Well, that's just it. For you to become yourself first, your mother played a rather very instrumental part. Without her you couldn't have possibly do it.

Your father was there, too, of course. We know that. But he does not care, as sad as it sounds. He is a man, he is into himself, mainly.

That's why men get to be owned, eventually. Becaus they are passive. They don't go out looking for people they can own, they seem harmless, aimless and useless, that's why predatory women go out and make them their own.

Men are predatory, but more truly. They go, predate, and when they catch a pray, they kill it. So to speak.

Women are predatory collectors. They go out, single out a pray, separate it from the heard (the poker nights and the superbowl parties) and then when a woman takes possession of her prey, she keeps him. Locked up under seven locks of marriage. She keeps him, milks him (ew...), feeds him, until he becomes completely domesticated. Then she makes him work. She keeps him at home with sex, with good food, and with negative reinforcement when he asks for time out. (Nag, nag, nag, is the best offence when you have to defend.)

So what was my point... oh, yes. Yes, you do have to be yourself first, before you become a "we", but just because you have to be you, yourself, you still can't do that all alone. Your Moma and Dadda have to give you a hand, a gentle push, a silent union of the zygote with the ovum, a billion-years old ritual of DNA unification into chromosome pairs, before anything that is you can happen.

The point of the first post was, does a man owe as much to his mother as to you, being your husband?

The actual question was not even about you or how you consider first whom. It was about men only, if they are owned more by their mothers or by their wives.

You are, in all due respect and i am not trying to be funny, not a man, but a woman.

It's not always about women.