Submission in Marriage?

[Rorschach]

No... I like the more simple, more eloquent form...

I divorce you... I divorce you... I divorce you.

[Neferti]

Like the others, I don't believe in marriage or religion either. Tried it once but had a "civil service" not Church and did NOT agree to honour and obey (or submit).

The only people who get married (first time) in Church are the Catholics and Anglicans (same difference, really). They will also have their kids christened and have their funeral service conducted at The Church. The rest of us Heathens care less.

I wonder what the Gays think about this? Not that The Church would allow them to marry there but .......... "submit"?

[boxy]

Dom/Sub relationships work quite well for some people. I doubt they're in the majority.

[Neferti]

Dom/Sub relationships work quite well for some people. I doubt they're in the majority.

Do you ever read what other posters say? I know it must be boring but this is what I would call PATHETIC!

Stop being so submissive is my reply.

[IQS.RLOW]

In any relationship there are dominant and submissive personalities. That is not to say they are not equals or that one enjoys a superior position to the the other

The natural order is for males to be dominant as provider and protector. Today's society allows for all women to assume that role, possibly without earning it when in reality the dominant role is only suited to certain types of people.

That's not to say that some women aren't predisposed to be dominant but they are the minority rather than the majority and feminism has given those that aren't, false hope that they can be

[Jovial Monk]

How about you don’t copy and paste half the fucking bible, just give a link and quote just the relevant bits, eh?

[IQS.RLOW]

^^^^^ nothing to add because Monk has never been in a marriage let alone a human-human relationship

[WOLRSQI]

^^^^^ nothing to add because Monk has never been in a marriage let alone a human-human relationship

[Rorschach]

How about you don’t copy and paste half the fucking bible, just give a link and quote just the relevant bits, eh?

Monky Boy... I checked, no one posted half or any portion of the bible.
Posting the article allows one access without having to go somewhere else.
Sometimes articles disappear.
Also these days some articles you'd have to pay to see so even if a link was posted you wouldn't be able to see it unless you have paid for access.
oh and I forgot to take my valium... now look what you've done. blood pressure

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

Funnily enough so far there seems to be no comments on topic...
Which in case you missed it is about "Submission in Marriage"
Where the Anglican Church have vows where the Wife promises to SUBMIT (in all things) to her Husband.

That's a little out of context... It was a mutual obligation to which the article refers, with equal emphasis upon the man's sacrificial duty to his wife and family. Where a mutual obligation is entailed and one party does not meet their obligation, the social contract is broken. This means, that if the husband does not 'sacrifice' enough to the marriage, his wife and family, then the wife does not need to 'submit' to his will. Of course, the Church, in times of marital crisis, such as a breach of a social contract, will intervene with counselling, given that these marriage contracts are for better or worse til death (although there are exceptions).

I'm an Atheist and a Hedonist. I live individualism and libertarianism. I am everything which the Anglican author and his Church are against! Regardless of that church's opinion of me, my first two concerns are with increasing pleasure and reducing suffering. I do not see how the theology of itself would reduce pleasure or increase suffering. Otherwise, that the couple enter into the agreement freely, and that the marriage is null and void if not freely entered into, satisfies the requirements of liberty. Therefore, I can't be against the theology.

I do appreciate however that various churches have not, in the past, placed as much emphasis as they should have on divorce as the most appropriate solution where it is that abuse dominates the relationship instead of reconciliation, for example. Then again, there is nothing in the theology that suggests the couple or the church should tolerate or even promote abuse... quite the opposite is true... sacrifice and submission. So, that the church turned a blind eye to marital abuses, is a slight against the church and not the theology that the church is expected to represent.

I agree with the author that taking the marriage vows is as serious as it is joyous, so you'd expect the church to engage compulsory pre-marriage counselling sessions to explore what the vows mean in terms of the moral obligations placed upon them... in practical terms rather than theological terms. I suspect that this kind of counselling already exists, just outside the scope of the piece written.

With regard to 'dom/sub' relationships, as boxy would say... it's also true, as boxy alluded, that dom-male/sub-female relationships are not for everyone. Some people prefer dom-female/sub-male or equal relationships. What ever floats your boat really... so long as it is consensual and well considered.