Playas till the day we die...

[jubilance1922]

Originally Posted by PrettyBoy

Wow. A woman that wants a man to take the lead? Women usually jump down my throat for voicing my opinion on this. I think that's why the divorce rate is so high because men won't take the lead. That's Biblical. It's the man's job to take care of his wife. It's not her job to take care of him. Women aren't designed to take on the load. Women get frustrated and stressed when she feels she has to take on the load. I agree with you all the way. In a marriage a woman has the option if she wants to work or not. I know this sounds crazy but if she doesn't want to work, then the joker she's with needs to do what he's gotta do to make ends meet. Now, of course if she does want to work then that's always a blessing, but she doesn't have to. That's all I've ever seen my dad do, was lead the family. Sons are going to do what they see their fathers do. I was raised to lead. The problem is finding a woman who wants to be led. Today's women say "I can take care of myself. I don't need a man to take care of me." That's part of the problem. Any man that lets his woman lead him, in my book is one sorry poor excuse for a man.

The Bible says wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands. It also says submit yourselves to one another. That doesn't mean for the man to submit to her lead, it means he is to submit to her needs, and she will submit to his lead.

Just my two cents on the subject....

I was raised by a mother who grew up dirt poor with no father, so she taught me the "take care of yourself, don't depend on a man" mantra. Once I got older and started having relationships, I realized that I had to tailor it a bit. Its true that I don't "need" a man for financial reasons, and I would never date someone who looked at me as a source of financial gain. But in a relationship, while the financial part may not be needed, I need him to give me other things, both tangible and intangible.

In general, I find these kinds of conversations to always end up on the money issues, and a lot of times a woman saying "I don't need a man to pay my rent or my car note or whatever" gets construed into "I don't need or want a man for anything", and those are two different things.

Its also been my experience that there are some lazy men out there, who simply don't want to take the lead, for whatever reason.

[PrettyBoy]

Originally Posted by jubilance1922

Just my two cents on the subject....

I was raised by a mother who grew up dirt poor with no father, so she taught me the "take care of yourself, don't depend on a man" mantra. Once I got older and started having relationships, I realized that I had to tailor it a bit. Its true that I don't "need" a man for financial reasons, and I would never date someone who looked at me as a source of financial gain. But in a relationship, while the financial part may not be needed, I need him to give me other things, both tangible and intangible.

In general, I find these kinds of conversations to always end up on the money issues, and a lot of times a woman saying "I don't need a man to pay my rent or my car note or whatever" gets construed into "I don't need or want a man for anything", and those are two different things.

Its also been my experience that there are some lazy men out there, who simply don't want to take the lead, for whatever reason.

That's cool. You're right there are some lazy jokers who are content with letting the woman lead him and take care of him. Not me. I have to lead and I have to have a woman who is comfortable with this. I'm not saying I have to be the bread winner, though I would prefer to be, but if I'm not, I'm still going to be the head of that marriage/relationship. Period. The Bible didn't say wives submit yourselves to your own husbands only if he makes more money. It just said submit yourselves to your own husbands. Now, if he's a lazy joker who won't work, then if I were a woman I wouldn't submit to a joker like that at all. A joker like that isn't a man, he's just flat out a sorry individual.