Women: being forcibly submissive vs. choosing to submit?

[Gaze]

There's a long standing about "submissiveness" in relationships. In faith based terms, it's seen as a positive force for relationship health for a woman to submit to her partner or spouse, but not in a manner meant to be abusive. However, where do you draw the line between the choice to be submissive as a positive trait in a partner and the expectation submissiveness as an exploitative or abusive position? Pros and cons of both sides or alternative perspectives are welcome. Please feel free to quote Scripture verses to support comments.

*I'm not limiting the definition of the term "submissive". Define it however you think helps explain it best from your perspective. It will likely mean something different to everyone.

Disclaimer: Discussion of faith based beliefs are welcome but this thread is not about debunking or criticizing someone's faith, the Bible, demeaning Christian principles or faith. Various perspectives are welcome but no religion bashing in this thread, please. Only respectful discussions of faith are welcome.

 

[Sriracha]

This question makes me think about Josh Duggar's wife. She both chooses to submit and is forced to submit.

Jessica Krammes Kirkland feeling like I'm fixing to preach about some Duggars
August 20 at 6:16pm · Ashburn, VA · Edited ·

I know everybody is laughing about this Josh Duggar story. Oh, a DUGGAR on Ashley Madison, it's so rich! I wish more people would talk about Anna. I normally keep things light on Facebook, but let's talk about Anna. Let me tell you: Anna Duggar is in the worst position she could possibly be in right now. Anna Duggar was crippled by her parents by receiving no education, having no work experience (or life experience, for that matter) and then was shackled to this loser because his family was famous in their religious circle. Anna Duggar was taught that her sole purpose in life, the most meaningful thing she could do, was to be chaste and proper, a devout wife, and a mother. Anna Duggar did that! Anna Duggar followed the rules that were imposed on her from the get-go and this is what she got in reward- a husband who she found out, in the span of 6 months, not only molested his own sisters, but was unfaithful to her in the most humiliating way possible. While she was fulfilling her "duty" of providing him with four children and raising them. She lived up to the standard that men set for her of being chaste and Godly and in return, the man who demanded this of her sought women who were the opposite. "Be this," they told her. She was. It wasn't enough.

What is Anna Duggar supposed to do? She can't divorce because the religious environment she was brought up would blame her and ostracize her for it. Even if she would risk that, she has no education and no work experience to fall back on, so how does she support her kids? From where could she summon the ability to turn her back on everything she ever held to be sacred and safe? Her beliefs, the very thing she would turn to for comfort in this kind of crisis, are the VERY REASON she is in this predicament in the first place. How can she reconcile this? Her parents have utterly, utterly failed her. Think of this: somewhere, Anna Duggar is sitting in prayer, praying not for the strength to get out and stand on her own, but for the strength to stand by this man she is unfortunately married to. To lower herself so that he may rise up on her back.

As a mother of daughters, this makes me ill. Parents, WE MUST DO BETTER BY OUR DAUGHTERS. Boys, men, are born with power. Girls have to command it for themselves. They aren't given it. They assume it and take it. But you have to teach them to do it, that they can do it. We HAVE to teach our daughters that they are not beholden to men like this. That they don't have to marry a man their father deems "acceptable" and then stay married to that man long, long after he proved himself UNACCEPTABLE. Educate them. Empower them. Give them the tools they need to survive, on their own if they must. Josh Duggar should be cowering in fear of Anna Duggar right now. Cowering. He isn't, but he should be. He should be quaking in fear that the house might fall down around them if he's in the same room as she. Please, instill your daughters with the resolve to make a man cower if he must. To say "I don't deserve this, and my children don't deserve this." I wish someone had ever, just once, told Anna she was capable of this. That she knew she is. As for my girls, I'll raise them to think they breathe fire.

 

[sprinkles]

The line seems pretty bright to me. If there's any coercion to enter such a relationship, and if there are any repercussions for leaving it, it crosses the line.

If you're shamed for not being that way, it crosses the line. If you're shamed for changing your mind, it crosses the line. Whether one thinks they are actually abusive or not, if they have to tether someone then they've crossed the line. If your ways are so great then there's no reason to cow anyone into it. If you have to hold someone close to you by stifling their will, then you are a coward.

 

[Wyote]

The thing that basically everyone gets wrong regarding this topic is that being submissive in no way means the woman/individual should be disrespected. In fact, the woman/individual in the submissive role should probably be more highly regarded than the dominant. The only way to make a dom/sub dynamic work is with a shitload of respectful discourse. Continuously. Just because you are a sub, doesn't mean you are no longer allowed input. Nor does it mean that you are in any way required to stay within the confines of the dom/sub dynamic/relationship.

Maturity. Respect. Openness. It can work, and work well, but people are dumb.

 

[Tin Man]

I don't think it's faith that demands submissiveness in women, but the arbitrary rules and laws in scripture that are almost singularly written by men.

 

[Gaze]

This question makes me think about Josh Duggar's wife. She both chooses to submit and is forced to submit.

There's nothing in the Christian faith that sanctions any kind of physical, emotional, or verbal abuse against women or any person in the name of faith. Unfortunately, many use faith to justify questionable, violent, or abusive behavior. If someone was basing their life on faith, a woman would be treated like she is the most valuable thing in the world, not like a cowering lily or as some side kick to a man.

 

[seashell eyes]

I think people know when something feels good or does not feel good. If being submissive stops feeling good in a relationship, then it's unhealthy and should be re-evaluated or discontinued. But a very submissive person is unlikely to stand up for themselves, and a very dominant person is unlikely to be vulnerable and question those aspects of the relationship.

 

[Matt3737]

Power and influence derive through social functions whereby an exchange of services is provided. Government officials are also public servants. Jesus claimed himself a servant.

So Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of everyone else. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many. Mark 10:42-45

The term 'samurai' of feudal Japan referred to servants as well:

"In Chinese, the character 侍 was originally a verb meaning to wait upon or accompany persons in the upper ranks of society, and this is also true of the original term in Japanese, saburau. In both countries the terms were nominalized to mean "those who serve in close attendance to the nobility", the pronunciation in Japanese changing to saburai.

I know this is a little bit tangential to the topic. I think it gives context to how we view the dynamics of these types of relationships. I think it important to note that the most powerful people throughout history relied on a relationship to the people that they served and that those in turn served them.

 

[say what]

The thing that basically everyone gets wrong regarding this topic is that being submissive in no way means the woman/individual should be disrespected. In fact, the woman/individual in the submissive role should probably be more highly regarded than the dominant. The only way to make a dom/sub dynamic work is with a shitload of respectful discourse. Continuously. Just because you are a sub, doesn't mean you are no longer allowed input. Nor does it mean that you are in any way required to stay within the confines of the dom/sub dynamic/relationship.

Maturity. Respect. Openness. It can work, and work well, but people are dumb.

In fact, isn't it that the sub actually holds the majority of the power in that relationship?

 

[Wyote]

In fact, isn't it that the sub actually holds the majority of the power in that relationship?

That is the way it's supposed to be, which was the point I was trying to get at. Problem is, Doms (or people who consider themselves Doms) often times are juvenile people and don't treat their own role with the respect and consideration it merits. People in ALL relationships generally don't treat their role as a partner with the maturity and respect that they should which is really the core of the problem here. Most relationships are messed up, nevermind throwing in another dom/sub layer.

 

[say what]

That is the way it's supposed to be, which was the point I was trying to get at. Problem is, Doms (or people who consider themselves Doms) often times are juvenile people and don't treat their own role with the respect and consideration it merits. People in ALL relationships generally don't treat their role as a partner with the maturity and respect that they should which is really the core of the problem here. Most relationships are messed up, nevermind throwing in another dom/sub layer.

true.
but i think a lot of people see submission as a relinquishing of power...when in fact, it can be the exact opposite.

I've spoken to many women who are of a faith where women are deemed submissive...and they all seem to hold the power in the relationship, or at least hold themselves as very confident and equal counterparts to their male partner. I think the idea of submissiveness, even within a faith context, can still be a powerful thing.

 

[SpecialEdition]

I don't see any problems with submission. Some people are naturally submissive and they fall into relationships with people who are naturally more dominant. I don't see it as a sub/dom relationship, I don't see it as abusive or like a power struggle. I see it as one person who tends to look to the other as their leader, guide and sounding board. Just because someone is submissive does not mean that they are powerless or they have no voice in their relationship. I would consider myself to be submissive in my relationship because that is just the dynamic that developed naturally between the two of us. This doesn't mean he has power over me or controls me or is abusive and it doesn't mean that I feel that I have to bow to his expectations.

I think when most people hear "submissive" they automatically think of the more extreme representations of submission which just don't occur for a lot of people in every day life. By that I mean people who live their regular day to day without being influenced into a belief about themselves and relationships based on religion/society.

For me, submission means that I am a provider in the sense that I nurture, I cook, I clean, I groom and care for my man. I ask him for his advice, I have immense respect for who he is and what he says and does. I want to be the best that I can be for him. I do not bring petty bullshit to the table, I deal with my emotions and problems predominantly on my own and only bring him into any negativity I feel or experience when I need some guidance or a different perspective. I don't dump on him or control him or exhibit any kind of jealousy. We are both very, very free people and our relationship is fantastic.

Does he ever submit to me? Depends on what you mean by submit. He is more practical in his thinking and behaviour so he tends to "provide" in the more stereotypical way though it is not expected or asked for. So we are both providers in a different manner but most people would interpret it as him being the dominant person in the relationship while I am more submissive in the relationship even though I am strongly opinionated, confrontational and am not afraid to speak up for myself.

I don't think submission is weak or anything like that and can be very rewarding when both people's needs are being met and expressed.

As for forced submission - I don't think that is submission. That's conditioning someone to be a certain way and fulfill a certain role to meet a specific expectation. I think it is sad for people to be trapped in that position. Sad for the man who feels he has to control a woman and behave a certain way towards her, and sad for the woman who is made to believe she has to submit entirely to a man. It can go both ways. You can't have one person conditioned without the other. They're all brought up with the same ideas of how things are meant to be. I don't blame the men and I don't blame the women. I blame the interpretation of certain institutions and teachings.

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

general:
If the relationship is balanced, any arrangement is valid.

 

[cvp12gh5]

I am submissive in my marriage and it was something that happened naturally. I always wanted a man of strong character that was willing and able to lead a personality like my own; and I found that in him. He gave me something to respect.

 

[La Sagna]

For me, submission means that I am a provider in the sense that I nurture, I cook, I clean, I groom and care for my man. I ask him for his advice, I have immense respect for who he is and what he says and does. I want to be the best that I can be for him. I do not bring petty bullshit to the table, I deal with my emotions and problems predominantly on my own and only bring him into any negativity I feel or experience when I need some guidance or a different perspective. I don't dump on him or control him or exhibit any kind of jealousy. We are both very, very free people and our relationship is fantastic.

It's interesting that you equate being of service or nurturing as being submissive. If you are doing it by choice without someone telling you that you have to do it then it wouldn't fall under the category of submission. The OP even says being "forcibly submissive". The definition of submission is: "the state of being obedient : the act of accepting the authority or control of someone else"
I know personally some very strong women who claim to be submissive to their SO because they provide domestic care and do "womanly duties", and yet I always have to laugh when they say that because knowing them they are the least submissive people I know. I think it's because they have never been in a position of having to be submissive, and therefore they erroneously equate choosing to be nurturing and caring as being submissive. As someone who has felt the need to be truly submissive at times just to keep the peace and not rock the boat because of a lack of alternatives, I will say it is not empowering in the least.

When a couple chooses to divide up the roles in a traditional way it is not about submission, it is about mutually agreeing that this would be the best arrangement for them, or if one person willingly chooses that they want to be nurturing and giving then that is still a personal choice and not submitting to somebody else's will. Submission is when one person has to do what the other one says without any consideration for their own thoughts on the matter. It is about having no voice and no choice.

 

[ShadowWarrior]

I don't think it's faith that demands submissiveness in women, but the arbitrary rules and laws in scripture that are almost singularly written by men.

If I could give you ten thumbs up for this note I would. Well said!!!

 

[ShadowWarrior]

A lot of interesting thoughts and they all vary in outlooks which I find inspiring and there are so many truths in each thought.

Submissiveness to me was as La Sagna defined it and to me the power of words can take us so many different places because there are so many different interpretations of it.

Growing up in a religious household I was taught to be "submissive" in the defined term, but in all honesty this was against the core of my nature as I was a born feminist. It all depends I suppose on how we truly define the word. Being giving and sharing of yourself, now that is a positive. As humans we all have differing talents and skills. I am a big thinker and I can give some sound advice at times, this would be something that others could rely on and depend on. While when it comes to some other stressors in my life I rely on them. This is co-existence and mutuality.

Now if submissiveness is seen this way, that we both submit to one another I am all for it, if its defined as "Control" than I am not for it. The reason being is that no one truly should give up their free spirit, we should all learn to compromise as we discover each others nature and determine what areas are more vulnerable and what areas are necessary to assist one another, and in this way allow the other who may be stronger in specific trait to have control in that area, but its honestly about mutuality for me. Perhaps this way of seeing this isn't good for me since I seem to have problems with relationships, but honestly I believe there are others out there that tend to see it in this way as well.

 

[SpecialEdition]

It's interesting that you equate being of service or nurturing as being submissive. If you are doing it by choice without someone telling you that you have to do it then it wouldn't fall under the category of submission. The OP even says being "forcibly submissive". The definition of submission is: "the state of being obedient : the act of accepting the authority or control of someone else"
I know personally some very strong women who claim to be submissive to their SO because they provide domestic care and do "womanly duties", and yet I always have to laugh when they say that because knowing them they are the least submissive people I know. I think it's because they have never been in a position of having to be submissive, and therefore they erroneously equate choosing to be nurturing and caring as being submissive. As someone who has felt the need to be truly submissive at times just to keep the peace and not rock the boat because of a lack of alternatives, I will say it is not empowering in the least.

When a couple chooses to divide up the roles in a traditional way it is not about submission, it is about mutually agreeing that this would be the best arrangement for them, or if one person willingly chooses that they want to be nurturing and giving then that is still a personal choice and not submitting to somebody else's will. Submission is when one person has to do what the other one says without any consideration for their own thoughts on the matter. It is about having no voice and no choice.

You don't have to give me an education on what being submissive is. I've been in an abusive relationship before and know how it goes. The OP is not talking exclusively about submission as a result of force, coercion or lack of other options. I chose to address a different side which is submitting to someone else's needs and desires voluntarily. There's more that goes along with it other than nurturing.

I do not think submission is always that extreme and that there can be a healthy balance.

 

[DonTaushMe]

I am always regarded as the dominate one in relationships and for the most part I am but god dammit I want to be held too!!

 

[Gaze]

Friendly reminder: *I'm not limiting the definition of the term "submissive" in this thread. Define it however you think helps explain it best from your perspective. It will likely mean something different to everyone based on their own experiences.