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.

14 thoughts on “The King Inside His Castle

  1. 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.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. 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.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. “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? 🙂

      Like

      1. 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.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. 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”?

        Liked by 1 person

      3. 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. 🙂💜🐈🐈💜

        Liked by 2 people

      4. 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?

        Liked by 1 person

      5. 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.

        Liked by 2 people

      6. 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…
        😊

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s