From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: soc.couples
Subject: Re: Female friends
Date: 9 Apr 92 05:45:02 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Apr7.151232.2744@ncar.ucar.edu> ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:
+In article <31419@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
+ > In article <Apr.5.12.58.41.1992.21497@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
+ > +jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
+ > +
+ > +>Of course, who would want to spoil a friendship which is based on
+ > +>equality and independence, with a sign of ownership.
+ > +
+ > +Where's the sign of ownership?
+ > 
+ > Sex.
+
+Oh, that's interesting.  Which one is the owner and which the ownee?

And on that happy note I'll tack on a reply.

The following excerpts were collated by me during today's soc.couples
postings. It struck me as odd that simultaneous with my post there
was another thread titled 'Sanctity of Relationships' which produced
some interresting examples relative to my rather laconic post.

+From: garvey@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Heather Garvey)
+jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
+>shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
+>+jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
+>+
+>+>Of course, who would want to spoil a friendship which is based on
+>+>equality and independence, with a sign of ownership.
+>+
+>+Where's the sign of ownership?
+>
+>Sex.
+
+	But only if you get the studded collar properly tight. :-)
+...
+	Really, sex is only a sign of ownership if you let it be. And
+...
+	I don't get where you think sex and ownership are linked. Could

The linkage stems from what prior to the mid-19th century was the
assumed consummation of 'marriage', namely the sex act. Even into the
50's and '60's it was a 'legal' act, in some jurisdictions, without
which a marriage could be dissolved as if it never existed. Further
as recent as the 70's, the lack of the sex act could be one of the few
grounds for annulment of marriage in the Roman Catholic church. 

Where does the ownership enter, well, it is obvious, at least
to me in viewing Anglo/US law, that until the 19th century wives were
essentially 'owned' by their husbands. The fact that as late as 1860's
a man could beat his wife to death and with a appeal to 'she need the
discipline, seeing that she failed her wifely duties' he would be
immune from legal action, suggests that the position of women had
not changed since roman times where an astute observer wrote,
'even the poorest freedman could have at least one slave, his wife'.

Why do I use the marriage model, well, again to me this is the
dominant 'correct' conclusion of a strong emotional, physically
intimate relationship.

How does this affect us today, with the women's movement? Do women
feel that there is no longer any threat of dominance from men in the
position of lover, husband? The literature seems to indicate that
although there are a number of laws which prevent the abuse of
power by men, that power is still available in institutionalized
behavior and 'blindness' to abuse.

Do men, having been told of abuses over the last 25 years of the modern
women's movement, believe that their 'advances' are merely offerings
of a relationship, one based on mutual respect and equality. It may
be one of respect, it may be called love, but quite easily the
relationship gives rise to the male being dominant and only by his
'benevolence' is prevented from descending to ownership, mitigated
only by the application of the law by the woman.

+From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
+You'll have to be more specific.  Where is the sign of ownership and to
+whom is it a sign?

About twenty years ago I had a conversation with several black men
about sex and ownership. The idea that having sex with a woman
implied ownership had never occurred to me. The occasion that gave
rise to this conversation was that I lived with a woman in an open
relationship, open in the sense that we both had other emotional and
sexual partners, but still maintained a strong emotional and sexual
bond between us. The other men where her lovers at one time or
another and they were interrogating me as to my 'true' feelings. At
that time and at this time the idea of sex and ownership, in the
sense of being in control, demanding attention, feeling jealous of
other's attentions, etc. did not enter my mind. However, as I have
observed a number of men's behaviors since, I find the model which
posits the 'sex == ownership' idea to fit a large number of
individuals.

Although the following may not have been the intention of the
original poster, I find the 'yours...' to be very indicative of the
ownership attitude.

+From: jive@spanky.ssc.gov (Jim Ivey)
+In-Reply-To: thomasg@epx.hscs.umn.edu's message of 8 Apr 92 17:48:59 GMT
+
+> If you love something let it go.  
+> If it come back its yours for life
+                      ^^^^^
+> If is doesn't it never was yours to hold.
+                            ^^^^^
+     This saying has always given me a bad taste, because it makes someone
+sound like a possession.  A person shouldn't ever be yours, or mine, or
+anyone's, except their own.


Fortunately the male (I presume) who responded seems to be
questioning the validity of the sentiment.

+From: rnjx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
+The question is this.  Is it ever morally and/or ethically O.K. to actively
+try to woo one member of an existing relationship from that relationship so
+that you may start one with her/him?  Under what circumstances?  How about
+pursuing someone who's engaged?  Where do you all draw the line?  If it isn't
+O.K., would you still do it anyway?

I think I lost track of the attribution here but note the 'platonic'
and the 'lack of sex' indicative of one type of relationship, the
bound of which is exceeded by 'having sex'.

+publicly acknowledged by the partners.)  I feel it is downright evil
+to do this if you are currently platonic friends with the person-in-
+question, as in that position you are in a greater position of trust
+than a stranger, and may not be able to discern what is truly best for
+your friend. 

+From: bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
+Yes Yes Yes!  This is precisely what happened, and I'm glad you
+mentioned it.  After realizing that "she" would forsake "him" for "me"
+with no so much as a thought, I could not trust her.
+Relationship: kaput! 

A in my mind the grand finali, 'I could not trust her'. This has so
many presumptions, such as 'one intimate relationship per customer',
'one life long (or extended time) relationship per customer, so
better make the choice stick no matter what', 'if my choice doesn't
chose me back or does so only short term then that person is untrust-
worthy'. What seems to be missing here is how to deal with 'change'
and deal with relationships that begin, develop, and end in one's
lifetime. (previously the likelyhood of either dying or outliving
one's partner in a short span of time was very high).

Ownership implies continued access to the object owned. It seem that
if both people in a relationship have the same attitude about each
other then no harm done. But when one changes, the 'owner' quickly
becomes unable to deal with the change, and the recent posting along
the line of 'she dun me wrong' becomes the old song sung.

Does this mean I believe that every man approaches a physical
relationship with women with the idea of 'ownership'. Not at all.
The counter examples are too numerous. Do I believe that many men
when confronted with a change in the relationship with a woman that
has been intimate, revert to the 'ownership' orientation?

Yes.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu