Alceste
Vagabond
You sure know how to woo a taoist. :flirt:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ladies on the forum, do you consider yourself to be a feminist?
- Thread starter PassionFruit53
- Start date
You sure know how to woo a taoist. :flirt:
dust1n
Zindīq
It's like saying, "I take what you say very seriously, but whatever I say is automatically right regardless." Sounds healthy.
Ah, that feels nice.
Oh wait.. too much, too much!
:cold:
Ladies and their typically paradoxical self-references. Next I'm gonna be inquiring as to whether the barber who cuts the hair of everyone who doesn't cut their own hair will be, in fact, cutting his own hair or not.
dust1n
Zindīq
You might as well just cut your nuts of right now
No, don't worry! Let me handle the sandwich.
Alceste
Vagabond
Awesome, can you grab me a coffee while you're at it?
Alceste
Vagabond
Ok, well if KT can just put away his magic penis, I'll be able to climb back on my high horse and whip this place into shape.
dust1n
Zindīq
Do it, KT. Can't you see what damage is done once you have whipped it out?!
Also, it keeps staring at me.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Uh oh, I think it likes you. Step slowly away, and avoid eye contact.
dust1n
Zindīq
:run:
*Whew* Close one. It started growling at me once I got a couple of feet away.
Just to be on the safe side....
**Passes Kilgore Trout a tuna sandwich and some custard pie**
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Uh oh, now you've really riled it up.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
Can't a general have the utmost respect for a colonel? How about a lieutenant and a seargent? Not only that, does the colonel not advise a general on what he/she believes is the best decision to make? Doe he/she not disagree with the general from time to time?
Last edited:
why do you feel a military example is a better analogy than the business one?
you've also never addressed the question of why the house head (if there is one) must be the man. why can't the woman be head of the household?
Sure. But your insistence of a man who doesn't want to be a leader as being "weak and gutless" is the same as a general who would much rather let somebody else lead the troops, and feels that other person is more qualified, and that general is seen as "weak and gutless." There is also a necessity of the colonel to take charge if the general is destructive to his or her troops.
Like I said, I take no issue with dom/sub relationships. What I disagree with is the propaganda that ALL relationships MUST have the man as the dominant and the woman as the submissive. And that somehow the woman should never usurp the authority of the man. I think the position is infantilizing to women and is not a functional submission since she effectively has no failsafe in the relationship that she herself owns and that the dominant totally recognizes and respects.
The authority of the man, in your examples, is absolute. He gets the final say, even when he shouldn't.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
I wonder if the real problem you have is the idea of a Stalanist dictator simply ruling a woman like she's a slave. Do you really have a problem with the picture of family that Paul and/or Jesus speaks of if it's followed to the letter?
1 Corinthians 7:1-40 ESV / 6 helpful votes
The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. ...
Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 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. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Ephesians 5:33
However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Matthew 19:5-6
And said, Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.
Look at the clear inequality.
You stated arbitrarily and without any justification that women seek dominant men. You've phrased it as though it's good for women to defer power to men without that being considered a "bad" trait, and yet the second the idea is reversed with men being thought of as in the submissive position, the words suddenly change to strictly negative terms like "weak" and "gutless".
So if a women does it, great job sweetie! If a man acts the same way, he's weak and gutless!
It's a clear description of separate and unequal gender roles, and unspoken views of a man towards women.
Based on the way the military is supposed to work, the person who is promoted to a general has more experience, education, or past successes than the person who is currently a colonel. The general is likely to be older and with more military experience. In other words, the general has a better resume. That's why the general is in charge over the colonel, even though he may respect the colonel's input.
When this is applied to a relationship with men and women, it only makes sense if there is the implicit assumption that the man is more experienced, more knowledgeable, and/or with better skill or judgment. In that patriarchal view, the man is assumed to have the better resume for the leadership role even before the man and the woman are individually considered. That's why it's so sexist and inaccurate.
If the man's resume isn't better, the entire analogy and sexist framework falls apart.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
Or the person that kisses the most ***
I do. My body is my own and no one else's just as riverwolf's body is his own and no one elses. We share our bodies out of mutual concent not out of any sense of ownership. And I fail to see why it must be the wife who should submit to the husband. Couldn't the husband submit to the wife instead? or better yet perhaps neither could "submit" and instead focus on compromise to work out disputes and disagreements
Alceste
Vagabond
Who is this "Paul and / or Jesus" of which you speak? I thought Christians followed Jesus.