Something Has Come Up  

kitz6 60F
1045 posts
4/5/2006 8:30 am

Last Read:
4/7/2006 10:04 pm

Something Has Come Up

Someone who shall be nameless has stated that while he would ignore any limits imposed upon him by others, he feels is it perfectly proper to impose limits upon a woman's sexuality and her sexual behavior. This attitude makes me extremely enraged. Fair is fair. To place limits upon oneself is fine and expected but to impose your limits upon another, especially when it has nothing to do with you, definitely is not.

Even in one's primary relationship it is not proper to impose limits. One may ask but one may not impose. You negotiate limits between yourselves. You never ask for what you yourself are not willing to give. Even here, fair is fair. If you seek trust, affection, and respect, you must first give trust, affection, and respect.

Traditionally, the reason for limiting women's sexuality and sexual behavior was children. But once you remove children from the equation, imposing limits becomes unreasonable. This presupposes that you regard children as property rather than individual persons who require your love, care and guidance. Jealousy, and possessiveness stem from this idea of people as property. Mine, mine, mine. When you seek to impose limits - this is all that your partner, who you presume to love, hears. Mine, mine, mine. Stop it.

Each of us must accept responsibility for their own emotions, our own actions, and our part within any relationship. The two are never made one. When you impose limits you are depriving her of her rights and not accepting your due share of responsibility for yourself but making her responsible for you. She has her own burden to carry she does not also need to carry yours. Stand beside her, not on top of her.


rm_TexNVa 49M/49F
376 posts
4/5/2006 10:47 am

Every time I read your blog, I am attracted to your intellect a little bit more.

This post is so well written, thought out and logically constructed. How could anyone disagree with you?

There are a lot of people who need to grow up a little. Not claiming to be above that here. Sometimes we just need to get ahold of our primal instincts to possess that which we desire.


kitz6 replies on 4/5/2006 12:57 pm:
Thank you, baby.

kitz6 60F

4/5/2006 12:57 pm

Many of our primal instincts have to do, at their core, with reproduction. Men seek access to women who seem good for children an women seek out the best men. Same sort of thing different direction. If we were simple animals or single celled creatures this might be enough - but we aren't just that. Getting ahold of your primal instincts, yes, but realize what they are, enjoy them for what they are, but do not permit them to control all that you are.


lowellgk 52F

4/6/2006 7:40 am

    Quoting kitz6:
    Many of our primal instincts have to do, at their core, with reproduction. Men seek access to women who seem good for children an women seek out the best men. Same sort of thing different direction. If we were simple animals or single celled creatures this might be enough - but we aren't just that. Getting ahold of your primal instincts, yes, but realize what they are, enjoy them for what they are, but do not permit them to control all that you are.
I truly believe that this is changing...at least in North American culture. The broader acceptance and interest in "non-traditional" families has allowed people of both genders to explore relationships with goals different than reproduction.

Women are choosing to have children without choosing partners with whom to raise them. Men are in relationships with other men and deciding to adopt. And it has become FAR more common (and acceptable) for men and women to marry without considering having children.


kitz6 replies on 4/6/2006 7:51 am:
True enough, dear, but progress is very slow. Seems most of the country is still stuck in Biblical Mode without realising why they did what they did way back then.

Phineas2005 48M
854 posts
4/6/2006 9:34 am

In actuality, our Western sexual mores comes from more Roman than Biblical. In the early church, Christens were permitted to have more than one wife. Only if you become an officer of the church, i.e. bishop for example, that you should, not always enforced, have a single wife. Not because it was immoral, but a time factor. They thought a man with a couple of families would not have time for the church and which would be true.

As we all know, allot of the patriarchs had multiple wives, which was permitted under Jewish law. God has even condone incest, but homosexual gang he has a problem with. He nuked two cities over that.

It was the Augustin Moral Codes, limiting Roman citizen to a single spouse, criminalizing homosexuality, making divorce harder, bring prostitution under state control (the prostitutes hair was dyed blue, and they were forbid to ever marry), etc. etc.

But I argue that these rules Biblical and Roman where made to NOT to control women, since women from birth were property or had little rights anyway, but to control men.

If you doubt me, take a look at this site.


Become a member to create a blog