# Spousal reference



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

Bit of a philosophical question.
How would you feel if your spouse, or significant other, started calling you their resource?

Or referred to you as their capital?

Would you be offended? Proud?


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

An ex-spouse referred to me as her piggy bank not long before she became an ex-spouse. I consider resource and capital two different words. Kinda like fiance and financier. On the other hand, if I'm either a fiance or financier, (or husband for that matter) I expect a reasonably healthy return on my investment.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

I'd respond by calling her a "wasting asset." And she'd be depreciated.


----------



## Tilted 1 (Jul 23, 2019)

red oak said:


> Bit of a philosophical question.
> How would you feel if your spouse, or significant other, started calling you their resource?
> 
> ?


Like a doormat, nothing more


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

I wouldn't be happy about it and would ask her why she said that.


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

Appreciate the answers. 

I’m actually curious why one would be offended if a spouse or significant other minimized your humanity yet feel no annoyance over an employer, or government classifying one as the same.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

red oak said:


> Appreciate the answers.
> 
> I’m actually curious why one would be offended if a spouse or significant other minimized your humanity yet feel no annoyance over an employer, or government classifying one as the same.


It's the nature of the relationship. With an employer or government, there is payment for services rendered, usually established by a contract or law. With a spouse, there is supposed to be a lover partnership. Once that changes to a financial-only arrangement, then I will consider the marital contract to be null and void unless "services" continue to be provided!


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

Married but Happy said:


> It's the nature of the relationship. With an employer or government, there is payment for services rendered, usually established by a contract or law. With a spouse, there is supposed to be a lover partnership. Once that changes to a financial-only arrangement, then I will consider the marital contract to be null and void unless "services" continue to be provided!


So it's okay to be looked at as something consumable, and disposable by any entity except a significant other as long as you are payed?

I really can't understand the concept of acceptance. Especially in regards to being called capital.

Edit: I'm being serious. I really don't understand it.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

red oak said:


> So it's okay to be looked at as something consumable, and disposable by any entity except a significant other as long as you are payed?
> 
> I really can't understand the concept of acceptance. Especially in regards to being called capital.
> 
> Edit: I'm being serious. I really don't understand it.


To an employer or government, we are seldom individuals - just an anonymous collective resource with mutual obligations established by law, contract, or custom. We should not be such to a spouse. My employer and government are not my friends, but better ones will look out for me - but only to a degree, and with specific rules and limits. Whether or not this is okay is a matter of opinion, but it seems to be the nature of the world and a consequence of organizations and groups larger than a family (and mostly just immediate family, at that).


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

red oak said:


> So it's okay to be looked at as something consumable, and disposable by any entity except a significant other as long as you are payed?
> 
> I really can't understand the concept of acceptance. *Especially in regards to being called capital.
> *
> Edit: I'm being serious. I really don't understand it.


Our government doesn't produce anything. Their only resource is it's citizenry. Hence, the citizenry is its capital. Which is why you hear irate citizens proclaim "I pay your salary". Which is why governments keep track of birthrates - they can't plan their budgets if they don't know how many people will be picking up the tab. Also, states track migration to and from the state for the same reason.

That's my take. I don't mind being called capital because - damn straight - I pay the buggers' salaries.


----------



## OnTheFly (Mar 12, 2015)

red oak said:


> Would you be offended?


Yes, probably.



red oak said:


> Proud?


In this particular society/culture? No.

150yrs ago, I wouldn't be offended and would be proud because it would mean something different then.


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

Blondilocks said:


> Our government doesn't produce anything. Their only resource is it's citizenry. Hence, the citizenry is its capital. Which is why you hear irate citizens proclaim "I pay your salary". Which is why governments keep track of birthrates - they can't plan their budgets if they don't know how many people will be picking up the tab. Also, states track migration to and from the state for the same reason.
> 
> That's my take. I don't mind being called capital because - damn straight - I pay the buggers' salaries.


I see our divergence of differing mindsets. 

Mine: government of the people by the people for the people. Which it no longer is. 
I look at Capital the way it was referenced during slave era:


> He meets with emigrants or slave-traders moving on to Texas with their human capital, to turn them to greater account.
> —Sharpe’s London Journal (London), July 1849


Those not offended look at it as adding to themselves as they are part and partial of government and outside the original connotation of being a slave which can be bought, or sold as deemed fit to increase wealth of the owner while themselves struggling to live?

As well as setting aside the legal definition: asset used or available for the production and increase of wealth to the capital holder?


----------



## Tilted 1 (Jul 23, 2019)

red oak said:


> Appreciate the answers.
> 
> I’m actually curious why one would be offended if a spouse or significant other minimized your humanity yet feel no annoyance over an employer, or government classifying one as the same.


Because the spouse would make her job more of a priority than your worth.


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

red oak said:


> I see our divergence of differing mindsets.
> 
> Mine: government of the people by the people for the people. Which it no longer is.
> I look at Capital the way it was referenced during slave era:
> ...


Slaves were classified as property. Just as members of the military are now considered property of the U.S. government. Just as in olden days, wives and daughters were considered as property to be used to increase the family's wealth or social status.

Is it really useful to look at words or phrases as they were interpreted in the past? Definitions evolve and even the context in which a word is used can change with time.

Of course, one can be offended by anything if they put their mind to it.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

interesting, I've spent quite a bit of effort trying to be a valuable "asset" to my community. If all I am to my wife is a jar opener, I'm not much interested in that relationship.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

red oak said:


> Bit of a philosophical question.
> How would you feel if your spouse, or significant other, started calling you their resource?
> 
> Or referred to you as their capital?
> ...


I'd counter by calling her a life support system for a vagina. Then we'd have a good laugh about it.


----------



## re16 (Oct 9, 2012)

red oak said:


> Appreciate the answers.
> 
> I’m actually curious why one would be offended if a spouse or significant other minimized your humanity yet feel no annoyance over an employer, or government classifying one as the same.


There is a big difference in that you didn't personally choose your government. Employer, maybe. But spouse, you did choose so there is a higher level of expectation.

Lots of people these days are offended in general, as a mindset, so I could see someone being offended by just about anything and everything. Not surprising.... but the offended mindset is a waste of time, better to move on an focus on something productive that you can change or will have a positive impact on your life.


----------



## Baldy (Jul 18, 2019)

red oak said:


> Appreciate the answers.
> 
> I’m actually curious why one would be offended if a spouse or significant other minimized your humanity yet feel no annoyance over an employer, or government classifying one as the same.


Hopefully there’s a human element to our spouse or SO that we don’t get by government and most businesses. Where’s the intimate emotion by being a “capital” or a “resource”? Both denote something cold and expendable. Hope we don’t view or aren’t viewed as such by our spouse or So’s.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Cletus said:


> I'd counter by calling her a life support system for a vagina. Then we'd have a good laugh about it.


And she'd call me a penis mobility system. Then we'd have a good laugh, too.


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

My XH used to call me his little cash cow. (He thought that when I published my first book, it would be a huge hit, and I would get as famous and rich as Stephen King or John Grisham. Shows how little he understood about the publishing industry, or about my writing. Anyway.)

Yes, I found it very offensive. It made me feel like he was more interested in how much money I could bring in to create a life of luxury for him, than he was actually interested in me.

Interestingly enough... when we were separated and he had started dating, during a particularly difficult conversation, I asked him why he would choose her over me (when, in my mind, I clearly had so much more going for me). He could have said that she was pretty, or had a beautiful personality, she was kind, she was funny, they had so much in common, or something else that indicated their relationship included something of substance. He answered, "she gets really cool perks with her job, like free concert and hockey tickets, and she makes really good money."

That poor woman. She married him.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

FeministInPink said:


> He could have said that she was pretty, or had a beautiful personality, she was kind, she was funny, they had so much in common, or something else that indicated their relationship included something of substance. He answered, "she gets really cool perks with her job, like free concert and hockey tickets, and she makes really good money."
> 
> That poor woman. She married him.


"She was pretty" would have been a better answer? 

Making really good money, if it's not inherited, at least implies some level of skill, effort, and ambition. What does "pretty" tell you about someone? 

My wife is no gold digger by any measure, but I know that my potential as a provider for her future family plans played no small part in her mate selection process. Seems to me if you're going to be a little bit shallow, this isn't the worst way to do it in an overtly capitalistic society.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

FeministInPink said:


> My XH used to call me his little cash cow. (He thought that when I published my first book, it would be a huge hit, and I would get as famous and rich as Stephen King or John Grisham. Shows how little he understood about the publishing industry, or about my writing. Anyway.)
> 
> Yes, I found it very offensive. It made me feel like he was more interested in how much money I could bring in to create a life of luxury for him, than he was actually interested in me.
> 
> ...


Money is a thing that will be there when asked for. A good man is not so easily found.
- Hagakure, Yamamoto Tsunetomo, 1716. 

I'd just update "man" to be "person," and the older I get, the truer this kind of thing gets. 

He probably will never understand what he lost with you, but c'est la vie. Someone else will. Congrats on getting published and getting a book done! I've always wanted to do that, and stopped and started many times, and never finished.


----------



## Anastasia6 (May 28, 2017)

Ok I"m confused are we calling the spouse a resource or capital.

I don't think I'd be offended by resource.

I mean when you live this life you need resources. Things or people that provide you with life. The sun is a resource it doesn't mean you use it up. Most people appreciate the sun. If my spouse is in need of something I'd like to be his resource, of physical help, emotional support, sexual release, strength .....

Online dictionary - a stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively.

I certainly want to help my spouse function effectively in all departments, emotional, physical, home, job, sexual and if I can help I"m willing.

Resource is much better than dead weight or dependent.


Capital is a different connotation.


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

Cletus said:


> "She was pretty" would have been a better answer?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I meant "She's pretty" as in, "I find her really attractive." Sometimes you just date someone because they are really attractive, and for no other reason. I dated a fireman once because he was SOOOO pretty and good in bed, but he was dumb as a rock. He had very little to offer.

The way he answered the question was just insulting... he said something along the lines of, well, she can get me Washington Capitols tickets whenever I ask because her company owns a box, can you do that?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Money is a thing that will be there when asked for. A good man is not so easily found.
> - Hagakure, Yamamoto Tsunetomo, 1716.
> 
> I'd just update "man" to be "person," and the older I get, the truer this kind of thing gets.
> ...


Sadly, I did not convey myself properly. I have NOT yet published a book... he was anticipating that as soon as I finished grad school I would get a contract with a huge advance for my thesis project.

That hasn't happened. I don't know if it ever will. I've taken a hiatus from writing so I can invest that energy elsewhere, and I don't know when I will take it up again.

But the rest of your post/response was completely on point. And yes, someday someone else will appreciate what he threw away.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

red oak said:


> How would you feel if your spouse, or significant other, started calling you their resource?
> 
> Or referred to you as their capital?
> 
> Would you be offended? Proud?


For me it would entirely depend on what the rest of the relationship was like.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

FeministInPink said:


> Sadly, I did not convey myself properly. I have NOT yet published a book... he was anticipating that as soon as I finished grad school I would get a contract with a huge advance for my thesis project.
> 
> That hasn't happened. I don't know if it ever will. I've taken a hiatus from writing so I can invest that energy elsewhere, and I don't know when I will take it up again.
> 
> ...


Well, you've still gotten further with writing than I have!

Kudos anyway.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

red oak said:


> Bit of a philosophical question.
> How would you feel if your spouse, or significant other, started calling you their resource?
> 
> Or referred to you as their capital?
> ...


Definitely not offended. Hell, I'd probably say we should call me Resource and him Capitol. I do _everything _but work (resource) and he brings home the bill money (capitol).


----------



## hilariouslaughter (Jan 15, 2020)

red oak said:


> Appreciate the answers.
> 
> I’m actually curious why one would be offended if a spouse or significant other minimized your humanity yet feel no annoyance over an employer, or government classifying one as the same.


 This seems to me like someone who has a tendency to manufacture offense where none exists


----------

