In Ann Stoler's article, "Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power," various categories of "colonizer" and "colonized" have been secured through forms of sexual control that defines the domestic arrangements of European and the cultural investments by which the Europeans identify themselves. Having this belief, Stoler wanted to examine how gender specific sexual sanctions and prohibitions not only isolated positions of power but put in place the personal and public boundaries of race. Colonial authority was constructed on two powerful but false beliefs. First, the Europeans in colonies made up easily identifiable and secretive social unit. This unit was a "natural" community of common interests, racial attributes, political affinities and superior culture. Everyone had something in common. Second, the concept that the boundaries separating the "colonizer" from the "colonized" were self-evident and drawn. However, neither belief reflected colonial realities.
             Colonial control was basically expected by identifying who was "white", who was "native" and what children would become citizens instead of subjects. There were certain standards individuals had to have to be categorized has a "colonizer" or the "colonized". The thing that matter the most was not only one's physical properties but also who actually measured up to be a "European". Regardless of the way people were categorized, the sexual, conjugal, and domestic life of both Europeans and their subjects were definitely regulated.
             For example, in the 1600's native women were imported into colonies, however VOC shareholders had arguments and debates against female emigration on several counts. Once sanctions against female migration came into play, it was believed that men would establish families and settle permanently with local roots. In result, ...