Your money = my money; your body = my body

27
It's not hard to guess which line is used by men and which used by women.

We hear about women who expect their husband to pay for everything, max out their supplementary credit cards and buy themselves expensive items even though they know that the family is in some sort of financial crisis. The next thing you know, the husband is also thinking to himself: why am I scrimping and saving so that she can spend all the money that I've saved? And then he also spends whatever he has so that she can't spend it.

We also hear about men who think that their wives' body belongs to them. In a comment on my post about marital rape, a reader who claimed that his wife withheld sex from him but he never forced himself on her wrote: "If I had known we are immune from marital rape, I don't think I would have endured what is rightfully mine to enjoy... I say keep this immunity and put these gals back in place to know their bodies belong to their husbands during their marriage." The word that I would use for such mentality is "frightening". I am not too afraid of heights, speed, authority, failure and dead bodies but this really frightens me. How can a man who claims to love me (and marries me) even think of having such a "right" over my body when even my mother whose blood runs through my veins and my father whose genes I carry have no such "rights"? The only right I'm willing to give him is over my dead body!

Just as a man does not get married so that he can hand over all his money and possessions to his wife, a woman does not get married to hand over the ownership of her body to her husband.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

I do not agree.. No wonder no man is marrying u

David said...

Yu-Kym,

I completely agree with your last paragraph!

What a great way of telling those contemplating marriage what attitude to have when entering that union.

Failed marriage, abusive marriage occur because men think they own their wife, and indeed some cultures support that thought, and others where the women see a the man's wealth, real or otherwise, as hers to use as she wants.

Those who criticize you for being choosy are unfair and wrong!

Those who think they know their gf or bf better than the individuals are very foolish.

People married with such short sighted goals, will quickly dissolve into troubled marriages when the nuptial sizzle cools.

David

Whence comes this idea that if what we are doing is fun, it can't be God's will? The God who made giraffes, a baby's fingernails, a puppy's tail, a crooknecked squash, the bobwhite's call, and a young girl's giggle, has a sense of humor. Make no mistake about that.

-- Catherine Marshall

Anonymous said...

Re - "Just as a man does not get married so that he can hand over all his money and possessions to his wife"

-- Nowadays men don't hand over all his money and possessions to his wife
at all. Where did you get that idea ah. Perhaps they do that in Sillypore! Nowadays they keep separate bank accounts and they go Dutch! On divorse, it is "who has the most money can fight the longest court battle".

Re "a woman does not get married to hand over the ownership of her body to her husband"

-- Ah, my body is my body for both husband and wife but please show consideration for each other ah! Don't give your partner STD! Doesn't matter whether it is 1 or 2 or 3 pricks in 1 or 2 or 3 holes, all at the same time and vice versa!

Anonymous said...

1) Two wrongs doesnt make a right!

2) Who made God then? I hope HE and His followers have a sense of humour too! lol

curious cat

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

Are you sure no man wants to marry Yu-Kym? I think it's more Yu-Kym doesnt want to marry "any" man! lol

You will see hordes of men lining up when she couples her new book launch with a chance to sign up to marry her! lol

curious cat

Anonymous said...

Anonymous on "Sillypore",

Obviously you dont understand Singapore otherwise you wont pour scorn on my country as "Sillypore".... the same way a certain Habibie tried to insult this tiny island nation as simply a "little red dot" or one Taiwanese government official ridiculed us as similar to a "snot"!

I'm sure you are not the silly one.. but if you read carefully Yu-Kym's words, it's precisely what Yu-Kym is saying... that man does NOT get married only to hand over his possessions to his wife.

curious cat

Yu-Kym said...

David, it is interesting that a Christian man like you does not even agree that the woman becomes the man's property after marriage. Many Singaporean Christian men believe that. They may not admit it but it can be seen in how they treat their wives.

Anon, just as no man nowadays hands over his possessions to his wife, no woman wants to hand over possession of her body to her husband. I don't mean that she should sleep around but that if she does not want to have sex with him for whatever reason, he has to respect that. He should be asking himself honestly why she does not want to have sex with him.

Anonymous said...

Yu-Kym,

I read and agree with you till I come to this:

I have to respect "For WHATEVER reason"? If I am your husband, I say let's get a divorce today!

curious cat

Yu-Kym said...

Ya, sure. I'd rather divorce such a man.

Anonymous said...

hahahaha at least we both agree! No confrontation or TKO! Stalemate! lol

curious cat

David said...

Thank you for this cultural tidbit: "...it is interesting that a Christian man like you does not even agree that the woman becomes the man's property after marriage. Many Singaporean Christian men believe that."

Such Christian's Stateside are often called Holiday Christian's as they rarely attend Sunday Mass or services, except on Christmas and Easter.

Another term for such people is CINO - Christian-In-Name-Only.

Many claim to be Christian and end picking and choosing what Christian precepts they will live by. Sort of like choosing from a menu, I will live by this rule, then that one, and not the others.

Most and obviously not all Christian's are taught that man & women, husband & wife must honour the other. That while both belong to the other, (in the nuptial sense not as being owned) they are united at a couple and remain individuals.

The concept described above is not fully appreciated nor understood by many Christian's, and no doubt contributes to the divorces. Keep in mind that Christian's as a group have a lower divorce rate than the secular populace.

At least we now know that CC and Yu-Kym have already agreed to part ways. You both saved much time by avoiding the cohabitation part, (hat tip to CC), the courtship, the wedding, the honeymoon, the early great sex, the fights, the big make up with more sex, little fights, the seperation and then the divorce.

The two of you might have just made the greatest socialogical breakthrough since, dare I say this..........................

The creation of the first marriage! (David is gasping as he reads this....)

By agreeing to seperate before all the other steps is genius! ;-)

David


My liberty as a Christian should always be supremely shackled by the love I am commanded to have towards another.


-- Avery D. Miller

Anonymous said...

David,

Regarding your comic account of me and Yu-Kym ....you tickled my funnybone so much, I got orgasmic spasms! lol

But on the serious side, if what Yu-Kym says is true, I wonder what in Singapore must the Church be teaching to both sexes if many Christians here thinks the woman becomes the man's property after marriage! Crazy Church! No wonder poor Christ needs to return a 2nd time..... to put right what man has put wrong!

Christians if indeed they claim to have a lower divorce rate dont necessarily tell the true or whole story.

curious cat

Yu-Kym said...

David, how about a contract marriage that expires after X number of years, with the responsibilities, termination clauses, renewability written in the contract?

curious cat, according to what I've read, Christians in US don't have lower divorce rate.

Anonymous said...

Yu-Kym, David,

1) If there is no marriage, there will be much less of the complexities to resolve after a couple separates after cohabitation. The separation is like two best friends cohabiting breaking up. I'm sure the issue of who gets what (finance, property, children, etc) will resolve by itself when the parties mutually separates and left alone to their own devices without official interference. Many matters will even be a non-issue.

Currently such problems that arise after marriage invariably goes through a conflict and painful phase through lawyers and the courts. A no-marriage society dispenses with all these. A contract marriage with clauses may improve matters somewhat but if there are still disputes, they need the same legal process.

Cohabitation and separation do not lead to a complicated separation phase as painful as marriage and divorces. A world without too much rules, legalities or technicalities in everything may actually be a less complicated world. Sometimes if you leave things alone, they get resolved by themselves.

2) US christians may not have lower divorce rates because statistics do not necessarily tell the whole story or the truth. Some Christians due to the teachings of the church simply carry on with broken marriages for the sake of their children or some other reasons.

curious cat

Anonymous said...

Re - "1) If there is no marriage, there will be much less of the complexities to resolve after a couple separates after cohabitation. The separation is like two best friends cohabiting breaking up"

Whoever wrote that obviously havn't lived outside Sillypore!

The law protecting women is different in different countries ah!

In OZ, the cohabitation partners, after 6 months, has as much legal right as a married couple on separation, each is entitled to half the total assets.

And if you have a mistress for more than 6-months, that mistress is legally entitled to ask for payments for her services (i.e. livng support, expenses, sex etc) as though she is your wife otherwise she can sue you for her money entitled under the law, and you will lose!

Hence it is best to become an eunuch and you will never have women problem!

Anonymous said...

Hey Anonymous "Sillypore"!... is it the same you again? you reappeared?

Yes perhaps I didnt realise in some countries even cohabitation have laws. I suppose you know more about cohabitation legalities as you may be an expatriate and may have lived (cohabited? lol) away from home for a time.

BTW, what nationality are you? Dont worry I wont make fun of your country. lol

But in the Singapore context, why cant cohabitation work?

And before you condemn my "Sillypore" again, pls have your facts right k? lol

And i suppose you also know what its like to be an eunuch? Pls pray tell, what its like? I feel some inclination to join you. But I'm afraid of pain. haha

curious "eunuch wanna be" cat

David said...

Yu-Kym,

The idea of contractual marriages bounced around in the States years ago. The concept pretty just died from being ignored.

The problem in nearly every country is the legal system. The disposition of property, and dealing with children do not simply resolve themselves as CC suggest.

Once again neither Yu-kym nor CC offer any real ideas, not ever few concepts for the complete re-structuring of societies world-wide.

Simply wanting to do away with marriage, and hoping separations will work out is wishful thinking.

Pre-nuptial agreements are used by many wealthy and celebrities. Tiger Woods wife is living well after their separation, and the pre-nup agreement will ensure she lives well after the divorce.

However when the average folks look into writing a pre-nup the expense alone often deters cash short young couples. Some that persist often break up when the discussions regarding who would get what, which persons income is considered more valuable, disagreements drive the couple apart.

This takes back to young engaged couples putting all topics on the table for serious discussion. Not putting anything off until after the wedding.

BTW people, I am sure most everyone reading this has known a bf/gf break up.

Tell the couple that even at that level their parting is painless.

Separation after marriage or cohabitation
will always be painful and hurtful.

Perhaps in utopia life might be different, but not on planet Earth.

David

Never, never pin your whole faith on any human being: not if he is the best and wisest in the whole world. There are lots of nice things you can do with sand; but do not try building a house on it.

-- C. S. Lewis

Anonymous said...

But David, here's precisely the point:

1) contractual marriage is not solution because of the rules and legalities to overcome. It's as good as marriage proper. So in pre-nups negotiations, rules inhabit rather than foster good unions;

2) when close friends break up, there is obviously pain but there are invariably no complexities or legalities as in a marriage break-up;

3)so when there are no official rules, cohabitation break ups do not pose as much technical problems. Couples just lick their wounds and go their own way. In a divorce couples not only wash their dirty linen in public, they have compounded wounds to deal with during and in the aftermath.

4) Yes it's because in this world, I cant prove cohabitation will work that is why you are let off the hook! lol

curious cat

Anonymous said...

Re - "what nationality are you?"

I'm Indian.

Aussies love Indians so much that whenever they see an Indian on the street, they want to bash him to death ( haven't we been taught by parents that hitting you means loving you? ).

A number of Indian restaurants have been fire bombed because the cook, after going to the toilet, didn't wash his hands and you can smell and taste the shit in the nann.

Indians love cow dung cakes and I send such a cake to my girl friend for her birthday. She loved it so much that she demanded too much sex. I have to stick a few chilli into her hole to satisfy her.

Indians worship rat as god. There are many Rat Temples in Indian. If you are my friend, I may release Rat Gods in your home to give you peace and quiet.

India has the highest economic growth in the world. Soon we will be the richest country on earth. Every year, your MM and SM come to worship us. You don't believe, just you see! But people still say "You can calculate the wealth of an Indian by counting the number of cow dung pads he has".

There are still many eunuchs in India and the number is rising, and there are many Indian men with well developed boobs whose sole purpose in life is to offer their arse to satisfy men. So there are 4 legal sexes on Indian Passports:- male, female, sexless and tranny.

Anonymous said...

Hey "Indian",

haha lol So funny your post and yet so truthfully ironical.

Yes I believe eventually India will be one of the richest if not the richest country in the world.... provided you get the politics right to elect the right government to bring the vibrant but fractious country to its rightful pinnacle. And this is a big "IF"!

And i also do believe its not a shame for Singapore to learn the best India has to offer! Including inviting the best comics with brains like your goodself to emigrate here and see for yourself it's not a Sillypore although we are still far from perfect. After all we have only a mere 45yrs and just a tiny red dot on the map.

Looking forward to more of your satire on any subject as long as you don't rubbish "Sillypore" without justification. lol

curious cat

Anonymous said...

Hi Yu-Kym

Your article is dwelling on a customary practice that is slowly being discarded in modern societies.

In the past when men were the sole bread winner, yes, women regard their husband's income as her right to spend it. As materialism gains foothold in modern times, women discovered to their delight that they could obtain goods & services exclusively catered for feminine tastes - think cosmetics, shoes & beauty treatments.
So the lady goes hmmmm ...... I can spend my husband's money on this facelift.
What's so objectional about that?
For the husband with a non-working wife; if she is not recklessly spending beyond their means, he will probably not object to her spending some money on herself.
For the husband with a working wife; he might not exactly welcome the wife to spend his money as she like. This is simply due to the fact she should be using her own means of income to spend on herself. No women should object to this thinking.
Again on the issue of "her" body; it is similar to his income.
Traditionally, women are expected to provide or accomodate their husband's sexual appetite. (Chaste women are not supposed to have a sexual appetite - in those days!). Therefore, a husband is entitled to expect that his wife would let him f..k her whenever he wants it; barring menstruating days and headache days. What is so objectional about it?
Alas, the sexual revolution started by the US of A taught women that they have the right to enjoy sex. By extension, that also means they have the right to refuse sex.
What is the poor modern husband to do?
All is not lost.
Ask nicely, and your chances (of getting it) will improve.
Buy flowers, perfume, lipstick in her favorite color, ditto for sweaters in her favorite color, lingerie (ESPECIALLY lingerie) of the expensive kind - think brands like La Perla; and the quality of sex will improve.
And the best line of all? EASY !!! Whisper in her ears you need it so bad, your zip's gonna burst and she will have to walk you thru the shaopping mall with your pecker hanging out for everyone to admire .... HaHaHa! She'll follow you to the nearest quickie hotel with no questions asked!
Who says you never "owned" her body. Creativity, my dear fellow guys, creativity; is all you need!

Regards, Leo

Anonymous said...

hahaha Leo,

Didnt know you can be full of wisdom and pretty funny too! Yu-Kym and I just got divorced. Or else I could have tried your methods and not gone our separate ways. She is worth the effort. lol

curious cat

Yu-Kym said...

David, you are right that many people pick and choose which teaching to follow and to what extent to practise it. Another example is about man having dominion over all on earth.

Leo, it's old practice but people still expect it and think that way though they say they don't believe it. They EXPECT those things even though they have done nothing to earn it. Creativity and effort!

David said...

Yu-Kym,

People also pick and choose what is ethical each day.
Without a moral foundation many people have no problem with befriending a person on one day, and being dishonest with that person the next day.

Ethics have origins. Concepts regarding right and wrong did not just materialize from thin air.

You are very aware of the consequences of actions and words.

Now you are telling me humankind does not have dominion over the Earth!

GASP!

David

Hate destroys the vessel it's kept in.

-- Author Unknown

Anonymous said...

David,

In what way does Mankind have substantive or real "dominion" on (or over) earth?

curious cat

Yu-Kym said...

Morals and ethics are constantly being re-defined by human beings as time passes. If humankind has dominion over the earth, why do we get killed in natural disasters?

David said...

CEC ask: Does humanity have dominion over the Earth.

In some respects yes. I most respects no, we do not understand the world and its systems perfectly otherwise humankind would avoid natural disasters.

Why is human life killed during natural disasters?

The models humans use to predict disasters are imperfect. Far to often governments are slow to use knowledge of impending disasters to warn the populace, and when warned, many people will not leave an endangered area.

Again free will plays a role here. As does the fact that human's are flawed creatures.

BTW one group believes humans have dominion over the Earth. Environmental extremist blame global warming on mankind's production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Then again that is a ploy to control everyone every where...

The greenies ignore the fact that the Earth itself is the biggest producer of CO2 all the time.

Discussing Dominion over the Earth will fill volumes. So you will have to generously increase the character limit for my future replies. ;-)

David

The Christian life isn't difficult--it is impossible. If we don't know that, we will try to do things ourselves. Faith is not necessary when we think we can do it ourselves. Faith comes along when we realize that we cannot do it on our own.

-- Joseph Garlingen

David M. LaBedz