My husband once told me he realized that his idea of an attractive woman had changed to be more qualities I had. For example, in his opinion I am physically fit, and he said something about noticing some lady on the metro that had "good muscle tone" that reminded him of me.

To be able to use the car, I would have to bring the car home after dropping my husband off at his work, on the opposite side of town, and then bring it back to collect him of an afternoon. He insisted on driving, but it used to get to be something of a problem when we went past the station, just as a bevy of attractively dressed girls alighted from the train to cross the road in front of us. He used to be so busy ogling them, that I feared for the safety of those already on the pedestrian crossing, really I did.

Hubby is a nice bloke, and he must have cared about me to have stayed married to me for so long. And that was thirty years ago or more. Then, I really wished I had the nerve to tell him to watch where he was going and to keep his eyes on the road where they belonged. At least I got the use of the car of a daytime, which I needed, to look after our small children. Maybe that is why he was so happy to let me have the car?

On another occasion when I was still working, I arrived home to find him organising dinner, as requested, his eyes so firmly attached to a buxom blonde, hanging up clothes on the Hills Hoist in the backyard next door, that he had accidentally put dishwashing liquid, instead of cooking oil, in the frying pan where he was planning to cook some sausages.

Stories are a big part of my life. But I also hope to marry someday. I don't want my future marriage to get in the way of my writing career or reading enjoyment. And I also don't want my writing or reading to cause any sin or problems in my marriage. So, how does this work for married people? Am I looking into it too deeply?

I think you are indeed looking into it a bit too deeply. At about that time I stopped worrying about the sinfulness of being absorbed in something else other than husbands, especially as he insisted he couldn't help being attracted to young women other than my by then pregnant self. Once the children were old enough for pre-school, I started a degree course which allowed me to keep my sanity, and my spirits up. I studied externally, so that I did not have to neglect any of my family to attend lectures etc. Ensuring I passed the degree gave me a goal to work for and a focus, and the course also qualified me to get back to work later on.

I think you would be more likely to cause problems in your marriage if you give up your writing career and reading enjoyment, please believe me. Romantic situations are all very well, and being conscientious about right and wrong shows honourable intentions, especially in romantic novels. But, in real life, being able to see the funny side of things does help enormously and is far more important.

We've been a more or less faithful couple all this time, though he has frequently complained about my interest in NarniaWeb, my fondness for our two cats, or my absorption in a favourite story. But guess who in the household monopolises the TV with his tastes in TV viewing, who likes to play golf, bowls etc., or to dawdle and socialise at the local supermarket! And guess which little werewolf also knows it is a bad idea to let him have all his own way, especially when there are things to be done .

Perhaps I'll add to my previous post...while I think it's normal to recognize an attractive person of the same or opposite sex, in my husband's case, he has never expressed that in such a way to cause offense or annoyance. I don't think he or I would be comfortable if women bystanders were becoming a distraction to his everyday activities (and that sentence goes for myself too in regards to men!). I realize there are differences for each individual couple's relationship, but just wanted to clarify that aspect of what I mentioned.

This may or may not be what you are asking, but a good description of the relationship between authors and their characters is one of parents watching a child grow. They gave life, then the new creation begins to "come alive" in the author's mind and feelings. Such characters learn, grow, and change. Like real children, characters may even change into people you would not have predicted; the process of "coming alive" means that they may make choices that you would not have made for them if you were their puppet-master and they were only toys on your string.

So, I would suggest that instead of guiding them as if their fictional lives (including their "love life") were yours for the directing, help your characters "come alive" by looking at them as adult children who confide in you as their parent. Or grandparent, if that feels like a more natural relationship.

Two caveats: the relationship that authors feel for their fictional characters is not always a fear of falling in love with that character. Sometimes it's actually just the dreaded Mary Sue Self-Insert Disorder. The reason it feels real is that it is falling in love with love (in that case, with oneself).

The other caveat/reason that your characters might feel "too real" in a sense that is "wrong" ... is an excellent episode of "The Twilight Zone" called "A World of His Own". An author who has the power to tinker with life ends up creating characters who have consciousness enough to resent his tinkering. Specifically, he "creates" both a wife and a mistress, and they both wish he would see them as real people rather than as emotional playthings. In a bit of meta-referencing, the fictional author who has been toying with his fictional characters ends up deleting the narrator, Rod Serling, a real person!

...

I personally have no quarrel with love stories ... it's just that most of them are so awful! Given that you are investing this much effort into making the characters believable, I don't think you'll have that problem.

I personally have no quarrel with love stories ... it's just that most of them are so awful!

Of course they often are. I expect that their authors realise that in real life there is no such person as a "perfect lover, attentive to one's every need", don't they? And I guess they might also realise that 'a bird in the hand is worth the flock of them crossing the road'.

The other caveat/reason that your characters might feel "too real" in a sense that is "wrong" ... is an excellent episode of "The Twilight Zone" called "A World of His Own". An author who has the power to tinker with life ends up creating characters who have consciousness enough to resent his tinkering. Specifically, he "creates" both a wife and a mistress, and they both wish he would see them as real people rather than as emotional playthings. In a bit of meta-referencing, the fictional author who has been toying with his fictional characters ends up deleting the narrator, Rod Serling, a real person!

What an interesting idea! I wonder if that sort of tension between the author and his/her creation is at the base of the literary hoo-hah over one Susan Pevensie, staged by the likes of Philip Pullman? The thing is, if Susan was a truly real person, far from feeling distressed that she got left out of Narnia heaven or whatever, as so many authors have claimed, I think she could have sued C.S.Lewis for literary fraud, and for invasion of her privacy well before 1963.

This also has been an issue in a couple of famous cases here in Australia. Two authors in Australia have been stripped of awards etc and ended up being disgraced on account of such matters. In both cases, fictitional accounts were passed off as non-fiction. One was The hand that signed the paper, allegedly written in the late 1990's by one Ivan Demidenko, who turned out to be an old girl from a posh private school. The second one was Forbidden Love, concerning an honour killing, which purported to be real, and included a link to a bogus charity. The book was withdrawn from publication once it was discovered that it was fiction, and mischievously so.

In the spirit of the fun and discussion we have in the CRP thread regarding men and women and their relationships, here's a tongue-in-cheek discussion of the afterlife for half of the human race. ("Women: maybe you should submit to every man in Heaven, just to be on the safe side!")

Yes, it's a parody. But not to some of our fellow believers. Augustine already addressed this (that being a wimmin is not a vice or sin), but it does crop up still.

Thoughts?

Okay as many of you know but to tell the ones who dont. I don't believe in heaven or hell or god for that matter.

I read article and it was all most laughable. For those who it wasn't a parody for. There are some great loop wholes. If heaven is real than I can se a number of scenarios where this type of system wouldn't work.

For one if the women had no husband and never knew her father.(she couldn't "submit" to a man she never knew). To me it is all just a bit strange and very assumption-us(that likely isn't a word).

As Christians you would see it from a different angle I guess.

Fair point, ILF, but it depends on the Christian.

Looking at "egalitarian" versus "complementarian" relationships, I think that most of these have more in common with each other than either do with the fringes. Even in the most egalitarian relationships, someone probably gets their way more often than the other (money/education may or may not be a factor in this). And Complementarians don't, as a rule, assume that husband and wife aren't "real" partners or that headship/submission = a wife is just one of the children with more privileges and duties.

Yes, "eternal patriarchy" and "are men necessary" radical feminism do exist, but they aren't the majority. So how do the fringe teachings infiltrate the mainstream church?

I think with the man-hatin', it's probably pain and passion for justice, though of course that's a huge oversimplification. One might have had a pretty good life and still be enraged at the way that the word treats other people, particularly the people without a voice.

With the "are women necessary" stuff, though, it seems to involve convincing wives, etc. that they are somehow "bad" if they question the way things are. When your holiness is tied to proving yourself or other forms of artificial endurance, that's called "sanctified suffering," and it's a serious problem in some dark corners of the church. Sometimes it involves a double standard. Other times it involves the cooperation of several people to silence the problem. (Caution: both links have angry words in the Comments sections.)

We've made some progress, certainly. Relatively few Christians consider it sinful to ask a secular doctor for help. But there still may be a problem with hiding other forms of pain. There are times when it is the secular law that holds people accountable in a way that believers would try to weasel out of, if left to their own devices. For example, I do believe that a batterer should get help. But I also believe that that help probably should happen behind bars. If he'd attacked a stranger he would go there, wouldn't he?

(Well, maybe "weasel out" isn't always the right word. See: Chocolat, the film. With the best of intentions, Alfred Molina's character tries to fix a fellow churchmember by faith alone. You just don't get more passionate and sincere than Alfred Molina in Chocolat.)

Like I said, the majority of relationships (Christian and otherwise) are actually pretty decent. Marriage is called a "common grace," and it does in fact bring a lot of joy in life and help a lot of people get into Heaven. But I'm curious how many of you have encountered some of the odd ones. I kind of get the impression that the eternal patriarchy promoters are increasing in the past few years.

I do have a feeling that that's the case, TOM, in reply to your last sentence.
I do agree that people do not really live by strict paradigms, very generally speaking.

Personally, I'm tired of the debate between complementarian/egalitarian. In the context of debate, though, I do have some problems with the organized complementarianism, such as what I feel is splitting hairs/a double standard/not taking reality into account. I believe that you can search in the Bible to find support for either side, and I personally believe that what matters is that each member is being respected and loved as someone made in the image of God. And, like you said, TOM, that the wife is not regarded as simply one of the children with more privileges and duties. That may mean a complementarian paradigm for one person; that may mean an egal paradigm for another. That's my take on it, for now anyways.

Personally, I'm tired of the debate between complementarian/egalitarian. In the context of debate, though, I do have some problems with the organized complementarianism

So do I. As an Anglican, I married according to the vows set up in the Book of Common Prayer, originally formulated in the Tudor era of English history. The vows are for a woman: to love, honour and obey. Though even at the time of my marriage (1/5/1971) I was given a choice to love, honour and cherish, as it is for the man.

I did point out though at the time, at our pre-wedding interview with the minister who married us, that there is a difference between blind obedience and obedience because I agreed that my husband was right. Although, to avoid an argument, I have allowed him his way, even though I knew full well he was wrong, and hadn't thought out his decisions and opinions nearly carefully enough, my husband has at least been man enough to admit that he was in the wrong and to apologise. Not a lot of men would, in my experience.

In the case of batterers I agree they need professional help regardless whether it is behind bars or not. Anger management is called to mind. After the horrors of the many wars we have endured as a society, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the bad treatment meted out to wives, in particular, and also children, are not only the result of past bad or absent fathering practices, through many generations, but also of a collective post traumatic stress syndrome, something which didn't spring up suddenly as a phenomenon in the 20th century, no matter what people might have thought in 1918.

I read article and it was all most laughable. For those who it wasn't a parody for. There are some great loop wholes. If heaven is real than I can se a number of scenarios where this type of system wouldn't work.

For one if the women had no husband and never knew her father.(she couldn't "submit" to a man she never knew).

Quite so. In any case, Christ was quoted as saying, in one of the items TOM linked to, that "In heaven there would be no male or female, no giving or taking in marriage"(sic). And St Paul, writing in his epistles, also warned that married couples should not be "unequally yoked together", even though he also said that women should submit to their husbands. I suspect that in an afterlife, which is what the parody was referring to, that women would be absolved from submitting to anyone except to the will of God, and that men, likewise, would have got to heaven also because they, too, genuinely put the will of God first, instead of letting their own egos get in the way.

As I have remarked beforehand, it wouldn't be much of a heaven if there was no forgiveness of others, and if people held on to their rancour and bad memories after death. And in marriage, and in family life, in day to day matters, there have been so many reasons for disputation that it is doubtful, even if there is a heaven, that the situation would even arise about how anyone would get on with more than one wife or husband.

I think with the man-hatin', it's probably pain and passion for justice, though of course that's a huge oversimplification. One might have had a pretty good life and still be enraged at the way that the word treats other people, particularly the people without a voice.

True. And unfortunately, injustice goes a long way. Does anyone really think that in any heaven one might genuinely believe in, that Henry VIII, who famously divorced two wives, and executed two others, would genuinely make the grade?

Besides, I don't know why the situation would arise in the afterlife, anyway, whether one believes in it or not. Yesterday we were told in the news about a young man, a promising jockey, who had married a beautiful young woman just two months ago, and had everything to live for, but who died tragically at the age of 23, of Norse syndrome, something like encephalitis, just as he reached Sydney, from Singapore, where he and his bride had been residing.

His is not the only untimely death that has been brought to public attention. A famous and popular cricketer, Glenn McGrath, who has since remarried, lost his first wife, Jane, to breast cancer, and when you see cricketers and other sportsmen wearing pink t-shirts in cricket matches it is in her honour and to raise money for breast cancer research. By the way, although it is relatively rare in the world, did you know that men can also get breast cancer?

What I am saying is that we are physical entities whose bodies will break down, one way or the other, in the fullness of time, including the bits which make us man and woman. Women may or may not get breast cancer, but they can also get ovarian cancer, and other female-related nasties, that have nothing to do with cancer at all.

So can men. In Australia, to get money for research into prostate cancer, a highly painful and humiliating complaint for men, November has become Movember, during which men grow moustaches (mo's-geddit?). Or else they or their womenfolk get their head shaved or dyed as part of the fund-raising activities. I was looking at a health program about a man in USA, whose life was made a total misery because of an abnormality of his nether regions, one of many that can afflict men, no matter how powerfully manly they consider themselves. Wouldn't it be a relief for man and woman alike in the afterlife, to be free of such nasty, horrible and often deadly complaints, would you agree?

One of the main reasons I don't follow any major religions is because they always seem as though they classify males as superior. Women always seem to get "the bad end of the stick". I am in no way a radical feminist(I am far too lazy for that). I honestly wish the whole world was run secularly but it is not.

Some atheists don't see the point of marriage. To me it depends on circumstances and the views of those involved.

Very interesting topic; it inspired me to start looking up verses related to biblical marriage and gender hierarchy to refresh my memory.

I read back over Ephesians 5, noting the differences that the author laid out for roles within marriage, and one thing I find interesting is that the command to submit is not heaped on the woman's shoulders alone. Ephesians 5:21 encourages all to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Looking at the verses, it appears that not only must the husband submit, but he must also give himself up for her as Christ gave himself up for the Church.

It's very intriguing to me that men are specifically called upon to love as Christ loved and to be self-sacrificing in their marriages, though. Especially because I'd say that the theme of self-sacrifice, in general, seems to have frequently been associated with women throughout history, and this is not without reason, either.

We're all familiar with the image of a mother defending her offspring, whether in the case of a human female or even in the animal kingdom, and the very act of bearing and rearing a child is one of extensive physical, mental, and emotional sacrifice. Women tend to be hard-wired with maternal instincts as well. You could potentially argue that just by virtue of being a female, women may be more likely to be a little bit closer to the concept of self-sacrifice than a man is, at least in their day-to-day lives.

Does that make sense to anyone? I hope it doesn't sound like I'm trying to put down males at all or diminish the enormous sacrifices they make and have made to protect the people they love. Indeed, if the woman who sacrifices herself for her children is a common theme, the man defending his family is just as popular in the minds of the public.

Though again, that strongly echoes Paul's exhortations in Ephesians 5:25-33. While both men and women need to learn self-sacrifice in pursuit of conforming our images to that of Christ, Paul seemed to think that marriage was a very important and applicable place for men to practice it, and that men should be very conscious about doing so.

Anyway, I'm mainly pointing out the frequent correlation between self-sacrifice and females throughout history because I found it rather curious that Paul would make a point to encourage men to learn self-sacrifice and Christlikeness in their marriages, when clearly that's something that is highly desirable for females to pursue as well. It's not just men that are supposed to conform to the image of Christ. I'm wondering if self-sacrifice is an area of personal growth that most men may need to work a bit harder on, just because of the unique nature of males as compared to females, and since their marriage is the foremost place to start doing it, that's why Paul was so specific in addressing husbands.

Similarly, did Paul specifically encourage wives to submit for a specific reason? As in the case of encouraging self-sacrifice for males in marriage, did he feel that this could be a particular stumbling block for females? I don't have as much to say on this, but it did remind me of a line in Little Women when John has come a-courting and even though Meg likes him, she decides to reject him because he seems so sure of success in wooing her and she finds that irritating.

[quote="Louisa May Alcott in Little Women":1bb1so4i]Annie Moffat's foolish lessons in coquetry came into her mind, and the love of power, which sleeps in the bosoms of the best of little women, woke up all of a sudden and took possession of her.

Now, I'm not trying to say that all women are secretly power-hungry crazies or anything, but it is worth saying that when there is a scarcity of something, the value will increase.

In general, women are not going to be able to have the same physical strength and ability as men, and this creates a greater need and desire for the power to take care of oneself. And there's nothing wrong at all with wanting to control your life, be independent and self-sufficient; indeed, I think that's something that every woman should have the choice to pursue. However, you can see how this might go awry if this desire for control ends up morphing into manipulation, trying to dominate others and being self-centered.

And I'd say this is especially dangerous in marriage, because after you make those vows, it isn't about just you anymore. You've solemnly promised before God to become one with another person. I'm inclined to wonder if that's the reason why Paul made an extra point to wives about submissiveness.

It seems like what Paul is saying could ultimately boil down to encouraging men to not shirk their responsibilities in the marriage and discouraging women from trying to be overly controlling, because these were the areas that most husbands and wives, on average, would need to work on and be very vigilant about not falling prey to them. You're not exactly going to be acting like One Flesh if that's going on in your marriage. There are lot of random and possibly half-baked thoughts here, though. I'm kind of annoyed with this post because I feel like I'm teetering on making a lot of generalizations and I hate that, but oh well.

Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts on this, I'd be interested in hearing them!

Sometimes we can't avoid generalisations but you have stated that they are so that is fine.

I find myself to be a bit too independent sometimes. I also don't like people questioning what I am doing(I get rather snappy if they keep going on).

My friend said your future boyfriend will either have to not be nosey or overly clingy or I will have to become more comfortable with people asking where I have been what I am doing how am I getting there and whatever other information they want to know.

I will have to go with the first option. Too late to change who I am that much. Ha

On another note not directly related people who don't take public transport(especially in Perth where I live) at night think it is extremely dangerous. They have not seen how well lit the underground(slightly half or particularly/it is mainly above ground) is and heaps of people are around. It kind of annoys me. I think a clingy and nosey boyfriend would be one of those people ha.

IlF, you do know of course that it is Sinful Sydney that is so much more likely to be wilder than Perth, that maybe you should talk about the Wild East. Read the Daily Telegraph, the Australian or the Sydney Morning Herald to get the low-down about what does happen on a bad day. And I'm not even referring to the NSW "bear pit", the traffic, or the way children have been known to behave in class.

A little civility and good manners from all, "submitting to each other", as Rose-Tree Dryad mentions, and a little less self-centredness would certainly make us all a bit more civilized, all round, I've no doubt, regardless of personal belief. I doubt that WA trains are anywhere near as dangerous as Sydney's were before the powers that be put guards and police on the train to monitor public safety.

Similarly, did Paul specifically encourage wives to submit for a specific reason? As in the case of encouraging self-sacrifice for males in marriage, did he feel that this could be a particular stumbling block for females?

No, I think St Paul merely reinforced the status quo at the time for Christian women's own sakes. Since Christianity wasn't made lawful until Constantine the Great (323 AD or thereabouts) it didn't do for women to draw too much attention to themselves, even if they were married to Christian men. It was best to go along with husbands, let them be the spokespeople and also take the risks of leadership both publically and privately. Possibly, St Paul also wanted to impress the Romans with the blamelessness of Christian lives, as gossip among Romans was something like TV watching is today.

But Romans were hardly the only ones to be rough, arrogant and domineering in their dealings with their womenfolk. Pericles, a famous Greek leader, said that the best women were never spoken about, despite Agape, his mistress, being a byword in Athens. I'm still greatly impressed with the way Jesus spoke up for women against the attitudes of his contemporaries, especially as the men of his time had at least been told to look out for widows and children. The adoption of Christianity has only ameliorated male attitudes to women for the most part of Western history, thanks to the likes of St Paul and Jesus Christ. It hasn't stopped public misogyny which led to ducking stools, witch burnings, hangings and other monstrosities. Nor has it stopped today's press witchhunts or pillorying of public figures who happen to be female.

Domestically, it is only since I became an adult that it has become a crime for men to beat up their wives, rather than such actions being part of their domestic rights and prerogatives. And it is only since WW1 that even in UK or in parts of USA that women could vote alongside their menfolk. Although UK has had to live with quite educated and forceful women in its history, especially in the 19th century, it hasn't always been nice to women either. Whilst submission to menfolk has often been stressed, those bits Rose-Tree Dryad mentions about husbands sacrificing themselves for their wives, have far too often been quietly ignored by mostly male prelates.

And in Roman times, when women weren't allowed to speak publicly or take precedence over a man, and where the Roman Republic and Empires were run like a giant Victorian gentlemen's club, where women were excluded, I've no doubt that St Paul would have been irresponsible to have not repeated that women should have the discretion to choose to submit to husbands rather than insisting on getting their own way. Some husbands who were not Christian, and who considered wives as nothing more than possessions they acquired through business or political arrangements, would certainly not have submitted to them, used any self-sacrifice for anyone but their own children, or loved them, as St Paul enjoined the Christian men to do.

Besides, if women got too argumentative, wouldn't they have come off worst if beaten up? Remember also that Caesar's wife should be beyond reproach, no matter how dissolute he, himself, was. It wasn't only being beaten. She might end up divorced, disgraced or executed, with her children left to the mercy of that society and her goods and chattels confiscated.

It seems like what Paul is saying could ultimately boil down to encouraging men to not shirk their responsibilities in the marriage and discouraging women from trying to be overly controlling...

I take your point about generalisations. However, for me, the mere idea of women becoming "overly controlling" seems, itself, to be one such generalisation, born of the nightmares of domineering and overly controlling men who like to micromanage and criticize everything their wives do, whilst being overly sensitive to whatever opinion or show of individuality she might express.

I'm not saying there aren't really controlling women, only that it is grossly over-exaggerated in popular culture to exonerate passive-agressive men from their responsibilities in marriage as illustrated in your post. Something like people might recognise in Boneywasawarriorwayayix and his mob in Asterix in Corsica, where they complain that their docile and silent women talk too much. But I agree that this might be a stereotype also.

@WW I wouldn't know anything think about sydeny trains since I haven't been their since 2002(I was 7). I assume that Perth would be much safer.

Anyway I think it was new zealand that gave women the right to vote first. 1893/1894 or something and Australia was 1902. which is more than 2(for new zealand) and nearly 2 for Australia decades before women were given the right to vote in the USA(1919). The uk was 1918 but not full to something like 10 years later. Though these years are for white women only and unfortunately the right for black men and women to vote came much later for most countries.

I find it somewhat surprising that NZ and Aus were before "the world powers". It is also somewhat pleasing.

Hey guys? We're sliding a bit away from the topic at hand and shifting more towards the topic of women's rights. Please can we head back to the topic of love and marriage.

Thanks!