Even if they legitimately reject the modern encyclicals on marriage and the concept of “mutual submission,” how many of these internet marriage theologians have actually read Casti Connubii? “This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; ... For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.”

My question for women is why would they marry a man they are unwilling to follow his leadership? I think that would be top of the list of requirements for women.

I don't think the whole "submission" obsession amongst trads has much to do with sex or even religion It largely comes from young men seeing religion as a way to de-risk marriage in a world where marriage feels very risky Many of these young men are plagued with anxiety and insecurity not just in terms of their own ability to have a successful relationship, but whether such a thing exists at all They're looking at divorce rates, popular culture, not to mention at many of their own parents and going "This looks like a mess" So religion, and in particular the parts where you have clear rules everyone can just follow, is extremely enticing But many of them see concepts like "submission" and interpret them as a way of being able to white-knuckle a relationship or marriage into surviving, as in, "What if she just did everything I said?" Obviously this is extremely attractive, the problem is just that it's not reality - it's not what the faith teaches, nor is it actually that easy regardless Religion cannot take all the risk out of marriage for you