…as seen from my own point of view…
This sequence is posting at present is a celebration of The Male Form. I believe it is complete as of this date–though one never really knows. Its mirror image will post some time in the future. As of this date, I still feel it to be an ongoing work, not having been rounded out, brought to cadence, &c. There are possibly four more sonnets, give or take, in this distaff sequence.
One of the problems that I encounter with the writing of either sequence is that I can write endlessly on the subject of sensuality. It is a subject on which I have thought in great detail and one which seems to me to possess an infinite number of facets.
I feel I would like to write more about the nature of such content, but I fear I would be misconstrued regardless. I may do so at a later date at any case. If I had more of an active readership, I could better compose such an essay as a reflection of whatever misconceptions crop up in the comment section–particularly in the members of the male sequence. At this date, there are probably enough comments that it would be fairly easy to do this. I am sure I would bore anyone to tears waxing infinite on such a subject.
Permalink
However… I came upon a web site, I cannot remember where, wherein I read the very succinct phrase: “Not gay, not bi, just a guy.” This might describe me. This might describe the majority of men. This would not rule out a sensual, even physically sensual view. This simple phrase expresses nearly all that my many, many paragraphs might express. We live in an age wherein every aspect of sexuality may be extolled except the largest truth about the largest segment of our population–a fact that is well documented in history.
Much of this history is now obfuscated.
This obfuscation is deliberate.
The advocates of so-called “equality” are responsible for this deliberate obfuscation.
David Emeron: Sonnets 
I thought artists worked outside the boundaries of society’s parameters. How otherwise could you explore your subjects fully? How could a novelist write characters? Or an artist paint? A sculpture sculpt? A poet write?
I have noticed the need these days to classify everyone and I feel it is a gross transgression against the idea of the individual. It offends me, dear. Is that what you are speaking of here? People drawing conclusions about the artist from the art?
LikeLike
That is exactly it–in part, but there is more. Note that they wait until a given artist is dead to really let the festival begin. And by festival, I mean the that of putting words in his mouth–stuffing them in as fast as they can shovel them.
And no, it is no accident that I choose to name their chosen weapon as a shovel. For that is what it really is: not a pen, nor any of its descendants, but a tool–or a descendant of one–which is intended for use in a stall, or a mire, or a cesspit.
LikeLike
Please explain more for me or do feel free to delete these comments if they are confuzzling the issue more and taking the conversation in a direction that won’t get you the answers you are asking from your readers. I know you’ll tell me offline.
sQeak! ;-}
LikeLike
I believe the sequence linked above is a fair example of something likely to receive such treatment. Also #4 of the series expresses some of the frustration one might feel even when contemplating such a prospect. Although, in fact, it was a particular event during the writing of this sequence which prompted me to insert this meta-piece into it. I considered breaking it away from the sequence, or even writing a sequence to explore this idea more fully; but in the end, I thought it appropriate to leave it in. In fact, I realise that IF I include more such pieces in the middle of such sequences, that, at the very least, their omission will give the sequence an “all the charm of a smile with a missing tooth” effect–at least requiring the marxist deconstructionist in question to have to do a little work in mis-numbering or renumbering the sequence.
(Although… these effects are insidious. For example, regarding “misnumbering,” my spell-checker suggested to me “ms-numbering,” however did not provide “mis-numbering,” as intended, and “mrs-” and/or “miss-numbering” were completely left to twist out in the cold wind!)
LikeLike