Wife getting massages

[Ana the Ist]

Yes. Intimate partner violence contributes to more deaths, disabilities and illnesses *snip*

Let's say this is true (I have no reason to believe you're making up these stats).certainly, you understand the difference between....

1. Intimate partner violence.

And...

2. Domestic violence perpetrated specifically by the husband.


i mean....

To use an analogy, you understand...
The difference between crime rates amongst illegal immigrants and immigrants comes down to which group is a set and which is a subset.

 

[Paidiske]

Let's say this is true (I have no reason to believe you're making up these stats).certainly, you understand the difference between....

1. Intimate partner violence.

And...

2. Domestic violence perpetrated specifically by the husband.

If you're arguing that violence is worse among cohabiting unmarried couples, again I'd say, so what? What possible relevance does this have to anything to do with this thread?

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you're arguing that violence is worse among cohabiting unmarried couples, again I'd say, so what? What possible relevance does this have to anything to do with this thread?

Shall I circle back then to my original point?

'I was screaming ... no one cared': Woman sexually assaulted by 10yo felt alone

Maira Cappiello says she felt alone despite being in the centre of town when the alleged assault occurred on Wednesday morning.

www.google.com

"I was screaming ... no-one cared'​

As a result of her confronting the boy, a group of other young people entered the scene.
Ms Cappiello said despite the public ruckus, no-one on the street stopped to help her.
As things escalated, she said she warned the group that she was calling the police.
The police told her to enter a shop for safety, but she did not want to let the group get away without any repercussions."

Now, as you can see, we have a woman sexually assaulted in broad daylight by a child....a 10 year old. Apparently, this wasn't something she could handle on her own....so she called the police, who advised her to go inside a store (because they understand just how vulnerable she is and the potential for danger) she foolishly decides to ignore the police. I find that rather remarkable....does she imagine herself capable of dealing with the child herself or not?

She stays with the dangerous children until they turn on her...at which point she begins screaming for help. She clearly should have paid attention to the police. Apparently though, it's not only upon men to deliver her justice for her sexual assault....but apparently, she had hoped men would intervene and rescue her from imminent violence.

A scuffle ensued, in which Ms Cappiello said it felt like the young people had "nothing to lose".
"I was screaming ... no-one cared. Until I was blessed by two big men passing by," she said.
"I wasn't expecting to be alone in that moment. How can you be alone at 10am in the city centre?"
Medical documents sighted by the ABC, said Ms Cappiello suffered a bruise on her ear, minor injuries to both her cheeks, swelling in her knee and has neck pain as a result of the incident.
In the wake of the incident, Ms Cappiello had second thoughts about whether she should have confronted the group.
"I thought, 'Oh, maybe I shouldn't have chased him', but no, I've done the right thing," she said.

Thank goodness for two large men who somehow never got the whole "women don’t depend upon men for protection" coming from certain women, eh?

You can imagine your society is wildly different from mine in whatever ways you imagine. I would suggest however, that you listen to men regarding your safety....they probably know better than you do.

If that's clear....I'd ask again....what can men expect from women in return for this safety and protection that is expected?

 

[Paidiske]

If that's clear....I'd ask again....what can men expect from women in return for this safety and protection that is expected?

I reject your premise. Not only is safety and protection not expected, it's not provided.

And even if it were, they couldn't expect anything. Any relationship needs to be negotiated and freely agreed to by both parties, not demanded or expected by one party.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I reject your premise.

You're free to deny whatever you like. Clearly that’s the sort of denial that you feel comfortable making from the safety of your home....with some imaginary distance between you and potential violence.

Fortunately, there's no lack of examples from your homeland that back up my claim.

Not only is safety and protection not expected, it's not provided.

Odd then....that woman must have been calling for help from no one in particular.

Any relationship needs to be negotiated and freely agreed to by both parties, not demanded or expected by one party.

That's an ideal though....not a reality. I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that the woman in the article believed prior to the incident....

1. That she was capable of dealing with potentially dangerous situations. If she still believes this, she shouldn't. She isn't capable.

2. That she doesn't rely on men generally for her safety. She might have been ignorant of this fact....but if she still is....perhaps no men should help her next time. She can see if any women come to her aid.

3. That men aren't obligated to come to her help. I promise you, there's no shortage of women who are pleading for help from the men around them and are inevitably upset if it doesn't appear. There's even a tiny minority who clearly need help to avoid dying or being victimized...and are resentful and angry when help is given.

You may not personally see it this way...but I'd argue most women do.

 

[Paidiske]

That's an ideal though....not a reality.

If you're arguing for a "reality" in which men claim entitlement to women's servitude because of physical dominance, I'll stand up for the ideal.

 

[o_mlly]

If you're arguing for a "reality" in which ment claim entitlement to women's servitude because of physical dominance, I'll stand up for the ideal.

What is the biblical ideal?

In both our Christian traditions, we believe that the Holy Spirit unites (John 17:21), and the devil divides. In as much as feminism, as an ideology, divides us then its source is not the Holy Spirit.

Although St. Paul teaches three times that wives should be subject to their husbands, (Ephesians 5:22, Col 3:18–4:1; 1 Pt 3:1–7) feminists emphasize only one verse, Ephesians 5:21, which gives Christians the general instruction on relating one to the other, wrongly insisting that that one verse negates the particular and specific instruction given in the other three on the husband and wife relationship. Paul's teaching on the specific husband and wife relationship is affirmed in both Old and New Testaments -- Gen 2:18; Tobias 8:6; 1 Cor 11:9; 1 Tm 2:13.

In my tradition, we understand the heretic to be one who claims in error (from the Greek hairetikos "able to choose") to elevate one scriptural verse as controlling over all others. We should avoid heresies.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

If you're arguing for a "reality" in which men claim entitlement to women's servitude because of physical dominance, I'll stand up for the ideal.

Especially as the ideal doesn’t require abuse in order to be implemented.

 

[Paidiske]

What is the biblical ideal?

The Scriptural ideal is that the married couple relate in unity, in mutual love, mutual service, and mutual submission. This begins in Eden, and is marred by the fall, where we begin to see hierarchy in marriage as a condition of our fallenness.

In as much as feminism, as an ideology, divides us then its source is not the Holy Spirit.

I'm sure they used to say the same thing to the prophets, too. "You pointing out the injustice of our societies is divisive, so stop it!" Rather than recognising that the issue was the injustice itself.

 

[o_mlly]

The Scriptural ideal is that the married couple relate in unity, in mutual love, mutual service, and mutual submission. This begins in Eden, and is marred by the fall, where we begin to see hierarchy in marriage as a condition of our fallenness.

The hierarchy in marriage is defined in Eden. The biblical role of woman as man's helper occurs before the Fall in the OT. And is confirmed by the inspired writings of St. Paul in the NT. The Fall of the angels and man had as its source the sin of pride which led both to reject the authority of God. So too the Fall caused prideful woman to reject the authority of her husband and her role as helper.

I'm sure they used to say the same thing to the prophets, too. "You pointing out the injustice of our societies is divisive, so stop it!" Rather than recognising that the issue was the injustice itself.

Does God ever prescribe injustice? Certainly not. God's prescription for the roles of husband and wife evidenced in His revealed truth cannot be unjust for the source of the truth is Justice itself.

 

[Paidiske]

The hierarchy in marriage is defined in Eden.

At the fall.

The biblical role of woman as man's helper occurs before the Fall in the OT.

Ezer kenegdo is not a subordinate role. Eg. see here: Ezer kenegdo does not mean “a helper subordinate to him” - Marg Mowczko

Does God ever prescribe injustice? Certainly not.

Which is exactly why patriarchy - the oppression of women by men - is not godly.

 

[o_mlly]

Ezer kenegdo is not a subordinate role. Eg. see here: Ezer kenegdo does not mean “a helper subordinate to him” - Marg Mowczko

A blogger whose theme is Exploring the biblical theology of Christian egalitarianism is not an authority and some might say displays a bias leading to her eisegesis in interpreting the bible.

At the fall.

Nope. Clearly before the Fall the woman is described as man's helper.

Do not be confused though. The man who does not cherish/love his wife and is abusive to her offends God, perhaps more so than the wife who usurps his role in the marriage.

 

[o_mlly]

Which is exactly why patriarchy - the oppression of women by men - is not godly.

One can be the patriarch and not be oppressive. And that is godly.

 

[Paidiske]

A blogger whose theme is Exploring the biblical theology of Christian egalitarianism is not an authority and some might say displays a bias leading to her eisegesis in interpreting the bible.

She is, however, an excellent scholar, and a good accessible starting point for examining that particular question.

Nope. Clearly before the Fall the woman is described as man's helper.

But not in any way which gives him power or control over her.

One can be the patriarch and not be oppressive.

Really? What does that look like, in practice?

 

[o_mlly]

But not in any way which gives him power or control over her.

Real authority is in the one who possesses the truth. Our Lord is the Truth but He did not in His earthly ministry exercise His power to control others. He is the prime example of the good husband or the good wife. He is one with the Father who is our quintessential patriarch.

If the husband does not possess the truth then he has no authority over his wife. If he does possess the truth then following our Lord's example, his only tool is to teach her.

If the wife does not possess the truth then she has no authority over her husband. If she does possess the truth then following our Lord's example, her only tool is to teach him.

Really? What does that look like, in practice?

Does not your tradition through ordination give authority? Are you not as an ordained minister subject to your bishop's authority, or your parishioners to you? Is he oppressive in his exercise of authority? Does your parish display his picture somewhere? If so then that is what a non-oppressive authority looks like in practice.

A primary reason that we are divided into 30,000+ Christian denominations/churches is the rejection of religious authority. Divorcing one's church parallels divorcing one's spouse. Both abandon their relationship rather than, sometimes painfully, working through the difficulty in their union. The Anglican tradition being no exception.

Returning to the thread's topic which concerns itself with the morality of the OP's wife's behavior which he finds for him to be uncomfortable. Throughout this thread there have been many middle-of-the-road solutions offered that allow her to continue the treatments in ways that relieve him of his moral concerns. He cannot impose his will on her nor can she on him and neither needs to go to that extreme. They have to work it out. I'll pray that they do.

Thank you for your contributions to this thread. Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.

 

[Paidiske]

Our Lord is the Truth but He did not in His earthly ministry exercise His power to control others. He is the prime example of the good husband or the good wife.

If he, with his authority, did not exercise power to control, and is the prime example for both spouses, why are you arguing for a gendered power dynamic in marriage?

Does not your tradition through ordination give authority?

Yes, but it is authority to fulfil particular responsibilities; not authority to control others.

Are you not as an ordained minister subject to your bishop's authority, or your parishioners to you? Is he oppressive in his exercise of authority? Does your parish display his picture somewhere?

Me to my bishop, yes. My parishioners to me, not really in the same way. They don't vow to obey me, and if they object to my leadership there are ways that they can address that.

As for whether my bishop is oppressive, well, frankly - don't tell him I said this - but yes, sometimes he is. And no, we don't display his picture in the parish. (Do Catholics do that? Display a picture of the bishop? That strikes me as a bit odd).

If so then that is what a non-oppressive authority looks like in practice.

I was asking specifically about marriage. What does it look like for a husband to be a non-oppressive patriarch?

He cannot impose his will on her nor can she on him and neither needs to go to that extreme.

Then why were you arguing, back in post #627, for wifely subjection? Were you not suggesting that he should command, and she obey, in this instance? Your position seems to be inconsistent, at best.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you're arguing for a "reality" in which men claim entitlement to women's servitude because of physical dominance,

I was a bit more generous in calling it physical protection but ok...

I'll stand up for the ideal.

Then the feminists need to turn out next time a woman can't defend herself from a 10yo child and screams for the help of two men.

Explain to her that her cries for help are a reality that you don't want to live in and only continue to do so because weak women like herself cannot handle the threat of violence from a child.

Explain to all women that they aren't entitled to any help from a man they wouldn't be willing to give....if they aren't jumping into a fight to protect a man....they can’t possibly expect or hope a man ever help them from physical danger. They, like men, should expect help from no one ever....and adjust their behavior accordingly.

 

[Paidiske]

Then the feminists need to turn out next time a woman can't defend herself from a 10yo child and screams for the help of two men.

Because that's totally an everyday scenario.

I'll continue to work on building a community and society in which each person is committed to and working towards the flourishing of all.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Which is exactly why patriarchy - the oppression of women by men - is not godly.

Patriarchy?

You're kidding, right?

Didn't you say your nation now has some government organization that tells men how to act....men they aren't even married to?

What nation's women are you comparing your easy, violence-free life to, and deciding you're oppressed?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Because that's totally an everyday scenario.

How many public assaults on women per year do you imagine I can find in Australia?

I'll continue to work on building a community and society in which each person is committed to and working towards the flourishing of all.

I would suggest that involves women carrying their end of the sofa for once.