Monday, May 09, 2005

If You Get Me

If You Get Me
Sometimes it's good to stop and think--do a little reflecting.
Measure what you're doing by reviewing your value structure. But
make sure you've established one.
A good value structure can keep you on the right track and out of
a lot of hot water.
Let's start with relationships. I don't have one.
I decided that I can only have a relationship with a man who gets
me. This is why I am alone.
But it's okay. I can do alone. I can't do nagging, worrying and
sour disposition.
Women who display these characteristics are often with men who
don't get them. Being in these relationships is better than being
alone to them or they've just given up and too tired to get out of
Alone is better for me than just putting up, shutting up and
putting out. But it's not just because I think I'm a better woman
but because I really just don't know how. I'll
stay on track with the quiet woman routine but then I'll lose my
concentration and forget who I'm supposed to be and before you
know it, I've opened my mouth, closed my legs and grabbed an
Then there goes the relationship.
But, I guess in the long run, it wasn't really a relationship but
just sex. A bit of passion.
Several men expected me even to carry out a pregnancy under the
quiet woman routine. But because I was playing a role and not
being myself, they thought that I would make a good baby's momma.
None had given me a ring and proposed marriage. Just wanted a baby's
momma on the side 'cause that seemed to be the thing to do.
And these men aren't slouches--by any means.
They'd have much more to lose than I if their potential love child
would have come to light.
Because I'm not a teenage girl and know the difference between
love and lust and passion and loved them enough in my own way to
do what was best--even when it was painful to do--I remained
chaste. No extra babies for me--as cute as they could be. (In my
own mind of course)
These guys, I love, figured I wasn't doing anything better (in their
mind) than to add to my responsibilities. And that they would be a
good catch for me and that I should be grateful men of their status
would even bother with the little match girl (see French
children's fable Allumette who froze to death outside of a French
bakery dreaming about food as she tried to sell matches to
passersby on Christmas Eve)
But that they wanted a piece of me forever, laying claim to me to be their
baby momma (not mama).
In a really immature way, I appreciate d
the sentiment.
It's a good stroke for the ego.
But that's all that stroke should be--good for the ego. It doesn't
need to be a life long commitment to a permanent situation where
I would be looked upon to explain how it all came about--as soon as the
potential love child grew up.
They're not always infants, babies and little kids. They become
12-year-olds with a high intellect (I told you none of the men I
know are slouches) and they would want to know why my ex-husband
isn't their father too, like their brother and sister.
Why would I want to put myself through that? Or them? Or that
potential baby daddy. He'd only be mad at me in the end when the thrill was gone and then there would still be the baby to raise, with or without a dad.
I now know the love for a child demonstrated by
their father only may go as far as the love they demonstrate for
the child's mom--whether they stay together or not.
Upon reviewing my value structure today, I figure I'm doing the
best I can with what I have. And it's nice to know you have some
value in the world--even if it is as a baby momma.
However, I have one question: how did this phenomena of baby mommas come about?
Why not marry and have a whole and complete family unit?


Anonymous said...

[url=]generic viagra[/url] - viagra without prescription , generic viagra

Anonymous said...

[url=]cheap levitra[/url] - order levitra , levitra 40 mg

Anonymous said...

[url=]cheap synthroid 50mcg[/url] - cheap synthroid 50mcg , synthroid without prescription