Does paying a dowry mean you own your spouse?

[Brian Schuh]

Specifically a prostitute is selling a service in which their body is used as a tool of the trade. Similar to massage therapists, physical therapists and other professions where the patient or client is paying for bodily manipulation by another body.

Anyway I don't believe getting married entitled your spouse to your body. No still means no, even when married. The contract of marriage is more to do with merging wealth and decision making power than merging bodies.

I like the way you describe prostitution. A prostitute no more sells her body than a massage therapist sells her body.

As for marriage, every marriage is different. Some marital contracts do say sex is expected and even spell out what kind of sex and how often. A man then can claim that his wife broke the agreement and therefore is not entitled to half the assets nor spousal support because she refused to have sex. A prenuptial agreement like that is legal in the US and happens more than we realize.

 

[Altfish]

NO....owning someone is called slavery

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I like the way you describe prostitution. A prostitute no more sells her body than a massage therapist sells her body.

As for marriage, every marriage is different. Some marital contracts do say sex is expected and even spell out what kind of sex and how often. A man then can claim that his wife broke the agreement and therefore is not entitled to half the assets nor spousal support because she refused to have sex. A prenuptial agreement like that is legal in the US and happens more than we realize.

Well yeah, a prenup can stipulate just about anything. There's even been ones where the husband can only watch a certain amount of football per week. But I wouldn't then say marriage is about football watching, even though you can include it in a prenup.
I did not and would never sign anything that requires sexual participation. And I've been married for years. Lol.

 

[Mindmaster]

You can't change the fact that the dowry is the root cause of this situation.

The use of it has also changed, it used to be something to demonstrate your wealth and attract a person of standing to your daughter. You'll find most of these murder problems are associated to people of low economic classes who live in ghettos who still try to follow the tradition. Among the upper class it was a sign of a woman's good breeding to be well dowered, and remember these customs came from a time where a woman didn't work. The woman's family would provide the dowry, but that didn't change anything about the man providing nearly 100% of everything else including the home and all else. Of course, we know none of this is true in the west anymore... Women can earn more if they work, so most men don't care about these things. I would imagine men were much pickier about marrying women when getting divorces were nearly impossible to get, and even if you felt like leaving you were trapped on either side. These things were just part of a package: You wanted the prettiest girl from a wealthy family, who was breeding age, and could make a tribe of ten kids because half or more of them will die. It's amazing how different modern living is.

Anyway, if anything attention should be drawn here that India is really a third world high-tech country and that these social issues need to be addressed. It isn't the custom that is the problem it is abuses and cruelty --- and no one doing a damn thing about it. They are also murdering daughters in poor families in the first place because they would have to come with the dowry and can't find the money. It is also causing woman shortages in these poor communities something like what goes on in Alaska, but not because it is too hard to live there. They are really having problems!

 

[Brian Schuh]

Is it really possible to buy a mail order bride? Even if one did, would you own this bride? It seems that a wife and a slave are two totally different things. But does that mean that a woman can't be both a wife and a slave?

 

[Grumpuss]

I had a conversation on a thread with someone recently and a subject came up which often does when dealing with the matter of a dowry (bride price) - that of a woman being a man's property since he bought her.

This was not a new accusation to me since it is one I am well acquainted with as a person from a culture where payment of a dowry is a common occurrence.

It has always been interesting to me that someone can confidently conclude women are viewed as property in my culture solely on the basis of the fact that a man must pay in order marry his wife. It is interesting because no one jumps to the same conclusion about those cultures in which it is the women who is expected to pay a dowry. Somehow in those cultures it is rationalised that men are considered so valuable the women's family must pay for their daughter to associated with them. But why couldn't the same logic be applied to cultures where men (or the men's families) pay?

Take a person who walks in to a zoo and pays the R100 entry fee - does any reasonable person really believe that, having paid R100 ($6), they now own the zoo and may do with it as they please? No, you have paid for the right to enter the Zoo. You have not paid for the right to own the zoo.

Likewise high-ranking people like the Clintons or the Bushes often charge people in order for them to share a meal together. Does the person who has paid $20 000 really believe they now own the person their eating dinner with? Of course not, they have paid to have dinner and to chat - there is no promise of any other rights.

And so it is with a dowry: you pay for the right to marry someone's daughter. There is no promise of any further rights. In fact if you pay the dowry and subsequently (before you even get married) your relationship falls apart, you may not go back to reclaim the money. Since it was the right that you paid for and the right has been given and has not been revoked - if you guys get back together again two years later you will be allowed to marry without any hindrance.
Again,no reasonable person would think that having paid R5000 ($350) you have now bought a person.

The relations between a husband and wife, their rights, duties and responsibilities to each other are governed by other laws. If one wishes to know whether any one of the spouses is considered the property of the other, one will have to actually look at the laws that actually define and govern the marriage - and not at who pays or doesn't pay a dowry.

What country is this?

 

[Thanda]

What country is this?

South Africa

 

[Thanda]

Is it really possible to buy a mail order bride? Even if one did, would you own this bride? It seems that a wife and a slave are two totally different things. But does that mean that a woman can't be both a wife and a slave?

I think it is, but even then it doesn't really matter how two people become husband and wife. The laws governing how people meet and get married and the laws governing conduct in the marriage itself are separate. It doesn't matter whether the marriage was arranged when both people were two years old. It doesn't matter how much you paid in order to get married - what matters after the marriage is solemnised is that both of them have to treat each other as husband and wife according to the laws and customs of their society.

So if an american buys a wife from eastern europe and he subsequently beats her up, he will still go to jail for domestic abuse - the law doesn't care that he paid for her.

 

[Thanda]

Well yeah, a prenup can stipulate just about anything. There's even been ones where the husband can only watch a certain amount of football per week. But I wouldn't then say marriage is about football watching, even though you can include it in a prenup.
I did not and would never sign anything that requires sexual participation. And I've been married for years. Lol.

Do you think it would be fair if one of the spouses went through a extended period of low libido (resulting in no sex) if the other partner then went and sorted themselves out (i.e. prostitute)?

 

[Thanda]

So a dowry is paying for the right to enter the woman?

Yes, to enter into marriage with her. (You have a dirty mind)

Unfortunately, some of them just might....

And they'd be wrong - that is small change to the Clintons from what I hear.

Ah, so a dowry is like a deposit?

A non-refundable deposit - generally (sometimes the family of the woman may choose to pay the money back if it is clear that it is their daughter's fault that the marriage did not materialise - e.g. she cheated)

But generally you don't get it back. What complicates it in South Africa is that there is traditional culture and there is the formal law of the land (based mainly of English Law). So sometimes some people consider themselves only married when they have signed a contract according to English law. However, traditionally, once the full bride price has been paid the marriage is as good as done. There are still some ceremonies to be done after that but those a considered minor formalities.

However, if you only paid part of the bride price, then you are not considered married traditionally unless they make an exception for you - if they like you (They liked me).

 

[Wirey]

NO....owning someone is called slavery

Then my bank is Massa TD!

 

[MARCELLO]

So the jewish ladies are buying their husbands??? What a feminist religion they have !

Baruch Hashem ,I am a gay gentile

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Do you think it would be fair if one of the spouses went through a extended period of low libido (resulting in no sex) if the other partner then went and sorted themselves out (i.e. prostitute)?

I would answer in the same way as the question of open relationships. I'm not against them so long as it's honest and agreed by all. I am not okay with cheating. That is, done in a clearly backhanded, deceptive way to avoid the fact that a spouse isn't okay with it.

If you're asking personally if it were me with low libido and my spouse wanted to seek aid of a third partner, I'd say no. If the amount of sexual gratification I'm comfortable giving him isn't enough, then he should openly and honestly exit the relationship before going forward.

 

[Brian Schuh]

I would answer in the same way as the question of open relationships. I'm not against them so long as it's honest and agreed by all. I am not okay with cheating. That is, done in a clearly backhanded, deceptive way to avoid the fact that a spouse isn't okay with it.

If you're asking personally if it were me with low libido and my spouse wanted to seek aid of a third partner, I'd say no. If the amount of sexual gratification I'm comfortable giving him isn't enough, then he should openly and honestly exit the relationship before going forward.

In Torah, a wife has a right to sex, whereas a man doesn't necessarily. So if I had a problem like erectile dysfunction, I would be obligated to try something like Viagra. One of the county deputies in my town said he needed Viagra to have sex with his wife, but Viagra costs him $10 a pill and he said his wife wasn't worth $10. That is not a healthy marriage as even most of the crack whores are worth $10. If marriage doesn't entitle a couple to have sex and many say sex outside marriage is a sin, what is this puritanical bull crap? Sexuality is not only part of my humanity but also part of my spirituality and is not to be despised.

 

[Thanda]

I would answer in the same way as the question of open relationships. I'm not against them so long as it's honest and agreed by all. I am not okay with cheating. That is, done in a clearly backhanded, deceptive way to avoid the fact that a spouse isn't okay with it.

If you're asking personally if it were me with low libido and my spouse wanted to seek aid of a third partner, I'd say no. If the amount of sexual gratification I'm comfortable giving him isn't enough, then he should openly and honestly exit the relationship before going forward.

I think Brian Schuh has captured my feelings on the subject quite well. The issue I have is the assumption of fidelity without the assumption of sex.

Before I think it was well understood that sex was a basic human need. Therefore since marriage carried with it the necessary expectation of fidelity (To prevent illegitimate children) there was always an assumption that all would be done to ensure each partner was satisfied. Even in my culture it is taken as a very serious matter if a man is not satisfying his wife - there are all kinds of potions and tricks that are recommended for him to get back his MOJO.

The issue I have would be with someone who took their partner's sexual needs lightly resting safely in the knowledge that their partner is "not allowed" to get their satisfaction from anywhere else. In some cases one even finds certain people using sex as a weapon in their relationship.


I think it should be understood that sex within a marriage is something one's spouse has a right to (not by force of course) and that every effort should be made to ensure neither spouse experiences excessive deprivation.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think Brian Schuh has captured my feelings on the subject quite well. The issue I have is the assumption of fidelity without the assumption of sex.

Before I think it was well understood that sex was a basic human need. Therefore since marriage carried with it the necessary expectation of fidelity (To prevent illegitimate children) there was always an assumption that all would be done to ensure each partner was satisfied. Even in my culture it is taken as a very serious matter if a man is not satisfying his wife - there are all kinds of potions and tricks that are recommended for him to get back his MOJO.

The issue I have would be with someone who took their partner's sexual needs lightly resting safely in the knowledge that their partner is "not allowed" to get their satisfaction from anywhere else. In some cases one even finds certain people using sex as a weapon in their relationship.


I think it should be understood that sex within a marriage is something one's spouse has a right to (not by force of course) and that every effort should be made to ensure neither spouse experiences excessive deprivation.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea of 'right to sex' or obligation to sex. Because that alone already implies more force than I would ever agree to. I think that it's important to understand the needs of your partner, but that if you can't comfortably satisfy them then the relationship should end or, if all are willing other options can be taken.

If someone says 'My status as your spouse (husband or wife) entitles me to sex with you whether you want to or not' then there's something very wrong.

 

[Thanda]

I fundamentally disagree with the idea of 'right to sex' or obligation to sex. Because that alone already implies more force than I would ever agree to. I think that it's important to understand the needs of your partner, but that if you can't comfortably satisfy them then the relationship should end or, if all are willing other options can be taken.

If someone says 'My status as your spouse (husband or wife) entitles me to sex with you whether you want to or not' then there's something very wrong.

That's definitely not what I am saying. I am saying it is each partner's duty to do all they can to ensure they are ready and willing to have sex. If not you are depriving your partner of a very important part of the marriage and it is tantamount to abuse.
In other words it is wrong.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That's definitely not what I am saying. I am saying it is each partner's duty to do all they can to ensure they are ready and willing to have sex. If not you are depriving your partner of a very important part of the marriage and it is tantamount to abuse.
In other words it is wrong.

How is saying it's their duty different from saying it's their obligation? I don't believe it's anyone's duty to have sex ever. Married or not. Sex is not something a spouse is entitled to no matter how important it was to them.

If the situation were reversed and sex was something my husband lost interest in, I would probably stick it out as I have no trouble gratifying myself. But if it did become so huge of an issue that I felt I needed to have sex, I would communicate that with my husband. If he didn't feel comfortable with it then I would leave. I would not say it's his responsibility to be 'ready and willing' for sex. And I certainly wouldn't accuse him of abuse. If anything I'd feel trying to guilt or obligate him to it would be more abusive.

 

[Thanda]

How is saying it's their duty different from saying it's their obligation? I don't believe it's anyone's duty to have sex ever. Married or not. Sex is not something a spouse is entitled to no matter how important it was to them.

If the situation were reversed and sex was something my husband lost interest in, I would probably stick it out as I have no trouble gratifying myself. But if it did become so huge of an issue that I felt I needed to have sex, I would communicate that with my husband. If he didn't feel comfortable with it then I would leave. I would not say it's his responsibility to be 'ready and willing' for sex. And I certainly wouldn't accuse him of abuse. If anything I'd feel trying to guilt or obligate him to it would be more abusive.

Okay, can you tell me why you feel fidelity is an expectation while marital sex is not a right?

I mean, I know you make it sound easy to leave a marriage but I'm sure you're aware that it's not.

Why would I want to have a monopoly on a service I have no strong interest providing?

In my country the energy provider is monopoly - owned by the government. Imagine if this monopoly told us we have no right to demand electricity from it - it will provide the electricity as and when it feels like it and if we're not happy we're welcome to leave the country. Does that sound fair to you?


And that is essentially what sex is in traditionally married couples. There is a monopoly on who can provide it. And leaving the marriage is proffered as an alternative but in truth it is more like an ultimatum. Neither a sexless marriage or a likely messy divorce make for great options.

I'm not saying a spouse should have a right to force themselves on their partner. What I am saying is that each spouse should be well aware that sex is an expectation in the marriage (unless they each declared themselves asexual before it) and so when any one of them experiences a drop in libido they should busy themselves to ensure the problem is corrected. They should not sit back thinking it is normal and okay.

 

[Wirey]

I'm not saying a spouse should have a right to force themselves on their partner. What I am saying is that each spouse should be well aware that sex is an expectation in the marriage (unless they each declared themselves asexual before it) and so when any one of them experiences a drop in libido they should busy themselves to ensure the problem is corrected. They should not sit back thinking it is normal and okay.

Can I get you to e-mail that to Mrs. Wirey?