Anti-rape device

[EnemyPartyII]

Oh please, Im the one who is truely defending women. You just don't see how today feminists have hurt women and brought them down in more ways than one. Feminism today is destroying the feminine nature and innocence of women today in such a manner that marriage in the future will a total mess for anyone to get in and that women will no longer be able to identify with what they were naturally born with because it will be so suppressed because of secular society.

Keeping blacks working on the plantations without pay would really benefit them too, since they wouldn't have to worry about things like money or where their next meal was coming from

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

honesty is telling people the truth. And from your posts you definatly don't seem to possess it in any way. Jesus Christ is the truth and the only truth. And yes those were a great majority of feminist leaders and entitys like Gloria Steinem, NOW, margaret sanguer, etc. , a few hundred quotes, so please don't act like they don't exist. Why are you so ashamed of what your own movement says? Why are you and cantana so quick to dress it up in rose colored glasses? Why don't you let the quotes speak for themselves.




And if you knew anything about marriage you would see that the husband owns the wife and the wife owns the husband. Neither belong to themselves anymore because they have become one in marriage. Both spouses are property of each other and neither are unto themselves.





Oh please, Im the one who is truely defending women. You just don't see how today feminists have hurt women and brought them down in more ways than one. Feminism today is destroying the feminine nature and innocence of women today in such a manner that marriage in the future will a total mess for anyone to get in and that women will no longer be able to identify with what they were naturally born with because it will be so suppressed because of secular society.

And once again...what I posted didn't get addressed. Instead, the same tactic of not addressing points coupled with an unbelievable proclamation that someone who has claimed women entice rapists now claims to be truly defending women. That with the same empty rhetoric that feminism is bad.

Also, when scripture spoke of adam and eve becoming "one flesh" it was talking about baby making. A child is one flesh of two people. Men and women aren't property in marriage either but the attempt to make them equal by claiming they own "each other" is pretty insulting. We know the position is women are supposed to be submissive to husbands so using your own words we can deduce the argument as saying women are property of men. Yep, that sure is some type of special way to defend women. If we were to define Feminism by the position spoken here then we must also say the KKK was the first Affirmative Action group in America that fought for the Rights of minorities, and especially black. They fought to resist the satanic principle of equality between the races just like bewteen the sexes. They really did slaves a favor by keeping them slaves because in doing so they were just following God. (That is not sarcasm...many slave owners justified slavery on the based of biblical pre-destination for blacks. Kind of sounds like the claim that God says women are supposed to be submissive to men.y

 

[cantata]

Cantana, and you responded to the quotes in your usual evading sense. "Its taken out of context", or it "was written years ago", so please don't act like its a valid rebuttal.

Excuse me, but did you actually read any of my post? Several of the quotes you gave were either apparently made-up or from people whom no modern-day feminist will have even heard of. Some woman who kicked up a fuss about date rape in a backwater American college? She's no "feminist leader".

Its easy to see the true colors of the feminist movement today just by reading a couple of those quotes.

How can a quotation from a document written in the 70s be indicative of "the true colors of the feminist movement today"?

When filthy murdering monsters like margaret sanguer say that its best to kill your unborn children and that children should be taken away from their parents and given to an institution you can't really cop out with "its taken out of context" when people say those types of things.

Margaret Sanger DIED in 1966. How can her views be taken as representative of "the true colors of the feminist movement today"? She was not a feminist in the modern sense, in any case. Yes, she founded Planned Parenthood, but she was vehemently opposed to a lot of the causes that feminists today support. She was also a supporter of eugenics, which undoubtedly gave her some pretty weird ideas about abortion. Does she represent today's feminists? No.

Its not hard to see that many of these people, espesially organizations like NOW are very sick depraved people who have issues with humanity and murder the innocent.

The only quotations you gave which were allegedly associated with NOW have been demonstrated to be spurious.

Your insistence on constantly using emotive language reveals your lack of an actual argument. People who have something to say do not need to use words like "sick", "depraved", or "murder". Please try to address this in your next post.

How about we read some quotations from real feminists?

“stop fixing your bodies and start fixing the world.” - Eve Ensler

“Yet if a woman never lets herself go, how will she ever know how far she might have got? If she never takes off her high-heeled shoes, how will she ever know how far she could walk or how fast she could run?” - Germaine Greer

This is the essence of real modern feminism. It is about both women and men working to the best of their abilities and recognising that they can choose their own priorities. Do you really think that's wrong?

 

[CreedIsChrist]

And once again...what I posted didn't get addressed. Instead, the same tactic of not addressing points coupled with an unbelievable proclamation that someone who has claimed women entice rapists now claims to be truly defending women. That with the same empty rhetoric that feminism is bad.

Also, when scripture spoke of adam and eve becoming "one flesh" it was talking about baby making. A child is one flesh of two people. Men and women aren't property in marriage either but the attempt to make them equal by claiming they own "each other" is pretty insulting. We know the position is women are supposed to be submissive to husbands so using your own words we can deduce the argument as saying women are property of men. Yep, that sure is some type of special way to defend women. If we were to define Feminism by the position spoken here then we must also say the KKK was the first Affirmative Action group in America that fought for the Rights of minorities, and especially black. They fought to resist the satanic principle of equality between the races just like bewteen the sexes. They really did slaves a favor by keeping them slaves because in doing so they were just following God. (That is not sarcasm...many slave owners justified slavery on the based of biblical pre-destination for blacks. Kind of sounds like the claim that God says women are supposed to be submissive to men.y

Again your post shows how bible ignorant you are:


Yes, it is good to live a celibate life. 2 But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. 3 The husband should not deprive his wife of sexual intimacy, which is her right as a married woman, nor should the wife deprive her husband. 4 The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband also gives authority over his body to his wife. 5 So do not deprive each other of sexual relations. -1 Corinthians chapter 7


15 You know that your bodies are parts of the body of Christ. Shall I take a part of Christ's body and make it part of the body of a prostitute? Impossible! 16 Or perhaps you don't know that the man who joins his body to a prostitute becomes physically one with her?
The scripture says quite plainly, "The two will become one body." 17 But he who joins himself to the Lord becomes spiritually one with him

Now where does that talk about having babys? The wife is the property of the husband and the husband the property of the wife. They are one in marriage. And where does it say in the bible that blacks have to be slaves? Find me a verse..








"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head;" 1 Corinthians 11:9, 10.

1 Timothy 2:11 states: "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men. She is to keep silent, for Adam was formed first then Eve, and Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

 

[Braunwyn]

Cause you got people like Balaam asking for evidence every 2 seconds in order to make themselves look more dignified. Of course, they provide none on their behalf.
Cantana, and you responded to the quotes in your usual evading sense. "Its taken out of context", or it "was written years ago", so please don't act like its a valid rebuttal.

Quote mining in any subject is lame. It only shows that the poster isn't well read on the subject. Just because you provide quotes doesn't mean that you actually understand the topic at hand and that can lend to passing along not so accurate information. I had experience with this a few months ago while having a debate over whether the US was founded on christian principles. I found a list of excellent quotes that proved my point. In good conscience I had to investigate the source of the quotes and I found them to be mined out of context. To use them would have been dishonest.

Its easy to see the true colors of the feminist movement today just by reading a couple of those quotes. When filthy murdering monsters like margaret sanguer say that its best to kill your unborn children and that children should be taken away from their parents and given to an institution you can't really cop out with "its taken out of context" when people say those types of things. Its not hard to see that many of these people, espesially organizations like NOW are very sick depraved people who have issues with humanity and murder the innocent.

It's bigoted of you to charge a movement based on the opinions of a few.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Again your post shows how bible ignorant you are:


Yes, it is good to live a celibate life. 2 But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. 3 The husband should not deprive his wife of sexual intimacy, which is her right as a married woman, nor should the wife deprive her husband. 4 The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband also gives authority over his body to his wife. 5 So do not deprive each other of sexual relations. -1 Corinthians chapter 7


15 You know that your bodies are parts of the body of Christ. Shall I take a part of Christ's body and make it part of the body of a prostitute? Impossible! 16 Or perhaps you don't know that the man who joins his body to a prostitute becomes physically one with her?
The scripture says quite plainly, "The two will become one body." 17 But he who joins himself to the Lord becomes spiritually one with him

Now where does that talk about having babys? The wife is the property of the husband and the husband the property of the wife. They are one in marriage. And where does it say in the bible that blacks have to be slaves? Find me a verse..








"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head;" 1 Corinthians 11:9, 10.

1 Timothy 2:11 states: "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men. She is to keep silent, for Adam was formed first then Eve, and Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

Wow, I referenced Adam and Eve and the response is to bring up prostitution? A man becomes physically one with a woman upon penetration so Paul was specifically using intercourse as a metaphor for intimacy in regards to a personal relationship with Christ. When the OT spoke of Adam and Eve becoming "one flesh" that was speaking of a baby. Or was the OT saying Adam and Eve would be having intercourse 24/7 ????

Then to back up the claim the spouses are "property" another sexual reference is used. The cited verses says nothing about them being the "property" of each other and was only speaking of sex. Seems to be a strong focus on sex here....isn't marriage about something more than sex?

Also, it's kind of ironic the presented verses now paints a picture of equality between men and women. Are they equal or is the woman supposed to be submissive?

Any chance the other posts regarding feminism will get addressed or will there simply be more foot stomping about how bible ignorant iam?

 

[Braunwyn]

typical feminist hatred.

I didn't see any hate in her post. Your looking for it but your accusations are off the mark.

And if you knew anything about marriage you would see that the husband owns the wife and the wife owns the husband. Neither belong to themselves anymore because they have become one in marriage. Both spouses are property of each other and neither are unto themselves.

I'm sorry, this type of thinking might work for some but you certainly cannot expect all adults to hold this view. People aren't things to be owned. Heck, I don't think any creature could or should be owned. It's one of the ugly sides of humans- "ownership". It's morally and spiritually bankrupt imo.

Oh please, Im the one who is truely defending women. You just don't see how today feminists have hurt women and brought them down in more ways than one. Feminism today is destroying the feminine nature and innocence of women today in such a manner that marriage in the future will a total mess for anyone to get in and that women will no longer be able to identify with what they were naturally born with because it will be so suppressed because of secular society.

The innocence of women hmmm. Come now, women are not children. And women have always come in all shades (just as men I'm sure). Women are/can be strong, intelligent, independent minded individuals. Some people simply don't like the idea of being pigeonholed into a sterotype, in this instance your stereotype. That's only for your wife to contend with, not the rest of us.

 

[Braunwyn]

"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head;" 1 Corinthians 11:9, 10.

1 Timothy 2:11 states: "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men. She is to keep silent, for Adam was formed first then Eve, and Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

I'm not christian and I realize it's up to you christians to argue these verses amongst yourselves but here's a big LOL. You can stomp your feet and have all the temper tantrums you like but it's not going to silence anyone.

 

[Chajara]

I sort of understand where Creed is Christ is coming from, although I don't like the term "ownership" either. It's not about owning anything or anyone having to do anything against their will. You put the other person first because you love him or her, and the other person is supposed to be doing the same.

Let's face it, it's hard to have an argument over stupid little things when both parties actually sits down and reasons with each other and is perfectly willing to give up what they want to make the other happy. This is how it works with me and my boyfriend. Sometimes if it's not that important to him he'll let me have my way, and other times I can see something is very important to him so I gladly step aside and let him do what he wants.

That's different than obedience. Obedience would be him doing something like, say, telling me go to back to college. His student loans might be costing us $400 a month come December and we're both working in supermarkets. Me dropping to part time to go back to school when neither of us is making more than $9 an hour would cause us financial disaster, not to mention adding to our student loan debt. In short, it would be a stupid move. If he came to me and said "I want you to go back to school" I'd flat-out tell him no, and explain to him why, and promise him that as soon as we've got higher paying jobs that I will go back. But I would not submit to a move that could jeopardize our credit rating and therefore our ability to get a decent home loan later so that we can raise the children we're planning on. Even if he had the best intentions in wanting me to go back and it wasn't just some power trip.

According to Paul's opinion, apparently should that scenario play out I ought to just do what he says, I guess, and worry about how to pay our bills later. Nevermind that we're a team and it would jeopardize our plans for the future.

 

[B'alaam]

Oh please, Im the one who is truely defending women. You just don't see how today feminists have hurt women and brought them down in more ways than one. Feminism today is destroying the feminine nature and innocence of women today in such a manner that marriage in the future will a total mess for anyone to get in and that women will no longer be able to identify with what they were naturally born with because it will be so suppressed because of secular society.

Bold added by me

So now you've apparently stooped to direct patronization of women.

Since when have women been "innocent"? Two generations ago? 10? During the Roman republic times? Perhaps the women surrounding King David were all "innocent", hmmm?
And please, explain to us this mysterious "feminine nature" that women have? I know, everyone probably has some idea of what you're talking about, but I dont like to read into what people post, so if you could directly explain to us this so-called "Feminine nature", I would greatly appreciated it.

 

[Bombila]

Exerpt, my bolding - B:

And if you knew anything about marriage you would see that the husband owns the wife and the wife owns the husband. Neither belong to themselves anymore because they have become one in marriage. Both spouses are property of each other and neither are unto themselves.

Oh please, Im the one who is truely defending women. You just don't see how today feminists have hurt women and brought them down in more ways than one. Feminism today is destroying the feminine nature and innocence of women today in such a manner that marriage in the future will a total mess for anyone to get in and that women will no longer be able to identify with what they were naturally born with because it will be so suppressed because of secular society.

Very amusing - I've been married - to one man, and only the once, not that there is a particular virtue in that - for almost as long as you've been alive. Married couples do not normally think of themselves as 'property of each other'. A marriage is ideally a partnership of two, or occasionally more than two, individuals who love and support each other, uplift each other, strive to make a home in which they can feel secure and cared for and content.

I have to assume you are utterly ignorant of the heavy burden inequality placed on Western women before the Women's Liberation Movement began making people, men included, aware of that state of injustice that prevailed. I'm not going to school you, either, but it behooves you, before you start slamming feminism, to educate yourself about the status of women before 1965-70, wrt poverty, restricted education, violence, legal spousal abuse, employment and career restrictions, low pay, health risks, and a myriad of other evils, both major and minor.

And of course there were good marriages and happy women before that, but it was entirely dependent on her having married a man who was fair, loving and sympathetic, and losing that man through death or divorce was usually a personal economic disaster.

I know, because I'm older'n dirt, what it was like from personal experience. I know that being a woman in 2008 in the West is a whole heck of a lot better than it was in 1968. Back then, there were hundreds of jobs I wasn't permitted to even apply for. If I got a job that men also did, I got paid less for it, got fired if pregnant (married or not), and if there was a promotion available, a man would get it. Back then, there were places of business I wasn't permitted to enter, or only with a man as escort. Some universities and professions were closed to women. In many places, a man could legally beat his wife, or rape her. That's just a little taste of how much was wrong.

As for that final rant, which I've bolded for convenience in responding, it's appears you are under the mistaken impression that women should be 'more innocent' than men, and that women having - read this carefully now - the same rights as men (which in the end is all feminism really asks for)is somehow a bad thing and will destroy marriage as we know it. You can cheer up then - women and men, being human, will always fall in love and marry, or partner up, or live together, and even enter marriages like the kind you think is ideal, if that's their personal and mutual desire. But it will be a choice, for each woman and each man.

 

[Braunwyn]

Bold added by me

So now you've apparently stooped to direct patronization of women.

Since when have women been "innocent"? Two generations ago? 10? During the Roman republic times? Perhaps the women surrounding King David were all "innocent", hmmm?

lol

And please, explain to us this mysterious "feminine nature" that women have? I know, everyone probably has some idea of what you're talking about, but I dont like to read into what people post, so if you could directly explain to us this so-called "Feminine nature", I would greatly appreciated it.

My dad talks about feminine nature as well and calls himself a traditionalist. When I attempt to probe into his meanings nothing really comes of it. I suspect that he has ideas of such women being...firstly quiet, obedient/unquestioning, delicate, etc. OTOH, as a woman, I see feminine nature as fierce. For example, a woman giving birth is certainly not quiet or delicate lol. She's raw, powerful and incredibly strong. That is a woman's nature.

To a certain extent I can understand the fear and confusion that feminism might bring to men that have attachments to "gender roles". If their identity is dependent on a role that outlines what they should do or who they are supposed to be (bread winner/head of household) then they might be left feeling slighted. Imo, this shows that it hasn't only been women pioneering on the path to self-discovery but men as well.

 

[wanderingone]

and that women will no longer be able to identify with what they were naturally born with because it will be so suppressed because of secular society.

I can completely identify what I was naturally born with, ovaries, a vagina, a uterus, fallopian tubes, ..... as someone that was born with the usual parts and no obvious or not obvious uniqueness in my biology the doc was right when he said "It's a girl"

What I wasn't born with is a "natural" need to fulfill a role defined for me by individual or group views of what girls and women are supposed to do. I had an incredible mom... we spend our life at odds with each other.. probably because we are so much alike but I can never argue with her parenting technique when it came to gender.

While other parents forced their daughters who hated frills into dresses and demanded they be lady like my mother taught us to be PEOPLE. To be generous and kind, to treat others the way we wanted to be treated. (Cliche huh?) When I hated "girls" clothes she left the racks of pink and carted home those horrible brown and blue toughskins with the extra patch on the knees so I would stop destroying my pants as I climbed around the abandoned buildings when we lived in the city and found my way under old docks at the boatyards when we moved to the outer boroughs.

When I wanted to be Daniel Boone, Darth Vader and Captain purple for halloween she sewed up the costumes with no attempt to force me into the holly hobbie, or princess leia costumes my sisters chose. When I hated Barbie she handed me Action Jackson, when I hated the easy bake oven she gave me the ant farms, when I hated those flower making kits she gave me hotwheels. She let me wear my hair short (although she cried when my braids were cut off and saved them.. yuck) pick my sneakers from the boys sections and bought me tube socks while my sisters picked purple knee socks.

I was a muddy, bug loving, car and truck loving kid who played baseball and basketball with the boys and took auto, print and wood shop in school at a time when only boys took those classes.

When people said I was tomboy and said my mother must not know what to do with me she said I was a kid.. playing with toys and enjoying my life. Because my mother indulged our individual choices, rather trying to force us into a mold of what feminine is supposed to look like It never occurred to use that we had to choose our path based on having a vagina.

You may say.. all those things are not important.. sure it's okay for girls to do those things... but you have to understand.. before feminists took to the streets the fear of your daughter not being "girl" enough to attract the right man, to avoid the blacklisting of the neighborhood women would be enough to have all mothers forcing their daughters into dresses and telling them "girls don't play with...." (fill in the blank with footballs or whatever)

My husband and I are partners in a life together. We each do what it takes to keep the household going and the kids healthy and happy. We contribute our talents (he happens to be better at homemaking, I happen to be better at maintenance tasks.. even if I hate gas appliance and am terrified I will blow something up he happens to be the one who is likely to actually blow something up if he goes near the hot water heater)

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Bold added by me

So now you've apparently stooped to direct patronization of women.

Since when have women been "innocent"? Two generations ago? 10? During the Roman republic times? Perhaps the women surrounding King David were all "innocent", hmmm?
And please, explain to us this mysterious "feminine nature" that women have? I know, everyone probably has some idea of what you're talking about, but I dont like to read into what people post, so if you could directly explain to us this so-called "Feminine nature", I would greatly appreciated it.

A woman who hasn't been around the block and dosen't let herself become defiled by secular society and vanity. You don't know what it is probably because you have suppressed it to such an extent that you don't even recognize it anymore.

And yes , women were much more feminine and respectful back then during those times. Not many women today have retained their femininity

The innocence of women hmmm. Come now, women are not children. And women have always come in all shades (just as men I'm sure). Women are/can be strong, intelligent, independent minded individuals. Some people simply don't like the idea of being pigeonholed into a sterotype, in this instance your stereotype. That's only for your wife to contend with, not the rest of us.

A person can be an adult and retain their innocence. And fortunatly my wife isn't worldly and vain like most women in the US are. However I've known a good amount of people who have had their familys ruined because of rebellious wives who have to same attitude as you and Balaam, and the sad thing is you don't see how harmful it is to most married couples, a marriage without God and the understanding of the roles in marriage is a Godless marriage that will have Godless results like divorce.

 

[Braunwyn]

A person can be an adult and retain their innocence.

Your notion of innocence -- translated as ignorance.

And fortunatly my wife isn't worldly and vain like most women in the US are. However I've known a good amount of people who have had their familys ruined because of rebellious wives who have to same attitude as you and Balaam, and the sad thing is you don't see how harmful it is to most married couples, a marriage without God and the understanding of the roles in marriage is a Godless marriage that will have Godless results like divorce.

Honestly, every christian I'm friendly with is divorced. Both of my parents (very religous) are divorced. My husband and I are both athiests and we have an excellent marriage. It's rooted in mutual respect, love and maturity.

I'm not sure what you mean by attitudes like mine. Rebellious? What in the world are you talking about? Rebellious against what? My husband is a full time graduate student and I am the bread winner. I love the fact that I can put him through school so that his dreams can be realized. Before his entry to uni f/t I was the student and he was the bread winner. We're a couple of scientists that hold a vegetarian/non-violent household. We've been fortunate enough to carve out a charmed life for ourselves. If and when we have children they will be wrought in compassion and responsibility.

I can't speak of most married couples or how they do things. I do know that the sucess I find in my marriage has only been achieved via our dedication to eachother with clear intentions and intelligent discourse.

 

[cantata]

A woman who hasn't been around the block and dosen't let herself become defiled by secular society and vanity. You don't know what it is probably because you have suppressed it to such an extent that you don't even recognize it anymore.

And yes , women were much more feminine and respectful back then during those times. Not many women today have retained their femininity

So what qualifies as femininity, and what as vanity?

Is shaving your legs and underarms vanity or femininity? Is wearing high heels femininity or vanity? Is wearing skirts and dresses rather than trousers femininity or vanity? This is a classic example of male reinforcement of the madonna/harlot complex.

A person can be an adult and retain their innocence. And fortunatly my wife isn't worldly and vain like most women in the US are. However I've known a good amount of people who have had their familys ruined because of rebellious wives who have to same attitude as you and Balaam, and the sad thing is you don't see how harmful it is to most married couples, a marriage without God and the understanding of the roles in marriage is a Godless marriage that will have Godless results like divorce.

Rebellious wives? You mean, wives who want to be listened to?

Are husbands permitted to be rebellious? Aren't women just demanding exactly what men have had for centuries?

I'm not sure what you mean by attitudes like mine. Rebellious? What in the world are you talking about? Rebellious against what? My husband is a full time graduate student and I am the bread winner. I love the fact that I can put him through school so that his dreams can be realized. Before his entry to uni f/t I was the student and he was the bread winner. We're a couple of scientists that hold a vegetarian/non-violent household. We've been fortunate enough to carve out a charmed life for ourselves. If and when we have children they will be wrought in compassion and responsibility.

I can't speak of most married couples or how they do things. I do know that the sucess I find in my marriage has only been achieved via our dedication to eachother with clear intentions and intelligent discourse.

You must be sick of me repping you to death, so I will express my "yay" for this post here, instead.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

A woman who hasn't been around the block and dosen't let herself become defiled by secular society and vanity. You don't know what it is probably because you have suppressed it to such an extent that you don't even recognize it anymore.

And yes , women were much more feminine and respectful back then during those times. Not many women today have retained their femininity




A person can be an adult and retain their innocence. And fortunatly my wife isn't worldly and vain like most women in the US are. However I've known a good amount of people who have had their familys ruined because of rebellious wives who have to same attitude as you and Balaam, and the sad thing is you don't see how harmful it is to most married couples, a marriage without God and the understanding of the roles in marriage is a Godless marriage that will have Godless results like divorce.

What is your wife's username on CF? Surely she would want to yell from the rooftops and tell as many womyn as possible how wonderful her marriage is because it is being followed according to God. Yep, looking forward to hearing how awesome it is to be married to a guy that literally believes the wife is to be submissive to her husband. Oh wait, won't that make her testimony suspect? If she is to be submissive to her husband how will we know if she would be saying what she truly wants to say versus being told what to say?

 

[Bombila]

What is your wife's username on CF? Surely she would want to yell from the rooftops and tell as many womyn as possible how wonderful her marriage is because it is being followed according to God. Yep, looking forward to hearing how awesome it is to be married to a guy that literally believes the wife is to be submissive to her husband. Oh wait, won't that make her testimony suspect? If she is to be submissive to her husband how will we know if she would be saying what she truly wants to say versus being told what to say?

Well, CiC could give her permission to post her real thoughts on the matter. Heh.

 

[wanderingone]

I can't speak of most married couples or how they do things. I do know that the sucess I find in my marriage has only been achieved via our dedication to eachother with clear intentions and intelligent discourse.

And that's the only way a real partnership survives. Staying "married" means nothing to me if I'm doing it out of some horrible fear of being viewed as not woman enough, or being spurned by God. My husband and I divorced - and learned how to talk to each other while we lived in different houses.. when we learned to trust each other with something beyond the surface we reunited, and remarried. None of our issues was some odd rejection of male or female roles that is fantasied about by certain types of conservative people of faith (I don't say Christians because I've encountered plenty of Muslim and Jewish women struggling with the same issue of superficially defined roles) It was purely individual struggles- that for each of us boiled down to problems with trust...
---------------------------------------------
I take no issue with people who CHOOSE to define themselves according to some set of rules. What I take issue with is the notion that the very specific ideals expressed for male and female behavior by certain groups is somehow torn down or altered by the personal lives of others. The "rights" of a group of people are not "requirements" - If I don't care for the freedom to vote, have an abortion, get the birth control pill, wear a skirt that shows my cheeks, work outside the home, drive a car, become a pilot or whatever then I don't have to avail myself of those rights.. I can choose something else. I'd much rather have the spouse who chooses to be who he is, than the spouse required to perform certain tasks simply because he has a penis.

 

[wanderingone]

And yes , women were much more feminine and respectful back then during those times. Not many women today have retained their femininity

Back when? Is your age on your header correct? 26? Just how far back have you been a witness to women and their degree of respect (respect for what exactly?) Shoot I'm not a witness to all that much history and you're only a year or 2 older than my oldest daughter-- Who's becoming a minister... is that respectful or do you believe in that notion that women can't minister?