Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss and talk about any general topic.
4 posts • Page 1 of 1
I was thinking about when I got married. I stayed in a boarding house in Indonesia. So did my wife. We were getting married, and we were both virgins (on purpose since we are Christians). I rented a place and let her parents and other relatives stay there for the wedding. We had beds in there, and we stayed there the night we got back from a trip abroad for our Honeymoon.
This was our place. It hadn't been 'my place' or 'her place.' And that was okay. I'm not saying it was wrong.
But I think the ideal is for the man to live in the place first and then let the wife move in. You know, when you stay in a new place, you feel like you have to ask permission to change things or to do stuff. Most people are like that. IMO, that's a good mentality to have the wife in when she moves in. He rents the place in his name, and she moves in to his house. So she's in the mindset of asking him for permission, and he's giving her permission, letting her know his expectations. He's saying she has permission to use the kitchen, to cook dinner, to make herself at home. If she oversteps her bounds, he can tell her.
IMO, her moving into his place to live there together as husband and wife is good for the relationship. It supports her following him, submitting to him, obeying him, etc.
It's better than the opposite. I saw one of these 'Married at First Sight' shows on TV where there was this woman who I thought was around a 5 myself, maybe a 5.5, who married some guy and she wasn't attracted to him. She gave him a hard time. She talked him into moving into her place. She had a roommate there, which was tough, though the roommate seemed okay. Then she got upset about some joke when he teased her back and she told him to leave. He felt he had to because it was her house. I think it was in her name. That's an awful power dynamic to have in a relationship, where a woman can kick the man out of a house.
Come to think of it, staying in a house that is just in a wife's name probably isn't a good scenario for a man to be in, anyway, just because of an underlying power dynamic.
There may also be some psychological benefits for the marriage to the man bringing home the income and the woman staying at home, since he's supporting her, she's living off his money, etc. That's seems to be a better 'power dynamic' for a healthy relationship than both bringing home equal amounts of money and certainly more than her bringing home more than him. I'm not saying the other situations can't work out okay, just that the man as breadwinner seems more desirable. I think it makes women more comfortable and easier for them to go along with the submission thing needed in a healthy marriage.
She's also getting those 'good provider' and 'he's taking care of me' buttons tickled.
I think it is a little silly to think a 'married at first sight' TV show has much of a reflection on reality.
Though I agree on some points using a reality show as an example isn't the best source material.