Are marriage and romantic love un-communist?

[Kilgore Trout]

And what if I'm lonely? And I think your wife is hot?
And I have warm feelings for her?

If I do not have a woman of my own,
What right do you have, not to share her love with me?

If I'm without love? What right do you have to keep her love all for yourself?

None whatsoever. In fact, I should probably give you her phone number, just in case.

 

[T-Dawg]

Arrogance is what kills you. Obama IS NOT the arrogant you expected him to be. He respects others and wants America to be respected as he respects others. It is a common sense that many Americans don't understand.

Why did you necro this thread, and what the heck does that have to do with the thread's topic??? O_O

What makes you think that would be up to you?

It seems to be the male's decision that a woman can't cheat on him without social reprecussions. Why shouldn't the male be allowed to let the woman loose if he wants?

I didn't know there were any of those left. I have to put up with a bunch of FakeNews-watching, Glenn Beck-parroting, Sean Hannity-loving, Sarah Palin-worshiping nutbags.

Those are called "conservative republicans" nowadays.

If I do not have a woman of my own,
What right do you have, not to share her love with me?

The purpose of the thread was to ask if I did have that right. If I don't, it's my wife's decision as to whether or not she will sleep with you. Of course, I don't have a wife .

EDIT: Wait a minute... the OP specified sharing the woman for the purpose of passing on one's genes, not sexual pleasure... meh, I guess it makes sense to apply the concept to sexual pleasure, too...

 

[Kathryn]

Oh my...

I call my husband "my husband" because he's just that. No other woman on earth has the right to his love, his trust, his body, and mind like I do, but not because I OWN him - it's because he and I agreed to that BEFORE we got married. We both wanted a monogamous, heterosexual relationship that we defined as marriage - that was recognized by both of us, the state, and the church as such.

If we had married with different expectations - for instance, an open marriage, we wouldn't have the right to insist on monogamy. But that's not the case with us.

Marriage isn't ownership - it's an agreement between two people. Marriage by it's very nature establishes expected parameters, and those may differ from one couple to another, or one state or nation to another - but it's a defined state with defined expectations, rights, privileges and restrictions.

In my marriage - my husband and I expect each other to be 100 percent faithful, emotionally, mentally and sexually. We're quite content to do so - in fact, we're protective of the sanctity of our arrangement. It has nothing to do with ownership and everything to do with trust and respect.

 

[KatNotKathy]

Well you could argue that thanks to current social power structures and male privilege, inequality is generally taken for granted, but marriage isn't necessarily contrary to commie ideals. It can be and often is, but that doesn't mean an equal marriage is impossible.

 

[zenzero]

Friend TAL,

There is a *ashram* or monastery in India as friend Venugopal has visited and related that there everyone lives naked and if any man wants to sleep with another women he has to get the women's permission and vice versa and both a common to everyone and children and of the commune looked after by everyone.

Love & rgds

 

[Storm]

I've been thinking about love and marriage (when have I NOT been thinking of love and marriage? XD), and something occured to me: Isn't marriage sort of like having private property? Isn't marriage and dating all about taking one woman and keeping her for only yourself, as if you "owned" her?

And then I thought: If I somehow managed to obtain a woman, and I saw that a comrade had no woman of his own, and my woman was ok with reproducing with him, would it be morally right to deny him the right to pass on his genes simply because the woman is "my" woman?

Marriage is not ownership, it's mutual commitment. The objectification in this post is truly disturbing. This is the 21st century, not the 2nd. Women are not chattel anymore.

Basically, it's not your call. Either you're monogamous, which is as much your wife's decision as yours, or you're poly, in which case it's entirely her decision. Either way, you don't get to lend her out to buddies.

What do you think? Can one be a communist yet still be ok with traditional marriage (or any marriage, for that matter)?

Yes.

 

[MissAlice]

I guess you could call owning someone communism...

Other than that I don't think there's any political infiliation unless you happen to be a couple of secret agents in disguise or you've conquered and enslaved the women of the amazon...

 

[T-Dawg]

I guess you could call owning someone communism...

How the heck is owning someone communism? It's practically the exact opposite of communism.

 

[T-Dawg]

Marriage is not ownership, it's mutual commitment. The objectification in this post is truly disturbing. This is the 21st century, not the 2nd. Women are not chattel anymore.

Basically, it's not your call. Either you're monogamous, which is as much your wife's decision as yours, or you're poly, in which case it's entirely her decision. Either way, you don't get to lend her out to buddies.

You and the other femnists in this thread are being confusing. Where have I said that it would not also be her decision? I specifically stated:

If I somehow managed to obtain a woman, and I saw that a comrade had no woman of his own, and my woman was ok with reproducing with him, would it be morally right to deny him the right to pass on his genes simply because the woman is "my" woman?

Marriage (monogamous marriage, anyway), by definition, is when a man agrees to provide for a woman financially while the woman bears offspring for him, continuing his family line. As part of the commitment, both partners agree not to be involved sexually with anyone else.
What I'm asking is if this system is immoral from the viewpoint of a communist, because the male and female seem to be unequal, and because they hold eachother's sexual lives like they would property.


I don't get why you people are attacking me for stating what marriage is. You, the Normal People, are the ones who invented it in the first place, yet you act like I'm insulting you when I try to understand how your system works.

 

[Valjean]

I've been thinking about love and marriage (when have I NOT been thinking of love and marriage? XD), and something occured to me: Isn't marriage sort of like having private property? Isn't marriage and dating all about taking one woman and keeping her for only yourself, as if you "owned" her?

Or is it about a woman 'taking' a man and using him to generate income?
A wife as servant or chattel might have been the case in the past, Loser, and might still be the case in some "backward" societies, but the notion no longer works in most developed socities, though, as you've noticed, there exists enough historic memory of it to rub people the wrong way.

And then I thought: If I somehow managed to obtain a woman, and I saw that a comrade had no woman of his own, and my woman was ok with reproducing with him, would it be morally right to deny him the right to pass on his genes simply because the woman is "my" woman?

Again, you're missing some linguistic subtlties here, my friend -- "obtain a woman," "woman of his own," -- best think of marriage as a mutual assistance agreement rather than a service contract.
Try reversing the sexes in your threads before you put finger to key and see if it still rings true.

What do you think? Can one be a communist yet still be ok with traditional marriage (or any marriage, for that matter)?[/quote]
What does public ownership of the means of production have to do with marriage arrangements?
Yes, you can be a commie and have any sort of marriage you and another person(s) agree to.

 

[T-Dawg]

Or is it about a woman 'taking' a man and using him to generate income?

No, men usually insist on dominance in a relationship. The only times when women are treated as the dominant partner is when they take the position by force, or when the man wants it that way.

A wife as servant or chattel might have been the case in the past, Loser, and might still be the case in some "backward" societies, but the notion no longer works in most developed socities, though, as you've noticed, there exists enough historic memory of it to rub people the wrong way.

If marriage is no longer that way, why does society insist that the male pay for the dates, why do women dress the way they are told to dress, and why is it that the man is considered the "head of the household"? They just don't call it servitude anymore, so as to avoid making people angry. I don't get how people aren't seeing that our current system is still treating the woman like property.

Again, you're missing some linguistic subtlties here, my friend -- "obtain a woman," "woman of his own," -- best think of marriage as a mutual assistance agreement rather than a service contract.

Those are the phrases used, though. Have you not heard a man call his wife "his woman," or a woman refer to a boyfriend as "her man," or a man "catching" a wife, or "taking her in to be his own" or "be mine"? And the use of jewelry (usually a ring) as a territory marker? Marriage is about two (or more; usually two, though) partners trying to control one another. Why do men treat their girlfriends like property if it's really a mutual commitment? Is it some kind of role playing I'm not aware of?

What does public ownership of the means of production have to do with marriage arrangements?

I was thinking that marriage could be regarded as a form of private property. People don't like to think of themselves as property, but that's what traditional marriage treats them like.

 

[DallasApple]

And then I thought: If I somehow managed to obtain a woman, and I saw that a comrade had no woman of his own, and my woman was ok with reproducing with him, would it be morally right to deny him the right to pass on his genes simply because the woman is "my" woman?

First of all it wouldnt be up to you.If a woman wants to reproduce with someone besides you well then you are SOL.

If you dont approve you can leave and bag your self another woman .

I think its a matter of the heart rather than a matter of "morals".

You both have to agree on your hearts wishes.

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

If marriage is no longer that way, why does society insist that the male pay for the dates, why do women dress the way they are told to dress, and why is it that the man is considered the "head of the household"? They just don't call it servitude anymore, so as to avoid making people angry. I don't get how people aren't seeing that our current system is still treating the woman like property.

Our society does not "insist" that "males pay for dates.Women dress the way they want as far as Im concerned not how they are "told" to.Same as a man.As far as 'head of the household"..as far as Im concerned its two heads and we all know that.

Even in traditional roles it takes a "head" for each of them.Its not one brain dead and one head(the male).

Love

Dallas

 

[T-Dawg]

Even in traditional roles it takes a "head" for each of them.Its not one brain dead and one head(the male).

"Head" as in "leader," not "brain." Women are almost always smarter than men, but men are more aggressive and power-hungry.

 

[KatNotKathy]

Our society does not "insist" that "males pay for dates.Women dress the way they want as far as Im concerned not how they are "told" to.Same as a man.As far as 'head of the household"..as far as Im concerned its two heads and we all know that.

Even in traditional roles it takes a "head" for each of them.Its not one brain dead and one head(the male).

Love

Dallas

Depends on where you are. I'm certain that in some places the patriarchy is manifested more strongly than in others, but in many places that most certainly is still unfortunately the norm.

 

[Kathryn]

No, men usually insist on dominance in a relationship. The only times when women are treated as the dominant partner is when they take the position by force, or when the man wants it that way.If marriage is no longer that way, why does society insist that the male pay for the dates, why do women dress the way they are told to dress, and why is it that the man is considered the "head of the household"? They just don't call it servitude anymore, so as to avoid making people angry. I don't get how people aren't seeing that our current system is still treating the woman like property.Those are the phrases used, though. Have you not heard a man call his wife "his woman," or a woman refer to a boyfriend as "her man," or a man "catching" a wife, or "taking her in to be his own" or "be mine"? And the use of jewelry (usually a ring) as a territory marker? Marriage is about two (or more; usually two, though) partners trying to control one another. Why do men treat their girlfriends like property if it's really a mutual commitment? Is it some kind of role playing I'm not aware of? I was thinking that marriage could be regarded as a form of private property. People don't like to think of themselves as property, but that's what traditional marriage treats them like.

Wow, I don't even know where to start!

If marriage is no longer that way, why does society insist that the male pay for the dates, why do women dress the way they are told to dress, and why is it that the man is considered the "head of the household"?

Society doesn't insist that the male pay for the dates. In fact, most men I know really appreciate it when the woman picks up the tab fairly. It may take a few dates to work that out because maybe the two don't feel comfortable talking about income till then. But I think it's crass for a woman in a new relationship just to assume that the man is going to pay for everything.

My husband and I have an arrangement - which we've had from the get go (and he's a very masculine, "traditional" tough manly man). It all boils down to economics. He makes about three times as much money as I make. So we have divided the bills into four quarters - and he pays three fourths of them. We do equal amounts of housework - but I do the things I am best at and he does the things he's best at. I usually cook (but sometimes we cook together) and he usually cleans the floors (he likes that). I usually do most of the laundry but he doesn't hesitate to jump up from his recliner in the evening and clean the kitchen up while I'm dozing on the sofa. We save for things separately - I'm expected to save significantly toward Christmas and vacations. It works out fine for us. No one is concerned about being DOMINANT and CONTROLLING the other.

I cannot IMAGINE my husband telling me what to wear! Sheeze! I don't think the thought ever crossed his mind.

He does tell me if he really likes something I wear - and then of course if I know that, I like to make a point of wearing it to please him. But it's not because he mandated it or expects it - it's because I like feeling attractive around him.

As for the "head of the household" thing - I can't even relate to that. As a strong, self sufficient woman who was a single mom for several years - I feel quite comfortable in the role of "head of household."

That being said, I do think someone has to be ultimately in charge of different areas. I am in charge of decorating, and my husband is in charge of where we go to church. But that's because we have determined which things we are each best at - and which things are more important to the other. In other words - no one gets to be in charge of something just because they WANT to be - we've divvied up areas based on talent, interest, and personal importance.

The ring? I want a big one. A big, beautiful, flashy diamond. LET IT MARK ME! And he better wear his beautiful band I bought him as well (which he does, gladly). We want to be sure that other people know, "This one's taken!" We are both proud to "belong to each other." It has less to do with OWNERSHIP and more to do with COMMITMENT and pride in each other.

 

[Sunstone]

Publicly declared and witnessed pair bonds are as old as our species. No political system has ever eradicated the human instinct to pair bond. If you abolished marriage tomorrow, people would still marry -- they would just call it by a different name.

 

[Smoke]

You and the other femnists in this thread are being confusing.

No, you're just confused. You have so many patriarchal ideas about marriage, men and women that it's a little strange. Such ideas were never more than social conventions, and aren't even social conventions in the present-day West except among reactionary religious groups.

 

[T-Dawg]

Society doesn't insist that the male pay for the dates. In fact, most men I know really appreciate it when the woman picks up the tab fairly. It may take a few dates to work that out because maybe the two don't feel comfortable talking about income till then. But I think it's crass for a woman in a new relationship just to assume that the man is going to pay for everything.

It's extremely awkward to not have the man pay for the date, unless he can't afford it (or if he forgets, like I did once. That girl never went out to eat with me again ). I have no idea why, but men are expected to pay for things (I suppose it makes sense, since men are also the ones who usually take the initiative in asking the girl out. It'd be kind of awkward to ask a girl "hey, wanna go to the movies with me?" and then expect her to pay for it). If the woman expects me to pay for her meal and I don't pay up, that's bad.

I cannot IMAGINE my husband telling me what to wear! Sheeze! I don't think the thought ever crossed his mind.

It's not your husband that's supposed to dictate what you wear, it's society, which, being sexist, almost always works in the favor of men. Actually, it may not so much tell you what to wear, it tells you what not to wear. For example, if I went out in a suit and a top hat carrying a walking stick like they did in the Victorian age, people would give me funny looks. It would be out of line with the rest of the Order.
Which, of course, is one of the reasons why we seek to topple the Order.

My husband and I have an arrangement - which we've had from the get go (and he's a very masculine, "traditional" tough manly man). It all boils down to economics. He makes about three times as much money as I make. So we have divided the bills into four quarters - and he pays three fourths of them. We do equal amounts of housework - but I do the things I am best at and he does the things he's best at. I usually cook (but sometimes we cook together) and he usually cleans the floors (he likes that). I usually do most of the laundry but he doesn't hesitate to jump up from his recliner in the evening and clean the kitchen up while I'm dozing on the sofa. We save for things separately - I'm expected to save significantly toward Christmas and vacations. It works out fine for us. No one is concerned about being DOMINANT and CONTROLLING the other.

I only wish most couples (ie, my own parents) were that responsible and efficient. How were you able to get a job where you can rotate positions between housemaker and provider like that? Most jobs require people to be there every day in several-hour blocks.

That being said, I do think someone has to be ultimately in charge of different areas. I am in charge of decorating, and my husband is in charge of where we go to church. But that's because we have determined which things we are each best at - and which things are more important to the other. In other words - no one gets to be in charge of something just because they WANT to be - we've divvied up areas based on talent, interest, and personal importance.

Yes, that's what I'm getting at - men have limited talents. If I don't take the tab for all of my dates, what else am I good for?

The ring? I want a big one. A big, beautiful, flashy diamond. LET IT MARK ME! And he better wear his beautiful band I bought him as well (which he does, gladly). We want to be sure that other people know, "This one's taken!" We are both proud to "belong to each other." It has less to do with OWNERSHIP and more to do with COMMITMENT and pride in each other.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. "This one's taken!" What I'm asking is, is this mentality un-communist?

No, you're just confused. You have so many patriarchal ideas about marriage, men and women that it's a little strange. Such ideas were never more than social conventions, and aren't even social conventions in the present-day West except among reactionary religious groups.

You mean people don't do this anymore? How come they act like they do it?
By the way, is the whole dowry thing still done? For some reason, it seems to be kind of taboo to talk about it in real life (I get funny looks when I ask about it, if I remember correctly).
(No, this is not sarcasm. Since no one where I live is willing to talk about marriage and sex, most of what I know about marriage comes from what I remember reading about people doing in the Bible.)

 

[MissAlice]

Dude I've paid tabs on several occasions while eating out. In fact I feel akward if I don't chip in but usually I notice sometimes the guy will insist on paying the tip.

It's really no biggy unless you or your partner make it an issue. I don't know where you live but most of these gender roles you talk about are not conformed from where I live. In fact my sister's having to do all the working while my brother in law stays at home and takes care of the kids.

And as far as canes go, they're really actually the norm from where I live. Believe me I've seen many guys carry em' around like the bleedn' princes of wales....