This is pretty good

nobody but the OP is going to reply to this thread
it takes eleven hours for a thread to reach page 10
bump limit is 310 posts
this thread could potentially last 137 days

Pornography isn't illegal.

I hate cunts like this so fucking much. Nobody wants to hear about your period because it isn't fucking interesting. WOW ALL GIRLS BLEED OUT OF THEIR VAGINA. Who the fuck cares. Why can't these broads shut the fuck up for once?

This is why most women will never be taken seriously. Because they have the NEED to tell everybody about their gross body functions and bodily fluids. It's the same as a man writing a poem about cum stains or shitting and thinking it has any value. It's absolutely retarded. I'm so glad I am a man so I don't have to continiously brag about the nature of my body. Instead of achieving something, Rupi Kaur decides that it is a good idea to talk about vaginal fluids and make that her personality.

Rupi Kaur is the female Chuck Bukowski. I mean this to be as unflattering as possible to both of them. Just as Bukowski strove to be a masculine poet but wrote poetry that loathed masculinity, encompassing only the most loathsome, crude, and unredeemable, so too does Kaur strive to be a feminine (not necessarily feminist – she’s definitely not one of those) poet, but writes only poetry that hates femininity, and swallows every evil thing in womanhood.
I’d quote and cite, if I thought that’d do any good. The problem is that there’s nothing of note in their so-called poetry. There’s nothing there to analyze, interpret, or even read. This is poetry you can’t read! Everything is surface level. You can’t scratch the surface, because there’s nothing underneath. Both of them. They’re too bland and artless to be even prose. I’ve read translated medical journals with more beauty. I’ve found T4A tax slips with more depth. I’ve got a tube of toothpaste beside me here: “Crest Pro-Health has been shown to prevent tooth decay, reduce gingivitis (gun inflammation caused by plaque) and tooth hypersensitivity, and whiten the surface of teeth, when used in a conscientiously applied program of oral hygiene and regular professional care.” I mean – it’s not art, but it’s better than Bukowski. Better than Rupi Kaur. “Conscientiously.” Somebody put thought into that adjective. You can’t find that sort of thought in poetry these days, apparently.
In Rupi Kaur’s work the woman and her body only serve the purpose of male consumption. But don’t think she’s just here to lick the boots of the white man. Oh no. She doesn’t even have enough self-respect to sell out her own gender. That would take a love of something. For her, the man is only there to consume. Both man and woman to her are singular in purpose and design – object to be desired, hated, consumed, and control – object that desires, hates, consumes, controls. Whether good or bad in her blasé representations, these are the only functions served.
I mean, it’s not super trendy right now to hate popular things, especially when they’re new. It’s a tune that’s been played to death, and I don’t want to attack somebody early in their career. But it’s just garbage. It’s awful. I had to think for a long time about who buys this sort of waste. I think I know.

There’s a certain class of people – doctors, lawyers, engineers, computer programmers, teachers, accountants – the professional class. These people lack the time, energy, education, or interest to actively pursue artistic or intellectual matters. However, they have friends who are artists or intellectuals. Wives, co-workers, old college buddies. They want to appear smart and sophisticated. These aren’t pseudo-intellectuals, per se. They don’t want to look like intellectuals – that would be tré droll! (Note: look up what droll means, later). They want to get along with their friends. Who could blame them, really? So they check they’re local Chapters or B&N under philosophy or poetry, and they find Richard Dawkins, Chuck Bukowski, Sam Harris, and of course, Rupi Kaur.
Maybe it was just the first book they saw. It was on display that week. More likely, they flipped through a few other volumes to “get a feel for the literature.” They tried to read this book by Terry Eagleton, but it was “too specialized for my taste, but I’ll try to remember the name, Terry Applebaum, was it?” Oooh, Being and Nothingness, by Jeen-Paul Satire? That sounds very deep and moody, I’ll just read the first few pages, skip the introduction. I don’t understand a word. He must be one of them post-modernists. Who’s this Sam Harris guy? Science can solve ethics? I was just thinking the same thing! This guy is on my wavelength. Then they’ll hobble over to the poetry section, if their local cattle-cart book-butcher’s has one, and they’ll struggle through Thom Gunn, “he’s too crude. This Salvia Plath guy is a little moody, don’t ya think? Elizabeth Bishop? Never heard of her; must be crap. But look, Bukowski, I know every word he uses. And this Rupi Kaur chick, she doesn’t burden me with irony, emotions, or the work of interpretation. She seems to have a point on the surface level of the poem, which I understand immediately, but, of course, since I’m not actually going to bother *reading* her work, I’ll just take my half-baked insights (which amount to a completely thorough reading of the entirety of the poem) as an indication that there’s something truly deep and mysterious in her writing.”

Poets, like all craftsmen, have a set of tools. Some of these tools apply to the formation of words. Some to lines. Others to sentences. Others to form, subject, theme, or character. Tools like metonymy. Irony. Parataxis. Rhyme. Sibilance. Development. Foreshadowing. Scansion. Poets, never use every tool at once. But they must use at least one tool in any poem, otherwise it’s not a poem. It’s banging rocks together. Who would visit a mechanic who fixed cars with his bare hands? Who would trust a gunsmith who used spit-shine and elbow-grease and nothing else to do his job? Do programmers write code in unintelligible Boolean logic maps smeared with fæces? Do surgeons cut into patients with their teeth? Of course not. So why should anybody read a poet who’s barely discerned the function of a word?
Knowing that people enjoy her poetry is like reading a completely sincere glowing review for a children’s Christmas pageant.

Apparently it's ungraceful for them to mention their period in public cause the actual biology of their body is too real. It is okay to sell that's between a woman's legs more than it is okay to mention its inner workings. The recreational use of their bodies is seen as beautiful while its nature is seen as ugly.

Why does it matter if it is surface? Poetry isn't required to be deep. There's no Canadian law stating such a thing.

Words on a page -- that's all poetry will ever amount to.

Why are girls so gay

Nobody sees it as ugly though. At least not normal functioning grown-up adults. Again, cum stains are seen as something disgusting and funny as well. But men, being as they are, instead of complaining about the fact that it exists and that everybody for some reason needs to find it beautiful (even stretching it as far as if a woman doesn't appreciate your cum stains she is not worthy of you), men just hide the fact that it exists and be done with it. Not everything that is ''natural'' needs to be in the open like this. Of course men, and people in general, are going to prefer pornography and the sexuality of a woman more than her monthly bleeding. Why would you want to change this?

Then why are tampons and other accoutrements sold on normal shelves but porn magazines are kept out of reach and direct sight behind the shopkeeper?

It is okay to sell what's between a woman's legs more than it is okay to mention its inner workings.

>It is okay
No, it is both okay. Nobody is holding the women down and nobody is trying to tell them that it isn't okay. What point are you making? That men prefer ''what's between a woman's legs''? Yes, of course this is the case. This doesn't mean that it makes it ''more okay than to mention its inner workings''. It's both equally okay but you might garner a smaller audience that showing ''what's between your legs''. You talk like you're mentally insane.

The recreational use of their bodies is seen as beautiful while its nature is seen as ugly. Apparently it's ungraceful for them to mention their period in public cause the actual biology of their body is too real.

Capitals are so fucking oppressive.

>i am too real

>while its nature is seen as ugly.
By who? You're strawmanning here. I have no clue how to respond to this than it is wrong to say ''their bodies'' because this is the exact same case with men. And both is not at all bad.
>Apparently it's ungraceful for them to mention their period in public.
Again by who? You're creating characters or groups which do not exist to make your ''argument'' work.
>cause the actual biology of their body is too real.
What the fuck? As I already stated before, it isn't because it is ''too real''. It is just because nobody cares how bodies work outside of the biology field. You want men to feel sexual stimulation when you show a vagina during a period? It isn't going to happen just as woman are not going to be sexual stimulated by seeing a man taking a dump. Both are perfectly natural and both are perfectly okay. You're not making a point.

cause the actual biology of their body is too real apparently it's ungraceful for them to mention their period in public. while its nature is seen as ugly the recreational use of their bodies is seen as beautiful. more than it is okay to mention its inner workings it is okay to sell that's between a woman's legs.

>actual biology of their body is too real apparently it's ungraceful for them to mention their period in public
Says who? They're already mentioning it in public en masse and nobody is triggered or disgusted by it.
>while its nature is seen as ugly the recreational use of their bodies is seen as beautiful. more than it is okay to mention its inner workings it is okay to sell that's between a woman's legs.
You keep mentioning the same sentence and the sentence doesn't hold anything worth saying. See my other posts for a reaction in this sentence (that you have repeated already 3 (THREE) times).

pic related is you, faggot

a actual apparently as as beautiful
between biology body body cause in
inner is is is
is is is it it it

its its kaur legs me mention
mention more my my
nature of of of okay okay
period public real recreational

rupi seen seen sell
than the the this to
to to
too ugly ungraceful
use what's while

- woman's workings

But it doesn't say "this is what a faggot looks like" ... can't you read?

Not an argument.

thats because I posted the edited version. pic related is the real version.

...

If a man wrote a poem about his shit and criticized society for feeling uncomfortable when he talks about his bowel movements, he'd be universally regarded as a nutjob.
When women do it, suddenly it's art.

I want off this gay planet.

Bro women shit too your idea does not work. Idiot

W-What?
Everybody knows women don't poop or fart.

is this even a poem or did she just write some sentences and press the enter key?

It's not the same. This poem was written for you.

underrated holy fuck

>Words on a page -- that's all poetry will ever amount to.
this
there's literally no difference between The Illiad and my toilet paper smeared with my steaming morning shit
It's all just stains on a paper, right?
Fucking retard

Of course they fart, except when they do they emit a fresh scent of strawberries and a little poof of glitter

i have really struggled with whether and how to respond to this. The execution of this message was very nice and respectful, and I genuinely appreciate that. The premise, however, is problematic. Maybe not inherently, but within the context of the sexist society we live in. Men are allowed, and often feel compelled, to think out loud at women, to share unsolicited not necessarily informed thoughts at women. (And usually these men, unlike you, don’t even seem to recognize that their thoughts may not be useful.) Women on the other hand aren’t allowed to be as open. So, if you want to not just be respectful, but actually be anti-oppression, it is better (IMO) not to respond to a woman’s work with the types of thoughts that other men pawn off as insights, if you know what i mean. again, i appreciate your honesty, but i feel obligated to point these things out.

I want to see you parody every poem in that entire book.

Whatever. I almost exclusively write about my penis. However it's usually from a place of indifference and not whatever this is.

A lot of people here like Bukowski for some reason. At least he was funny and acknowledged that his body was gross.

So, this is the power of women.

jesus christ
is this bait?

From your critique it seems you think the point of poetry is displaying the mastery of language. As a mechanic masters the tools of his profession and is paid for such, you would argue a poet should be paid for their mastery of rhetorical devices. But such device's purposes are to further develop a message. I think you would agree that a poem without a message but a good use of linguistic tools is as valuable as a well composed landscape made to be hanged on the walls of bathrooms. Form is not everything, and can be a hindrance of it's own.
These poets are in the same vain as abstract expressionists, they mean to evoke emotion and their message through minimalism, which more complex works cannot do, since they are too focused on form rather than relatability. You are arguing that poems which had no ambitions of being complex should be complex and lose what makes them unique, using the compact and concise framework of poetry to evoke ideas and feelings.
Does it allow the lowest common denominator to enjoy poetry as well? Yes. But it's not the poet's fault that everyone can feel.
Also, assuming the people of the "professional class" are the main patrons of such works because they are envious of their liberal art friends is ridiculous. Most who fall into the "professional class" see such pursuits as meaningless and would label Kaur and Bukowski as post-modern hacks.

Appeal to shit fallacy

Interesting you draw parallels between Ab Ex and post-modernism but that's a little inaccurate. But it's true that Kaur should be judged on what she does do rather than what she doesn't do so you get points for that.

I have literally never seen a man write about his cock in anyway that wasn't meant to be funny and humorous and a bit of a piss take (ala Joyce) but it seems every woman writer thinks her vagina is something of great importance and a great place of strength that the entirety of the world needs to know about.

Apparently it's ungraceful for them to mention their period in public cause the actual biology of their body is too real. It is okay to sell what's between a woman's legs more than it is okay to mention its inner workings. The recreational use of their bodies is seen as beautiful while its nature is seen as ugly.

>rupi kuar just takes left-leaning bait argument posts from Veeky Forums, breaks it up with line breaks to add """"""emphasis"""""", and publishes it
Holy... I want more