PoemoftheWeek

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Well, let me ask you this. On what basis would you prefer relationships to be formed? I can only think of three general types: on love, on financial/status (and I don't necessarily mean prostitution), and lust. Perhaps there are others. Real relationships may share some element of each, but the only one that I meaningful is love.

---

Relationships are variable, therefore, a seven year contract, renewable. Throw an insurance policy in there for good measure, with no claims bonus. That should increase the number of insurance agents knocking on your door and reduce the number of divorce lawyers. Or, lawyers include insurance on the same paper. :brow:

Quote:

---

Frankly that's what I find most endearing about women. From a mother's love, to a grandmother's love, to a wife's love, they hold our families and I our lives together. God knows what this world would be like if only men existed or if women acted and felt just like men.

---

We need a woman here to say something good about men (to be on the safe side). :brow:

Rachel,

“Sex without love is an empty experience, but, as empty experiences go, it's one of the best.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “Petrarch’s Love”

If only all like minded men had such requirements. It would save those of us with a larger than 24" waist the bother of having to tell them to get lost.

---

They don’t tell him to get lost – they compete for his attentions – arming themselves for combat with yet another caked layer of cosmetics and ever-tighter garments stretched over their carcases. What’s wrong with your sex? Why are they so foolish? Why is it that it takes only a few months for “You’ve got such beautiful eyes” to change to “What the **** are you staring at?” And why do I hear “I don’t ever won’t to change you,” changing to “you’ll never change”? Don’t any of you realise that there hasn’t been a new man since Adam?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “Regit”

PS. Quoting my "brave" comment, you must be one who loves a challenge Unnamable.

---

I suppose I do – especially when it gives me an opportunity to spit venom at the idiocy that is womankind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackyyyy

We need a woman here to say something good about men (to be on the safe side). :brow:

---

Where are you going to find one? Dylan had it right:

“Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your mouth,
Blowing down the backroads headin' south.
Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth,
You're an idiot, babe.
It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe.”

Truth will ouch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Where are you going to find one? Dylan had it right:

“Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your mouth,
Blowing down the backroads headin' south.
Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth,
You're an idiot, babe.
It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe.”

Truth will ouch.

---

Dylan's brother had it right:

"Well, I'll look and I'll duck, and keep on lookin', and truckin' too, wid me guitar and my best friend Shoot - till she darn well finds me..." :banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

How sweet! And not at all patronising to the gentler sex. :D

---

Patronising? How am I patronizing? If anything they (the women in my life) have patronized me, tolerating my boyish wanderings and silly excursions, all at the expense of avoiding what is truely important in life. I'm not patronizing. I'm speaking from the heart. I'm speaking from my life.

So you didn't answer: On which is it best to build a relationship: love, finance, lust?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Where are you going to find one? Dylan had it right:

“Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your mouth,
Blowing down the backroads headin' south.
Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth,
You're an idiot, babe.
It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe.”

Truth will ouch.

---

wow, the way you keep talking you'll never meet a good women. I tend to think that women are probably better then men in many cases. Well, from what I've seen; I don't know your luck.

Quote:

---

We need a woman here to say something good about men

---

No problem. I've met many fine men in my life who are honest and caring people. I've known men who are hardworking, who are excellent fathers and role models, who are strong either physically or emotionally (or both). I think men have the capacity to provide the enjoyments of companionship, additional support in life (and here I mean emotional/spiritual support--though obviously many men do an admirable job of providing financial support as well), an added sense of security, ...and then there are all the obvious physical attractions (well, only obvious to about half of us I guess). :lol: And of course individual men have all sorts of wonderful qualities that people in general can have--love, loyalty, integrity, intelligence, wit and so on. I don't think either sex is necessarily better.

Quote:

---

How sweet! And not at all patronising to the gentler sex.

---

This may come as a bit of a shock but, given the choice, the "gentler sex" by and large prefers being "patronized" as being loving family members rather than as being bags of crisps. :lol: Besides, I took Virgil's remark as being sincere and well meant, not patronizing.

Quote:

---

They don’t tell him to get lost – they compete for his attentions – arming themselves for combat with yet another caked layer of cosmetics and ever-tighter garments stretched over their carcases. What’s wrong with your sex? Why are they so foolish? Why is it that it takes only a few months for “You’ve got such beautiful eyes” to change to “What the **** are you staring at?” And why do I hear “I don’t ever won’t to change you,” changing to “you’ll never change”? Don’t any of you realise that there hasn’t been a new man since Adam?

---

Quote:

---

I suppose I do – especially when it gives me an opportunity to spit venom at the idiocy that is womankind.

---

I like it better when you're calling all of humankind idiots. At least that sounds like a logical argument. I can't tell you what's wrong with the idiots of my sex any more than you can tell me what's wrong with the idiots of yours. Incidently I personally agree that it's by and large a fruitless effort to try to fundamentally "change" a man. I've never tried to do so and don't know why some women do. I prefer to just choose to date men I don't feel the need to change, people whose flaws (and we all have them) I feel I can deal with and whose better points I can admire and respect.

Quote:

---

He speaks:
Come, my laid lady, whom I wooed with words,
And called my Star--
Since you proved that you loved me, I
Know what you are?

For, knowing what I am, I have a rod
To measure by
If you mistake what I gave you for love, you are
More beast than I.

And having eased in you my ambiguous lusts
I now can prove
That you're a dupe who let me wallow you
And call it love.

If I have feet of clay, yet you are now
The dirt they trod --
And in that moment when I brought you down,
I was a god!

Katherine Anne Porter

---

Now I am wondering if he is simply looking out the window in the morning, talking to himself. Hardly singing because I don't think this is something to sing about.

"He speaks:"
Does this really mean its his turn to speak, or simply, 'he speaks'?

"Since you proved that you loved me, I
Know what you are?"
Why do we think he is asking her?

I am also starting to feel there are errors in the structure of the poem, and I am getting tired of dealing with ambiguities or where the piece has no apparent clue to indicate its true targets. Maybe someone here can ID them because I cannot ennunciate it.

Thanks, Petrarch. Unnamable is rather good at pushing buttons, isn't he, and if we read everything he wrote, he is actually pointing out deficiencies in both sexes. So, yes, everyone is an idiot. :banana:

The more I read this, the more I think that she is criticising herself in this poem, almost more than the man. Remember, she is merely putting words into his mouth. When he calls her beast / dupe / dirt, it is in fact KAP describing herself this way.

She's not fond of the guy either, don't get me wrong; but I think there is perhaps more self-loathing / -criticism here than I originally picked up on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

This may come as a bit of a shock but, given the choice, the "gentler sex" by and large prefers being "patronized" as being loving family members rather than as being bags of crisps. :lol: Besides, I took Virgil's remark as being sincere and well meant, not patronizing.

---

Sure, I would not doubt Virgil's sincerity for a minute either. But you cannot deny that this remark somewhat conflicts with itself, being used as a defence against the argument that women give love a ridiculous importance. And so far I haven't heard a point raised against that argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

Sure, I would not doubt Virgil's sincerity for a minute either. But you cannot deny that this remark somewhat conflicts with itself, being used as a defence against the argument that women give love a ridiculous importance. And so far I haven't heard a point raised against that argument.

---

What do you mean? I agree that women give love importance, what I'm reacting to is the value of it. I don't think it's rediculous. I think it's admirable; more than admirable. Our society depends upon it. Let's say I find it heroic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Rachel,

“Sex without love is an empty experience, but, as empty experiences go, it's one of the best.”


They don’t tell him to get lost – they compete for his attentions – arming themselves for combat with yet another caked layer of cosmetics and ever-tighter garments stretched over their carcases. What’s wrong with your sex? Why are they so foolish? Why is it that it takes only a few months for “You’ve got such beautiful eyes” to change to “What the **** are you staring at?” And why do I hear “I don’t ever won’t to change you,” changing to “you’ll never change”? Don’t any of you realise that there hasn’t been a new man since Adam?


I suppose I do – especially when it gives me an opportunity to spit venom at the idiocy that is womankind.

---

I think there is a lot of truth in what Unnameable has said , quote: the idiocy that is womankind.
I did say in my post Un that I was talking about both men AND women that treat one another so badly.But I feel like crying when you say that "as empty experiences go it is one of the best." I dont' believe that, because unless you have been so hurt that you have absolutely hardened your heart, I believe firmly that afterwards there is only a worse ache in the heart and more despair than before and that does not equate with any sort of peace of happiness.
I see what he says that women do with that sort of guy all the time. I had a dear friend break down and tell me that after she had been wooed and whatever , the next time she went to see the man he merely smiled and said that she wasn't the type of person he could see himself with down the road.
That is why I have stayed celebate for these years- I would rather die than use another human being for my selfish ends, they have hearts and feelings and I don't care even how handsome, rich, famous whatever they are-to me they don't deserve that sort of respect.
And, I may not be much in the eyes of this world, but I would like to die knowing that I at least respected myself enough to not go a a moment's thrill and the rest of my life feel sick at heart , never.
I cannot say like Petrarch that I have met many good men, ones I think, despite the pain and ugliness of life are still good in their hearts.
I am sorry to say many I looked up to, thought were wonderful, when given two minutes alone with me say in the living room while we waited for the dear wife to get her coat, or the parishoners to come into the room for choir practise-well let us just say I left with a broken heart and less a friend or two.
But I believe that they are out there, I believe if you look you will find them.And at the risk of freaking out about a thousand people- I just happen to think that Unnameable, despite the words he says is one of t hem
And I will not post on this thread again. It keeps me up at night crying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

What do you mean? I agree that women give love importance, what I'm reacting to is the value of it. I don't think it's rediculous. I think it's admirable; more than admirable. Our society depends upon it. Let's say I find it heroic.

---

I would not deny women the meaning or significance of their love. And I, by no mean, meant to say that society does not need women for their role and their devotion. We are arguing different points here. When I used 'ridiculous' I meant it in the context of my argument for the poem: that the girl in this poem deserved what happened to her (at least partly at fault), for placing too much importance on love leading herself to assume that the charm of the man also means love. Now that is not to say that the same girl could not find another man and build a family and, thus, becomes a valuable member of society. But in this particular incident, however, her yearning for love and her expectation of it from men is ridiculous (if, in fact, she did interprete being called a "Star", and being wooed with "words" as an offer of love and as falling in love respectively). And this represents a different way in which women can "give importance" to love, a very realistic and significant way. And it is to this that I was refering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

I would not deny women the meaning or significance of their love. And I, by no mean, meant to say that society does not need women for their role and their devotion. We are arguing different points here. When I used 'ridiculous' I meant it in the context of my argument for the poem: that the girl in this poem deserved what happened to her (at least partly at fault), for placing too much importance on love leading herself to assume that the charm of the man also means love. Now that is not to say that the same girl could not find another man and build a family and, thus, becomes a valuable member of society. But in this particular incident, however, her yearning for love and her expectation of it from men is ridiculous (if, in fact, she did interprete being called a "Star", and being wooed with "words" as an offer of love and as falling in love respectively).

---

I'm sorry Regit. I thought you were refering to our side comments. I don't know if we know enough of what's going on for me to say if she deserved what happened. Since we are only getting her subjective feelings of the relationship, I can't judge how bad a persn the he truely is. If he really said that to her, he's a dispicable person and she's a victum. But just like a court case, it's a "he said/she said" conflict, and unfortunately there are no facts to sort out the events.

No need for apologies Virgil; as you said, "no grudges" :)

Though I think that there is enough evidence here. Like what Xamonas suggested, it seems like she is being critical of herself. For if indeed she speaks from her own bitter experience, then surely the information or judgement about the woman must be much more accurate than that about the man. What I mean is that, she cannot be sure if the man of whom she speaks might really be what she portraits him to be; but she must be certain that the woman of whom she speak is really what she, through the man's voice, portraits her to be. Thus, "beast", "dirt", "dupe", "laid", etc are more accurate descriptions than "God", "clay", "ambiguous".