There are a few verses dedicated to women submitting and obeying their husbands. Also I think there is one telling woman to keep her pie hole shut or someday, Pow - to the Moon. 
In context the idea of 'submission' to your husband takes a different stance.
Ephesians: 5:21-32
21 and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.
22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.
24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also 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,
27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless.
28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;
29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,
30 because we are members of His body.
31 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh.
32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see to it that she respect her husband.
There are various translations which use different words, I choose a translation here where ' subject' is used in place of ' submit' so you may read it all and get a better idea of the relationship that the bible is trying to enforce without the biased sound of 'submit'.
New International Version (NIV) the word is submit: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=NIV
King James Version (KJV) the word is submit: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=KJV
There are many translations, please do go through the list and see how the wording changes at the link(s).
If you read it in context it becomes clear that the responsibilities of man and wife are much more than woman just bowing down to hubby.
While woman is charged to submit to the husband, the husband is charged with the duty of protecting and providing for the wife and loving his wife as his own self.
The only problem with changing the text of the wedding vows to reflect this notion in some part, is that most laity have no idea what the whole 'submit to thy husband' notion is about. Few understand that the husbands works is greater than the wives and yes many will twist it and turn it into meaning woman is slave.
The real issue here is that the Anglican Church has made the grave error of thinking that the common man of this 'enlightened' Century is more intelligent, more knowledgeable and thus more able to comprehend the subtle differences.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
Yes, that is the ideal model, much as I care for and protect my sub when I have one. Their welfare, well being and personal growth comes before my own. And that is wonderful when it works.
The problem is there are too many wives who do not understand that being submissive does not in any way mean you are an object, toy or less valuable than your husband and, too many husbands do not understand that submission is a gift beyond price, a gift of faith, love and absolute trust. The think it means the can order the wife around against her will, beat the daylight out of her if she doesn't do exactly as they want, keep her from seeing or even having friends and family, force her to have sex in way or at times she has no desire to do, etc...
It isn't the ideals behind it, it's the phrasing combined with the uneducated, careless nature of people that poses the problem.
•
Spin it any way you want BUT...it is CLEARLY archaic and sexist as hell...the whole thing. It is not the LEAST BIT CONFUSING!
The church (and you guys above) are DEFINING roles based on the sex of the person and supporting the church and their gender role bias...UGH! That is just as bad as supporting anti gay candidates and coincidentally this is another example of the war on women and gays. Supporting one is disheartening but for the fiscal conservatives amongst us I can understand....but supporting both?...that is revealing.
I think I need a break from this site...it is getting way to creepy for me again.
•
I only uses the feminine pronouns because that is what the OP is discussing. Dominant and submissive can apply to any gender and sexuality and, yes what Bowyn posted is the ideal Judeo-Christian marriage and not a bad model for any marriage, but few people actually understand what it really means to be a Dominant or submissive in a relationship. When those involved don't understand it beyond thinking Dominant means the boss or controller and submissive means the one the obeys and gives in, it leads to abuse.
That might be neglect of the sub's needs, disregard for her comfort level with things, verbal abuse, psychological abuse and/or physical abuse but, all of it damages the submissive. Here is an except from a chat I had with a damaged sub, shared with his permission (no he was never my sub). RainbowMaster is me and, I changed his screenname.
RainbowMaster: So, have you told this prospective Dom what your limits are?
BrokenSub: Sir, this boy has no limits. This boy's master will tell this boy what his limits are.
RainbowMaster: You like everything a Dom might do?
BrokenSub: This boy does not like some thing. Some things make this boy hurt for days. This boy wishes his master would not [explicit activity removed].
RainbowMaster: Then you need to tell this prospective Dom you don't want to [explicit activity removed].
BrokenSub: No Sir, this boy must do what Master wants. This boy is not permitted to dislike anything.
RainbowMaster: I assume your old Master taught you that?
BrokenSub: Yes Sir, Master taught this boy that he has no will or mind of his own. This boy's mind, will and body belong only to his Master and, Master may do whatever Master wants with what he owns.
RainbowMaster: So, you think it's okay if your Master breaks your bones, or worse?
BrokenSub: Yes Sir, if it pleases Master, this boy will be broken. If it pleased Master this boy will be killed.
Yes, this sub was in need of serious mental help, and I did meet him in person and convince him to check in to a one week emergency intervention program, which I paid for and, he's marginally better now and, working with an outpatient therapist and, I'm happy to say, not in a relationship.
That's extreme but, I've seen it too many times in both men and women. Imagine a wife degraded, demeaned, beaten and brainwashed to that point outside of BDSM where no one even had a chance of recognizing what had happened to them and, no one would be there to offer the much needed help. Scary, and that is what this opens the door very wide to happening.
•
I love how the more time progresses, the more cowardly people try to send us backwards.
•
@ Blue, not sure that your comparison between the church and the way it treats women or would like to treat women and BDSM are legitimate.
For one thing, I believe that anyone entering a BDSM relationship would be doing so willingly and not against their own judgement. It's contractual, to some extent.
Here some of the churches are trying to rob women of rights and statuses previously acquired and with no idea of a reassessment of the contract with both parties agreeing.
So were you saying that in some cases women should submit, or might enjoy submitting? What about those who don't? Should they be robbed of their equal places or statuses just because some archaic church structures might prefer for men to have power? It doesn't seem very "21st century".
•
What I'm saying is that when a person CHOOSES to submit to another, be that to a Dom, a husband, a wife, a significant other, or even a stranger for one hour, the Dominant one takes on a huge resposibility that few I've met outside of the BDSM community, where the information and means to educate ourselves on that exists understand.
For most dominate simply means to rule over with an iron fist, to force whoever submitted to obey no matter what and, that is wrong. To dominate is to accept complete responsibility for the physical, spiritual, mental and sexual welfare of the one who submitted and to be sure their desires, needs, and wants are met at ALL times in ALL areas of their life.
If my sub, told me he wanted to go to college, as his Dom, it's up to me to make that happen for him. If he wanted to work in any profession, again I'd do all I could to make it happen. If his family needed money, I'd do my best to get the money to them. If he needed counseling for anything, I'm paying for it. If he is uncomfortable doing something, no matter how much I might enjoy it, we will not be doing that. If he wants to do something I am not comfortable with, we will do that and I will control myself and make the best of it.
Yes I will correct him when he makes a mistake, much as a parent would correct their child, to teach them, never in anger and never beyond his ability to accept with dignity. If that correction brings him to tears, I will be there to kiss the tears away and reassure him that we are fine relationship wise.
Wives who accept marriage vows like these are submitting to their husbands and, in general I don't think people understand what either submitting or dominating really means and, because of that, they will react to those vows in unhealthy ways and, that is more damaging to the wives that the husbands in this scenario. Husbands will take it as a free licence to beat, curse and otherwise abuse their wives and, wives will think they have to accept that. That is wrong, but it's the mindset this sort of vows promotes.
•
Actually the church is insuring a 'Godly' way of life for its members/believers.
This is really not a thing about going out to undo the past 100 years for everyone. Hell if you don't like the wording of an Anglican Marriage Ceremony, then go to a Justice of the Peace or a Wiccan Priest (jump the broomstick) or whatever other religious vow ceremony floats your boat.
The Churches (plural, there are many) who use the bible as a framework for its system of operation (beliefs) are constantly trying to balance out this modern world with ancient traditions. It isn't easy, its not like a new prophet emerges every generation to set the record straight and amend/parse previous laws and edicts send down from General Operations Director (G.O.D.)
While liberal women have burnt their bras and have taken up careers and the odd fad of wearing pants, the more conservative women actually love the idea of the traditional 'submit to your husband' ideal.
Freedom of/from religion is a two way street. Whilst you may not cotton to the whole notion of women being subject to their husband, I fear that conservative Anglicans do cotton to it, and they should be allowed the same freedom to pursue their religious beliefs as you do to pursue whatever it is your beliefs include.
From the article this is to affect only the Anglican Church, it doesn't appear that other brands of faith or the courts will have to legally change the vows to reflect submission.
Or did I miss that?
•
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.
•
ceez Wrote:I don't understand where this comes from, I grew up in the church and got "saved" at 8. by 15 I had read most of the bible and believed Christianity to be based on the teachings of Jesus loving one another and doing more for others than you would yourself. clearly the church isn't interested in doing any of that.
I honestly believe that just like in the Old Testament and the Isrealites adding to God's laws, man continues to add to God's word and interpet it for their own purposes.
•
|
Anglican Church playing God again.
