For S

i agree with you mushkil, not only that the person should know what he wants, but should also stick to it, and not change like the wind!
fiz

i couldn`t finish through your poem, it was nice and all but i am again heartbroken. so i will take a totally biased and cynical approach here especially when it comes to love in the desi context where the idea of love has served more of a shairiana fetish, than something that could be consummated under the guise of family arrangements and clannish scrutiny.

so in this post-gemeinshelft, simulacra of a world (to sound chowky and pretensious) many people still cling on to these romantic ideals of essence; i.e. true love with overblown ideas of what love is. love is selfish, love is the ultimate state of vulnerability, love can be fucked up...

but i am looking forward to falling in love again this time with someome who knows what they want.

re aatish:

``Well I think love can be both sexual and non-sexual. The purest form of love is perhaps the love that a mother has towards her children. It is sacrificing and all-encompassing, and is non-sexual.``

the oedipal complex is then fiction and gerturde and halmet had no sexual underlying tenions?

rizvi

Aatish. This is a belated response to your question concerning what prompted me to write my earlier comment concerning fishooks. Your verses seemed so serious and sincere (like the fishhook article by Bina) that I could not resist trying to lighten things up a bit for you folks. Anyway, good luck with your romantic life.

Re: temporal

It`s kind of late and I think I will give a better reply later.

Well I think love can be both sexual and non-sexual. The purest form of love is perhaps the love that a mother has towards her children. It is sacrificing and all-encompassing, and is non-sexual.

Re: TAhmed321

Thanks for reading the poem. I am curious about your comment though.

Why do you say so? Because you wouldn`t say this to someone you love? Do you deny that someone else could genuinely feel this way? Because you just happened to read the fishooks article and could not disentangle your mind from it??

Do explain...

Re: Godot

Your obsessiveness amazes me. I will not say the obvious here. Your knee-jerk responses speak volumes. I am not interested in getting into a mud-wrestling match with you ... all the power to you dude.

Have fun chump!

Re: TAhmed321, #31

Bingo!

However, Fishhook, as described in Bina`s piece, is giving too much credit. I`d say a lech!

Hmmmmm. Sounds like a fishhook talking.

Aatish:

I thought I was seriously responding to a serious poem. Am glad you are laughing. Perhaps, a zoo to each taste? Seriously, I agree with your assessment in that there is no set way of making love. Otherwise, the whole spontanaeity will be lost. Enjoyed your remark about degree courses. I know the good old Tantric Order has a definite training regimen, though. am not so sure if it awards degrees. Perhaps an angle they should persue?

Now, how about answering the last paragraph of my interact,

expectantly,

Re: Aatish

Yes, I am! I have been a Miller fan for a long time and I love his irreverent humor and his rants are the best! Dennis and Bill Maher of Politically Incorrect fame are two of my favorite comedians.

Re: All

Poetry, unlike prose, is about the idea of conveying imagery and it works within a metaphorical sense. The object d` art of a poem is to identify emotionally with the reader and not neccessarily on an intellectual plane. A reader`s interpretation of a poem will be determined not by the content or the phraseology of the words, but how closely the poem approximates the reader`s own particular experiences on a given topic, subject or the theme, which the poem is penned on.

We should try to read the context of a poem within the limits of our own experinces. The beauty of a poem, its elegance if you will, lies in the achievement of sharing an experience with which we can relate to what the author was trying to express as a thought.

Consequently, an understanding of a poem depends on the reader`s state of mind when s/he reads the poem and that interpretation is bound to change with each reading of the poem.

Rishi,

Thanks for your comments and compliments. I like your example of Spielberg asking Siskel to direct, point well taken.

And you`re right, a critic deserves the right to criticise, otherwise he won`t be much of a critic.

So to Godot, dear friend, I am sorry for aggravating you. Your dislike is accepted and digested...

Peace!

Re : Aatish

I have an honest belief that poetry differentiates itself from prose by using a rhythmic juxtaposition of right words. I am sorry to say that this poem was a tough one to read let alone decipher. It was more prosaic and complex than even complex prose. That does not take away your merit on the theme or the expression. And the last para had this rhythm that i talk about which was the saving grace. I did like the raw lust and energy and the allegory the last para portrays. Good work there

in reply 25 you say to Godot,

`` If you dislike someone else`s work so much, try writing something yourself, instead of being a critic for the sake of being one.``

-- that is something like Azhar asking Prem Panicker to play cricket instead of commenting. Or Spielberg asking Siskel to direct a movie.

Guess the allegory would suffice.

`` Such critics are perhaps the lowliest of all beings. ``

-- That is indeed a ahem...cheap shot Aatish. When you write something and like to be read and admired, you also need to be open to criticism. If someone does not like your work so be it. That is the right of the reader. He has the right to criticise, tear apart, spew venom on any piece because he took the time to read your work. You also have the right to defend yourself, but you never have the right to critique a critic on his critique. Does that make sense ?

Don`t expose your flanks buddy.

Rishi

Asif,

Thanks for your comments and encouragement.

Ghalib never gets very explicit, but like the best of all poets, talks in double meaning. The sexual nature of his verse lies in this double meaning ... he may not say something directly, but imply something indirectly.

And Hafez, the master of all masters, well he could say something outright sexual and make it sound philosophical, and vice versa. I agree with you that he was a Sufi, but I do not agree with you that he did all this just to convey a mystic message all the time. I think he liked to play with his words and his constructions, and enjoyed deliberately putting ambiguity in his verse.

I think the conservative people after Hafez have had a very difficult time explaining all of his works, and they have (to me) unsuccessfully floated the idea that at all times he was coveying a mystic message.

Godot,

Tsk, tsk, tsk ... so much anger comrade, will do you no good bro! Chill, its better for you mind and your heart!

If you dislike someone else`s work so much, try writing something yourself, instead of being a critic for the sake of being one. If you have ``elevated`` ideas, put them on paper and let the world see --anyone can sit in an armchair and spew criticism for hours. Such critics are perhaps the lowliest of all beings.

Dude, no offense intended and none taken --perhaps I am like you, and returning your comment, saying out aloud when the emperor has no clothes. You have a right to dislike something and so say it, and so do I.

cheers

Aatish ,

A good attempt but perhaps love-making is best experienced and cannot be described.

If eroticism was your aim then I think your language and imagery were far too obscure to achieve that. However, it was a valiant effort nevertheless at a difficult subject.

Regarding Ghalib`s poetry, I cannot ever imagine someone would reckon it any where near approaching pornography; erotic, maybe, at times; sensual--sometimes; but porn?? Never!

Phir maange hai kissi ko lab-e-baam par havas

Zulf-e-syaa, munh pe pareshaan kiye huwe!

Again, lust is searchnig for someone on the rooftop,

Her black tresses, spread all over her face!

And Hafiz Shirazi was a Sufi. His poetry is about Allah and reachnig the Divine, though he uses--like all sufis--sensual imagery to convey a mystic message.

Real erotic, yet Sufi, poetry can be found in Hazrat Shaikh al Akbar Ibn Arabi`s Tarjumaan al Ashwaaq, the Interpreter of Desires (trans. by A J Arberry from the Arabic).

Re: Aatish, #15

The fact that Scourge rushed to your defense, and you two agree, says a lot more than I ever could! Thannnnnk Youuuuu Scourge (on secularists--closeted or not)!!!

From your responses I`ve concluded that, not only matching wits is not exactly your forte, you`re really good at something: taking cheap shots. I would not expect anything less from a ``poet`` of your caliber! [Yes, this one is from me.]

Oh, mon chereie!!! MMM MMM MMM!!! Chum chum chum!!! (The lover of your poem, Pepe Le Pew!)

As someone said, to each his own!

Period.

Aatish:

You say, ``how do you think a person FEELS when he makes love to someone he loves?`` (my caps).

It does not matter what I feel or think. Or may be it does because ultimately we are all so subjective. Reams have been written about the act of love making. Subjectively, if done properly, AND mutually, the experience is heavenly and elusive. If the feather is used it is erotic and passionate, but if one tends to use the whole bird than it is a travesty.

I also found your quote a trifle male-centric. As a rule, MOST South Asian Desis are not well versed in, ahem... the Art of Lovemaking! To a certain extent one can blame the fire in the loins to fog the vision, but, really, this problem is manifold. No, I cannot cite any statistics to support my views. They are merely based on conversations with friends, acquaintances, their lovers and spouses over the last many years. You don`t just throw wood and matches in the fire place and sit back and relax warmly. One has to ``nurse`` the wood to provide one with a nice, long, warm and relaxing evening.

Your other query is a loaded one, too. `` Does the presence of sexuality negate non-sexual love or complement it?`` First, in the context of this poem only, what do you mean by non-sexual love? In true ``love`` the element of union between body and soul is the ultimate goal. Even in fleeing liasons, this unity of twos is the ultimate goal, however fleeting.

Hope this answers your queries.

regards