• 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!

Do you see men as your property?

Do you see men as your property?

  • Yes, when we are married.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I do not know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    35

Glücksritter

Active member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
366
Reaction score
46
Location
Berlin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Do you think the man you are married with or who you date/live with is your property?
 
Yes, he serves me at my every desire ;)
 
Gluck you should be put in irons for this.:2wave: Chain him up.
 
Other man may be property. I am not, and never will be.

I have obligations to my (future) wife, but they are non-transferable and I am not owned by her.
 
Men are more work than dogs. I already own a dog and three cats (though there is some dispute over the ownership of the cats, I say I own them, and they think they own me).

There is no way in hell I want to take on owning a man.

Also, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? :mrgreen:
 
Men are more work than dogs. I already own a dog and three cats (though there is some dispute over the ownership of the cats, I say I own them, and they think they own me).

There is no way in hell I want to take on owning a man.

Also, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? :mrgreen:

And yet men are lining up to be owned by you.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwzaifhSw2c]YouTube - velvet underground - venus in furs[/ame]
 

Attachments

  • 51Kjk55Y59L._SL500_AA240_.jpg
    51Kjk55Y59L._SL500_AA240_.jpg
    17.3 KB · Views: 224
  • 51rHLFfXRGL._SS400_.jpg
    51rHLFfXRGL._SS400_.jpg
    30.3 KB · Views: 232
  • 51X1-vfBCPL._SS500_.jpg
    51X1-vfBCPL._SS500_.jpg
    46.2 KB · Views: 210
No. The spirit is free / or should be free! in all of us - and not meant to be constrained or tampered with by claims of property crap bull**** by anyone. That's my take on it, and I would never associate with anyone that looked at another human being as "property". That's disgusting.

My take on it is to hold on to others "lightly" - thereby giving others the freedom to be themselves. Being responsible and accountable to / and for our own selves is immensely important. But wanting to take the reigns / or control / own another person, to my mind is "sinister". That's how I look at it.

All people need to be autonomous. It's all very well telling one's partner that they have no autonomy, like I heard on another thread, but how damn inconsiderate and mean that is! Suppose the "owner" of the other persons autonomy dies... well, what a rude shock that'll be to the one who gave up their autonomy to the other! They'd have to learn autonomy quick-smart in that case - and that on top of having just lost their partner!

In partnership, it's very important that both people are autonomous, capable, and in control of themselves. It is part of love... to know / and to want that the other will be okay / would be able to manage in the event that they lose us.

The spirit is free. The true and unfettered spirit refuses property crap intervention from anyone. We are masters of our own souls, or even, our souls are masters of us... but another person claiming that we are their property... is absolute mindless bull**** lunacy.

At the first sign of a strong possessiveness, jealousy, controlling behaviour of any kind, I'd be gone in a flash. An absolute turn-off, and a sign that the person's not in good psychological health.
 
All this talk of spousal ownership has gotten me thinking about a western "tradition" that is slightly related, and could be used to make an argument of ownership.

Engagement rings.


Why the **** does a man have to get on his knees and beg and BRIBE his prospective bride into becoming his wife?

Women don't have to humiliate themselves and prostrate themselves before their prospective grooms. Women need not bribe the man in order for the agreement to be reached.

Doesn't this bribe instill the image that a women must be "bought" or "bartered" for?

Why the hell doesn't the woman need to get on her knees and hold up a big screen TV and then beg for the MAN'S hand in marriage?!?!?!?

(I say big screen TV because a ring ain't gonna do it for a man. He'll need something more useful and practical than the finger shackle.)
 
Why the hell doesn't the woman need to get on her knees and hold up a big screen TV and then beg for the MAN'S hand in marriage?!?!?!?
Because he'd reach for the remote, turn it to ESPN, and then say to the woman "huh?"
 
Why the hell doesn't the woman need to get on her knees and hold up a big screen TV and then beg for the MAN'S hand in marriage?!?!?!?

(I say big screen TV because a ring ain't gonna do it for a man. He'll need something more useful and practical than the finger shackle.)

If she is holding up the TV how is she going to get a beer out of the frdge?:cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom