The Truth (As I see it)

Ahhh... so THAT'S why those damn mountains won't budge.

 

Ah, that's why Xyle can't understand that God talks to me: he doesn't believe! It only works if you're convinced it's going to, no matter what, especially if it doesn't!

 

What you fail to do is give me any conclusive evidence that the husband has some right to that authority. Why, in a relationship, do the two parties not have equal command?

 

Because he is a man duh!

 

Think about it: God says it in the Bible; and would God lie?

 

In every relationship, one must assume a dominant role, and the other the submissive. These roles don't have to stick 100% of the time; it's well known that the one who appears submissive in public tends to be dominant in private.

It is rare for two parties to come to the same conclusion from the same means at the same time. One must be the submissive to hear to the dominant's suggestion; one must be dominant to propose the suggestion to the submissive. The roles are then reversed (or not) almost immediately in agreeing to implement the suggestion.

Most of the time they say that the man has the final say - with both power and responsibility - because he assumes the dominant role in his children's eyes. He'd always be the one to come up with suggestions, and thus it would be his woman's role to agree or disagree. *edit* It is also part of a woman's nature to have her doubts erased or her beliefs confirmed by someone she trusts in order to implement her own suggestions.

One must choose to lead, and the other must choose to follow; in this way, a relationship will move in any direction. Choosing to stay stagnant is also a choice, but one must first choose to be stagnant, and the other to agree to do so.

If anything is to be equal, the roles must constantly switch at an equal length of time for equally significant choices. If you can name me a personal relationship (business and structured relationships don't count, especially when outlined) that does this successfully, I will happily eat my words.

 

Right? You make it sound as if it came as a blessing upon Adam. It is part of Eve's Curse. Men do not have the "right", they have the responsiblity.

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Genesis 3:16

Note the location of the semicolons in the verse. There is no semicolon between the part about desire and rule. It is one concept, one dynamic. A woman's desire for her husband is tied into the nature of his so-called rule. This ...

is a part of that dynamic.

EDIT: Responsiblity for another... I sense a tie-in to love. If you love someone, you tend to their needs...

 

:lol:


That is all.

 

I think Xyle screwed the pooch on pretending not to be a troll when he posted a webcomic from a site called purrsia.

 

Well I don't know about you guys but he makes sense to me.

 

Your strawman argument does not help. The comic is Freefall, an excellent science fiction comic. Highly recommended.

 

So, because Womankind was tricked by the Devil, they must obey their husbands. Isn't that like throwing a corpse in jail for being murdered by someone?

Also, in how far are men supposed to be autoritive? There is a large difference between: "Honey, if you wouldn't mind, could you fix something to eat?." And: "Honey, lick my boots clean."

'Course, I'd say more something like "honey, if you don't mind, I'll make dinner tonight." Because a real man does what needs to be done.

*Bodybuilder pose*

 

It's not a strawman. My only goal is pointing out that Xyle is getting his rocks off trolling everybody here. A strawman would be if I was one of the trollees actively trying to debate him and I pointed that out.

So, really, I'm like the hero of the story, who will do what nobody else will.


(PS it's a furry comic)

 

To serve others is always a good thing. And a good husband will serve his wife with the leadership that she needs from him.

 

No, it is not.

 

I move that the thread be locked.

 

OBJECTION!

It will only result in somebody else opening a thread for continuing the discussion. Eventually it'll be a perpetual cycle of locking and opening, until we're all banned.

 

I'm not so sure that's such a bad thing...

 

Statistically, the odds that a troll will suffer a brain hemorrhage while engaged in their peculiar form of wanking are amusing to contemplate.

I recommend basking in that thought for a moment, and moving on.

 

You're all crazy.