yett you seem to see [a loophole] in the way that she invites wives to express their thoughts to their husbands

That is not where I pointed out the problem. Read my previous comments again. The problem in my estimation was that there was an "IF" in there, when scripture clearly commands wives to submit to their husbands "in all things", not just when she thinks he is right. I actually agreed with Lori on expressing thoughts and opinions in a respectful manner to whomever we choose to express them.

I think you are wrong in the degree to which you desire Christian wives to "win him without a word." You cannot blend wills as you believe is necessary without a husband knowing a wife's thoughts and feelings.

you are wrong if a wife is prompted by her spirit to speak up, yet she remains silent

I can imagine a wife who follows your admonition and rarely speaks up what is on her mind

I never said any of these things. I submit that it is you who is constructing a strawman here. It was your wife who brought up "without a word". Here is a post I did on that particular 'teaching' (and this was not directed at or even inspired by Lori, just a general discussion since it is a widespread idea).
https://signpostsstrangeland.wordpress.com/2016/0...

It is only when a husband knows his wife's inner thoughts that he can lead her well

Yes, how else can he lead her where she wants to go, and get his thoughts in line with hers?

he also may desire you to submissively follow his will in areas where your thoughts disagree with his, at least until he changes his thinking

Well I won't take your bet, since I already know the answer. My husband asks for my input on most things and there is rarely a disagreement. If I am uncertain about something I simply say "thy will be done" and trust that God will take care of it for the best, whatever that entails. In fact, during this entire exchange, my husband and I have been discussing it and our viewpoint is completely aligned.

You said:

"Therefore, if your husband is not the leader you think he should be, follow him any ways. If he tells you to do something you disagree with, gently tell him why you disagree but if it is not against God's commands, obey him."

The second bolded part is the loophole. Therefore, you are teaching other women that the woman is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong in the marriage. But you also do advocate she should follow his leadership even if she disagrees. This would be begrudging submission and so this is why women talk about "the struggle" so much.

Would it not be better for her to pray that her own heart is changed rather than essentially praying that her husband changes so she doesn't have to? Why assume her particular convictions (feelings) are real while what her husband wants is wrong, based solely upon her convictions (feelings)?

There is nothing in the Word about "blending of the wills"

"The two shall become one" is in there more than once.

Perhaps rather than paying that God convicts their husbands about something pretty trivial like wearing a bikini, she could pray that God helps her to blend more fully with her husband's will. What you are advocating is the wife going on thinking "I'm right and my husband needs to come over to my side of things. In the meantime, I will suffer in my obedience to a sinful man."

If you want to teach women not to look for loopholes, don't leave them in your instructions. Do you see how you have done this here? If you give an inch.... This is an inch wide loophole that will soon become a mile wide.

Yes, theft and murder come under "blindingly obvious". Nevertheless, very few husbands will ask their wives to do such things. It seems to me you are misusing argumentum ad absurdum since it is leading to the wrong conclusion - i.e. caveats to "subject in all things".

I'd like to know if you believe that a blending of the wills is possible IF wives submit in all things rather than looking for loopholes.

Lest anyone bring up the issue "What if he wants a threesome!?" - again, most decent men would not truly desire this as it would be a violation of oath and covenant between husband and wife under God. Citing this example would also be a misapplication of argumentum ad absurdum.

You appear to have missed my point. By saying what you have said, you make yourself the arbiter of what are "God's commands". Beyond the blindingly obvious, where does this end? Where is the verse that supports the idea that we should decide what is and is not a husband "leading us to sin" or leading us to disobey God's commands? How can we disobey God's clear command to be subject in all things to our husbands if we follow his lead when we can't convince him that a course of action is bad (as we see it)?

By leaving it up to wives to decide whether or not a particular course of action is against God's will, you give a caveat to "in all things", which is precisely what you started off speaking against.

Also, I never said we can't have our own opinions, but it is my belief that the more we follow our husbands' leadership, the more we will not even have different opinions, as we experience a blending of the wills. I'm in no disagreement with sharing our thoughts in a respectful manner - that should be done no matter who is the recipient of our thoughts and opinions.

gently tell him why you disagree but if it is not against God's commands, obey him

So there's your stipulation. You have contradicted yourself.

We'd much rather be the leader of the home...

Speak for yourself.