Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, January 23, 2014

Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) writes in his most recent book that like the military's chain of command, every household should be run according to a rigid hierarchy -- with the husband at the top. "The wife is to voluntarily submit, just as the husband is to lovingly lead and sacrifice," Pearce writes. "The husband's part is to show up during the times of deep stress, take the leadership role and be accountable for the outcome, blaming no one else."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Doc_Sarvis

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

"And while you're at it, honey, could you bring us guys some beers?"

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Bring on the Bronze Age!

#1 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-23 07:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

DOC you must really have a problem with Mooslems and woman's rights.

#2 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-01-23 08:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

We're not saying women are second class citizens. There are places where they rule - the sink, the stove, the washing machine, and behind a mop and broom.

-----gotp------

#3 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-01-23 09:13 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

DOC you must really have a problem with Mooslems and woman's rights.
#2 | Posted by paneocon

Once again, you've waddled onto the wrong thread. This one isn't about Muslims or women's rights within the Islamic milieu; it's about a member of the US House of Representatives who believes women should "voluntarily submit" to their husbands.

Can't you deal with that without serving up another lame deflection?

(No need to answer - of course you can't.)

#4 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-23 09:24 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

I'll bet doc runs nothing in his hovel. That's why he comes to the DR so he can feel like a first class citizen.

#5 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-23 09:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

He's an idiot but I don't see how this is any more offensive than the popular representation of husbands that is currently popular in TV and movies - hapless idiots who are best off voluntarily deferring to their wives. If I'm not bothered by that then I really can't bring myself to pretend to be bothered by this.

#6 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-23 09:39 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Doc, I saw your response on another thread. I sent you an e-mail with the stated e-mail you gave me but it didn't go through. Is there a space between doctor and sarvis.

#7 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-23 09:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

MATSOP - It's an underscore as in doctor_sarvis
Thanks!

#8 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-23 09:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Doc, I tried that and it went through. Just get back to me.

#9 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-23 09:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks, I will.

#10 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-23 09:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

MATSOP - Hasn't shown up yet, but I'll check later.

#11 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-23 09:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Doc, please indulge me and allow me to put a historical context on why this type thing of philosophy is considered acceptable in todays culture.

It also explains why the west needs for the world to have been created only 6000 yrs ago.

It is almost impossible to understand how we got where we are today without going back 15,000 years or so. In the ancient asianic religions and writings (since and when written language was invented), there is hardly no distinction between the female and the male. One was not above the other, they both had necessary functions (someone had to birth the babies and someone had to keep the wolves from eating them).

Even today, in the asian languages, they have a hard time with the western pronouns for 'he' and 'she'.

There was one distinction though. The female was the 'life-giver', the spiritual life-force. It would be incorrect to say the female was god, because they didn't use that type thinking. But the female was seen as having been imbued the godly gift of giving and making life. As it should be. Males were imbued with the godly gift of strength, intelligence and desire for the woman.

Archeologists have found female godhead drawings and figurines (a sexually mature buddha-type female with massive breasts - some had a river eminating from the birth canal) in every ancient culture on earth. They are dated back to around 15,000 yrs ago. They also know that the moon (which drives the menstral cycle), the river (the nile - the birth canal), and the seasons (the fertility and harvest cycles) were symbols of the female god-head. The female was revered, cherished and protected. This does not mean the male was insignificant, it only means that part of the male power came from his ability to revere and attract the woman to come to him of her own free will.

This female god-head achetype was 'the religion' of the west until around 6000 yrs ago, when intelligent semitic peoples, who knew much from their trading, from adopting and learning to read, write and learn stories, made God a physical, singular force.

And they made God a male. And they incorrectly made wisdom a singular male phenomenon. And the males held a mafia-type protection scheme over the female.

Weak men could not attract the woman, so the woman had to be brought under submission to the male. She was forced to have children that her own wisdom told her were genetically inferior (she would always pick, of her own free will, the male that she thought would give her the best genetic breed - even though she didn't know she was doing this).

To the followers of this corruption, the world, their world, WAS created 6000 yrs ago.

And this is still the predominant beliefs of the west ever since. And this idiot, this Steve Pearce, has millions of weak (genetically inferior) males and females following his corrupt philosophy.

#12 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-01-23 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

MATSOP - Got it - replied - and thanks!

#13 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-23 10:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

#12 | Posted by kudzu

You did a whale of a job summarizing several thousand years of human history and culture (seriously). It's like in Plains Indian traditional religions, where Sun is Father, Earth is Mother. They exist with each other, neither being either inferior or superior.

#14 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-23 10:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

#12 is a good overview... with the caveat that the Abrahamic God, although given masculine identity in most of the everday human writings, was known by them to be a genderless spirit of many names, some of which were feminine such as, "the many-breasted one", which spoke more to teh quality of provision rather than physical gender.

-when intelligent Semitic peoples

Quite astute, as Ashkenazi Jews today still have the highest IQs.

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2014-01-23 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Archeologists have found female godhead drawings and figurines (a sexually mature buddha-type female with massive breasts -

#12 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-01-23 10:10 AM | Reply |

And we have the hubris to think we're way ahead of other cultures----they had breast augmentation 15,000 years before we even thought of it.

#16 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-23 11:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Here's the fun part of this 'male dominant philosophy'. (It took me two failed marriages and one wildly successful marriage - my current one - to learn this).

A woman will be fully loyal and very submissive -sexual lyrics as well as other ways - to a man that respects and reveres her and her place in his life.

She needs that man to be strong. She feeds on his power, because her satisfaction and her children's protection and success is determined by his power and his wisdom.

you try to force a woman to do that and you will wake up with Lorena bobbitt.

#17 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-01-23 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sexual lyrics = sexually

#18 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-01-23 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

The most pathetically weak males attempt to maintain a level of control through such things as religion and politics. If an arbitrary outside force can protect them while they feign dominance over others, they will remain there for as long as the rest of us let them. These are your drug warriors, your police "men," your tough on crime legislators, your pro-war Senators, your tough guys who would hang a whistle blower, etc.

#19 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2014-01-23 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

This guy is an idiot.

Both spouses should "submit" to the other spouse.

If you're not boning your spouse as frequently as they require, you are giving them motivation to bone someone else.

Handle your business.

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-01-23 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"All you have to do, I tell myself, is keep your mouth shut and look stupid. It shouldn't be that hard."
― Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid's Tale

#21 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-23 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Mrs Bunker submits to me often...

Keeps her in nice things..

#22 | Posted by bunker112 at 2014-01-23 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

This gets taken out of context a lot. Paul told wives to submit to their husbands. At the same time, Paul said husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church (Christ served and gave his life for the church).

Ephesians 5:23 sums it up - "However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

#23 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-01-23 12:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

#12 | Posted by kudzu
Intelligent and thoughtful, thanks.

This business of women as property who should submit to their masters seems to be a common thread of current fundamentalist religions.

#24 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2014-01-23 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Seems no women are commenting here. I wonder why?

#25 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-01-23 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

this again...well I get it...it's important to accelerate the attack on males...but anywhos...

Make sure all of you people read the entire thing...even in the headline he talks more of the man's responsibility...OH WAIT>..I forgot...the radical extreme left is more into VICTIMS than personal responsibility

well never mind then...

#26 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-01-23 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

and as ANYONE with a clear mind knows..the reference to muslims was to show how the left is afraid to talk about muslims even in our little neighborhood here.

#27 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-01-23 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

This business of women as property who should submit to their masters seems to be a common thread of current fundamentalist religions.

#24 | POSTED BY SOMEBODYELSE

A little overboard...... Kudzu hits a homerun here.... the submission is voluntary, and even the Republican is saying as much. In the situation you are describing negotiation of attraction which can't be done.

Some people here seem to view submission as bad, and yet on the next thread ask man to submit to more government. Its really a cognitive dissonance. On the one hand submission to someone you know, respect and love on a personal level seems reasonable. On the other hand asking someone to submit to an impersonal government is absurd without the first.

A woman will be fully loyal and very submissive -sexual lyrics as well as other ways - to a man that respects and reveres her and her place in his life.
She needs that man to be strong. She feeds on his power, because her satisfaction and her children's protection and success is determined by his power and his wisdom.
you try to force a woman to do that and you will wake up with Lorena bobbitt.
#17 | POSTED BY KUDZU

#28 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-01-23 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

".the reference to muslims was to show how the left is afraid to talk about muslims even in our little neighborhood here."

Which does not take away from the fact that this thread isn't about Muslims - it's about a wackjob Baptist congressman from New Mexico.

#29 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-23 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

and as ANYONE with a clear mind knows..the reference to muslims was to show how the left is afraid to talk about muslims even in our little neighborhood here.

#27 | POSTED BY AFKABL2

Above, Doc put up a whole post outlining the rules of Muslim avoidance, quite a piece of work, a construction of denial that is beyond compare.

#30 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-01-23 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

-when intelligent Semitic peoples
Quite astute, as Ashkenazi Jews today still have the highest IQs.
#15 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2014-01-23 10:55 AM | FLAG:

You lose out when you think like this. Your life is just that much poorer for it.

#31 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-01-23 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Mrs. Diablo always submits to me.
Hey wait a second, why does she get her way all the time and I am still taking out the garbage??

#32 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-01-23 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

#31

Facts are stubborn things, eh?

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2014-01-23 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is hard to deny the obvious connection between fundy religion (including Muslim and jewish fundies) and extreme misogyny.

I think my view on it was formed by my mother, who was loving and kind, but tough as nails.

As a result, I have never been able to be with a weak women who wanted to be kept and controlled. I find these kinds of women, who usually are fundies themselves, to be completely untrustworthy and sexually unsavory.

#34 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-01-23 01:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

I would love to see a post where anyone, Liberal or not, supports the Muslim subjection of women.
Otherwise you're just talking out ya ---. (as usual).

#35 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-01-23 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Corky , let's don't hijack this good thread with this subject, but I want to debate this ashkenazi jew thing somewhere else at another time.

#36 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-01-23 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Above, Doc put up a whole post outlining the rules of Muslim avoidance, quite a piece of work, a construction of denial that is beyond compare.
#30 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Are you talking about me? If so, where did I post that?

#37 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-23 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Keep the crazy coming GOP, it's very entertaining and ensures your inability to elect a majority.

#38 | Posted by drewl at 2014-01-23 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

I would love to see a post where anyone, Liberal or not, supports the Muslim subjection of women.
Otherwise you're just talking out ya ---. (as usual).

#35 | POSTED BY TFDNIHILIST AT 2014-01-23 01:22 PM | FLAG:

Having just invented it on another post last night, I have already had the Second Reformation of and declared myself Pope of Malsi. The only important commandments are regular partaking of The Holy Fruit of the Porcine, ie Bacon, and that women remain as unclothed and whorish as possible. I'm, well, still working on the female recruitment thing. Furthermore, as Pope, and in solidarity with other religions and paths to enlightenment, I'm already hard at work attempting to beat a Miter hat out of a spaghetti strainer.

Magnanimously speaking for all liberals, this is now the official stance on women. You may thank me for your new opinion at will.

#39 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-01-23 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is the kind of conservative thinking that gave the "Wife Beater T-shirt" its name.

#40 | Posted by Species8472 at 2014-01-23 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Zero, what's your stance on weed communion?

#41 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-01-23 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Zero, what's your stance on weed communion?

#41 | POSTED BY KUDZU AT 2014-01-23 02:04 PM | FLAG:

In my first post, I described God as very laid back. Vaguely like Lebowski, but more omnidudent. I'm sticking with it.

Furthermore, weed communion should enhance enjoyment of the holy sacrament of bacon.

#42 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-01-23 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

isn't this a similar sentiment to, "a man can never rape his wife because she agreed to marry him"?

What is it with republicans? Unable to convince a girl to willingly have sex with them so they make it against the law for women to refuse?

#43 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-23 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Huckabee: Dems keep ladies in their voter harem by feeding their whore pill addiction

#44 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2014-01-23 03:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Above, AndreaMackris put up a whole post outlining her love of fingersniffing and taints, quite a piece of work, a construction of approval that is beyond compare.

#45 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-01-23 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Wives shouldn't submit to their husbands; only my wife should.

#46 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-23 03:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Wives shouldn't submit to their husbands; only my wife should.
#46 | POSTED BY MATSOP

No wonder you're in favor of legalizing rape.

#47 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-23 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

The issue is often with the word "submit"--- that is for the lefties. They have no problem with everyone submitting to larger government but for some reason they have a problem with that little word "submit" in a heterosexual relationship since they see it as punitive. Maybe it's because they submit to the women in their lives and it raises feelings of inadequacy. There is, however, a huge qualifier to the word "submit" since there is that little 4 letter word "love" as far as the role of the male. If the male is responsible in the application of "love", it negates the punitive nature of the word "submit". In essence "submission" doesn't have a punitive connotation. It then requires give and take in a healthy relationship.

#48 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-23 03:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

I might add that lefties have such a problem with this word, yet they shouldn't. They engender to require all of society to submit to their repetitious lunacy while society crumbles from their flippant impositions.

#50 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-23 03:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

But there's no GOP War on Women. All these poor souls are just "misunderstood."

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-01-23 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

There is no GOP war on women----it's a figment of your imagination and a marketing tool for the demonrats. Not necessarily defending the GOP which is about as obtuse as the demonratic party.

#54 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-23 04:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

There is no GOP war on women--

#54 | Posted by matsop

Maybe.. maybe not, but apparently Rep. Steve Pearce(R-N.M.) is carrying out a war on women.

#55 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-01-23 04:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

I do so wish the Republican party could get rid of the religious right. They are our biggest albatross. They make the most stupid statement's and then stand behind them. Steve Pearce and his family may live like that but to vocalize that and make the assumption that his views work for every one is absurd and I flinch every time one of these guys goes near a microphone. The Democrats have done a far better job silencing their environazis and there functional communists.

#56 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-01-23 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

The issue is often with the word "submit"--- that is for the lefties. They have no problem with everyone submitting to larger government but for some reason they have a problem with that little word "submit" in a heterosexual relationship since they see it as punitive. Maybe it's because they submit to the women in their lives and it raises feelings of inadequacy. There is, however, a huge qualifier to the word "submit" since there is that little 4 letter word "love" as far as the role of the male. If the male is responsible in the application of "love", it negates the punitive nature of the word "submit". In essence "submission" doesn't have a punitive connotation. It then requires give and take in a healthy relationship.

#48 | POSTED BY MATSOP

What's with all the convoluted word play? We all know what the word "submit" means. No point in making up some politically correct excuses.

Either you agree that women should be submissive to men or you don't!

Real men disagree.

#57 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2014-01-23 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Islam means "submission to G-d."

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-01-23 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

I do so wish the Republican party could get rid of the religious right. They are our biggest albatross. They make the most stupid statement's and then stand behind them.

#56 | Posted by paneocon

The fact that you would hope that means you don't even understand how your party works.

The republican party is a union of the rich elites and ignorant morons. It only serves the greedy rich americans interests, but there aren't enough of them to elect anyone. So they need the masses of religious morons to vote for them. They get those votes by adopting the bible thumper's positions on crap issues like abortion, which the greedy puppetmasters don't really care about. They just say whatever they need to to win over the anti-abortion idiots, who are too stupid to realize that they are voting against their own economic interests.

Without the bible thumpers to vote for it, the republican party vanishes.

#59 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-01-23 04:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

#59 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I hear they eat small children too. Grow up SPEAKSOFTLY.

#61 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-01-23 05:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

I hear they eat small children too. Grow up SPEAKSOFTLY.

#61 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2014-01-23 05:03 PM

No Panny, they don't eat small children, they rape them.

#62 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-01-23 05:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

#59 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

I think that was a reasonable description of how the republicans maintain some of their power. Eventually, they aren't going to have enough white evangelicals to hold on though.

#63 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-01-23 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

I hear they eat small children too. Grow up SPEAKSOFTLY.

#61 | Posted by paneocon

You grow up. If you can't see that the repub part is completely dependent on the votes of the religious wackjobs to survive, you're not living in the adult world called reality.

#64 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-01-23 05:32 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Well, anyone can throw a raped fetus on a slice of bread and call it a sandwich, but it takes a Republican to get the perfect doneness."

The liberal Democrats call a fetus a thing, then make posts such as that as if their opponents are doing it.

#70 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-01-24 03:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The republican party is a union of the rich elites and ignorant morons"

But WE are different!

Kennedy Cultists

#71 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-01-24 03:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

and as ANYONE with a clear mind knows..the reference to muslims was to show how the left is afraid to talk about muslims even in our little neighborhood here.

BS. The muslim DEFLECTION (all caps, must be true, right?) is the pathetic scrapings of the pathetically weak trying desperately to find an analogous situation so as not to feel like the only pathetic, desperate weaklings.

Oddly enough, that same group is usually lambasted by the very same weaklings on a regular basis for wanting to destroy 'Murica!.

#72 | Posted by jpw at 2014-01-24 03:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Some people here seem to view submission as bad, and yet on the next thread ask man to submit to more government.

Wow. This is so f'in Trigtarded I don't even know where to start.

#73 | Posted by jpw at 2014-01-24 03:34 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

You know there is actually some truth to the "Leave it to Beaver" episode.

My Beautiful Filipina wife who can cook dozens upon dozens of delicious dishes(Chinese, Filipino, Mexican, American) asked me once: Why don't you cook more often?

I responded: If you want BBQ or homemade Chili every other day, I'll help out(that's all I know!).

She acquiesced and let me slide; so I only cook a couple dozen times a year.

#74 | Posted by shane at 2014-01-24 08:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Seems no women are commenting here. I wonder why?"

I don't know what the male-female breakdown is on the DR, but I get the feeling few women are present: Danni, TwinPac, CalifChris, not sure how many others. (Murphy was back for a bit; Lisa is basically not here anymore; LilBrit also appears to have moved on to greener pastures.)

#75 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-24 08:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

If you have not had a submissive bondage slave at least once in your life you do not know what you're missing ;)

#76 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-01-24 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

"My Beautiful Filipina wife ....
#74 | Posted by shane"

Vernon? That you?

#77 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-01-24 05:43 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

#77 | Posted by mOntecOre

FF.

But Shane's post is far too coherent for Vernon.

#78 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-01-24 06:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#75 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

And how could you forget Patriotlady?

#79 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-01-24 06:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Murphy was back for a bit; Lisa is basically not here anymore; LilBrit also appears to have moved on to greener pastures."

Personally I miss Phoenix.

"And how could you forget Patriotlady?"

Or IHATEBIGGOV. Gracie's siamese twin, Baysideinpc too.

#80 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2014-01-24 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Shane's post is far too coherent for Vernon.
#78 | Posted by TheTom"

True, and no reference to a calculator. NW flag for you.

#81 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-01-24 07:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Shane's post is far too coherent for Vernon.
#78 | Posted by TheTom"

True, and no reference to a calculator. NW flag for you.
#81 | Posted by mOntecOre

My Beautiful Filipina wife who can cook dozens upon dozens of delicious dishes(Chinese, Filipino, Mexican, American, Tibetan, Sierra Leoneon, Los Angeleno, Yupik, Madagascareno) -- which is fine, if you're into eating dishes, as opposed to real food, like jellied bouillon with frankfurters, Vienna sausage shortcake, and prune-whip -- asked me once: "Hey, Bermin, yu lasie slahb, howcumma yu no cookah da foo?"

I responded: "Look, baby, if you want asparagus-macaroni loaf, pickle-stretcher salad, or roast dog, I'm you're guy because that's all I know."

Congressman Pearce (may Gawd bless him and his potentially prodigious progeny) would be proud: my mamacita acquiesced and let me slide. Now I cook only five times a week.

My life is good. Yours probably sucks.

~ Vermin

#82 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-24 07:51 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

FF for that one, Doc.
(Had you included a calculator reference, I'd have given an NW flag as well.)

#83 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-01-24 08:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

This will go over well in the western world.

#84 | Posted by fresno500 at 2014-01-25 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

Kudsu, i like your explanation... but even in that it requires submission for a healthy unit.

Always, when there are more than one person involved... some degree of submission is required.

We sometimes turn the word "submit" into a dirty word when we don't need to. In the context of slavery - yes... I can see that it is dirty due to our distaste for slavery. But in the context of marriage or just regular interpersonal relationships - submitting [to someone's area of expertise] is not the same as slavery.

In the example of the ancient asian culture where there were virtually no distinctions... there were yet distinctions. In that example, the woman was the life giver (along with all the other strengths that women have like compassion), and men had the gift of physical strength and more logical/practical thinking (probably due to less compassion)

so... naturally there needs to be submission *to each other*. Each partner recognizing the strengths of the other, and each partner submitting to that other partners area of strength. It will be different for each marriage. And most importantly, each partner acting with the interest of both partners in mind. If one partner is acting selfishly, no submission is required or expected - not even the bible.

#85 | Posted by jpz at 2014-01-26 12:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort