Love & Cheating

[Arcana XV]

Yeah. There are zero studies that suggest that your new social experiment is healthy for children. NONE. So, again, it's all about you, and has nothing to do with what is in the best interests of the children.

Actually, given the extremely low number of polyamorous couples who are raising children and who actually include their other romantic/sexual partners in the raising of said children, I don't think we're about to see any such studies any time soon. There simply aren't enough people living this lifestyle to produce any kind of credible results.

There are, however, many childless polyamorous couples whose relationships are no more or less successful than monogamous ones. My experience of polyamory is very positive. I don't know of any such couples who have split up yet. There are also many who do have children, but who keep their family and their primary realtionship separate from their secondary relationships. In this case, there is very little effect on the children. This is all personal anecdotal observations, obviously, so take it for whatever it's worth.

 

[Arcana XV]

Also, sadly, I can't watch the documentary as Hulu is not available outside the US. I personally don't believe in monogamy. Some people, such as myself, are simply not made for it. I did try the whole marriage and kids traditional model. I tried very hard to fit into that mold, but I ended up breaking it. I'm no longer willing to pretend to be something I'm not. That said, even though the traditional way of living and loving doesn't agree with me, there is one thing that I hate even more and that is liars and cheaters. Truth and honesty, no matter what lifestyle one finds to be the best fit, are the two single most important ingredients in any relationship. They come a very close second to love and respect.

 

[cpwill]

From my person experiences with this subject:

People seem to enter (all age groups, by the way) into relationships with false pre-tenses or expectation - and when that relationship pans out to be different than they hoped for it's hard to accept.

Take me for example: I entered into my marriage firmly set on having a 50/50 relationship - we all share all duties equally: both work, both take turns cooking and cleaning - a bit 'family' atmosphere in which there are no differences of function due to gender: we both mow the lawn, change tires, pay the bills, go grocery shopping.

The reality is things just don't work that way - whether you like it or not - someone will work more hours, be sick more often, be bad at keeping up with paying the bills, be forgetful, be less concerned with how often the laundry is fully taken care of.

:shrug:

You need to figure out what you do well - and do that.
The other needs to figure out what they do well - and do that.

The compromise should come when you both don't enjoy, like or do something well - but it still needs to get done. Might as well suffer together.

It took me years to accept that there was no point in me working because childcare took up my *entire* paycheck that I worked hard to earn. . . I had to sacrifice my *want* to work with the *practicality* of it - it was impractical and thus pointless.

Thus - I ended up taking on duties by myself. We shifted into the classic "Stay at home Mom / Working Dad" atmosphere - and it took me years to accept it and do it without being bitter every day.

That's just the way the cookie crumbled. And it wasn't a good tasting cookie for me, either. I considered what my life would be like without being married often (cheating? no - I didn't consider that) but being single? Yep - thought about it. As if being divorced and with 4 kids would somehow fix our situation or something (rather stupid, I know).

preaching to women that somehow being the critical link between this generation and the next, the notion that being the figure who is responsible for the entire future of the nation by raising that nation is somehow 'demeaning' has been a severe disservice to women by their own 'feminist' movement. your struggles above, i believe, are typical of a generation of girls who were raised being told that they were somehow accepting a "subordinate" role if they "merely" created a home, raised children, and became the indespensable glue and center of the indespensable unit of society, and that admirable women all went off and became lawyers somewhere :roll:

it's a sad commentary on modern 'feminism' that it looks down upon the free choice of so many women, and that it seeks to impose a set of demands and requirements every bit as rigid as the paternalism it looked to relieve its' sisterhood from.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

preaching to women that somehow being the critical link between this generation and the next, the notion that being the figure who is responsible for the entire future of the nation by raising that nation is somehow 'demeaning' has been a severe disservice to women by their own 'feminist' movement. your struggles above, i believe, are typical of a generation of girls who were raised being told that they were somehow accepting a "subordinate" role if they "merely" created a home, raised children, and became the indespensable glue and center of the indespensable unit of society, and that admirable women all went off and became lawyers somewhere :roll:

I'm sure that men telling us we needed to submit had NOTHING to do with it being considered the "subordinate" role. After all, men are the heads of their households, right? In the Christian (and muslim and Jewish pattern), the woman IS subordinate, so please disingenuously pretending that this is a myth invented by feminists.

I do not what work parents perform, as long as their children are raised to be respectful, pro-social, and contributing members of society. But, telling women that they are failing to do "their job" properly, when parenting is a job that should be performed by TWO PEOPLE, is b.s. hypocrisy.

The whole stay at home mom rigamarole is primarily a Victorian construct.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Actually, given the extremely low number of polyamorous couples who are raising children and who actually include their other romantic/sexual partners in the raising of said children, I don't think we're about to see any such studies any time soon. There simply aren't enough people living this lifestyle to produce any kind of credible results.

Then it would be wise for Hoplite to stop making these claims. As I stated...this is a social experiment, and we don't know what the outcome will be on children. Hoplite and others should stop pretending that it will be a positive one. Hoplite may well WANT it to be positive, but that's very different from claiming it works.

 

[Orion]

it's a sad commentary on modern 'feminism' that it looks down upon the free choice of so many women, and that it seeks to impose a set of demands and requirements every bit as rigid as the paternalism it looked to relieve its' sisterhood from.

We are in the realm of post-modern feminism now, which says that women can take on any role they want (including the traditional stay-at-home role) as long as it is their empowered choice to do so. If women are still feeling coerced to be stay-at-home moms by virtue of their gender alone, then the feminist movement still has work to do.

The core of the beginnings of the movement focused more on white upper middle class women who were still relegated to staying at home even though they had money and free time to go out and work or pursue professional interests. The problem was that the social norms of society at the time prevented them from doing that; even degree programs at school had gender-based admission policies. Women could not do hard sciences or engineering for example.

We have come full circle now and some women are wanting to stay at home again, but the difference is that we now have a social climate to (more or less) accommodate women filling either role and they can make the choice to do either.

 

[Orion]

There are also many who do have children, but who keep their family and their primary realtionship separate from their secondary relationships. In this case, there is very little effect on the children.

From the perspective of a child, this is a de facto monogamous situation, even if there are other partners involved.

But I'll agree that I don't know what is best for everyone. I just know what is statistically best for everyone.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

We are in the realm of post-modern feminism now, which says that women can take on any role they want (including the traditional stay-at-home role) as long as it is their empowered choice to do so. If women are still feeling coerced to be stay-at-home moms by virtue of their gender alone, then the feminist movement still has work to do.

The core of the beginnings of the movement focused more on white upper middle class women who were still relegated to staying at home even though they had money and free time to go out and work or pursue professional interests. The problem was that the social norms of society at the time prevented them from doing that; even degree programs at school had gender-based admission policies. Women could not do hard sciences or engineering for example.

We have come full circle now and some women are wanting to stay at home again, but the difference is that we now have a social climate to (more or less) accommodate women filling either role and they can make the choice to do either.

Thanks for saying this much more clearly and much less emotionally than I did.

 

[Orion]

Thanks for saying this much more clearly and much less emotionally than I did.

Np

..............

 

[MetalGear]

As they say, "every hole is a goal". (So, so wrong).

Real interesting posts here though and i strongly agree with Korimyr. Cheating is for the cowardly.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

As they say, "every hole is a goal". (So, so wrong).

Real interesting posts here though and i strongly agree with Korimyr. Cheating is for the cowardly.

I'd like to interrupt this thread and say that I'm glad you're back.

 

[Harshaw]

I disagree. I think it's more that the younger generation isnt buying into the ideal that we once had in our society of a monogamous heterosexual relationship being THE best way to make yourself happy. Through the wide proliferation of information that we currently have and the exposure to other ways of thought, the younger generation has decided on a more self-fulfilling endgame goal rather than what tradition tells us we should go for.

And that's what every generation of new adults tells themselves. Then most of them grow up and get over themselves.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Real interesting posts here though and i strongly agree with Korimyr. Cheating is for the cowardly.

I wouldn't say it's a failure of courage, but a failure of duty. If you're in a relationship with someone, you have a duty to love them and anything you would do to hurt them or betray their trust is a failure of that duty.

If you've agreed that having sex with other people doesn't hurt and doesn't betray trust, it isn't a failure. Just don't be surprised when it turns out to hurt after all.

 

[cpwill]

I'm sure that men telling us we needed to submit had NOTHING to do with it being considered the "subordinate" role. After all, men are the heads of their households, right? In the Christian (and muslim and Jewish pattern), the woman IS subordinate, so please disingenuously pretending that this is a myth invented by feminists.

the claim that being a SAHM is inherently subordinate is a myth and it is one pushed by the feminists, though obviously with different intents than the paternalists. anyone who believes otherwise is free to discuss the matter with my mother and my wife; who will rapidly set them straight

I do not what work parents perform, as long as their children are raised to be respectful, pro-social, and contributing members of society. But, telling women that they are failing to do "their job" properly, when parenting is a job that should be performed by TWO PEOPLE, is b.s. hypocrisy.

a mother whose children are poorly raised has failed as much at her job as the father has, the children are the responsibility of both parents, that is true. but each provides different aspects to the role of raising children. my father taught me how to be a good man in ways my mother simply never could; and my mother in turn taught me things that my father was ill-suited to teach.

The whole stay at home mom rigamarole is primarily a Victorian construct.

that's not because of changing views of women at the time; it's because of the changing nature of society as we went into and industrial-based society. men were working away from the home, as opposed to out in the fields.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

preaching to women that somehow being the critical link between this generation and the next, the notion that being the figure who is responsible for the entire future of the nation by raising that nation is somehow 'demeaning' has been a severe disservice to women by their own 'feminist' movement. your struggles above, i believe, are typical of a generation of girls who were raised being told that they were somehow accepting a "subordinate" role if they "merely" created a home, raised children, and became the indespensable glue and center of the indespensable unit of society, and that admirable women all went off and became lawyers somewhere :roll:

it's a sad commentary on modern 'feminism' that it looks down upon the free choice of so many women, and that it seeks to impose a set of demands and requirements every bit as rigid as the paternalism it looked to relieve its' sisterhood from.

Sure, it's great - if you're looking at it in the broader scope of things; - the benefit of society - the larger scope of things.

But the theory, belief and philosophy that being a mother is "noble" is actually quite modern - panning back only as far as the Enlightenment in European History - and only had small moments of such 'nobleness' in Roman and Chinese history and other parts of the world.

But realistically - It's the day to day mundane of it that's mind-numbing and downright dirty: diapering, pampering, nursing, feeding, cooking, cleaning.

:shrug: Scrub floors, wash clothes, cook dinner (that the kids don't want to eat) and chide children all day and see how noble you feel. Inherently - it's exhausting it is dirty, tiring, stressful and mind-numbing. It's a necessity - has it's precious moments which are few and fleeting

Yes - in order for it to *be* positive you *have* to ignore the day-to-day grind and look at the larger picture.

Oddly - a key figures in the Enlightenment movement that is attributed to a positive view of motherhood is Rousseau, who didn't encapsulate gender-equality (just the opposite) but he encouraged women to be positive about their status as mother, be proud - and key fact - to be *the* one to care for and especially nurse their children

 

[cpwill]

Sure, it's great - if you're looking at it in the broader scope of things; - the benefit of society - the larger scope of things.

that certainly is a powerful part of it.

But the theory, belief and philosophy that being a mother is "noble" is actually quite modern - panning back only as far as the Enlightenment in European History - and only had small moments of such 'nobleness' in Roman and Chinese history and other parts of the world.

well in the West the notion of motherhood has been present and honored at the very least since the Catholic Church made the decision to do everything but deify Mary. but the notion of 'parenthood' itself has seen alot of alteration in the last couple of centuries.

But realistically - It's the day to day mundane of it that's mind-numbing and downright dirty: diapering, pampering, nursing, feeding, cooking, cleaning.

no doubt it can be both mind-numbing and dirty. i fail to see, however, that that makes it not noble.

:shrug: Scrub floors, wash clothes, cook dinner (that the kids don't want to eat) and chide children all day and see how noble you feel.

i can pretty much guarantee i've been as exausted, dirty, and mind-numbed as my wife ever has been; more. but the times when i have been tired and most mind-numbed, exausted, frustrated, sweaty and tired deep to the bone are those which i am most proud of in my life. i think you aren't accounting for the notion of noble service here. nobility isn't being pretty on a horse and having servants do what you order them to. it's sacrifice of oneself.

Inherently - it's exhausting it is dirty, tiring, stressful and mind-numbing. It's a necessity - has it's precious moments which are few and fleeting
Yes - in order for it to *be* positive you *have* to ignore the day-to-day grind and look at the larger picture.

strongly disagree; it is in many ways precisely the day to day sacrifice that makes it noble, the powerful effect it has on the future aside.

Oddly - a key figures in the Enlightenment movement that is attributed to a positive view of motherhood is Rousseau, who didn't encapsulate gender-equality

rosseau abused women, refused to accept resonsibility for his children, and was generally a worthless human being. we would be well served if everything he had ever written was expunged from the record.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I hope you realize I'm speaking of my past-tense view of parenting and being a stay at home mom from when I *was* bitter over it all. I don't actually think that same way about it - haven't in years. Hence where I stated: "it took me years to accept it and do it without being bitter every day."

My current view of motherhood/parenting: It's part of life - if you're going to do it, might as well do it well. . . and I do, now.

Funny that that's your comeback about Rousseau - you're not realizing just how much women *loved* him in that day and age. He might have been an ass like many others were towards women in history - but his views notably made women feel 'good' about their role in life and they actually found a positive in the daily grind of parenting (of course- this would be middle and lower class women, not the 'nobility' of upper class)
And the Catholic Church might have Sainted several women and held them up high - but overall their direct actions and respect towards women was *just* the opposite - after all, clergy was the upper-crust.

And I'm using the term 'noble' as in 'honorable' or 'worthwhile' - not as a station in life or status as would be "royal nobility" - nor am I using the term under your "sacrifice of ones self." definition.

But on that note - in that time period the further up in class someone was the more 'gender-role respective' women were expected to be - hence "sitting pretty on a horse." The vast majority of women, however, were lower-class. This group of women actually held broader freedoms in life - were often employed in or out of the home and weren't just "sitting pretty" (as you put it) - the literal nobility detested the lower class working woman and considered them to be a smear on the traditional gender roles.

When it comes to notable moments and efforts in history (especially drawing from the 1700's and 1800's) by women to forward women's liberation and women's rights in the direction it eventually went that effort didn't come from "the royal-class" of women who were too busy sitting pretty and taking it easy - it came from the peasants and lower hedge of the middle class who worked just as hard as their male counterparts - but weren't valued for it. A good example of this in action is the Women's March of 1789.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

the claim that being a SAHM is inherently subordinate is a myth and it is one pushed by the feminists,

Please. You're being disingenuous. This "myth" is pushed by people like the Southern Baptist church and morons like Christine O'Donnell, who emphasize that a woman's place is in the home and that the woman should graciously submit. Pretending that gracious submission to the husband's authority isn't subordinate is just silly.

It's like you think I don't know the scriptures on this...

Christine O

Southern Baptists Declare Wife Should 'Submit' to Her Husband - New York Times

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

It's straight up Christian doctrine, bro, and now you're trying to attribute it to a movement that is less than 150 years old? Fail.

a mother whose children are poorly raised has failed as much at her job as the father has, the children are the responsibility of both parents, that is true. but each provides different aspects to the role of raising children. my father taught me how to be a good man in ways my mother simply never could; and my mother in turn taught me things that my father was ill-suited to teach.

These male/female roles have nothing to do with who brings home the bacon. Like I said, this is a victorian construct. Aside from the highest economic levels of society, godly women have ALWAYS worked, and not just as "homemakers." See Proverbs 30.

that's not because of changing views of women at the time; it's because of the changing nature of society as we went into and industrial-based society. men were working away from the home, as opposed to out in the fields.

Women worked in the fields too. You need to crack a history book occasionally, bro-ski. You're drinking the religious koolaid.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

The notion that women are inferior is a very dated belief - stretching back to the days of the Egyptians and Greeks and possibly sooner than that.

In the Ancient Roman-Empire (not the *Holy* roman Empire which is defined by Catholicism in Europe which came after the fall of the Ancient Roman Empire) - Women could live a significant, solid, stable life being *single* and *childless.* Women often held positions of office in politics, ran merchant shop and provided a variety of services and catered to various needs.
All without marrying and all without having children.

In fact - marriage and child-bearing became SO unfavorable to Roman women that they passed various laws to *encourage* marriage and *encourage* a population growth.

The Etruscans also held women up to a significant status - as did the Incas and various other cultures of people throughout all of history.

At the same time other cultures of people like the Egyptians and Indus didn't hold women quite so highly - according to the Indus people, women were and always would be subjective to men. Yet in Egypt, where they also felt this way (and I'm talking 1400's BC, here) - Pharaoh Hatshepsut reigned for a lengthy period, waging wars and all the other traditional acts that were expected of a Pharaoh - yet still presented herself as a 'male' in some ways (such as sculpture and paintings) and 'female' in others purely in response to the fact that, generally speaking, a women of power was unacceptable to most.

The whole "down" view of women is just as ancient as ball-funk. . .but you can always find unique and unusual cases in which the traditional gender-roles (as a negative) are challenged by one or many - male and female.

It is all very old - all of it.
It is also very subjective - depending on the culture, religion and society which you're speaking of. . . everyone developed different views for different reasons - like Rousseau VS Montesquieu - same time period, extremely different views.

We've come so far past many of those old ideas and beliefs that no one really knows *how* it was like back then (at least in our country) - time is always a buffer that aids in forgetting or subduing.

Women, today, can vote, work, attend college, divorce if necessary, get aid from the state when her husband bows out of his end of their marrital contract. Women can hold patents (which is a very modern addition to 'freedoms' of gender-equality), pull out a laon and own land . . and so forth. Overall, the notion of being 'subjugated now' and 'subjugated then' are two very different things.

we're so use to these things being "ok" - would any of us imagine being told "no, you can't be given government-assistance to find a job because you're female?" - no, we *now* wouldn't - but in the 1940's - in the recovery of the great depression that's *exactly* how the government still functioned.

The only thing a woman hasn't done, yet, is become President of the US - but Prime Minister or President elsewhere, indeed - it's been done.

 

[Hoplite]

In the Ancient Roman-Empire (not the *Holy* roman Empire which is defined by Catholicism in Europe which came after the fall of the Ancient Roman Empire) - Women could live a significant, solid, stable life being *single* and *childless.* Women often held positions of office in politics, ran merchant shop and provided a variety of services and catered to various needs.
All without marrying and all without having children.

Not to be picky, but not quite. Romans treated women like crap pretty much universally. Women during the Roman period were not allowed much slack at all.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Not to be picky, but not quite. Romans treated women like crap pretty much universally. Women during the Roman period were not allowed much slack at all.

Upper class women were extremely restricted and treated like property. Lower class Roman women had significantly more freedom.

 

[cpwill]

I hope you realize I'm speaking of my past-tense view of parenting and being a stay at home mom from when I *was* bitter over it all. I don't actually think that same way about it - haven't in years. Hence where I stated: "it took me years to accept it and do it without being bitter every day."

exactly my point. you (speaking generally; young ladies today) were taught that you should look down on yourself for being a SAHM. that somehow the high-powered attorney, or woman in a corporate office was living the dream and a woman raising children was not.

My current view of motherhood/parenting: It's part of life - if you're going to do it, might as well do it well. . . and I do, now.

bingo. i would even take it a step further and declare that raising children isn't 'part' of life, it is the central task of life. the rest is all ancillary.

Funny that that's your comeback about Rousseau - you're not realizing just how much women *loved* him in that day and age.

oh, i believe women loved him. women loved Mussolini, too, rapist that he was. but Rousseau was a deadbeat dad who abused the mother of his children and abandoned his children at an orphanage. Exposed, he originally issued a Jonathan-Edwards-Worthy statement that he had 'certainly never left any child at the doorstep of an orphanage!' (he had taken them inside). Rousseau also completely misunderstood human nature (noble savage; only a man who had never interacted with primitive cultures could buy such crap), and the result of his (admittedly well written) ass-hattery has been to **** up Western Civilization by convincing people to add to the list of Life, Liberty, and Property, freedom from morality.

And the Catholic Church might have Sainted several women and held them up high - but overall their direct actions and respect towards women was *just* the opposite - after all, clergy was the upper-crust.

seriously. your argument is that because the higher clergy was men they didn't respect women.

the Catholic Church was the first organization in the history of the world to preach any form of equality between the sexes. "In Christ There Is Neither Male Nor Female". in a society marked by barbarianism and feudalism they put women into leadership positions. Sainted several women and held them up high - next to Jesus (God) Himself, is there a figure more revered in the Catholic Church than Mary? Who was made noble by being a mother?

And I'm using the term 'noble' as in 'honorable' or 'worthwhile' - not as a station in life or status as would be "royal nobility" - nor am I using the term under your "sacrifice of ones self." definition.

sacrifice of oneself for the betterment of others is definitely honorable and worthwhile, most especially when the result of that betterment of others is to attempt to ensure the survival of the next generation.

When it comes to notable moments and efforts in history (especially drawing from the 1700's and 1800's) by women to forward women's liberation and women's rights in the direction it eventually went that effort didn't come from "the royal-class" of women who were too busy sitting pretty and taking it easy - it came from the peasants and lower hedge of the middle class who worked just as hard as their male counterparts - but weren't valued for it. A good example of this in action is the Women's March of 1789.

you need to check out early American history; the example you've cited is excellent (you would also do good reading into the concept of Republican Motherhood), but in general during the Colonist period women had far more freedom and ability to stand on par with men than you might expect.

 

[cpwill]

Upper class women were extremely restricted and treated like property. Lower class Roman women had significantly more freedom.

ehhh.... yes and no; in many ways it depends on what time period in Roman history you are discussing. in the first century, for example, it was fairly common for women to work their way up a social ladder through a series of strategic marriages and divorces - which they had the ability to initiate.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Not to be picky, but not quite. Romans treated women like crap pretty much universally. Women during the Roman period were not allowed much slack at all.

My sources obvious disagree with your sources. . . which is understandable considering that they underwent very different changes (they were a vast empire that lasted for centuries - just like in the US we've had changes in this same way but many people still adhered to traditional-gender roles in a positive *and* a negative sense eventhough - generally speaking - we've been liberated and "no longer need to do all that")

I'll quote Laurie Snider Adams:
". . .Divorce was more common, and during the empire marriage became so unpopular that laws were passed to encourage it and to increase the birthrate."

 

[cpwill]

Please. You're being disingenuous. This "myth" is pushed by people like the Southern Baptist church and morons like Christine O'Donnell, who emphasize that a woman's place is in the home and that the woman should graciously submit.

1. :lol: yes, women like O'Donnell who wanted to be a Senator and Palin (who wants to be President) believe that women shouldn't leave the home :lamo that's why they don't run for office.
2. the reason you make that error is that you make the same mistake the feminists do. letting a husband lead the family =/= being subordinate/lesser. yes, women are supposed to submit their desires, dreams, etc to their husbands... and husbands are supposed to submit their desires, dreams, etc to their wives. it's a two-part bargain.

Pretending that gracious submission to the husband's authority isn't subordinate is just silly.
It's like you think I don't know the scriptures on this...

i would rather suspect you do. which is why i'm surprised at your cherry picking. let us expand Ephesians 5, of which you cited one verse:

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

bit more two sided, eh? heck, if anything the onus laid on men is more difficult to fulfill than that laid on women.

I think 1 Corinthians 7 also informs this discussion

The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

gosh gee willickers, that sounds almost like the serving-of-each-other-thing

It's straight up Christian doctrine, bro, and now you're trying to attribute it to a movement that is less than 150 years old?

nope, i'm trying to point out that the feminist movement distorts that doctrine and then spends its' time attacking a strawman.

These male/female roles have nothing to do with who brings home the bacon. Like I said, this is a victorian construct. Aside from the highest economic levels of society, godly women have ALWAYS worked, and not just as "homemakers." See Proverbs 30.

ummm, where have I ever claimed that they haven't? heck, the New Testament is replete with cases of women who are wealthy, women who run businesses, women who host worship services in their homes...

Women worked in the fields too.

um. yeah; that's sort of the point. it isn't until work was transported away from the home itself that we see a significant division of labor vis-a-vie the raising of children become woven into gender roles.

You need to crack a history book occasionally, bro-ski.

actually my degree is in history.

You're drinking the religious koolaid.

:roll: okay.

seriously. you know better than that.