Controlling

[GraceDriven]

He wanted to move but she refused. She got a job here but he still felt it was best to move back home up north so he held off. Well she then took the initiative and divorced him and took over everything. Meanwhile, she claimed it was all his fault and that he is worthless.[.

That is why the mediating lawyers have become a big business. I don't think anyone wins including society. I don't think I would want it to go completely back to the way things were. Sometimes, people really need to say we have both given it what we can possibly give it and walk away. Sometimes the most healthy thing to do is call it quits.

[/QUOTE]Trust me, the feminist movement is not about voting or ownership rights anymore. It's about total control and destroying the family model that has worked for thousands of years. In other words, it's Satanic. [/QUOTE]
Who in the world would want to destroy the family model? I think you are "villainizing" people who really are just doing the best that they can. Kind of like Jesus when he was up on the cross and said , "forgive them father for they know not what they are doing." I have been both a mom who stayed home and one who had worked. I have found joy in both. I do tell my daughter to make sure she finds someone who will be supportive of what decision makes. Not having a supportive spouse can mean that you are really walking it alone.

[/QUOTE]I'm terribly sorry about the loss of your husband. But the Bible clearly tells us that it becomes the responsibility of extended family and the church to take care of you and your family's financial needs now. And again, you are twisting my words about the father/husband being the head of the family. In no way did I imply that you should not teach your boy how to do laundry or delegate tasks to your children.[/QUOTE]

I don't know what country or generation you are from, but our society has become more mobile. Families often don't live in clusters anymore, population has grown making commutes and time more restrained. I think a lot of divorce also happens because of these crazy commutes we have. We can not apply the old ways of doing things anymore. It is just not going to happen. We can wish but it won't make it happen. That's a thanks to all this technology that has occurred. We just have to move forward with what we have to work with. I wish we could bring some of the good from the past and incorporate in today's world.

I kind of think of myself as a Gomer more than a Jezebel.
Sorry, I could not quote correctly. I will receive a warning soon anyway.

 

[Jack of Spades]

@GraceDriven

When quoting multiple pieces, you gotta copy first the part that looks like this:
[QU0TE="GraceDriven, post: 68742220, member: 377369"]
- it starts the quote and at the end you put the [/QUOTE]. That's how it will work

 

[Bristecom]

I don't know what country or generation you are from, but our society has become more mobile. Families often don't live in clusters anymore, population has grown making commutes and time more restrained. I think a lot of divorce also happens because of these crazy commutes we have. We can not apply the old ways of doing things anymore. It is just not going to happen. We can wish but it won't make it happen. That's a thanks to all this technology that has occurred. We just have to move forward with what we have to work with. I wish we could bring some of the good from the past and incorporate in today's world.

I kind of think of myself as a Gomer more than a Jezebel.
Sorry, I could not quote correctly. I will receive a warning soon anyway.

Well, I think you'll find that this "progressive" lifestyle isn't really the way forward. It's not commuting that is to blame for all the divorces; it's simply not adhering to the Bible that is. People don't want to be faithful or respectful or responsible or submissive anymore. They want to do whatever the hell they want to do. God created man and woman and He knows what's best for us. To think that we should move past what He has told us in the Bible is pretty arrogant.

 

[Deidre32]

Are you saying that person who is controlling/submissive is not being their own person? I don't see it that way. People are different.

That is true, people are different. But, what I mean is more that people shouldn't change to appease someone else, as in...becoming something they are not. Of course, we all stand to improve in various ways, but we should appreciate our partners for who they are, and not what we wished they'd be. So when I think of controlling another ...I think of someone trying to change the other to do as the controlling party wishes. I have dated a few controlling men, and I'm very much attracted to men who lead, but not all controlling men...lead. Some, wish to be leaders, but if one is a true leader, he may find that he doesn't need to exercise much control because he naturally commands respect.

If that makes sense.

 

[Faithfulandtrue]

Well I am still waiting to have my first boyfriend but I know what its like to have controlling friends. Very very VERY annoying!!!!! LOL

 

[TheGirlOnFire]

Control is about power, the power we have over other humans. It is mostly hard power in relationships, you make B do something they didn't want them to because you have limited their options either through abuse, physical, financial.

We know this is the case in domestic abuse relationships, it doesn't have to be about beating someone up. We also can evaluate that things like rape, sexual assault and stalking to name a few, is very much about power and control.

Control is not about love or caring for someone, it's about power, its about as it clear is control.

To control a other person is the most disgusting act of all, it rips someone from the core within.

I've been there, I was in a very controlling relationship. I was lucky, I got out. Not many do.

One misleading statistic, which is often repeated, is that - while one in four women experience domestic violence - so do one in six men. These figures are, however, based on single incidents, of a criminal nature, and without regard to:

• severity of violence
• whether or not it was repeated - and if so, how often
• the complex pattern of overlapping abuse of various kinds
• the context in which it took place.

They also exclude sexual assaults - which are overwhelmingly perpetrated against women, by men - many of whom are partners or former partners of the victims. Finally, emotional abuse - which is often not regarded as a crime, but which survivors often find even more destructive - is excluded from these statistics.

Up to 160 women die a year by their partner

The research that is available suggests that women are more likely than men to experience domestic abuse in their lives and to suffer repeated victimization. They are also more likely to be injured, or have to seek medical help. Another difference is that men are less likely to be murdered by female abusers;

Very often women are killed when they challenge that power, by trying to separate from their partners, or seeing someone else, or doing something that their partner doesn't want them to do. Perhaps we should not be surprised by the fact that two men a week kill their partners, when courts say that women can consent to sex while almost unconscious, when rape itself has a conviction rate of 5.3%, when twice as many men now visit prostitutes than a decade ago. Britain is not getting any safer for women, however many get to be CEOs.

50% of all adult women have experienced domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.

Around 30 men a year are killed within a domestic abuse context. Women are almost exclusively killed by men whereas in contrast approximately one third of the men are killed by other men and a little under a third are killed by women against whom they have a documented history of abuse.

But males are also less likely to get support for their domestic abuse.
By the British crime survey 19% of domestic abuse incidents reported to be from male victims with under half of them women abusers.


That is what controlling relationships lead too.

So if you are in one, both genders. RUN!!!!

 

[Jack of Spades]

I have dated a few controlling men, and I'm very much attracted to men who lead, but not all controlling men...lead. Some, wish to be leaders, but if one is a true leader, he may find that he doesn't need to exercise much control because he naturally commands respect.

I get what you're saying, and I believe that's a sign of a good leader too.

One point tho: I don't personally think that being masculine = being a leader. I think being a leader type is simply a personality trait or a talent person might have. I don't see it in a way that every man becomes a leader, even when they're fully confident with themselves and being who they are. There are other personality types too.

I'm of course not saying that there is anything problematic with finding the leadership- trait attractive, there is no arguing about taste!

 

[Cearbhall]

I believe the Bible teaches the man is the head of the household so he is the authority in the family but that's not to say he is to be controlling over his wife.

It seems like a rather meaningless designation, then.

 

[Deidre32]

I get what you're saying, and I believe that's a sign of a good leader too.

One point tho: I don't personally think that being masculine = being a leader. I think being a leader type is simply a personality trait or a talent person might have. I don't see it in a way that every man becomes a leader, even when they're fully confident with themselves and being who they are. There are other personality types too.

I'm of course not saying that there is anything problematic with finding the leadership- trait attractive, there is no arguing about taste!

haha agreed.

 

[GraceDriven]

Well, I think you'll find that this "progressive" lifestyle isn't really the way forward. It's not commuting that is to blame for all the divorces; it's simply not adhering to the Bible that is. People don't want to be faithful or respectful or responsible or submissive anymore. They want to do whatever the hell they want to do. God created man and woman and He knows what's best for us. To think that we should move past what He has told us in the Bible is pretty arrogant.

I am not completely disagreeing with you. Our society is changing - so is the world. I don't think people know what to do anymore. A lot has changed in a little bit of time.

I have not read the whole bible. Have you? I probably heard a lot more than I realized when I was growing up. My dad had plenty of time.... I did not say we should move past the bible. In fact, my hypothesis that it is all in the one book and we just keep recreating the wheel unlike Thomas Aquinas' belief. Even long ago you had people questioning. But I have not read the whole book. I have attempt to. I am too busy fighting for myself.

Well, I have busy day ahead of me tomorrow. Good night.

 

[Bristecom]

It seems like a rather meaningless designation, then.

If you read my other posts here, you will see what I meant by that.

I am not completely disagreeing with you. Our society is changing - so is the world. I don't think people know what to do anymore. A lot has changed in a little bit of time.

I have not read the whole bible. Have you? I probably heard a lot more than I realized when I was growing up. My dad had plenty of time.... I did not say we should move past the bible. In fact, my hypothesis that it is all in the one book and we just keep recreating the wheel unlike Thomas Aquinas' belief. Even long ago you had people questioning. But I have not read the whole book. I have attempt to. I am too busy fighting for myself.

Well, I have busy day ahead of me tomorrow. Good night.

Yeah, well I encourage you to read more of the KJV Bible (the only accurate English Bible). If we claim to be Christian, we should try to learn God's Word in the Bible as it is our essential foundation. I recommend starting with Paul's epistles (Romans thru Philemon) as I believe these are the most relevant to us today, and then move to the rest of the NT, and then go through the OT.

"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" - Psalm 11:3

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" - Ephesians 4:18

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." - Hosea 4:6

 

[Cearbhall]

Well, I think you'll find that this "progressive" lifestyle isn't really the way forward. It's not commuting that is to blame for all the divorces; it's simply not adhering to the Bible that is. People don't want to be faithful or respectful or responsible or submissive anymore.

You honestly believe that the divorce rate wouldn't have been just as high 100 years ago if divorce had been a viable option for all women? Believe it or not, divorce is not the worst-case scenario. Not having the choice is the worst-case scenario, and progressing beyond that is the way forward.

 

[Bristecom]

You honestly believe that the divorce rate wouldn't have been just as high 100 years ago if divorce had been a viable option for all women? Believe it or not, divorce is not the worst-case scenario. Not having the choice is the worst-case scenario, and progressing beyond that is the way forward.

I'm just saying it's unBiblical. If you got a problem with it, take it up with God, not me.

It's not that I don't sympathize with those who have made poor choices in marriage but there are other Biblical solutions to deal with abusive or unfaithful spouses.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I'm just saying it's unBiblical. If you got a problem with it, take it up with God, not me.

I think it's not very logical construction that you seem to think that you have right to speak on God's behalf, but yet have no responsibility to answer for what you say. Seems to me like "hit and run" strategy.

 

[Bristecom]

I think it's not very logical construction that you seem to think that you have right to speak on God's behalf, but yet have no responsibility to answer for what you say. Seems to me like "hit and run" strategy.

I speak on behalf of the Bible, God's word.

 

[TheGirlOnFire]

I'm just saying it's unBiblical. If you got a problem with it, take it up with God, not me.

It's not that I don't sympathize with those who have made poor choices in marriage but there are other Biblical solutions to deal with abusive or unfaithful spouses.

You don't make poor marriage choice, the person isn't abusive from the start

Proverbs 22:24-25 ESV /

Make no friendship with a man given to anger, nor go with a wrathful man, lest you learn his ways and entangle yourself in a snare.

1 Timothy 5:8 ESV / 24 helpful votes

But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever

Matthew 18:15-17 ESV

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector


Zephaniah 1:9 In the same day also will I punish all those that leap on the threshold, which fill their masters' houses with violence and deceit

Bible is clear that reconciliation and healing is the preferred path; that the abusing partner confesses their sin and changes their behavior; and the abused partner forgives the perpetrator. But what if the abuse continues and reconciliation and change doesn’t come?

Bible shares that there are two instances where divorce is acceptable: adultery (Matthew 5:32) and with a non-believing spouse. The second is detailed in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 which states:

12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

The greek word for ‘unbelieving’ is apistos which literally means being unfaithful, false, and treacherous. In the case of abuse the partner is indeed being unfaithful to the calling and expectations of marriage (that of offering sacrificial love as shared above), and is being treacherous in how they treat their partner. So an abusing partner is in effect ‘unbelieving’, which is grounds for divorce within the Bible.

But the passage suggests that separation only happens when the unbeliever leaves (verse 15). How then does this apply? Well when a partner abuses the other, they are in effect leaving the bounds of expectation of a Godly marriage. And for many people who are abused, they will often share how alone they feel, even though they live in the same house as their partner. The person who is abusing in effect leaves the marriage agreement while remaining within the relationship. So the Bible is clear: sustained abuse is grounds for divorce.

 

[redblue22]

Most girlfriends and their parents push me into having women friends. Why fight it?

Actually, wouldn't that mean they are controlling?

 

[Jack of Spades]

So if you are in one, both genders. RUN!!!!

I'd like to add one more dimension to this:

If I ever lose my mind and use my partner as a punching bag (not something I intend to do, but hypothetically speaking) I wish she runs as soon as I do that. It'd be best:

A) For her, for obvious reasons.
B) For me, because I wouldn't get away with being violent. I'd have to face consequences of my actions.
C) For everyone who cares about her, it'll be a huge relief if she doesn't stay.
D) For her next partner, because if she leaves fast, she'll have better chance of getting over our messed up relationship.
E) For everyone who's going to hear the story in the future, it's much better story than one that would have gone on for years. Especially if she found someone better after it.
F) For the balance of justice in the universe; guys who beat up their women, simply don't deserve them.

 

[Bristecom]

You don't make poor marriage choice, the person isn't abusive from the start

Proverbs 22:24-25 ESV /

Make no friendship with a man given to anger, nor go with a wrathful man, lest you learn his ways and entangle yourself in a snare.

1 Timothy 5:8 ESV / 24 helpful votes

But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever

Matthew 18:15-17 ESV

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector


Zephaniah 1:9 In the same day also will I punish all those that leap on the threshold, which fill their masters' houses with violence and deceit

These verses are not talking about divorce.

Bible is clear that reconciliation and healing is the preferred path; that the abusing partner confesses their sin and changes their behavior; and the abused partner forgives the perpetrator. But what if the abuse continues and reconciliation and change doesn’t come?

Bible shares that there are two instances where divorce is acceptable: adultery (Matthew 5:32) and with a non-believing spouse. The second is detailed in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 which states:

12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

The greek word for ‘unbelieving’ is apistos which literally means being unfaithful, false, and treacherous. In the case of abuse the partner is indeed being unfaithful to the calling and expectations of marriage (that of offering sacrificial love as shared above), and is being treacherous in how they treat their partner. So an abusing partner is in effect ‘unbelieving’, which is grounds for divorce within the Bible.

But the passage suggests that separation only happens when the unbeliever leaves (verse 15). How then does this apply? Well when a partner abuses the other, they are in effect leaving the bounds of expectation of a Godly marriage. And for many people who are abused, they will often share how alone they feel, even though they live in the same house as their partner. The person who is abusing in effect leaves the marriage agreement while remaining within the relationship. So the Bible is clear: sustained abuse is grounds for divorce.

Paul is talking about a married person getting saved and their spouse still being unsaved. If they refuse to stay with you because of it and leave, then you can let them go. But here is the thing most Christians miss: If you do end up getting divorced, the Bible says, you cannot remarry, otherwise you are committing adultery!

In regards to abuse, if a man is truly, physically abusing a woman, then you can consider getting the law to deal with them for assault or battery or whatever. But it's still no grounds for divorce. Separation for a while perhaps, sure. But you are still married and if either one remarries, it is considered adultery.

Now some people refer to the verses which say fornication is the exception (such as Matthew 19:9) but they also misunderstand what this means (and newer Bible versions change this to "adultery" to better fit their agenda). Fornication means they would be unclean before marriage and the examples the Bible gives of this in the Old Testament are of a woman who was presented as a virgin, ended up lying about it and the newly wed husband found out that she was not a virgin so they stoned her and the marriage was undone.

But even if your spouse commits adultery (actual intercourse), if this is proven and made known, the penalty was death! And death of your spouse is the only real exception to getting remarried. Although in the NT age of grace, I believe we are to try and forgive even this act. Especially if you have children.

Now I know a lot of people on here are divorced (and their spouse has not died). And this is a hard teaching to remain single, as Jesus said Himself after talking about it in Matthew 19:11. But this is what God ordains.

 

[bhsmte]

What do you people think about controlling the other in relationships?

I think people seem to have very different tolerance for it. Personally I'm a freedom-loving guy, and I get easily spooked by controlling behavior, and likewise I try to give my partner and friends some space. Some others seem to think it other way around, that being possessive or controlling is just a sign of affection and it means that the person cares.

Which one sounds more true for you, A or B:

A) Trying to change someone only means that you care about them.
B) Trying to change someone means that you don't respect them as an independent person.

And what about these C and D:

C) If you generally like a guy/girl, but can't stand some of their traits, you can always make them change themselves later on in relationship.
D) If you like a guy/girl, but can't accept him/her as they are, most fair way for everyone is to reject them.

(My answers would be B and D)

Depending on each person's psychological makeup, there are widely varying desires and needs to control other people.

A strong desire to control another person, is never good for a relationship and typically means one person has to cower to another person's desire to control them, or face the wrath of not obliging. The person on the receiving end of the controlling behavior, typically builds up a lot of frustration over time and this eventually will reach a point of no return.

No one can ever change another person to any great deal, which is why it is a good idea, to recognize people who have a strong need to always be in control and avoid them if at all possible.