February 27th, 2007


Previous Entry Next Entry
04:29 am - on poetry and perviness...

(37 comments | Leave a comment)

 
on poetry and perviness... - graffiti.maverick

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile


Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

Wrestling
> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

Other
> 1KWFFH
> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr

Comments:


[User Picture]From: limpingpigeon Date: February 28th, 2007 - 05:02 am (Link)
Fair enough. I'll get back to the point then :)

Again, I attribute much of the outrage at this poem to people not understanding subtlety. If you read this poem and don't actually think about it it seems like a straightforward set of instructions for getting it on with a black chick. However, if you actually try to figure out what the author is trying to say with this poem you find that it's all about loving and respecting one's partner, and striving for the enjoyment of both lovers, rather than the selfish gratification of just one of them. Which seems a much healthier and generally more positive portrayal of sex that you see in a lot of sources. It even seems to be implying a certain amount of responsibility in this sexual encounter.

But since most people don't want to bother trying to interpret such things at more than face value, they don't see the responsibility, they don't see the loving tone of the poem, they don't see the respect. All they see is smut.

I'm not sure whether I feel this poem is appropriate for that age group, because I wonder if they can handle sexual subjects maturely and to interpret it beyond its face value as a set of instructions for fucking. But, if they do lack the maturity, that may just be because no one has every really tried to maturely discuss sex with them.
[User Picture]From: dgr Date: February 28th, 2007 - 10:50 pm (Link)
On the subject of the poem, I thought it was terrible. I made it about three and a half stanzas in and then scrolled down past it before my eyes started bleeding. It reads like pretentious softcore pornography, relying on the stereotype that black women are demanding about their own pleasure and implies that the author is a fantastic lover because he touches the woman with a part of him other than his dick. The teacher should be shot for corrupting the aesthetic tastes of the future generation.

The teacher is totally trying to slime his way into the girl's panties. There are a hundred less sleazy ways in which he could have given her the poem if it related to her work.

As for sexual content for high school students, you can pretty safely assume that they have been exposed to worse. They know enough to judge when they are legitimately being given work, and when their teacher is just trying to bone them. You can also assume that their parents will interpret your actions in the worst light possible. Assigning Lolita to your class is fine if you're trying to make a point and willing to fight. Calling one student into your office, giving her your well worn private copy, and having The Joy of Sex be the next book on your bookshelf... not so okay.
From: (Anonymous) Date: March 3rd, 2007 - 05:04 am (Link)
Hmm. Fair enough. I guess I just interpreted differently. :)

That said, I didn't think it was a good poem in general. I think it's extremely poorly-written.

And yeah, the teacher is a sleaze.
 

• Go to Top
LiveJournal.com