Sex and sexuality and sexual orientation...

[minakichan]

Is the mere act of seeing image of naked people, such as cute baby bathing with ducks, a sin? I think not. It is only adultury when one start having lustful thought of someone as a sex object. That being said, in today's world, women are often shown half naked in provokative manner in advertisement. They gain money by installing sexual thoughts into some people's mind, which I believe should be outlawed.

Nah, the porno and fanservice thing is probably definitely a sin, so I'm not ambivalent about that. I'm ambivalent about masturbation ._. I mean, 98% of men do it... I'm not saying that makes it right, because 100% of men (and women) sin, but .___. ... OK I'm going to quit talking about that topic now.

I disagree with this sentiment!

I disagree with this disagreement! XD

So, yeah, and after all this talk about women and submission--I hate to say this--but I would be perfectly happy being a stay at home mom.

My opinion of stay-at-home moms is the same as that of stay-at-home dads-- if you can afford it and the benefit for the kids exceeds the lack of lost income, I think it's a great decision. Nothing to do with gender.

"Submit yourselves one to another in the fear of God,'' (Ephesians 5:21)

Wives are to submit to their husband just has husbands are to submit themselve to their wives. Has bible becomes a political tools to justify submission of women? Yes, it has, especially by taking passages out of context just like how the devil tested Jesus. But that doesn't mean we should blindly follow it without question, as that would tarnish the name of Jesus.

This makes me happy.

It goes back to this basic principle: The husband is the head of the household, charged with the full leadership responsibility of the family's welfare. The wife is his "ezer kenegdo", which is generically translated as helpmeet. HOWEVER: That term does not give Eve (or any woman) it's proper due. The word root "ezer", meaning help, is only used sparsely in the Bible, usually for GOD when we are in dire straits, and He comes through to save us in a serious time of need. The world "kenegdo" means an opposite or counterpart.

This makes me sad.

.......So............. I'm wondering if uh, we can take a completely relativist take on these terms. <retard>Does the woman really HAVE to be the wife? How about we make the woman the husband and the man the wife; then we can turn it around =D</retard>
In all seriousness, if I got married and my spouse was OK with it, I would like to be the husband =D AND SERIOUSLY I really think the "head of household" should either not exist or go to the one with more responsibility, not the one who has male organs. "To quote Spiderman: with great power comes great responsibility;" and if the man can't handle the responsibility, maybe he doesn't deserve the power. (I think this because again, my dad epic fails at being the responsible head of household.)

Whatever. I mean, we have passages like this "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God." I just think it pretty much sucks that women and slaves use the same verb towards men and masters. But some women are OK with that, I suppose. If this is really the case, I just won't get married; who deliberately enters a contract of slavery?

(so maybe I'M wierd? for not wanting anything like that?!)

Maybe you're asexual! *happy asexual dance* Uh never mind.

And...unfortunately, you might need to swallow some of that pride to do it.. ^^; The Bible does say that it's wrong to be so prideful... and that humility is always better...

*sigh* haaaaaai. I'm a terrible human being ._.

[Sheenar]

*sigh* haaaaaai. I'm a terrible human being ._.

We're all terrible human beings...every one of us. Which makes Christ's sacrifice and the fact that He even wants to talk to us so AMAZING.

As to your comment about submission and slavery --if the husband is following the command (and it is a command) for husbands to "love your wives and Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her", then he will not be treating you like a slave, but as a help-meet, a partner.

[uc pseudonym]

EDIT: I really should not leave tabs sitting open before responding to them. This post was meant to go four or five back.

I'm such an arrogant human that I just don't want that. I suppose it's a case of "injustice is when bad things happen to ME" or something. I honestly don't think I'll ever shed my pride enough to be willing to submit to a man-- at least without it being mutual. But I know you say you're not talking about marriage, so I guess there's not much more to be said on this vein.

To clarify, I was talking more about submission in general, not as it applies to marriage (I don't understand why someone would willingly marry someone they don't consider their equal, but that's another story). While I encourage you to shed your pride as much as possible, that doesn't mean marrying a Neanderthal is the way to do it.

What I meant was being a friend to the socially-awkward person who really isn't someone you'd choose as a friend normally. Or spending personal resources on someone who has screwed up their life that you'd much rather blow off. Etc, etc, I'm sure I don't need to go on. This really gets well away from the topic of sexuality, but I feel strongly about submission as the way of life for Christians.

the problem I have with that is that you are leaving out the verses directly succeeding:

"23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word..."

Those verses have to be directly related, though, unless Paul is a bad writer. It's like a main principle with several subpoints. He begins that part of the letter by saying "submit to one another" - a statement of mutuality I don't think can be brushed aside - and then proceeds to talk about how that would look. From that point he gives specific instructions for wives, husbands, children, and slaves. Though I agree that the modern ear winces at the way he describes it, I think it is best to interpret that description in the overall theme of mutual submission.

Note that slaves are on the list there as well. Paul doesn't try to overturn that institution (not least because he's giving advice for a church awaiting Christ's imminent return) but instead gives instructions for how to work in it as Christians. Note that you could interpret the slave verses in two ways as well: one suggests that slaves and masters are equals and another that justifies the institution.

Given the number of times and ways that Paul insists upon the equality of all believers (Galatians 3:28 and all of that), I think this should be the primary lens for understanding anything he says about male-female relations. In first century Rome women were second-class citizens with relatively few marital rights - Paul challenges this by insisting that husbands love their lives as themselves, according to the general principle of equality. In today's society, I see no reason why men and women shouldn't be viewed as equals and I'm pretty sure that's what Paul would write if he was still in the epistle business.

I was trying not to get into this discussion, but now I'm pretty much entrenched...

:(

Hm? If you're joking, I don't get it. At the risk of making myself look stupid, I'll explain what I meant explicitly.

The question as to which spouse wears the pants is, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed. The idea that one has to dominate the other reflects the false ideas that relationships are competitions and that people can't work together without some kind of hierarchy. Hence I think metaphoric pants in any relationship are a bad idea.

...though I did intend the double entendre.

[beau99]

Nah, the porno and fanservice thing is probably definitely a sin, so I'm not ambivalent about that. I'm ambivalent about masturbation ._. I mean, 98% of men do it... I'm not saying that makes it right, because 100% of men (and women) sin, but .___. ... OK I'm going to quit talking about that topic now.

I can't say so for women, because I'm not female, but with males, there are actual health benefits.

[Maledicte]

Yesplz! Also, I think androgyny is beautiful *_* WAIT DOES THAT MEAN THAT I CAN BE A BEAUTIFUL BUTTERFLY TOOOOOOOO?

I think androgyny is beautiful as well. Actually, I constantly wish I could have slightly more masculine features so I could pull it off.

(no, you can't be a beautiful butterfly, but perhaps we can switch bodies.)
[quote]Real women look terrible naked XD]
I'm going to have to respectfully yet forcefully disagree with that. I've taken a life drawing class and I've drawn all sorts of people--hairy, hairless, wrinkly, pudgy, petite, scrawny, lumpy, buff and fit, male and female, youthful and aged. And you know what? They were all beautiful. It's amazing to look at the differences of each person God has created.

(but I still have a hard time looking at my body in a mirror...heh.)

This is one of the things I don't like about anime, actually--most characters are cute duplicates of one another. There's hardly any individuality.

Marketing makes it worse for women--making it look like real-life women are supposed to look like they came off an assembly line. I think Dove's campaign is a step in that direction but it's the only product line that uses that way of thinking.

[SnEptUne]

the problem I have with that is that you are leaving out the verses directly succeeding:

"23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word..."

It goes back to this basic principle: The husband is the head of the household, charged with the full leadership responsibility of the family's welfare. The wife is his "ezer kenegdo", which is generically translated as helpmeet.

That passage is supposed to advise wives not to submit themselves to other men beside their husbands, it doesn't imply dominances, as that would contradict the other passages in the bible.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

[minakichan]

I was trying not to get into this discussion, but now I'm pretty much entrenched...

I'm feeling argumentative today, so while I pretty much agree with you on what you said there, I'm going to sound like I don't. For the record, I believe that humans really are all equal (and equally sucky) and that Paul's words shouldn't be interpreted to mean that women should be placed below men or that there absolutely needs to be a male head of household, particularly in modern times.

(But I'm sure you've noticed that I've pretty much been very contradictory through this entire topic-- I get like that when I debate because I just like to argue against everything >u>; Or rather, I like to disagree but pretend to agree with people, but then whine about how my "opinion" is a terrible truth that shouldn't exist in the real world.)

I can't say so for women, because I'm not female, but with males, there are actual health benefits.

The only benefits for females that I've read about were purely psychological (or in preparation for monogamous sex). I think this is why female masturbation is looked down upon far more than male (although that might also be because of the numbers >_>).

I'm going to have to respectfully yet forcefully disagree with that.

What I mean is that some women in bikinis are pretty hot, but it's definitely not as pretty without it ._. I just don't like the way that certain parts look-- er, I'm, uh, not going to elaborate. >______________>;;;

[SnEptUne]

[quote="minakichan (post: 1244349)"]What I mean is that some women in bikinis are pretty hot, but it's definitely not as pretty without it ._. I just don't like the way that certain parts look-- er, I'm, uh, not going to elaborate. >______________>]

I too find that people being fully clothed is better than being naked. People being naked or not doesn't offend me so much, but when there are guys ogling at women who are scaldingly dressed, I would take offense in that.

I also have no interest in relationships; I have neither the time or energy. There is so much injustice in this world and I planned to devote my lives for the benefit of humanity, instead of staying home and raising kids.

Although I love kids, I may as well just be a teacher. Not to mention, in today's world, people have twisted idea about marriage as if it is about happiness instead of commitment. Just because one loves that person doesn't give that person any excuse to do whatever they want in the name of love.

In fact, from all the stories I have heard, I am quite disgusted at that idea of romance. Maybe there are some relationships that isn't build on lust, jealousy, and stupidity, but I see no point of compromising principles and moral values for a relationship.

Am I asexual? Maybe, maybe not. But either way, it doesn't concern me too much as I have enough to deal with already. Some would say growing up is conforming, that one should feel no guilt for supporting companies that are famous for their illegal practices, that one shouldn't take responsibilities of their own action because you have kids to take care of, that because raising kids need money, it is okay to steal. When your kids broke something in a restaurant, it is okay to hide the items instead of saying sorry, so that your kids wouldn't get into trouble. I found that bull.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

In fact, from all the stories I have heard, I am quite disgusted at that idea of romance. Maybe there are some relationships that isn't build on lust, jealousy, and stupidity, but I see no point of compromising principles and moral values for a relationship.

Ya know, if you found another person that didn't want to compromise principles and moral values in a relationship, then a relationship there would work, wouldn't you think?

[Prince Asbel]

Yeah, I know. ._. I've pretty much been playing devil's advocate in this thread. I just don't like the way it sounds, you know, in the Bible: wives submit to husbands, husbands be sure to love your wives. It just SOUNDS bad, and it gets read as "women, do what your husband says]

I think someone else already pointed out that the love a man must have for his wife will automatically lead to him treating you right, not being a pompous, arrogant, do-as-I-say-or-I-will-spank-you kind of jerk. I think your fears of the scriptures are unfounded, Minaki. People misinterpet them and apply them in ways that are just not scriptural, but don't blame the scriptures. Blame the people who misinterpet them. You have people like me (though I am merely an internet acquaintance) who correctly interpet the Bible's marriage doctrines who will make GREAT husbands.

Again, it needs to be stressed that although you probably are afraid of the people misinterpeting the scriptures, you should, as a Christian, not constantly point at the scriptures and say how you think it's wrong. A Christian starts with the word of God and must thereby rule out mindsets contrary to the word of God.

If a woman chooses a career outside instead of in the house, I personally don't see it as contrary to the Bible, but I don't feel like having a thread war today, so I'm not going to go into why. But, if she wants to have a successful marriage, she would be wise to marry a man who does not consider it some sort of sin.

Yeah seriously.

The notion of a woman "having to stay at home cooking/cleaning while the man is only obligated to work" is a mindset that absolutely disgusts me. It has no biblical foundation whatsoever, and is only considered "accepted" due to gender socialization in Western culture (And I guess many other parts of the world as well).

Really, I'd rather have a wife be submissive to God before she's submissive to me. And if anything, I'd definitely take her opinions and beliefs into just as much consideration as of my own.

Let me put it this way: If I get married, I want to be the husband. I want to make the household decisions and I want HIM to submit to ME. That doesn't mean that he has to do all the cooking and cleaning necessarily, but I I HAVE to wear the pants in such a relationship. Why? Because I'm a selfish anal control freak. Which probably means that I'll never have this problem.

All quoted for truth. Except for that last part, Minaki. He would be the one who takes care of the home, and you could be the working person in the family. That is perfectly fine, nothing sinful, nothing bad. But if you get married, and he (in all love and respect) excersizes his responsibility as head of the household to make a decision contary to yours, you're going to have to, as Christian, accept that. That's why I wouldn't recommend you get married.

[uc pseudonym]

Gasp! This thread didn't take much time today.

I'm feeling argumentative today, so while I pretty much agree with you on what you said there, I'm going to sound like I don't. For the record, I believe that humans really are all equal (and equally sucky) and that Paul's words shouldn't be interpreted to mean that women should be placed below men or that there absolutely needs to be a male head of household, particularly in modern times.

I'm all for playing devil's advocate, but it's also good to know what people actually think. Doesn't matter so much here, of course, as I wasn't speaking directly to you on this issue.

[Fish and Chips]

"As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say 'Poor Mr X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.' There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule." - C.S. Lewis

I tend to side that the man should be the head of the household. How Medieval of me, people, am I right? But I did not decide this because of some percieved superiority in men or inferiority in women. All men and women are equal in worth and potential and opportunity, or should be. They are, however, different. Classically speaking, men are the protectors, the providers. Meanwhile, women are the caretakers, the teachers. The strong and the nurturing, taking charge and providing support.

However, do not delude yourself to thinking that simply because the man is "The Head" that he is superior to the woman, or that he has no need of her. "The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I don't need you,' or the head to the feet, 'I don't need you.'" - 1 Corinthians 12:21

A woman must obey her husband, but a man must not make dark expectations of his wife. It is a bond, a mutual relationship, not a ruling class. The head is a position of respect because it is a position of responsibility, and far too many people (men and women) focus solely on the former with no concern for the later, leading to some truly abysmal gender roles.

And if all else fails, know this. "The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants." - Maria Portokalos, My Big Fat Greek Wedding

[NekoChan_C]

*reads post from Fish*

Bravo! thank you! You spoke more eloquently than I... very well stated.

[minakichan]

You have people like me (though I am merely an internet acquaintance) who correctly interpet the Bible's marriage doctrines who will make GREAT husbands.

If I didn't know better, I would think that you were hitting on me XD

But I think that a lot of people think they'll make great spouses ._. Just as so many adults think they'll make great parents, better than their own, but it doesn't always work out....

That's why I wouldn't recommend you get married.

I think I decided that quite a while ago XD

I'm all for playing devil's advocate, but it's also good to know what people actually think. Doesn't matter so much here, of course, as I wasn't speaking directly to you on this issue.

Sometimes I argue so much for different sides that even I don't remember which side I really believe in!

^ not a lie.

"The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I don't need you,' or the head to the feet, 'I don't need you.'" - 1 Corinthians 12:21

But... the head really doesn't need the feet, while the feet almost certainly need the head to function...
OK I'LL STOP ARGUING JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING NOW. sorry o.o
You're absolutely right, removing the head or neck from the other would not be in either's best interest.

Yeaaaaaaah, considering that I don't ever plan to get into a relationship, I feel that (know that) my side of this debate was pretty much spouting air. SORRY FOR SIDETRACK.

[SnEptUne]

"As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say 'Poor Mr X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.' There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule." - C.S. Lewis

I tend to side that the man should be the head of the household. How Medieval of me, people, am I right? But I did not decide this because of some percieved superiority in men or inferiority in women. All men and women are equal in worth and potential and opportunity, or should be. They are, however, different. Classically speaking, men are the protectors, the providers. Meanwhile, women are the caretakers, the teachers. The strong and the nurturing, taking charge and providing support.

However, do not delude yourself to thinking that simply because the man is "The Head" that he is superior to the woman, or that he has no need of her. "The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I don't need you,' or the head to the feet, 'I don't need you.'" - 1 Corinthians 12:21

A woman must obey her husband, but a man must not make dark expectations of his wife. It is a bond, a mutual relationship, not a ruling class. The head is a position of respect because it is a position of responsibility, and far too many people (men and women) focus solely on the former with no concern for the later, leading to some truly abysmal gender roles.

And if all else fails, know this. "The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants." - Maria Portokalos, My Big Fat Greek Wedding

You have obviously never seen a weak man. :p

Asking him to rule or take over leadership maybe as good as asking a toad to do so. Thanksfully, most people have the capacity to learn, but we shouldn't assume everyone is rational and intelligent.

Leadership or not, I found it is more important for husband and wife to communicate. Forcing people to fit their stereotype will only create conflicts. Do you ask a blind man to chase a thief?

[Prince Asbel]

If I didn't know better, I would think that you were hitting on me XD

But I think that a lot of people think they'll make great spouses ._. Just as so many adults think they'll make great parents, better than their own, but it doesn't always work out....

I better watch how I type then. :eyeroll:

You're right about that last part. Still, it would be extreme to say that husbands would in all good intention treat their wife like total crap.

I think I decided that quite a while ago XD

Not surprised, given the points you and others have brought up in the different discussions here. You know what? After reading all the many posts made in thread, I don't think you could find another thread like this even if you searched for it. I guess a sarcastic high-five to Minaki for creating a truly unique thread.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

A woman must obey her husband, but a man must not make dark expectations of his wife. It is a bond, a mutual relationship, not a ruling class. The head is a position of respect because it is a position of responsibility, and far too many people (men and women) focus solely on the former with no concern for the later, leading to some truly abysmal gender roles.

I think that men should also obey their wives as well on a good number of occasions. How does being a male automatically make you correct when it comes to decision-making? It doesn't, really.

And if all else fails, know this. "The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants." - Maria Portokalos, My Big Fat Greek Wedding

Hahaha. XD This is so true.

Hm? If you're joking, I don't get it. At the risk of making myself look stupid, I'll explain what I meant explicitly.

XD Nah, I was kidding. Just cause you said "Pants".

[Tsukuyomi]

I think that men should also obey their wives as well ...

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MSP O__O

THANK YOU!
THANK YOU!!
THANK YOU!!!

I was about to say that, but was kinda hesitant, but you said it, so.. it's alright o.o?

Not just on "Occasion" either. If the husband expects the wife to obey him all the time. Why not the other way around?

EDIT: Errr, I'm not helping with the sidetracking.. sorry >_>

[Nightshade X]

"23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word..."

If I may add to this very simple, yet extremely complicated point...

The passage also says for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church. This begs the question, "how did Christ love the church". This is the simple thing: He gave everything He had for the church, laying down his own life to ensure its survival.

This is one humbling and horrifying calling if you ask me, because we men are called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice daily for our wives. We are called to lay down our own wills DAILY for the sake of the family, whose survival is something that we're directly responsible for. That doesn't mean that we'll always be right 100% of the time. We're not perfect by any means, so that will never happen.

I can already feel myself digressing, so I'll leave it at this: Jesus was willing to give His very life to make sure that the world had a way to be redeemed to the Father. Husbands are expected by God to lead their families in the same manner, in laying down our pride and our own selfish goals in order to ensure that the family thrives... to be deserving of the love of our wives and to be worthy of the respect that it will take for our wives to willingly allow men to act out the role that God has given us. This is a tough deal... and I can only hope that I'm even close to being that kind of a husband when I marry.

...you know, whenever that happens.

Oh, I almost forgot this one simple thing: I am fully convinced that men could never be superior to women, just as women could never be superior to men. We were never created to be at war for dominance over one another, but to compliment each other in the areas of life where we lack strength. We're like the missing pieces of each others' puzzle and, without the other half, we'll never be whole.

[Lochaber Axe]

Minaki,

I got about to the end of the second page when I realized a problem you have. You have a severe misconception of what a healthy relationship is... probably originating by your familial, cultural, mental, and physiological experiences and structure. In the case of gender roles, throw out everything that the Old Testament says about it if it causes you problems. The tension between Paul and Peter about circumcision attest that as circumstances change, many of the older ways will change if they really cause stumbling blocks for believers. It would be simply inconceivable for a Living God to not update his Words when its necessary. We really need to just start admitting that the OT was written for a completely different context than what we can fully understand. God will tell you if a verse rings true for your life.

Ultimately, you don't have to dress or act feminine if that is your desire and God's desire. You are only to remain pure of thought, mind, and spirit.

Godly relationships are of equal parts. The man is to be what the woman cannot, and the woman is to be what the man cannot. The gender has actually nothing to do with it. We get that from evolution, but we get our spirits and what really makes us Humans from God directly. Whats inside the package is far more important than what makes up the package. Sex is good, so that is why there are separate genders. Reproduction is good, so that is why there are separate genders. But these two aspects don't differentiate us from the animals of this world. There are far greater things than just that.

I hate the terms feminism as much as I hate chauvinism. I prefer the terms equalism, that go back to the above. I should hope that my future wife will complete parts of me, and I should hope I will complete a part of her. However, only God can fully complete me. No man, woman, or child can ever do that.


Pseudo-psychology time:

From what you have been saying, I feel that you have some deeper self-esteem issues that create this confusion. Particularly as these neurosis have created a great schism in yourself in respects toward males that you feel are superior to you. You are drawn to them by nature [evolutionarily speaking], but hate yourself for it. It pulls at your psychological barriers that shield you from pain. This tension and weakness is repressed then by targeting the boys that started it.

I could be fully mistaken on this, but I really don't think you are as abnormal as you think. I know because I've gone through the same things.

Physiologically and psychologically from what I have read of your experiences, you are not asexual, and neither are you bisexual or lesbian. However, you CAN make yourself that way if you don't control your thoughts in regards to arousal in regards to female sexuality. Forgive me for saying this, but I think you might be scared of expressing your sexuality outside yourself. I was like that for a while until I fought it and fully enjoyed my virginity after that.

On masturbation, all I know is that it has messed me up so much (physically, mentally, and spiritually) that I cannot condone its practice.

[CobaltAngel]

*sigh* haaaaaai. I'm a terrible human being ._.

No, you're not! We all have quirks we need to work through.

And questioning these things isn't weird or freaky at all. I questioned them at your age too. I comes with analyzing identity. Introspective analysis is very healthy, and these are ultimately questions you need to answer for yourself. None of us will be able to mold what you feel or believe and we shouldn't. Who you are and what you believe in is between you and God. Not that discussion with others is helpful.

Don't be afraid to face anything, even if it seems bad or wrong. The most spiritual growth comes when you can look at things with an open mind. (Although it appears that's pretty much what you're already doing, so props to you. )

I agree with others though, it seems that this comes from a deeper issue with relationships. Perhaps your need to "wear the pants" in a relationship comes from a time in your past when you were stifled from having control you maybe should have? (ew I sound like an effin' psychiatrist man)

[Fish and Chips]

That's quoting the Bible, C.S. Lewis, and a romantic comedy all in one post OH WHAT NOW.

But... the head really doesn't need the feet, while the feet almost certainly need the head to function...
OK I'LL STOP ARGUING JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING NOW. sorry o.o
You're absolutely right, removing the head or neck from the other would not be in either's best interest.

Yeaaaaaaah, considering that I don't ever plan to get into a relationship, I feel that (know that) my side of this debate was pretty much spouting air. SORRY FOR SIDETRACK.

Nah, sorry, I was playing off of UC's post.

And actually, I needed an excuse to post in this thread. Your OP's been rattling around in there for a couple days, and it's not a subject that I (being a guy) am all that comfortable discussing in a thread predominantly populated by females till the guys broke it up a bit. I know where you're coming from in all this, though you're a lot more sexually mature than I am to bring it up.

I will say you ladies are a lot more even-keeled than us. Periods are awkward, yes, but at least you can pace yourselves, once a month. Men tend to be a lot more spur of the moment with dangerous frequency, and usually with bad timing and all that accompanies it.

You have obviously never seen a weak man. :p

Asking him to rule or take over leadership maybe as good as asking a toad to do so. Thanksfully, most people have the capacity to learn, but we shouldn't assume everyone is rational and intelligent.

Leadership or not, I found it is more important for husband and wife to communicate. Forcing people to fit their stereotype will only create conflicts. Do you ask a blind man to chase a thief?

I think that men should also obey their wives as well on a good number of occasions. How does being a male automatically make you correct when it comes to decision-making? It doesn't, really.

I have a habit of largely ignoring people who don't read my posts in full, but I am feeling charitable here. If either of you can find the post where I said that men are infallible, please link it in this thread. While you're busy with that, I reiterate there is an unhealthy obsession with the authority of the Head and less focus on the responsibility. "Husband" is a duty, one a number of men do not deserve. Your authority is not an end in and of itself, but a means to an end, that is your family. Power for the sake of power is foolish and shortsighted, and they will not live to see their ambitions satisfied. However power for the sake of others is wise and noble.

Marriage is a complimentary relationship. The roof shelters the walls from the rain, but the roof cannot stand without the walls. You women should support your husbands, guide them, because we men have this habit of being particularly stupid and thickheaded. I believe wives should obey their husbands, but certainly not blindly so, no. A good wife advises her husband in all matters, and it is at his own peril that he dismisses her. "Taking charge and providing support." "It is a bond, a mutual relationship."

And an amendment, we live in a broken world. Hell duh. But there is no excuse to toss God's intention because man has chosen to sully it.

[NekoChan_C]

Nightshade, Lochaber and Fish: You guys make me happy. It is SUCH a refreshing thing to hear men (young men, at that!) being so responsible and Biblically minded about their roles as leaders and providers... I really thought that there weren't many men left who had a solid sense of the great and important task set forth for husbands to take on.

Minaki: in response to the other side of the questions you originally posted... I consider myself 100% completely hetero. Never been with nor desired to be with a girl. But a sexy picture is a sexy picture, and there were times that I, too, have fallen prey to the allure of a picture showing a female in a compromised position. Many times it's simply the taboo that excites, rather than the actual content.
Also, keep in mind that admiration and enamore-ment (is that a word??) of a beautiful female doesnt necessitate any sort of lesbian or bi-sexual leaning. People are wired to appreciate and admire beauty, both physical and spiritual. Women are not exempt from that, and though we tend to be less visually stimulated for lustful reasons, there are always exceptions.

Either way, my best advice would be that you stay away from things that you know will arouse you in any way. And as for hating relationships and being so wary of marriage... that's a semi-natural by product of our UBER messed up society. Not everyone IS called to marriage. Paul exhorts the joys of singlehood many, many times... but the idea that by staying single you can be "in control" of everything still seems incongruous in certain aspects.

How much are we truly "in control" anyway? And shouldn't we be practicing the art of submission to God's will, as opposed to continuously pushing our own agenda onto God?

EDIT: I, personally, would NOT marry a man who would obey me. I **want** my husband to be the leader and the head of the household, to stand up for what is right BECAUSE it is right and not because *I* said so. I have little respect for a man who cannot make the hard decisions, just as I have little respect for a man who always chooses his needs above mine, or the family's. I will always expect to be consulted on major decisions, and will give my opinion and input honestly and objectively, but I understand and accept that the decision will ultimately lie with my husband. And if I have chosen my husband wisely, then there is NO reason for me to fear that.

[fairyprincess90]

i want a husband who controls me as well. i know what an rebel i can be...and i know i struggle terribly with many many things. sometimes "I" want to be in control just because i'm selfish...but i want my husband to be firm with me and say "NO! that is not right!"

sad to say....no offense to my boyfriend right now (and soon-to-be-fiance-and-then-husband) but he doesn't really control me. i control him. i talk ALL the time about how "I" feel and i make tons of decisions and i've been falling terribly in sin because he doesn't keep me accountable. i know i should learn to control myself on my own but i work better when someone is controlling me. (as much as i hate to admit that) if he would take a stand more with me and tell me that i'm doing wrong and that i need to change...i'd probably be a much better person. i want to have a leader that i can follow...a man who is in control. i am a follower, not a leader...though sometimes i wish i was the leader. i know i don't make the best decisions though. i run off of my emotions way too much...and that IS a female trait. and yet i also want to be in some control. i want us to make decisions TOGETHER...but right now it seems i'm making all the decisions =[ i should probably speak to him about this....but i feel bad telling him what to do all the time...haha.

i'm so happy to hear some of you men taking up your responsibility and understanding your roles as men. =] ::applauds::

[CobaltAngel]

i want a husband who controls me as well. i know what an rebel i can be...and i know i struggle terribly with many many things. sometimes "I" want to be in control just because i'm selfish...but i want my husband to be firm with me and say "NO! that is not right!"

I don't think wanting a man man to control you is a good thing. Lots of negative can come from a relationship like that. My father controls my family and I hate it. It makes me want to rebel even more.
I am a very rebellious person and my self control sucks at times but I don't think being "forced to do what's right" would help me in the least. It would make things worse. But maybe that's just me.

[Prince Asbel]

But a sexy picture is a sexy picture, and there were times that I, too, have fallen prey to the allure of a picture showing a female in a compromised position. Many times it's simply the taboo that excites, rather than the actual content.

To Minaki: You know what? I think NekoChan_C diagnosed your problem. Maybe she's hit the nail on the head about this whole deal?

EDIT: I, personally, would NOT marry a man who would obey me. I **want** my husband to be the leader and the head of the household, to stand up for what is right BECAUSE it is right and not because *I* said so. I have little respect for a man who cannot make the hard decisions, just as I have little respect for a man who always chooses his needs above mine, or the family's. I will always expect to be consulted on major decisions, and will give my opinion and input honestly and objectively, but I understand and accept that the decision will ultimately lie with my husband. And if I have chosen my husband wisely, then there is NO reason for me to fear that.

I think this states pretty clearly what most of the others have tried to say. Men are the leaders, they make the ultimate decisions. If they truly love their wives like they love themselves, they'll listen to you. So this whole idea of men being the ultimate decision maker in the family is not by itself the horrifying image that other members (perhaps through bad experience) talk about. You have to take the Bible as a whole and make sure your boyfriend or fiancee agrees with the biblical doctrine BEFORE marriage, and grief and slavery WILL be avoided.

P.S. Nice post, NekoChan_C.

[Raiden no Kishi]

I don't think wanting a man man to control you is a good thing. Lots of negative can come from a relationship like that. My father controls my family and I hate it. It makes me want to rebel even more.
I am a very rebellious person and my self control sucks at times but I don't think being "forced to do what's right" would help me in the least. It would make things worse. But maybe that's just me.

I may be full of nonsense, but that's not how I read fp90's post (i.e. I didn't read "control" as "utterly dominate/keep on a leash". I read it more as "I need someone who will stand up to me because I know I'm strong-willed". And I think that's a healthy, honest admission. Strong-willed people need to be in relationships with others strong enough to balance them. The trick is for the two to be mature and thick-skinned enough to be able to handle the inevitable tension. You might think, "Tension? In a relationship? Sounds like a recipe for disaster!" but I say it's better than one person dominating the relationship (which makes disaster inevitable, two heads being nearly universally preferable to one). The first cardinal rule of relationships is this: they are not and will never (in this life) be perfect. We are dealing with humans here. But a solid understanding of personalities and how they interact can make things much smoother and more stable.

.rai//

[fairyprincess90]

yes Raiden that is what i meant. i didn't mean like being tied down and forced to do things. i meant someone to stand up to me. like you said =]

and i usually don't listen to people unless they have a good reason. so i wouldn't listen if my husband just said "do this because i said so!" i'd react better to "i will not allow you to do that because that is not good for you and i want what's best for you." something of that sort.

so yeah.

i do admit that my boyfriend did take control one time. i was becoming decently attached to smoking...and he finally took control and threw the cigarettes out and told me i am not going to smoke them again. which was a very good thing. =] i just wish he'd be like that in more areas.

[Lochaber Axe]

yes Raiden that is what i meant. i didn't mean like being tied down and forced to do things. i meant someone to stand up to me. like you said =]

and i usually don't listen to people unless they have a good reason. so i wouldn't listen if my husband just said "do this because i said so!" i'd react better to "i will not allow you to do that because that is not good for you and i want what's best for you." something of that sort.

so yeah.

i do admit that my boyfriend did take control one time. i was becoming decently attached to smoking...and he finally took control and threw the cigarettes out and told me i am not going to smoke them again. which was a very good thing. =] i just wish he'd be like that in more areas.

It'll come with time... all men were once boys and all that. Just make sure to help him along in his maturation by putting responsibility solidly on his shoulders here and there.

[uc pseudonym]

XD Nah, I was kidding. Just cause you said "Pants".

Whatever you say, Mr. Smarty.

sad to say....no offense to my boyfriend right now (and soon-to-be-fiance-and-then-husband) but he doesn't really control me. i control him. i talk ALL the time about how "I" feel and i make tons of decisions and i've been falling terribly in sin because he doesn't keep me accountable. i know i should learn to control myself on my own but i work better when someone is controlling me. (as much as i hate to admit that) if he would take a stand more with me and tell me that i'm doing wrong and that i need to change...i'd probably be a much better person. i want to have a leader that i can follow...a man who is in control. i am a follower, not a leader...though sometimes i wish i was the leader. i know i don't make the best decisions though. i run off of my emotions way too much...and that IS a female trait. and yet i also want to be in some control. i want us to make decisions TOGETHER...but right now it seems i'm making all the decisions =[ i should probably speak to him about this....but i feel bad telling him what to do all the time...haha.

I'd strongly encourage you to speak to him about it. While it probably is safe to assume he's not like me, I know I put up with a lot of things people do simply because I don't feel I have the right to call them on something (or because I feel it would be better for me to be annoyed than to attack them). Admittedly, I do feel I have the right when it comes to family, but maybe he's from a more reserved background. I know if someone was irritated at me being quiet about such things when I was trying hard to be quiet, that probably wouldn't turn out well.

Sometimes I argue so much for different sides that even I don't remember which side I really believe in!

^ not a lie.

There does come a point where argument serves no purpose at all, you know.