man and woman, temple vows, annointings, etc.

Post by **_Mary** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:05 pm

Well, I'm kind of glad I married a non-mormon really. But I have to say that no man likes to be hen-pecked. A woman dominating a man, is as bad as a man dominating a woman. I guess we all have to give and take, and even with my non-mormon husband, I find myself sometimes letting him have his way, if we disagree, or more likely if I don't really care one way or the other. If he knows I feel strongly about something then he'll step back.

It seems to work out in the long run. I don't think it's good in a relationship if one or the other has all the power. If you both love each other equally then there should be give or take on both sides.

I'm lucky in that the areas that my husband is really good at, are areas that I don't do so well. I get emotional on occassion which screws up my rational thinking processes. He doesn't seem to suffer the same affliction. He's good at science/math, I'm good with other stuff.

It seems to work. I don't feel dominated, and he doesn't either....(hopefully)

Though he does seem to think me saying something is 'nagging' whilst him saying something is 'observation'....can't quite work that one out...!!

Mary

Post by **_Wintersfootsteps** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:38 pm

I found this quote by David Peters that pretty much sums it up for me...

"If an African-American fellow is just as talented as a Caucasian, does this mean either should stick to their "racial" roles? Why then, should there be "sex" derived ones?"

Post by **_AmazingDisgrace** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:05 pm

There was an interesting post at Zelophehad's Daughters on the modern church's tendency to equivocate between clear-cut patriarchy and equal partnership. A good quote:

Today, a certain wanderlust regarding what patriarchy entails has infected most of the Church’s discourse on gender, which bops around between the two poles of patriarchy and egalitarianism without any clear destination. In the past, the waters were less muddied: husbands were granted divine authority over their wives, who were required to submit to their righteous leadership–an objectionable stance, perhaps, but not an inconsistent one. In the present, the Church has adopted a new stance but without giving up its old one: now wives not only submit, but they are also equal partners. (It’s unclear what this is supposed to look like on the ground–sort of like when dictators hold “democratic” elections they mysteriously win?)

Post by **_Bond...James Bond** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:08 pm

The Nehor wrote:And here I was thinking this was about equality.....silly me.

KA was talking about independence I believe.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:32 pm

Bond...James Bond wrote:
The Nehor wrote:And here I was thinking this was about equality.....silly me.

KA was talking about independence I believe.

I must have missed that in the middle of her declaring her superiority to her husband. ;)

Post by **_krose** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:45 pm

AmazingDisgrace wrote:There was an interesting post at Zelophehad's Daughters on the modern church's tendency to equivocate between clear-cut patriarchy and equal partnership. A good quote:

Today, a certain wanderlust regarding what patriarchy entails has infected most of the Church’s discourse on gender, which bops around between the two poles of patriarchy and egalitarianism without any clear destination. In the past, the waters were less muddied: husbands were granted divine authority over their wives, who were required to submit to their righteous leadership–an objectionable stance, perhaps, but not an inconsistent one. In the present, the Church has adopted a new stance but without giving up its old one: now wives not only submit, but they are also equal partners. (It’s unclear what this is supposed to look like on the ground–sort of like when dictators hold “democratic” elections they mysteriously win?)

I really like this. Well said.

Post by **_asbestosman** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:01 pm

What is superiority and who cares about it?

The women I know are not submissive. Who'd want that crap anyhow, especially for an eternity?

Post by **_The Nehor** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:23 pm

asbestosman wrote:The women I know are not submissive. Who'd want that crap anyhow, especially for an eternity?

Amen.

Post by **_SatanWasSetUp** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:57 pm

It's kinda like how sex was always viewed as a man getting his rocks off and spreading his seed. The woman was viewed as his help meet in getting his rocks off. Then they discovered the female orgasm and thought maybe sex is about the chick getting off too. The man and woman are equal in getting off. But some religions accept the female orgasm publically, but discourage the idea of women getting off privately.

I'm not sure if that makes any sense or if my mind is in the gutter right now.

Post by **_truth dancer** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:04 pm

It's kinda like how sex was always viewed as a man getting his rocks off and spreading his seed. The woman was viewed as his help meet in getting his rocks off. Then they discovered the female orgasm and thought maybe sex is about the chick getting off too. The man and woman are equal in getting off. But some religions accept the female orgasm publically, but discourage the idea of women getting off privately.

I'm not sure if that makes any sense or if my mind is in the gutter right now.

In the history of humankind I see little (no) evidence of men even acknowledging women have any sort of needs, let alone some sort of sexual desire.

Women have been considered as existing to serve and pleasure men, and procreate children. Nothing more.

~dancer~