taking his name
- Thread starterVarun1987
- Start date
I know several male subs who have forfeit their last names in favor of their wive's last name and I also know a few families in which the children's first name is taken from the lover/father. Have never heard of a wife changing her name to a boy friend - that is for marriage or else a major legal production.
I think it would be kind of nice if all husbands took their wife's surname. So John Browning marrying Elaine Smith would become John and Elaine Smith.
The real advantage of this is that former boyfriends of Elaine Smith could have re-unions with her throughout the marriage whenever she needed a "loving top-up", especially if the time arrived when John is no longer getting erections "often enough for her liking".
Because Elaine Smith remains Elaine Smith, all her former class mates and lovers can find her easily in the future.
John Browning can "lose" his surname, because he promises to be faithfully monogamous throughout the marriage.
Former lovers will call in on Elaine every few months to check whether she is ready for extra loving - and whether she is ready to make John a proper cuckold.
A wife should be allowed to have sex with any former boyfriend throughout her marriage, because these men "know her body" thoroughly - and emotionally she is connected to them. Her nakedness is installed in their mind memory library, and when they think of her, they remember the eye candy excitement from touching and fucking her body.
The real advantage of this is that former boyfriends of Elaine Smith could have re-unions with her throughout the marriage whenever she needed a "loving top-up", especially if the time arrived when John is no longer getting erections "often enough for her liking".
Because Elaine Smith remains Elaine Smith, all her former class mates and lovers can find her easily in the future.
John Browning can "lose" his surname, because he promises to be faithfully monogamous throughout the marriage.
Former lovers will call in on Elaine every few months to check whether she is ready for extra loving - and whether she is ready to make John a proper cuckold.
A wife should be allowed to have sex with any former boyfriend throughout her marriage, because these men "know her body" thoroughly - and emotionally she is connected to them. Her nakedness is installed in their mind memory library, and when they think of her, they remember the eye candy excitement from touching and fucking her body.
This is not uncommon where my family hails from. In my case, and my dad's and back 2 papa's, upon marriage we take our wives' nee name - her mom's paternal name. In my case my wife is C. nee Madrid, Gaccolome. We were wed as Mr&Mrs Madrid. It is expected that all wives cuckold their husbands. Therefore my wife's mom's name was actually passed down through the maternal bloodline.
It would make a lot more sense for a man to take the woman's surname in hetero cases.
An idea that makes a lot more sense, IMO, would be for the man to take his wife's surname on marriage.* See (for instance):
Is it time for the man to take the woman’s surname in marriage?
Comments: Is it itme for the man to take the woman's surname in marriage?
This could go a long way toward eliminating conflict over whether any given child of a married man and his wife is "his" child or was sired by one of his wife's lovers, because each of a married woman's children would then, by definition, unambiguously be HER child regardless of the identity of the biological father.
The transition to a society in which a man routinely takes the woman's surname on marriage would have no affect on inheritance, since "ownership" of a woman by her husband is an archaic religious concept that no longer holds sway in western societies (except in the minds of religious conservatives). (Obviously, that concept still holds sway in Islamic societies.)
In the U.S., it has traditionally been easy for a woman to change her surname to that of her husband and back again, if they divorce, but complicated and difficult or almost impossible for a man to adopt his wife's surname. But, court decisions in response to men who have brought suite are changing that. Now, in an increasing number of states — if I recall correctly — it has become as easy for a man to adopt his wife's surname on marriage as for a woman to adopt her husband's surname.
"The time's they are a-changin' ".... , as Bob Dylan put it well.
________________
*In cases where the marriage is heterosexual.
Varun1987 said:
An idea that makes a lot more sense, IMO, would be for the man to take his wife's surname on marriage.* See (for instance):
Is it time for the man to take the woman’s surname in marriage?
Comments: Is it itme for the man to take the woman's surname in marriage?
This could go a long way toward eliminating conflict over whether any given child of a married man and his wife is "his" child or was sired by one of his wife's lovers, because each of a married woman's children would then, by definition, unambiguously be HER child regardless of the identity of the biological father.
The transition to a society in which a man routinely takes the woman's surname on marriage would have no affect on inheritance, since "ownership" of a woman by her husband is an archaic religious concept that no longer holds sway in western societies (except in the minds of religious conservatives). (Obviously, that concept still holds sway in Islamic societies.)
In the U.S., it has traditionally been easy for a woman to change her surname to that of her husband and back again, if they divorce, but complicated and difficult or almost impossible for a man to adopt his wife's surname. But, court decisions in response to men who have brought suite are changing that. Now, in an increasing number of states — if I recall correctly — it has become as easy for a man to adopt his wife's surname on marriage as for a woman to adopt her husband's surname.
"The time's they are a-changin' ".... , as Bob Dylan put it well.
________________
*In cases where the marriage is heterosexual.
Regarding Markieboy's comments:
This is entirely reasonable (per my post above), but why should only men with "sub personalities" adopt their wives surnames on marriage...?
I agree this is a good practice. If "Joe," for instance, is a married woman's lover (not her husband, who has some other first name), and if Joe sires one of her children and it's a girl, it would be appropriate for her to name her infant (for instance) "Joanne" or "Joan." If her infant is a boy, it would be appropriate for her to name him "Joe." This practice, IMO, should be in addition to... not a substitute for... the woman's husband taking her surname on marriage.
Regarding Saraha's comments:
Yes, certainly. I suggest, however, a slight difference in how this should be viewed. If John Browning marries Elaine Smith, they would subsequently be known as Elaine and John Smith. On formal occasions, they would be known and addressed as "Ms. and Mr. Elaine Smith."
These are all good points...
Here, however, I must say this seems much too restrictive. Why should a married woman's lovers be restricted to her previous lovers prior to taking one of them as her husband?
One problem would be that some or all of them would probably be married themselves, and would thus have promised monogamous fidelity to THEIR wives (who, in turn, might enforce that).
In addition, even if single, they would probably tend to be of roughly similar age to the married woman who wishes to take advantage of their services (again), so — like her husband — they may no longer be as hot in bed as they used to be.
Ergo, a married woman should be free to enjoy any other men of her choosing, including younger men — considerably younger men, if she so desires — as lovers, not just the men she fucked prior to her marriage.
markieboy said:
This is entirely reasonable (per my post above), but why should only men with "sub personalities" adopt their wives surnames on marriage...?
markieboy said:
I agree this is a good practice. If "Joe," for instance, is a married woman's lover (not her husband, who has some other first name), and if Joe sires one of her children and it's a girl, it would be appropriate for her to name her infant (for instance) "Joanne" or "Joan." If her infant is a boy, it would be appropriate for her to name him "Joe." This practice, IMO, should be in addition to... not a substitute for... the woman's husband taking her surname on marriage.
Regarding Saraha's comments:
Saraha said:
Yes, certainly. I suggest, however, a slight difference in how this should be viewed. If John Browning marries Elaine Smith, they would subsequently be known as Elaine and John Smith. On formal occasions, they would be known and addressed as "Ms. and Mr. Elaine Smith."
Saraha said:
These are all good points...
Saraha said:
Here, however, I must say this seems much too restrictive. Why should a married woman's lovers be restricted to her previous lovers prior to taking one of them as her husband?
One problem would be that some or all of them would probably be married themselves, and would thus have promised monogamous fidelity to THEIR wives (who, in turn, might enforce that).
In addition, even if single, they would probably tend to be of roughly similar age to the married woman who wishes to take advantage of their services (again), so — like her husband — they may no longer be as hot in bed as they used to be.
Ergo, a married woman should be free to enjoy any other men of her choosing, including younger men — considerably younger men, if she so desires — as lovers, not just the men she fucked prior to her marriage.
The mind boggles at the possibilities; but when a women marries it can become difficult for an old boyfriend to find her for a sexual re-union again. I am all for an ex-boyfriend being able to find her easily, then he and her can discuss the logistics of (adultery or otherwise), with the chances she may have already "loosened up" her hubby to allow her "extra loving" anyway.
When a man gets a divorce, he often thinks (I have heard) about tracking down old girlfriends to see if they may be back on the "market" after a divorce or spousal death. It can be easier to seduce them second time round while they are "lonely and vulnerable". He can avoid his old mistakes to get his "leg over" to see whether the chemistry can be cultivated to his advantage.
When a man gets a divorce, he often thinks (I have heard) about tracking down old girlfriends to see if they may be back on the "market" after a divorce or spousal death. It can be easier to seduce them second time round while they are "lonely and vulnerable". He can avoid his old mistakes to get his "leg over" to see whether the chemistry can be cultivated to his advantage.
