[Romulus]

you dropped the mutual submission line.

Then by all means let me pick it up again.

Mutual submission in marriage is real and derives from the mutual consent of the spouses that, when it's authentic and made manifest in consummation, gives each spouse power over the other's body.

Look at it this way: if there were no mutual submission, a husband would be at liberty to divorce his wife at will. The Church of course maintains that he has no power to do so, having given himself to an irrevocable covenant. The image of submission is driven home by the very latinity of conjugium, which derives from jugum, meaning a yoke or collar for draft animals, and plainly expresses the idea that spouses are in harness together. I realise that you're arguing for a hierarchy of authority in marriage that images Christ's authority over the Church, and in a perfect marriage of unreserved obedience reciprocated by unstinted love you might have a case. I'll cheerfully concede in the case of the marriage of St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary. But most of us fall somewhat short of the awe and devotion Joseph had for his wife. Can you imagine him pulling rank on her? I can't. I really can't.

[Blessed]

The problem with the entire debate is that it is always focused on the wrong portion of the scripture.The focus should be on the duty of the husband.The husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church.That is sacrificially and as a Shepherd.This means he must be prepared to lay down his life for his wife.He has the responsibility for protecting,providing for and being the spiritual leader.
God will hold the husband responsible for how he shepherds his family.When you begin to view the relationship from this perspective you realize God may have given a tougher charge to the husband than submission is for the woman.I believe that a strong case can be made that anytime a Christian marriage fails its is the husbands fault because of the responsibility God has given him