• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PUBLIC POLL: Do you view women as property?

PUBIC POLL: Do you view women as property?


  • Total voters
    40
I would say that one of the problems with women today is that they don't know how to let their man own them. Women don't know what that means because feminism has replaced "protect and provide for" with "command and abuse".

On balance, however, men have forgotten how to own women, treating them like objects than valuable family members.

But Jerry, there is a huge difference in "taking ownership of your relationship" and "owning your woman." Living up to your relational responsibilities is not "owning" your woman. People own animals and abuse them, people own property and don't care of it.

I know what you are trying to say, and I applaud you for your position, however I disagree with the words you are using to articulate your point.
 
Do you believe that your relationship with her gives you authority over her?

IN all fairness, I think that marriage implies a certain degree of ownership by both parties over the RELATIONSHIP. One of the things that broke my marriage irreparably, other than the cheating, was the idea my ex-husband had that he wasn't obligated to get consensus before moving ahead. So, if he wanted to buy a $17,000 car, he could do so without getting my input and consent.

He wanted to be married while living like a single guy.

When you marry, there is a certain degree of autonomy that is lost. That doesn't mean that you are each other's possessions, but that your lives and fortunes are linked, and you can't make big decisions without each other.

That's actually one of the reasons that, while I adore my boyfriend, I'm in no hurry to get married. I'm not eager to relinquish that measure of control over my own life.
 
Do you believe that your relationship with her gives you authority over her?

Again, not in a legal sense, no.

However, we both together chose to renew our vows under Judeo-Christian 'law', so on a sociological/religious level, that does give me authority over her so long as I'm just.

Now don't get me wrong here, I've made my share of mistakes and share in the guilt for what's going wrong in my marriage today, but typically the husband/father is the head of the household.

As a side note, a single woman or a widow has equal authority in the eyes of the church as any man so long as her head is "covered" with the authority of Christ. This is the exact same concept as having credentials to make a claim or in making an argument under another credible authority's study/research.
 
Last edited:
IN all fairness, I think that marriage implies a certain degree of ownership by both parties over the RELATIONSHIP. One of the things that broke my marriage irreparably, other than the cheating, was the idea my ex-husband had that he wasn't obligated to get consensus before moving ahead. So, if he wanted to buy a $17,000 car, he could do so without getting my input and consent.

He wanted to be married while living like a single guy.

When you marry, there is a certain degree of autonomy that is lost. That doesn't mean that you are each other's possessions, but that your lives and fortunes are linked, and you can't make big decisions without each other.

That's actually one of the reasons that, while I adore my boyfriend, I'm in no hurry to get married. I'm not eager to relinquish that measure of control over my own life.

Why are the rules different once you tie the knot? I don't think it has anything to do with being married or not. The people in the relationship agree to a set of rules and conditions to follow. Do these change upon marriage?
 
Why are the rules different once you tie the knot? I don't think it has anything to do with being married or not. The people in the relationship agree to a set of rules and conditions to follow. Do these change upon marriage?

Not necesssarily because of marriage, but the dynamics change over time. I will use my best friend as an example. He dated the same girl for a long time, and they lived with each other for years before they got married. Early on in the relationship, she was sort of timid and did whatever he wanted for the most part. Or at least, let him do whatever he wanted to. Then over time, she asserted herself more and balanced the relationship to where he had to compromise with her, and now it is in full reverse of how it started, as she completely dominates him and he has to basically ask permission to be able to do anything, and she sets the schedule for the household. I don't know if he is as timid as she was, but he seems to be unwilling to confront her anymore. There are plenty of times, where if my wife talked to me the way she talks to him, I would have left.
 
No, I do not view women as property.
That said, I'd love it if they were. :2razz:
 
Again, not in a legal sense, no.

However, we both together chose to renew our vows under Judeo-Christian 'law', so on a sociological/religious level, that does give me authority over her so long as I'm just.

Now don't get me wrong here, I've made my share of mistakes and share in the guilt for what's going wrong in my marriage today, but typically the husband/father is the head of the household.

As a side note, a single woman or a widow has equal authority in the eyes of the church as any man so long as her head is "covered" with the authority of Christ. This is the exact same concept as having credentials to make a claim or in making an argument under another credible authority's study/research.

Jerry, I appreciate your answer. You've provided a great deal of insight into where your opinion comes from. Your opinion varies greatly from what Celticlord has expressed. I see your position as being more a case of the man being the leader of the family and fulfilling his responsibilities...and that is admirable even outside the Judeo-Christian parameters you cited. I see nothing in your view that would make a woman your property or subservient to you. Rather it seems you view them as a valuable member of your family, which you would cherish and take care of. And I'm down with that.
 
Not necesssarily because of marriage, but the dynamics change over time. I will use my best friend as an example. He dated the same girl for a long time, and they lived with each other for years before they got married. Early on in the relationship, she was sort of timid and did whatever he wanted for the most part. Or at least, let him do whatever he wanted to. Then over time, she asserted herself more and balanced the relationship to where he had to compromise with her, and now it is in full reverse of how it started, as she completely dominates him and he has to basically ask permission to be able to do anything, and she sets the schedule for the household. I don't know if he is as timid as she was, but he seems to be unwilling to confront her anymore. There are plenty of times, where if my wife talked to me the way she talks to him, I would have left.

And you think that her becoming more assertive is due to their getting married? You don't mention how old they were when they first started. Could this be a case of a young inexperienced girl maturing into a confident woman?
 
IN all fairness, I think that marriage implies a certain degree of ownership by both parties over the RELATIONSHIP. One of the things that broke my marriage irreparably, other than the cheating, was the idea my ex-husband had that he wasn't obligated to get consensus before moving ahead. So, if he wanted to buy a $17,000 car, he could do so without getting my input and consent.

He wanted to be married while living like a single guy.

When you marry, there is a certain degree of autonomy that is lost. That doesn't mean that you are each other's possessions, but that your lives and fortunes are linked, and you can't make big decisions without each other.

That's actually one of the reasons that, while I adore my boyfriend, I'm in no hurry to get married. I'm not eager to relinquish that measure of control over my own life.

I agree, ownership over the relationship, not the person. And I know you see that the definition of ownership is quite different when applied to a relationship versus another person.
 
And you think that her becoming more assertive is due to their getting married? You don't mention how old they were when they first started. Could this be a case of a young inexperienced girl maturing into a confident woman?

I said that it was the dynamics over time that change in a relationship, not necessarily the pact of marriage. She was well into dominating him before they were married. So some of it was her maturing and coming into her own, coupled with his inability to take a stand for himself every once in a while. If he's fine with everything, that's his business. I've never told him to ever do anything about his relationship with her. And he's never complained to me about it. But its certainley not a relationship that I would stand to be in, from what I have seen of it myself.
 
Why are the rules different once you tie the knot? I don't think it has anything to do with being married or not. The people in the relationship agree to a set of rules and conditions to follow. Do these change upon marriage?

I think that it isn't so much an issue of marriage, but of sharing a household. And yes, sharing space changes things. If you have joint funds, that changes things even more.
 
I think that it isn't so much an issue of marriage, but of sharing a household. And yes, sharing space changes things. If you have joint funds, that changes things even more.

Heh. Point.

Not only am I most like never getting married again, I'm not planning on living with anyone again either. Been there, done that, no likey.
 
Heh. Point.

Not only am I most like never getting married again, I'm not planning on living with anyone again either. Been there, done that, no likey.

I may do it at some point, my boyfriend is great. But right now, I enjoy not having to share my bed, OR my closet.

I have to be honest, my biggest concern about marriage is the financial vulnerability. It scares me just to think about it. In Florida, my property would suddenly become HIS property, too. It's intimidating.
 
Last edited:
Husbands are to love their wives as Christ love the church, and laid his life down for it. A self-sacrificing love.

That is completely at odds with the idea of ownership or property as we think of it in this day/age.

Hell, it's completely at odds with the idea of "love" as we think of it in this day and age, as well. Our notion of "love" is entirely self-serving and transitory, as well; frankly it amazes me that anyone bothers with it anymore, with the degree to which we have debased it.

Relationships, especially relationships of family and marriage, are based on mutual obligations. Property cannot be the recipient of obligation-- and I would argue cannot give it, either-- and thus a man's wife cannot be his property.

Didn't vote in the poll, because my opinion is split. Some women-- like some men-- are property and can be treated and traded as such, but they're not fit to marry. And the very act of marrying them would mean that they are no longer property.

As far as infidelity goes... Fidelity, my sense of my moral obligations, is the core of my being. It is the largest portion of the reason I do not put a gun in my mouth and end my suffering right now. It is why I plan for the future, and work for the future, and endure conditions and treatment-- a whole existence, essentially-- that I find barely tolerable.

That said, I do not consider having sex with other people to constitute infidelity on either my part or my partner's. It is not a condition of my relationship-- or my upcoming marriage-- with Leslie, it is obviously not a condition of my relationship with anyone else, and it's been a few years since it has been a condition of any relationship of mine, and that has been largely by default. Fidelity is keeping a roof over our heads and food on our table, supporting each other through adversity, and never ever allowing anyone or anything else to come between us. Fidelity is about loyalty and support; sex matters only because it helps to uphold that.
 
Last edited:
I think that it isn't so much an issue of marriage, but of sharing a household. And yes, sharing space changes things. If you have joint funds, that changes things even more.

Its interesting you bring up the sharing of funds. My wife and I have always done the joint account thing, but there has always been one person bringing in the bread for both of us(except for a span of 2 years where we both worked in a profession). In the beginning, I supported my wife through college and now as I begin college, she will be the main bread winner. And to be perfectly honest, I feel as though I am some sort of failure not being able to provide for my family at age 30. I have no issue with my wife working, but I feel as though I am not living up to my end of the bargain by not providing much right now. It tugs at my brain everyday. I know that over time, I will again provide support for my family, in a monetary sense, but right now it feels like I am freeloading off my wife and I absolutely hate it.
 
I voted yes, but it's a personal lifestyle choice, not something I think of every woman in every situation. It's specific to me.
 
Perhaps we should go back to the good old days where when you found your soulmate you just clubbed her in the head and dragged her back to your cave!!!:mrgreen:
 
Do I view women in general as property? Of course not.

Would I view a woman as property if that's what she desired me to do, and I wished to have that kind of relationship with her? Abso****inglutely.

When I get my harem, they will be *mine* (and my BFs - dual ownership)
 
Jerry, I appreciate your answer. You've provided a great deal of insight into where your opinion comes from. Your opinion varies greatly from what Celticlord has expressed. I see your position as being more a case of the man being the leader of the family and fulfilling his responsibilities...and that is admirable even outside the Judeo-Christian parameters you cited. I see nothing in your view that would make a woman your property or subservient to you. Rather it seems you view them as a valuable member of your family, which you would cherish and take care of. And I'm down with that.

No, his opinion varies very little from celticlord's. Jerry feels he has authority over his wife. He is to be in control of her, and she is to allow that.

Where the **** is the difference?

You don't think people in power exchange relationships cherish one another and value them as a part of the relationship?

When I get my harem, I'll cherish each and every one of them. They will all be valuable members of my family, and I will take care of them as long as they allow and I wish to.
 
No, his opinion varies very little from celticlord's. Jerry feels he has authority over his wife. He is to be in control of her, and she is to allow that.

Where the **** is the difference?
The difference is in Celticlords view of women and Jerry's. CL's post was quite, quite different. Maybe go read it then come back here.

You don't think people in power exchange relationships cherish one another and value them as a part of the relationship?
Did I say that?
When I get my harem, I'll cherish each and every one of them. They will all be valuable members of my family, and I will take care of them as long as they allow and I wish to.
What does this have to do with what Celticlord said?
 
The difference is in Celticlords view of women and Jerry's. CL's post was quite, quite different. Maybe go read it then come back here.
I read all of his posts. I don't see the difference.

Did I say that?
You implied it by stating:
Rather it seems you view them as a valuable member of your family, which you would cherish and take care of

What does this have to do with what Celticlord said?
Why does everything have to do with him? I was talking about myself and my desire to possess a harem of women.
 
I read all of his posts. I don't see the difference.
So when Celticlord says his woman is his property and she is required to kneel before him, and that he believes in administering corporal punishment upon her when she deserves it, that is the same as what Jerry said?

Okay, RR.

Why does everything have to do with him? I was talking about myself and my desire to possess a harem of women.
Because that is what was being discussed at the time between you and I. Regardless, you are obviously going to reach to defend them and I respect your opinion on the matter, even though I disagree with it.
 
Its interesting you bring up the sharing of funds. My wife and I have always done the joint account thing, but there has always been one person bringing in the bread for both of us(except for a span of 2 years where we both worked in a profession). In the beginning, I supported my wife through college and now as I begin college, she will be the main bread winner. And to be perfectly honest, I feel as though I am some sort of failure not being able to provide for my family at age 30. I have no issue with my wife working, but I feel as though I am not living up to my end of the bargain by not providing much right now. It tugs at my brain everyday. I know that over time, I will again provide support for my family, in a monetary sense, but right now it feels like I am freeloading off my wife and I absolutely hate it.

Believe it or not, it's not a "man" thing. I'd feel the same way, and I'm a woman. I would have a very difficult time not working and feeling like I was earning money. I enjoy the measure of control and autonomy that earning my own way provides within the context of a relationship. I would "get" that we were taking care of each other, but I'd have a hard time allowing it to happen. It's so wired into me to take care of myself.
 
We're a long way from the cavemen days. ;)

Also, explain this one to me then: What about the guys who expected me to be faithful, but thought it was no big deal if THEY cheated on ME?

Pretty common for a guy to want to have a harem and not share it... Horses, lions, and hippos are like that too. I think evolution explains it pretty well. It doesn't make sense to want to take care of another guy's babies, but it would make sense to want other guys to take care of his to maximize the spread of his genes.

I just don't understand why fidelity matters so much to people and why it has to be a "make or break" kinda deal.

Some people want exclusivity to minimize the risk of STDs, especially if they prefer sex without condoms. They also probably don't want to have to care for somebody else's kid if sombody gets you pregnant.

On a less rational level, people are enamored with this idea of two people being soulmates and not needing anybody else in that way. It makes people feel inadequate if you require others for sexual gratification.

Personally I’d like to have a multiperson relationship. I have seen it work before, but I haven’t had one. Though I would have to be the only male as I’m not bisexual. I am serious about my current partner, though, and I’m not willing to give her up in order to have a multiperson relationship, and she’s not bi, but she’s great in every other way. (:)
 
I am serious about my current partner, though, and I’m not willing to give her up in order to have a multiperson relationship, and she’s not bi, but she’s great in every other way. (:)

I think most people feel this way about it. fidelity is important to me, but the idea of a 3-some is a turn-on. In discussing it with my boyfriend, though, we've both come to the conclusion that there is a risk of changing the dynamics of our relationship, and we're not willing to do that. We value each other more than a fleeting fantasy.
 
Back
Top Bottom