Is an obedient wife better?

[Butters]

It appears to me that having an obedient wife is better but I never hear anything like that in the mainstream media. 

Is there any evidence that having a modern, feminist wife has advantages or is better for your spiritual development? 

In a relationship I'm much more interested in guiding her spiritually and empathetically correcting her beliefs. And of course helping each other achieve goals, work on a business, be there emotionally when needed. But my masculine energy and her feminine energy should be enough. 

Thoughts? 

Edit: there is a chance I am confusing 'modern feminism' with stage Orange selfishness, but what else is modern feminism BUT selfishness? 

Edited 6 hours ago by Butters

[enchanted]

Depends on what you like. Wanting an "obedient" wife or husband sounds a little toxic and cringe. What's better is finding someone you can grow with together. 

[Elliott]

Conservative women are not purely obedient, they're also manipulative, schemeing, resentful, sabotage, divorce. It's only surface level obedience, IF anything. Feminist women, with open communication work with you and look out for you.

Edited 6 hours ago by Elliott

[Vali2003]

A woman being obedient as a result of masculine-feminine polarity is a male fantasy as far as I’m concerned that serves the men’s need of feeling ‘good enough.’ 

I guess some women may be naturally ‘obedient’ or more submissive. And in that case I don’t see a problem with it, I think. 

Ask yourself this though: If you visualize your girlfriend or your wife (even if you don’t have one) and completely integrate her into your sense of self — meaning you make no difference between her and you — then would you want her to be obedient to you? Would that be the empathetic thing to do? 

If I imagine this I’d want her to live her wildest dreams. Her being obedient to me would feel like a massacre to her potential and slavery. 

[Jannes]

@Butters So you like to guide is what I am hearing?

[Jannes]

I was in a f+ once with an obedient girl how you imagine it. I felt so lonely.

[enchanted]

An "obedient" wife and the desire to be obeyed sounds like a two people who are in lower stages of development (like red or blue for example). 

[Butters]

1 hour ago, Vali2003 said:

If I imagine this I’d want her to live her wildest dreams. Her being obedient to me would feel like a massacre to her potential and slavery. 

I didn't think this far. 

But being supportive of her goals is massively important, I wouldn't wanna hold anyone back from their goals. 

I meant this more as being a spiritual guide. Here, doesn't the wife submit to the husband? The nature of the feminine is submissive and the nature of the masculine is dominant. 

[aurum]

@Butters not "obedient". You don't need or want a slave. That will quickly become tyrannical.

[Elliott]

A two person cult. Lolz

[Butters]

I think you guys a bit disillusioned. 

What guys call 'cute' in a girl is literally submissive nonverbal signals. It's not a bosslady in a tracksuit. 

The feminine submits to the masculine. Literally by getting fucked, and spiritually also. 

This seems obvious to me. 

[something_else]

2 minutes ago, Butters said:

I think you guys a bit disillusioned. 

What guys call 'cute' in a girl is literally submissive nonverbal signals. It's not a bosslady in a tracksuit. 

The feminine submits to the masculine. Literally by getting fucked, and spiritually also. 

This seems obvious to me. 

Saying the feminine submits to the masculine is wrong. The feminine wants containment and protection, not slavery and submission.

[Butters]

7 minutes ago, something_else said:

The feminine wants containment and protection

What do you mean by this? Can you give an example? 

[Xonas Pitfall]

You need to define what “submissive” and “obedient” mean to you.

Some people expect a person to completely neglect their own career goals, or ideally have none, and take on an assistant or support role for the partner's pursuits.

Some people simply mean she is submissive in bed.

Some people mean she is more easy-going and agreeable.

Some people just want her to have a “softer” quality.

Some people mean she likes traditional gender roles in daily life, such as household responsibilities.

Some people mean she is flexible with plans and expectations and does not need strong control over outcomes.

All of these terms are too vague.

What do you want more specifically? Where do you want to lead? Where are you more flexible? Where are you more clueless and need assistance? Where are you neutral?

Edited 3 hours ago by Xonas Pitfall

[Butters]

7 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

You need to define what “submissive” and “obedient” mean to you.

It just means that she trusts me enough to submit herself and give her own masculine brain less authority and redirect it to me, like a little girl gives authority to her dad. So if others call that containment then fine. But it's the female who has to allow that, and if she doesn't then she'll never find a good man. But plenty of women will do this naturally. It's the modern age that corrupts this. What I see IRL is entirely different from what I hear in the media. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Butters

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, Butters said:

It just means that she trusts me enough to submit herself and give her own masculine brain less authority and redirect it to me, like a little girl gives authority to her dad. So if others call that containment then fine. But it's the female who has to allow that, and if she doesn't then she'll never find a good man. 

You've had a girlfriend like this?

[Butters]

Just now, Elliott said:

You've had a girlfriend like this?

Yes.

[Xonas Pitfall]

4 minutes ago, Butters said:

It just means that she trusts me enough to submit herself and give her own masculine brain less authority and redirect it to me, like a little girl gives authority to her dad. So if others call that containment then fine. But it's the female who has to allow that, and if she doesn't then she'll never find a good man. But plenty of women will do this naturally. It's the modern age that corrupts this. What I see IRL is entirely different from what I hear in the media. 

This is still vague. There is no concrete explanation of which areas you want to guide or have control over, and where you expect autonomy.

If you have already been in a relationship like this before, it would be more useful to dissect what actually went wrong, why it did not work out, and what specific dynamics caused problems. From there, you can think about how to mitigate those issues through better clarity, communication, and partner selection in the future.

[Vali2003]

3 hours ago, Butters said:

I didn't think this far. 

But being supportive of her goals is massively important, I wouldn't wanna hold anyone back from their goals. 

I meant this more as being a spiritual guide. Here, doesn't the wife submit to the husband? The nature of the feminine is submissive and the nature of the masculine is dominant. 

I think the term ‘submissive’ maybe has some unhelpful connotations. I associate it with domination. 

But as far as I understand you don’t mean this. You said you’d like her to be like a girl is to her father — or that this is a desirable quality — and, actually I think I agree. And I think that some women or maybe most women like to be ‘submissive’ in that sense. This is just me speaking from my relationship-experience though. 

When I feel most secure in myself and most masculine then I do naturally guide my girlfriend through adventures in this frame. But it has no ‘dominating’ quality at all and no tyrannical quality at all which I think is what men fall into most often when they try to be like that. They have this image that they HAVE to be this super masculine person and their girlfriend should always be in their frame. And this view just leads to suffering because it won’t always be like this. 

In some cases my girlfriend is just a better leader or decision-maker than me. And for a while I saw this as wrong and would feel emasculated when it happened and I’d actually tell her that sometimes and ask her if she could not do that hahahah. I think, realistically, in a relationship you can’t be the leader in all domains. It’s just not likely. And if you try to assert that frame in situations where it’s unnatural then that will be very awkward. 

So when you think like I did back then, you will — without a doubt — have moments like this where you try to force your masculine frame on situations just cause you’re following an ideal. 

TL;DR: The problem isn’t with being submissive per Se, but seeing it as a black/white (dominant/submissive) thing which will lead to a lot of suffering. Because it won’t be black. It will be a lot of grey instead.

 

 

[Lila9]

Obedience is a masculine energy. Soldiers are obedient. Obedience requires self-repression, sacrifice, and discipline. This is the complete opposite of feminine energy, which is creative, expressive, and free-spirited. You simply want a masculine soldier with female genitalia.