Was this woman a SELFISH person for doing this?

[KayHarkerIsPlayingWithMitchell]

I read today.

I have to ask, (aside from the religious element, which I know you won't all share) is she right that her first response was bad?

WWYD? Would it involve rubbing feet?

Yes, they were both indulging selfishness. I don't think one should take turns ranting with the other appeasing, I think one should share one's woes whilst mutual foot rubbing is occurring. Seriously, if you sit each end of sofa is do-able.

you see I rather like "The Message" take on the whole thing

"Wives, understand and support your husbands in ways that show your support for Christ. The husband provides leadership to his wife the way Christ does to his church, not by domineering but by cherishing. So just as the church submits to Christ as he exercises such leadership, wives should likewise submit to their husbands."

God by his very nature gives the church (the people that is) the freedom to make their own choices, he doesn't love them any less if they don't do exactly what he wants and the NT god also doesn't punish them (no locusts and droughts etc). He lets the church basically make it's own choices without any repercussions on them and even still supporting them when they take the "wrong" routes.

So if the man is doing as he should be doing he should be allowing his wife to make decisions, listening to her and supporting her in them, as well as vice versa

"surely your husband wants you to be happy and feel fulfilled. "

exactly - and God wants the church (people) to be happy and fulfilled so therefore if the man is following the "rules" he should be allowing his wife the same freedom iykwim

KayHarker, how long have you been married? The difficulty is that from what I can gather all of you are being pressurised (and when people throw the Bible into the mix, the pressure becomes immense) into a way of life that is simply not benefitting you. Think of it as a road to Damascus experience - your eyes have been opened and, as you yourself have said, it's basicaly impossible to close them again. There's nothing ungodly in that.

Have you thought about seeking the counsel of a mature Chrisitan woman who's outside your circle? You could find a spiritual director or a counsellor, or anyone who practices the faith with a different viewpoint from yours, to get an informed perspective on how other Christians do marriage.

Also I'm willing to bet that at least one of your friendship circle (male and female) feels as crushed as you do, but just hasn't spoken about it.

But it only says that because if God got hacked off everytime someone screwed up He'd be out of business.
I'm sure God would like to say, 'you moany old nag, have a bit of consideration., I'm not giving YOU another foot rub til next December'.

HEr husbsnd is a wanker. An awful lot of couples who subscribe to this particular bullshit are in abusive relationships, with the men being inadequate small-cocked scumbags who feel entitled to bully and control their wives because hey, their imaginary friend says that women are inferior and exist only as service appliances.
You get wankers like this on the BDSM scene as well.

I would add, actually, that for a relationship like this to work it's got to have a proper bdsm dynamic to it ie some people are naturally very submissive and others are naturally very dominant (this has nothing to do with gender when you take superstition and sexism out of the equation). I have known some happy couples where one is Master/Mistress and the other Servant/Slave and it suits them fine. THough I do think the BDSM version generally healthier than the superstitious one becase the BDSM folks will have done a lot more thinking and talking before setting up home togehter.

I would add, actually, that for a relationship like this to work it's got to have a proper bdsm dynamic to it ie some people are naturally very submissive and others are naturally very dominant (this has nothing to do with gender when you take superstition and sexism out of the equation). I have known some happy couples where one is Master/Mistress and the other Servant/Slave and it suits them fine. THough I do think the BDSM version generally healthier than the superstitious one becase the BDSM folks will have done a lot more thinking and talking before setting up home togehter.

that's the problem though sgb - too many couples don't get past the "wives submit to your husbands" bit - and it does turn into abuse - but if they get past that bit and read a bit further on and look at how the man is supposed to be behave (not like a domineering twat whose word is absolute on everything) then it's perfectly possible for people to have a very happy, abuse free, marriage using it.

Whoops sorry, hit button twice.

You can do that without any mention of submission.

SGB, as usual that's harsh, but I can't disagree with the main thrust of it. He is a decent man, though - he's looked after the house and children when she's been ill before, and the point of this kind of thing is that both parties are fully engaged with the mindset.

tmmj, I suppose it is brainwashing to certain extent. I do often feel like I'm trying to shake off a sleeping drug or something when I am faced with this.

MrsMH, been married the best part of a decade. I don't actually know many people outside this circle, except online. I don't physically get to our church much because of my health. I am quite isolated, really.

I really disliked the image of her rubbing her husband's feet as 'penance.'

I'm an atheist but I have some friends who are committed christians and none of them have relationships like this. They seem to actually have a laugh for a start...

That site is like going back two centuries.

The problem for me is that?s it?s a package, and I don?t go along with everything in the package. So there is this weird sub-culture that goes along with (in particular American) ?biblical womanhood?, that involves home ed, wearing flowery dresses and voting the way your husband thinks you should in elections, and a stcak of other things that make my stomach turn. Whereas I don?t have too much of a problem with the theological principles, but they just look very different in the way they work themselves out in my life.

So in the Procrastinating household, DH comes home after a long and stressful day and I have a bad-tempered rant about everything that?s gone wrong and how tired and fed-up I am. I realise after about 30 minutes of foot-stamping that I?m being pretty selfish considering that his day hasn?t been great either. I apologise for being a twat and give him a hug, he says don?t worry about it, you sound fairly stressed, why don?t I cook the kids tea. I say, no it?s fine, you?ve got more meetings this evening, go play with the kids and let?s talk later. And later, I feel fine and we watch some Mad Men and talk smugly about how disturbed post-war male/female relationships were .

Once I take out the repenting and forgiving language (and the tasteful pics of flowers ), I don?t think it sounds as bad.

Of all my friends who are theologically committed to ?biblical womanhood?, I don?t think any lead lives that look very different on the outside from most SAHMs (although not all of them do SAH) on MN. Moreover they are some of the most intelligent and educated and opinionated and feisty women I know, and their husbands have to work pretty hard to keep up with them.

In short, I may agree with some of the principles but not with how they are applied. So, Kay, I think the freaky neatness is wrong, because life is not freakily neat, and it is right to go back to principles and think them through.

Loony.

Kay - is there something you would like to do that would make your life better?

Could you talk to your husband about it?

I think I have said this before, Kay, but you need some friends who live this stuff out differently. I wish I could conjure some up for you.

ahh but I like the bit at the end of the passage

The man is instructed to love his wife, the wife only has to "respect" her husband (ie she can hate him with a passion as long as she treats him with a bit of respect ).

More seriously, as I've already said, many Christian couples don't see "submission" as lying down and being walked over like a doormat - of course taken out of context (as it usually is - you don't often see the much longer part of the passage which is aimed at the men quoted in such debates) it works in a horrible way. But if the men read on and follow the (very lengthy) instructions on how to treat their wifes they discover they're not supposed to be using her as a doormat..............

Oh I think it it works longterm for the couple, whether the recreational side of it is bible bashing or dressing up in rubber and getting busy with the Sacred Strap On, bood luck to'em. But if it's not working and one partner is unhappy, then it needs to be changed.

So, if the man does lots of lovely things then he deserves submission by his wife, yes? he is earning her submission.

WHY does submission have to come into it at all?

Read the category for unmarried woman. The woman's a nutter.

I wonder what the context that (Paul?) was writing in when he wrote about marriage. (Wonders - was he actually married when he wrote it?)

If it was a paternalistic culture in which husbands dominated/ abused wives and wives manipulated husbands in an 'underhand' way (as is common in modern-day paternalistic cultures), does that change the way we should look at the passage?