Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Adopting Husband's Name

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

It is the expression of these then we are looking to have a word for. I suggested that Love is an adequate term for that, perhaps we don't need a seperate word, like 'worship' to describe the physical desire and our own emotional response manifestions.

What we are looking for is a description for how a heterosexual woman experiences romantic love. Love is gender neutral.

So are you suggesting that your progression of emotions go, say, from respect --> admiration --> worship ? to the degree with which they are expressions of your values? Is that last step Love *and* worship. Can you worship someone you do not love?

Yes, I would say that it starts with admiration and then it leaves the realm of platonic and becomes something more intense. I answered the second part above.

No of course not, but one Rand charachter also raped another.

I don't want to go on a tangent here but it was 'rape' by invitation. It made logical sense for Rand to make it so, for Dominique to fight him off. She did not want to want him (because that was her attitude about life - she did not want to want anything or anybody) - yet she wanted him and he got that about her.

Another example might be between Leonidas and his queen in "300", she was not a passive woman who 'worshiped' Leonidas, the story depicted them as both intelligent, passionate, indepenant, rational, and fighters for what they believed in.

How is that different from Rand's heroines? I would argue with you that the queen had THAT attitude toward her husband, part of the reason it was so amazing to watch them. It scratched an itch, so to speak, just in the right spot, for both male and female audience.

Of course, but lets say this man bowing down was the right man, would you prefer he kneel down and bow to you in proposal, or stand and look you in the eyes?

I have no preference for such trivial things. People asign way too much importance to things like that, to various rituals. I am not one of those.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sophia, would you prefer to be in a relationship,

I prefer the gap to not be very wide (slight is enough). If it was I would question this man's attraction toward me. I would want to have something to offer back. I would like to also add that this is not some sort of a numbers game or keeping a score card. I may as well be much better in some things but there must be, at least for me personally, a feeling of a slight edge, a slight challenge.

what am I to feel for her?

You can find an answer to that through deep introspection.

I don't think she should get to feel something for me that I can't feel for her, but perhaps as is indicated here innate pyschological differences make that a necessity, but I am not convinced of that.

You acknowledge that we go through different experiences in life due to being a different gender then why do you assume that we must experience romantic love the same way? It is in romance, after all, that our gender differences are the most highlighted, brought to focus (and that is part of the appeal).

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Men and women do differ psychologically to some degree. What I experience as a mother, for example, you will never know. We operate within our specific context. I have free will but I also have a body which is a result of years of evolution. I don't think that there has to be (or is) a conflict between the two.

Yes, of course there are psychological differences which are a result of our physiological differences, men will also have a different psychological reaction to environmental stimuli because we tend to be larger and stronger, but none of these are absolute nor they should necessarily be embraced axiomatically. Men, psychological studies show, tend to prefer submissive and shy passive women. Does that mean I should? Similarly, physiological differences might encourage psychological tendencies for women to worship or desire to look up to a man (the corollary to men preferring passive women) the same psychological motivation which in part leads women to be captivated by rock stars and celebrities. But any psychological tendancy which has an evolutionary root evolved for and only for one thing, to encourage as many children as possible to be born as quickly as possible. Evolutionary psychology is conducive to procreation, not necessarily a eudaemonic life long mutually inspiring relationship. Where pyschological tendancies contribute to said life, we would be wise to adopt them, where they do not, I do not believe we should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why shrink from the task?

I don't consider myself shrinking from the task; however, I do have a limited number of hours in each day and I do not wish to spend hours debating with someone the meaning of the word worship when I can simply use another, what I consider to be, more appropriate term. Why MUST I use the word worship?

But Kelly, you will admit that we mean the same thing then right?

Oh, yes. I thought I had mentioned that before, but in case I didn't, yes, I understand the meaning of the word and how you all and Rand are using it, it's just not a word I prefer. Personal preference, I guess. :huh:

Kelly, where do you come up with this claim? The meaning of words is not the "average" of the various connotations it may have. If meanings 1,4, and 7 do not mention religion, then the word can be used in context without carrying a religious connotation at all. That is a valid meaning of the word.

I was not trying to suggest that the meaning of the word is an average of the definitions or that all of the definitions in my link were 100% correct. I was suggesting that the average American has a different definition of the word than the definition we are using here, leaving the potential for miscommunication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are things a woman and a male are not going to feel in the same way, not only psychologically, think: physiologically too. It's all about gender, which is metaphysical. So she and you by the very nature of your gender, experience feelings/perspectives/roles differently, IMO.

Of course, but 'worship' has no reasonable corollary male equivalent, except to enjoy being worshiped, which is irrespective of the worshiper. The only possible corollary is from a position of some superiority; you cant keep pulling out the term worship over and over again yet ignore the fact that worshiper and worshipee must necessarily be different, and unless the worshiper is for a specific set of superior qualities, which necessities an imbalance between the partners, than it seems to have no real meaning --(edit)--> except as an arbitrary vestigial evolutionary psychology emotion which may or may not be good to have in a healthy relationship.

Edited by Matus1976
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course there are psychological differences which are a result of our physiological differences, men will also have a different psychological reaction to environmental stimuli because we tend to be larger and stronger, but none of these are absolute nor they should necessarily be embraced axiomatically. Men, psychological studies show, tend to prefer submissive and shy passive women. Does that mean I should?

So now we have moved from you having a problem with the term picked to name the emotion to you having a problem with the emotion itself.

Do you get the impression from me that I make my choices or accept preferences based on psychological studies or averages?

I am trying to identify and gain an explicit understanding my own nature, preferences, and desires. I can tell you that, for example, I can not get pass psychologically, a man, a romantic interest, being a lot smaller than me physically. It is not an arbitrary. You can provide me with as many rationalistic arguments as to why, overall, that should not be important - but it just IS. Such a man can be my best friend but he will never become my romantic interest. A woman never fantasizes about a male who is smaller.

Your argument here reminds me of the one offered re: socialism - if you could only change your nature it could work like that!

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Natural" means nothing to me

Then you'd better throw out the entirety of the Objectivist ethics, because they are based on man's nature as a rational being.

Recognizing physiological differences is one thing, prescribing pyschological dictums (oughts) is entirely different.

You don't accept the idea that an "is" can imply an "ought?"

So now worship is just something sexually, and is not psychological, is that your position? In other words, a woman as a romantic partner can be independant, assertive, intelligent, passionate, etc, but must be passive and submissive in bed?

No; what I am saying is that as she relates to her man, romantically the masculine/feminine dynamic is in play. In other contexts, it may not necessarily.

I find this comment particular disagreeable. If a man can not look up a woman

I said, In the context. There can be contexts where the dynamic isn't in play - what is essential is that there are at least enough contexts where it is in play. Whatever else there is between the man and the woman, the male-female dynamic I described is the essential part for romance.

But a man properly worthy of the kind of worship mentioned in this thread will be worshipped by many woman, so what guides the man's choice in the woman?

Obviously, the best of them (that is, the best that can still be in that position to him). What would make you think otherwise?

Hence, someone worthy of worship (if you attatch any kind of worth to it) wouldnt particularly care to be worshipped.

Well, I disagree.

it seems you assert that they must be at an equal or near equal level, but with enough of a difference that the women in general will look up to the man intellectually (though I am not sure of that with your comments suggesting this is primarily a psychological-sexual thing, and not a general attitude)

It doesn't have to be intellectually at all. It could be on other levels - especially those that are uniquely manly. The intellect is an equal attribute between the sexes, so I don't think it's the most essential in this regard. Of course, it could be essential for other aspects of a relationship; it's just not for this aspect.

Yes, if a man is perpetually looking up to a woman, it is pyschologically unhealthy, but I think if a woman is perpetually looking up to a man it is as well, or at least not as spiritually or emotionally as fulfilling for the both, so I dont think either should be perpetually looking up to the other, they ought to be able to challenge and stimulate each other on all levels.

You seem unsure of this. It seems like you're willing to see it's a total relationship-killer for a man to be a worshipper but only that it would be "at least not as spiritually or emotionally as fulfilling" for the woman to be in that role. Interesting.

I think you somewhat understand this issue, but are reluctant to acknowledge it because you think it will mean a number of bad things which it really doesn't. Lamentably, I see this a lot and it is in large part due to the cultural value-destruction out there. I get the impression that this is something that used to be widely understood - in the days of John Wayne and such.

Well, good luck sir. I hope you can reach an understanding of this - because frankly it's wonderful. I'll help if I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, but 'worship' has no reasonable corollary male equivalent, except to enjoy being worshiped, which is irrespective of the worshiper. The only possible corollary is from a position of some superiority; you cant keep pulling out the term worship over and over again yet ignore the fact that worshiper and worshipee must necessarily be different, and unless the worshiper is for a specific set of superior qualities, which necessities an imbalance between the partners, than it seems to have no real meaning

You are absolutely correct. It is not some kind of goes-both-ways thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't consider myself shrinking from the task; however, I do have a limited number of hours in each day and I do not wish to spend hours debating with someone the meaning of the word worship when I can simply use another, what I consider to be, more appropriate term. Why MUST I use the word worship?

Ultimately, I'd say that because words and the concepts they denote have definitive meanings and it means something if you capitulate the idea. But in reality, I don't much care what you use. That you understand the meaning is more important to me. :huh:

Oh, yes. I thought I had mentioned that before, but in case I didn't, yes, I understand the meaning of the word and how you all and Rand are using it, it's just not a word I prefer. Personal preference, I guess. :)

Gotcha, I can go with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now we have moved from you having a problem with the term picked to name the emotion to you having a problem with the emotion itself.

We are discussing both apparently, because the conversation has moved from the term for an emotion and whether 'to worship' described it well and if it was a healthy one, to the emotional reaction of worshiping, which Rand said does not imply an inequality, yet everyone here seems to argue it does, and whether that is necessary or proper to a healthy relationship.

Do you get the impression from me that I make my choices or accept preferences based on psychological studies or averages?

Absolutely not. I was making the point that not all psychological inclinations were healthy to embrace, conversely some surely are. Do you disagree?

I am trying to identify and gain an explicit understanding my own nature, preferences, and desires.

I am as well, this is just an inquiry into an idea critical to the functioning of a healthy relationship, I am not debating for it's own sake but trying to work out my understanding of this.

I can tell you that, for example, I can not get pass psychologically, a man, a romantic interest, being a lot smaller than me physically. It is not an arbitrary. You can provide me with

as many rationalistic arguments as to why, overall, that should not be important - but it just IS. Such a man can be my best friend but he will never become my romantic interest. A woman never fantasizes about a male who is smaller.

I also can not date a woman taller than me, or for that matter, too much shorter. I probably could if I tried hard enough and circumstances required it (say we are part of the last adults trying to repopulate) but it's not important or necessary.

Your argument here reminds me of the one offered re: socialism - if you could only change your nature it could work like that!

Whats in 'your nature' (which can encompass things we have chosen and integrated) is not quite the same thing as what is natural, is it? And what is natural is not necessarily conducive to a life long healthy stimulating relationship. Choosing to integrate something because it is natural is a logical fallacy, implying that everything evolution and nature has created is automatically the best thing. I will pick and choose which evolutionarily psychological influences are good and embrace them accordingly, just as I will do with cultural conventions. So far, I don't see 'enjoy being worshiped' as one of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was making the point that not all psychological inclinations were healthy to embrace, conversely some surely are. Do you disagree?

No I don't disagree but I do believe that we do have a specific nature. There is nothing unhealthy about this psychological state (or attitude). It is an internal feeling which is very pleasurable/satisfactory. I would not categorize it as a behavior but rather a reaction with both mental and physiological components.

Whats in 'your nature' (which can encompass things we have chosen and integrated) is not quite the same thing as what is natural, is it? And what is natural is not necessarily conducive to a life long healthy stimulating relationship.

What do you mean by the term natural? It would be un-natural, unsatisfactory (and cowardly) for me to give up on that emotion and accept less.

Choosing to integrate something because it is natural is a logical fallacy, implying that everything evolution and nature has created is automatically the best thing.

Again, that would be a great argument for socialism.

I tend to not to wish for reality to be different, but rather I want to know it, understand it, and make my decisions in line with it.

Like Inspector already pointed out to you, negation of the existance of a specific human nature - negates the concept of morality. This is not just a cultural convention.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you'd better throw out the entirety of the Objectivist ethics, because they are based on man's nature as a rational being.

and

No I don't disagree but I do believe that we do have a specific nature. There is nothing unhealthy about this psychological state (or attitude). It is an internal feeling which is very pleasurable/satisfactory. I would not categorize it as a behavior but rather a reaction with both mental and physiological components.

What do you mean by the term natural? It would be un-natural, unsatisfactory (and cowardly) for me to give up on that emotion and accept less.

and

Like Inspector already pointed out to you, negation of the existance of a specific human nature - negates the concept of morality. This is not just a cultural convention.

I don't have alot of time to respond tonight, but I wanted to clarify what I meant here before too many other people jump on this.

'Natural' is something produced by 'natural' processes of evolution, etc. A 'natural' food is something not man made (or however you want to define that) An 'unnatural' element is one not occuring in nature, like californium (though of course that begs an argument since it is based on natural sub atomic components, but thats beside the point.) You can argue exactly what is meant by natural, as in natural food or 'thats not natural!' endlessly, I seek only to differentiate what is 'natural' from the Nature of something.

'Nature' as in 'Human Nature' is a tendency toward a particular set of actions, or something similar (I am sure a better description exists) The nature of a sentient rational being prescribes a certain set of behavior and a morality based on successful exists suggests a certain course of action as well. Human Nature is NOT the same thing as what is natural.

When I am saying I don't care if something is 'natural' I don't care if someone's hair is colored green, or they get implants, piercings, or tattoos, none of these bother me, even though they are 'un-natural' I don't care if a particular pattern of atoms exists in nature or not, if it is useful to someone that it all that matters. I don't care if someone is born short and has an operation to be taller, even if it is 'un-natural'. Objectivist ethics as based on man's nature as a rational being is applicable to all sentient rational beings whether natural (such as men) or un-natural (such as artificial intelligence) When I say I dont care about what is natural, I am NOT saying I don't care about 'human nature' (which should be the nature of a physical sentient rational being anyway, and not necessarily confined to 'human') Objectivist ethics would apply equally to any physical sentient being. So "Man's Nature" is not the same thing as a 'natural man' - I hope I have made my point clear now. **However** Human Nature is comprised partly of what is prescribed from natural processes, partly what is required to exist in a real world, and partly what we choose for ourselves. I do not care if men are naturally inclined to like passive women, are naturally inclined to form small social groups, are naturally evolved to exist in small communal societies, are naturally only able to run X fast or jump Y high, etc. I do not care if 'natural process' have contributed to a psychological attitude that tends to make women 'worship' men and men desire passive submissive inferior women. I choose to adopt only what is most beneficial for a fulfilling healthy indefinite stimulating relationship. This is includes most aspects of Human Nature, but not necessarily everything 'natural'

Also, I am NOT arguing for socialism, I am not sure why you keep insisting this. Socialism is the forcible distribution of wealth, among other things. I am arguing that humans as sentient rational beings with free will can choose to abandon things that nature has given them a tendency toward, and unless you assert that we are slaves to our genes and have no free will than you implicitly agree with this.

I apologize if the way I was trying to convey this earlier was confusing, I have a lengthy background in the modern scientific skepticism movement of Shermer, Sagan, etc, and conversations of what is 'natural' come up all the time. Furthermore, I am interested in extropianism and transhumanism, which includes modifying a human body to better suit your desires, the most frequent charge against that is that it is 'not natural' (neither, of course, is any medical procedure used today) So I use the term 'natural' all the time in that context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I am NOT arguing for socialism

You are not. Sorry, I hope I did not irritate you. I just saw similarity of argument.

What I was refering to was that the theory of socialism assumes man as self-less instead of selfish. In communism, it was argued that a man does not have to accept how the nature made him, that he can get beyond his animal selfishness and by choice become (or at least strive for) something 'better', more sophisticated, self-less version. You know how well that worked.

I do believe that to a great extend we are self made; that we chose our character; that we can and should be in charge of our emotions in terms of making sure that they reflect our concious convictions. At the same time I don't believe that a man is somehow outside of the law of identity because of free will. I can certainly choose to act selflessly but it won't be good for me; I won't flourish that way. I can't somehow escape what I am.

This issue under discussion is no different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

I have read many of Leanne's articles. She is great (clearly influenced by Rand). She understands the damage created by the feminist movement.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Aside from the obvious question - if you aren't totally in love with him, why did you marry him?

If he isn't totally in love with me, why is he marrying me?

- the issue raises serious doubts about the sincerity of those who advocate this new fad.

New fad? It seems to me the newer of the "fads" would be taking your husband's name.

The argument, that relinquishing your maiden name in favour of your husband's somehow robs you of your identity, is complete nonsense.

To her, maybe, but not to others.

Any woman whose self-esteem is so precarious that it hinges on which surname she attaches to herself has bigger problems to worry about.

Any man whose self-esteem is so precarious that it hinges on whether or not his wife takes his surname or not has bigger problems to worry about.

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

I agree. So what is she (and many of you) making such a big deal about?

Only shamans and charlatans treat names as though they're mystical talismans sacred to our spiritual well being.

Personally, I've never known any woman to give this as the reason for her changing or not changing her name.

And the really ridiculous part is that women only have their maiden names - the "maiden" referring, of course, to a little girl, not a grown woman - because their mothers gave up their names when they married. So the names they wear with such pride are themselves a symbol of some other woman "giving up" her identity when she married, if that's the way you choose to look at it. This kind of thing makes it clear that a woman honours her parents' marriage, and her mother's choice to relinquish her name in favour of her husband's, but she doesn't honour her own marriage, or husband, enough to do the same.

That was my parent's choice, this is my choice.

I don't have the position I do on this matter because of some crazy, fem-Nazi, women's lib crap. I simply like my maiden name and it means something to me. I am very close to my family and I am proud of them. I would think that any man that asks me to marry him, would be respectful of that, and I would hope that he too would embrace my family and love them because they are a big part of me. I don't see why either side of this issue has to be so hostile with the other. It's simply a personal choice and I don't understand why people can't leave it at that...especially if it's not a big deal to either party involved in the marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To her, maybe, but not to others.

You have to explain that further.

I also do not consider my name as part of my identity. Who I am is not my name. Whatever my family/ancestors did, including my parents, is not my achievement.

For me, it is only a tool to tell me apart from others. Most know me here as Sophia, which is not my real name. I adopted a different English name when I moved to North America. My birth name, has 3 versions: very formal, formal, and casual.

I am not attached to any.

I am divorced and I did not take my ex-husband's last name when we got married and not for professional reasons (to me that is a good reason). Both of our names are short and it would have been no problem. Looking back I know that I was hanging on to my father's last name rather than feeling proud (and honoured) to take his. Since I am not attached to names, it was a symbol of what was going on (or rather not happening) in my psychology. It was not it... there was this psychological barrier, a stop sign, I did not give in - and at the time I did not inquire as to why, as I should have.

So I do relate to some of the things this woman is saying.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stella, I thought it'd be interesting to put all these quotes together, trying to keep some of the thread together, seeing how many tangents have frayed it up a bit.

I'm fortunate enough to have the cool last name "Edge," which Kelly prefers to "Koenig."

I'd accept it if my wife wanted to keep her name, but I prefer that she take my name. I never thought about it before Stella raised the issue, but I would have been really disappointed if Kelly didn't want to take my name. I think it is a sexuality issue, as Inspector indicated. Also, there's a lot of symbolism in sharing the same name, and there are other benefits, as mentioned earlier in this thread.

That said, it's not a moral issue. If a woman wants to keep her name, it's her right.

As to the subject of this thread, it would depend on your personal context. However, a really good reason to do it is because it's a very feminine thing to do. How perfectly symbolic of a woman's worship for her man: taking his name. If you have the sort of man who has earned that, then go for it. If not, however, one does wonder why you're marrying him...

I'm somewhat with Dan and Inspector on this one.

[Disclaimer: like Kelly, I'm finalizing a divorce. No, she didn't take my name. No, that wasn' the reason for the divorce, but the underlying psychology of it, may have contributed.]

I need to decide which comes higher in my hierarchy of values -- keeping my name, which is perfectly suited to me and my line of work, or the visible symbol of my love and admiration for my man? (We are not engaged, for the record; I only thought of it because the subject came up in passing -- in fact, it was my 13-year-old niece who precociously asked us about it.) If my last name were anything other than what it is, this wouldn't even be a question for me (especially since I like his last name).

Women who choose not to take their husband's surname after marriage are not sexually attracted to them, and will likely be the one to initiate divorce.

When a woman feels metaphysically submissive to a man, when she admires all the masculine qualities he exhibits and deems him worthy of submitting to, sexually speaking, she will gladly become "his" and take his name. This is the essence of femininity.

The only situation in which a woman would be justified in keeping her maiden name is when that name has become something she is known for professionally.

What if it was a horribly sounding last name? that didn't go with your first name at all? that can be made fun of? I think that if a woman takes it in spite of all of that, it's clearily saying a lot about the way she feels about the man. As in another way of demonstrating it. "I know it sounds horrible, but it's his!" I remember on an epi of "Married with Children" where Marcy was going to marry a man whose last name was "Darcy", hence the possiblity of Marcy Darcy... Would it be even more...insulting...psychologically to a man, if she were not to take it, in spite of the way it sounds with hers, as opposed to the meaning in the action of taking his name? I'm only asking. Oh, and Stella, what does the man in your relationship think about you taking or not taking his name, or even having a bit of trouble deciding, or has this not been discussed with him (yet?)?

Oh, and much due credit to Inspector. I really have learned a lot from you in this thread and in others, specifically in regards to romantic relationships in regards to men and women. Like the proper way to use "yours" and "mine", for example. That worship does not go both ways, and so forth. Thank you.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to explain that further.

Your name is precisely how others identify you. I want to be identified by the name I have chosen, which is my given, maiden name. That's not nonsense to me. What is nonsense to me is that a man would fall in love with me, then reject my given name and my family.

So I do relate to some of the things this woman is saying.

Sure! I can relate to some of the things that she's saying as well, especially when it comes to the "women's rights" movement. Those people are just ridiculous. I certainly have no problem with a woman changing her name to her husband's name, if that's what she wants to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your name is precisely how others identify you.

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 discent).

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

What is nonsense to me is that a man would fall in love with me, then reject my given name and my family.

Where did you get the rejection from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women who choose not to take their husband's surname after marriage are not sexually attracted to them, and will likely be the one to initiate divorce.

She says this as though it were fact. The simple fact of the matter in my divorce is that I did take my husband's name when we were married and we are, even still, sexually attracted to each other. I love and care deeply for my soon-to-be ex-husband, he simply has some personal problems that I cannot bear any longer. They are an obstacle to my, personal happiness. (And his too if only I could get him to understand/realize that!) Anyway, this statement may be the result of a situation she observed, but I hardly think that's a fair, blanket statement to be presenting as fact.

When a woman feels metaphysically submissive to a man, when she admires all the masculine qualities he exhibits and deems him worthy of submitting to, sexually speaking, she will gladly become "his" and take his name. This is the essence of femininity.

I agree with this less the phrase, "and take his name." You can "belong" to someone else completely without sharing a name the same way you can "belong" to someone else without having the same color eyes or sharing the same profession.

Edited by K-Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Correct, Sophia. Taking a man's name is a gesture, another way of demonstrating how you think/feel about him.

Names don't represent our souls. They are just names. Only shamans and charlatans treat names as though they're mystical talismans sacred to our spiritual well being. Reasonable people know that names are used, primarily, to tell each other apart. We can change them at will throughout our lives, or call ourselves by nicknames if we wish. We can also adopt the name of someone whom we love and admire more than anyone else in the world, if we want to make a gesture of love and respect towards him. And, clearly, we can defiantly choose to hang on to the name we've got, which is also a very clear gesture on its own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can "belong" to someone else completely without sharing a name the same way you can "belong" to someone else without having the same color eyes or sharing the same profession.

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

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

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...