Marriage and Ownership

[silktricks]

I've often read here on LS that spouses do not "own" each other, and many seem to use this argument as a fundamental reason why an affair is not really wrong. The argument is mostly used when a BS compares the OW/OM to a thief.

 

I guess I'll never really understand that thought process, as when I said my vows, they included the words "to have and hold". The phrase to me does imply a type of joint ownership, me of him and him of me.

 

I understand and agree that this is not ownership in the sense of purchase, as in the past when a prospective groom had to pay the parents for the girls hand in marriage (or in some countries, vice versa), but it is, to my mind nonetheless an ownership of sorts.

 

He is my husband, and I am his wife. I'm not no one's wife. I am his. Possessive personal pronoun. We together formed a union and agreed to belong to each other. So, he owns me, and I him. If another man should make advances towards me he would be encroaching on my husband's territory. Of course, it is my job to make it clear that the advance is out of bounds...

 

I know the argument is that we are fully knowledgeable adult people able to come or go as we will, therefore the third party is neither a thief nor an enabler, but simply someone in love. I do (I guess) sort of understand the thought process, but to my mind it leaves out of the equation all of the promises that were made. I do think that the third person in the triad takes on a position of thief, and when/if the affair is discovered need to understand why the BS may view them in that light.

 

Thoughts?

[bentnotbroken]

I honestly don't veiw AP as thieves. I view them as interlopers, squaters even. Someone interloped into my family's life or squated in the middle of my family's life. The AP didn't make promises to me(just her husband) but her actions had an destructive impact on my life and the life of my children. Just as Mr. Messy's actions had an impact on her xBS and her children.

 

There was no ownership involved of the people, but most certainly an ownership of the promises made to through the marriage of two people(in my case at least). We didn't marry for money(neither of us had a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of), we didn't marry for status (his family was poor, mine po) and we didn't marry as a business arrangement. We married because I believed we were in love(not ownership). The right to own my own decisions were removed from me...hell she could have had him washed and delivered if he had been honest. Then I could have found someone who knew what commitment meant.

[silktricks]

There was no ownership involved of the people, but most certainly an ownership of the promises made to through the marriage of two people(in my case at least).

 

I like this. Owning the promises made .

[rafallus]

I've often read here on LS that spouses do not "own" each other, and many seem to use this argument as a fundamental reason why an affair is not really wrong. The argument is mostly used when a BS compares the OW/OM to a thief.

None of arguments justifying affair really make sense to me. It's basically a show of absolutely baffling resistance to admitting they're wrong.

[PhoenixRise]

Interesting topic.

 

I have never met anyone who thinks they own their spouse in a literal sense. I think this idea of the BS thinking they own the spouse is just a shorthand way of saying that the BS has not rolled over to let the AP and WS trash their life at will.

 

It is normal and reasonable for a person in a marriage (or any type of relationship really) to expect the other participant in the marriage to uphold any agreements made about the marriage and if the agreement doesn't work for one party, to expect that person to be upfront about it.

 

It is normal and reasonable to be pi$$ed, hurt, devastated, etc if your spouse unilaterally decides to go behind your back and break the agreement while pretending to your face that the agreement is still intact.

 

It is not about just the damage to the couple's relationship. It is about how a BS might chose to live their life based on an agreements made.

 

Where will you live? In the city or in the suburbs?

 

Will you get an advanced degree this year or will you wait until your spouse gets his/her promotion?

 

How many children will you have?

 

Will you continue to work your job for another year or will you start a business now?

 

Will you take time off to be a stay at home parent?

 

Will you move across the country for an employment opportunity for your spouse?

 

When I have my annual exam do I need to request STD or HIV screenings?

 

and a million other life changing decision you make as a spouse based on the agreements you made about the foundations of your marriage and taking into consideration what is best for the two of you. Not always necessarily what is best for you. Not always necessarily what your first choice would be. But what is deemed to be in the best interest of your marital unit.

 

I don't own my spouse but I damn sure own my life. A secretly cheating spouse impacts on my ownership of my life. An OW helping him cheat also impacts on my ownership/ informed choices about my life. From what I have seen IRL and from my own experience, if a BS is concerned about ownership it the ownership of her/his infringed upon life that they are concerned with. Nobody thinks they actually own another person.

 

Just to be clear, I am not minimizing the pain, and trauma caused by the rupture to the relationship (feelings of love and trust damaged etc). I am only talking about where I believe feelings of ownership come in on the part of the BS.

[silktricks]

{snip}

 

It is normal and reasonable for a person in a marriage (or any type of relationship really) to expect the other participant in the marriage to uphold any agreements made about the marriage and if the agreement doesn't work for one party, to expect that person to be upfront about it.

 

It is normal and reasonable to be pi$$ed, hurt, devastated, etc if your spouse unilaterally decides to go behind your back and break the agreement while pretending to your face that the agreement is still intact.

 

It is not about just the damage to the couple's relationship. It is about how a BS might chose to live their life based on an agreements made.

 

{snip}

 

I don't own my spouse but I damn sure own my life. A secretly cheating spouse impacts on my ownership of my life. An OW helping him cheat also impacts on my ownership/ informed choices about my life. From what I have seen IRL and from my own experience, if a BS is concerned about ownership it the ownership of her/his infringed upon life that they are concerned with. Nobody thinks they actually own another person.

{snip}

 

I tried to make it clear in the OP that I didn't mean ownership as in property, but I didn't really know how to phrase it. I like what you say about ownership of the BS' infringed upon life.

 

The fact is we speak all the time as if we "own" things that we obviously do not.

 

My dad

My job (for most of us, I think the job owns us... )

My husband

My <whatever>

 

But when we do use the phrase "my <whatever>" it is at least to a degree exclusionary to other people (at least in my experience). When one of my sons says "my mom" when speaking to his brother, I can see a flare of indignation in the one being spoken to. So (again IMO) there is a built in type of "ownership" implied with the phrase "my <whatever>". When my husband speaks of "his wife" it means something different than when he refers to me by name. There is a possessiveness around it, so I do believe it's more than just the infringed upon life of a BS. JMO

[Woman In Blue]

I don't see OW as "husband stealers," or "interlopers," or any of those things. First and foremost, the spouse who seeks out an affair partner is 100% at fault. It's the spouse that ALLOWS someone else to be an interloper in their marriage.

 

HOWEVER, the affair partner is NOT innocent, simply because they didn't "make vows to the betrayed spouse." That's a ridiculous argument and you see it said all the time by OW.

 

Sorry to say, but anytime you engage in any activity that you KNOW will be devastating for another human being, you're doing wrong. Morally and ethically, you're in the wrong. Affair partners would love to believe they have 'clean hands' when it comes to affairs, but their hands are NOT clean. Not by a long shot. And just because they don't KNOW the betrayed spouse personally doesn't make them even MORE innocent, as they'd like to believe.

 

Jesus, does ANYONE ever own their shi*t anymore?

[Woggle]

Nobody should own anybody but if you enter into a union where you promise fidelity the decent and honorable thing to do is to honor that. If you can't then leave without asking a thing from your spouse. Cheating and then bleeding them dry emotionally, financially and otherwise makes you a sorry excuse for a human being.

[Spark1111]

Well, the last time I looked, it WAS MY marriage too.

 

I didn't own him, hell, I trusted him so much, I gave him free rein to golf, go on golfing excursions, attend the sordid bachelor parties, and have an afterwork drink with a colleague.

 

I loved him, and wanted him to do whatever was neccessary to keep his head on straight and his life in balance. He did the same for me.

 

That is what trust is; I trusted him to honor me and the marriage, and if at any time he felt he could no longer do that, I believed he would have the respect to tell me.

 

Why? Because it WAS MY marriage too. So while I was operating under a false assumption of a joyful future together, he apparently was not.

 

And he should have had the decency and common courtesy to tell me that.

 

I would have let him go. I did let him go.

 

Anything he told her was smoke and mirrors because HE did not want to LET ME go.

 

How selfish, to both me and the OW who bought his lines.

[whichwayisup]

I don't see OW as "husband stealers," or "interlopers," or any of those things. First and foremost, the spouse who seeks out an affair partner is 100% at fault. It's the spouse that ALLOWS someone else to be an interloper in their marriage.

 

HOWEVER, the affair partner is NOT innocent, simply because they didn't "make vows to the betrayed spouse." That's a ridiculous argument and you see it said all the time by OW.

 

Sorry to say, but anytime you engage in any activity that you KNOW will be devastating for another human being, you're doing wrong. Morally and ethically, you're in the wrong. Affair partners would love to believe they have 'clean hands' when it comes to affairs, but their hands are NOT clean. Not by a long shot. And just because they don't KNOW the betrayed spouse personally doesn't make them even MORE innocent, as they'd like to believe.

 

Jesus, does ANYONE ever own their shi*t anymore?

 

Great post!

 

My dad

My job (for most of us, I think the job owns us... )

My husband

My <whatever>

 

at the bolded part. So true eh!

[carrie999]

He is my husband, and I am his wife. I'm not no one's wife. I am his. Possessive personal pronoun. We together formed a union and agreed to belong to each other. So, he owns me, and I him. If another man should make advances towards me he would be encroaching on my husband's territory. Of course, it is my job to make it clear that the advance is out of bounds...

 

I know the argument is that we are fully knowledgeable adult people able to come or go as we will, therefore the third party is neither a thief nor an enabler, but simply someone in love. I do (I guess) sort of understand the thought process, but to my mind it leaves out of the equation all of the promises that were made. I do think that the third person in the triad takes on a position of thief, and when/if the affair is discovered need to understand why the BS may view them in that light.

 

Thoughts?

 

My initial thought with ownership was that the definition of "my" husband/wife meaning "territory" is limited based upon your definition. If anyone who is someone's anything is defined by personal/possessive terms is singularly "theirs," then "my" friend or teacher or classmate or colleague is mine alone.

 

What you're taking issue with is not the idea of the possessive, but with the subject itself. Husband or wife is generally singular. The promises that were made (as you put it) are the real issue here.

[carrie999]

I don't own my spouse but I damn sure own my life. A secretly cheating spouse impacts on my ownership of my life. An OW helping him cheat also impacts on my ownership/ informed choices about my life. From what I have seen IRL and from my own experience, if a BS is concerned about ownership it the ownership of her/his infringed upon life that they are concerned with. Nobody thinks they actually own another person.

 

Just to be clear, I am not minimizing the pain, and trauma caused by the rupture to the relationship (feelings of love and trust damaged etc). I am only talking about where I believe feelings of ownership come in on the part of the BS.

 

Perfectly stated.

[OpenBook]

He is my husband, and I am his wife. I'm not no one's wife. I am his. Possessive personal pronoun. We together formed a union and agreed to belong to each other. So, he owns me, and I him. If another man should make advances towards me he would be encroaching on my husband's territory. Of course, it is my job to make it clear that the advance is out of bounds...

 

Yes, that is reasonable to assume. However, it's kinda moot if there's only one partner in the M following that belief.

 

I know the argument is that we are fully knowledgeable adult people able to come or go as we will, therefore the third party is neither a thief nor an enabler, but simply someone in love. I do (I guess) sort of understand the thought process, but to my mind it leaves out of the equation all of the promises that were made. I do think that the third person in the triad takes on a position of thief, and when/if the affair is discovered need to understand why the BS may view them in that light.

 

Maybe somebody should clue-in the CS on this? Seems they are also conveniently left out of the equation when it comes time to place blame on the OP (or anywhere except inside the M).

 

It always blows my mind when a BS expects everyone on the planet to honor the marriage when their very own CS clearly does not.

 

There's nothing to steal. It was freely offered (and often with considerable persistence and enthusiasm) by the CS.

 

Sorry, but in my mind it follows the same principle as "We teach others how to treat us." If a S doesn't honor their own M, why is everyone else expected to?

[threebyfate]

silktricks, people are selfish so you're never going to convince these people of the sanctity of marriage. It's not that they won't understand. They can't since they lack the moral fortitude.

[Silly_Girl]

I've often read here on LS that spouses do not "own" each other, and many seem to use this argument as a fundamental reason why an affair is not really wrong.

 

I tend to see it used when the responsibility and accountability is being discussed, not as a justification for infidelity itself.

[OWoman]

It is normal and reasonable to be pi$$ed, hurt, devastated, etc if your spouse unilaterally decides to go behind your back and break the agreement while pretending to your face that the agreement is still intact.

 

Absolutely! But this can work both ways...

 

If the agreement was to live together without getting M "because neither party believes in "all that" (the monogamy, the sense of ownership, etc) and both wish to retain their sense of individuality, etc" and then a tactical decision is taken - jointly - to get M for economic reasons due to a legislative change, WITH THE EXPRESS AGREEMENT that nothing changes in the R - that there is no expectation of ownership or exclusivity or the loss of any individuality, that the M is just on paper and that things will continue exactly as before, with all the existing agreements still in place (no kids, no expectations of "forever", no promises of exclusivity, etc)..... and then one partner unilaterally, without agreement or even discussion, changes the rules and falls pregnant deliberately and refuses to abort, and bullies the other into becoming a parent... and later has the gall to act outraged because the other party to the agreement still holds to the original terms of the agreement (no expectation of forever, no expectation of exclusivity, retaining a sense of individuality) that has never been amended or disbanded because WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THEIR OWN MIND they've made the shift - well, that's not fair either. But it happens. Happened, in my H's first M.

 

He chose to honour their agreement. She chose to break it - several times, unilaterally, without agreement, discussion or even informing him. She simply expected him to read her mind and agree with it all, irrespective on the impact for him on HIS life.

 

IMO, she was the guilty party, not him. He kept his word. She deceived, lied, and bullied. Sure, he should have walked out the instant she fell pregnant, and renounced any responsibility to the child and sued her for breach of contract - but he didn't, because "men don't walk out on their responsibilities" (more fool him, I guess).

 

It's not always the WS who is the one breaching the agreement.

[silktricks]

Maybe somebody should clue-in the CS on this? Seems they are also conveniently left out of the equation when it comes time to place blame on the OP (or anywhere except inside the M).

 

It always blows my mind when a BS expects everyone on the planet to honor the marriage when their very own CS clearly does not.

 

There's nothing to steal. It was freely offered (and often with considerable persistence and enthusiasm) by the CS.

 

Sorry, but in my mind it follows the same principle as "We teach others how to treat us." If a S doesn't honor their own M, why is everyone else expected to?

 

Yeah, I left the WS/CS out of this equation, because it wasn't about that person (who so obviously is the basic one at fault). It was about the idea of "ownership". It came up (for me) because of a discussion I was having with a woman I work with who voiced the opinion that if anyone ever cheated with her husband she would "f*ck them up, because he's MINE and I don't share."

 

From that I began to think about the times people say "My" about another person, and what does it mean. The line "to have and hold" in the wedding vows does - to me - have an implication of ownership I thought I'd see what other people here thought. Do I think the OW is at fault and the WS/CS not? Of course not!

 

I've gotta disagree with you, however, about the "nothing to steal because it's freely offered". If there is any "ownership" implied in the marriage vows (I'm not saying there is, but rather if there is), then the person who is "freely offering" is not indeed the person who has the capability to freely offer, as what they are offering actually doesn't belong to them, but rather to their partner. Hmmm - would that make the OW a receiver of stolen goods ?

[wheelwright]

I've often read here on LS that spouses do not "own" each other, and many seem to use this argument as a fundamental reason why an affair is not really wrong. The argument is mostly used when a BS compares the OW/OM to a thief.

 

I guess I'll never really understand that thought process, as when I said my vows, they included the words "to have and hold". The phrase to me does imply a type of joint ownership, me of him and him of me.

 

I understand and agree that this is not ownership in the sense of purchase, as in the past when a prospective groom had to pay the parents for the girls hand in marriage (or in some countries, vice versa), but it is, to my mind nonetheless an ownership of sorts.

 

He is my husband, and I am his wife. I'm not no one's wife. I am his. Possessive personal pronoun. We together formed a union and agreed to belong to each other. So, he owns me, and I him. If another man should make advances towards me he would be encroaching on my husband's territory. Of course, it is my job to make it clear that the advance is out of bounds...

 

I know the argument is that we are fully knowledgeable adult people able to come or go as we will, therefore the third party is neither a thief nor an enabler, but simply someone in love. I do (I guess) sort of understand the thought process, but to my mind it leaves out of the equation all of the promises that were made. I do think that the third person in the triad takes on a position of thief, and when/if the affair is discovered need to understand why the BS may view them in that light.

 

Thoughts?

 

I think these thoughts are worthwhile, especially for someone contemplating M.

 

I wonder sometimes about the bond that is deeper than any verbal promise, the bond of love you see in another's eyes, of knowing they have your back, and you theirs. That you act in union both during sex and as you interface with the world. I think about that bond as the one that must be kept.

 

Now if someone stole from such a bond - but they couldn't, could they?

Edited June 18, 2011 by wheelwright
word change

[Entropy3000]

I've often read here on LS that spouses do not "own" each other, and many seem to use this argument as a fundamental reason why an affair is not really wrong. The argument is mostly used when a BS compares the OW/OM to a thief.

 

I guess I'll never really understand that thought process, as when I said my vows, they included the words "to have and hold". The phrase to me does imply a type of joint ownership, me of him and him of me.

 

I understand and agree that this is not ownership in the sense of purchase, as in the past when a prospective groom had to pay the parents for the girls hand in marriage (or in some countries, vice versa), but it is, to my mind nonetheless an ownership of sorts.

 

He is my husband, and I am his wife. I'm not no one's wife. I am his. Possessive personal pronoun. We together formed a union and agreed to belong to each other. So, he owns me, and I him. If another man should make advances towards me he would be encroaching on my husband's territory. Of course, it is my job to make it clear that the advance is out of bounds...

 

I know the argument is that we are fully knowledgeable adult people able to come or go as we will, therefore the third party is neither a thief nor an enabler, but simply someone in love. I do (I guess) sort of understand the thought process, but to my mind it leaves out of the equation all of the promises that were made. I do think that the third person in the triad takes on a position of thief, and when/if the affair is discovered need to understand why the BS may view them in that light.

 

Thoughts?

 

Yes, I see marriage as a partnership. Joint ownership. It is not the same as owning a thing. One partner is not free to give away their body or their mind to another. They are not free to act singly. They have a partnership.

 

You have it right. There will be folks who want to argue this. Haters.

 

My wife and I indeed do have joint ownership for one another. I don;t really care whether other folks have a problem with this. They have their own issues. Life has gotten way too PC I guess. Folks just can't deal with two folks joinging together too tightly for their tastes. I am my wife's husband. She is my wife. Period.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Entropy3000

[Entropy3000]

Yeah, I left the WS/CS out of this equation, because it wasn't about that person (who so obviously is the basic one at fault). It was about the idea of "ownership". It came up (for me) because of a discussion I was having with a woman I work with who voiced the opinion that if anyone ever cheated with her husband she would "f*ck them up, because he's MINE and I don't share."

 

From that I began to think about the times people say "My" about another person, and what does it mean. The line "to have and hold" in the wedding vows does - to me - have an implication of ownership I thought I'd see what other people here thought. Do I think the OW is at fault and the WS/CS not? Of course not!

 

I've gotta disagree with you, however, about the "nothing to steal because it's freely offered". If there is any "ownership" implied in the marriage vows (I'm not saying there is, but rather if there is), then the person who is "freely offering" is not indeed the person who has the capability to freely offer, as what they are offering actually doesn't belong to them, but rather to their partner. Hmmm - would that make the OW a receiver of stolen goods ?

 

Seducing is a type of stealing.

 

Just as marriage partners have ownership of their marriage so do both cheaters have ownership of their affair.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Entropy3000

[rafallus]

Now if someone stole from such a bond - but they couldn't, could they?

 

IMO they couldn't, because either it was never there or not as good as suggested, so a third person could simply "fill in" the rest.

[NabeelNasir]

You are on right way. Don't look at third party whatever he/she thinks....husband and wife are secrets of each other and it should be go on with no doubts. what you do should always be in notice of your husband and the same rules apply on your husband. Trust between husband and wife makes the relationship stronger. Take care and enjoy your married life without confusions. NabeelNasir +923227395253

[OldOnTheInside]

I would say that the idea of "ownership" (as you are proposing) plays a very small role in something that is extremely complicated and multi-layered. Since relationships in general are essentially intangible contructs purely defined by our own perceptions and thought processes (there are physiological aspects to it as well, but I won't go there), it is basically impossible to accurately and consistently decontruct the different aspects that are contained, into any sort of practical information. It is really up to the couple themselves to decide how the dynamic of their relationship will play out, hopefully with some level of mutual understanding and respect for all parties involved.

 

^ In other words, relationships can be very ****ing complex.

 

But I would say that the AP isn't "stealing" anything. Perhaps a better word is interfering? Afterall, the AP is essentially a third wheel in the WS and BS's relationship. While the BS is a third wheel in the WS and AP's relationship, the key difference is that while they remain ignorant of this role, they are deprived of their ability to actively influence the situation, essentially leaving them as the "most innocent" person in the affair itself. Unfortunately, it's a really messy dynamic whatever way you look at it.

 

IMO playing the blame game tends to be a pointless endeavour though. As long as you have consciously aware that you are in an affair, you are entirely responsible for your own actions. No "my wife drove me to do this" or "he doesn't love her like he loves me" cr*p needed really.

[NoIDidn't]

Seducing is a type of stealing.

 

Exactly. Its also considered bribery, and manipulation.

 

I think the people that don't understand the "ownership" implied by marriage just don't respect marriage to begin with. They will expect others to respect them and theirs, but they oddly reserve the right to disrespect you and yours...and then blame YOU for it.

 

OPs are receiving stolen goods. And most of them know it, that's why they glory in it so much here. "He spent Valentine's Day with ME and not with HER (the wife)". "He loves ME and not HER". "He calls ME all the time and only calls HER for household stuff".

 

They know he's not supposed to offer those things to them and they know it comes at a cost to another. Call them interloper, thief, or whatever, but they know they are interfering and want it just that way. They wish to remove the implied ownership of the spouse and make it theirs. Theirs. Another level of ownership....

 

What's that old song about how everybody wants to be somebody's somebody?

[JAGeezer]

I've often read here on LS that spouses do not "own" each other, and many seem to use this argument as a fundamental reason why an affair is not really wrong. The argument is mostly used when a BS compares the OW/OM to a thief.

 

I guess I'll never really understand that thought process, as when I said my vows, they included the words "to have and hold". The phrase to me does imply a type of joint ownership, me of him and him of me.

 

I understand and agree that this is not ownership in the sense of purchase, as in the past when a prospective groom had to pay the parents for the girls hand in marriage (or in some countries, vice versa), but it is, to my mind nonetheless an ownership of sorts.

 

He is my husband, and I am his wife. I'm not no one's wife. I am his. Possessive personal pronoun. We together formed a union and agreed to belong to each other. So, he owns me, and I him. If another man should make advances towards me he would be encroaching on my husband's territory. Of course, it is my job to make it clear that the advance is out of bounds...

 

I know the argument is that we are fully knowledgeable adult people able to come or go as we will, therefore the third party is neither a thief nor an enabler, but simply someone in love. I do (I guess) sort of understand the thought process, but to my mind it leaves out of the equation all of the promises that were made. I do think that the third person in the triad takes on a position of thief, and when/if the affair is discovered need to understand why the BS may view them in that light.

 

Thoughts?

 

Wholehearted agreement. Either your word is worth something or it isn't. They call them "marriage vows" for a reason. They're the most serious promise that you will ever make in your life. If you can't keep them then how can you be trusted with anything else? Your word is essentially worthless. I wouldn't take the word of an adulterer if they told me that rain was wet. That's why I'm a "one strike and you're out" sort of guy. My W is the same way.

 

In short, barring any other stipulations, yes, spouses DO own each other. In particular they own the parts that a WS would like to share with an AP.

 

Regarding "other stipulations", I find the term "open marriage" to be an oxymoron. What's the point? Save everyone the trouble and stay single if you aren't ready to make a commitment.

 

JAG