Boundary and Class

Fundamental to boundary violation is a notion of class. The ideas are directly derived from power relationships of Marxist ideology. Here those in power, ie. bosses, doctors,lawyers,men, etc have the power and secretaries, nurses, women, etc do not have the power. Historically women since time immemorial have sought to improve the future potential of their children by marrying those more powerful. Today this is a boundary violation.

Not only will a nurse not be able to marry a doctor related to her by work or a secretary a boss related to her by work but the authorities will strip her aquisition, the man she married, of his power. This will occur whether she complains or not as the 'class' (profession) has moved to act on it's own behalf.

Seen in this light the new boundary violation legislation is distinctly similiar to the historic feudal class legislation that stripped the king of his power when he married a commoner. (Distinctly at variance to the female foreplay pornography called romance genre and supported realistically by the WWII King of England having to abdicate his throne when he married a common actress).

This legislation then ensures the power of the existing class and threatens anyone who would access that upper class by sex and marriage. In contrast to radical feminist ideology the upper classes have long ago thought outside the box of gender and acknowledged only power as defined by wealth, family, armies, and alliances. The upper classes have never been feminist and the upper classes are defined solely by power, with survival of the fittest coupled to all manner of protective legislation and action to ensure the status quo remains in power..

The wealth and power of a family may reside in father , mother or grand parents and the mother of the king has always been a most powerful position. Indeed in the foremost matriarchies of all time the women controlled power by working from behind the throne using male puppets while concealing themselves from direct retaliation (see Iroquois Federation.).

Radical feminism was never truly about male and female relationships but has been an ideology of daughters and more commonly individualist women (historically a daughter or aunt) who saw themselves at variance with mothers and family related women.

Further radical feminism has been an ideology of individualism and served the state which has been dominated by the family systems of the upper classes seeking to destroy family systems of the middle and lower classes by divide and conquer. In the equation the state versus the individual the state always wins so the state necessarily supports individualism but is threatened by any alliances commonly called conspiracy against the state while of course state power is by nature as 'conspiracy against the individual" or conspiracy of the majority against the minority.

This latest legislation now 'shuts the gate' that allowed an influx of women through marriage into the upper classes. Marriage no longer legitimizes the sexual mobility of women who historically 'chose' their mates based on their power. Arranged marriages are likely to be strengthened and restored placing power in the hands of mothers and fathers rather than the children.

The daughters of the radical feminist movement find themselves today the mothers in the upper classes, or at least the women of substance supporting the class system status quo and do not want to lose their power to lower class women. Mostly they are more priviledged servants of the upper classes if they are single or barren and in this way form a new variation of the old "eunuch" servant class.

It appears therefore that this is an interesting mechanism whereby mothers of the upper classes can ensure the 'purity' of their class by denying daughters of the lower classes access to these rarified realms by marriage, as marriage can no longer legitimize carnal relationships or the offspring. Historically 'marriage' validated sexual union but 'boundaries legislation' would strip the couple of the power acquired sexually. "You can't make a boundary violation right with marriage." With no value of marriage, children born of the 'love match' ie sexual social ladder climbing, will remain part of the historic 'bastard' class.

Seen in terms of power dynamics Boundary legislation is potentially a way to restore the Caste System that long served the Indian upper classes, the Apartheid System that served the South African upper classes and generally the Feudal Class system which democracy tried so desperately to destroy but appears to have be revived by the politics of courts, corporations and beaurocracy superceding the power of the democrat. Certainly Plato had a great deal to say about this as later so did Cusa though Machiavelli has always been a far racier read.

Inherrently marriage is further devalued and another coffin nail is driven into the middle class and lower class family system whereas the upper class family always a feudal business arrangement of strenghthening power alliances remains untouched and probably stronger as it gives upper class mothers there even greater power over their sons mate choices.

Fundamentally boundary when viewed in light of the age old classes isn't terribly new but it does propose to restore the rigidity of caste and deny the upward mobility of lower class and middle class females while protecting the sons of the upper class mothers and giving those mothers greater power over errant sons.

Indeed it will reward lower and middle class females with monetary tidbits while denying them the greater slice of the pie ie inclusion in the class or caste or upper class family system. This has always been the way with the upper classes, the families brokering a monetary settlement for the bastards and the lower class women being bribed into silence when the king or his courtly lot 'get caught'. Interestingly these monetary 'brokerages' between the powerful and powerless, aren't subject to the same ideology of power that permeate the sexual legislation.

The monetary 'buy off" is small price to pay and ensures that the big prize in the wealth and power of the upper class family isn't touched by allowing 'illigitimate females' sexual access to the upper 'caste' 'class' or 'upper class family system'.

The untouchables then are seen to remain only touched sexually and bought off financially but the 'gene pool' is not sullied by eugenically unappealling contribution from the masses. The new eugenics however interestingly may not be so much about genes as the appearances of genes since the advent of the new sexual tourism trade and exploitation of artificially insemination, fertilized eggs and alternatively wombs for hire, the closest proximation with the 'upper class' appearances being sufficient to gain the higher prices.

This is further complicated though by the declining fertility of the upper class females in comparison with the increasing fertility of the lower class females. The 'arranged marriage' may allow selection of fertile females for the lesser sons of the upper classes as in feudal times but this would only be done as a kind of American idol 'reward' for service and likely tied in with some kind of idea of eugenics as was done in the Caribean class system, the 'whiter' black girls being selected as more 'suitable' house servants while the 'darkies' were segregated off in the plantation fields. The hope therein was to lessen the risk to that particular household woodpile.

The decision will clearly have to be made before sex and abortion will assure that lower class females aspirations can be 'nipped' in the bud. Upper class males will be suitably punished or stripped of their power and wealth so that the caste or class or upper class family doesn't lose power or resources.

This may be a necessary caste mechanism as increasingly the 'servants' and workforces of the upper classes are being brought in from third world countries and what were historically called the 'lesser races' and 'inferior religions'. Tightening of the reigns on the zippers of the sons of the wealthy has always been as much a concern of the mothers as the fathers of the upper classes.

While racism is seen too often as white and black it's just as significant in tribalism within any group, as seen in Kenya today where there are black 'inferior' and black 'superior' tribes and intermarriage is restricted based on power dynamics. Similiarly it was acceptable for an Englishman to marry a German at one time whereas to marry Irish was frowned on.

The key in these Tamany Hall considerations is who has the power at the time and then how to establish societal mechanisms to maintain the status quo. The mechanisms remain the same regardless of who uses them. The names however may change though their key purpose may not.