| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
In Answer To Your Question (Prose Poem) by Dovina Suppose I tell you I love you no matter what you do,
that nothing you can do will make my love go away?
Suppose I tell you I keep no logs
of cruelties, broken promises, abuses,
past or future?
What if I tell you you can run to the ends of the earth
and do the most horrible, unthinkable things,
and if you come back, Iâll receive you with tears and a party?
Suppose I say you donât have to put on a mask,
and itâs okay to be anything you are and I will never punish you,
and when you mess up, I will never nag?
What if you know my love isnât based on how little wrong you do
and you can hurt my heart but I will never hurt yours?
What if I tell you there is no secret agenda, no trap door
and no turning back?
At such time as I can tell you this I will marry you.
Up the ladder:
How we found Jesus
Down the ladder:
Dashboard Jesus
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 8.181818
Posted: January 27, 2005 11:52 AM PST; Last modified: January 27, 2005 11:52 AM PSTWeighted score: 6.590909 Overall Rank: 613 The following users have marked this poem on their favorites list:
Comments:
But you'll never say those things because you're a woman.
Interesting! A line drawn in the Poemranker sand. A supposition about marriage labeled as âwoman.â Do you mean that a woman is incapable of commitment to the degree presented in the poem, and a man is? Perhaps you think only a man is that strong or that foolish. Maybe you mean that what I am really saying is that I want this kind of commitment from the man I marry, and that no woman can expect that.
You understand the supposition of the narrator, that he or she is not promising, but thinking about promises. When we say, âtil death do us partâ and âfor better or worse,â how different is that from the promises considered in the poem? No, I think your line is drawn in less sensible sand. They usually are when living is at stake. Iâm guessing that some of my lines have dredged up a womanâs meanness. For that I apologize on behalf of the sex for all the times we have demanded promises from our men, when itâs not his promises that make us happy, but his surprises. Please return here at the Dear Dovina column as often as you wish.
FACT Men are physically stronger than women on average.
FACT The only significant, measurable, non-wishy-washy, intellectual difference between the sexes is that on average, men have better spatial awareness than women. Since men are better than women in BOTH the Physical AND Mental realms, men must be better than women overall. I'm sorry but that's just the way it is :(
The argument gets interesting when you make the logical jump from something being stronger, to something being better - or smarter being better.
Being stronger is better, because a strong thing can do all the things a weak thing can do, plus a bit more. Ditto being smarter. That's why vegetarians will always be worse than normals, because normals are capable of eating VEGETABLES AND MEAT, vegetarians can only eat VEGETABLES :(
But why is it better to do more?
It isn't better to do more per se. But it is better to at least have the option of doing more. A strong man is not compelled to use his strength inappropriately. But a weakling is compelled to be weak inappropriately. Strength is therefore better than weakness, as any avid stat-based RPGer will tell you.
"A strong man is not compelled to use his strength inappropriately": False; you fail. I'm sure even this version of you can understand the flaws in that near-statement (and the converse).
Maybe you don't really understand the concept of "strength" - or will sarcasm or wit take the place of an answer? That's what I predict will happen - the True One would have the proper response - but not "you".
Does the strong man crush the delicate china teapot when he picks it up? No he does not. For he is not compelled to use his strength inappropriately. Some strong men do use their strength inappropriately, but that is not an innate characteristic of strength. And yet would the weakling be able to heave a fallen tree off the crushed legs of some dying children? Or even his own crushed legs? No, because he is weak. And is only capable of weakness, regardless of whether or not weakness is appropriate to the circumstances. Jesus wept.
But the question is, just because one is able - just because one has *options* - is that "better"? Whether the man chooses to lift the tree from the dying children, or not, he still feels the burden of the choice when, years later, one of the children kills 7 nuns and an ice-cream vendor. Perhaps the man should have instead saved his drowning wife instead of the children?
You may begin now to see the connection between "being strong" and Fate. The perception of strength gives some the percerption of choice, but really - does either really exist? And so he bleeds.
lol yes I really do now see the connection between strength and fate. Pfft. Don't you see that your 'Fate' argument is 'cancelled out' by an equally powerful argument (i.e not powerful at all) the other way: a weakling is unable to save a crushed otter, who, had it been saved, would have gone on to warn the villagers of an impending Tsunami, thereby saving hundreds of thousands of lives.
Of course 'doing more' could have unpleasant consequences. Just as 'doing less' could have unpleasant consequences. While we cannot flawlessly predict the future, we do try to assess the moral consequences of a particular action, and make a decision - whether to do 'more', or 'less' - based on our particular value system. And such an assessment is not usually just a wild stab in the dark, unless the assessor is utterly thick, or there is simply no background information to help him. Either way, would he be any better off as a weakling? An individual armed with the capacity to perform tremendous feats of strength is in a better position, with regard to manipulating the world in the way he sees fit, than a weakling is. I'm not saying all feats of strength are morally desirable. I'm not saying all strong people make moral decisions I agree with. I'm saying strength is better than weakness, in the same sense that a Pentium 4 is better than a Pentium 2 :(
No, wait, THIS is the weakest response ever written.
Oh yes how first-year philosophy student of you. Does choice really exist? Will my balls really "pop off" if I don't do my maths homework?
If you had half the sense of a walnut in your tiny prawn's sack of a head, you'd have argued along the lines that the more strength one has, the more likely that a muscular spasm will break something, and the more temptation there is to do naughty things with that strength. Of course if you had said those arguments, you would have found some way to buncombe-up everything anyhow, so don't feel too bad. :(
Naturally, you are correct.
About your balls popping off. Again.
This is the weakest response ever written.
PS-stop quoting my comments back to me, escpecially without rearranging the internal quotation marks. That's simply rude. And besides, it's totally pointless and I'll just end up inserting a bunch of "I, Shuushin, am a chafed anus"-type statements for you to parrot back to me.
"This is the weakest response ever written.
PS-stop quoting my comments back to me, escpecially without rearranging the internal quotation marks. That's simply rude. And besides, it's totally pointless and I'll just end up inserting a bunch of "I, Shuushin, am a chafed anus"-type statements for you to parrot back to me. "
Of course you'd ask that. But of course you also think it's cool to write a poem called "Impenetrable Pistachio" and regularly use the word "doodie" instead of shit.
"Of course you'd ask that. But of course you also think it's cool to write a poem called "Impenetrable Pistachio" and regularly use the word "doodie" instead of shit. "
You've been so badly beaked that you've actually retracted into your own balls.
"Larry Summers, the president of Harvard, suggested the other day that innate differences between the sexes might help explain why relatively few women become professional scientists or engineers. For this, he has been denouncedâmetaphorically, of courseâas a Neanderthal. Alumni are withholding donations. Professors are demanding apologies. Some want him fired."
http://www.slate.com/id/2112570/
Your ridiculous assertion contradicts itself in concluding that men are better than women after saying that âon average . . .â Iâll bet I am more spatially aware than most men, and can run farther and faster than you can.
(a) Do you believe that for men to be better than women every man must be better than all women?(b) Do you believe humans to be cleverer than chimps?
Most chimps are more clever than most humans. Most humans could not survive in a chimpâs environment without clothing and tools. Most men could not survive in a woman's environment with clothing or tools.
You idiot. Most humans could not survive in a woman's uretha either, but that doesn't mean yeasts are cleverer than us. PS-your failure to understand the phrase "on average" is the feather in the meatcap you started with that whole 29th century debacle. You deserve to be cockbludgeoned.
you still don't get it. It has nothing to do with averages. The yeast is simpoly better at surviving in its environment than other kinds of living creatrues are in its environment.
But it has nothing to do with intelligence. Chimps can survive nudely because they are very hairy.
I think what Dovina is trying to tell us is that women have to be stupider than men to survive in the slow-paced world of embroidery and cleaning. Can you imagine what the world would come to if such menial tasks fell to the men? Men, who are used to living life on the edge, used to making split second decisions under enormous pressure, used to pushing the human body to its physical limits, and beyond? By God sir, we'd all be killed! I'll never forget the day my grandfather offered to help Mrs Bloomsbury with her embroidery, and lost a leg through boredom.
My grandmother tried to teach me embroidery, but she discovered that I could not learn its intricacies, otherwise you might not be subjected to the lesser skill of my poetry.
I daresay your dangerous forays into poetry are every bit as mangled as those first few timid weavlings. A woman incapable of wrapping her head round the Three Principles of Embroidery cannot even begin to appreciate the Five Pillars of Poetry. Perhaps that's why none of your poemes even rhyme :(
Would you care to list, O knower of women's arts and crafts, the Three Principles of Embroidery and Five Pillars of Poetry? And please do it without looking anything up.
THE THREE PRINCIPLES OF EMBROIDERY
1. An embroidery will continue to grow at constant rate unless another embroidery collides with it, or the loom weaves itself into a frenzy. 2. A family of embroideries is called a hovis. 3. Weave with the weft, you'll soon be bereft. Weave with the warp, and you'll ne'er parp. LOOM MAINTENANCE 1. Don't be tempted to fit your loom with a turbo. 2. Remeber to replace your loom's oxygen tanks after each embroidering. 3. Regularly inspect your loom's tyres for fruit salads. (Loom Maintenance in a High-Risk Hobo Sanctuary) 4. Hoboes cling to filthy looms like barnacles, burrowing deep into their majestic oil trumpets and feasting on woollen deposits. If you find your loom has become encrusted with these urchins, prize them off with a palette knife or coat hanger. In future, a Fisherman's Friend dangling uselessly from the loom's spinnerets should discourage them. 5. If the Hobo Density exceeds 100 Beards, and their interlocking limbs have formed a Level 3 Hobo Matrix, CALL A SPECIALIST AT ONCE. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE HOBOES BY HAND!
6. Eat sprouts. Trouser shouts. (http://eclectech.co.uk/parp.php)
Thanks for so graciously clearing up the matter.
No problem. Though aren't you a little concerned that your only defence against my attacks on womankind consisted entirely in a defence of the intricacies of embroidery? While I have no problem in equating WOMANHOOD with EMBROIDERYHOOD, I'd have thought you'd be more discerning.
I am not a bit concerned about that because your attack on womanhood was so weak that I made no defense except to point out that embroidary is really quite complex.
Was my attack on embroidery stronger than my attack on womanhood?
No.
Firstly most chimps are cleverer than most humans. Secondly, they're clearly not, they are only cleverer than 50% of all humans that 50% being of the female genus. Thirdly, I should like to try surviving in a womans enviroment filling my fat face with chocolate sitting on a sofa reading a glossy magazine. Fourthly, I would not hold up those males who have succeeded at surviving in a woman's enviroment as cleverer, more useful, orbetter than me, for example Nadia from Big Brother has a lower iq than me, is a hideous mess and would lose to me in an arm wrestle.
"Iâll bet I am more spatially aware than most men, and can run farther and faster than you can."
I suppose you take pride in the fact that you can outrun and out-think a handicapped. Sure I may be incapable of attaining high speeds in my Wheeled-Chair, and I may have difficulty parking owing to my unbelievably appalling spatial co-ordination, but at least I haven't turned this debate into a 'personal' debate. When I said what I said about womans being worse than mens, I did so out of a pure intellectual curiosity. I bring no hidden agenda to this discussion; no shameful prejudices about women being jolly good at embroidery etc. I do not seek endwarven one particular sex beneath another. I seek only the truth. And to point out that not only are women generally weaker than men, but also that it is less convenient being a woman because you have to menstruate once a month. Men don't have to menstruate any times a month, unless they're gay :(
now if we could only find that kind of person...
-10- 419 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I guess it works as a "prose poem" - but why? This could be said in far fewer words and cleaner as a less verbose (or nounose) poem.
Turns out that in most cases they are indeed promising more than they will deliver. Not sure how it is in Europe, but in the US more marriages fail than not.
come to find out it wasn't mine. so this wasn't for better or worse it was for worse or better.