FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Owning another person

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

A woman wears a ring to designate that she's taken... she belongs to a man... she's his property.

In a song I was just listening to the woman sings that she didn't realise the man she was sleeping with was someone else's man... that he belonged to her.

Anyone else think this issue of ownership is problematic? Where do you think it comes from? Should we be looking to get rid of it? What would you say is a healthier outlook? I thought it might make an interesting discussion on here

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ensuallover1000Man
over a year ago

Somewhere In The Ether…

I don’t care much for the notion of ‘Ownership’, rather I view a ring as an agreement or else a pledge as it were.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No I don't think we should get rid of it. Just because swingers fuck around doesn't mean everyone wants to. Nothing wrong with monogamy for those that want it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"No I don't think we should get rid of it. Just because swingers fuck around doesn't mean everyone wants to. Nothing wrong with monogamy for those that want it. "

Nothing wrong with monogamy. But don't you think the notion of *owning* your partner is a bit medieval? Isn't a better view of monogamy these days an equal partnership which works because both people are invested in making it work?

I mean... when I get my ring around some gorgeous woman... and I "own" her. That suggests I no longer need to be nice to her, nor keep myself trim. I can become a cantankerous old fart and let myself go to pot and I'll be fine.. Why? Because I own my partner. Surely that kind of thinking is deeply wrong?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *litterbabeWoman
over a year ago

hiding from cock pics.

[Removed by poster at 04/05/18 16:33:09]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *litterbabeWoman
over a year ago

hiding from cock pics.

I don't see it as owning her at all....does she own him too?

I see it as an expression of their bond.

A collar, to me, can be expression of ownership.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"No I don't think we should get rid of it. Just because swingers fuck around doesn't mean everyone wants to. Nothing wrong with monogamy for those that want it.

Nothing wrong with monogamy. But don't you think the notion of *owning* your partner is a bit medieval? Isn't a better view of monogamy these days an equal partnership which works because both people are invested in making it work?

I mean... when I get my ring around some gorgeous woman... and I "own" her. That suggests I no longer need to be nice to her, nor keep myself trim. I can become a cantankerous old fart and let myself go to pot and I'll be fine.. Why? Because I own my partner. Surely that kind of thinking is deeply wrong? "

Why dies it mean you no longer need to be nice to her and you can let yourself go?!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *litterbabeWoman
over a year ago

hiding from cock pics.

iIf I do own something living, for example my cat, to me that means I take responsibility to look after her, nurture and tend to her.

It wouldn't mean that I can mistreat just because she's mine.

It doesn't mean I can let myself go to pot in anyway, I don't really follow your train of thought.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

I don't think the bad attitude comes with the concept of belonging - that to me is more about commitment, security, dependability - a warm feeling of safety.

There is the kink side as well of course, not talking about that, all bets are off there!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Why dies it mean you no longer need to be nice to her and you can let yourself go?! "

That's not my view. But it's something you see over and over again in those who believe they're relationship with their partner is a done deal... that they'll never leave no matter what. Whether that's because they think they own them or any other reason. They don't think they have to work on it anymore and they let themselves go to pot.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"No I don't think we should get rid of it. Just because swingers fuck around doesn't mean everyone wants to. Nothing wrong with monogamy for those that want it.

Nothing wrong with monogamy. But don't you think the notion of *owning* your partner is a bit medieval? Isn't a better view of monogamy these days an equal partnership which works because both people are invested in making it work?

I mean... when I get my ring around some gorgeous woman... and I "own" her. That suggests I no longer need to be nice to her, nor keep myself trim. I can become a cantankerous old fart and let myself go to pot and I'll be fine.. Why? Because I own my partner. Surely that kind of thinking is deeply wrong? "

Pretty sure that kind of thinking stopped about 80 years ago for the majority of the western world.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Belonging and owning aren't the same thing.

Belonging is equal. You give yourself to each other, you trust that person to look after your heart as you do theirs. You are still in full control of your own life and actions. It's a feeling of safety.

Owning someone means you take over control.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I dont see that giving someone a ring denotes ownership in any way..

I do see that your views on it are somewhat outdated OP

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I didn't wear my ring as a statement of being owned. It signifies marriage for me, and let's people know I'm married not that my husband owned me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Even the definition of monogamy is flexible. My wife and I consider ourselves in a monogamous relationship where we have other people in our sex lives from time to time.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Pretty sure that kind of thinking stopped about 80 years ago for the majority of the western world."

I think it's still very evident in abusive relationships. Unfortunately all the cultural artefacts of ownership, such as I started the thread pointing to, bolster a sense of ownership which these types of people buy into. My own aunt was locked in her house by her husband whenever he left

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs


"Belonging and owning aren't the same thing.

Belonging is equal. You give yourself to each other, you trust that person to look after your heart as you do theirs. You are still in full control of your own life and actions. It's a feeling of safety.

Owning someone means you take over control. "

But I think that's a false assumption - belonging is just a word with different associations, that's why I chose it.

My animals belong to me and are certainly not in a equal partnership - and yet a feeling of trust, safety and security is what I try to foster in them.

I think in human relationships any time both give no-one can take.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Pretty sure that kind of thinking stopped about 80 years ago for the majority of the western world.

I think it's still very evident in abusive relationships. Unfortunately all the cultural artefacts of ownership, such as I started the thread pointing to, bolster a sense of ownership which these types of people buy into. My own aunt was locked in her house by her husband whenever he left "

That is some form of apparently abusive relationship which could actually be illegal if she didn't want to be locked in.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No, i quite like the idea of being romantically owned. Belonging to a man and him belonging to me. Forsaking all others.

Not in a submissive sense, just romantically and in the bedroom, because i REALLY dislike being told what to do on a day to day basis.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I dont see that giving someone a ring denotes ownership in any way..

I do see that your views on it are somewhat outdated OP"

Err did you read the op? You lot do recognise that I'm challenging the notion of ownership... not supporting it. I've been super clear about that

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Err did you read the op? You lot do recognise that I'm challenging the notion of ownership... not supporting it. I've been super clear about that "

Well as there is nothing said or implied about ownership in a wedding, you are only challenging the concept of symbolic jewelery really.

Anyone who considers a partner as an owned object is clearly wrong both morally and legally.

Children are currently property in law, but with legally enforced freedoms to be well treated.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Err did you read the op? You lot do recognise that I'm challenging the notion of ownership... not supporting it. I've been super clear about that

Well as there is nothing said or implied about ownership in a wedding, you are only challenging the concept of symbolic jewelery really.

Anyone who considers a partner as an owned object is clearly wrong both morally and legally.

Children are currently property in law, but with legally enforced freedoms to be well treated."

To try and be perfectly clear. There was once a time when wives were the legal property of men. Indeed they still are in some cultures. In our own culture things have clearly changed, thank goodness. And yet we still have lots of cultural artefacts which point to that outdated point of view. The wedding ring is a remnant of it. The cultural references to someone being someone else's man or woman. These cultural artefacts still permeate our culture, giving ammunition to those who still have a warped and perhaps abusive view of what a relationship is. Does that make it any clearer?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *litterbabeWoman
over a year ago

hiding from cock pics.


"Pretty sure that kind of thinking stopped about 80 years ago for the majority of the western world.

I think it's still very evident in abusive relationships. Unfortunately all the cultural artefacts of ownership, such as I started the thread pointing to, bolster a sense of ownership which these types of people buy into. My own aunt was locked in her house by her husband whenever he left "

An abusive relationship , but people don't have to be married for things of that nature to occur .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *litterbabeWoman
over a year ago

hiding from cock pics.


"Pretty sure that kind of thinking stopped about 80 years ago for the majority of the western world.

I think it's still very evident in abusive relationships. Unfortunately all the cultural artefacts of ownership, such as I started the thread pointing to, bolster a sense of ownership which these types of people buy into. My own aunt was locked in her house by her husband whenever he left "

An abusive relationship , but people don't have to be married for things of that nature to occur .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I do see what you are getting at OP. But the concept of 'owned' in western civilisation is no longer true, nor has it been for a generation.

Traditions even some adopted into the standardised western Christian style wedding are nice to hold on to. And in no way an excuse for caveman or woman behaviour.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I do see what you are getting at OP. But the concept of 'owned' in western civilisation is no longer true, nor has it been for a generation.

Traditions even some adopted into the standardised western Christian style wedding are nice to hold on to. And in no way an excuse for caveman or woman behaviour."

Thanks for getting what I'm trying to say I know what you're saying. Myself and pretty much everyone I know have much more enlightened views on what it means to be in a monogamous relationship... as indeed does everyone who has posted on this thread.

But are we in the majority? Isn't there still a strong undercurrent of people who feel they have some kind of ownership over their partner? I suspect it's still quite depressingly prevalent in some sections of society. I wonder also if it's something that many couples struggle with subconsciously. My ex certainly seemed to think I was some kind of punch bag who'd *always* come back for more no matter what.

Isn't a better model of a relationship that it's always vulnerable and needs tender love and care?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs


"

Isn't a better model of a relationship that it's always vulnerable and needs tender love and care? "

God not vulnerability - tender love and care, for sure.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why dies it mean you no longer need to be nice to her and you can let yourself go?!

That's not my view. But it's something you see over and over again in those who believe they're relationship with their partner is a done deal... that they'll never leave no matter what. Whether that's because they think they own them or any other reason. They don't think they have to work on it anymore and they let themselves go to pot."

Fair point, a lot do seem to think that. Once married they don't try anymore. I think that's an issue with the people though and not the act of marriage or the ring.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Why dies it mean you no longer need to be nice to her and you can let yourself go?!

That's not my view. But it's something you see over and over again in those who believe they're relationship with their partner is a done deal... that they'll never leave no matter what. Whether that's because they think they own them or any other reason. They don't think they have to work on it anymore and they let themselves go to pot.

Fair point, a lot do seem to think that. Once married they don't try anymore. I think that's an issue with the people though and not the act of marriage or the ring. "

Don't you think if marriage was more of a rental type of agreement i.e I hereby take you to be my husband/wife for the next 10 years and then after that we'll review whether we want to continue that

Don't you think the addition of that vulnerability would make it clearer that marriage is a work in progress? As well as giving people everywhere the legitimacy to simply not renew it after 10 years if it's no longer working for them. In comparison divorce is still quite a stigma

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why dies it mean you no longer need to be nice to her and you can let yourself go?!

That's not my view. But it's something you see over and over again in those who believe they're relationship with their partner is a done deal... that they'll never leave no matter what. Whether that's because they think they own them or any other reason. They don't think they have to work on it anymore and they let themselves go to pot.

Fair point, a lot do seem to think that. Once married they don't try anymore. I think that's an issue with the people though and not the act of marriage or the ring.

Don't you think if marriage was more of a rental type of agreement i.e I hereby take you to be my husband/wife for the next 10 years and then after that we'll review whether we want to continue that

Don't you think the addition of that vulnerability would make it clearer that marriage is a work in progress? As well as giving people everywhere the legitimacy to simply not renew it after 10 years if it's no longer working for them. In comparison divorce is still quite a stigma "

I really like that idea! Should be 5 years renewal though.

Is divorce still a stigma?

I think marriage just isn't taken seriously with many people. Relationships don't last more than a few years. Some exceptions but not many.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs


"Why dies it mean you no longer need to be nice to her and you can let yourself go?!

That's not my view. But it's something you see over and over again in those who believe they're relationship with their partner is a done deal... that they'll never leave no matter what. Whether that's because they think they own them or any other reason. They don't think they have to work on it anymore and they let themselves go to pot.

Fair point, a lot do seem to think that. Once married they don't try anymore. I think that's an issue with the people though and not the act of marriage or the ring.

Don't you think if marriage was more of a rental type of agreement i.e I hereby take you to be my husband/wife for the next 10 years and then after that we'll review whether we want to continue that

Don't you think the addition of that vulnerability would make it clearer that marriage is a work in progress?

"

No, I think it simply removes the whole premise on which successful marriage is based - commitment!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"A woman wears a ring to designate that she's taken... she belongs to a man... she's his property.

In a song I was just listening to the woman sings that she didn't realise the man she was sleeping with was someone else's man... that he belonged to her.

Anyone else think this issue of ownership is problematic? Where do you think it comes from? Should we be looking to get rid of it? What would you say is a healthier outlook? I thought it might make an interesting discussion on here "

PROPERTY???? it's not the 1800's FFS!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top