anything anyone says that is not math is technically their opinion
nothing to say, just wanted to make you re-read what you wrote
It is fully implied
When you say "She wants you to be the aggressor in the bedroom," you're literally telling him something about his wife. There's no subtext there, you just state it as a fact.
Go on, list them.
That was my fault, I explained that poorly and I put that in the wrong section. I was referring to the number of different combinations of those three traits which could result in submissiveness, which would be eight: NNN, NNY, NYN, NYY, YNN, YNY, YYN, YYY, where "yes" means the trait stays the same and "no" means the trait is flipped; and where the first letter corresponds to the first number, etc. My point there was that submissiveness and dominance can result from any combination of those three traits, i.e. that they vary independently, which means that you can't determine from some combination of them whether someone is submissive.
Having addressed your points, let's get this back on track. The crux of the issue is that when you tried to explain how you concluded that she was submissive, you said the following, which I don't understand:
Remember based on the information we have only one of two options is available.
She doesn't care.
She is submissive by nature and so finds it unnatural to be the initiator in the bedroom.
Any other possibilities fall in the realm of the really rare.
Could you explain this? I would argue that from the information we're given, we can't determine whether she is submissive, because all those traits are independent of each other and of submissiveness (see the bolded part of this comment). Basically, that in order to reach your conclusion you either need more information or you have to make assumptions.