LOVED AND HOLY

"That part has got a great effect,
so the Lord's made it quite perfect
to produce human beings like Eve"

Wow.  Not only does one have to mispronounce "perfect" to get the rhyme you  are aiming at, but you have to  misrepresent what Genesis says about Eve's creation --   which was not from or out of that "sweet part" that is so close to a woman's thighs, let alone because of insemination in it.  It was from one of Adam's ribs -- making Eve someone who was transgendered from a man.   And if you think the vaginal or the vaginal canal is perfect for the easy production, not to mention the emergence from  women,   of human beings,  you  are lacking in some basic knowledge of human biology.

And what's the great effect (not to mention who it is that it has a great effect upon) that this part has?  Does it have to be seen to have its alleged great effect?

And BTW,  not all men love the part between a woman's legs.  Nor do all men consider it holy.  Otherwise, they wouldn't try to control it or regard it as a source of temptation or something that deserves to be raped, leaving a woman to be violated and humiliated and cruelly dominated.

It is made to produce human beings, male and female. Who told you the first Adam and Eve, Baldwin? Don't we have males and females like Adam and Eve born in the way you know? Baldwin, think a little before you criticize.

You might want to think a little before you write.  What kind of English is "Who told you the first Adam and Eve, Baldwin?"?

Did you mean to say "Who told you **about** the first Adam and Eve"?  If the Bible is divinely inspired,  God did.  Who told you about them, let alone the second or third Adams and Eves.

In any case,  thanks for doing what you normally do -- that is,  skating over the questions I asked you as if  they were not a part of my message, and not demonstrating that what I noted were the conceptual faults in the first stanza of your piece were in any way off the mark.  

Who told you they were the first Adam and Eve? This is what l meant.
I write in brief, and not like you YOU WRITE PAGES ABOUT A THING THAT CAN BE SAID IN A FEW WORDS. You have a lot of free time, it seems to me, but I don't.

""Who told you they were the first Adam and Eve?"  
 
Who is "they"?  And are there numerous  Adams and Eves?

"Who told you they were the first Adam and Eve? This is what l meant."  
 
But leaving aside the fact that you didn't answer my question about what kind of English your question was (hint -- English that is poor), you didn't actually say what you now tell me was the intended meaning of your poorly written question was.  did you?  And how does my writing loquaciously (if indeed that's how I write) excuse you from not actually saying what you mean to say?  Brevity is often the enemy of clarity.
 
In any case, please show me how your claim that my submissions take up **pages** is true. and that it is not, once again, a fallacious  and wholly irresponsible misrepresentation of what I write I write.  
 

Her lithesome thighs
bring out my sighs
because of the convergence
at the top of them
into a cleft
that’s called
the honey pot,
the very thing
that makes all men
from Adam on
bereft of sense
and so inclined,
impelled, constrained
to bury their desire
in it
up to the hilt
and say aloud,
assuming this
was something made,
and gifted from, above
for pleasure
and at times for love,
“What hath God wrought?”.

Cue the response that this is not poetry even though it expresses a great idea, is coherent and logically consistent,   has a rhythm that is regular, and exhibits unforced rhyme.

I enjoyed the pure essence of this, JZ.

Would you please be kind enough to tell me just what the "essence" of JZ's piece is and why it it is possessed by purity?  What criteria do you use to determine whether or not the "essence" of a submission is enjoyable?

Gladly. The essense is Love between a man and a woman, and the purity is the intent not to hurt one another.

But isn't the real issue how well the topic of the love between a man and a woman is clearly and evocatively  expressed with the best words in the best order and in such a way that readers are shown not told what this is like?  
 
And in any case, where do you find  anything in this piece that shows that JZ's intent in writing it  was to speak of how  people should not want to hurt one another?  
   
I think you have read into this poorly written piece far more than is there.  
 
And I note that JZ has corrected you and told you that the topic of this piece is the wonder of a woman's vagina and how that wonder is grounded in the question begging fact that it is the organ that produces human beings.  
   
Moreover,  you did not answer my question about the criteria you employ when evaluating  whether or not  the "essence" of a submission is enjoyable.

Very dear Ahavaty,
Thank you very much for your very dear comment. Actually, for me the essence of this poem is, "The love between man and woman, and the purity of that organ, which is sometimes wrongly and sinfully used. Thank you for your comments which l always appreciate and wait for."

I feel surprised
how some think that if they can Improvise  
some meaningless poor words
whose ideas are taken from
another poet's verse,
dare to call these bad rhythmic words poetic thoughts.
They turn the theme completely upside down
but still they say it is related to the first
authentic poet whose ideas were original
whereas his pride is stolen and quite void.
How strange are people when
their pride and grudges can  
blind their already poor, myopic eyes..

You'll have to demonstrate that my words are poor, let alone meaningless,  that my meter is not regular, that I wrote what I wrote spontaneously and without any forethought (= improvised) and that the theme of mine (the effect on men that a vagina has) is not related to what you have stated the theme of yours poorly written piece is,  before the claims you've made within this new inconsistently  metered, ad hominemed, fallacy filled,  and question begging piece of yours can be seen as true.  
 
You should also note that the syntax of these  lines :  
   
"the first  
authentic poet whose ideas were original  
whereas his pride is stolen and quite void."  
   
makes you say that **your** pride has no basis in fact and is something stolen from others.    
   
And you should have written "these badLY rhythmED words"  for your phrase to be intelligible and grammatically sound and for your line to be well rhythmed.    
   
BTW,  what's a "poetic thought"? There are thoughts that are expressed poetically.  But thoughts are in themselves never poetic.  
   
As to you being an authentic poet whose verse expresses original ideas, you've got to be joking.

 
 
Here's something along the lines of  your submission that does not possess the awkward phrasing and the jerky meter that yours does.  
 
You are quite right  
to love a woman’s thighs  
if they are soft as eider down  
and smooth as any of the finest silks  
and free of weighted fault.  
 
If so, then you are also right  
to praise and then exalt them as  
god’s gift to men,  
especially because  
their upper reaches verge into  
an easily accessible clitoraled orfice that  
has many powers to render most men weak  
and cause a cry of joy,  
and when explored  
impelled to leave their parents for  
a cleaving to another’s flesh  
to be refreshed  
if not by lust, by love.  
 
All honor to the Lord above  
if he, not Zeus as Hesiod proclaims,  
produced  the female sex,  
and did not make them with intent  
to be a hex to men.

Some notes on your first stanza  
 
Without some imagery that tells a reader what the softness, smoothness, and purity of thighs are like, these things remain abstractions -- things that are death to a writing being poetry.  
 
Your line  
 
"No wonder they are great like that."  
 
raises the question "great like what?"  if you meant to say that possessing the qualities of smoothness,  purity, and softness is what makes thighs "great" in the eyes of the one you say loves them, you haven't done so.  You would have avoided being obscure and would have made  made conceptual sense if you had written: "No wonder that you think them [to be] great"  
 
And the syntax of this stanza gives the impression that what makes "thighs great" like whatever "that" refers to is that someone loves them.  
 
And then you go on to say that what makes a woman's thighs "great"  has nothing to do with whether they are soft and smooth and "pure"  (what on god's green earth are "pure thighs"?), but that they are close to a woman's vagina.  
 
So not only is this piece poorly written.  It's also conceptually muddled and inconsistent with itself.

Very beautiful writing.

Would you please be responsible enough to back up this claim of yours?  What  do you mean by "beautiful"? And what criteria do you use to determine whether or not a writing is worthy of this description?

Thank you very much, Lozzamus, for your like and very kind comment.