Dovina
replying on Slim and Pretty, Or Not by Dovina
22 Oct 2005, 10:58 AM
A severely nearsighted man will not even notice if I am fat (which I am not), he will see only my eyes and anything else he gets close to. But I meant it more metaphorically, as seeing my character.
I admit it's like a string of maxims, and a bit didactic. Do you see a market in the keychain business?
Meaning or not, it's a sexy as hell thing to say. I've found myself repeating tongue-in-groove all week to random Arabs. Proof that submitting to the will of micromanaging Allah didn't get them all brains.
A nearsighted man will see you clearly if you are close, and fuzzily from a distance. Are you sure that's what you meant? That aside, rather too like one of those women's-keychain jokes like, Have you ever noticed all of women's problems start with 'Men'?
*TWIST* there's a match for you.
Thank got for rubenesquenesses. es.
you pronounce it ~
the brackets are silent.
What? No vvvvipvvvvvipvvvvvvvip of corduroy?
Both are incorrect. I was thinking that the things we say -tongue in groove- have no meaning. We are word butchers. Not in the poetic sense, of course. More like, the thing itself and not about the thing. I don't know. How do you pronounce your moniker anyway? Is it <~>? or do you pronounce it <~>? I just wanna know.
And it is enjambed, as well. The poetry of Rumi i have has been translated by Coleman Barks. Is there another translation that is better? Or am I just missing the lyricism as well as my butcher block is missing a leg?
nice.
"phantoms of future turn wooden on the lathe of fact." !!!
Are you serious? One, I mean the HUMAN race. Two, if I had statistics for marriage in other countries, I'd use them; as things stand (and as we're both Americans), America's a stellar example. Three, I'm saying that because 50% of marriage commitments fail, maybe there's something wrong with the commitment. Four, no, pure endurance of anything has never been worth the cost of anything. Is that what you want on your tombstone? "I endured"? Five, scoff, but I don't have to change my very conception of love to fit some outside institution, or justify unhappiness to myself. THAT'S romance. Six, it's early where you are to be so drunk. Shame on you.
Oh I see, you’re justifying it on the basis of race and Americanism. You’re saying that because 50% of marriage commitments fail, that it’s ok to fail. And you’re further justifying it on the basis that “pure endurance” is not worth the cost. But the kicker is that “romance” becomes the goal.
Of course not. We do, however, as a race tend to make commitments we couldn't possibly know if we'll be able to keep, like LOVING someone until we DIE. Over 50% of the Americans who've ever been in married thought they could, and were wrong.
I'm committed to love and my own and my wife's happiness, not to commitment itself. If any of those things goes, we've already failed. We will not set ourselves up to fail at pure endurance. What's the romance of that?
1) I don't know if that's good or bad. Seriously.
2) Well, obviously neither of us is talking about leaving our partners because they're jerks for an hour.
3) It only took me a year-and-a-half.
4) I wonder what ever happened to 4?
5) I'd agree, with the following caveat: I'd only make commitments I could conceivably or comfortably keep. Most marriages don't fall into that category. That sounds weak, but going into marriage with both of our parents recently divorced, we spent a lot of time asking "If we ever did split up, would we feel that all the commitments we'd made were invalidated? If 'til death do us part' proved untrue, what would we be able to say WAS true?" You're going to call me unromantic. Go ahead. I'm more in love with my wife than ever. We didn't promise to love til death, we promised to love until we didn't love anymore, then get out before it was a travesty of love. That, for me, is romance.
6) "the kind of love must change". Granted. I'd add, the fact that it's love means it will change by itself, not by our will. Who ever manhandled love?
Again, the first line (last line in your other poem) seems out of place, though it's a good line. I'd drop the first verse altogether.
1) It’s good that what you used to think has changed. If I ever thought that being a servant self-negator made me better than he, I would no longer be a servant self-negator.
2) Seldom would the perfect man become a jerk in the long term, though a jerk for an hour is expected.
3) That’s the nicest compliment you have ever given me.
5) My commitment would hold even if he becomes undesirable because it is a commitment, and I believe in commitment. It would be the same with or without kids, though kids add strength to a commitment. Property be damned.
6) Your wedding vow statement, “You are united by a connection that is strong because it is flexible” is what I’m talking about. We change; and the kind of love must change. The extreme outcome of this is an act of faith, where I overlook the wrong, raising his desires over mine, every time, every day.