Adopting Husband's Name

[intellectualammo]

I agree with this less the phrase, "and take his name." You can "belong" to someone else completely without sharing a name[...]

Almost true, Kelly. Think: before the name change, you are in that state of belonging, so the name change acts as a way of demonstrating it symbolically, as Stella had mentioned, and completing it, in all the senses and meanings that you can(professional reasons aside).

Edited October 24, 2007 by intellectualammo

[K-Mac]

But I share my first name with many other women. I have co-workers who have the exact same last name yet they are not related. I have co-workers who have he exact same first and last names (I work with a lot of people of Chinese descent).

What makes you - you, Kelly is not your name; we are all much more unique than that.

Obviously, what makes me, me is not my name, but that name represents my family which is a HUGE part of me. They probably had the biggest hand in making me who I am today. Why would my lover want me to change that? Supposedly, the loves me for who I am, right?

Where did you get the rejection from?

Maybe rejection was a poor choice of words. My point is, if a man is proposing to me, surely he loves me just the way I am and I have already surrendered to him completely.

[intellectualammo]

I have already surrendered to him completely.

Sophia raised this before, I'll raise it again: Completely? You sure?

Completely, like surrendering your last name to your conqueror, in a manner of speaking? (professional reasons aside?)

[~Sophia~]

Obviously, what makes me, me is not my name, but that name represents my family which is a HUGE part of me. They probably had the biggest hand in making me who I am today.

Your family is not a part of you, your family, like you stated, is an influencial factor in your life. Nothing they have done is a reflection on you.

Why would my lover want me to change that? Supposedly, the loves me for who I am, right?

Nothing metaphysically changes about you when you change your name.

[K-Mac]

That is correct but if you belong completely to someone like that then what would make you not to take his name (professional reasons aside)?

Because, "Names don't represent our souls. They are just names." And I like my name. I just do.

Dominique took on all of her husband's names yet she only belong to one.

I haven't read TF yet, but all of those name changes must have been a pretty sincere gesture if she just gave it away to all her husbands despite only loving one.

True, Kelly. Think: before the name change, you are in that state, so the name change acts as a way of demonstrating it symbolically, as Stella had mentioned.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. As I understand it, I would not have any problem or issue with a woman changing her name, if she chooses to do so. I am not making an argument against name change, I am only arguing for the ability to keep one's given name if they choose to do so. I think it's completely possible to be feminine and be in love and keep the name my parents gave me.

What I really don't understand about this thread, or the article we are discussing, is that everyone seems to be in agreement that there's not much in a name, so what's the big deal if I want to keep mine? I am not the kind of person to say that I will never get married again, or never change my name, or never this or that, but at this time, I simply cannot fathom a reason to change my name yet again, if I don't want to.

[intellectualammo]

I'm not sure I'm following you here. As I understand it, I would not have any problem or issue with a woman changing her name, if she chooses to do so. I am not making an argument against name change, I am only arguing for the ability to keep one's given name if they choose to do so. I think it's completely possible to be feminine and be in love and keep the name my parents gave me.

If a woman said that to me, that she wants to keep it because it's the name her parents gave her, I'd question why she's even marrying me among other things... I'm going to go so far as to say that I am sexed enough, that I want to see that I have conquered her totally/completely/utterly, that she has surrendered her name to mine, no matter how it sounds with her first, and so forth (professional reasons aside). This is my opinion.

What I really don't understand about this thread, or the article we are discussing, is that everyone seems to be in agreement that there's not much in a name, so what's the big deal if I want to keep mine? I am not the kind of person to say that I will never get married again, or never change my name, or never this or that, but at this time, I simply cannot fathom a reason to change my name yet again, if I don't want to.

There is a hell of a lot of meaning in a name, first name, last, and so forth, only because it is referring to whom it is referring to. TF has made me see that, specifically the way Dom is with Roarks name.

Edited October 24, 2007 by intellectualammo

[~Sophia~]

Because, "Names don't represent our souls. They are just names."

Correct and what we talking here is, like already mentioned, not a moral issue but rather a gesture.

I haven't read TF yet, but all of those name changes must have been a pretty sincere gesture if she just gave it away to all her husbands despite only loving one.

Ahh I am so sorry for the spoiler. I don't want to say anymore since you have not read it.

[K-Mac]

Sophia raised this before, I'll raise it again: Completely? You sure?

Completely, like surrendering your last name to your conqueror, in a manner of speaking? (professional reasons aside?)

If I hadn't already completely surrendered to him, why would he be proposing to me? I would never accept a proposal from someone I had not completely surrendered to.

Your family is not a part of you, your family, like you stated, is an influential factor in your life. Nothing they have done is a reflection on you.

Not a part of me? I think I need some clarification on this. Perhaps my thinking is flawed, but I do consider my family a part of my life; therefore, part of me. And the actions of your family members can be a reflection on you. Just ask anyone who has lived in a small town where everyone knows everyone else. One family member's actions or lifestyle can alter the way society views that family's other members, for better or worse.

Nothing metaphysically changes about you when you change your name.

Right. So why change it?

[~Sophia~]

Not a part of me? I think I need some clarification on this. Perhaps my thinking is flawed, but I do consider my family a part of my life; therefore, part of me. And the actions of your family members can be a reflection on you. Just ask anyone who has lived in a small town where everyone knows everyone else. One family member's actions or lifestyle can alter the way society views that family's other members, for better or worse.

The only thing that reflects on you are your own actions and choices, regardless of what other people think.

Right. So why change it?

Because it essentially says: I am proud to be yours, to be attached to you in every way including your name; I am honoured to bare your name. At least that would be the reason for me, if the things were right.

Edited October 24, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[intellectualammo]

If I hadn't already completely surrendered to him, why would he be proposing to me? I would never accept a proposal from someone I had not completely surrendered to.

Yes, surrendered to...but (IMO) not completely surrendered to. Not in all senses, which would be complete surrender. Complete as in "absolute" or "total" by the defintion of it.

Right. So why change it?

Again, it's a gesture, a symbolic one as Stella had mentioned, and in my opinion I am the one proposing that it completes the total surrendering in every way that is possible to a woman (professional reasons aside) to a man she loves. The conquering is complete, in the context that we have been using it in.

Edited October 24, 2007 by intellectualammo

[K-Mac]

Correct and what we talking here is, like already mentioned, not a moral issue but rather a gesture.

If my acceptance of his proposal and my surrendering to him completely is not an appropriate gesture of my love and devotion to him, I don't see how a name change could be??

It doesn't seem like we're presenting any new ideas here, just our own opinions, so I'm just going to leave it at this...I believe changing one's name is a personal choice. I think it can be a reflection of deeper issues within a relationship, but I don't think it has to be. I think it is a big deal for some while it isn't for others. If at some point in the future I decide I want to take my future husband's name, so be it, but for now, I love my name and the person it represents, and I certainly hope that the man who loves me will feel that way too.

Edited October 24, 2007 by K-Mac

[softwareNerd]

...everyone seems to be in agreement that there's not much in a name, so what's the big deal if I want to keep mine?

It's no big deal at all. Changing one's name is just one symbolic gesture, and is completely optional. The reasons why one keeps a name or changes a name are much more important than the actual choice.

[~Sophia~]

I think it can be a reflection of deeper issues within a relationship, but I don't think it has to be.

No disagreement from me on that one.

[intellectualammo]

The reasons why one keeps a name or changes a name are much more important than the actual choice.

Yes, no disagreement with me. The reasons are of utmost importance to me.

I'll go so far as to say, that if a woman that I am engaged to does not want to change their last name to mine upon marriage, for whatever reason (save: professional reasons) I'd simply remain engaged... (IMO-->) I want to conquer, and to conquer a woman worth conquering completely. I am so very sexed.

[Inspector]

I think it's completely possible to be feminine and be in love and keep the name my parents gave me.

Sure, sure... but not as much as if you chose your husband's name over your parents'. This is about symbolism, and what you're symbolically saying if you don't take his name is "yeah, yeah; you're great honey. My whole world; blah, blah, blah. But this is more important to me than you." The "this" being whatever reason you've got for keeping your parents' name.

Now that sounds harsh, but that is the statement you make, whether you like it or not.

The question is: is it worth it to you, in your context, to make a statement like that? I can't answer that question for you. I can only make you aware of what the statement means.

It's not exactly the reverse, either, when you do take his name. Yes, you are putting them second, but they won't be offended because that's the way it's supposed to be. No matter how good your family is, metaphysically they can't compete with a truly good husband. They just can't; that's the nature of things. And they want you to have the kind of loving relationship that makes it no contest to choose. That is, if they are a good family.

And like intellectualammo said, you can cite all the reasons you want why taking his name would be difficult (bad sounding, attachment to family, etc), but all of those will only serve to enhance the symbolism of taking his name. They don't excuse it - they only raise the stakes.

Oh, and intellectualammo: you're quite welcome. What I do here can be very frustrating, so it's good to know that I'm making a positive difference.

[intellectualammo]

No matter how good your family is, metaphysically they can't compete with a truly good husband. They just can't; that's the nature of things. And they want you to have the kind of loving relationship that makes it no contest to choose. That is, if they are a good family.

This kind of reminds me of how a father walks their daughter down the aisle traditionally speaking..."to give them away" to quote their language and/or custom.

Oh, and intellectualammo: you're quite welcome. What I do here can be very frustrating, so it's good to know that I'm making a positive difference.

In my case, definitely.

I also want to see if you'd agree with something that I had just thought about. I'm going to take this discussion out of context and into another one. Here's the segue- All this talk, presupposes that the man wants/expects her to change her name upon marriage...say he doesn't want her to change it, that he likes it as is, then she shouldn't change it then respectively (or remain engaged or whatnot). Like in the case of my novoul, my character is named Desiree Ostara and she doesn't and I don't and her future husband doesn't want her to change her name upon marriage. I think in that case it's perfectly fine, since he (the future husband) doesn't want her to change it. Your thoughts, Inspector?

Edited October 25, 2007 by intellectualammo

[Inspector]

This kind of reminds me of how a father walks their daughter down the aisle traditionally speaking..."to give them away" to quote their language and/or custom.

Absolutely!

All this talk, presupposes that the man wants/expects her to change her name upon marriage...say he doesn't want her to change it

The same meaning applies, however, to the symbolism. "This is more important than me." If the "this" is more important to him then obviously there will be less contention to the matter. That doesn't say whether the "this" actually ought to be more important to him, though.

So it's not a matter of whether they agree on it. It's still a matter of what value is in fact more important.

Note that if it's for some career or public reason, you can still use the husband's name in non-official capacities.

[intellectualammo]

[edit: deleted what I said]

Edited October 25, 2007 by intellectualammo

[K-Mac]

This is about symbolism, and what you're symbolically saying if you don't take his name is "yeah, yeah; you're great honey. My whole world; blah, blah, blah. But this is more important to me than you." The "this" being whatever reason you've got for keeping your parents' name.

Now that sounds harsh, but that is the statement you make, whether you like it or not.

Uh, or not! Maybe this is true for you and your lover, but this may not be true for me and my lover My man will be secure and confident and not nearly as trivial or traditional as you are. What is a big deal to you, may not be a big deal to us. I am not symbolically or physically saying that, and you cannot make such an assumption about me or my feelings.

They don't excuse it - they only raise the stakes.

What stakes? You act like this is some gamble, as though you won't know that you can truly trust and love your woman unless she changes her last name. You shouldn't be proposing to someone you can't or won't trust. And imagining your thought at her agreeing to change her name just makes me want to laugh out loud. "Wow! She really, really loves me. If she is willing to take on the last name of Humperdink, she must truly be the one!" I can't believe your gage for a healthy relationship is whether or not a woman would be willing to change her name for you. And the worse the name, the more you think she loves you? Am I the only one who finds that a bit nuts?

because that's the way it's supposed to be

Oh, well, there you go. You've convinced me. That's your most compelling reason yet, for any argument really. Maybe that's the way it's supposed to be in this culture or that culture, but that doesn't mean it has to be that way for everyone.

As I have stated before and I guess I'll have to state again, if two people feel the way that you do, great! No problem. Goodie for you. If me and my lover feel another way and names are not as important to us as they obviously are to you, then goodie for us!

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Here is a link to a suberb article on this very subject:

http://www.andtheylivedhappilyeverafter.com/9.htm

Actually that has been a fascinating read--the whole site I mean.

[intellectualammo]

Am I the only one who finds that a bit nuts?

I know I don't find it a bit nuts. I'm definately with Inspector there.

IMO, the more ridiculous, horrible sounding, more aesthetically unpleasing my last name is the more meaningful her taking it is to me, *because* she is taking it in spite of that. She is taking "Humperdink" because it's mine.

Actually that has been a fascinating read--the whole site I mean.

I agree! from what I have read there so far. If you hadn't have mentioned that there was more than just that article, that there is a site, I would have missed out! I haven't read them all, but what I have looked at, I have no disagreements with. Oh, and Sophia said she (Leanne) was clearly influenced by Rand, well on the site there is a link box thingy at the bottom right, that have different things appear in it and one is to Rand's books and it says "The 'I' in 'I do'"!!

Edited October 25, 2007 by intellectualammo

[Inspector]

Maybe this is true for you and your lover, but this may not be true for me and my lover

No, that is false. The symbolism is still there, regardless. The fact is that you do live in a culture where this is the norm, so like it or not you will be making a statement if you refrain. This is not a subjective matter.

The question is not what the meaning of refusing is - the meaning is that something is more important to you than this symbolic expression of being his woman. The question is: what is it that is more important to you, and is that rational or not?

I can't believe your gage for a healthy relationship is whether or not a woman would be willing to change her name for you.

Excuse me, but where did I say that? Do not put words in my mouth.

And the worse the name, the more you think she loves you? Am I the only one who finds that a bit nuts?

No, that's not what I said either. Cease and desist this attributing things to me that I did not say.

if two people feel the way that you do, great! No problem. Goodie for you. If me and my lover feel another way and names are not as important to us as they obviously are to you, then goodie for us!

What you're leaving unstated is what you mean by "feel another way." The exact nature of that feeling may be "goodie" or it may be very much not. It would depend on what exactly you're doing and why.

If you "feel another way" because your family is more important in the scheme of your life than he is, then that isn't "goody." If you "feel another way" because he hasn't earned this (but yet you're marrying him!) then that is not "goodie." If you "feel another way" because you're not comfortable with a feminine attitude in general, then that is not "goodie." If you "feel another way" because you're still insecure from your divorce and are "once bitten twice shy" about the matter, despite the fact that he has very much earned it, then that is also not "goodie."

The point is that simply saying that you "feel another way" does not justify your choice. As I illustrated above, there are all manner of irrational reasons why a person might "feel another way." What you need to figure out is why you feel another way. You don't just get to say "well I feel differently and that's goodie, end of story."

[Inspector]

IMO, the more ridiculous, horrible sounding, more aesthetically unpleasing my last name is the more meaningful her taking it is to me, *because* she is taking it in spite of that. She is taking "Humperdink" because it's mine.

Sure, but you have to step back from it for a second sometimes. It's not like his name is some immovable absolute. If his name is just so generally bad, then you wonder why he didn't change it himself a long time ago. I mean yes it says something profound that he's important enough to her to do something like that. But that doesn't mean that it's actually necessarily necessary to do so. You don't want to lose sight of the forest for the trees, here.

[Moebius]

No, that is false. The symbolism is still there, regardless. The fact is that you do live in a culture where this is the norm, so like it or not you will be making a statement if you refrain. This is not a subjective matter.

The cultural norm is irrelevant. The point of the symbolic gesture is to communicate your affection to your lover, and your lover only. What's more, it is an optional gesture. You could just as well tattoo your lover's name on your arse in giant block letters to express the same feelings. It does not matter a twit how others interpret your statement as long as it is understood by your other half.

[K-Mac]

Excuse me, but where did I say that? Do not put words in my mouth.

No, that's not what I said either. Cease and desist this attributing things to me that I did not say.

Number one, I don't think I did in the first case and in the second, I asked a question...how is that attributing things to you I did not say? And third, I would like to demand that you stop doing it to me! Far worse than putting words in my mouth, which you've done, you tried to tell me what I feel and what I think is symbolic. No one can tell me how I think or feel or whether what I am doing is symbolic or not. Speak for yourself and NOT FOR ME!!!

I respectfully agree to disagree with several of you on this subject and I would appreciate the same respect form you!

Perhaps this is why there aren't more women Objectivists out there? No person likes another person telling her how she thinks or feels. In fact, it's one of the reasons for my divorce. I'm sick and tired of my husband telling me how I feel while at the same time he will not listen to me when I speak. If you want to try to influence me with your knowledge or life experiences, go for it, but you have stepped way over the line of what I consider to be information worth pondering.

The cultural norm is irrelevant. The point of the symbolic gesture is to communicate your affection to your lover, and your lover only. What's more, it is an optional gesture. You could just as well tattoo your lover's name on your arse in giant block letters to express the same feelings. It does not matter a twit how others interpret your statement as long as it is understood by your other half.

THANK YOU!!!

Edited October 25, 2007 by K-Mac