Re: a comment on Mid Years by Dovina	17-May-05/5:38 AM
Maybe I should rephrase: Two more important aspects FOR A RELATIONSHIP'S BEING "SUCCESSFUL" (that is, lasting a long time with neither partner killing himself or being more miserable than, say, he or she would be if he or she were an Aboriginal) are 1) some common understanding of the relationship's nature, formed early on, and 2) sexual compatibility. There's no real point to having made the last bit into a numbered list, incidentally, except that it'll help me explain why. 1) Almost no successful relationship is based on a mutual exchange of emotional support. And almost no woman really expects to get emotional support out of a relationship. More than half of the relationships I know (my own, of course, excluded--see below) hinge on one partner's flinging emotional support at the other in some sick orgy of self-sacrifice, and the other knowing that's what's going on and being more-or-less cool with it. That's what I mean by a common understanding of the nature of the relationship: there's a kind of stability; both partners know one is the griping martyr and the other is useless and sitting around in his/her bathrobe at noon and not going out and getting a fucking job. To some extent, they both want it that way (cf. Crystal Lane Swift.) If it's not self-sacrifice it's something else and similar; for instance, my relationship/marriage is founded on this idea of perfect mutuality and distribution of work, decision-making, emotional support, and so on that my wife and I established in our first months together. Of course, I think something like our system is a lot better for a relationship than the martyr/lout setup, but I don't think it's a factor for a relationship being "successful". (At least, not as far as I've defined the word above. You've got a better definition? Fine, write it out. But it can't involve the phrase "emotional support"; that's a cause, not a result.) 2) Sexual compatibility doesn't mean what you think it means. It can mean something as Californian as one or both partners (nominally) agreeing to let the other fuck around with other people, and so on. Without some kind of common ground there, though, I don't care how great the emotional support is, it's not going to last. And of course the bit about me 'killing the most important thing and replacing it with my desires' is bunk. I've already said like ten times on this page alone that I PROVIDE EMOTIONAL SUPPORT WHEN MY WIFE NEEDS IT AND HAVE IT PROVIDED WHEN I NEED IT. That is, I'm living the dream and you're just dreaming it; so lay off.
Re: a comment on Nesting Instinct of Women by Dovina	17-May-05/5:13 AM
I see more than a poem about bees. But I don't know a lot of women whose lives are anything like all-female sexless bee drones. If you're trying to talk about women in general, it just doesn't compute. Sorry.
Re: a comment on Mid Years by Dovina	15-May-05/5:07 AM
I don't agree that emotional support is the most important aspect of relationshipping. Being young, I'd probably say two more important aspects are some common understanding of the nature of the relationship formed early on and, yes, sexual compatibility.
Re: a comment on Mid Years by Dovina	15-May-05/5:04 AM
I don't think it's so similar. To rephrase: Would you say most relationships hinge on some nearly one-to-one exchange of emotional support for sex? That either doesn't seem very profitable for the woman or it seems doubly profitable, I can't decide.
Re: a comment on Nesting Instinct of Women by Dovina	15-May-05/4:53 AM
I spend most of my commenting time grappling with this enormous fear that you're going to say something you've said before in one of our hundreds of similar discussions. All things considered, I don't think it's such an unreasonable fear. In the new light, I'd say it's an interesting poem that has little to do with anything but female bee-drones. The little that it DOES have to do with anything else IS really interesting though. I don't think you mean what you write most of the time. I don't think you have the worldview your poems have most of the time. Comments like "Your not a feminist" notwithstanding, I think you're probably a pretty well-adjusted and openminded person who doesn't always pay very close attention to her writings' subtexts. Incidentally, I'd say the same thing about myself, minus the well-adjusted part. I think in many ways an unconscious closedmindedness is more sinister (or at least more common) than outright, say, bigotry. Sorry to be as banal as internet assholery. I'll try to work on it.
Re: Nesting Instinct of Women by Dovina	14-May-05/2:06 AM
PPS- re: "leaving-the-nest fear is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS at its root man-centered." Also, "[her] duty is to become impregnated and return home to rear children." It's going to be the easiest thing in the world for you to say something like, yeah you like to think so you mancentric pig. Let's make sure we're on the same page: No, of course I don't like to think so. It sucks. But I don't see any harm in keeping it as ONE way of looking at MOST human and animal interactions (as long as it's understood I mean "biologically or originally, as with bees and cavepeople, and only in a vestigial way with modern people, her duty is to..."). And I do see a lot of harm in avoiding it simply because it sounds kind of distasteful. Also, I'm not pulling this out of my ass. These are standard things held to be true by most feminist scholars, irrespective of gender. No, that doesn't mean you have to take their (or my) word for it. But where's your clearly-articulated and well-supported worldview, then? Why don't you try writing it down? I'm in the market for a new one.
Re: Nesting Instinct of Women by Dovina	14-May-05/1:52 AM
This is absurd. You're either talking without properly thinking again or you should build yourself a cardboard box and tape yourself inside. You're going to say, I expected you to say that. Guess what? I expected you to say that. You're going to get me wrong, I'm sure, so listen: I'm ALL ABOUT writing about women existing without men, believe me. In 99% of the cases I can imagine, it'd be absurd and fascist to read something that gives men no influence and say, hey where're the men? But seriously, the construct in this poem is beyond belief. That said, yes, of course, the virgin is most likely sealed in her egg/pupal-thingy/honeycomb-cell by a woman, her mother; the metaphor carries through. And okay, the being wakened by sisters' wings is a little Showtimey/Amazonian, but I can dig. After that it just gets nuts. The thing she fears to leave the honeycomb/cell for (in the bee-image AND the metaphor for people) is the sexual encounter. With a man. Seriously. Even if she's a gay bee, leaving-the-nest fear is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS at its root man-centered. The whole show, the mothers sealing their girls in the egg and everything, is made by and for the benefit of men. Yes, you could be saying that; but if you are, you're doing it in about the fruitest and least-useful way imaginable. Same with the "duty" she has to do. On both the nature AND human levels, the duty is to become impregnated and return home to rear children, probably by a sexual encounter that will be anything but pleasurable to her. Incidentally, that means the wind you're talking about that draws her from her course is exactly her duty, so what ARE you talking about? Now, let's backtrack a little. Maybe she's a particularly enlightened bee and the duty she's leaving the hive for is, I don't know, to become an executive, or travel the world seeking wisdom and well-being. Then she gets blown off course and runs smack into a manbee's ready cock and it's all over. Right? Do you think either of those are particularly enlightened ideas to write poems about? Yeah, if you live in the 19th century. In either event, you have a woman fearing (and by extension centering her existence around) sexual encounter with a man. Sure, that's a reality for the majority of women, but why write a poem about so uselessly euphemistic about it? And here's the kicker: she can return to the honeycomb when she wants. Hey, great! No, wait. That's EXACTLY what the fucking manbee wants when he's done with her, biologically and metaphorically. Again, yes it's true. But WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY write about it like this? Do you condone the whole scenario? No? It sounds like it. How about this one instead? Woman bee smacks into manbee's cock; copulation ensues; maybe it's not great for her; the SHE FLIES ON ABOUT HER BUSINESS. Wouldn't that be nice? PS-Scientifical accuracy alert.
Re: a comment on Mid Years by Dovina	14-May-05/1:02 AM
Considering that Stephen's comment above is, in fact, the "simple economics of male sex", what do you think is the advantage for women of being in relationships? Is there an advantage, or all they all just colossally misguided?
Re: a comment on Mid Years by Dovina	14-May-05/12:58 AM
I propose that a good relationship is good because the people in it need very little emotional support. I know you're misreading this, so let me clarify: Of course I occasionally need emotional support, as does my wife. And of course we give it to each other. But the truth is that the amount of emotional support we've needed in the last, say, year wouldn't get most Californians through dinner. This despite that we live in a woman-hating desert backwater. Women in places like the Middle East belittle the sex-instinct because they don't know any better. Women in places like America belittle the sex instinct because they think it's going to be roses and tenure and are disappointed when it isn't. In any case, it's still an oppression designed by men. Have fun thinking you're more enlightened for subsribing to it. Don't blame your "merely" problem on being a woman. Scientifically speaking, at any rate, men should tend more then women to use and misuse "merely". Do the math.
Re: a comment on Homecoming by Dovina	14-May-05/12:17 AM
Am I crazy thinking this poem was originally simply about a woman sneaking home after a one-night stand? If it was, it was better that way.
Re: a comment on Homecoming by Dovina	14-May-05/12:15 AM
re "Messing up autobio's because of muddled feelings intervening? That's an odd thing to say." No it's not. To take one instance (of many), I'm currently reading T.E. Lawrence's memoir Seven Pillars of Wisdom, where he strains himself trying to make Bedouin bumming sound healthy. Talk about feelings getting in the way!
Re: White by Enkidu	13-May-05/5:14 AM
Black (free verse) by Blackidu Dear Massa, We is black but is we safe and soun'? Why's you allus keepin' us down? Is it cause we's brown?
Re: a comment on Old Friend by Dovina	13-May-05/5:02 AM
Sorry, I actually meant tagamet. Tagumet is rhymezone.com's misspelling, and I was too lazy to catch it.
Re: a comment on Finding Gin and Santa by richa	13-May-05/4:59 AM
Hey, great answer.
Re: a comment on Dying breed by INTRANSIT	13-May-05/4:38 AM
Oh. For meat. Guess I should have read the rest of the sentence.
Re: a comment on Dying breed by INTRANSIT	13-May-05/4:38 AM
You make your wife wait in line? For what?
Re: a comment on Mid Years by Dovina	13-May-05/4:34 AM
Once again you've added the word "merely" to a comment of mine and then proudly pronounced the result preposterous. Of course it's preposterous. To clarify: I find relationships to be many things, one of which is a way to have sex more often (or, at least, with a greater certainty.) To clarify even further: I, as a married man, can be certain of having sex twice a year, perhaps more. You cannot. But enough about me. I'm interested: what other things do you, Dovina, think relationships are if they're not (to use your words) merely a doorway to having sex more often? To judge from your recent poems I imagine your response being "something to support my breasts so I don't trip on them while walking." But don't get me wrong, I am interested in your real answer.
Re: Mid Years by Dovina	11-May-05/6:09 AM
I find relationships a more-certain way to have sex more often, and at minimal cost. Am I just that young?
Re: a comment on My Best Friend, 1985 by jessicazee	11-May-05/6:01 AM
She's American. And she does it so well.
Re: a comment on Gone Forever (in loving memory of a teacher) by Princess_Snowflake	11-May-05/6:00 AM
There's no question about that. But in my experience, sincerity has very little to do with great poetry. Most of your favorite poets are writing about things that haven't really happened, and making you think they did. And not only that they did happen, but that they happened to you.