Marriage and Ownership

[MissBee]

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?

 

People don't own people like chattel or objects...however, vows and contracts are binding and in order for even societies to function, we need to be able to trust people and believe that they will stick to their word.

 

Marriage vows are a contract and, while everyone has to negotiate the terms of their marriage and their vows, any breach of that is wrong.

 

An example: If you are a celebrity and are contracted by a company to endorse a certain product, sometimes the terms of that agreement do not permit you to endorse their competition's product, or you're not allowed to do certain things since you are now affiliated with this brand and are the face of the brand. You sign the contract fully aware of the terms and conditions before you sign it, and upon signing it, the mature, responsible and ethical thing is that you do what is expected of you in your contract and IF something comes up, then you go to the company FIRST and renegotiate the terms if possible.

 

I believe marriage is the same. It's a covenant and yes things can change...but like the example above, the responsible, ethical and mature thing would be to make that known versus gallivanting around. So you do not own your spouse as your slave, likewise the company doesn't own you as their slave, but of your FREE WILL you entered into a contract and any breach of it is wrong and leaves the other party hanging. Sneaking around and doing endorsements for another company when you agreed you would not and sneaking around and having sex and relations with another if you vowed to "forsake all others" is wrong, no matter how you slice it...

 

I see the matter of "ownership" being neither here nor there as it is not about that, it's about a breach of contract/trust.

 

I have an issue, frankly, with the idea that everything is all right to do if it is done for love. No, it's not.

 

Ditto..

Edited July 1, 2011 by MissBee

[MissBee]

so basically what you are saying is "follow your heart and the hell with anyone else"....

 

Can't say I agree. You can couch selfishness in flowery words and high flung sentiment, but it is what it is...someone visiting their issues onto the head of someone else. you can say an affair is all about "love" and maybe it is, but that does NOT mean that no one will be hurt or that it's okay for those people to be hurt.

 

and yes, we all hurt people every day, often in ways we don't realize, but in an affair, you KNOW that someone else will be hurt, there really is not much of an alternative outcome...so using the excuse of " we all hurt people every day via consumerism, so therefore that somehow makes people being hurt in affairs acceptable" is like saying that it's okay to hurt a companion animal because everyday, hundreds of thousands of animals are put to death in abitiors ...neither is "okay" and the existance of one form of cruelty does not negate another

 

Well said

 

I cannot right all the wrongs in the world...and I may not be able to stop what I inadvertently do to hurt others but I can make a start by making more conscious choices AND avoiding the things I am well aware will cause pain.

 

Some actions are obscure and do not directly seem to be harmful so I understand how some people may participate in them but others and their consequences are readily seen, affairs being one of those that do not fall under the obscure category....sorry....their consequences are seen everyday and it a very direct experience.

 

I will go even further to say that I empathize more with those who get into affairs but do not know the MP's spouse and through self denial they avoid that part of the person's life as much as possible so it is more "palatable" of sorts ...but those who go as far as to be all up in the MP's spouses business and can report all about how they think he/she is and what he/she does or does not do or like and fully immerse themselves into the reality of their being this other person and the MP's kids and worst yet those who are acquaintances with the BS and so very much know this person...quite frankly you have made it OBVIOUS that it is not some obscure matter but you have willfully inserted yourself into a situation that will be hurtful.

 

The more knowledge you have...the more responsible you are. Affairs take more conscious decision making, scheming, planning, and are ongoing which gives you even more time to become aware....some other hurtful decisions are not so. But no matter how you slice and dice it, pointing out the other "sins of the world" that exist doesn't somehow cancel out affairs. If you compare yourself and your actions to those doing worst...well you'll always come out smelling like a rose now won't you?

Edited July 1, 2011 by MissBee

[Memphis Raines]

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 wouldn't take stock in anything anyone has to say that thinks an affair isn't wrong.

 

and I've seen a few that will say, "you don't own your spouse!" when a spouse tries to hold their cheating other's feet to the fire and hold them accountable for their despicable actions.

 

cheaters don't like being held accountable. hence the "you don't own them" tripe.

[Summer Breeze]

So what about those of us who have thought this forever? I was married in my 20s and never thought I owned my H nor did he own me.

 

I wouldn't take stock in anything anyone has to say that thinks an affair isn't wrong.

 

and I've seen a few that will say, "you don't own your spouse!" when a spouse tries to hold their cheating other's feet to the fire and hold them accountable for their despicable actions.

 

cheaters don't like being held accountable. hence the "you don't own them" tripe.

[Memphis Raines]

So what about those of us who have thought this forever? I was married in my 20s and never thought I owned my H nor did he own me.

 

I'm not saying that people own each other when married.

 

I'm saying that cheaters will say that a betrayed spouse has the view that they own their spouse if they try to hold them accountable for their infidelity.

 

example, expecting someone to stop partaking in activities in which cheating runs rampant, like clubbing, isn't a spouse trying to "own" the other.

 

its expecting that spouse to act like a spouse since they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

 

of course nobody owns anyone. but people have expectations of a spouse to act like one.

[Entropy3000]

I'm not saying that people own each other when married.

 

I'm saying that cheaters will say that a betrayed spouse has the view that they own their spouse if they try to hold them accountable for their infidelity.

 

example, expecting someone to stop partaking in activities in which cheating runs rampant, like clubbing, isn't a spouse trying to "own" the other.

 

its expecting that spouse to act like a spouse since they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

 

of course nobody owns anyone. but people have expectations of a spouse to act like one.

 

This is exactly the point. Why in the world would this even be discussed if it was not from a cheating persons perspective? They wish to do something outside of the marriage or just behave in a single manner and when the other spouse objects the response is that they don't own you.

[Entropy3000]

Nevermind ......

Edited July 5, 2011 by Entropy3000

[Mimolicious]

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?

 

 

Hypothetically speaking, if the MM/MW eventually leave their S for the OW/OM, all of the sudden the AP gets injected with some of this very same "Ownership" juice. People talk all sorts of shyte and blame others to be able to cope with their situation, yet if they are ever in that very same position, it's all fair. Whatever!

 

Funny thing is that usually the AP lingers around, waste years of their life, make many sacrifices waiting for pay day. Waiting for the day that their MP is finally "theirs" only. Don't get it... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Ain't that waiting for "ownership" as well?

 

In reality, the "world" is facked! You have millions of M people running around feeling entitled to "privacy" and how they are "free" to go and be "in love" with other than the people they're already married to. Crazy.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Mimolicious

[Entropy3000]

Hypothetically speaking, if the MM/MW eventually leave their S for the OW/OM, all of the sudden the AP gets injected with some of this very same "Ownership" juice. People talk all sorts of shyte and blame others to be able to cope with their situation, yet if they are ever in that very same position, it's all fair. Whatever!

 

Funny thing is that usually the AP lingers around, waste years of their life, make many sacrifices waiting for pay day. Waiting for the day that their MP is finally "theirs" only. Don't get it... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Ain't that waiting for "ownership" as well?

 

In reality, the "world" is facked! You have millions of M people running around feeling entitled to "privacy" and how they are "free" to go and be "in love" with other than the people they're already married to. Crazy.

 

Exactly!

[Summer Breeze]

This is exactly the point. Why in the world would this even be discussed if it was not from a cheating persons perspective? They wish to do something outside of the marriage or just behave in a single manner and when the other spouse objects the response is that they don't own you.

 

I say it from the perspective of an adult who is an adult in her real life adult relationships. My xH was the man I married and his label was H hence he was my H. I didn't own him. The label and the possessive pronoun were words but they did not imply in any shape or form I owned him.

 

In any of my Rs I demanded respect. I gave respect. It was earned and expected until a time when something may have happened to stop it. I agree that a married person shouldn't play at being single but it should be out of respect not a sense of being owned. My most recent BF came home from a stag night and said he left when they all went to a gents club. He knew it would make me uncomfortable so he chose not to partake. That isn't being owned it's a matter of respect for someone you care about.

 

Maybe I see it much more simply than others but owned is not a word I would ever choose to attach in any way shape or form to my Rs.

[Memphis Raines]

I say it from the perspective of an adult who is an adult in her real life adult relationships. My xH was the man I married and his label was H hence he was my H. I didn't own him. The label and the possessive pronoun were words but they did not imply in any shape or form I owned him.

 

understood, but thats not the premise of this thread.

 

this is about people who cheat justifying their actions because nobody owns anyone. Its about cheaters not liking to have their feet held to the fire and held accountable only to take reasonable expectations of how a spouse should act and say, "you don't own me".

 

if I had someone that cheated on me, and I had certain expectations of how they should behave based on the fact there is an understanding of commitment and they said, "you don't own me". My response to them would be, "you are right. I don't. now pack your things and get the f*** out"

 

 

 

In any of my Rs I demanded respect. I gave respect. It was earned and expected until a time when something may have happened to stop it. I agree that a married person shouldn't play at being single but it should be out of respect not a sense of being owned.

 

no, it should be out of the fact that they are married. they are NOT single anymore. respect or not, nobody should act single if they are married. Otherwise they should remain single.

[silktricks]

I say it from the perspective of an adult who is an adult in her real life adult relationships. My xH was the man I married and his label was H hence he was my H. I didn't own him. The label and the possessive pronoun were words but they did not imply in any shape or form I owned him.

 

In any of my Rs I demanded respect. I gave respect. It was earned and expected until a time when something may have happened to stop it. I agree that a married person shouldn't play at being single but it should be out of respect not a sense of being owned.

 

{snip}

 

Maybe I see it much more simply than others but owned is not a word I would ever choose to attach in any way shape or form to my Rs.

 

I think this is somewhat of a different strokes for different folks thing. I understand that many people have a very negative reaction to the word "own" in relationship to another person.

 

My husband and I have no problem with the concept of owning each other. In fact, we both like it. It doesn't imply in any way a lack of respect, or that the joint ownership we feel means respect is not as important. Rather, for us, it implies a closeness made more powerful by the concept that we jointly own each other.

 

It's been very interesting reading different peoples thoughts on the subject. I don't feel like I am my husband's slave, nor he mine, but I do feel that the bond of marriage creates for us a joint ownership, as does he. Apparently not everyone is happy with that thought, but that's OK, too, as all people are different.

 

I honestly hadn't thought of the point Memphis Raines brought up about someone saying to their partner "you don't own me" when behavior modification is requested (especially post cheating ). I think it's very sad that anyone should have that type of reaction to their partner's obvious discomfort.

[nyrias]

People don't own people like chattel or objects...however, vows and contracts are binding and in order for even societies to function, we need to be able to trust people and believe that they will stick to their word.

 

Obvious marriage vows are NOT binding because there is no enforcement mechanisms.

 

Otherwise, infidelity will not be so prevalent, and divorce rate is not so high. What one entitles, is some compensation under the legal system (like getting some of the joint assets), or unless you sign a pre-nup.

 

We would LIKE to believe that marriage vows are binding but is truly is not in any literal interpretation of the word. Having an affair has little legal consequences, unlike if you break a contract.

 

In fact, the ONLY force holding the vows together is the cultural value that it is a good thing. This force is obviously quite weak, given how prevalent breaking of marriage vows is.

[donnamaybe]

this is about people who cheat justifying their actions because nobody owns anyone. Its about cheaters not liking to have their feet held to the fire and held accountable only to take reasonable expectations of how a spouse should act and say, "you don't own me".

 

if I had someone that cheated on me, and I had certain expectations of how they should behave based on the fact there is an understanding of commitment and they said, "you don't own me". My response to them would be, "you are right. I don't. now pack your things and get the f*** out"

Right on MR!!!!

 

 

no, it should be out of the fact that they are married. they are NOT single anymore. respect or not, nobody should act single if they are married. Otherwise they should remain single.

Yes. Someone who AGREES to be faithful should hold to their agreement. If they want to make the agreement null and void, HELLO - they should clue in the other party to the agreement.

 

Pretty simple concept. Of course, said concept involves honesty and integrity - a couple of qualities sadly lacking in many people today.

[rafallus]

Obvious marriage vows are NOT binding because there is no enforcement mechanisms.

 

Otherwise, infidelity will not be so prevalent, and divorce rate is not so high. What one entitles, is some compensation under the legal system (like getting some of the joint assets), or unless you sign a pre-nup.

 

We would LIKE to believe that marriage vows are binding but is truly is not in any literal interpretation of the word. Having an affair has little legal consequences, unlike if you break a contract.

 

In fact, the ONLY force holding the vows together is the cultural value that it is a good thing. This force is obviously quite weak, given how prevalent breaking of marriage vows is.

"All I have in this world is my balls, and my word, and I don't break 'em for no one, you understand?" - Scarface

[Mimolicious]

I think it is the 50987 time today that I see "Divorce rate being high". Who said that "infidelity" is the only cause???? This is a blanket statistic, btw.

It includes all forms of filings. People here in the US get marry for a greencard, insurance,etc. The same way that they get divorced for economical issues, incompatibility of character, health issues, etc.

[Entropy3000]

I think this is somewhat of a different strokes for different folks thing. I understand that many people have a very negative reaction to the word "own" in relationship to another person.

 

My husband and I have no problem with the concept of owning each other. In fact, we both like it. It doesn't imply in any way a lack of respect, or that the joint ownership we feel means respect is not as important. Rather, for us, it implies a closeness made more powerful by the concept that we jointly own each other.

 

It's been very interesting reading different peoples thoughts on the subject. I don't feel like I am my husband's slave, nor he mine, but I do feel that the bond of marriage creates for us a joint ownership, as does he. Apparently not everyone is happy with that thought, but that's OK, too, as all people are different.

 

I honestly hadn't thought of the point Memphis Raines brought up about someone saying to their partner "you don't own me" when behavior modification is requested (especially post cheating ). I think it's very sad that anyone should have that type of reaction to their partner's obvious discomfort.

 

Nice post. It has come to the point when some folks have this type of close co-ownership and are happy with it, the haters come out and they get beat up about it. Yes, most times when the "you don't own me" comment happens it is because someone is cheating. Otherwise who would worry about such a thing?

[Entropy3000]

I say it from the perspective of an adult who is an adult in her real life adult relationships. My xH was the man I married and his label was H hence he was my H. I didn't own him. The label and the possessive pronoun were words but they did not imply in any shape or form I owned him.

 

In any of my Rs I demanded respect. I gave respect. It was earned and expected until a time when something may have happened to stop it. I agree that a married person shouldn't play at being single but it should be out of respect not a sense of being owned. My most recent BF came home from a stag night and said he left when they all went to a gents club. He knew it would make me uncomfortable so he chose not to partake. That isn't being owned it's a matter of respect for someone you care about.

 

Maybe I see it much more simply than others but owned is not a word I would ever choose to attach in any way shape or form to my Rs.

 

I say this as an adult in a real life relationship with my wife of 33 years.

I don't have a label ( or pointers if we are talking C code ) for W that can point to different people from time to time. Effectively rather than a variable my Wife has been very contant. We have joint ownership of each other and love it.

 

I think you just have an aversion to the word. Whatever works for you is fine. But my wife and I have a partnership.Which means we own our activities, are accountable to each other for our actions and we have joint owership of our relationship. It works for us. YMMV.

 

Obviously since he is your xH there was a failed relationship. So no you did not have ownership.

 

Also you have Rs not an R. Multiple. Who knows how many?

 

I have one R with my W.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Entropy3000

[seren]

I don't think anyone owns anyone, in the same way as owning an object or thing, however, I do think that when a relationship or marriage is entered into based upon shared understandings of what that means, what the boundaries or 'rules' and expectations are then the relationship is jointly 'owned' by each person. Each has responsibilities to the relationship based upon the joint understandings, that isn't rocket science. It isn't because one believes they own another, I find it contradictory that the WS can say they aren't owned, yet feel they have the right to benefit from the relationship or marriage and live a lie. No, no one owns another, but neither does this give another the right to deprive the BS of informed choice, if no one owns the WS then no one owns the BS either and shouldn't get to make choices for them.

 

In a mariage no one truly lives as an individual as the marriage involves a sharing of experiences, often children, finances, understanding, boundaries and if the BS contributes and sticks to the shared understanding out of love and belief in the relationship it is pretty piss poor of the WS to take this and make decisions that deprive the BS of choices about their life, for me that implies ownership by the WS, the I know better, I know what's best (for who) and I will do as I please.

 

If everyone owned their own actions then A's would be nipped in the bud PDQ as the WS would either leave or inform the BS and go from there. I asked my H if he owned me, he laughed and said that while I am my own woman I am his woman too, which I sort of like and reciprocate. Our marriage is ours, belongs to us, I own my part and he his, end of and probably garbled and way off topic but there you go.

[OldOnTheInside]

"All I have in this world is my balls, and my word, and I don't break 'em for no one, you understand?" - Scarface

 

Thank you for that.

 

Unfortunately, many people don't share that line of thinking.

 

Although, if you run around breaking your word to everyone, and screwing people over, you're just setting yourself up for a metaphorical or literal dagger to the back.

[Entropy3000]

I don't think anyone owns anyone, in the same way as owning an object or thing, however, I do think that when a relationship or marriage is entered into based upon shared understandings of what that means, what the boundaries or 'rules' and expectations are then the relationship is jointly 'owned' by each person. Each has responsibilities to the relationship based upon the joint understandings, that isn't rocket science. It isn't because one believes they own another, I find it contradictory that the WS can say they aren't owned, yet feel they have the right to benefit from the relationship or marriage and live a lie. No, no one owns another, but neither does this give another the right to deprive the BS of informed choice, if no one owns the WS then no one owns the BS either and shouldn't get to make choices for them.

 

In a mariage no one truly lives as an individual as the marriage involves a sharing of experiences, often children, finances, understanding, boundaries and if the BS contributes and sticks to the shared understanding out of love and belief in the relationship it is pretty piss poor of the WS to take this and make decisions that deprive the BS of choices about their life, for me that implies ownership by the WS, the I know better, I know what's best (for who) and I will do as I please.

 

If everyone owned their own actions then A's would be nipped in the bud PDQ as the WS would either leave or inform the BS and go from there. I asked my H if he owned me, he laughed and said that while I am my own woman I am his woman too, which I sort of like and reciprocate. Our marriage is ours, belongs to us, I own my part and he his, end of and probably garbled and way off topic but there you go.

 

 

Wondermous!!!