Sepulchritude Forum: The Absinthe Forum Archives Thru July 2001: Cunt/face
By Head_Prosthesis on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 08:02 pm: Edit

When I was a little white boy from Downriver I always wondered why there were Detroiters that lived in "projects". To my little caucazoid mind, a project was something that was in process and unfinished. I never knew why people had to live in incomplete buildings.

God Bless Hitsville!

By Melinelly on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 07:49 pm: Edit

here's a letter my mom wrote in response to the article listed and mentioned below in this last sunday's nytimes mag...

"Even before I became a teenager--during the perfect years of 1959 to 1965--I knew that the language of Rock & Roll could be poetic. For me it began with the lyrics Elvis and all the other white-boys down the line (including those lads across the Atlantic) covered off the R&B black folk. Growing up in a Detroit housing project I heard well the poetry in lyrics coming out of Hitsville-USA/Motown and from other assorted black artists (e.g. Chuck Berry, Little Richard). I hope those interested in Mr. Leland's subject, at whatever intellectual level, will also remember--or listen to and read --Berry and Richard, the Temps and the Tops, Smokey, Aretha, Marvin. I would grant it was Dylan and Lennon-McCartney who were the first in-your-face-type poets, rather like academics, so I protest briefly today how neglected are the more colorful, natural roots of R&R poetry in Mr. Leland's article. Not a surprise, but something to note.
>Carmen Silva
>San Francisco"

By Admin on Sunday, July 08, 2001 - 10:47 pm: Edit

Heh ... I have the picture disc for that album, by Barnes & Barnes. It's a cutout photograph of a sturgeon head.

In the early 80's it was kind of an urban myth that Billy Mummy was responsible, until he finally fessed up publicly that it was true.

The full album has some fine other tracks as well. "Cemetery Girls" & "Boogie Woogie Amputee" spring to mind.

Anyone out there remember "Killer Pussy"? Another early 80's garage gimmick band. Lord, but I loved them.

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, July 08, 2001 - 09:07 pm: Edit

triviality travalena travelocity travenova ...

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, July 08, 2001 - 09:03 pm: Edit

minus -al

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, July 08, 2001 - 09:03 pm: Edit

Hmmph! Puh-lease!!! My intellectual trivialality is far beyond your comprehension.

By Perruche_Verte on Sunday, July 08, 2001 - 08:41 pm: Edit

Didja know, the guy who played Will Robinson on "Lost in Space" co-wrote and recorded that song.

But I'm sure the all-seeing Head knew that!

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, July 08, 2001 - 08:15 pm: Edit

I think a good example of lyrics that DO stand well alone are these...

Fish heads, fish heads
Roly poly, fish heads
Fish heads, fish heads
Eat them up, yum!
Ask a fish head
anything you want to
they won't answer
they can't talk.
I took a fish head
out to see a movie
didn't have to pay
to get it in.

They don't play baseball
They don't wear sweaters
They're not good dancers
They don't play drums!!

Roly poly fish heads
are never seen
drinking capachino
in Italian restaurants
with oriental women!!!!!


Fish heads fish heads
Roly poly fish heads
Fish heads fish heads
Eat them up Yum!


By Marc on Sunday, July 08, 2001 - 02:22 am: Edit


you're the best.

By Cheese on Sunday, July 08, 2001 - 02:17 am: Edit

This one?

You'll have to be registered to actually hit the link.

By Marc on Sunday, July 08, 2001 - 01:57 am: Edit

There's a terrific article on song lyrics as poetry in today's New York Times (
Its in the arts section. Could someone provide a link? I don't know how to.

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 12:40 am: Edit

The problem with attitudes to sex is not just down to the media etc. The politicisation of sex and it's use as a tool of 'rebellion' and 'protest' is equally to blame. When people use it like this they miss the point altogether and the very nature of sex becomes twisted. Sex is natural, it is about our primal urges, we should just accept it as being as natural and as normal as breathing. Sex is not complicated, it is our attitudes towards sex that are twisted and complicated.


By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 07:02 pm: Edit

And sometimes you have to let the hen know who the rooster is...

By Ariadnae on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 03:25 pm: Edit

I think that observance about a portion of American teens turning to celibacy is quite on the money. Funny thing is, when I was a "punk," we rebelled by only having sex with people we were "steady" with (early days of U.S. punk) as reaction against the Studio 54 disco folks, who were doing anything that moved.

Seems sometimes that the more things change, the more they stay the same...

Love the "more and more" observance also.

By Ariadnae on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 03:20 pm: Edit


Sorry, but that was not apparent in your post as much as equating training and dominance with "profession" is. I sense a bit of backpedaling.

And I don't wear panties.

By Heiko on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Well, I forgot in the US media some naked breasts are considered "pornographic".
Not in Germany...

But, actually, I've heard of a recent study lately that more and more teenagers decide not to have sex before marriage or some other point of life maybe because having a lot of kinky sex has almost become something for the last generation (every new generation has to do something different, right?).
Quite boring development...

btw. I've also read a study that more and more journalists use the phrase "more and more" more and more often in more and more magazines which become more and more stupid... ;-)

By Verawench on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 03:08 pm: Edit

"I am offended by your assertion that someone must go to a pro-domme if he/she want to be dominated properly. "

::shrug:: I meant people whose wives/husbands simply have no inclinations towards the bdsm scene. Those people will go to a professional. Or they'll find a relationship with a hobbyist.

So don't get your panties in a bunch.

By Ariadnae on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 03:01 pm: Edit

Seems that Heiko listens to a different media than I do. Perhaps it's our demographics. As a 40 year old woman (gasp!), I know that most of the sex advice in magazines such as "O" and some others, tells me that I'm only allowed sweet loving sex or robust athletic sex (with track shoes and sweatbands). That I must be in love in order to have sex. Otherwise, I need to go to therapy or my husband will leave me. Since he already left, and I've spent too much on therapy that didn't cure me, I guess I'm stuck.

By Ariadnae on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 02:56 pm: Edit


Being a good domme does mean training, but does not mean being a professional. I am offended by your assertion that someone must go to a pro-domme if he/she want to be dominated properly. Absolutely not. There are many "hobbyist" dommes who are skilled enough to be professionals, but prefer not to be. I get the sense that you are of the mind that if one is good at a hobby then one must be a professional. I'm a good cook, but I certainly don't want to be a chef.


Thanks for the clarification. Must've been reading too fast...

By Heiko on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 02:49 pm: Edit

I regret there's too much hype about sex in the media nowadays. It is hip and 'in' to say you have this and that kinky sex 20 times a week. That kind of spoils the whole thing. I usually don't like it when things are too much 'in' and hyped by the media.
If you look at what the media tells us, you have to feel bad if you just have "normal" sex. It is only cool if you have s/m bisexual tantric yoga sex - two times a day, of course...

In the 60's and 70's sex was a matter of revolution and protest. Nowadays the only way to protest is what Blackjack does: NOT have sex.

Maybe more and more people will do so until the media stops hyping new sex trends and gives people back the fun to find out on their own what they want to do...

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 01:44 pm: Edit


You've got me all wrong. I do not believe that your sexual nature is created by society, my previous post takes quite the reverse stance. I don't go along with the "nurture" argument, my post said quite the reverse. There is no such thing as a truly straight or gay person we are all somewhere along a line (and along other lines) from one to the other. This is our nature.

Societies attitude that treats certain 'mainstream' sexual practices as normal and others as deviant is the problem. This attitude, along with general prudishness regarding sex creates hangups and predjudice. Also the treatment by society of sex as smutty, seedy and dirty reduces the humanness of sex. If we took a more open, natural attitude to sex we'd all be happier, healthier and hornier.


By Verawench on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 01:03 pm: Edit

"too afraid to admit to their wives and girlfriends their desires."

That's part of it, no doubt. But I know for a fact that being a good domme means TRAINING. You go to an accountant because he or she knows what they're doing. Same with a dom/me.

By Ariadnae on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 12:11 pm: Edit


Your comment about more bisexuality in entertainment industries sounds a bit naieve. There isn't necessairly more acceptance there, esp. of homosexuals. Whenever someone admits they're gay in either industry, they're taking chances.

Thing is, most regular folk (non-entertainer types) have these urges,took, but never act on them because of their social milieu. They are more likely to characterize themselves as "deviant" and hide this "deviant" behavior. It takes a great deal of intestinal fortitude to embrace one's deviant side in the face of the normal folks one must deal with daily. That includes co-workers, neighbors, friends and family. Most do not have support of the people around them, and risk losing those people they love the most.

Why do you think so many men go to professional dommes?? They're too afraid to admit to their wives and girlfriends their desires. Most women would indeed walk out because they are socialized to believe these things are wrong and to indulge in them would make them bad women and unfit mothers. Bull!

My housemate and I were having a discussion about what the general populace considers deviant sexual behavior. She's a bull-dyke, and I'm a domme, and we both struggle with our identities (although she's a bit further along in her lifestyle than I am). Why are we the kind of women we are? We do not feel we were created this way by society. No. These feelings go far deeper than just abherrent social behavior. And, since we both feel that nature rarely creates anything that isn't necessary, we feel that our ways in the world were necessary at some point. Perhaps there was a need for women who eschewed congress with men and preferred to go hunting. Perhaps there was a purpose for women who could reduce the biggest hunk to rubble in order to extract his perfect genetic material. If you look at it in these terms, the "nurture" model does break down a bit.

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 11:03 am: Edit


I'm not demanding that anyone has sex, it's a free choice and up to them. Sure some people may not have a biological urge to fuck and you may be one of them. I wasn't implying that you personally have any hang-ups, but modern society does treat sex in an unnatural way and encourages perverted outlooks and also hang-ups in many people. A more natural, relaxed, open approach to sex would be much more healthy than the seedy, titilating 'dirty magazine' approach on one hand and the uptight, guilt-ridden, prudish approach on the other hand. We should rejoice and celebrate our natural urges.

As to homosexual and heterosexual sex, the urges are the same, sex is sex. We are sexual beings and I don't believe there is such a thing as a pure homosexual or a pure heterosexual. We are all at a point somewhere along a continuum between the two. It always strikes me as a bit odd that there has always seemed to be more bisexual behaviour amongst people in the music business and film industry. I believe this is due to the fact that the people involved in these industries are generally less judgmental of and more open to sexual behaviour that is not purely heterosexual. Whereas in society at large deviation from heterosexuality is frowned upon (if not outrightly condemned or even illegal). I may be wrong here, somebody like Marc (working in the music business) would be in a better position to pass comment on this.


By Verawench on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 10:50 am: Edit

Blackjack, my own views mirror your own almost exactly.

I myself have a knack for sensuality and a feeling of sinfulness... I grew up being taught by the Catholic church that sex was sin and, having shed that notion, all that remains is a fascination with repression.

Granted, despite having been called a "square" by *cough* certain forum member :P *cough* I am happy to indulge in all that was frowned upon by the church. It's not guilt which fuels my pleasure.. but rather the memory of guilt or the possibility of guilt, if that makes any sense.

One of my favorite movies is "Age of Innocence"... the love story aspect of it was charming, yes, but it was the gut-wrenching sensual repression (Daniel Day Lewis guiltily kissing Michelle Pfeiffer's slipper) that made me almost giddy. Similarly, some of the most erotic experiences of my life didn't involve sex at all.

Furthermore, most sex that doesn't have the reproductive or biologically practical connotation - whether it be bdsm, homosexuality, or fetishism - holds a thrill. It then becomes either purely idealistic, aesthetic, hedonistic or spiritual... And that's beautiful.

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 10:12 am: Edit


It is socialisation and the unnatural nature of much of our current society that as well as twisting and perverting the very nature of sex also causes hang-ups and reductions in our wonderful urge to fuck.

Isn't it possible that there are some people whose biology simply doesn't compell them to fuck, in the same way there are people whose biology compells them to fuck members of the same sex? Seriously, I don't think I have any hang-ups about sex. I wholeheartedy encourage those who enjoy it to go forth and seek it in whatever form pleases them, as long as nobody gets hurt (against thier will, anyway). I am not uncomfortable with nudity or sexuality; I'm just not all that fascinated with them either. I don't think this is necsserily pathological nor negative. I think demanding that everyone should want to have sex is as stupid as demanding that everyone shouln't want to.

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 09:58 am: Edit


Speaking of "woodwork" Blackjack! Don't you ever get morning wood?

Um, well, yeah, all the plumbing still works. I just don't feel much compulsion to do anything with it.


Blackjack! What the hell is wrong with you??? Shovel into that tub of Ben Jerry's Damn It!!! Find someone to share it with and get ChunkyUncle UGLY!!! Live a little MAN!

Actually, I've been living a lot more in the past month than I have in a long time. I've been going out and enjoying myself, and I've started reading heavily. If the sex drive comes back, it comes back, but I don't see it as a prerequisite to having a full life.

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 02:35 am: Edit


Reproductive sex / non-reproductive sex, our urges are still the same. Sex is Sex. We are sexual beings, we are biologically programmed as such. Reproductiuon is simply a by product of our animal sexual urges. It is socialisation and the unnatural nature of much of our current society that as well as twisting and perverting the very nature of sex also causes hang-ups and reductions in our wonderful urge to fuck.


By Marc on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 12:23 am: Edit

that's one of the reasons I stopped taking acid with my lovers. Sometimes its better not to know.

By Ariadnae on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 12:15 am: Edit

And sometimes you discover such ugliness in the other person that you had no idea was ever there.

By Marc on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 11:32 pm: Edit

Its easy to go thru life thinking you've got your shit together if you live alone. Its when you live with another person that you discover
some of the ugliness inside yourself: jealousy,
anger, impatience, selfishness etc. But, in order to truly become one with that person (marriage) you must deal with the bullshit and shed it. Getting closer to your lover brings you closer to yourself and the world.

By Ariadnae on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 11:25 pm: Edit


I'm beginning to understand what you're talking about. I've had floods of memories over the past couple of weeks about places I've been and things I've done that I had really repressed. The memories are exciting--sometimes scary, sometimes very pleasurable. But even the scary ones, I realize, allowed me to see something in the men I was with, and, ultimately, to face something in myself. I have to continue to remember where I've been and who I've been with, and that only a few were really lousy in the end.

By Ariadnae on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 11:22 pm: Edit

Now, that's the spirit!

By Marc on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 11:20 pm: Edit


My sexual experiences began in the 1960's (lost my cherry in 68). For some of us teenagers in the 60's, sex was part of a spiritual awakening. It was one of many paths toward freeing ourselves from the inhibitions of a repressive society.
I grew up in Catholic school. Everytime I jerked off, I was one step closer to eternal damnation.
When I turned my back on that bullshit and embraced the world of sex and sin, I felt an incredible sense of relief . When I discovered, thru experience, that sex was a deeply profound
and pleasurable experience and that it was guilt that was unhealthy, I grew wings. I've lived for half a century, I've made many mistakes, but
I've never regretted a single fuck in my life.
I mean that. I think back on my erotic experiences
and there is no shame and no regret. Every pussy; a blessing.

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 11:18 pm: Edit

No I don't drool, I'm just happy to be there.

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 11:17 pm: Edit

What? You don't appreciate the joys of natural lubrication? I'm not a wet kisser like Grampa.

By Ariadnae on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 11:13 pm: Edit

Well, as long as you don't slobber like one ;-)

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 10:55 pm: Edit

I grin like a fool.

By Ariadnae on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 10:51 pm: Edit


I recently realized that I've hidden my sexuality for a long time to be acceptable marriage material for Mr. Right. But Mr. Right is only a guy who's name is spelled wrong...and I figured I won't find what I'm looking for if I keep lying about things.

You made some very good points about fear. Fear of sexuality does indeed go much deeper. It's fear of the body, and, I think, mostly of the aging body. Since you've seen me a time or two, you know I'm no supermodel, but I don't seem to have the hang-ups that younger women do about their bodies. Not that media doesn't get to me, and not that I don't have my insecurities. It comes down to a matter of health. Am I healthier now or when I was a size 6? I'm healtheir now. And that physical health allows me to enjoy my physical condition. When young people get so hung up on their body type, weight, breast size, whatever, they begin to become rigid. I, too, agree with Reich's assesment of the results of rigidity being ill health.

I think it's my deep love of both the inner and outer beauty of men that helps them to be vulnerable around me. When I hear women say that men's genetalia are "ugly," I am annoyed. If it's so ugly, then they must all be closing their eyes during lovemaking. When you do that sometimes, you miss the best part--your lover smiling at you.


I'm glad you so enthusiastically recognize my Supervixen status!

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 10:18 pm: Edit

I just love her cause she's a Supervixen!

By Marc on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 10:15 pm: Edit


its refreshing to hear a woman speak openly about her sexuality in this forum.

Removing your clothes is just a first step toward
breaking thru layers and layers of armor. Despite the pervasiveness of sexual imagery in modern culture, humans are still very repressed and uptight about their bodies. We can go months and years without ever being touched, our flesh becoming rigid and dead. I believe, as Wilhelm Reich did, that this results in disease and pain.
When I touch my middle-aged male friends, I feel so much tension in their shoulders and backs. They've become hardened against the world, a defense mechanism that is killing their ability
to feel. Most men, including myself, are afraid to be vulnerable. We see it as weakness. We are afraid to let down our guard.

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 10:14 pm: Edit


I fail, personally, to see why it is so facinating as to occupy such a huge piece in human discourse...


By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 10:06 pm: Edit

Speaking of "woodwork" Blackjack! Don't you ever get morning wood?


The more you scratch it, the worse it gets. Leave your penis alone and it will leave you alone.

Blackjack! What the hell is wrong with you??? Shovel into that tub of Ben Jerry's Damn It!!! Find someone to share it with and get ChunkyUncle UGLY!!! Live a little MAN!

By Ariadnae on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 09:55 pm: Edit

Well, I just love coming back to a place and finding that Marc started something about sex again...I said, "it just figures," but thought I might add a word or two, since it's a topic near and dear to me...

I had several years on meds that killed my sex drive. But what killed it worse was my ex-husband, who lost interest in me shortly after our marriage (why we stayed married for 8 years, I'll never know. Maybe it was the jokes.) So, meds, in some instances, may only be blamed for part of it. If no one's interested, it's hard to feel like a sexual being. That was when I knew I had to change some things about myself, my appearance, so that men would "see" me again and I could stop being part of the woodwork.

And since it's been years without meds, and I cultivated a new look that did not require I lose weight, as well as the stress of school out of the way (another sex-drive killer) mine has come back like a gorilla driving a Volkswagen down the Autobahn. For some of us it is a need, a big one, but it need not be shallow and just physical. The "vibe" of sex, the way the bodies of two people commune in "the act", can be an extraordinarily spiritual experience. Holding someone in that most intimate embrace can be freeing. There are men that I've known who I couldn't speak to, or look directly in the eye, because I've been so infatuated with them. But when we were naked, things changed. It was as if the constraints of society had to be shed before we could communicate freely with one another. Then, we could indeed look each other in the eye, and know the most intimate secrets and the vulnerability, of the other person. It's a shame that people want to reduce the beauty of sex to a mere biological function. And that men so often fear the women that they choose to embrace their vulnerability.

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 02:10 pm: Edit

Well, yes, as a species, obviously, we need it, but I'm not talking about reproductive sex, anyway. There's no way in hell I'm ever doing that (for the good of the me). I'm talking about recreational sex. It isn't vital. It's a form of entertainment. It's like the difference between eating a handful of rice to keep from dying and going through a pint of Ben and Jerry's after dinner.

Now, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, but I fail, personally, to see why it is so facinating as to occupy such a huge piece in human discourse...

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 12:52 pm: Edit


The urge to have sex is an innate urge in mankind and all other animals, we'd all die out otherwise.

If nobody played golf I don't think it'd result in species disappearing.

Sex is a necessity. I'm surprised at you taking such an individual-centred view on this issue. Mankind needs sex. If there was no sex we'd have a pretty empty planet.


By _Blackjack on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 09:24 am: Edit


Sex isn't golf. It's like shelter, hunger or thirst. It's not a luxury but a need.

Y'see, I've gone long periods without sex, both by choice and by circumstance, and yet, somehow I survived. It is far from a necessity. It's more like an itch. The more you scratch it, the worse it gets. Leave your penis alone and it will leave you alone.

Not only isn't it a need, it SHOULDN'T be a need, simply because that cheapens the experience greatly. Doing something because you want to is much more special than doing something because you HAVE to. I know few cigarette smokers who enjoy sating their biological addiction as much as I enjoy the cigars I smoke because I want to.

I won't go into food and drink being needs, simply because I have a bad tendancy to forget to eat...

By Bob_Chong on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 09:26 pm: Edit


Sex isn't golf. It's like shelter, hunger or thirst. It's not a luxury but a need.

And Luvlite: Barlow and Hunter both blow, *as poets.* As songwriters, they're fine. But neither will be added to the canon anytime soon. Langston Hughes could write circles around those dopes.


By Luvlite68 on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 04:24 pm: Edit

"It always raised my hackles when Deadheads would act as if Jerry's lyrics were fucking Wordsworth."

Exactly what GD songs are you criticizing? The vast majority of their lyrics were written by Robert Hunter and John Barlow.

By _Blackjack on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 01:07 pm: Edit

I am increasingly convinced that music, moreso than other forms of expression, has the ability to bypass the conscious mind and have some level of direct, biological impact on the brain. This isn't the total of music's ability to move us, but it explains why a beutiful melody being sung in portuguese, or as "Sha-la-la," can be so evocative. The lyrics serve to further augment the experience, drawing in conscious connections to the unconscious reaction.

By Petermarc on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 01:06 pm: Edit

my second favorite quote...bukowski...
'it's not that i don't like people, i just feel better when they're not around.'

By _Blackjack on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 01:01 pm: Edit


Time to change your meds, man. You have the libido of an octogenarian. The "I'm too cool to get my rocks off" stuff is getting boring. You haven't risen above it, your meds have taken away your sex drive and left your wits to rationalize it all away.

Well, to be precise, my med didn't cause it, they just failed to fix it. The loss of sex-drive (and general anhedonia) are symptoms of my deression that remained after the medication restred my mood and energy levels. Bupropion, my primary med, is the antidepressant least likely to have sexual side-effects, and is even used to fight those caused by SSRI's like Fluoxitine (Prozac).

I have, in fact, changed my meds, or at least augmented them, and while the change seems to be doing a good job at fighting the anhedonia and improving my executive function, they don't seem to be helping too much with my sex-drive or appetite (I've lost 60 pounds since December). I am reluctant to make any more radical changes in my medication simply because this is the longest functional stretch I've had in my adult life and I don't want to risk relapse.

That being said, even when I have had an active sex-drive, I was still baffled by the obsession (either positive or negative) most people seem to have with it. Rather like golf, it may be thuroughly entertaining to engage in, but I cannot imagine wanting to watch it on TV or listen to people talk about it...

I'll admit to something of an ascetic streak. I don't like my body telling me what to do. I suspect it comes from growing up a fat kid.

By Cheri on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 05:45 am: Edit

Here I sit
broken hearted
Came to shit
but only farted.

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 10:24 pm: Edit

The Cry of Low Labor Larson

Woe is me
You watch me pee
into the cup so small

Woe is me
"the drugs were free!!!"
absence of bathroom stall

Woe is me
the doctor sees
the tiny shining star

Woe is me
the flushing tea
didn't clean the hashish tar


By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 10:17 pm: Edit

What about Head?

By Marc on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 10:13 pm: Edit

American poets I admire:

Ginsberg, Michael McClure,William Carlos Williams, Philip LaMantia, Gregory Corso, Bukowski, Diane DiPrima, Alden Van Buskirk,
Jim Carroll.

By Bob_Chong on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Poetry vs. song lyrics: great thread! I agree completely with what has been said so far. The thing about lyrics: they must withstand repetition, thus they are allowed to be filled with cliches. You may hear (e.g.) a Lou Reed song 200 times or more, but how many times are you going to read Sonnet 138? If I saw the phrase, "I'll love you always" in a "poem," it is probably in a Hallmark card or in a 16-yr-old girl's unicorn and butterfly adorned notebook. But that phrase is probably in a thousand songs and I'd never think twice hearing it.

It always raised my hackles when Deadheads would act as if Jerry's lyrics were fucking Wordsworth. Shit, people: loosely strung together cliches and pseudo-psychedelic imagery is not poetry. Put down the liner notes and pick up some fucking Gwendolyn Brooks.

end of rant,

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 09:41 pm: Edit

Chonger, don't make me post senior smut photos from the newsgroups...

By Bob_Chong on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 09:36 pm: Edit


Time to change your meds, man. You have the libido of an octogenarian. The "I'm too cool to get my rocks off" stuff is getting boring. You haven't risen above it, your meds have taken away your sex drive and left your wits to rationalize it all away.


By Marc on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 06:41 pm: Edit

leave it to head to bring back romance to the forum.

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 06:14 pm: Edit

From the lost book of poetry the "Vagina Echoes"
I bring you...


This cock is huge
There's no possible way to get all of it in my hungry open mouth

But dear lord I'll try
because he's an artist
with a tongue for a brush

Here goes nothin'
Mmph hmmph gak garg
ummfh ummfh mmuph

(Thinking to herself)
"It's probably a good thing
I can't see the expression on his face"

"Did he just fart?"




By Bjacques on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 03:00 pm: Edit


I totally agree about lyrics. Even in some of my favorite music, they often make me cringe. Anyway, Head's got a point. If you're going from the cosmic to the specific and back again, it does seem you left some organs out. Maybe you can rework the line, if you want to spend any more time on it. Otherwise, I thought it was ok.

By Marc on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 01:16 pm: Edit


I hear you.

as William Carlos Williams said "no ideas but in things".

I see poetry as an energy construct. When a poem hits and digs into you, it can be a beautiful thing. The poet taking energy from where he got it, thru the poem, to you. If the poet gets in the way of the process, by tinkering too much with the poem, the poem loses its force and purity. Ego leading to self-indulgence.

I love it when a poem opens your mind for a moment. A clean take on the thing at hand.

As someone who stopped writing poetry and became a songwriter, I dig what your saying about the poem vs. lyrics. Lyrics are intensified by the
singer's voice and musical context. Or diminished. Songs are dramatic. Language rising and surging on crescendos of musical notes. Also rhyme scheme and meter within a song forces the the writer to more traditional (and perhaps less indulgent)structure.

Few lyrics can stand alone. Without music, the lyrics of even great songwriters can make for mediocre poetry.

In the case of my forum ramblings, call it syntactical outbursts instead of poetry.
My attempt to pry open the doors of poesy in this wasteland of chatter.

By _Blackjack on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 01:01 pm: Edit

Add to that the simple fact that I don't really have much interest in my own sex life, let alone anyone else's. It's not that I think sex is dirty or sinful. It simply holds no more facination for me than digestion or perspiration or any other bodly function. I hate it when a perfectly good movie is suddenly interrupted for the sex scene. Unless the sex is somehow moving the plot forward, I see no more reason to make us watch it than to make us watch the hero take a dump.

Unless the dump moves the plot forward, like in Pulp Fiction.

By _Blackjack on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 12:56 pm: Edit

It was either Ambrose Bierce, G.B. Shaw, or me. I always get those three confused...

"I'm like the punk-rock Oscar Wilde. Except with less, y'know, buggery..."

I'm really not too keen on poetry. It isn't all bad, of courde, but the quality curve is pretty steep; poetry that is anything short of excellent tends to be dismal.

When it is constrained by song or narrative, when it is a vehicle for music or storytelling, it doesn't bother me, but for its own sake, it almost inevitably spirals into gratuitous expressionism and self-indulgence. It doesn't communicate, it simply demonstrates. It places emotions in a diorama, free from context or purpose.

When I was in my high school creative writing class, if I was too lazy to actually bother to write one of my stories down on paper, I would toss a random assemblage of purple and dispair down on a page, set them to "Yellow Rose of Texas," and call it poetry. And you know what? I got an "A." I even got awards for the stuff. Yes, for two years I was judged to be the second-best poet at Robinson High...

By Marc on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 11:46 am: Edit

who is this "wise man"? What makes him wise?

Give me "innermost" anything over slerpis slurpees, absinthe chat and "I got my shipment today".

By _Blackjack on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 05:22 am: Edit

A wise man once defined poetry as "an adolescent disease whose primary symptom is the delusion that ones innermost woe is so terribly interesting that the whole world should want to read about them, and moreover to do so in iambic tetrameter..."

For "innermost woe," I suspect one might also substitute "gynecological insights."

By Midas on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 04:01 am: Edit

"...What is it you cunt face, Maria?"

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 03:56 am: Edit

It was a lite weekend at the Forum, however, resident wordsmith Marc managed to squeeze out yet another artfully offensive topic title.

In his poem he uses sexual imagery and spiritual consciouness to paint a picture of the anatomy of 69.

It is only half of a whole piture though, spoken in his words. The other half "Dick/Mouth" is still silent and floating out there in space. Perhaps it is because the other half really can't speak because she has a mouthfull. Poetic Irony?

By Marc on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 02:33 am: Edit

flesh vibrates,
a tuning fork
struck by the hand of god.

you're on top of me,
all over me,
your cunt on my face.

we make a circle,
a planet of meat
orbiting itself.

no need to watch the skies.
we create our own
sexual astronomy.

we are



Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation