking out for what's "good for you"


btw I would never try to force this lifestyle on anyone.

i don't put myself first. i put my family first. that is the collective of people who i am responsible for. my husband does the same. we are the heads of the house, not him, and not me. it is a shared responsibility, not an issue of authority or control. the only people who we have authority over is our children, since they are not equipped to survive on their own.

and i didn't say you're trying to force it on anyone. i am trying to discover why you think it is preferable to other arrangements. and as i said earlier, i respect your right to feel this way. i amsimply trying to understand if there is a basis for it beyond biblical scripture.

(for the record, even when i was single and had no children, i still understood the idea that my personal "desires" sometimes had to be subjugated to the good of my long term future. however to a certain extent, i will agree that i do have to look out for my personal good, because there are circumstances where doing so directly impacts the quality of my family.

Understandable. I like to joke that I'd like my GF to submit to me, but if she really did, I'd feel pressured to make the right decision. I think it could work for the right couple, but it not only requires a lot of trust for the woman, but puts a lot of pressure on the man. And of course, with the wrong man it would be a disaster.
that kind of pressure can cause a good man to cover up bad decisions until they snowball out of control and become disasters. thats why its always good for people to keep an eye on the family finances even if the other partner is fully responsible for it.

I think there is more wisdom than it seems. To me, it's not so much that Smunkee accepts his decision because he's a man. It's that both parties put the other first! If Smunk had married a jerk, submitting to his wishes would be a disaster, but if he's the right kind of man, he'll put her wishes first and not take advantage of the trust she's placed in him.

I stand by the assertion that the wisdom, if indeed it constitutes that is purely incidental, whilst I would also maintain that the process disempowers her to an awful extent.

OK, Smunkee, as you say this is your decision and I admire you if that is what you believe as an article of faith and you feel that this is what God is asking of you and it makes you and your husband equally happy, then good for you.

I am assuming however that you are not talking of being submissive in the Muslim sense of marriage? you don't, I assume, walk behind your husband in public etc?

I think that this is not a way that I would or could choose for myself and my two daughters and also I would not wish it for my son. My relationship is a partnership of equals, where we don't always agree but compromise. I don't think that he knows any better than me about how we should do things, and he doesn't think that I do either. We do butt heads on things that we both consider to be important, and although we sometimes come at things from a different place, we are honest and open and even if it is not always positive, we always communicate and it helps to build and strengthen our relationship, a relationship of equals, both with valid and important opinions and points of view. Our home is happier as a result and I am not sending a message to my daughters that their opinions are less valid or important than my partners, my sons or in fact, ANYBODY'S.

I think that when people hear the word 'submissive', they think of it in a different context than the way Smunkee is describing it. As far as her marriage, while I don't think it would work for me, it doesn't really seem all that bad, and more importantly, if it makes her and her family happy, then perhaps it's a better situation than other types of relationships that they could have.

But in the end he will fail … even if he with all his heart thinks it is the right decision if he fails to listen to you, you have given up your power to make sure that what he is doing is truly right for the family.
If he fails, then he fails. Sometimes, people fail, even when their decision is completely right to begin with. That's life.

What really sets people apart is how they deal with the failures. In her submission, there will be no blaming, no accusations. If his decision ends up a bad one, and cause their family some temporary harm, she will do everything in her power/ability to alleviate that harm. Just as she knows her husband will as well.

In a more "modern" relationship, if a decision is made by one partner that turns out bad, then the other, more often than not feels slighted or bitter because their idea wasn't followed. Fights, verbal and potentially physical, follow. But I can all but guarantee you that this will never happen in Smunkee's family.

Submission is about trust. It is the ultimate form of trust. She trusts her husband will make decisions to the best of his ability in the best interest of their family as a whole. He trusts in his relationship with God to help him make his decisions as selfless as possible and with the best interest of his family in mind.

And to answer an earlier question raised in this thread, she submits to her husband because it works for them. Men submit to women as well, because it works for them. Men submit to their male partners, just as women submit to their female partners. It doesn't matter which sex submits to which, it's all about whichever works for them.

And lastly, if you just can't understand it, that's fine. It would never work for you. However it does work for Smunkee. Don't try to tear her down. Don't try to, as some have done belittle her just because you don't agree with her. Try being a little more tolerant.

If he fails, then he fails. Sometimes, people fail, even when their decision is completely right to begin with. That's life.

What really sets people apart is how they deal with the failures. In her submission, there will be no blaming, no accusations. If his decision ends up a bad one, and cause their family some temporary harm, she will do everything in her power/ability to alleviate that harm. Just as she knows her husband will as well.

In a more "modern" relationship, if a decision is made by one partner that turns out bad, then the other, more often than not feels slighted or bitter because their idea wasn't followed. Fights, verbal and potentially physical, follow. But I can all but guarantee you that this will never happen in Smunkee's family.

Submission is about trust. It is the ultimate form of trust. She trusts her husband will make decisions to the best of his ability in the best interest of their family as a whole. He trusts in his relationship with God to help him make his decisions as selfless as possible and with the best interest of his family in mind.

And to answer an earlier question raised in this thread, she submits to her husband because it works for them. Men submit to women as well, because it works for them. Men submit to their male partners, just as women submit to their female partners. It doesn't matter which sex submits to which, it's all about whichever works for them.

And lastly, if you just can't understand it, that's fine. It would never work for you. However it does work for Smunkee. Don't try to tear her down. Don't try to, as some have done belittle her just because you don't agree with her. Try being a little more tolerant.

First point I absolutely do not see how submissiveness makes the relationship more stable in the case of a failure. The submissive party (if it was me) would STILL feel slighted if my advice was not took and would still be upset on some level that while the information was there I was not important enough for my decision to have been accepted.

Your example on how they recover more has to do with the individuals then their relationship setup.

How have I been tearing her down hell how has anyone … from what I have read from this thread I am proud of NS general for trying to understand and talk through her decision and civilly show or demonstrate how they would act in their relationship.

In a more "modern" relationship, if a decision is made by one partner that turns out bad, then the other, more often than not feels slighted or bitter because their idea wasn't followed. Fights, verbal and potentially physical, follow. But I can all but guarantee you that this will never happen in Smunkee's family.

unless you happen to know smunkee very well you cant tell what her reaction to disaster would be.

no one knows how they will react to disaster until that disaster happens. some deal with it well, some fall to pieces and blame it on whoever it can be blamed on.

unless you happen to know smunkee very well you cant tell what her reaction to disaster would be.

no one knows how they will react to disaster until that disaster happens. some deal with it well, some fall to pieces and blame it on whoever it can be blamed on.

Yes, and that's true regardless of whether the decision is made by one person or two.

In a more "modern" relationship, if a decision is made by one partner that turns out bad, then the other, more often than not feels slighted or bitter because their idea wasn't followed. Fights, verbal and potentially physical, follow. But I can all but guarantee you that this will never happen in Smunkee's family.

But that's a function of maturity of the people involved, not the hierarchy of the family.



And to answer an earlier question raised in this thread, she submits to her husband because it works for them. Men submit to women as well, because it works for them. Men submit to their male partners, just as women submit to their female partners. It doesn't matter which sex submits to which, it's all about whichever works for them.

But surely you can see how people don't see why any one spouse/partner has to submit to the other in order to have a healthy family. I don't run my family as a dictatorship, however benevolent a dictator I might be.


And lastly, if you just can't understand it, that's fine. It would never work for you. However it does work for Smunkee. Don't try to tear her down. Don't try to, as some have done belittle her just because you don't agree with her. Try being a little more tolerant.

I really don't think any one here is trying to tear her down. But to dismiss someone as selfish because they don't submit or subjugate is equally intolerant.

As promised to a few people yesterday (and a few more about 2 weeks ago) I am starting a thred about my choice to submit to my husband. I know it creeps out a lot of people and confuses them, and well some people just think it's wrong.

I know you all have questions, I will try to answer them. I also am wondering why people seem to think it's their job to point out to me the "error of my ways" when it's not okay for me to run around trying to criticize other people's life choices, I mean seriously if we are two consenting adults, does it really matter to you how we structure our relationship?

Frankly, the title of your thread sounds like a kinky S&M porn book/video...

Yes, and that's true regardless of whether the decision is made by one person or two.
i completely agree.

that doesnt change my point.

I really don't think any one here is trying to tear her down. But to dismiss someone as selfish because they don't submit or subjugate is equally intolerant.
I hope you don't think that I think that people who are not in a relationship structured like mine are bad or anything, just different.

First point I absolutely do not see how submissiveness makes the relationship more stable in the case of a failure. The submissive party (if it was me) would STILL feel slighted if my advice was not took and would still be upset on some level that while the information was there I was not important enough for my decision to have been accepted.
I would not feel resentful or spiteful, or even upset in the situation. Things happen stuff gets screwed up, it's not something I can affect a change in by being emotional.


How have I been tearing her down hell how has anyone … from what I have read from this thread I am proud of NS general for trying to understand and talk through her decision and civilly show or demonstrate how they would act in their relationship.
in the strict boundry of this thred I have not felt "torn down" very much least of all by you. I do think someone called me "sick" and a few people generalize that I must be weak or stupid, but I am pretty used to that.

I would not feel resentful or spiteful, or even upset in the situation. Things happen stuff gets screwed up, it's not something I can affect a change in by being emotional.



in the strict boundry of this thred I have not felt "torn down" very much least of all by you. I do think someone called me "sick" and a few people generalize that I must be weak or stupid, but I am pretty used to that.
First point I understand that’s why I was trying to point out it is less the relationship style more the people involved in it that would determine how “hurt” the partners felt.

The second part I did not get to ALL the thread and did not see those posts (I am sorry you had to endure them)

You know Smunkee, the more I read, the more I'm pissed that your husband found you first. :D tell him he is one Lucky Bastard. ;)

I'm happy that you found someone whom is worthy of your trust and love, and I belive that you were and are blessed after all the trials and tribulations you suffered. :fluffle:

To everyone else, the lifestyle that Smunkee chose is one that she is happy with. we really cannot critisise nor judge what is right or wrong since she is happy with it. if she were complaining and lamenting her lot in life, then I can see the questioning of her submitting to her husband, but she seems happy and (from what was posted) her husband is treating her with respect and kindness.

if such a lifestyle is not for you, then I can only hope and pray that you do find a relationship that suites you (and if you have, congratulations)

Peace and Love Smunkee.

First point I understand that’s why I was trying to point out it is less the relationship style more the people involved in it that would determine how “hurt” the partners felt.
I see your point. ;)

The second part I did not get to ALL the thread and did not see those posts (I am sorry you had to endure them)
I expected worse to tell you the truth, all in all people have been quite civil.

btw, you and I have gotten into pretty deep debates of questioning what I believe and why and I enjoy them, you are not quick to take a cheap shot which makes it even more comfortable for me to question things.

I see your point. ;)


I expected worse to tell you the truth, all in all people have been quite civil.

btw, you and I have gotten into pretty deep debates of questioning what I believe and why and I enjoy them, you are not quick to take a cheap shot which makes it even more comfortable for me to question things.
Lol I try to understand everyone sometimes it is hard with bigots and other self deluded individuals but those that can recognize the humanity in others are easy to deal with. We may not agree on a lot of things from religion to your choice of relationship style but I am sure we can at least agree on some common ground and work from there…

And lol I don’t pretend to keep myself from going for the jugular (not quite the same as a “cheep shot” ) if I feel I have an opening or a strong point.

And lol I don’t pretend to keep myself from going for the jugular (not quite the same as a “cheep shot” ) if I feel I have an opening or a strong point.
if you ever have a point strong enough that I have no reply then I really need to step back and reconsider don't I ?;)

As I've said before, it is the choice of the "submissive" spouse to be so, if that's what she really desires. Personally, however, I find the entire concept of one party being submissive in a marriage and the various candy-coated justifications for it to be thinly veiled sexism.

if you ever have a point strong enough that I have no reply then I really need to step back and reconsider don't I ?;)
Exactly … I seem to remember doing that to you and you me before … that consideration and realizing the possibility of error is always a good thing.

In my opinion, to be truly submissive, yes.

To be relatively submissive, no. To be conditionally submissive, you just need to do exactly what you are doing now.

To be biblical submissive, well...I have no idea[/QUOTE]

There is NO SUCH THING as "truly submissive" by your definition, all submission is conditional submission. So instead of clarifying that all submission is, in fact "conditional submission" and having that mouthful every time, we can just accept that in reality, the definition of submission, as applied to PEOPLE, is ALWAYS conditional submission.

Then we can just say "submission" with the qualifier of "conditional" assumed.

As I've said before, it is the choice of the "submissive" spouse to be so, if that's what she really desires. Personally, however, I find the entire concept of one party being submissive in a marriage and the various candy-coated justifications for it to be thinly veiled sexism.
I veiw it more like there can only be one leader. in a family, it has to be one head of household. Smunkee decided that her husband is that head. some have the Wife as the head. the problem occures when both wants to be the head of household and won't reliquish the position to the other.

Understandable. I like to joke that I'd like my GF to submit to me, but if she really did, I'd feel pressured to make the right decision. I think it could work for the right couple, but it not only requires a lot of trust for the woman, but puts a lot of pressure on the man. And of course, with the wrong man it would be a disaster.

I think if you asked most people in dominant/submissive lifestyles, either in a sexual sense, a lifestyle sense, or in a biblical/family sense, you'll find that this is one of the biggest concerns for the "dominant" in it, the pressure to have the ability to royally screw up on accident and not be stopped.

I veiw it more like there can only be one leader. in a family, it has to be one head of household. Smunkee decided that her husband is that head. some have the Wife as the head. the problem occures when both wants to be the head of household and won't reliquish the position to the other.

well, some organizations are run by a president or ceo and some by a board of directors. and yet, both types of organizations manage to survive and thrive. why not with families?

I veiw it more like there can only be one leader. in a family, it has to be one head of household. Smunkee decided that her husband is that head. some have the Wife as the head. the problem occures when both wants to be the head of household and won't reliquish the position to the other.
There are plenty of ways to have two heads of the household.

Hell look at my parents my mom tends to take charge of the financial situation bills and checkbook balancing because she has more patience for such things then my dad. My dad tends to be in charge of researching and going through with large purchases though (as long as the financial part is alright) things like cars and boats and land he is the one that makes that sort of decisions.

It has worked for them for 30 years or so

It has worked for them for 30 years or so

It works for some, not for others. That type of dynamic would obviously not work for her.

I veiw it more like there can only be one leader. in a family, it has to be one head of household. Smunkee decided that her husband is that head. some have the Wife as the head. the problem occures when both wants to be the head of household and won't reliquish the position to the other.
Why does there have to be one leader? In the case of government, most of us would call that system a dictatorship, a system that is typically oppressive...

It works for some, not for others. That type of dynamic would obviously not work for her.
Right, because that wouldn't reflect the chauvinistic views of men from more than 2,000 years ago...

It works for some, not for others. That type of dynamic would obviously not work for her.
And that’s why I respect her choice (as stated over and over and over) while still wishing to discuss it and “Wrap my head” around her state of mind.

I don’t have to agree with something to respect that persons right to choose it

Why does there have to be one leader? In the case of government, most of us would call that system a dictatorship, a system that is typically oppressive...

Because people, by definition, do not chose to be under the thumb of oppressive dictators, if they did, then that's their choice.

Right, because that wouldn't reflect the chauvinistic views of men from more than 2,000 years ago...

Which is HER CHOICE.

Would you like tea and crumpits?

Would you like tea and crumpits?
I would 'cause I'm Winston Churchill!

Which is HER CHOICE.
Yeah, no shit...I didn't say it wasn't. In fact, I've said that plenty of times. But, it's also my choice to not accept such a decision as being a valid one.

Because people, by definition, do not chose to be under the thumb of oppressive dictators, if they did, then that's their choice.
Exactly my point. I think a lot of us would agree that it's quite a bizarre choice to choose to live under a dictator...

I would 'cause I'm Winston Churchill!
*flees*
This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 21 seconds.

And that’s why I respect her choice (as stated over and over and over) while still wishing to discuss it and “Wrap my head” around her state of mind.

I don’t have to agree with something to respect that persons right to choose it

As I said in an earlier post in this thread, I'm currently involved in a dominant/submissive "relationship" (put in parenthesis because I hesitate to call our current level of commitment a relationship, not because I don't believe a d/s dynamic can form a proper relationship).

In my case the role is reversed however. In our case she (she being the s in our dynamic, not the OP, who I'll call the OP) has a submissive role, although not for ANY of the reasons the OP puts forth (it's not a religious thing at all). We have our lines and our boundaries, which are mutually discussed and agreed to, and followed.

If a line accidentally gets crossed, it gets corrected. Most people couldn't "wrap their heads" around that kind of relationship either, and are often quick to dismiss it as "wrong", which I never understood. How could something, anything, engaged in by consenting adults, limited to consenting adults, and harms nobody that does not wish to be harmed, be wrong?

well, some organizations are run by a president or ceo and some by a board of directors. and yet, both types of organizations manage to survive and thrive. why not with families?
and the president runs that corporation, with a board of Directors, there is the Chairman of the board. one leader, one figure that has the ability to make the ultimate decision.

Yeah, no shit...I didn't say it wasn't. In fact, I've said that plenty of times. But, it's also my choice to not accept such a decision as being a valid one.

It may not be a valid choice for you to live under, but how could any decision, made by a rational consenting adult on how to live his/her life be invalid? The very definition of making a choice, with consent, MAKES it valid.

It just may not be one you could chose for yourself, but that does not make it an invalid relationship dynamic for her because you wouldn't do it.

You're not her.

If a line accidentally gets crossed, it gets corrected. Most people couldn't "wrap their heads" around that kind of relationship either, and are often quick to dismiss it as "wrong", which I never understood. How could something, anything, engaged in by consenting adults, limited to consenting adults, and harms nobody that does not wish to be harmed, be wrong?
Because it doesn't respect the dignity of one of the parties involved. Sure, the party herself may see it fine to be disrespected, but that still doesn't make it right.