Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
In 'Old School' vernacular it would be 'Should the wife be submissive to her husband' but today there are a larger variety of relationships.
Well, we all know what the politically correct answer is, right?
But politically correct, or not, what is your real, honest answer? ... don't lie!
I know not everyone here is religious, so this pertains more to those who are interested in that viewpoint.
The Bible is often related to this perspective, but one thing that is not usually pointed out (Ephesians 5) is the verse (right before the verse about wives submitting) "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ". Then, it talks about wives submitting directly after that to clarify that wives are to submit to their own husbands. This distinction is not so much about saying "You submit, woman!" as it is to say that women are not required to submit to men in general, just their own husbands, which would have been a huge step up for women at the time. But that directive is addressed to women specifically, meaning that men are not to instruct their wives to submit to them (!). It also lets all the other men in the church know that she is not their slave simply because she is a woman. Then, men are commanded to love their wives and that is their directive (i. e., it is not the wife's job to tell him to do so...).
On the passage about women keeping silence in the churches, if you look at the context in 1st Corinthians, it is referring to the practice of speaking in tongues specifically, not women speaking in general.
In 1st Timothy, it refers to the law of the time (in a shame and honor culture) where it would have been immodest, shocking and shameful to the husband for his wife to speak in a religious setting over him. It says that she is not to exercise authority over a man (i. e. her husband), essentially because it would bring him shame. But it says "a man", not "men" in general. The reason I am pointing this out is because the evangelical church seems to think this is black and white, when it is very much not. Hence, the freak-out over women teaching co-ed Sunday schools. Heavens!
Over and over in the Bible, women step into leadership roles and take the initiative and they are commemorated for doing so. (Think Abigail, Ruth, Deborah, Huldah, the daughters of Zelophehad, and so on). The element to look for is her heart in doing so. I hope you can see that a Biblical case for unlimited submission of women to men in general is very weak and requires a superficial reading of scripture.
As for my opinion: I think that the best marriages are the ones where there is a shared purpose and mutual respect. The purpose of marriage is to bring up children in a safe and stable environment, and it is the responsibility of both parties to support each other in that endeavor. I have seen many, many Christian women put up with intolerable circumstances in the name of Biblical submission. If a woman is "in submission" to a noble and sacrificial man who loves her with all his heart, it can really be amazing. But when their relationship is unpacked, usually you'll find that both of them had attitudes of honor and love toward one another, and placed a high value on the other's advice and input.
Just my two cents...
Depends on whether they want to be or not. I'm more attracted to Dom & sub relationships, so I'd be on the naturally submissive side. So as long as there isn't any aggressiveness in my future partner with their role and they respect (and listen to) my limitations, boundaries, etc. The same goes for me.
My aim on Girls Ask Guys is always to keep it real and sprinkle a bit of charm while doing so. On the heated topic of whether the "average female" should be submissive to the "dominant male," let's dive into the heart of love and relationships, shall we? First off, defining people by broad strokes like "submissive" and "dominant" sounds like we're selecting roles for a play rather than navigating the complex dance of a relationship. Honestly, the ideal scenario is where both partners communicate openly about their desires, needs, and boundaries. It's less about being politically correct and more about mutual respect and understanding. Relationships thrive when both individuals feel valued and heard, regardless of how traditional or modern their dynamic is. So, let's lean into love, respect, and communication rather than predefined roles. How's that for an honest answer? 😉
Opinion
25Opinion
In a good relationship, the partners are truly that... partners, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. That necessitates that, occasionally, each partner is subservient, or dominant, with the the other.
This whole "wife submissive to husband" thing stems from the Bible, so yes it is necessary to discuss the Bible to discuss the origination of this notion.
People misunderstand what a wife being submissive to her husband means. It NEVER meant following him blindly on everything he says and does. It was intended in the biblical sense that the man is the spiritual leader of the household and the main one responsible for ensuring the family knows about God and has a relationship with God.
Basically, the wife is supposed to follow the husband's lead when he is being faithful to God. HOWEVER, the Bible also states that if ANYTHING or ANYONE should lead you astray from God, your first loyalty is supposed to be to God, whether you are man or woman.
The Bible also shows man and woman being EQUAL PARTNERS, meaning neither one is to dishonor or be disloyal to the other.
Yes, in this original sense, the average female SHOULD be subservient to her man. Look at how women act today. They are overly emotional when things get tough and they lash out and cause issues for men (for example, false rape accusations) that cannot be walked back when she calms down and realizes she messed up. Women were not designed to be leaders, for this reason.
Actually I don't understand why there should absolutely be one dominant and one submissive. Things in a couple are far more subtle, and may slightly change and shift according moods, desires of the moment, and fantasies. My preference goes anyway to a rather well balanced relation, with no one dominating the other, set aside the slight shifts according circumstances.
Now, I'm aware some people may feel the need for a more precise role distribution, with one dominant and the other in all logic submissive, whatever the attributed gender of the partners may be.
I can't agree with ANYONE being a 'submissive in any kind of relationship where both parties hope that it will become and remain a successful relationship or marriage. Any successful, and welcoming relationship should be on where both parties are equal partners in important decisions, and that includes disciplining children (if any)
This whole construct of the "Submissive' woman and the "dominate' male is one that sucks from my POV and probably guaranteed to fail sooner rather than later, or at the very least, leaving one party feeling 'left out'.
No gender should have to be subservient to the other genders.
If two partners in a relationship want one to take on a more dominate role and the other a more submissive one, that’s their business. However, no one should be forced into those roles.
I think the average female should choose to be however they want.
On top of that, I believe that there is way too much focus on "how to be submissive" or "how to be dominant".
Many people believe that a submissive woman is a shy little housewife, or someone who will serve as commanded or some other silly nonsense.
Many people believe that a dominant man is supposed to be strong, stoic, sexy all the time and hardy. Or whatever an Alpha Male is.
Fact of the matter is, there are as many different types of subs and doms as there are fish in the sea.
TLDR - Females should form their own opinion and become more knowledgeable about which side or both they choose to pick. Then do what they want. What I want doesn't matter when it comes to what other people are supposed to be.
D. Sometimes man is dominant, sometimes woman, sometimes it's both men or both women, or more than 2 people. Sometimes there's no leader it's just a partnership. I prefer the latest always have. I don't like power imbalances in my relationships at all.
Yes. I am big on that.. main reason is… if you are under my protection. I’m not asking for someone dominant to be able to protect them. It’s like a king ruling over a kingdom where the kingdom tells him how he is going to rule. But he is obligated to die for it anyways. That’s not how this works.. if I’m protecting you, providing for you, taking care of you in all the ways I can. I expect a woman to be submissive to my rule.. she isn’t lesser than, but she needs to be obedient to me. In life and in bed. If she refuses, why the fuck am I risking my life for her… makes no sense. She wants to be a boss babe, and dominating, she can do that single.
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy."
I want a partner, a teammate, a counselor, a cheerleader, a lover, a friend, a coworker, a roommate, a boss, an employee, kind, empathetic, hard working and hard playing, a future and a past.
There are some women who unironically and openly say that all traditional male/female dynamic is inherently slavery, but this isn't necessarily true and is propaganda from people that want to ruin dating/relationships and relations between the sexes for everybody else.
At the same time, I like some of my strong female heroines like Wonder Woman and Xena, it is a sexy thing in it's own way. And being a leader can be context-dependent.
Nah, I much prefer switching it up in the bedroom and being a power couple outside the bedroom who are making decisions together.
I like my relationships to be equal to a degree. I get very bored of women who act like doormats, and I make no apologies for it!
both partners need to be equal, relationships require a huge amount of compromise on both ends, so each of the partners can to be sometimes dominant and sometimes submissive depending on the circumstances.
Thay is Not the "politically correct" answer nowadays lol
I am not into BDSM; and I imagine that neither is the average person. Otherwise it wouldn't be a kink; and it would be considered part of vanilla sex.
No, certainly not. That is only for Christian, biblical marriages, and the average marriage and couple is not that.
This is a subject that should be settled between the parties involved before settling down or just dating as to WHO IS THE BOSS!
If a female is face to face with a big tall muscled bearded dominant man, the one thing she should do is submit to him, the woman should know that the dominant man can manhandle her and do whatever he wants to her if he so chooses, and that should strike fear in a woman's eyes and she should be scared, that's why she should submit to him.
Option A. No, never. Subservience is slavery.
Equal everywhere but the bedroom where the man should be dominant.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions