Gentlemen: Top 10 Qualities When Choosing a Wife

[bigblu]

Bigblu, although, as I have acknowledged, the sort of marriage you describe certainly can work, perhaps I could offer a different perspective.

What we want, and what God wants from us, are often 2 different things. Same for what we want vs what’s best for us. I think there comes a point where “letting my husband do the thinking while I do arts and crafts”'crosses over into “I’m wasting my life and the abilities and opportunities God gave me.” I’m not saying you’re there. I’m saying many women are - I know, having seen of first hand." Worse, the scenario you describe causes enormous problems when either the husband dies, or he decides he wants someone else and the wife suddenly must fend for herself. It happens.

I’ve set her up with a large life insurance policy on myself. Her art and crafts aren’t wasting her life and her care.for our children isn’t wasting her life. She might even go to cosmetic school here once kids are a bit older.

Why is everything so combative on here. Why not more live and let live. Both can be right.

 

[underacloud]

Why is everything so combative on here. Why not more live and let live.

Yeah, I know, other than being no fun, prudish, sexually repressed, full of guilt, and morally/theologically wrong, we can be pretty combative, right?

 

[bigblu]

Yeah, I know, other than being no fun, prudish, sexually repressed, full of guilt, and morally/theologically wrong, we can be pretty combative, right?

My point is if I meet a methodist, lutheran, whatever denomination; generally they say cool. We don’t agree with everything but say “It’s the same Jesus” and all is good. But with catholics they are all like “you are wrong, we have the only truth”

the catholic is the only one that ads nonbiblical stuff.

On this post I just listed what is compatable with me for a partner. It was childish of me to include the noncatholic part in my post and say they are no fun and such though but all I was saying was I wouldn’t probably be too compatible with a catholic girl as it would be unfair to both her and me as we would disagree on morals and such.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I’m sorry, IMHO it’s never an equal partnership when the husband always has the final say and the wife is supposed to just trust hubby’s judgment. I’m sure it works sometimes; heck, I’m sure it works in a lot of marriages. But the fact that it works doesn’t make it an equal partnership, far from it.

This is one issue which I would not leave to marriage-prep, or even to courting beyond the first few dates.

In my first post here I wrote:

So, after some thought, here’s what I’ve realised is actually the subconscious “list” I go through when considering a prospective relationship:

1. Someone I can pray with.
   …
2. A woman who accepts the husband’s headship of the house.
   …
3. The things which bring some color to my life, and “our” life:
   …

In my serious dating, the first two have actually been quite pre-meditated - it was only the third which was “sub-conscious”. I would only date someone who already practiced and intended these, and would never attempt to pursuade her that our relationship was worth changing her mind for. (That would obviously be asking for trouble).

It was in writing my post that I was able to clarify these three matters, and prioritise them.

My first wife was canny enough to make a big show of prayerfulness and a Christian life for me, and to agree to the second with a mental caveat that she found convincing. In my annulment case I considered going for “false pretences” as a ground, because our agreement on both these was quite clear, but it was easier to get it on other grounds.

The woman I became engaged to in my fourties was a big Yes on the first two, but sadly there just wasn’t enough of the third to draw me out of my single state.

 

[PolarGuy]

Edmundus, I would respectfully posit that there’s never “color” in life when a husband always gets his way. I think It’d be fun for about 2 months, then mindlessly boring thereafter.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Edmundus, I would respectfully posit that there’s never “color” in life when a husband always gets his way. I think It’d be fun for about 2 months, then mindlessly boring thereafter.

Thanks, but it’s not something I even question, at the personal level as it applies to my life, and the principle is a separate discussion.

 

[underacloud]

My point is if I meet a methodist, lutheran, whatever denomination; generally they say cool. We don’t agree with everything but say “It’s the same Jesus” and all is good. But with catholics they are all like “you are wrong, we have the only truth”

Sounds like you need to get out and meet more people. These comments are not true of most Catholics, and certainly not true of many evangelical Protestants (who think Catholics are going to hell). For the record, my closest friends are Protestant; I actually have very few Catholic friends, and they are mostly through my wife. My best mate in school was the son of a Methodist minister.

On this post I just listed what is compatable with me for a partner. It was childish of me to include the noncatholic part in my post and say they are no fun and such though but all I was saying was I wouldn’t probably be too compatible with a catholic girl as it would be unfair to both her and me as we would disagree on morals and such.

This almost sounds like an apology. You certainly raise fair points about compatibility. You’re just unlikely to be well received on a Catholic forum when you accuse us of being no fun.

 

[chevalier]

Underacloud and Chevalier, thanks for commenting on “the list.”

Hope it was digestible. I usually write more clearly.

I’m 47 now, and thanks be to God I don’t think the way I did when I was in my 20s.

Back when I was in college (before I embarked upon my 10-year foray into the GLBTT world), I remember my girlfriends and I would talk about what we wanted in a husband. To be honest, our lists were pretty superficial, but we were a fairly immature group.

A young girl’s list probably never or rarely manages to get in the way of her falling for a man who doesn’t meet a half of it, but you know this better than I do. Then again, people do make their deicisons on shallow factors, so I guess it’s not impossible that in some cases holding on to an immature list can stand in the way of someone’s happiness.

As embarrassed as I am to say this, I recall a decision based partially on difference in height, type of favourite food, and opinion of a certain language that was important to my sense of identity. Ironically, however, where such shallow issues are a problem, it would actually be shallow to ignore them and force it despite, hence it was probably the right decision in the (immature and possibly culpable) circumstances. Besides, it was probably also evidence of lacking a strong enough connection to prepare the ground for a communion of life, even though there surely was one strong enough to warrant a lingering crush. Else I can’t fathom how such minuscule details, objectively speaking, could have mattered so much. But I was closer to age 30 than 20, quite well educated, rather more cultured than the average etc. Not someone you’d expect to be irrational and petty and immature* and whatever by default.

• Then again, women say we develop until we’re, after which we just continue to grow (in size).

These days, I don’t really think in terms of a list of “ideals” as I did in my younger, immature days. Instead, I have a couple non-negotiables:

1. Practicing Catholic
2. Eligible for sacramental marriage

Even with that short list, my secular friends say I’m too picky!

Well, here, by ‘practicing Catholic’ we normally understand a practicing Catholic with magisterial opinions on all relevant issue, and that’s not too wide a demographic. On the other hand, among non-practicing Catholics and baptized non-Catholic Christians the number of bachelors rather than divorced men past a certain age is not that high, either. Hence, your target demographic is probably small enough indeed, but one’s got to have standards. And, #2 is not a negotiable in any way, anyway.

Romance aside, it’s really up to Our Lord anyway. It’s my job to just keep the door open and get the jobs done that are assigned to me by my state in life.

I suspect some people may have a calling without an intended way of direct, literal fruition, e.g. really called to marriage but not meant to actually get there, because of a certain task to do of which they aren’t aware (not in a predestination sense, though). But I’m not a theologian.

 

[chevalier]

Oh and he also said someone who did not emasculate him. This one came out as a surprise to me LOL.

Yes, you ladies can be quite oblivious to that. For some decades now (centuries? who knows) there’s been licence to put men down, perhaps just as men have been making patronizing jokes about women and putting them down in general.

I don’t mind a shrew, personally, I tend to take a liking to headstrong types, but what sits ill with me is the modern pattern of women thinking it’s cool to push men around, put them down, try to humiliate them on purpose or just act out of control and out of bounds.

I didn’t put that on the so called ‘my list’, but it’s still an important factor to me, yes. I’m sympathetic toward a certain disappointment with the male sex in general, as well as a certain sense of pride and being exceptional in being a woman, even a certain amount of prejudice against men; I can be sympathetic toward relationship issues in general, but there are limits past which it just doesn’t work. Notably when it crosses the line of contempt*, as that is something I wouldn’t be able to bear with in a woman supposed to marry me and stay that way, no matter how much in love I were (or she).

• Real, not pretended. A bit of cynicism and bitterness plus a couple of prejudices does not contempt make (it only makes a person with a difficulty biography and something to work on, just like everybody else).

If I were single, I’d be tempted to put you through your paces and ask to see some demonstrations of thinking through hard issues.

Sigh. That’s what women were created for — testing us men.

(…) I would be her “confidant” as well, if she wished. (…) She, then agreed to be my “confidante”. (…) Ultimately, we realized we loved each other.

How I’m not surprised.

 

[Edmundus1581]

quote=Ridgerunner;12984613 I would be her “confidant” as well, if she wished. (…) She, then agreed to be my “confidante”. (…) Ultimately, we realized we loved each other.

How I’m not surprised.
[/quote]



Yes, that was my first thought on reading the story! My only surprise was “What took you so long?”.

 

[alphawoman]

As someone who’s married to very smart lady (who also happens to make more $ than I do!) I can’t help but be really unimpressed by men who want a submissive wife…it’s like they have some insecurity or defect that makes them seek out someone who won’t challenge them. I’m sure all cases are unique but I’m convinced a lot of men use the Bible as a convenient excuse to look for someone “submissive” when what they really are is just insecure. Me? I’d rather have a partner. If I wanted someone submissive I’d hire a maid (and I could just pay her to fawn over my muscles).

Right on!

It takes a strong man to equal a strong woman. A real man doesn’t need to engage in petty power plays because he knows that true strength and pleasure in a marriage is an additive function across the spouses, not a minimum function.

 

[alphawoman]

A fine question.

OK, happily married well over a decade to a wonderful lady, “just so’s you know” from whence I come…

1. Someone who is kind AKA has a good heart, and who lives like they do. All the rosaries, knowledge of doctrines, etc., are 100% meaningless if the person leaves their faith at the church door on the way out. In fact, I don’t even think “knowledge of doctrines” is even #476 in my list,
2. Someone with a strong sense of morality, particularly sexual morality and honesty. Someone who knows that lying is not a good thing.
3. Someone who wants to raise themselves up; be great; use their God given gifts, etc. I know sooooooo many women who want essentially a) a life of leisure; or b) status, including of their husbands; or even c) pleasure, i.e., to “get sex,” “get drunk,” etc.(and these are professional, well educated women!) These people are essentially enslaved by their wants. They want status; they want toys; they want an easy life; and they never realize that none of those things are important. I know smart, pretty, educated women who essentially will willingly throw over a good man if he can’t “give them what they demand” (including temporarily, i.e., because of job loss, etc.). I prefer qualities like honor; dignity; and trying to better oneself.
4. Along the same lines, someone who is industrious, AKA, wants to do more than go to the ladies’ book club; read fashion mags, etc. (and I know lots of ladies who want that!)
5. Someone who will be an equal partner, and a good mom.
6. Someone with intelligence and common sense.
7. Someone who handles money responsibly.
8. Someone who can function without a man, i.e., not totally reliant on a man for financial, emotional or physical support. Someone who can take care of themselves.
9. Someone with good judgment, particularly when it comes to men. I know a smart, relatively attractive woman lawyer – who, by her early 40s, is twice divorced because she has absolutely atrocious judgment about men and dates guys who are no good - then wonders why her life is messed up.
10. Someone who’s not a “good time Charlene.”
    The person I described is my wife. I’m blessed. Just don’t her know I wrote all this, OK???

Your wife sounds like a formidable woman! I would generalize your #7 to “behaves responsibly, with a view to the long term” and replace all gendered language with their male equivalents to generate a list for desirable qualities in a man.

 

[chevalier]

Right on!

It takes a strong man to equal a strong woman. A real man doesn’t need to engage in petty power plays because he knows that true strength and pleasure in a marriage is an additive function across the spouses, not a minimum function.

Petty power plays don’t become a lady either. Or a ‘strong woman’.

 

[alphawoman]

Petty power plays don’t become a lady either. Or a ‘strong woman’.

I agree. It’s a two way street.

 

[Xantippe]

Right on!

It takes a strong man to equal a strong woman. A real man doesn’t need to engage in petty power plays because he knows that true strength and pleasure in a marriage is an additive function across the spouses, not a minimum function.

I mentally translate “I want a submissive wife” to “I’m weak and I have low self-esteem and I need somebody even weaker than me and with even lower self-esteem to boss around.”

Fun!

 

[Xantippe]

Alternately, “I make a lot of selfish, stupid, indefensible decisions and I need a wife that will never put her foot down and call me on them.”

“Because I say so,” is a perfectly defensible thing to say to a minor child (on rare occasions), but a spouse deserves better.

 

[alphawoman]

I mentally translate “I want a submissive wife” to “I’m weak and I have low self-esteem and I need somebody even weaker than me and with even lower self-esteem to boss around.”

Fun!

Yes, it’s a matter of seeking dominance by dragging the other spouse down. Sad.

 

[chevalier]

Alternately, “I make a lot of selfish, stupid, indefensible decisions and I need a wife that will never put her foot down and call me on them.”

And that’s obviously plain wrong, because only the female spouse is allowed to act like that!

 

[Xantippe]

And that’s obviously plain wrong, because only the female spouse is allowed to act like that!

But women pretty much never explicitly say “I want a submissive husband” and men do say “I want a submissive wife” quite frequently.

The explicit expectations are quite different. It’s “I want an equal say in our family’s decision making” versus “I want to get my way every single time I really want it.” I don’t think those two things are at all equivalent. (Although I agree that there are obviously both men and women that want to get their way every single time.)

However, that said, I think you can easily make the argument that a lot of husbands would be getting a much better deal than they’re currently getting if they went for the “equal say” route. Which, I think, is a really good argument for having “equal say” as explicit family policy.

 

[Xantippe]

Here’s an illustration of why real shared decision-making is very good for the well-being of families.

Everybody, even smart people, makes really, really stupid decisions sometimes. But, the nice thing about being married is that it’s unlikely that both husband and wife are going to make the same stupid decision at the same time. If the wife thinks that they need to borrow all of the equity in their house in order to fund her home business and the husband says no and doing it would take two yeses, the family is saved. Likewise, if the husband thinks that they need a new $50k truck every five years, and the wife says no, and doing it would take two yeses, the family is saved. Having a “two yes” system for major non-emergency decisions prevents stupidity from being unleashed on the family. (And yes, everybody is stupid at least some of the time.) Sure, some valuable opportunities will be missed, but the family will be more secure. And I believe that this is one of the many reasons why married couples in the US are much more financially secure than singles–shared decision making prevents outbreaks of major stupidity.