I have recently read the book. Although not a specifically Christian book, I think many Christians would find it interesting as it focuses on the Biblical idea of a woman respecting a husband, arguing that giving a man this respect ensures harmony in the home, and encourages him to support and cherish his wife and take responsibility for her happiness in the way that the Bible teaches he should. This is all very well and good, but I do feel that Laura Doyle has fallen into the trap that many people do when they convert from one mode of behaviour to a radically different one, which is to be just too extreme and to lose a sense of proportion. Although it is good to watch one's tongue and not be overly critical, if a husband is driving in the wrong direction on the highway, then any sensible woman would mention this point, and any sensible husband would expect her to do so. I am also uncomfortable with the accomodation that she suggests with men using pornography if necessary or resorting to other practices to relieve sexual tension if their wives are unavailable for sex, and I think a lot of other people would be too, whether they regard such practices as sinful or not. I know that I would not think much of my husband if he used pornography, and I would most likely have something to say about it. Also, does a husband really only want the wife's blessing in a conversation or family discussion instead of her opinion? Surely, in a mature marriage, two heads are better that one, and a respectfully expressed opinion when asked for, (or when not asked for sometimes!) is a helpful way to go about things. There is a lot that is very helpful about relationships in the book, especially the sections on appreciating one's husband (although the reverse applies too!!!), and also learning to express one's desires positively, instead of complaining and being negative, but some of it is just plain silly. Read it, all of you,and see what you think. To be fair to Laura, she is not advocating that women automatically stay at home: her point is that the assertive way in which women conduct themselves in the workplace is generally counterproductive at home, where they should focus more on being lead that on leading. She is suggesting two ways of behaving: one for running corporations, one for massaging your husband's ego!! I think many modern relationships probably could benefit from some old wisdom, but I know that I would far rather be a modern woman with a really interesting career, even if that is going to require some juggling sometimes, than a complete stay-at-home type, but that's by the by. Anyway, she is anti-control, pro vulnerability and intimacy: her argument is that when a wife tries to control the home, including the husband, she treats her husband as child, emasculates and infantilises him, and connives in his becoming a passive, disengaged burden around the house. She says this type of behaviour is very destructive of love and intimacy, and that if women want intimacy, sharing and good sex in what is basically a healthy marriage (she does not advocate surrender to an abusive or addictive husband, they need to allow the man primarily to run the show.