Page 72 of 100 [ 1585 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 ... 100  Next

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

05 Apr 2012, 11:28 am

Ragtime wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
What, no people are not property.......part of being with someone is 'don't cheat on them' because you agreed to be in a relationship with them not someone else. Not because either party has 'ownership' of the other. If that was the way it worked I don't think divorce would be legal as if you're 'owned' you probably cannot choose to be un-owned.


Would you like her to post about how she feels about it? She's a member on here, and has been for several years. She's been reading this conversation.


I don't really see the point, its not going to make me agree with viewing humans as property..in any circumstances. If the both of you like the way your relationship is going keep doing what your doing, don't let my disagreeing with it stop you......Its both of your life not mine so I have no say.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Last edited by Sweetleaf on 05 Apr 2012, 11:32 am, edited 2 times in total.

Alexender
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jan 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,194
Location: wrongplanet

05 Apr 2012, 11:28 am

Ragtime wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
What, no people are not property.......part of being with someone is 'don't cheat on them' because you agreed to be in a relationship with them not someone else. Not because either party has 'ownership' of the other. If that was the way it worked I don't think divorce would be legal as if you're 'owned' you probably cannot choose to be un-owned.


Would you like her to post about how she feels about it? She's a member on here, and has been for several years. She's been reading this conversation.


Then what's stopping her? Are you not letting her unless you say it's okay?


_________________
www.wrongplanet.net


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

05 Apr 2012, 11:33 am

Alexender wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
What, no people are not property.......part of being with someone is 'don't cheat on them' because you agreed to be in a relationship with them not someone else. Not because either party has 'ownership' of the other. If that was the way it worked I don't think divorce would be legal as if you're 'owned' you probably cannot choose to be un-owned.


Would you like her to post about how she feels about it? She's a member on here, and has been for several years. She's been reading this conversation.


Then what's stopping her?


Mainly the idea of trolls who snipe in threads.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

05 Apr 2012, 11:34 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
What, no people are not property.......part of being with someone is 'don't cheat on them' because you agreed to be in a relationship with them not someone else. Not because either party has 'ownership' of the other. If that was the way it worked I don't think divorce would be legal as if you're 'owned' you probably cannot choose to be un-owned.


Would you like her to post about how she feels about it? She's a member on here, and has been for several years. She's been reading this conversation.


I don't really see the point, its not going to make me agree with viewing humans as property..in any circumstances. If the both of you like the way your relationship is going keep doing what your doing, don't let my disagreeing with it stop you......Its both of your life not mine so I have no say.


Ya, I think we just disagree. It's possible there's some specific aspect I haven't been able to totally communicate, but both ways we're at a stopping point.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

05 Apr 2012, 11:35 am

TM wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
myth wrote:
The Christian model, when executed correctly, can work well for some people. There's always people who won't fit into any model and being forced into a dominiant or submissive role when you are not that way naturally is never fun. But if two people both willingly accept and understand their roles and feel comfortable in them, then I see nothing wrong with that.

There isn't anything inherintly wrong with hierarchy.


Well if both sides consent and are ok with it, I cannot tell them what to do......though I might question what sort of up-bringing taught them being punished & ruled over by a fellow 'adult' because they are your husband is a good and positive thing. Even if its not a hostility thing I still just cannot fathom how that would be healthy.


If I know economics and my wife does not, it does not make sense for her to have a major say in economics, just as if she is better than me at decorating it makes no sense for me to require full decision power in that department. Now, before Valentine and her crew chastise me to death for using stereotypical gender roles and LKL requires me to post specific statistics to prove things statistically that can't really be proven statistically, the reason I used those roles is that just about every man I've ever met who has lived with a woman has very little say in the decor of the house.


I don't see what that has to do with the man or woman in the relationship 'ruling over' the other, which is what i was saying I disagree with.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Alexender
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jan 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,194
Location: wrongplanet

05 Apr 2012, 11:35 am

Haha. You are calling me out on an internet offense, pot kettle black. So because I wasn't awake until around 10 I am a troll on here, I guess I should have woken up at 8 so that wouldn't have happened


_________________
www.wrongplanet.net


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

05 Apr 2012, 11:36 am

Ragtime wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
What, no people are not property.......part of being with someone is 'don't cheat on them' because you agreed to be in a relationship with them not someone else. Not because either party has 'ownership' of the other. If that was the way it worked I don't think divorce would be legal as if you're 'owned' you probably cannot choose to be un-owned.


Would you like her to post about how she feels about it? She's a member on here, and has been for several years. She's been reading this conversation.


I don't really see the point, its not going to make me agree with viewing humans as property..in any circumstances. If the both of you like the way your relationship is going keep doing what your doing, don't let my disagreeing with it stop you......Its both of your life not mine so I have no say.


Ya, I think we just disagree. It's possible there's some specific aspect I haven't been able to totally communicate, but both ways we're at a stopping point.


Well do you think people are property or not? that is what I disagree with........if that was not what you were trying to say I certainly don't want to think that but yeah if you honestly think people should be considered property I imagine we do have to agree to disagree.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

05 Apr 2012, 11:38 am

Ragtime, you got this thread more interesting than the usual crap that usually goes on in threads like this. What else can I say you lucky bastard ;)



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

05 Apr 2012, 12:13 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
TM wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
myth wrote:
The Christian model, when executed correctly, can work well for some people. There's always people who won't fit into any model and being forced into a dominiant or submissive role when you are not that way naturally is never fun. But if two people both willingly accept and understand their roles and feel comfortable in them, then I see nothing wrong with that.

There isn't anything inherintly wrong with hierarchy.


Well if both sides consent and are ok with it, I cannot tell them what to do......though I might question what sort of up-bringing taught them being punished & ruled over by a fellow 'adult' because they are your husband is a good and positive thing. Even if its not a hostility thing I still just cannot fathom how that would be healthy.


If I know economics and my wife does not, it does not make sense for her to have a major say in economics, just as if she is better than me at decorating it makes no sense for me to require full decision power in that department. Now, before Valentine and her crew chastise me to death for using stereotypical gender roles and LKL requires me to post specific statistics to prove things statistically that can't really be proven statistically, the reason I used those roles is that just about every man I've ever met who has lived with a woman has very little say in the decor of the house.


I don't see what that has to do with the man or woman in the relationship 'ruling over' the other, which is what i was saying I disagree with.


Well, you're changing what I said. No, people are not property. What I said was that married people have authority over each others' bodies. In fact, the Bible says that spouses' two bodies are essentially united into "one flesh" when they marry and consumate the marriage. Marriage carries deep meanings for my wife and me. It's not just a piece of paper that the state signs off on, and that otherwise we just come and go as we please with no regard for one another, and live our own lives. If we wanted that total independence, we wouldn't have gotten married. To us, the relationship is intimate, not just physically but emotionally and spiritually.

EDIT: If you're thinking I have absolute power over her and vice versa, that would be where you're mistaken. There are exceptions to the rule, because again this is mutually volitional, not dictatorial. When she doesn't want to play her role, I don't feel like playing mine either, and we discuss it until we figure out what's going on between us.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Last edited by Ragtime on 05 Apr 2012, 12:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

05 Apr 2012, 12:14 pm

Ragtime wrote:

Well, you're changing what I said. No, people are not property. What I said was that married people have authority over each others' bodies. In fact, the Bible says that spouses two bodies are essentially united into "one flesh" when they marry and consumate the marriage. Marriage carries deep meanings for my wife and me. It's not just a piece of paper that the state signs off on, and that otherwise we just come and go as we please with no regard for one another. To us, the relationship is intimate, not just physically but emotionally and spiritually.


This bullsh!t is why, until recently, a man could rape his wife and not be charged with any crime.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

05 Apr 2012, 12:20 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:
Ragtime wrote:

Well, you're changing what I said. No, people are not property. What I said was that married people have authority over each others' bodies. In fact, the Bible says that spouses two bodies are essentially united into "one flesh" when they marry and consumate the marriage. Marriage carries deep meanings for my wife and me. It's not just a piece of paper that the state signs off on, and that otherwise we just come and go as we please with no regard for one another. To us, the relationship is intimate, not just physically but emotionally and spiritually.


This bullsh!t is why, until recently, a man could rape his wife and not be charged with any crime.


Ya......you really need to see my "EDIT" that I just added.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

05 Apr 2012, 12:20 pm

Ragtime wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
The roles you speak of are artificial


I beg to differ. They are, as I said earlier, suggested by nature. Women are better at running homes and nuturing kids, and men are better at physical labor. You can be mad about it, but that's a different issue. One called "feminism".

no. for a long period of time, my husband was the primary caregiver, and i was the primary breadwinner. we were best suited to those roles.


I don't deny there are exceptions to the rule. But it's a fallacy to say that the exceptions to a rule negate the rule.

It's actually commendable of you to be a breadwinning feminist, as it gave you more credibility than if you were to basically say, "I have a vagina. Women rule!" like some feminists do.

both men and women are suited to working - that's biology. in prehistory women usually cared for their children as part of a community that was engaged in working off and on throughout the day as necessary.

(and thank you)


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

05 Apr 2012, 12:23 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Primarily, I'm saying that, in a marriage, it usually works best for someone to lead. Marriages include two people into one marriage. The two people are -- being two -- independent individuals. But when they decide to be in one marriage, that marriage isn't two independent halves. When I drive my wife across the state to see her parents, only one of us drives at any given time. I don't ask my mechanic to install a steering wheel on the passenger side, even though that would serve marital equality better than just having one. The reason is obviously that the car drives better with one person driving it than with two. A marriage is the same way. My wife understands -- and is happy to tell others -- that our marriage works best when I lead and she follows. What I'm saying is that I don't consider that leader/follower relationship of ours to be an anomaly in that it works, but rather quite the contrary.

i didn't lead my husband, and he didn't lead me either. we were a team.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

05 Apr 2012, 12:26 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Alexender wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
No I am saying I disagree with someone in a relationship 'controlling' and even punishing the other one in the relationship if they do something perceived as 'wrong' by the other based on if they have a penis or a vagina.


Okay. Does that include when both people are for this kind of arrangement? She likes when I assert myself -- it is manly to her. It makes her feel both loved, and loving toward me. She grows cold and distant when I go for long periods without asserting myself and my will. There is, of course, a disrespectful way to be assertive, but there is also a respectful way, and she knows the difference. She is not asking for me to be a jerk -- nothing would turn her off faster. She is asking to powerfully feel my being her husband.


She just wants an owner


A certain extent of mutual ownership is part of marriage, otherwise both spouses could freely flirt with other people without there being any due cause for jealousy. But there IS due cause for jealousy in one spouse when the other spouse flirts with someone else, because the two spouses belong to each other. I own her body; she owns mine. That's in the New Testament. Marriage vows do have meaning.

If you disagree, how do you define marriage?

no, there should not be ownership in marriage. i think jealousy is largely cultural. unsurprisingly, i had an open marriage. we were 2 free individuals who chose to be together. we did not own each other.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

05 Apr 2012, 12:51 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Primarily, I'm saying that, in a marriage, it usually works best for someone to lead. Marriages include two people into one marriage. The two people are -- being two -- independent individuals. But when they decide to be in one marriage, that marriage isn't two independent halves. When I drive my wife across the state to see her parents, only one of us drives at any given time. I don't ask my mechanic to install a steering wheel on the passenger side, even though that would serve marital equality better than just having one. The reason is obviously that the car drives better with one person driving it than with two. A marriage is the same way. My wife understands -- and is happy to tell others -- that our marriage works best when I lead and she follows. What I'm saying is that I don't consider that leader/follower relationship of ours to be an anomaly in that it works, but rather quite the contrary.

i didn't lead my husband, and he didn't lead me either. we were a team.


Am I to take that to mean that it would perplex you to know that my wife and I are quite a team too?
Leader, follower, and an amazing team. Is that just crazy to you?


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

05 Apr 2012, 12:57 pm

Ragtime wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Primarily, I'm saying that, in a marriage, it usually works best for someone to lead. Marriages include two people into one marriage. The two people are -- being two -- independent individuals. But when they decide to be in one marriage, that marriage isn't two independent halves. When I drive my wife across the state to see her parents, only one of us drives at any given time. I don't ask my mechanic to install a steering wheel on the passenger side, even though that would serve marital equality better than just having one. The reason is obviously that the car drives better with one person driving it than with two. A marriage is the same way. My wife understands -- and is happy to tell others -- that our marriage works best when I lead and she follows. What I'm saying is that I don't consider that leader/follower relationship of ours to be an anomaly in that it works, but rather quite the contrary.

i didn't lead my husband, and he didn't lead me either. we were a team.


Am I to take that to mean that it would perplex you to know that my wife and I are quite a team too?
Leader, follower, and an amazing team. Is that just crazy to you?

that's not a team of equals


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105