ProtagonistLily -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 12:33:17 PM)
|
quote:
quote: ORIGINAL: ProtagonistLily One would could certainly make the case that given that he's agreed and consented to this 'ownership' He in fact is truely the Master, rather than the one who calls himself the owner of said slave. By the very virtue that he is allowing this to occur, he is to some degree manipulating the situation to his benefit, while retaining his wife. You're going to have to explain how "accepting that someone else has ultimate authority" means that they are somehow the master and manipulating the situation. Um, A) I don't have to do anythying. B) I didn't say that 'accepting that someone else has ultimate authority", so I suggest you go back to the person you are quoting and ask them to explain that to you. quote:
If I had a girlfriend and she accepted that I couldn't go out with her that night because the Owner wanted something else, but still wanted my friendship, would that be her manipulating things and somehow really the master in all of this? I don't think so. Um, I'm not bashing Taggard, or anyone else here. I simply tossed out another way to look at the situation, so, I'm not going to argue with you here either. quote:
Given the very framework and context in which the interaction and contractual agreement has been determined, I see the husband as having much more control than the Master in this situation. How? The husband certainly has a lot of understanding and flexibility, but he doesn't have any authority. Well, if the girl has asked the Husband to consent to this arrangement, she has given him at least some authority. She submitted to his authority by bringing him into it through asking permission in the first place. quote:
A brief example, perhaps not serious enough, but the Owner wants my hair long. My boyfriend also has long hair and I am convincing him that he needs to cut a few inches to make it spiffier. He mentioned once that I should have to cut my hair too. I told him that wasn't possible because the Owner said no. There was no argument over it, no debate, it's simply what is. He's going to cut his hair and I'm not. quote: So, the argument could go as far as to say that there is an implied contract that he holds that is higher than the slave contract of the one who calls himself 'owner.' Something to think about. Lily I still don't get the connection there. The husband has as many rights as any husband does- to stay in the relationship and work with the wife or not based on his fulfillment. I got the connection. Honestly, that's all the counts to me. L
|
|
|
|