[MrLemon]

Feminists always say they want a 50/50 marriage. But if a wife isn't submissive, by definition, it can't be a 50/50 marriage.

Marriage, by definition, is the man submitting to the woman. That's what marriage is and always has been for millennia. A social compact in which men agree to submit their assets -- their money, their freedom, and often their physcical safety -- to the needs of the women.

Just by getting married at all, a man is already contributing "his share."

So for that marriage to be 50/50, she must be willing to contribute back. She does that by making a specific decision to be a submissive wife.

When eastern european or south american women treat men to cooking and cleaning and say "ok husband, sit and watch football while I cater to you" they are essentially acknowledging that the man has sacrificed something important in their lives, to support her, and she has to give something back.

If she isn't going to be a submissive wife, it's not really marriage. You might as well just donate your time and spare cash to the nearest homeless shelter.

[j r]

I think that you're fooling yourself if you believe that marriage is and always has been female submission. Certainly some dudes have had their wives on lock like that, but lot more have been beaten down and under the thumb of shrews.

Also a lot of men just prefer to outsource parts of their lives to their wives, so they can focus on other things. For instance, in the Army I knew some very outwardly dominant NCOs who would refer to their wives as Household 6 (6 is the call sign for the commander of any unit, so if you're the commanding officer of Alpha conmpany you're call sign is Alpha 6). These guys were basically saying that their wives run the show at home.

Remember that women are very good at giving you the illusion that you're running shit.

[Que enspastic]

the man is the head, the woman is the neck.

[polymath]

I think every marriage has its own characteristics, and it's a bit of a generalization to assert that marriage is A submitting to B or vice versa.

[emuelle1]

Marriage can be complex. It certainly helps to have a woman who is eager to serve and please her man. I'm at the end of a divorce to a woman who had no interest in that. Her attitude early on was "I'll respect you when I think you've earned it". Nothing pleased her. I'm glad she wanted a divorce. I recently started seeing a girl who seems to want to please me. It's a different world.

[UrbanNerd]

Since I live in the Western World, I have a different angle. In Eastern Europe and probably most South American nations, a wife does not have an "out" where she can declare "I don't want to do this anymore...I will just get a divorce and take 50% of my husband's assets". That means, it is more beneficial for her to submit/cater to her husband.

Here in the Western World, a man is taking a HUGE RISK trying to employ the same "man is total provider...woman submits" marriage because she can take him to the cleaners. THEREFORE, it is better for a Western World marriage to have the woman help with the providing and money earning so that the man will not lose as much IN THE CASE she wants to bail.

[soup]

(09-26-2013 04:53 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

Feminists always say they want a 50/50 marriage. But if a wife isn't submissive, by definition, it can't be a 50/50 marriage.

Marriage, by definition, is the man submitting to the woman. That's what marriage is and always has been for millennia. A social compact in which men agree to submit their assets -- their money, their freedom, and often their physcical safety -- to the needs of the women.

Just by getting married at all, a man is already contributing "his share."

So for that marriage to be 50/50, she must be willing to contribute back. She does that by making a specific decision to be a submissive wife.

When eastern european or south american women treat men to cooking and cleaning and say "ok husband, sit and watch football while I cater to you" they are essentially acknowledging that the man has sacrificed something important in their lives, to support her, and she has to give something back.

If she isn't going to be a submissive wife, it's not really marriage. You might as well just donate your time and spare cash to the nearest homeless shelter.

OP, times have changed. Women are supporting themselves and all that shit and don't need men for it. That's why marriage is fucked now. Don't bother with it.

[Wadsworth]

(09-26-2013 07:17 PM)soup Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 04:53 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

Feminists always say they want a 50/50 marriage. But if a wife isn't submissive, by definition, it can't be a 50/50 marriage.

Marriage, by definition, is the man submitting to the woman. That's what marriage is and always has been for millennia. A social compact in which men agree to submit their assets -- their money, their freedom, and often their physcical safety -- to the needs of the women.

Just by getting married at all, a man is already contributing "his share."

So for that marriage to be 50/50, she must be willing to contribute back. She does that by making a specific decision to be a submissive wife.

When eastern european or south american women treat men to cooking and cleaning and say "ok husband, sit and watch football while I cater to you" they are essentially acknowledging that the man has sacrificed something important in their lives, to support her, and she has to give something back.

If she isn't going to be a submissive wife, it's not really marriage. You might as well just donate your time and spare cash to the nearest homeless shelter.

OP, times have changed. Women are supporting themselves and all that shit and don't need men for it. That's why marriage is fucked now. Don't bother with it.

This isn't remotely true. Women want the protection and provision of a traditional husband, but don't want to be subject to the authority of a traditional husband. They've thus rejected individual men, and have started making the state their husband instead.

Most government jobs are filled by women, and most service-based or retail jobs are filled by women. Women aren't driving the economy, they're enjoying the affluence of a predominantly male-driven economy (that is now beginning to wane due to a feminist pumping operation that disenfranchises men).

Women expect the government to pay for their birth control, abortion, health care, and to fund their reproductive "freedom." They want the state to make men pay for 18 years for an errant ejaculation, they want the state to confiscate the majority of a man's belongings when they decide to leave said man, they want the state to make men pay even after they're no longer with said men, and they want the state to make men pay for children they didn't even sire. Women also want the government to pay for daycare programs and all the rest of it.

In short, women want the government to fulfill the role of a traditional husband in order to facilitate an expansion of female sexual license. Of course the tax payer picks up the tab.

Women on the whole are not supporting themselves.

Further, feminists are demanding the state bend over backwards to fund programs to increase female participation in programs that women don't appear to be particularly interested in, a costly venture that is having a deleterious effect on many of these sectors (it is contributing, for example, to the doctor shortage, since many women take up the limited seats and then decide to work part time or become a stay-at-home parent). Not only is this costly, but it's another expansion of the size, scope, and control the state has over its citizens.

It is on the back of modern feminism that the size and scope of the state is expanding and making Orwell's vision look increasingly likely by the year.

[JackDavey]

Quote:

This isn't remotely true.

I completely agree. I can not think of a single woman, of any age, that I have ever known who was supporting herself. Every woman I have ever met has had one or more of: daddy's insurance, daddy's money for tuition, alimony, child support, some kind of federal and state subsidy for medical costs and/or education, federal, state, local, and/or private grant money for education and/or business that is specifically awarded to women, husband's insurance, husband's money, boyfriend's money, beta orbiter's money, and so on.

Literally not a single solitary woman have I ever met who has supported herself.

[TheRookie]

Seems like any broad can roll out of bed and work a $50K a year bullshit job and live a comfortable life. So if you are a man and want a submissive wife you probably either need some type of social status or mastery of something, relationship game, and a large salary or net worth that she can respect.

[Vaun]

(09-26-2013 06:57 PM)emuelle1 Wrote:  

I recently started seeing a girl who seems to want to please me. It's a different world.

dont be fooled by this. they cook, clean, suck and swallow when they want to get pregnant by you. I suppose if you want to jump right back in, go for it.

[OkStudies]

(09-26-2013 09:32 PM)JackDavey Wrote:  

Quote:

This isn't remotely true.

I completely agree. I can not think of a single woman, of any age, that I have ever known who was supporting herself. Every woman I have ever met has had one or more of: daddy's insurance, daddy's money for tuition, alimony, child support, some kind of federal and state subsidy for medical costs and/or education, federal, state, local, and/or private grant money for education and/or business that is specifically awarded to women, husband's insurance, husband's money, boyfriend's money, beta orbiter's money, and so on.

Literally not a single solitary woman have I ever met who has supported herself.

^ I do. My mother worked to support herself, me and my brother growing up working mostly by herself. She got a little child support, but she's worked hard pretty much all her life.

There are more examples out there. Women are capable, many just don't want to do it.

[Ensam]

Even the girls who support themselves don't really to the extent that single guys do. Society gives women tons of free shit and a massive safety net to fall back on if they don't make it. It's not their fault really. If the situation were reversed and girl were constantly buying me drinks and dinner I'd have a hard time saying no. The problem is thirsty dudes as much as it is entitled women. It's a terrible cycle, the more entitled the women get the thirstier the dudes get and the thirstier the dudes the more entitled the women get. It's ultimately a problem of excess resources. If there were more limited resources thirsty dudes wouldn't have as much to give away and women would stop expecting so much.

[Wadsworth]

(09-26-2013 11:34 PM)OkStudies Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 09:32 PM)JackDavey Wrote:  

Quote:

This isn't remotely true.

I completely agree. I can not think of a single woman, of any age, that I have ever known who was supporting herself. Every woman I have ever met has had one or more of: daddy's insurance, daddy's money for tuition, alimony, child support, some kind of federal and state subsidy for medical costs and/or education, federal, state, local, and/or private grant money for education and/or business that is specifically awarded to women, husband's insurance, husband's money, boyfriend's money, beta orbiter's money, and so on.

Literally not a single solitary woman have I ever met who has supported herself.

Women are capable, many just don't want to do it.

I agree, I think women are capable. I don't see them as pathetic victims or as wall flowers, despite our culture's insistence on portraying them that way. I don't even have a problem with men supporting women, I just think we need to be honest about what's happening and not lie to ourselves. And courts shouldn't order men to support women (I mean if they're autonomous and fully capable, then why should we order men to support them?)

[soup]

(09-26-2013 07:31 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 07:17 PM)soup Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 04:53 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

Feminists always say they want a 50/50 marriage. But if a wife isn't submissive, by definition, it can't be a 50/50 marriage.

Marriage, by definition, is the man submitting to the woman. That's what marriage is and always has been for millennia. A social compact in which men agree to submit their assets -- their money, their freedom, and often their physcical safety -- to the needs of the women.

Just by getting married at all, a man is already contributing "his share."

So for that marriage to be 50/50, she must be willing to contribute back. She does that by making a specific decision to be a submissive wife.

When eastern european or south american women treat men to cooking and cleaning and say "ok husband, sit and watch football while I cater to you" they are essentially acknowledging that the man has sacrificed something important in their lives, to support her, and she has to give something back.

If she isn't going to be a submissive wife, it's not really marriage. You might as well just donate your time and spare cash to the nearest homeless shelter.

OP, times have changed. Women are supporting themselves and all that shit and don't need men for it. That's why marriage is fucked now. Don't bother with it.

This isn't remotely true. Women want the protection and provision of a traditional husband, but don't want to be subject to the authority of a traditional husband. They've thus rejected individual men, and have started making the state their husband instead.

Most government jobs are filled by women, and most service-based or retail jobs are filled by women. Women aren't driving the economy, they're enjoying the affluence of a predominantly male-driven economy (that is now beginning to wane due to a feminist pumping operation that disenfranchises men).

Women expect the government to pay for their birth control, abortion, health care, and to fund their reproductive "freedom." They want the state to make men pay for 18 years for an errant ejaculation, they want the state to confiscate the majority of a man's belongings when they decide to leave said man, they want the state to make men pay even after they're no longer with said men, and they want the state to make men pay for children they didn't even sire. Women also want the government to pay for daycare programs and all the rest of it.

In short, women want the government to fulfill the role of a traditional husband in order to facilitate an expansion of female sexual license. Of course the tax payer picks up the tab.

Women on the whole are not supporting themselves.

Further, feminists are demanding the state bend over backwards to fund programs to increase female participation in programs that women don't appear to be particularly interested in, a costly venture that is having a deleterious effect on many of these sectors (it is contributing, for example, to the doctor shortage, since many women take up the limited seats and then decide to work part time or become a stay-at-home parent). Not only is this costly, but it's another expansion of the size, scope, and control the state has over its citizens.

It is on the back of modern feminism that the size and scope of the state is expanding and making Orwell's vision look increasingly likely by the year.

I agree, but this thread isn't talking about the state. It's talking about a man and his wife.

Recent studies in NY "beta" times suggest that something like 45% of women are now earning the lion's share of income for their homes.

[MrLemon]

(09-27-2013 06:29 PM)soup Wrote:  

I agree, but this thread isn't talking about the state. It's talking about a man and his wife.

Exactly. The ancient tradition of marriage was a system in which husbands "submitted" themselves to women, and in return, it was expected that women submitted themselves to the men. Only if the woman was submissive could it be an equal trade.

In modern society, feminists have successfully hidden this fact and fooled people into thinking that marriage "starts out equal".

Marriage between and man and woman never "starts out" equal. The man is ALWAYS getting the short end of the stick in the beginning.

--By definition, marriage means that the man submits.

--If you get married, you are submitting to the woman, every time, any time, every day, no matter what else you might call it, no matter what she promises.

--Because that's the definition of marriage. It's a system in which the male submits to his wife.

--A marriage certificate is a certificate in which society legally enforces a man's financial and physical submission to his wife.

-- The ONLY way it can be a 50/50 relationship is if the woman makes a specific decision that she will be submissive to the man in return.

That's why men must never get married in today's world, unless she is submissive and if she makes less money than you.

By the way, this is still very very common. My wife is submissive and happy to be that way. It's not BDSM, it's just that she wants me to make the decisions and she wants to stay home and bake cookies for the kids. There are plenty of submissive women out there, in every society, in the US and every other culture. They are the girls who don't have careers and want to have a family.

[UrbanNerd]

(09-29-2013 12:15 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

By the way, this is still very very common. My wife is submissive and happy to be that way. It's not BDSM, it's just that she wants me to make the decisions and she wants to stay home and bake cookies for the kids. There are plenty of submissive women out there, in every society, in the US and every other culture. They are the girls who don't have careers and want to have a family.

While this is good, the USA allows folks to change their mind. A submissive American woman still can change her mind and decide to bail.

I rather cover all bases and have the difference between my income and her income to be as small as possible, so that IF she eats that "feminist pill", I won't lose as much.

[MrLemon]

(09-29-2013 02:16 PM)UrbanNerd Wrote:  

(09-29-2013 12:15 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

By the way, this is still very very common. My wife is submissive and happy to be that way. It's not BDSM, it's just that she wants me to make the decisions and she wants to stay home and bake cookies for the kids. There are plenty of submissive women out there, in every society, in the US and every other culture. They are the girls who don't have careers and want to have a family.

While this is good, the USA allows folks to change their mind. A submissive American woman still can change her mind and decide to bail.

I rather cover all bases and have the difference between my income and her income to be as small as possible, so that IF she eats that "feminist pill", I won't lose as much.

Yes, but in my opinion, that doesn't work. It doesn't matter if her income is "close" to yours. She'll still go after yours just as hard.

The point of having a wife with no income is this: if she's smart, she knows that divorce will mean bankruptcy for everybody. It's Mutual Assured Destruction.

My wife for example, is absolutely clear that she doesn't have a hope in hell of earning more than minimum wage. If she was to suddenly go crazy and divorce me, no way my wage would support us both in separate houses/apartments. It's totally clear to her that her standard of living would plummet. That makes her scared to fuck up our marriage.

It's not perfect but I still think it's the best way to have a stable marriage.

[xmlenigma]

http://www.weddings.nirvanahospitality.c...-Saat.html

7 Vows from Ancient 5000 year old scriptures. Read subtly!

Read through the commitments being made and IN RETURN the commitments being offered.

Quote:

Any marriage is incomplete without these vows and is deemed complete once they are conducted. On the day of the wedding the bride and the groom sit under the Mandap or the scared canopy for this ritual. The bride is seated towards left of the groom before the pheras, while towards the right after they are complete.

THE SEVEN VOWS

Groom : You will offer me food and be helpful in every way. I will cherish you and provide welfare and happiness for you and our children.
Bride : I am responsible for the home and all household responsibilities.

Groom : Together we will protect our house and children.
Bride : I will be by your side as your courage and strength. I will rejoice in your happiness. In return, you will love me solely.

(How many women today rejoice in their mans happiness??)

Groom:
May we grow wealthy and prosperous and strive for the education of our children. May our children live long.
Bride:
I will love you solely for the rest of my life, as you are my husband. Every other man in my life will be secondary. I vow to remain chaste.

Groom:
You have brought sacredness into my life, and have completed me. May we be blessed with noble and obedient children.
Bride:
I will shower you with joy, from head to toe. I will strive to please you in every way I can.

Groom: You are my best friend, and staunchest well-wisher. You have come into my life, enriching it. God bless you.
Bride:
I promise to love and cherish you for as long as I live. Your happiness is my happiness, and your sorrow is my sorrow. I will trust and honor you, and will strive to fulfill all your wishes.

Groom:
May you be filled with joy and peace.
Bride:
I will always be by your side.

Groom:
We are now husband and wife, and are one. You are mine and I am yours for eternity.
Bride:
As God is witness, I am now your wife. We will love, honor and cherish each other forever.

[pitt]

Well said

Now I understand why I haven't had a serious gf for the last 7 years, it was due to the market I was in.