You cannot touch anything. Ever!

Women should wear the burkah, to cover themselves completely. I wish not to witness their ugly faces or their ugly ankles. God is great.

 

No, that would be Islamic concept (which is direct descendant and brethren of Judaeo-Christian one).


What I prefer is the Ancient Greek one.

‘It is the best for all tame animals to be ruled by human beings. For this is how they are kept alive. In the same way, the relationship between the male and the female is by nature such that the male is higher, the female lower, that the male rules and the female is ruled.’
Aristotle, Politica, ed. Loeb Classical Library, 1254 b 10-14.

 

I was wondering where the apostles got there shit from.

Personally, I don't buy any of it. The dynamics of a relationship need to grow, not be forced into a mold. Whether the eventual shape comes out right depends upon the inherent nature of that life by which the relationship is brought forth and formed. Otherwise, your shape is merely a lifeless structure.

Arranged marriages are not for me.

My uncle, who used to keep horses, told me once, "Women need to be treated like horses. Once in a while you've got to kick 'em in the slats."

He's on his 4th marriage. 3 divorces.

Formulas don't work with consistency.

Only life works.

A woman who is treated as a slave will perform in your presence. Outside your presence she will do what is necessary to regain her feeling of self-worth. I agree that women need to feel useful, but if that usefulness is legislated, rather than explored and discovered, it carries with it the nature of a brand, and ownership.

 

I don't believe in idealistic, wishful theories. I believe in what works in practice.

Your uncle is a wise man. He would rather throw the horse out of the stable than keep one which is unruly, ergo useless to the man.

 

To apply the same principle to a human is inhuman. I for one do not believe in dispensing beatings to women for infractions. Koran be damned.

What is "useful" to one may be "useless" to another, depending on one's goals and values. Adversity is not always your enemy. It can produce human qualities no other factor can. That is, unless your goal is to be in the character of a sheik, ruling whimsically over your harem, with no regard or respect for the woman, treating her as property.

To harbor, invite, or otherwise entertain petulant impatience in oneself by a simple disposing of a troublesome mate is to treat onself as a spoiled child.

We all come short in the area of a finer humanity. Adversity can quicken the process of growth. It should be welcomed, rather than shunned.

If one truly cares to become a complete man, rather than a simple dictator, the troublesome one is often the more useful.

 

Guess what? That's what Humans do to each other , throughout history. Ditto! Talk about idealism

Neither do I !
Throw the horse out of stable, divorse unruly wife. Let both feed themselves.
Animal cruelty and wife beatings are not in my repertoire.

As far as I know Aristotle didn't write Koran

That's a sure thing, I welcome adversity as means of growth. But not in my family!

I don't dream of becoming sheik. If I was I would move to Saudi Arabia.

Big hat no cattle...

As I said, not in my family.

Troubelsome wife more useful than agreeable one?
Heh, you do have a sense of humor

 

Ever watch "The King and I"? It's not my standard, but gives a good example of a man used to having his way, and a woman who changes his heart by standing up to him, facing off with him in defiance of his autocratic traditions, favoring a more humane approach with his people, to become a more lenient and compassionate person, in spite of his autocratic nature.

Why does he keep her around, even allowing him access to his many children? Because she is a proficient and skilled educator. It's a trade-off.

It breaks him in the end, but produces a great and more highly respected and LOVED man. His thoughtfulness and sincere care for his people make a way into his heart, that otherwise might have failed.

It's a well-known saying that some men care only to keep their wives "barefoot and pregnant".

Only insecure men find it necessary to rule with an iron fist.

p.s.,,I'd be willing to bet that you haven't any children yet, right?

 

Ever watch soap operas?

A good man should keep his wife well groomed and fed, not barefoot (unless it's her preference).
As to pregnancy, it's just unavoidable part of procreation and sure each couple can decide how often they want to have children.

Man should rule with a clear head, under all circumstances.

That wager has nothing to do with anything said above.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

P.S. Are you a man

 

How the fuck did we get onto this topic?
Whatever this topic is =S

 

It's off-topic

 

No. "The King and I" is anything but a "soap opera". It is an indictment on autocrats who prefer to relegate women to a lower place in society. In so doing, one accepts as maxims inaccuracies, generalities which would not fit every situation. Some prefer to see the world as a personal convenience. The world is changing. As Bob Dylan said, "The times, they are a changing,," Don't be stuck in the past, in an archaic system of beliefs. In doing so, one loses credibility.

The term "barefoot and pregnant" simply references the desire some men have to keep the woman dependent, without sufficiency of her own, lest she be found to enjoy her freedom too much. It is an outdated and controlling behavior, sad to say.

It is the desire of a man to rule. But the question remains, who, or what rules him?

I remember a time years ago, amusingly, telling a close friend of mine to find a "Christian wife", since the apostle's admonition is that the husband should rule over the wife. I look back at that moment, and laugh.

However, the question remains, have you ever raised any children? It is very pertinent to the discussion. You may not understand why, but it has everything to do with your idea of "ruling", in practice. Time is the greatest teacher of all.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I can only imagine this was meant either to provoke or to assert that you indeed are the "better man" for having professed a greater degree of control over your woman/women. Again, I can only guess that you have some issues of insecurity that require the help of a highly structured environment in order to feel a sense of potency. Maybe the question of children is even more pertinent than I had at first assumed? However, if you are seriously curious as to my gender, I have not only balls, but a penis, and have fathered three successful children, one a surgical nurse, one the president of his own successful company, and one a performing classical guitarist who has just returned from a tour to Europe. I've been married for 37 years to the same woman, through various difficulties and successes, through relative poverty and wealth, through struggles and doubts, and successes. I find the idea of having a "disposable" wife quite absurd, in the face of the vows one takes, "for better or for worse". A man keeps his word, does he not?

 

Yeah, right

You need 10 shots of expresso

Good woman = agreeable woman

Common sense and wisdom (provided he thinks like Aristotle)

It's not funny, it's natural for husband to rule over wife.

You are wrong.
My idea of "ruling" (as you call it) has nothing to do with whether I raised children or not.
It comes from empirical observation and practical analysis of the realities of life.
And also I do have great deal of reverence for the wisdom of ancients.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

No, it was genuinely out of curiosity question.

As to keeping word and divorcing a wife...
Actually, I do believe man should keep his word. I also believe one should stay married for life or else why marry in the first place?
But that assumes there is a wife who also keeps her wows , "for better or for worse".
It is unruly and disagreeable wife that I suggested one should divorce rather stan stay with.
Will you disagree?

 

Many times, when one is looking for a message from "God", one may find one in the mundane. Archetypes and ethical constructs are not solely in the possession of the philosophers, the prophets, but also by artists, writers, actors, musicians and politicians. Anyone who writes may indeed create something worthy of mention. To relegate that which is worthy to only the religionists, philosophers and statesmen is absurd.

I doubt that. I have a fine espresso maker, but choose to limit my caffeine intake to one or two cups of 14 grams of whole beans, ground, to 8oz of water, extracted in a press pot after 3-5 minutes/ per day. When I was doing a lot of espresso, my health would periodically deteriorate from the artificially derived energy, unsupported by adequate nutrition or rest. Then I would give up espresso until I got well, then the cycle would repeat itself. I would rather be consistently healthy than consistently buzzed.

I would agree, but only conditionally. Taken to the extreme, I would find this woman extremely boring. I would rather have a woman with whom I can have a healthy exchange, and even perhaps learn something. I am not so insecure as to have to promote myself as the only source of wisdom and knowledge in the family. If my mate disagrees with me, I assess the worth of listening. If I determine it to be a worthy discussion, I engage. If not, I simply tell her to shut up. End of subject.

During our marriage, she has learned much from me, and I also have learned from her.

I would say that "common sense and wisdom" are neither common, nor at times "wise". Sometimes we are just full of shit. It's best not to walk about in a state of pompous pride. I always enjoy learning. I want to learn every day.

Maybe so, but only in a "normal" situation. You don't know my situation, nor I yours. In all my life, I have witnessed very few "normal" situations. I would say, more than not, I have witnessed many "abnormal" situations, with differing circumstances, due to the varying set of factors present with each of the couple's parenting values, etc. We don't just marry the spouse, we marry the spouse's family as well, as has been said. It's easier said than done, that a man and woman can be "compatible". With a proper set of circumstances present during courtship, perhaps. My wife and I, as an example, did not have the luxury of having a "proper set of circumstances", and bore children before we even knew just how "incompatible" we were, in terms of family dynamics and other factors. But there was not a time when either of us felt we could simply walk away and leave our children with a broken household, as many do. Many who have witnessed our marriage have said that it is a veritable miracle that our children have turned out so well, and that we also have remained together through the years. Still, it is not to be suggested that one begins one's life-partnership with a relative unknown, as we did. Our children have both learned from this, and even developed BECAUSE of this discrepancy a firm belief in becoming independent, rather than to live out their lives with mom and dad,,haha.

Making lemons into lemonade, that's the secret.

No, I'm sorry. That's just not possible.

Short of certain types and length of experience, you can never claim experience, no matter what you call it. To adequately analyze, you have to have a big enough sample. That will come, in time, perhaps, grasshopper.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It all depends on the specific circumstance. If you have that choice available to you, it is yours to make, but you may find the next wife "disagreeable" in more ways. Things are not always what they seem, on the outset.