Charis

In your comment #239, I agree with 1, 2, and 3 (for 3, male rule is clearly a result of the Fall. The male and female were both given equal dominion/AKA authority in Gen 1:26-28.)

However, here is where I think you are missing some pieces:

QUOTE NN: The above logic chain proves that the differentiation between men and women is a truth which transcends particular culture – but it does not prove that it is hierarchical. To prove that we must examine the particular instructions give:
Women are told to “hupotassoe” their husbands – this same general instruction is used by Paul in the same context to describe the proper actions of citizens toward their governments and slaves toward their masters. Furthermore, we are instructed by the Christ that we are to obey the governing authorities (”render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”) so we must interpret Paul’s specific instructions to wives to be in keeping with his use of the words to describe other obedience relationships ENDQUOTE

NN, The hupotasso verbs used in Ephesians 5 are all PASSIVE
http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/5.htm
(with the exception of the one added to Eph 5:22 in the Textus Receptus- which is an interpretational addition muddying the waters IMO). So Eph 5:21-22 reads “BEING SUBJECT to one another… wives to husbands” and Eph 5:24 reads “wives ARE SUBJECT to their husbands in everything just as….”

Its the same concept as Douglas Wilson observed about “the husband IS the head of the wife” http://nuallan.livejournal.com/6888.html . The wife IS subject to her husband. I think “vulnerable” conveys the meaning. Wives are vulnerable to their husbands in a way which does not go vice versa. To me, eros seems to be a kind of object lesson of this.

Charis