Wife getting massages

[Paidiske]

The author betrays her bias by referring to the traditional marital relationship as being a "... past belief in sexually coercive tropes".

Again, I think you've misunderstood the abstract. It's not about a traditional marital relationship, it's about sexual coercion.

Good. Can you at least cite something the author wrote or said that is positive on traditional marriage relationships?

Before we get well into the weeds on that, can you please define for me exactly what you mean by "traditional marriage relationships"? Because that's a slippery term, and different people mean different things by it.

As for feminism's goal, I would define it as creating a society in which women are able to participate to the full, and to flourish, rather than one in which their opportunities and wellbeing are limited on the basis of their sex. Other feminists may have other goals; feminism is not a monolithic movement.

 

[o_mlly]

Again, I think you've misunderstood the abstract. It's not about a traditional marital relationship, it's about sexual coercion.

? The thread is not about sexual coercion. Why did you think citing this article would move the conversation forward?

Before we get well into the weeds on that, can you please define for me exactly what you mean by "traditional marriage relationships"?

The bride traditionally says, “I, [name], take thee, [name], to be my wedded Husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth (oath)”.

She is expressing her commitment to honor and follow her husband’s guidance and decisions.

(The word "obey" was removed from most historical texts starting in 1928 with the women’s suffragist movement.)

The husband traditionally says, "I, [Name], take you, [Name], to be my wife. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life."

His vow reflects the unconditional nature of a husband's love, mirroring Christ's love for His Church. It’s a commitment to stand by his wife’s side through all of life’s challenges, offering support and unwavering fidelity.

Can you now at least cite something the author wrote or said that is positive on traditional marriage relationships?

 

[Paidiske]

? The thread is not about sexual coercion. Why did you think citing this article would move the conversation forward?

You put forward the idea that "Two kings as equal rulers just never works out." I'm arguing against that.

The bride traditionally says, “I, [name], take thee, [name], to be my wedded Husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth (oath)”.

She is expressing her commitment to honor and follow her husband’s guidance and decisions.

(The word "obey" was removed from most historical texts starting in 1928 with the women’s suffragist movement.)

The husband traditionally says, "I, [Name], take you, [Name], to be my wife. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life."

His vow reflects the unconditional nature of a husband's love, mirroring Christ's love for His Church. It’s a commitment to stand by his wife’s side through all of life’s challenges, offering support and unwavering fidelity.

So what you mean by "traditional marriage relationships" is that the bride vows to obey, rather than less-traditional marriages in which that particular vow is removed? I can't cite anything positive the author has said about that. I can't recall that I have ever come across a discussion on her blog or podcast of that particular matter, although there has been much discussion of the harm of complementarian marriages, which probably has a fair overlapping area on a Venn diagram with your particular concern.

 

[Bradskii]

(The word "obey" was removed from most historical texts starting in 1928 with the women’s suffragist movement.)

So by 'traditional' you mean marriages in the early part of last century. For someone getting married today that might refer to the marriage of their great great grandparents. Maybe we should update our views as to what is now traditional. And in the US it's not much more than 20% marry in churches anyway. Fewer couples marry in churches

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Pretty funny you're willing to consider this more worrisome than infidelity with a man.

No, I’m pointing out the hypocrisy that shows it’s less about being worried about the wife’s welfare and more of a machismo “she’s my wife and only I get to touch her” blustering from territorial men.

 

[o_mlly]

So what you mean by "traditional marriage relationships" is that the bride vows to obey, rather than less-traditional marriages in which that particular vow is removed? I can't cite anything positive the author has said about that. I can't recall that I have ever come across a discussion on her blog or podcast of that particular matter, although there has been much discussion of the harm of complementarian marriages, which probably has a fair overlapping area on a Venn diagram with your particular concern.

The word 'obey" may be omitted now in our conservative tradition, but the attitude and sentiment has not. As to assembling your Venn diagram, use the data from this study:

Source General Social Survey 2010-2014

More than Money: The Liberal-Conservative Divide in Marriage

When it comes to understanding what’s happening with marriage in America, the “real issue that we need to be concerned about is economics,” not the contrasts between “Democrats versus Republicans, liberals versus conservatives, [in other words,] those quick to embrace new modes of life versus...

ifstudies.org

 

[Paidiske]

View attachment 357385

It'd be very interesting to see that broken down by gender.

 

[o_mlly]

It'd be very interesting to see that broken down by gender.

The women are included. From the study:

"We coded those men and women answering 1 to 3 as “liberal,” those answering with a 4 as “moderate,” and those answering 5 to 7 as “conservative ... Figure 1 indicates that conservatives are significantly more likely to be married than are moderates and liberals; in fact, they are about 15 percentage points more likely to be married than their liberal fellow citizens. Moreover, this relationship remains strong after controlling for race/ethnicity, age, sex, ... The story doesn’t change once we add controls for race/ethnicity, age, sex, education, and income.”

As an aside, similar to marriage vows, in Catholicism, when a man is ordained to the priesthood, he takes a vow of obedience to his bishop recognizing that he is now "married" to the church and submits to its earthly authority. There is no shame in submitting to rightful authority.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

The women are included. From the study:

"We coded those men and women answering 1 to 3 as “liberal,” those answering with a 4 as “moderate,” and those answering 5 to 7 as “conservative ... Figure 1 indicates that conservatives are significantly more likely to be married than are moderates and liberals; in fact, they are about 15 percentage points more likely to be married than their liberal fellow citizens. Moreover, this relationship remains strong after controlling for race/ethnicity, age, sex, ... The story doesn’t change once we add controls for race/ethnicity, age, sex, education, and income.”

As an aside, similar to marriage vows, in Catholicism, when a man is ordained to the priesthood, he takes a vow of obedience to his bishop recognizing that he is now "married" to the church and submits to its earthly authority. There is no shame in submitting to rightful authority.

Submitting to a bishop is very different than expecting a person to submit to somebody they share most of their time and lives with.

 

[o_mlly]

Submitting to a bishop is very different than expecting a person to submit to somebody they share most of their time and lives with.

How so?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

How so?

The bishop is somebody outside of the home who sees what is shown to them. Submitting to somebody you live with and who sees all and can take daily opportunities to demand submission and create trials that require submission.

If we were to believe submission is a wife obeying the word of a husband, who’s word is law and final, which I don’t, it would be different to be compliant to an outside authority vs one that is right there 24/7.

 

[o_mlly]

The bishop is somebody outside of the home who sees what is shown to them.

Both priest and bishop reside in the same home ie., church.

Submitting to somebody you live with and who sees all and can take daily opportunities to demand submission and create trials that require submission.

A husband who demands submission is a bad husband. She has chosen her spouse poorly.

A husband who commands her willing respect must do so by his actions that earn such respect.

I differentiate demand and command in the following sense. To demand respect is to tell others, “You will respect me!” or otherwise threaten or punish those who do not act according to your wishes. To command respect is to have others observe and admire your actions of their own volition.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Both priest and bishop reside in the same home ie., church.

Which is not the same as residing in your actual home.

A husband who demands submission is a bad husband. She has chosen her spouse poorly.

I’d never say differently.

A husband who commands her willing respect must do so by his actions that earn such respect.

Respect that yields obedience. Basically, the same concept as above but by somebody with an ego, a shade of gaslighting, and a PR spin to make it sound better.

I differentiate demand and command in the following sense. To demand respect is to tell others, “You will respect me!” or otherwise threaten or punish those who do not act according to your wishes. To command respect is to have others observe and admire your actions of their own volition.

Yeah, one is an outright demand. The other is a “I’m so amazing you can’t help but want to do what I ask of you.”

0% of either scenario accounts for the need at times for the husband to submit to or obey his wife, or that it has the potential to be a seriously abused philosophy that doesn't yield the healthiest of relationship dynamics. Most women don’t decide to marry because they need a boss/subordinate dynamic.

 

[Paidiske]

The women are included.

What I meant was, it would be interesting to see it broken down so that we can see men and women separately.

As an aside, similar to marriage vows, in Catholicism, when a man is ordained to the priesthood, he takes a vow of obedience to his bishop recognizing that he is now "married" to the church and submits to its earthly authority. There is no shame in submitting to rightful authority.

Not just Catholicism. I took an oath of obedience to my bishop last Tuesday (we take the oath again each time we are issued with a new licence). That is, as @Tropical Wilds points out, completely different from what is generally expected as wifely submission.

And I'd note that you can respect your spouse without that setting up an non-mutual submission dynamic.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Uhh, academia, especially social academia, left that understanding of their role some time ago.

Uh huh.

Their truth, rather than being objectively independent from how one may think about it, has morphed into reality is subjectively what they think it should be.

Right...but even if they don't realize what the problem is with that, I'm sure you and I do.

Saying that truth is subjective = saying truth doesn't exist = no true statement can ever be made.

By their own logic we could dismiss their concerns as in no way tethered to reality.

And, yes, I find their thinking quite muddled. For example, the interviewer asks, "Just how many genders are out there?" If I am going to continue listening, I will need to take a few extra strength aspirin to ward off the certain headache that is soon to come upon me.

I don't find it muddled....

If they say "my truth" or "your truth" or "truth is subjective" (which needs to be objectively true and therefore self negates)....and they don't know they are a charlatan? They should be ejected from their work....and their "contributions" destroyed before they infect the dumb.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What I meant was, it would be interesting to see it broken down so that we can see men and women separately.

Women tend to adopt the views of men they like. I'm not sure how often...but it seems pretty often.

Not just Catholicism. I took an oath of obedience to my bishop last Tuesday (we take the oath again each time we are issued with a new licence). That is, as @Tropical Wilds points out, completely different from what is generally expected as wifely submission.

One could argue that since women innately seek protection/security from a man (even from a scientific/evolutionary perspective) that a man who easily gives into or never "puts his foot down" with his wife will inevitably lose her respect and likely her love. She will inevitably see him as weaker than her and the relationship will quickly become unsatisfactory to her.

And I'd note that you can respect your spouse without that setting up an non-mutual submission dynamic.

You can....I would not tell men to never listen to their wives....but I wouldn't suggest they be pushed around by them either. There's a difference between asking yourself husband to do something for personal security....and demanding you can do something for personal freedom.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Both priest and bishop reside in the same home ie., church.

A husband who demands submission is a bad husband. She has chosen her spouse poorly.

Agreed.

A husband who commands her willing respect must do so by his actions that earn such respect.

Well...that's generally true I think but a bit presumptive. It's an ideal.

Realistically, a wife may not even realize that she disrespected her husband....at which point that may need to be explained/may become an argument. Ideals are fiction....reality is messy.

But sure, if in those cases she both understands how she was disrespectful...and he's worthy of respect...she should change her behaviour.

I differentiate demand and command in the following sense. To demand respect is to tell others, “You will respect me!” or otherwise threaten or punish those who do not act according to your wishes. To command respect is to have others observe and admire your actions of their own volition.

Admiration doesn't equal respect.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, I’m pointing out the hypocrisy

There's no hypocrisy in the assumption that she's heterosexual since she's married to a man. We don't need to consider every imaginable possibility when giving advice....just those which are reasonably true.

that shows it’s less about being worried about the wife’s welfare

Is this suddenly a matter of welfare? She's been getting massages for these vague reasons for two years at a rate that's frequent enough to be of concern.

If she's experiencing pain it's probably time to find a real doctor and better solution. If these are indulgences or luxuries then let's not call them welfare.

and more of a machismo “she’s my wife and only I get to touch her” blustering from territorial men.

Are you going around touching other men's wives in the manner described or in any way that a man might reasonably consider inappropriate?

I find that unlikely.

 

[Ana the Ist]

0% of either scenario accounts for the need at times for the husband to submit to or obey his wife, or that it has the potential to be a seriously abused philosophy that doesn't yield the healthiest of relationship dynamics. Most women don’t decide to marry because they need a boss/subordinate dynamic.

Yeah but you aren't accounting for the fact that men and women are different, experience the world differently, and have generally different perspectives.

 

[Paidiske]

One could argue that since women innately seek protection/security from a man (even from a scientific/evolutionary perspective) that a man who easily gives into or never "puts his foot down" with his wife will inevitably lose her respect and likely her love.

It's true that I'd disrespect someone who didn't have the integrity to stand up for his beliefs and commitments. "Puts his foot down" starts, again, to sound controlling, though; and that'll lose my respect and my love faster than any weakness. And I'd think that'd be true of most women.

I'm wary of the word "respect" in these discussions because it often seems to be code for the man being in control.