My Story with My Wife, Part 22

Summer is approaching, and the weather is gradually becoming warmer. One evening, after dinner, my wife and I sat on a bench in the community's leisure garden, watching couples strolling around us, and a few children playing together not far away. I said to my wife, "Honey, what do you think people around us would think if they knew about us?"
My wife thought for a moment and said, "I can't imagine, it's terrifying. I bet many women, while secretly envying me, would still verbally call me shameless, and many men would laugh at me for being a slut. In the end, we'd be drowned in spittle."
I said, "When facing reality, I often feel disoriented, like I'm in the Two-Faced Kingdom of 'Flowers in the Mirror'."
My wife said, "Perhaps our behavior really is too unconventional. Let alone others not accepting it, even a few years ago, if I heard about this, I wouldn't have been able to accept it, let alone imagine it happening to me."
I said, "Forget it, let's not think about it so much. Simplicity is happiness, and happiness is simplicity. As long as we're happy, who cares what others think? I'll spoil you like this for the rest of my life, no matter what."
Sometimes, I really don't understand those who condemn us. Their behavior is very similar to bringing someone else's coffin to their own home to cry over. For example, there are often people who criticize others' lifestyles, even though those people haven't harmed or bothered them. This is like sitting at home when a stranger suddenly bursts in, angrily pointing his finger at you and saying, "Your posture is bad. You need to change to a more dignified posture, or I can't stand it."
—Hey, who told you to stand it? It's my own home, why should you tell me how I sit? So, with this kind of person, you don't need to reason with them; just stand up and kick them out the door.
We often hear things like this in the public media, such as when condemning the United States, saying, "This is a multipolar, pluralistic world, and different ideologies should be allowed to coexist."
—Leaving aside whether Saddam Hussein truly deserved a beating, most people would agree with the idea of coexisting ideologies. If Christianity tried to eliminate Islam, that would be wrong. At the very least, everyone should just do their own thing, and nobody should bother anyone else.
A healthy society should also be multipolar and pluralistic. For example, the wealth gap. A large wealth gap isn't inherently terrible. For example, in the United States, is the wealth gap large compared to that of an average unemployed American? The US is a very large country, yet American society is remarkably stable. A crucial, and perhaps only, reason for this is that, in addition to the extremes of wealth and poverty, there exists a third pole: the middle class. This largest group maintains social stability.
Take China, for example. If China only had extreme wealth and poverty—with some people incredibly rich and others desperately poor—it would be disastrous. The most important thing for a nation is not to eliminate the wealth gap, but to find a way to quickly create a third pole between the rich and the poor: a large group that is neither extremely wealthy nor impoverished, serving as the backbone of society. This is a vital element for a stable society. Zhong Xiang was the first in China to call for "equalizing wealth and status," and over eight hundred years later, no country in the world has achieved this. Every country that has attempted to force this has ultimately ended up with "equalizing poverty and status."
The reason I've said so much is to ultimately lead to our topic: the behavioral patterns of people in a diverse society.
In a healthy, diverse society, various behavioral patterns should coexist, but with one prerequisite: they must not harm the interests of others. The world is not simply a matter of right and wrong; many actions fall into the gray areas between the two. There's an important principle in criminal law: "No act is a crime unless expressly defined by law."
So, can we say that "an act that does not harm others is not wrong"? I believe this is absolutely correct.
If someone's behavior does not harm you or the public interest, even if you don't understand it and therefore cannot accept it, unless someone forces you to understand or accept it, you have no right to condemn, ridicule, or oppose it. Otherwise, it's like barging into someone's house and forcing the homeowner to sit properly—a very obnoxious act. If you feel indignant about this, it's like bringing someone else's coffin to your own home to cry over—absurd and foolish. For example, I cannot accept sadomasochistic (S/M) behavior, nor can I accept homosexual behavior. However, I do not consider those behaviors abnormal, nor do I believe they should be condemned. For example, regarding S/M, through Academician Li Yinhe's analysis, we know that it's actually a very normal behavior, similar to consensual sex. Some people experience intense sexual pleasure from being the abuser, while others experience intense sexual pleasure from inflicting it. It's their private affair, and it has nothing to do with you, an outsider. Unless an S enthusiast takes a whip into the street or breaks into your home to forcibly whip you, or a M enthusiast kneels and begs you to whip them, it's not your place to think it's abnormal. Let me repeat: it's none of your business. It's like how I really dislike eating stinky tofu, but I don't think it's perverse for others to like it. On the contrary, those who, because they dislike stinky tofu, condemn others for eating it as wrong are the truly perverse.
Yesterday, I saw a post in the discussion forum about "One-Sided Beauty," and a friend named xiehou commented brilliantly. Here's an excerpt: "First of all, let me clarify that I don't approve of, and will not engage in, dating (this is a personal choice, and there's no disdain or contempt involved), but I will respect other people's lifestyles. Society is moving forward, and individual space and rights will gradually be recognized and respected by others. The ancient saying, 'Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you,' perfectly captures this."
—If everyone thought this way, would those absurdities still exist?
Whether globally or specifically in China, S/M, homosexuality, group sex, etc., are still, in relative proportion, a very, very small group. I really don't understand why these moral guardians are so frightened.
In contemporary China, although many people spout benevolence and morality, loudly praising unwavering fidelity, there's one fact we absolutely cannot ignore: truly lifelong faithful couples are extremely rare. I'm not exaggerating when I say that the number of truly faithful couples is even smaller than the number of couples participating in dating. Many couples choose deception, fooling both themselves and others; otherwise, brothels wouldn't proliferate despite bans. Look around us—friends, colleagues—how many are truly faithful? How many of your colleagues are secretly having affairs? How many of your friends haven't frequented prostitutes? Do you know? —Because such things happen so often, we've become numb, and few people find it abnormal. It's like a political arena where corruption is rampant; everyone is corrupt, and no one laughs at anyone else. Everyone considers it normal. But is it really normal? To think that Chinese people, who often boast of traditional virtues, have stooped to maintaining a facade of fidelity based on deception, to think of those self-righteous moral exemplars who can return home and openly face their wives—is this laughable, or is it heartbreaking?
Returning to the topic of couples engaging in intimate acts, if a couple, through honest communication, willingly accepts this approach and genuinely feels it's better than each going out to seek pleasure separately while maintaining a facade of morality, and then, with another couple sharing the same sentiments and mutual attraction, engages in intimate acts at home behind closed doors, what does it have to do with outsiders? What interests are harmed to you? What interests of the public are harmed? Would you deliberately peek through someone's door and then yell that you can't stand it? Are you just being ridiculous? I think this behavior is not only pointless but also genuinely perverse; that's true perversion…

URL 1:https://www.sexlove5.com/htmlBlog/96101.html

URL 2:/Blog.aspx?id=96101&aspx=1

Previous Page : My Story with My Wife, Part 23

Next Page : My wife said she can accept threesomes, double penetration, and sex.

增加

comment Open a new window to view comments

Contact Information

My Story with My Wife, Part 22

comment Open a new window to view comments