Should men own women?

[Ocean-Blue]

Exactly what I was thinking. It seems far simpler than attempting to persuade the culture you're living in to adopt your way of thinking.

 

I suspect it's because he wants them. I'm not even being sarcastic here. He likes them this way. It's the push-pull thing that men so desire. And women too.

 

It's all fun to b1tch about this stuff. When it comes down to it, he likes it.

[mr.dream merchant]

There's nothing wrong with Western Women, just the ones with the entitlement complex. **** those ones, seriously.

[Ariadne]

I think women really would prefer being owned. They are a man's possession. He does not stray. He gives her love and great sex. He takes the lead. He supports her, and she knows he always will. She trusts him. She has no worries.

 

When I read this and think of the right guy, it sounds like heaven.

 

But when I imagine this scenario with any other guy, I'm already thinking of how to run away from there.

[boxing123]

Yes Aridane, with the right guy, of course..

 

I could word the initial thread a bit better, but inside that is what women yearn for. The confusing thing today is, they want one thing deep inside, but say and act like they want another.

 

And no,Afghanistan is not the best place to live for men or women. I was only saying women are safer living there under the Taliban that when the Northern Alliance was in power.

[Ariadne]

Well,

 

I think that women find it very easy to submit to a man they love.

 

Is just hard for women to submit to any other guy, and that's what's happened with western women.

 

Most relationships are not based on real love.

 

Still, I think that women with the Burka are happier also.

[Taramere]

I suspect it's because he wants them. I'm not even being sarcastic here. He likes them this way. It's the push-pull thing that men so desire. And women too.

 

It's all fun to b1tch about this stuff. When it comes down to it, he likes it.

 

It's like the guy who loves to think he's a great horseman even though the reality is that he hasn't developed the necessary affinity with horses, or the confident and competent approach that wins their respect. He clambers onto an animal that's not a novice ride, starts yanking aggressively and incompetently at the reins....flapping his legs, gets thrown off and blames the horse for not being properly trained.

 

"That's not a proper horse. Get me a docile little Shetland pony. Now that's a real horse, as a horse should be. A horse that can be in proper partnership with a man...."

 

Go Daizey

[stillafool]

This may not be very popular... So please forgive me ladies of loveshack.. as this is but a mere observation.

 

To all the married women. When you got married, did your father not "give" you to your husband as though you were a possession, having your owner change hands? I know most people probably don't consider it when they get married but it is by todays values a very sexist tradition.

 

Ew, you are right. My dad gave me away at my wedding. Now that you mentioned it it is a very sexist tradition. I wish I had thought about it then I would have made other arrangements.

[gopher]

Hmmmm, I don't know know. I guess it was phrased that way, but I always viewed it as she was being entrusted to me...to care for her. I sure wish her Dad had warned me about her though!!

[stillafool]

No! in today's society most women do not want to be owned by a man. Loved by a man, yes, owned, no. Most women want their own money to spend and make decisions with. Why would a woman have to ask for money whenever she wants to buy something for herself or others. It takes a secure man to understand and appreciate the freedoms of todays woman. It's a good thing that most women don't want to be "owned" the way OP indicated because most men couldn't afford that lifestyle anyway.

[serial muse]

And no,Afghanistan is not the best place to live for men or women. I was only saying women are safer living there under the Taliban that when the Northern Alliance was in power.

 

Dear God.

[nicki]

Giving yourself fully to a person is different than being owned by them, although I understand what the poster means.

 

"Owning" has the connotation of no choice being involved.

 

Submitting, giving yourself voluntarily to someone you love and trust, would give the same benefits as the poster means by saying "owning."

 

Google "egalitarian relationship" and you will see that this the ideal. Both people watch out for and are a steward of the other person's needs and wants. That way, BOTH people are taken care of equally.

 

But, it's not "owning" in the truest sense of the word, although I can see where it would look like that....maybe more of a "belonging to/with"

[sxyNYCcpl]

I could word the initial thread a bit better, but inside that is what women yearn for. The confusing thing today is, they want one thing deep inside, but say and act like they want another.

 

And no,Afghanistan is not the best place to live for men or women. I was only saying women are safer living there under the Taliban that when the Northern Alliance was in power.

 

This whole thread is a joke, and frankly it wouldn't hurt my feelings if you were bounced out of here for good. The idea that women want to be owned, that Islamic women are better off than westerners is so outrageous, so ridiculous, so insane that it doesn't even merit debate. You, sir, are an embarrassment to humanity.

 

Did you know that recently a 75 year old woman was sentenced to 40 lashes in Saudi Arabia? Never mind the fact that that is probably a death sentence for someone her age, what crime did she commit? Did she steal? Hurt someone? Kill someone? Was she part of a conspiracy to traffic young children for prostitution? Hardly.

 

She was charged with socializing with 2 men to whom she was not related. Men young enough to be her grandchildren, maybe even great-grandchildren.

 

Yeah, that's a much better way of life for women that here in the good old US of A.

[Sam Spade]

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.

 

Yeah, even if this is true, it is still disrespectful. So no - it's not okay for them to do it, ever. I don't even notice other women when I'm in a relationship, so if my gf/wife feels compelled to returne flirtration out of "politeness" or whatever, she'll be most welcome to make this her full time job once i leave her.

[Sam Spade]

It's like the guy who loves to think he's a great horseman even though the reality is that he hasn't developed the necessary affinity with horses, or the confident and competent approach that wins their respect. He clambers onto an animal that's not a novice ride, starts yanking aggressively and incompetently at the reins....flapping his legs, gets thrown off and blames the horse for not being properly trained.

 

"That's not a proper horse. Get me a docile little Shetland pony. Now that's a real horse, as a horse should be. A horse that can be in proper partnership with a man...."

 

Go Daizey

 

 

This is a funny, but not 100% inapprorpiate analogy, because where do you draw the line between the "advanced" horse requiring approrpiate skills and the whacko nuts horse that just needs to be put down?

The problem is that many women would disguise their selfishness and lack of accountability by repeating delusional stuff such as "it takes a real man to handle a woman like me", while the truth is that the "real man" has absolutely no desire to subject himself to this.

[Jersey Shortie]

Ahh, more red herrings and baseless assertions.

 

Why don't you present some actual evidence that contradicts over 100 years of biology? You'd probably win a nobel prize if you could prove humans aren't apes. But you can't, you know you're wrong, you just won't admit it.

 

Firstly, take your own advice and back up your comments with facts.

 

Secondly, perhaps you should look into your own reading comprehension skills. This discussion was never about if people came from apes. This argument had to do with relating the level of thought process a human being has compared to an animal. If you want to behave like an animal, go for it. But to explain human behaviors because off of whatever animal you decide on, doesn't do alot to really explain why a human would do it. Bunnies and frogs both mate but they don't do it the same way. You can't base your foundation of one speices on another. Apes are smart no doubt, but trying to base human behavior on an animal speices doesn't really give you the best factual information one can get. I thought you liked facts.

 

 

 

I didn't say it justifies anything. You're making yourself look like a retard lady.

 

Usually the person who reverts to put-downs makes themselves look poorly, not the person they are attempting to put down.

[pollywag]

My child Boxing13, in reading over your concern and comparing to a lot of the concerns you raise on this forum in regards to the gender roles it appears you have a constant struggle with your own gener identity as a man. When a quest for manhood feels like a train always leaving the station 2 seconds berore one can get on board, it is time to find a new path. We at the parish would like to open our cloak closet to you. Father Dirk Johnson and brother Bruce Lillypants will take you under their wings, and you can have purpose in your life again as an alter boy. There is hope my child, take my hand and let's walk together towards the light.

[Taramere]

This is a funny, but not 100% inapprorpiate analogy, because where do you draw the line between the "advanced" horse requiring approrpiate skills and the whacko nuts horse that just needs to be put down?

The problem is that many women would disguise their selfishness and lack of accountability by repeating delusional stuff such as "it takes a real man to handle a woman like me", while the truth is that the "real man" has absolutely no desire to subject himself to this.

 

That horse doesn't know about the kind of horse she's supposed to be in accordance with society's rules. I would imagine that deep down at her core she has absolutely no desire to be managed or controlled by any human being....however much a human being might want to believe otherwise. Does that mean she's nuts, or does it mean she's just being a horse as nature intended?

 

A real man, I would think, does what he pleases within the boundaries of the law and some personal code of ethics. If it pleases him to be with a woman who isn't into being controlled, and he clicks with that woman (eg because he enjoys a bit of drama and challenge) then he'll be with that woman.

 

If not, he'll presumably choose a woman he feels more compatible and at peace with. I wouldn't think he'd necessarily absorb women's opinions OR other men's as regards his authenticity as a man. He might be guided by the opinions of people he respects in some of his personal philosophies....but manliness, just like womanliness, is surely something that comes from a person's own spirit rather than being imposed by society?

[Sam Spade]

So is my sense of humor a gift from the Devil?

 

Tengo un gato en mis pantalones.

It's a latin thing, macho; you wouldn't understand.

[Sam Spade]

That horse doesn't know about the kind of horse she's supposed to be in accordance with society's rules. I would imagine that deep down at her core she has absolutely no desire to be managed or controlled by any human being....however much a human being might want to believe otherwise. Does that mean she's nuts, or does it mean she's just being a horse as nature intended?

 

A real man, I would think, does what he pleases within the boundaries of the law and some personal code of ethics. If it pleases him to be with a woman who isn't into being controlled, and he clicks with that woman (eg because he enjoys a bit of drama and challenge) then he'll be with that woman.

 

If not, he'll presumably choose a woman he feels more compatible and at peace with. I wouldn't think he'd necessarily absorb women's opinions OR other men's as regards his authenticity as a man. He might be guided by the opinions of people he respects in some of his personal philosophies....but manliness, just like womanliness, is surely something that comes from a person's own spirit rather than being imposed by society?

 

 

It is ironic that westerners - the first societies that were actually able to realise that society can be engineered to an extent - also often go into the other extreme (probably out of excitement), which is to believe that they're immune to, or above "the society".

 

I certainly do what I please "within the boundaries of the law and with some personal code of ethics", but how much of my code of ethics is my own, eh? I think that it is perfectly sensible - and I'd be gladlly willing and able to do it - to kill somebody molesting a child on the spot, but that wouldn't go down too well in court. So "somehow" my ehtics includes appreciating the concept of 'due process of law' too, go figure...

 

The point is that not all social experiments go as planned, and to believe that we're somehow above 'the bets' is futlie. I bet nobody thought that the industrial revolution will lead to disintegration of the extended family - but it is just not possible to have the two coexist. Same with current day independent women and marriage. You can't both have a solid, old-school marriage and a wife who is a career woman. You can have a series of relationships, though, or other living arrangements that are not marriage and are more suitable to this context. A tradeoff.

 

So yes - there are traits that *should* be present in order certain types of relationships to be feasible. So, I'd enjoy the 'challenging'/drama queen woman as a playmate, but she definitely won't be my choice for a life partner (wife...). for that I'll go with the quiet and loyal one. She'll certainly have to work, of course, it's not possible otherwise these days, but it will be girly work with fixed hours and that does not involve any stress outside of those hours.

[Eve]

Well,

 

I think that women find it very easy to submit to a man they love.

 

Is just hard for women to submit to any other guy, and that's what's happened with western women.

 

Most relationships are not based on real love.

 

Still, I think that women with the Burka are happier also.

 

I dont have a problem with the word submit. I do have a problem with the term 'ownership' though. Common sense says that as long as there isnt any violence and the two people are working together ... whatever you call it, thats fine.

 

I have heard of many women who are happy wearing the Burka too. It seems that these are the ones who have been given the choice. Of course, I disagree with any level of force.

 

I think most women would like a man who can be trusted enough to take the lead. I trust my Husband to take the lead but we do this for each other at different times, naturally.

 

Regards,

Eve xx

[clv0116]

The point is that not all social experiments go as planned, and to believe that we're somehow above 'the bets' is futlie. I bet nobody thought that the industrial revolution will lead to disintegration of the extended family - but it is just not possible to have the two coexist. Same with current day independent women and marriage. You can't both have a solid, old-school marriage and a wife who is a career woman. You can have a series of relationships, though, or other living arrangements that are not marriage and are more suitable to this context.

 

That's a pretty damn insightful bit of writing. Nice job.

[taylor]

Yeah, even if this is true, it is still disrespectful. So no - it's not okay for them to do it, ever. I don't even notice other women when I'm in a relationship, so if my gf/wife feels compelled to returne flirtration out of "politeness" or whatever, she'll be most welcome to make this her full time job once i leave her.

 

Sam,

 

If your girlfriend is returning the flirtation, then she is disrespecting you.

 

Trust me, she is not returning the flirtation out of "politeness." Being polite would be saying, "I have a wonderful boyfriend who I love very much and who thinks the world of me so please stop flirting with me. Thank you very much."

 

Your girlfrriend returns the flirtation because she enjoys the ego boost and the attention, as well as the thrill and excitement of hearing those sweet sexy words from someone new.

[Taramere]

It is ironic that westerners - the first societies that were actually able to realise that society can be engineered to an extent - also often go into the other extreme (probably out of excitement), which is to believe that they're immune to, or above "the society".

 

I certainly do what I please "within the boundaries of the law and with some personal code of ethics", but how much of my code of ethics is my own, eh? I think that it is perfectly sensible - and I'd be gladlly willing and able to do it - to kill somebody molesting a child on the spot, but that wouldn't go down too well in court. So "somehow" my ehtics includes appreciating the concept of 'due process of law' too, go figure...

 

There is the law - which you have no choice but to obey, unless you're prepared to face financial or custodial penalties. A personal code of ethics might be generally consistent with the law, but it generally goes further in incorporating ideas and philosophies that sit well with your own temperament and experiences. A personal code is just that. One that works for you, but that wouldn't necessarily be for everyone.

 

You can't both have a solid, old-school marriage and a wife who is a career woman. You can have a series of relationships, though, or other living arrangements that are not marriage and are more suitable to this context. A tradeoff.

 

My mother was a career woman before she (and my father) retired. They had and still have a very solid marriage. I can think of plenty of other people in the same category. Yes, yes...anecdotal, but real nonetheless. More real to me than any statistical evidence I'm presented with, because these are people I actually know. I can see first hand whether they're happy and fulfilled in accordance with my notions of what happiness and fulfilment mean.

 

So yes - there are traits that *should* be present in order certain types of relationships to be feasible. So, I'd enjoy the 'challenging'/drama queen woman as a playmate, but she definitely won't be my choice for a life partner (wife...). for that I'll go with the quiet and loyal one. She'll certainly have to work, of course, it's not possible otherwise these days, but it will be girly work with fixed hours and that does not involve any stress outside of those hours.

 

That's entirely up to you. If the can juggle a fiesty playmate and a quiet wife, and if all involved parties are agreeable to that, then it sounds perfectly okay to me.

[RecordProducer]

Boxing, you're very wrong about everything. (Funny that you said in another thread that a woman should put out easily and sex should come naturally!)

 

I don't want to be owned. I love working and paying the bills - it makes me feel powerful. I love to walk around dressed minimally. In our country, men are hiding their bodies and women are showing them off.

 

All I want from a man is to please me sexually and care for the children. Men should stay at home, cook, clean, and take care of the kids. I am serious. And I can have sex with them whenever I want, in the way I want.

 

I agree that the US is a very unjust country for us women. If a man looks at another woman or even talks to her, I want to be able to kill him and NOT go to jail. I want to invite my mom, aunts, sister, and cousins to stone him until he falls dead.

 

I am not scared of going to school, making money, and paying the bills. All I am scared of is that my man will let some other woman touch his penis. And I want to have the freedom to stone him to death if that happens.

 

And that's all I wish for. Yes, I agree that there shouldn't be equality. A man shouldn't kill ME if I sleep with someone else. It's my prerogative to sleep with whomever I want. It's my prerogative to allow my man to please me and kick him out of my house if he's unable to do so.

 

A man's job is to serve and obey a woman. Because women are good; they don't start wars, they don't rape, they don't beat anyone, and they don't abandon their children.

[taylor]

The point is that not all social experiments go as planned, and to believe that we're somehow above 'the bets' is futlie. I bet nobody thought that the industrial revolution will lead to disintegration of the extended family

 

The industrial revolution wasn't a social experiment. It was an economic experiment spearheaded by changes in technological advancement. I doubt "the family unit" was given ANY consideration in the "planning." Time and money was the only real focus.

 

Same with current day independent women and marriage. You can't both have a solid, old-school marriage and a wife who is a career woman.

 

You can have a solid marriage if you can respect and accept your wife as an independent woman. If you can't respect her then you truly don't love her. And if you don't love her, you have no marriage.

 

True, it's not old school marriage. But there is a reason old-school marriage didn't survive. If men and women both WANTED old-school marriage "in vogue" again, they could make it happen. But that's a big IF.

 

I, for one, wouldn't want the marriage my grandmother had. No way.

 

There are plenty of solid marriages between couples, both of whom are career oriented as well as family oriented. They go to work every day to provide for their family and they come home every night to hug their children.

 

How old are you anyways?

 

 

 

So, I'd enjoy the 'challenging'/drama queen woman as a playmate, but she definitely won't be my choice for a life partner (wife...). for that I'll go with the quiet and loyal one. She'll certainly have to work, of course, it's not possible otherwise these days, but it will be girly work with fixed hours and that does not involve any stress outside of those hours.

 

Why do you equate career woman with drama queen? An odd correlation.

 

A quiet and loyal one? Sounds more like a dog than a wife...obeys without saying a word.

 

What is "girly work." Not a clue what you are talking about.

 

Why no stress outside those hours? Women are quite capable of handling tremendous stress and often thrive on it. I don't think there are many jobs more stressful or demanding than motherhood. So, you wouldn't let her become a mother?