Wednesday, December 28, 2022

Flesh on flesh February 20, 2013

  

If read too superficially, you might think from her latest poem, she intended to become a nun – which would be a gross misinterpretation since the opposite seems to be true.

On one hand, you could also misread the poem into thinking she is attempting to seduce someone into an affair, making an argument not so much different from Shakespeare, who argued best to give up one’s virginity since the worms will devour it eventually anyway.

This would be a mistaken interpretation, too, although the poem is definitely about her attraction to someone that has gone unrequited, but it is not because this other person is resisting her charms.

It is difficult to know who the poem is about, although it is clear she has found someone she is attracted to, and she is debating whether to pursue it to its next “natural” conclusion.

The poem is a debate within herself, about whether she should pursue someone she is attracted to, who is like married, but who has become a kindred spirit.

Does she take the affair to the next logical level or keep it as a love affair in her mind.

She is struggling with her own lust, and the urge to strip the whole thing of its spiritual trapping and get down and dirty, a  relationship, which “begs to un-transmogrify into run of the mill evolutionary forms,” to engage in something that is “best shared naked,” a natural progress most would assume, though she admits “something about flesh on flesh means death to the original lust.”

She wonders if doing the nasty need will ruin something that is special, when if she keeps it contained, she might maintain her lust as something saintly (she refusing to disrupt someone else’s life) into something sinful if she does, “transformed from sin to saintly if styed safety in the head and out of the bed.”

Her sinful side might remain aloof, saintly, but she can’t stop thinking about it.

“It lives on there, protected, kind, unrejected, and blind.”

Yet like Shakespeare, she seems to understand that a platonic relationship is unnatural and can’t possibly survive in the real world. At best, someone can keep it locked away, never acted on, also never betrayed or a cause of disappointment by real people in the real world.

She calls it “a love affair of the mind” or kindred spirits, which may become diminished into base lust. But she seems to argue that it is the way of things, flesh on flesh, which may ruin the original appeal, “death to the original lust,” she writes.

Although she may mean Shakespeare’s meaning here, in which death equals orgasm.

She appears to be scared she might spoil something special if she takes it to the next and natural level. He might even reject her. And if there is another woman involved, a wife, then she would be “kind” by showing restraint.

The poem seems to suggest the folly of and self-deception in believing you can lust for someone and not act on it, and thus keeps love pure, when love making itself is an animal act, sweaty and full of animal passion, hardly the ethereal stuff poets sometimes make it out to be.

Lust can’t be made pure by holding back, lust is lust, sex is sex, and you can drive yourself crazy by keeping in your head rather than taking it to be.

Yet part of her, at least, wants to do the right thing, only you can feel the other part of her winning the argument, perhaps echoing Shakespeare’s take on the folly of purity, about maintaining virtue until the worms get it after death.

As run of the mill and common as sex might seem, maybe even a little unpoetic, it is the natural result of lust.

She being the educated poet that she is, may well be alluding to Thomas Mann’s “Death in Venice,” in using the term “a love affair of the mind,” which in Mann’s work means love not acted on leads to decay and death.

The poem implies an extramarital relationship which she might put at risk if she goes to bed with him.

And it seems pretty clear, she doesn’t believe they can remain friends, kindred spirits, nor is she certain she can keep the beast locked up in her head anyway.

She does not seem to believe that a platonic relationship can survive, there is a natural progression lust always brings, and ultimately spiritual love needs to be demystified and to surrender to the sweaty reality of flesh on flesh.

She seems to be saying lust is natural and so is its eventual resolution in sex. What’s not natural is pretending you can keep lust contained in your head and not acted upon.

 2012 menu


email to Al Sullivan

No comments:

Post a Comment