Anglican Church playing God again.

[princealbertofb]

I don't know, yes it's based in Biblical Ideal but i think that too often in today's world, people do not understand those ideal, or any ideals for a relationship in which one partner has absolute authority and power over the other, all be that by the choice of the one agreeing to submit.

Too many times I've seen people, and more often the man or dominant partner change for the worse after they got married. Mr. Sweet, I'll take care of you and treat you right." becomes "Mr. I'll tell you what to do and how to be and, beat the tar out of you if you don't."

The wording, to me, without the ideals behind it, gives them the opening to do that and, sets it in the minds of both partners that it's okay and that the submissive partner has to accept it.

Yes, IF everyone held to the Biblical ideals behind it, it would be fine but, this is the real world and that is not going to happen. There are some people who will use it as an excuse for abuse and, there are some who will refuse to get out of the marriage because of the vows, even if it kills them. That's where I see a problem.

People who are of a certain faith do not usually go outside of that faith to marry, they accept the vows their faith prescribes, even if it doesn't feel quite right to them. We aren't living in an ideal world where we can trust anyone but ourselves to hold to any ideals. This is asking what I see as under educated, under motivated people to accept an ideal they do not fully understand and, we all know that humans will take such things and twist them into something ugly, perhaps not always intentionally but, they will use their own definitions and, try to act on those definitions, even when it hurts others when they do. And some will do the same intentionally.

To a certain extent, you are probably right that many couple relationships rely on a dominant / submissive dynamic, but this generally pans out in gender roles and who gets to do what... the way most couples engage in their lives is a reflection of what roles each person in the couple is willing to undertake and what acts go with these roles. In effect, if a woman were better at changing a tyre than her man and he was better at cooking a meal, there would be no reason why he shouldn't cook (the best for the couple) while she changes the tyres (the best for the couple too).

Societies have ascribed a certain number of roles for reasons dictated by physical strength, diversity in focus, and societal or cultural expectations, mostly. But women have been known to cope without men and men have been known to cope without men (probably even more so due to widowhood and longer life expectancy).

In the last century (and maybe more so since the 1960s) women have managed to reverse a tendency which was that they were invariably submitted to their husbands because of finances and child-bearing and rearing conditions, but these situations have dramatically changed. I don't see why women would want to return to situations of inequality after fighting so hard to get this equality (an equality that is still not obtained in every aspect of life).

The only de facto inequality that makes sense is the fact that men cannot be pregnant while women can. The fact that males are generally physically stronger, may also dictate the choice of men for jobs that require that sort of strength, but more and more it's machines that do the hard work.