Outside this bathroom is the man
that you love, laughing with his
girlfriend, who, in another two years,
will be dead; inside this bathroom
are the two of us, trying to prove
either that we’re not going to die
or that love has nothing to do with it.

Unpeeling your tight jeans, my hands
are steady but my knees shake, but
mine is a mouth that refuses to stop,
and as you lean your head against the
window, blonde hair falling over your
half-lidded eyes, you almost look as
if you are enjoying my stubborn attempt
to keep your whiskey dick alive . . .

But these bathroom tiles are harder
than I could ever hope to make you,
the linoleum the only white either of us
will get to see; I know that this ache
in my jaw is a pain more passing than
this emptiness neither of us can fill.

Hi Andy

I've read this several times now, and I'm confused although that might be because I haven't managed to fire my brain cell up yet this morning. Okay, I'll explain my confusion. In S1 I thought the you was the narrator talking to himself that he loves this guy who's outside the bathroom door. It then goes on to say the you may have a chance with this guy when his girlfriend dies in two years' time (and how do you know that?!). But then the final two lines say you'll have your chance but here's mine. So the you isn't the narrator but a third guy? Do you see why that's confusing or am I just being stupid. I may well post this then read the poem again and it will all click into place.

The rest I like, although I still find your linebreaks unusual. Not sure about lidded eyes - presumably you mean closed, but eyes have eyelids whether open or closed.

Thanks for posting

Amanda  

I agree there's a case glitch with you/mine (unless there's an unknown 3rd party in this too). But the thing about she'll be dead in two years is excellent. I think that's the best part for me because it's completely off the wall, unexplained and out of nowhere. The rest of it is fine, but maybe a little routine for me as a slice of sex/life-poetry. So that was the stand-out moment for me.

Cheers for the read,

Steve.

Andy -  this poem for me has red flags all over it.
but..let me explain.  First is the use of male genitalia.
I guess for some people, this is erotic and fun.  For me,
it's a big no in poetry.  (1st red flag)
the second red flag is describing sexual activity or
a fantasy of one  - explicitly. (2nd red flag)
the story is a bit weird -

He’s out there, the man that you love,
outside this bathroom door, laughing
with the girlfriend he loves, who,
in another two years, will be dead;
maybe then you’ll have your chance,
but here’s mine, and I’m taking it:

here is my summary of this stanza:  You are talking about a man you love who is waiting outside the bathroom door.
He has a girlfriend, whom you want dead because you're in love with this man.  Instanteously, you fantasize about having sex with a man who is outside your bathroom door. You want him so bad, you throw yourself on him outside your bathroom door.  

This poem is eclectic, obtrusive, and crude in some parts.  its not something i would read several times.  its not something i would buy.  I don't enjoy it but power to you for your  bravery and willingness to share.


take care

andyleggett wrote:

He’s out there, the man that you love, outside this bathroom door, laughing with the girlfriend he loves, who, in another two years, will be dead; maybe then you’ll have your chance, but here’s mine, and I’m taking it: unpeeling your tight jeans as you lean your head against the window, blonde hair falling over your lidded eyes, as if with pleasure as I attempt to pull your whiskey dick into life . . . The bathroom tiles are harder than I could ever make your cock, the linoleum the only white I’ll get to see; my bended knees and working jaw are plagued with a pain more passing than this ache of yours I cannot fill.

Laverne, I hope you will pardon me for responding to your crit. I just wanted to point out that, unless we are specifically told otherwise, it's generally a good idea to assume that a poem is in the voice of a Narrator, and is not necessarily in the voice of the poet. So the poet is not necessarily being crude (we don't know at this stage) even if the Narrator is. This makes a huge difference, I'm sure you will agree. Plus it prevents us making any unwarranted assumptions about the poet and his/her life. I'd also like to suggest that genital referents can be used in ways that are neither erotic or fun, as is, I think, the case with this poem. For some people those words are regular parts of colloquy, as they are for me, so have no special power of eroticism or fun. I may be wrong, and Andy will answer for himself, but I really didn't get the impression they were being used for those reasons here. I took it as a more serious and truthful poem than that, albeit one that some will find a little extreme in its narrative disclosures. He did issue an explicit content warning above it, which is probably more than I would have done.

Anyway, I know it isn't great practice to feed back on crits without invitation, so I hope you'll excuse me. I hope it may have been a constructive intrusion. If not, then please accept my apologies and I'll refrain from it with your crits in future.

Steve.

AmandaT wrote:

Hi Andy I've read this several times now, and I'm confused although that might be because I haven't managed to fire my brain cell up yet this morning. Okay, I'll explain my confusion. In S1 I thought the you was the narrator talking to himself that he loves this guy who's outside the bathroom door. It then goes on to say the you may have a chance with this guy when his girlfriend dies in two years' time (and how do you know that?!). But then the final two lines say you'll have your chance but here's mine. So the you isn't the narrator but a third guy? Do you see why that's confusing or am I just being stupid. I may well post this then read the poem again and it will all click into place. The rest I like, although I still find your linebreaks unusual. Not sure about lidded eyes - presumably you mean closed, but eyes have eyelids whether open or closed. Thanks for posting Amanda

Reading over it I can understand the confusion... I think you're reading it as second-person (wherein "you" is essentially "I"), but in this case it's meant as an addressal. I kinda like that confusion, though, it adds an interesting twist to the poem (to my mind)...

Oh, I meant "half-lidded" probably, I can change that easily, thanks.

Steve Parker wrote:

I agree there's a case glitch with you/mine (unless there's an unknown 3rd party in this too). But the thing about she'll be dead in two years is excellent. I think that's the best part for me because it's completely off the wall, unexplained and out of nowhere. The rest of it is fine, but maybe a little routine for me as a slice of sex/life-poetry. So that was the stand-out moment for me. Cheers for the read, Steve.

Yeah, there's an explanation for it, but it's funner as not knowing whether it's because she has an illness, somebody's gonna kill her, or the narrator can see into the future...
Well, I guess the point of this poem is that for some people this *is* a routine... but for the narrator it isn't, and he doesn't want it to be. Does that come through at least?

[quote="Laverne Pacquire"]Andy -  this poem for me has red flags all over it.
but..let me explain.  First is the use of male genitalia.
I guess for some people, this is erotic and fun.  For me,
it's a big no in poetry.  (1st red flag)
the second red flag is describing sexual activity or
a fantasy of one  - explicitly. (2nd red flag)
the story is a bit weird -

He’s out there, the man that you love,
outside this bathroom door, laughing
with the girlfriend he loves, who,
in another two years, will be dead;
maybe then you’ll have your chance,
but here’s mine, and I’m taking it:

here is my summary of this stanza:  You are talking about a man you love who is waiting outside the bathroom door.
He has a girlfriend, whom you want dead because you're in love with this man.  Instanteously, you fantasize about having sex with a man who is outside your bathroom door. You want him so bad, you throw yourself on him outside your bathroom door.  

This poem is eclectic, obtrusive, and crude in some parts.  its not something i would read several times.  its not something i would buy.  I don't enjoy it but power to you for your  bravery and willingness to share.


take care

***

Well, to each their own, obviously... but I think there is some confusion I need to address here in the rewrite. The scenario is thus: narrator is sucking guy #1 in bathroom, but guy #1 is in love with guy #2 outside the bathroom with his girlfriend who guy #1 doesn't necessarily want dead, but he's kinda biding his time because she's terminally ill... it's not written in second-person, but addressed directly to guy #1.

Steve Parker wrote:

Laverne, I hope you will pardon me for responding to your crit. I just wanted to point out that, unless we are specifically told otherwise, it's generally a good idea to assume that a poem is in the voice of a Narrator, and is not necessarily in the voice of the poet. So the poet is not necessarily being crude (we don't know at this stage) even if the Narrator is. This makes a huge difference, I'm sure you will agree. Plus it prevents us making any unwarranted assumptions about the poet and his/her life. I'd also like to suggest that genital referents can be used in ways that are neither erotic or fun, as is, I think, the case with this poem. For some people those words are regular parts of colloquy, as they are for me, so have no special power of eroticism or fun. I may be wrong, and Andy will answer for himself, but I really didn't get the impression they were being used for those reasons here. I took it as a more serious and truthful poem than that, albeit one that some will find a little extreme in its narrative disclosures. He did issue an explicit content warning above it, which is probably more than I would have done. Anyway, I know it isn't great practice to feed back on crits without invitation, so I hope you'll excuse me. I hope it may have been a constructive intrusion. If not, then please accept my apologies and I'll refrain from it with your crits in future. Steve.

I would say that, for me, I prefer calling it what I would actually call it, as euphemisms would feel forced or unnatural for a poem which is supposed to be about naked honesty... things need to be laid out directly, and for me "cock" isn't erotic, but shocking in this context, and part of that shock is that it's a little crude, but if I were to say "penis" that feels more clinical to me.

Yeah, I didn't mean like routine behaviour or anything, I just meant it was relatively routine in poetry. As regards using cock or penis etc, it's sort of ridiculous isn't it? I mean what poet in his/her right mind would ever say penis unless it was in a hospital context or something? Yeah, I use the words I use in real life too. I guess if I was being interviewed on TV talking to the Pope (this is quite unlikely given my history) I might think a bit before I said cock, but then I'd say it anyway. Cock is a good word. Dick is a lesser word. We don't have a word for the male stuff that rivals 'cunt', which is a shame. All our male words have some comic elements. Okay, I guess cocks are comical to some extent (and the entire etymology is cartoonish), but it must be nice to have a word as powerful as cunt to use. I know it's beeen corrupted by its abuse, but it's never really become comical.

Anyway, your matter of fact explanation above completely cracked me up, Andy. Dude 1 is sucking dude 2's cock (I paraphrase)... It's a poem in itself, and probably more like the way I'd write it.

Hahahahahaha, great stuff.

Steve.

Steve Parker wrote:

Yeah, I didn't mean like routine behaviour or anything, I just meant it was relatively routine in poetry. As regards using cock or penis etc, it's sort of ridiculous isn't it? I mean what poet in his/her right mind would ever say penis unless it was in a hospital context or something? Yeah, I use the words I use in real life too. I guess if I was being interviewed on TV talking to the Pope (this is quite unlikely given my history) I might think a bit before I said cock, but then I'd say it anyway. Cock is a good word. Dick is a lesser word. We don't have a word for the male stuff that rivals 'cunt', which is a shame. All our male words have some comic elements. Okay, I guess cocks are comical to some extent (and the entire etymology is cartoonish), but it must be nice to have a word as powerful as cunt to use. I know it's beeen corrupted by its abuse, but it's never really become comical. Anyway, your matter of fact explanation above completely cracked me up, Andy. Dude 1 is sucking dude 2's cock (I paraphrase)... It's a poem in itself, and probably more like the way I'd write it. Hahahahahaha, great stuff. Steve.

Well, it's sorta of both comic and tragic... the comic needs tears and the tragic needs pathetic. So there's sadness here, but also an inherent hilarity... thus the fact that the title is a reference to the Tina Turner song.

Andy:

Call me the cock police, but when your poetry evokes more discussions on the "cock" than the writer-about-cocks, or what's written about the cocks, I worry.  I personally, like the candor of the language, but worry about how it seems to lead the discussions away from your poems.  Own the sexual references, Andy.  I suspect that most of us have heard the vernacular of the penis, testicles, labia, vagina, private parts, dicks, balls, cohones, junk, stuff, cunt (how I, as a woman HAAAAAATE that word).  I suspect that most of us have taken a turn at having sex, too, so we don't need to assume we're in the schoolyard.

It's distracting to me that I'm never sure if your point is to shock us or move us.

Not every penis (or cock, if you prefer) to mouth convergence leads to poetry.  Not every penis (or cock, if you prefer) to mouth convergence is just sex.

I just think it's so 70's to make one's cock, or someone else's, the point, well, if you will.

Tell us which one is which, or tell us which one we should care about.

With all due reciprocal candor.

rucieree

rucieree wrote:

Andy: Call me the cock police, but when your poetry evokes more discussions on the "cock" than the writer-about-cocks, or what's written about the cocks, I worry.  I personally, like the candor of the language, but worry about how it seems to lead the discussions away from your poems.  Own the sexual references, Andy.  I suspect that most of us have heard the vernacular of the penis, testicles, labia, vagina, private parts, dicks, balls, cohones, junk, stuff, cunt (how I, as a woman HAAAAAATE that word).  I suspect that most of us have taken a turn at having sex, too, so we don't need to assume we're in the schoolyard. It's distracting to me that I'm never sure if your point is to shock us or move us. Not every penis (or cock, if you prefer) to mouth convergence leads to poetry.  Not every penis (or cock, if you prefer) to mouth convergence is just sex. I just think it's so 70's to make one's cock, or someone else's, the point, well, if you will. Tell us which one is which, or tell us which one we should care about. With all due reciprocal candor. rucieree

What I'm trying to show here is the failure/inability to make a connection, and also the misguidedness of trying to make a connection with someone who still has their mind on someone else... there is supposed to be an irony is focussing on the cock, on sort of debasing both yourself and the other person in your attempt to console. Any suggestions how I could do that, within the context of this poem?

Rucieree: Take a look at the changes I've made... I think it's much improved, at least as far as getting my point across.

Well I think it's much improved and clearer now. You've certainly clarified the issue I had about guy#1, guy#2, etc.  Another time though, paste your revision in above the original so we can see the development?

Amanda  

AmandaT wrote:

Well I think it's much improved and clearer now. You've certainly clarified the issue I had about guy#1, guy#2, etc.  Another time though, paste your revision in above the original so we can see the development? Amanda

Oh, kk.
Welll, I'm glad it's clear at least.

Andy:

You'll kill me, but I think if you took the first verse from the first version, rid yourself of the troubling "But" in the third verse of the revision, I think you'd have it.

Just a thought.  Keep it your poem.  It's always tempting as a writer reading to inject that writer's style in what actually needs to be your work in the end.  These are just suggestions that work better for my ear.  My ear may be tin, though, let's be honest, so take or leave.

rucieree

Hello Andy

Nice to meet you!

I read your poem and quickly went through the thread and have a few suggestions for you.

First of all I want to tell you that the last three lines are great, quite inspirational - they make the poem in my opinion ....

I know that this ache
in my jaw is a pain more passing than
this emptiness neither of us can fill. ...

in particular the last line ...

this emptiness neither of us can fill.

I, the reader, am compelled to feel emotions that perhaps am unaware of.

I'm not so sure about the girlfriend who will be dead in a few years. On a first read it seems that the narrator is omniscient and sort of knows everything or can foresee the future. If it is a wish, then why not make it clearer that it is one. The whole poem, actually, reminds me of the neorealist vein in Italian cinema.

I think you can ditch the two buts in l2 of the second strophe and add a few commas.

How about leaving out 'almost' here ...

you almost look as
if you are enjoying ... you're enjoying or enjoy or maybe you can come up with a different verb.


Just some ideas.

Thanks,

Maria

Divina:
I'm changing "are enjoying" to just "enjoy" (passive voice, thanks for pointing it out), and made the first but in that line "while" instead.

And I'm glad the last lines are working for you, I was worried they might be too much telling vs. showing. But hopefully I've earned them from everything that comes before.

Also: I kind of like the interpretation of telling the future, but it is because she has a fatal illness. Is there a way to make this clearer?

Thanks for your comment.