Those couples that only "allow" their spouse to have same sex friend(s) or only have "couple friends" are so controlling and insecure imo. Like if you have trust in your partner and your relationship is secure, and y'all have good open and honest communication, why would a friend be a threat to you or y'alls relationship?!? IT shouldn't. I think such couples either know their partner would stray if he or she had the opportunity or their relationship is already on shaky or crappy grounding that they do not even want to risk that possibility. I was never married but I had PLATONIC male friends while dating my long term ex. He did not like it and had suspicions but nothing ever happened because I keep my male friends as friends and my bfs as bfs and the two never mix. B)

In some parts of the world , they're definitely treated like property !

I believe that people should never deprive themselves of friendships based on gender, even when married. I have a lifelong male friend, and I am also very close to all of his family members. The first time that I met his new wife, she immediately left the restaurant and went shopping. I have been deleted (by her) from my friend's social media more than once. I don't see him often because I live in a different city, but he now limits how often he talks to me with short responses. When I showed up at his dad's funeral a month ago, she stayed in a different room from the reception until I left. He talked to me for about five minutes before moving across the room. She doesn't even know me!! Oh, and I've never been sexually attracted to my friend, so she has nothing to worry about. If people can't trust then they shouldn't be in a relationship.

No, people are not property. One would hope, however that we can all respect our fellow human beings enough to not want to do harm to them by posing a threat to their committed relationships. The criteria for what is considered a threat to one's committed relationship will vary from person to person, or couple to couple. In any case, do not present that threat.

If you are a Hells Angel, then their women are presumed to be but in reality they can never be.

I believe in a committed relationship,there is no "Ownership",the couple formed out of mutual needs,want's and desires,however if there is a breakup,the thoughts of being hers or his along with jealousy,can result in injuries to the new partner,or property damages.

A commitment to an exclusive relationship? Yes. Ownership? No.

You can't own, but you can rent some folks.

The only x that anyone's relationship status matters is when there is sexual attraction / potentials . Period . The rest is for the birds , and I am sure that the friend that u " are asking for " it knows it .

Slavery is an evil that still exists - according to the antislavery league (a few years ago) 200 - 250 million slaves exist in the world. That doesn't include economic slavery or women with no or little legal status in some places.

It's hard to be friends with someone who automatically prioritizes one person's rights over another's, every time.

If one excludes a potentially compatible candidate for friendship based on marital status..

Then one is an idiot. Friendship shouldn't hinge on if someone is married or not, it should hinge upon how much money they'll loan you without having to pay them back.

Absolutely no unlike republicans

One person can never own another, any attempt to legalize even the concept is at best Feudalism and at worst slavery.
Even married people do not own one another, they simply commit to a mutual bond of trust.
The only possible exception is do you own yourself, personally I say except in cases of mental incapacity yes you do (This is why we have DOL certification), but certain factions (religious and political) would say no which is why in some places suicide is still illegal and most countries still do not allow euthanasia.

Considering people property is offensive and inhumane.

When I got married, I kept my birth name because taking a man's last name dates back to when wives were legally their husband's property.

Slaves were the property of their masters.

Children were the property of their parents or masters.

Nice alliteration, but somewhat obscuring the actual question, which I believe involves screwing a married person. And that has nothing to do with "property", that has to do with VOWS (PROMISES) they made to each other. So if you are the kind of nasty person who tries to worm their way between people who are supposed to be able to trust each other, you will get what you wish for, one way or another.

No, we’re not property.. Seems a convoluted argument for excluding one from friendship, or trust.

Umm, no.

No life owns anything! Everything belongs to everything and no one!