Friday, September 29, 2006

Headship and Masculinity



It occurs to me that my voice in these matters of headship and submission may be impaired somewhat by not being married myself yet. To that, all I can say is that I have studied marriage a long time (years), I have seen many marriages and how they work, and my voice is that of an outsider. Sometimes the voice of the outsider (what I sometimes call the "incompetant critic") is invaluable in pointing out things that should have been obvious, but simply became routine.

I should also point out that I am most certainly not attempting to use this topic as a way of "showing off" in order to get attention from the females. I simply see a need for biblical teaching on this subject, and I'm going for it.

Is there such a thing as good government? How about good governance? The feminists would have you believe that if a man is "in charge" of a marriage, then almost by definition he rules badly. Sadly, the charge does stick in many cases. However, I deny that poor quality of male leadership is a necessary consequence of male leadership. There is such a thing as good male governance of a marriage; I have seen it. Moreover, I believe the Bible commands it. What Scriptures can we bring to bear on this issue? Again, see my previous post on submission to witness my assumptions; they are the same ones.

First of all, I think it necessary to define "covenant." Here is Webster's 1828 dictionary definition, which I think quite adequate.
COVENANT, n. [Fr. convenant, the participle of convenir, to agree, L. convenio, con and venio, to come; Norm. conevence, a covenant; It. convenzione, from L. conventio. Literally, a coming together; a meeting or agreement of minds.]

1. A mutual consent or agreement of two or more persons, to do or to forbear some act or thing; a contract; stipulation. A covenant is created by deed in writing, sealed and executed; or it may be implied in the contract. Encyc. Blackstone.

2. A writing containing the terms of agreement or contract between parties; or the clause of agreement in a deed containing the covenant.

3. In theology, the covenant of works, is that implied in the commands, prohibitions, and promises of God; the promise of God to man, that man's perfect obedience should entitle him to happiness. This do, and live; that do, and die.

The covenant of redemption, is the mutual agreement between the Father and Son, respecting the redemption of sinners by Christ.

The covenant of grace, is that by which God engages to bestow salvation on man, upon the condition that man shall believe in Christ and yield obedience to the terms of the gospel. Cruden. Encyc.

4. In church affairs, a solemn agreement between the members of a church, that they will walk together according to the precepts of the gospel, in brotherly affection.


Next, I must define "head" as I will use it in this post. Again, here is Webster:

HEAD, n. hed [Sax. heafod, hefed, heafd; D. hoofd; Dan. hoved; Sw. hufvud; G. haupt. This word is a participle of the Sax. heafan, hefan, to heave, pret. hof, hove; G. heben, hob, &c. Heafod, heaved, the elevated part, the top. Class Gb.]

...

3. A chief; a principal person; a leader; a commander; one who has the first rank or place, and to whom others are subordinate; as the head or an army; the head of a sect or party. Eph. v.


Next comes "headship". You guessed it, Webster.

HEADSHIP, n. hed'ship. Authority; chief place. Hales.


Finally, I will define the term "covenant head". I have no recourse to Webster this time, so I will do the best I can. Many covenants have some sort of authority structure built into them. This is certainly true of the three covenants Webster mentioned in his definition of "covenant". For such a covenant with a built-in authority structure, the one who wields that authority is the covenant head. I will often shorten this term to simply "head". In the context here, there will be no confusion with the earlier definition of "head", because the authority in question is in the context of a covenant. I hope this is all fairly clear to you. Examples: a husband is the covenant head of his wife. A father is the covenant head of his unmarried daughters. God the Father is the covenant head of the Son. Jesus Christ is the covenant head of the church.

There are several passages relevant to this discussion. The first is 1 Cor. 11:3, which reads thus in the ESV (as usual):

3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.


Also relevant is the Ephesians 5 passage which reads as follows:
23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior... 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body.

30 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, ...


You'll notice I omitted the sections pertaining to the wife's duties. I already dealt with that in my previous post. I'm talking to you guys in terms of what you're supposed to do. I'm only talking to the ladies in terms of what you're supposed to be looking for in a guy. Just as it is not the place of the husband to brow-beat his wife into submitting, just so is it not the place of the wife to see to it that her husband leads her. That would be her leading him! Many of you have, no doubt, seen the delightful movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Perhaps you recall the line Toula's mother delivers: "The man may be the head of the house, but the woman is the neck, and she can turn the head any way she wants." It's funny, but is it true? And if it is true, should it be true? I'd say that in many marriages, it probably is true. I would also just as readily say that it should not be true. This is not headship.

Now what do we learn from these passages? One thing is that, just as with submission, headship in no way implies superiority or inferiority in general: only in the sense of authority. Why is that? Because from the 1 Cor. 11:3 passage, we see that God the Father is the head of God the Son. Is there any superiority or inferiority there? I think not. As the Westminster Larger Catechism says:

Question 9: How many persons are there in the Godhead?

Answer: There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.

So evidently, there is no general superiority that can be implied from headship. Just like on board a ship, the captain is the "head", but he is not superior to his pilot, or first mate. There simply has to be one and only one person in charge, or chaos breaks loose. As Sproul wrote in his Ephesians commentary, "This passage [Eph. 5:22ff.] should put to rest once and for all the myth that marriages are to be fifty-fifty. I can't think of a worse scenario for a marriage than to have the authority in that relationship divided equally. When two people are together like that, then nobody has any authority. You are in a perpetual power-struggle where one is trying to get control of 51% of the stock. And that can be exceedingly destructive to a family."

A second thing we can learn from these passages is what Wilson wrote in Reforming Marriage: that Paul is using indicatives, not imperatives. Paul says that the husband is the head of the wife. Paul is most definitely not saying that the husband ought to be the head of the wife. Why is this important? Because it goes to the heart of what marriage is. The husband is the leader whether he likes it or not. "He cannot successfully refuse to lead." He may abdicate his role, in which case he leads by his absence. But he leads. Period. Again, as Wilson would say, arguing with this is like jumping off a cliff in order to argue with gravity. Marshall the arguments however you like, you will come to a messy refutation in the end. And as Sinclair Ferguson said in my previous post, the way worldly marriages end these days gives the lie to the prevailing notions about authority in the home. The feminist ideas simply don't work, because they misunderstand what exactly marriage is.

Now that I have established that the husband is the leader of the home, at least given my assumptions, I ask you this question: how is it best to do this leading? Again, these passages do not leave us in some great quandery here, but instead give us some rather pointed guidance.

I claim that the most important concept these passage give is that leadership equals service. Let me say that again: leadership equals service. That means a lot of things. It means no lording it over those under you; it means no selfish commands for those under you to serve you; it means, essentially, being the slave of the people under you. A husband is therefore the slave of his wife. Note to wives: wouldn't it make it easier for you to submit if your husband was your slave? If that doesn't bring a smile to your face, there's something wrong. Now I don't mean that you should nag him about leading or about serving. No. He's got his job, which is to love and serve you, and you've got your job, which is to submit to him. The best way to encourage him to do his job is quietly to do yours. Husbands, the same goes for you. Your wife will find it easier to submit to you if you just quietly serve her the way the Bible commands.

Being the servant of your wife also means not micro-managing her. This is probably going to look different for every couple. There's no reason to marry someone, men, if she doesn't have some significant competances, especially in areas in which you are weak. So let her do her thing in those areas! Yes, she is ultimately accountable to you in everything, but it is generally recognized that an over-controlling boss spells misery for those under him. Don't do it! You'll have to work out what that means with your wife, I'm sure. Now, wives, what if your husband does micro-manage? Well, surely you can complain about it, once or twice. But more than that becomes nagging, which I can definitely assure you is extremely distasteful to just about every male on the planet. So my recommendation is to talk with him about it once, and then let it go. If he continues, he continues. Your command to be submissive to him is not qualified by "only if he doesn't micro-manage you". If he continues to micro-manage, he's an idiot, but you're not accountable for his faults, and you are not his conscience.

So leadership is service, and it is not micro-management. Is it anything else? Yes, it is sacrificial. Christ sacrificed his very life for the church, as the Ephesians passage points out. You are to do the same. Jesus Christ lived for the church, and He died for the church. Therefore, husbands are to live for their wives, and die for their wives. What does that mean? A daily sacrifice of your wishes for hers. Doing things for her that you know she likes, especially if you don't like doing them. An example showing God's grace: I absolutely hate opening doors for ladies, even though I was brought up to do it. It's a pain, especially these days when ladies don't expect it. You have to contrive to be on the hinge-side as you walk up to the door so that you don't have to shove the lady aside in order to open the door for her. (Yes, that was tongue-in-cheek.) It's a waste of time from many viewpoints. It's inefficient. So why do I do it? Because the ladies can't? Ok, I'm on the floor laughing at that one. Of course they can physically open the door for themselves. The point is showing honor to them. And I could never do this were it not for God's grace working in me to do it, so no kudos to me. Finally, it means dying for her if necessary. As Aragorn said to Frodo in The Fellowship of the Ring, "If by my life or death I can protect you, I will."

Headship means loving your wife. Now loving your wife doesn't go like this: "Let me see: I like it when people do ____ to me, therefore, that's what I'm going to do for my wife." That may be a start, but your wife may not like ____. You have to love her the way she needs to be loved. That has more than one side to it. On the one hand, if she likes something, and you know it's not sinful, then go ahead with it. On the other hand, there may be things she doesn't like, but you know will drive her closer to Christ. Go ahead with those, too, as wisdom dictates. In any case, loving your wife the way the Bible commands means taking trouble for her, not just the avoidance of giving her trouble. You must put yourself out of your way to be good to her.

This is biblical masculinity. It occurs to me that there are certain kinds of men out there who talk a good deal about "being a man," "being masculine," etc, but end up spending more time talking about it than doing it. That doesn't count, though I suppose talking about it some could be beneficial. I claim it's not necessary, though. To tell the truth, my Dad, never even once in my memory, talked about what it meant to be a man. He just lived it, and I got the benefit of a great example. My Mom talked about it more, but it was things like, "Don't be a wimp." Still, I can't point to even one occasion when she did that, I just remember once or twice she did. My parents didn't harp on it: they lived it.

The Promise-Keepers, while certainly having its good points, is a movement that succumbs, I think, to this charge. And even then, I think their notion of masculinity is a bit messed up. For a more complete critique of that movement, see Douglas Wilson and David Hagopian's book Beyond Promises, which unfortunately appears to be out of print.

The Bible doesn't talk about "masculinity" versus "femininity" nearly as much as it talks about being right with God. Evidently, that's more important. More important than being a good husband is being right with God, which is something we can't do. Christ has to do it for us. And then, only after that is done, can we focus on the lesser good (but still a great good) of being a good husband.

All this reminds me: my previous post on submission was rather inadequate in at least one striking way: grace. Where does grace fit in? Well, the central place, I think, where grace fits in is that submission is impossible without it. The natural man or woman is not going to submit to anyone, because of pride, that root sin that causes all others. We need God's grace to overcome pride, the same as any other sin. When we thus see who we really are, submission becomes, if not easy, at least easier. Similarly, headship as properly outlined in Ephesians, is impossible without grace. Why? Becase headship is also humbling: you have to serve someone else, you have to love that person the way they need to be loved. That involves a great deal of selflessness that is impossible without grace.

I love Shakespeare's 116th Sonnet, probably familiar to many of you. Here it is:

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments; love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove.
O, no, it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wand'ring bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

Love alters not when it alteration finds. This is God's love for us, and it is the love we are to have for one another. It is the love a husband is commanded to have for his wife. It is a choice to do certain actions for the good of another, not a feeling that just happens to us.

There is so much more to be said on this topic, but I shall rest for now.

In Christ.


 
Visit Math Help Boards for friendly, free and expert math help.

12 Comments:

At 10/01/2006 01:11:00 PM , Blogger Susan said...

I found your opening interesting, as I've been pondering quite a bit lately how necessary/helpful/appropriate my voice is on topics with which I have no personal experience - like marriage. I think the key is humility, basing any such treatise on scripture, and recognizing naivete and/or inexperience. Scriptural truths are scriptural truths, whether or not we've had to personally apply them yet. But then, humility and scriptural basis is a necessity for more experienced peoples as well. Certainly the best counselling and exhortation comes with experience. I'm still trying to strike a balance.

The Big Fat Greek Wedding quote (I hated that movie! You have poor taste ;-D) reminded me of a story my former pastor once told. Perhaps you've heard it? A boy stops at farmhouses to ask couples who is the head of the house. If they answer that the husband is the head, the boy gives them a horse; if they answer the wife or no one, they get a chicken. At one farmhouse, both the husband and wife answer that the husband is the head, so the boy offers them a horse, the husband accepts, and asks for the brown horse. The wife starts bickering and insists they get the black one instead. Finally giving up, the husband turns to the boy and says, "We'll take the black one," to which the boy replies, "No, you'll take a chicken!"

I liked your emphasis on leading by serving. It brings it all right back to Jesus at the Last Supper, when He washes the disciples' feet. Men are to be a Christ-type to their families. I, um, don't envy you, by the way :). The feminists obviously don't understand the nature of Biblical sex roles, or they would relish their position as females, not seeking to abdicate it.

I found your bit about holding open doors to be quite amusing :). I admire your dad (or parents?) for teaching you to do that growing up. It's a lost art, and you're right that it's harder now that women don't expect it - or worse, are offended by it! I've had a post drafted on chivalry for a few weeks, as a matter of fact. Maybe that will get completed this week while I'm on Fall Partial-Break.

Mine is, without a doubt, number one-sixteen. . .

Good stuff, Shakespeare's sonnets :). . . And good post.

 
At 10/04/2006 01:02:00 PM , Blogger Adrian C. Keister said...

Well, I suppose you're _allowed_ to dislike My Big Fat Greek Wedding. I liked it because: 1. It's hilarious. 2. While, unfortunately, Ian Miller doesn't really seem to respect the father (e.g. he just continues dating Toula even when her father has just refused permission), there is still a traditional family structure in place. 3. They certainly value good things, like having lots of babies, etc. 4. The family, while it may be a bit overboard in terms of loudness, is at least interested, one member with another. I sympathize with the father when he complains that the Millers are "so dry." I thought the funniest thing in the movie was that the house was next to the parents' house. That would be enough to try most men. I guess Ian put up with it!

Liked your horse/chicken story.

Thank you for not envying me. I think you're right, and in the long run, the men have the harder job. Which is perhaps why they're so bad at it.

It was Mom who taught me to open doors. I'd be interested in your chivalry post, especially on anything you had to say about its negative aspects (and there are some, at least historically; the whole adultery thing, for example).

Toodles.

In Christ.

 
At 10/05/2006 07:52:00 AM , Blogger Susan said...

You mentioned some correct good points for My Big Fat Greek Wedding, to be sure. I love movies with a traditional family structure and a family that is very involved. While You Were Sleeping, for example, is a great movie. The proposal in bed sort of ruined MBFGW for me, coupled with the sexual comments. It was supposed to be a family movie! To me the most hilarious thing was the bridesmaid dresses, actually. They were absolutely horrible. I've only seen it once, mind you, so my impressions are all initial. And yes, the house next door was funny :).

I'm completely confused by your last paragraph, regarding the-negative-aspect-of-chivalry-related-to-adultery. Would you like to expound? My draft doesn't deal much with the historical aspect; it's mainly a few musings on other chivalry posts I've read recently, and some practical observations. Don't get too excited ;).

 
At 10/06/2006 01:35:00 PM , Blogger Adrian C. Keister said...

You're right about the proposal in bed and such. As usual, it didn't need to be there. And then we come back to the old question of when do you avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and when do you have to recognize (to switch metaphors) the entire glass as poisonous? Surely, it's too facile to throw out everything that has anything bad in it. Indeed, the Bible would go if we did that! As Chesterton once said, "Any book that doesn't have anything bad in it is a bad book." While this sentiment shouldn't go to an extreme, he has a point. Also related is the degree to which movies merely reflect the culture around them, or downright influence the culture around them. That's probably an unfinished debate. I'm not even sure I know where I am on these things any more.

As to the chivalry question, it is true that those who practiced chivalry valued and prized "courtly love". The problem is that sometimes that "courtly love" was for someone who was already married. In the best times it wasn't, but sometimes it was. Sometimes, I even get the impression, for example, that some people don't think that what Sir Lancelot did was wrong! I mean, for crying out loud! He only brought down the whole kingdom of Arthur with his sin. This is perhaps not based on recent reading but on vague impressions, so please don't take it for gospel truth. It's just a thing I've seen in a couple places, I don't even remember where. Hope this clears up what I meant, at least, even if it does nothing to clear up the issue.

In Christ.

 
At 10/07/2006 06:47:00 AM , Blogger Susan said...

I like the Chesterton quote. I find it amusing when people say that a movie was good because it had "nothing bad in it." I've used that terminology in the past (I think it's a very homeschoolish phrase ;-D), but I meant no nudity, sex, or cursing, not that it had no portrayal of sin. But as we've discussed before ("Christian Men and Beards"? methinks) any decent movie must show human sin to some degree or it is a bad (and very unrealistic!) movie.

When I watch a movie, I'm primarily concerned with (1) whether the protrayal of sin is going to be an issue of sinful thoughts myself (explicit sex or excessive vulgar language, for example)or (2) if a major theme of the movie (or even a major minor theme) rests on the acceptance or exaltation of a sinful behavior. I don't really think MBFGW meets either of those criteria, so it's not a huge deal to me, but it still inflames me that they insert a bedroom proposal into a movie that was specifically made so that the directors/producers would have a family-friendly film to watch with their families. It's perplexing.

So when is the glass poison? I don't know. I used to have a very sure answer for that, but I don't anymore. I recently heard this anecdote: A man told a girl in her early 20's who was very wise and had things very figured out that she should write a book now, because in 5 years she wouldn't know nearly as much. ;)

Ah, now I see what you mean by the adultery-courtshp link. I've heard that relatively recently, but I can't place the source. Yes, courting-someone-already-married = not-a-good-thing.

 
At 10/09/2006 08:47:00 AM , Blogger zan said...

Thankyou for exposing Sir Lancelot for what he truly is!! I have always loved the Arthurian legend, but always saw Lancelot as the villian. I hate how historians or poets are always trying to make you feel sympathy for Guinevierre and Lancelot. Arthur is the one who needs sympathy. Even in the musical, "If Ever I Would Leave You," doesn't bring tears to my eyes, but, "How To Handle A Woman," does. Tennyson did portray Guinevierre's repentence and realization of her actions very well in, "Idyls of the King."

Susan, I am in agreement with you about MBFGW. I loved the movie, but felt it was spoiled by the in bed proposal. I loved everything else about the movie. It reminded me of my family except we are not greek. The father was/is my dad. One of my favorite movies is, "Somewhere In Time," (WARNING TO MALES: highly sappy and mushy movie), but there is this quick "skin scene" (doesn't show them, PG rating), but they engage in fornication. WHY?! I guess that is why I mostly stick with the old black and white movies when censorship was alive and well in Hollywood.
I did like "While You Were Sleeping," but I hated the swearing. That offends me more than the in bed proposal. Other than that, excellent. : (

 
At 10/09/2006 09:57:00 AM , Blogger Adrian C. Keister said...

Reply to Susan.

You're quite right about movies and "being good" as a direct consequence of "not being bad." I find that the artistic quality of a movie, while definitely dependent on lack of obscene (literally, "off-stage," obscene things are violence, sex (even appropriate sex), etc.) actions, still requires something more. Here is a quote from Reading Between the Lines, by Gene Veith, that I thought wonderful:

In ancient Greek drama, certain actions could not be performed onstage for fear of violating the decorum, the appropriate aesthetic effect, of the play. Specifically, Greek drama forbade presenting violence onstage. When the plot of a tragedy demanded that a character commit suicide or murder, the violent action was never shown. Rather, the characters affected simply left the stage; later a messenger came to report the horrible news.

Why this reticence? The Greeks were hardly prudish or moralistic. The reason was a sound aesthetic one. When the audience is enthralled by a dramatic action, involved in the characters and their dilemmas, the spectacle of overt violence literally breaks the aesthetic mood. The audience may become totally involved with the suffering of Oedipus, but if it then must witness the actor poking out his eyes, the reaction shifts from tragic pathos to shock and revulsion. The delicate evocation of vicarious experience is disrupted by grisly special effects.

...

The Greeks did not shy away from dealing with sexuality or violence.
Oedipus Rex deals with incest, patricide, self-mutilation, and suicide. It somehow manages to deal with such scarifying topics while maintaining taste, dignity, and a serious moral tone. How? By maintaining decorum, by presenting the characters' actions and anguish in language of exalted poetry, but never explicitly presenting the horrors onstage. Obscenity is not only a moral fault; as the Greeks understood, it is also an artistic fault. Insensitivity to aesthetic decorum is perhaps one of the worst weaknesses of contemporary literature.


Isn't that interesting?

I had to smile at your "writing a book" thought. I'm sure you will forgive me if I made a few, uh, inferences as to the identity of the girl in her early 20's. ;-)]

Reply to Zan.

I think the key is whether or not you think what Lancelot and Guinevere did was wrong and reprehensible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all the old portrayals will say it is wrong. I'm in the middle of the Pendragon cycle by Stephen Lawhead, wonderful series, and though I haven't gotten that far yet, I feel confident he will also portray it as wrong.

I think in While You Were Sleeping, the swearing is frowned upon. I remember at least once, the mother tells the father to stop swearing. There may be enough other instances of swearing to cancel that one out, but I don't remember them. That was a very good movie, in my opinion. My dad has seen that one at least twenty times, and he gets something new out of it every time.

In Christ.

 
At 10/09/2006 12:37:00 PM , Blogger Susan said...

Zan, it's interesting you mention black-and-white movies when censorship was "alive and well in Hollywood. In general, you are right, but I remember hearing that early in film making (perhaps during the silent era) the biggest problem was obscene film making. I thought that was interesting (and sad), and not what I would have expected. Back then, perhaps the more respectable public caused Hollywood to produce more wholesome films. Not sure.

The swearing never bothered me in While You Were Sleeping, Zan, quite simply because we have this wonderful little device called TV Guardian, which mutes swear words :-D. It also comes with a certain model of Sanyo VCRs/DVD players. Wonderful little invention.

Quite an interesting quote from Veith, Adrian. I honestly don't know where I heard the story of the girl who should write a book now, not in 5 years, but it was no one I personally know (or am). *smile* Though perhaps there are strong parallels. *looks innocent*

 
At 10/09/2006 05:53:00 PM , Blogger zan said...

Yes, the censors showed up due to public pressure from American audiences. Some of the old old movies even have full frontal nudity. "Tarzan" for instance.

Yes, the swearing was negatively portrayed in "WYWS." It still makes me uncomfortable. TV Guardian? hm. I will have to check it out.

 
At 10/09/2006 07:54:00 PM , Blogger Adrian C. Keister said...

Oh, yes, very innocent. *ahem* Well, you and Zan can certainly continue if you like, but shall you and I TIOC?

In Christ.

 
At 10/10/2006 09:23:00 AM , Blogger zan said...

I had to stop abruptly. The Bugg was screaming his head off.

Yes, the Lance and Guinevierre romance is usually portrayed in a negative stance in history/legend, but I think it is romanticized too much. Romances always are before the wedding or outside of the marriage. I love a good love story "inside" the marriage. Hard to find. I guess that is why I loved the "Anne" stories so much. Life does not end after the wedding. One of the best love stories I ever read was Nicolas Sparks "The Wedding." Where are the tissues?

Even thought there was some brief swearing in WYWS I loved the stories and the characters. I related to the Sandra Bullock character when I was single so much.I don't condemn you all for praising that movie. ; )

 
At 10/10/2006 01:32:00 PM , Blogger Susan said...

I like Anne for that very reason as well, Zan :). Good point.

Yes, Adrian, agree to TIOC :).

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home