Are there any surrendered wives on MN? Anyone who has decided to take a subordinate role?

[petrifiedperson]

NOT intended to be a nasty bunfight, I am just genuinely interested in other people's choices and have never actually met anyone who chooses to live like this.

[amillionyears]

!

[pointythings]

Yes Bartlett but where do you draw the line? If both partners won't budge, but one partner's stance is clearly to the detriment of the family as a whole (as in: a purchase the budget can't stand, a choice of holiday that does not consider the needs or the safety of children), is it then OK for the other person to simply accept that? To me that would be an abandonment of responsibility for the whole family just so that one person can get what they want.

OK, so most people aren't that unreasonable or selfish, but in some situations I can see the Biblical way of doing things leading to abuse of power. To each their own, but I would see that as a very unsafe situation, and one with a strongly immoral element too.

[perfectstorm]

Bartlet, I'm glad it works for you. I'm afraid I think it inherently wrong (in both senses of that word) and potentially dangerous, however.

[perfectstorm]

And my not-remotely-Biblical marriage, incidentally, hasn't ever had an impasse. We talk, negotiate and compromise. Example: I would love more kids, my husband wouldn't. After much discussion, to me it is obvious that his choice must prevail, not because he has a penis but because a person's fertility is their own affair, and nobody should be in a position where the huge demands of parenthood are made upon them when they're reluctant. That's the same decision I think we'd reach were he the one keen to expand our family.

I don't think giving one person a trump card is healthy or right. I think it's much better to work together in partnership, without anyone being the leader or having more of a say. It seems infinitely more loving and respectful.