tigereyes12 Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 I might also add that some people are desiring of traditional gender roles in a relationship, and I think that's just fine and wonderful so long as it's healthy and both individuals are on the same page. But once again, ownership does not come into this. It's a partnership of complementary, yet equally important roles. Keep in mind that any power the woman gives up, she gives up willingly in such a situation--which wields it's own sort of power...she can also take it away. In an ownership, this is not the case.
Ocean-Blue Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 A distinction should be made between "equality" and "sameness." One can be equal to their partner, but not be the same. I know of many couples where there is equality, but each partner has different roles in the marriage/relationship. Whatever the roles, it has to be voluntary and not in an attempt to assuage the ego of one partner.
Sam Spade Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 You, however, imply that women wanting a genetically fit husband to best ensure the survival of subsequent offspring equals ownership...which is just plain silly. The "ownership" is implicit - if you're supertough, and hot stone-age style (sans the hair) she'll be hooked and won't even thing of looking elsewhere . I'm pretty disillusioned, because women are only as committed to a relaitonship as their options are (which defies the meaning of the word "commitment"), and in the contemporary world it is fuzzy and hard to discern what exactly a "better" option means. Compare this with old-world style decision criteria, where as long as I was in good enough shape to chop my opponents heads off, I've got nothing to worry about at home :laugh:.
tigereyes12 Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 The "ownership" is implicit - if you're supertough, and hot stone-age style (sans the hair) she'll be hooked and won't even thing of looking elsewhere . I'm pretty disillusioned, because women are only as committed to a relaitonship as their options are (which defies the meaning of the word "commitment"), and in the contemporary world it is fuzzy and hard to discern what exactly a "better" option means. Compare this with old-world style decision criteria, where as long as I was in good enough shape to chop my opponents heads off, I've got nothing to worry about at home :laugh:. I see what you're saying, though one could argue that that ownership is mutual: if she's upholding her part of the bargain, he won't even think of looking elsewhere either. I really don't think what you say about women only being committed to a relationship so long as there are no better options is true...or at least I hope you're wrong. I can only speak for myself, but this is far from the truth. When I'm with someone I genuinely care about and love, other men disappear from my line of site. And it has very little to do with me being dependent upon him. It does, however, have something to do with the way our personalities fit together...which I suppose is a type of dependence, but a mutual one. It's not quantifiable and certainly has nothing to do with chopping opponents heads off Or at least I don't think so. But who the hell knows why our brains function the way they do?
Els Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 Uh, boxing. Even if women wanted men to take the lead in a relationship (and some women do, yes, but not all)... How does that equate to wanting to become possession? So people in workplaces who like doing the technical stuff and leaving the decisions and management up to their bosses are 'possessions'? A young adult seeking guidance and leadership from his parents wants to be their possession? You have some very screwed up connotations in your mind, my friend.
2sure Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 If you're comfortable and happy with your arrangement, good for you and I mean that sincerely. Many of us have an allergic reaction to being controlled. For example, my expertise is finance and fiscal responsibility. I enjoy it and would never give control up to anyone...bar none, including my parents, who I trust 100% to consider my best interests, for matters of import. Like I said - I was not always like this. And it wasnt failure that brought me here. Im 40ish, and I just changed. The really funny thing, about giving up the finances etc....I was an accountant.
tigereyes12 Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 Like I said - I was not always like this. And it wasnt failure that brought me here. Im 40ish, and I just changed. The really funny thing, about giving up the finances etc....I was an accountant. I'd imagine being an accountant owuld be enough to make anyone want to give up control of finances.
Trialbyfire Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 Like I said - I was not always like this. And it wasnt failure that brought me here. Im 40ish, and I just changed. The really funny thing, about giving up the finances etc....I was an accountant. Where I'd never be an accountant because it's too dry. I love playing in the investment industry and do pretty well at it, far better than my SO. He excels in his area of the law. That's his expertise so he would lead in that aspect. This way, there's no one person responsible for shouldering the burden of the relationship. We give and take. This is by far and large the easiest relationship I've ever had. We're both doing our portion and I'm absolutely loving it!
taylor Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 After meeting and getting to know many women, I think they would prefer to be literally owned. ESPECIALLY ONCE THEY REACH A CERTAIN AGE. When they are young, perhaps they are overly idealistic. Great career, great money, freedom, love, family, they can have it all! I disagree with this. I see far more young women "owned" by males than older women. Young women let young men get away with alot so as not to rock the boat. How many times do young women say, "I wasn't ready to have sex with him but I did anyways cuz I didn't want to make him mad" or "I didn't say anything when he went out with his buddies all night and didn't call me cuz I didn't want to start an argument" or "He wanted to use our rent money to buy a motorcycle but I didn't fuss with him about it because I didn't want him to get mad at me." Young women kowtow to young men...often giving up their own individuality and freedom "for" their boyfriends or young husbands. How many times have your heard young women say, "Oh, I don't hang out with my friends much anymore cuz my boyfriend doesn't like them" or "I don't wear my hair like that anymore cuz my boyfriend doesn't like it that way" or "I don't listen to that kind of music anymore cuz my boyfriend says it drives him nuts and gives him a headache." Older women shake their heads at this kind of "dumb" thinking and hope one day these young women wake up. These young women don't have it all. They have given it all up to men they allow to control them. Some young women may have great career, good money, love, family, and freedom. But older women have all of that, too. Older women have stable, secure careers...jobs they have nurtured..jobs they love doing and that have brought meaning to their lives...jobs they are respected for. Older women also make great money, especially ones that have been in their careers for a long period of time. Older women also have love...usually the love of a mature man which is far more valuable than the "love" that comes from a young man with the "kid in the candy store" mentality. And older women usually take the supreme position within the family...she becomes the number one caregiver..the one everyone comes to...she's the hub of the family wheel. Family activities usually revolve around her. It's a position of responsibility and power. So I really don't get this age differentiation. IMO, it's the older woman who has the greater potential to have it all. She knows who she is and she knows what she wants. She is wise, confident and mature. And she doesn't put up with the bulls--t. She's not afraid to speak her mind or tell you where the door is. Because she is more comfortable in her skin, she is secure in sharing power in the relationship because she is wise enough to know this is what works best.
taylor Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 See, us men often times become confused.. What do women want? They want equality, but want a man "to be a man". Boxing123, Let me ask you this? What defines a man? What makes a man A MAN? Is it not possible to be A MAN and still see your woman as different, but equal to you? Is a man A MAN only if a woman is subordinate to him? Is the definition of A MAN limited by his relational position to a woman? Can't A MAN be defined as A MAN irregardless of any reference to a woman. To me, A MAN is a person with respect, integrity, wisdom, maturity, compassion and responsibility. Simple. The definition of A MAN has nothing to do with any woman. The man who still holds the door for you or who watches his language in your presence out of respect is A MAN. The man who refuses another woman's flirtation because he is in a relationship demonstrates his integrity as A MAN. The man who controls his temper by refusing to raise a hand against anyone out of rage or anger demonstrates his maturity as A MAN. The man who can cry, express his fears, hug his mother, or come to the rescue of a dog hit by a car in the street demonstrates his compassion. And the man who is responsible for himself..his own actions and his own mistakes..is A MAN. A MAN does not need a woman to own, control or usurp power over in order to BE a man or FEEL like a man. Only boys do that. For a man to be a man, a woman must give herself to him fully, and relinquish control. Being a real man has nothing to do with control. Did you ever hear the old fable about the wind and the sun? The wind and the sun place a bet on who can get the man to take off his coat. The wind blows and blows at hurricane force, trying to force the man to take off his coat. But the man just holds onto the coat tigher. Finally the wind runs out of steam. He exhausts his power. The sun gently lets his warmth shine on the man and in moments the man warms up to the sunshine and takes his coat off. One more analogy: Two men own dogs. One man has his dog on a heavy leash and barks out orders. The dog obeys immediately. The man brags about what a great master he is because he has 100 percent control over his dog. The other man does not have his dog leashed. He softly calls to the dog and the dog comes to him lovingly. The man pets the dog on the head and the dog responds affectionately and playfully. The man brags about what a wonderful dog he has. What kind of master do you want to be? What kind of relationship do you want and how do you think you should go about getting it? It's a matter of choice.
mr.dream merchant Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 The man who refuses another woman's flirtation because he is in a relationship demonstrates his integrity as A MAN. Now let me ask you this. Is it the case of a man asking too much if he were to expect his SO to reciprocate this? Why is it that when a woman doesn't refuse another man's flirtation she means nothing of it, and isn't demonstrating a lack of integrity?
taylor Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 Now let me ask you this. Is it the case of a man asking too much if he were to expect his SO to reciprocate this? Why is it that when a woman doesn't refuse another man's flirtation she means nothing of it, and isn't demonstrating a lack of integrity? This is a very legitimate question, IMO, mr.dream merchant. Yes, it is a lack of integrity when women in relationships give flirting men the "go" signal by flirting back or by not detering his advances. However, and this may appear to be a very weak argument, but women are hit on by men over and over and over again ad nauseum. It's just what men do as they pursue. After a while the meaning of these flirtatious gestures CAN just become meaningless...even humorous in a way. I also think when women get hit on, their first thought is how good it feels to have the attention and how good it feels to be attractive. Their first thought isn't, "OK, I'm one step closer to getting him in bed." I don't think men get hit on as often by women and not as blatantly. And when they do I think their mind automatically jumps to sex. So, possibly a slight difference. Still, any person in a relationship should deter any advances from anyone from the opposite sex for the sake of integrity. But there are alot of fine lines, so I can appreciate what you are saying.
clv0116 Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 Being the media form of a woman, biological, or some impossible hybrid? I'm a bit of an impossible hybrid myself, body of a god, penis of a stallion, so I don't see the problem myself.
Jersey Shortie Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 There is a huge difference between wanting to be "owned" , and wanting a man to "take the lead".
clv0116 Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 There is a huge difference between wanting to be "owned" , and wanting a man to "take the lead". For once I agree with you, I'm not down with ownership in the way property is owned but I believe the man should take the lead.
Cherry Blossom 35 Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 I'm a bit of an impossible hybrid myself, body of a god, penis of a stallion, so I don't see the problem myself. Ok, that's funny.
clv0116 Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 Ok, that's funny. As a man I have the god given ability to be funny.
Enema Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 No.. no.. you got it all wrong.. it's the opposite.. Women should own a couple of men... I have a few myself.. This behaviour is a mimickry of nature actually. In many species of animals, the female will get it on with many males in the group. That way, when she gets pregnant, all the males think it might be their genes and make an effort to protect and support her. Humans have beaten that with paternity testing recently. But, marriage and "relationships" in general are an attempt to force monagamy. I guess the amount of infedelity we have even today is testament to how close we are to animal behaviour.
Cherry Blossom 35 Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 As a man I have the god given ability to be funny. So is my sense of humor a gift from the Devil?
clv0116 Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 So is my sense of humor a gift from the Devil? It allows you to appreciate men. If you were a man you'd understand things like this. Who let you out of the kitchen?
Cherry Blossom 35 Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 It allows you to appreciate men. If you were a man you'd understand things like this. Who let you out of the kitchen? My master lets me out from 4-6 on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
clv0116 Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 My master lets me out from 4-6 on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Ah well I guess you need sunlight periodically? See how carefully he tends to you? Now that's true love.
Woggle Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 Owned is not the right word but I do believe that most women no matter how strong and independent they are want a man that can take the drivers seat sometimes. Not all the time but they want a man strong enough to steer the ship. This does not equate to being owned and told what to do all the time. If a man lets a woman own him though her respect and attraction for him will plummet to zero.
Jersey Shortie Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 I guess the amount of infedelity we have even today is testament to how close we are to animal behaviour. Well, it's a testament to at least how some are animals. I mean, if you want to relate yourself to an animal, go for it. Monkies, goats, elephants, voluchers, take your pick.
Enema Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 Well, humans are animals... apes. But, If I get to choose from your list. I'll take a volucher. No idea what it is, but it sounds exciting!
Recommended Posts