I don’t know about the next guy
but I don’t like to be moved, prodded, poked, tested, or challenged
by the female.
She always starts in a nice way
and then,
in a not so nice way,
if you don’t give her consent.
A man needs to have his boundaries
and never give a woman, full access to his heart
or the keys to his castle
because in no time,
it will be hers.
It is difficult, in the modern era
to be free of the female
A man must work with her, and listen to her gossip
pretty soon, he gets treated like one of her girlfriends
but he’s not
and he’s not the kind of guy deserving of her respect
She looks up to a man, that she doesn’t work with
that she can’t boss around
She wants a man, she doesn’t have access to
like the king, inside his castle
and mark my words…
he’s never going to give her the keys
unless he wants to lose everything.
Intellectual Shaman 
So the woman seeks to possess the man, as the man seeks to possess the woman. But what ends do they have in mind for their possession? Is it merely a careful ordering of a solar system of supporting planets? A reduction of threat? Can it ever be possible for one system to have two suns that are not entwined in each other’s gravity? Maybe there’s a kind of relationship between man and woman (and of course vice versa) in which neither possesses and uses the other, but where they share their solar system, in a dance of soft embrace. Maybe love is the name of that soft embrace, where neither seeks possession, nor to be possessed, but merely to share existence.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Maybe, sbwheeler–in a perfect world… I look around, and love the world the way that it is, and love the woman the way she is, and love myself the only way that I know how. Most of us are trying… Space is not friendly to life–it’s full of radiation. Oh–well, I’m just having fun right now, being cynical. You’re right, it’s not that bad, and there are good women out there, and a few good men.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Maybe love is the name of that soft embrace, where neither seeks possession, nor to be possessed, but merely to share existence.”
Could you men please expound on this some more? 🙂
LikeLike
For me, the poet Rumi has a perfect way of expressing the nature of love, when it does not seek to possess, but I will try to amswer. In too many cases – it seems to me – a person says they “love” but what they really mean is that the object of that love fills an emptiness that perhaps they hadn’t noticed until then. We are very good at hiding from our empty places – our places of unrequited need. When two people choose merely to share existence – when they do not need the other, simply to “fit” an empty place in their life – their love cannot “fail”; the well of their love can never run dry; there can be no loss of trust or loss of faith, for nothing is expected but all is given. And even if one party gets “lost” and seeks diversion elsewhere, such that the relationship must change, the love is not diminished. Only in “possession” lies the possibility of loss and betrayal. The native peoples of many countries understood that man cannot possess; that we are only caretakers, for a limited period. And we should, therefore, just care and share.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmmm….this is giving me good food for thought—and I appreciate your perspective…bare with me as I feel my way through—Someone tell me,
Is there a difference between “possessing” and “belonging to”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, NZain, I think if you want to possess a person then you want them to “belong to you”. Perhaps a simpler way of putting it is possessions belong to someone.
Think about dogs and cats. Dogs want you to be their owner, they want to belong to you. Unfortunately, even if they are treated badly, they still stay with their owner. Cats on the other hand will just take off and go and live somewhere else if you are cruel to them. You never own a cat, if you treat them well, they are happy to share space with you. I hope that helps. 🙂💜🐈🐈💜
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think I’m a cat, Carolyn! 🙂
LikeLike
You could have feline qualities for sure! 🙂😁🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely! Full Cat! 🙂
LikeLike
Lol 😆
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vixen of verse I so appreciate your thoughts! But what do I do with my cat—he is a tyrant! Demanding little kitty! 😼😈 yes, he lets me share his space…
Curious then—what about commitment? Can there really be such a thing as a committed relationship?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Possession has to do with control or “use”: that which you possess, you control or use, even if that control is sometimes a bit flakey. Dogs and cats – it seems to me – have quite complex relationships with humans, though one can perhaps simplify them a bit, for comparison, by seeing that cats are family creatures, whilst dogs work within an extended family, or pack. Cats respect familial authority, whilst dogs see the world in a rather looser way, and respect the provider and teacher. Humans share the qualities of both, and can lean either way (or both, at different times). Cats certainly “use” their humans, but as a child “uses” its parents: as a shield against the world. And they’ll show their appreciation in the same way as a child does. Dogs “collaborate” with humans – taking some direction but also giving it, except where there’s an established pattern of dominance. And in their “animal” mode, humans also establish both familial and pack relationships, but those are not what I meant by “the soft embrace” that needs neither possession nor to be possessed. We can transcend our animal nature and see the family in all things, and the pack or herd in all things. More importantly, we can see that creating a shared space with another sentient being is different from the demands of animal procreation, survival or “worth”. Indeed, completely independent of those things. We can even create such relationships with animals, and it is no different than with humans, though the animals are likely to perceive the difference only dimly, and to respond with familial or pack loyalty.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah yes—control. “I say ‘I love you’ because you expect it and I need it.” Without your validation aka. “Love” the emptiness inside my shell would crush me. So you must love me…and only me…or else.
Right? But I get it…I was married once upon a time to one who promised me happily ever after all tied up in a pretty bow as long as I did what I was I was told. Because he told me, “I was perfect”. Perfect control. Then he met someone else more perfect. He took the dog. I still have the cat.
But there is another way to love without controlling the other. It’s no easy path mind you—requires tremendous self-control. Self-control…
I am intrigued by “the soft embrace” and what it conjures up for me in the moment:
In your soft embrace
Knowing here I do belong…
😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry … I am “Anonymous”. The system allowed me to post without identifying myself.
LikeLiked by 1 person