THEY CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT.

**Why** can't they talk about "it"?  What would happen to them if they did?

And haven't you claimed that the only way one finds real happiness is not  by means of doing "it" (the smile making pleasure obtained from engaging in this act is something you've noted more than once  is too temporary and too finite to be the source of  real happiness) ,  but by belief in Jesus and only when one leaves one's bodied state to live up in the sky?  Indeed,  you've claimed that trying to gain happiness by indulging in the pleasures that life gives to people  is as stupid as it is futile, since all are swallowed up in death.  So you've contradicted yourself here.

Moreover, it is unfortunate that once again you show yourself infatuated with writing in a style in which getting rhymes is more important than making sense and  where syntactical and grammatical mistakes are made in order to keep your lines adhering to a chosen meter.

Cue the backpedaling , the ad hominemed response, and a lack of relevant remarks about any, let alone each,  of the points I raised here.

Dear Baldwin,
Thank you for your read and comment. I'll take your ideas into consideration.

"Dear Baldwin,
Thank you for your read and comment. I'll take your ideas into consideration."

I posted questions, not ideas  --  questions  which, I note,   you did not answer.  Thank you for validating my prediction of how you'd respond to what I wrote to you.

Dear Baldwin,
Your question is answered in the second and third stanzas. Read them well and you will understand what your answer is.

I asked three questions, not one.  And you've treated the third one  -- i.e., as to whether you are not contradicting yourself when you say that  a temporary experience of carnal pleasure, and not, as you have so often claimed, Jesus, is, let  alone can be,  the source of true  human happiness --- as if  I never asked it.    
    
Moreover. telling me to **find** the answer to my first question by myself is an avoidance of doing what I asked you to do. I  did not ask you to tell me where I could find the answer to my question.  I  asked you to tell me  directly what **you**  knew the answer  to my question is,    
  
 In any case, there is nothing in the second and third stanzas that answers my first and second questions..  All these stanzas do is hint at why the couple **won't"** talk about "it".  They say nothing about why the couple "can't** talk about "it', let alone what would happen to them if they did talk about "it".    
 '  
Ah but I bet you'll say that why they can't talk about "it" is clearly stated in these lines  
   
   
"It is a secret they recall but can't reveal  
as it's the treasure of their souls  
which must be kept under a secure sea"
   
But here's the problem with what I presume to be your claim .  
 Those lines do not do what you think they do.  All they actually do   --  besides raise the questions of what a "secure sea" , whether it can keep anything, especially what is treasured by a soul,  and whether there is such a thing as an "insecure sea", as well as  whether you were more interested  in getting a rhyme than in making sense --  is to make a reader ask why  a married couple's engagement in conjugal carnality is a **secret**  that  MUST be kept hidden from the public.  And they certainly don't  answer the question of what would happen to the couple if they let out the "secret" that they engage in carnality    
   
But thanks for fulfilling my prediction that  if you replied to what I wrote in my message above,  it would  be characterized by "... a lack of relevant remarks about any, let alone each,  of the points I raised" within that message."

Will you ever write something that uses concrete sensual images and captures evocatively the joys of carnal pleasure?   Is the fact that you've never done so an indication that you are incapable of doing so?

Very dear Baldwin,
I am writing about a permanent relationship between a man and a woman based on deep, true, and sacred mutual love between the two. This kind of love is free from sin and remorse, and can produce a good family in which the woman, the man and the children feel secure and happy all their lives, especially when they are old, and the children can take it as a good example to follow.
I like your poetry, and l appreciate your opinion although it is different from mine. I love you, and l write to you respectfully. I feel very glad to cooperate with you. Thank you very much.

Once again, you fulfill my predictions about how you'd respond to my questions . Nothing in this message of yours answers them.   And you hardly show respect for me when you engage, as you do here, in such a red herringed one.

"I am writing about a permanent relationship between a man and a woman based on deep, true, and sacred mutual love between the two. This kind of love is free from sin and remorse, and can produce a good family in which the woman, the man and the children feel secure and happy all their lives, especially when they are old, and the children can take it as a good example to follow."

There is nothing in "They Can't Talk About It" that shows, let alone suggests, that this is what you were writing about.

Dear Baldwin,
I am not here to answer questions which don't mean much to me. You, either understand the poem and like it, or you don't. You are quite free.

Another fulfillment of my predictions about how you'll respond to questions asked of you and another instance of how you have no respect for your readers.  That the questions don't mean much to **you** is  because you, in your self pleasuring belief that it is impossible to write poorly prevents you from  seeing their relevance and importance,.  Moreover the point at issue is whether they mean much to  your readers.

If you really think that you have written the piece in such a way that you've made clear and understandable  why the couple you speak of **can't** talk about  what "it " is, you need to think again.  In other words, if the piece is not understood,  it's you who has made it impossible to be understood,

"You, [sic] either understand the poem and like it,[sic] or you don't. You are quite free."  
 
The assumption here is that your piece is not only an explanation of why the couple **can't** talk about their recent  experience of carnal bliss, as your title suggests it's going to be,  but that it **is** understandable and actually tells a reader why the couple **can't** do so.  You also assume, notably without warrant and quite fallaciously,   that if the piece is understood, it will be liked, not to mention thought of as well written.  
   
You would have been far better off if you had titled your piece "They Won't Talk About 'it' ".  but the likelihood that you will give your pieces appropriate titles is, given your track record, very small..

You’ve bragged about how talented you are    
in writing poetry    
and how you ably imitate, rehearse,      
and duplicate so easily    
with great elan,    
   
far better than all the present  would- be poets can,    
     
the styles in which the “golden ones”    
like Byron, Shelley, Yeats,    
and even good old Will himself,    
set out their verse,    
     
and fain, if you were so inclined,    
could take to make,    
the subjects that they doted on    
your own to dwell    
and write upon.    
     
And yet, so far as I can see,    
you’ve never really tried you hand      
at scribing a submission    
close resembling what they penned    
when they, with gusto and with fervency    
indited what they often,    
rightly,      
thought to be    
a poet’s foremost purpose and his aim    
in writing verse    
     
i.e., to put a hex    
on members of the gentle sex    
and woo, entwine and daze them with    
the composition of electric words aligned    
in such a way      
that made them want to rush into    
those poets’ arms and know their ravashings.    
     
I wonder why    
you’ve ner’re produced some poems of this kind,    
or even when that you attempted to,      
you’ve failed quite miserably    
to be successful in the enterprise.      
     
The answer is, I ken,  an easy one.    
     
In this poetic realm you’re talent-less.    
     
You haven’t the ability    
to craft the phrases and the  imagery    
or any of the kinds of verbal rapturing      
within a poem’s lines      
that have the power to induce    
let alone seduce    
a woman into breathlessness,    
elating her to aching sighs    
for want of your embrace.    
     
No doubt you will respond to this    
by saying that your reason for not writing pieces steeped    
in potent and persuasive sensuality    
is not that your composing them is far beyond    
what bardic skills you have.    
Oh no, you’ll claim. That’s patently not true!    
     
It’s just that it is not the sort of thing that men,    
acculturated  as you are,  would do    
or would  find worth their while.    
     
But listen now.    
That whirring sound you hear    
is Rumi and  Qabbani spinning in their graves,    
so spurred by how you cover up    
your vast incompetence,      
to rise with sore intent    
to tell you this:    
     
“Now if you think that heated poetry    
whose subject is the joy    
of carnal love is a something Middle Eastern men    
would not be happy to explore    
and never should on public paper pen,    
then you’re a bumbling self-excusing knave    
      
Another thing of which we’re sure    
is  that, when you make claims that you possess    
as other’s don’t    
the grand facility to write wild things    
that will endure through time,    
you aren't little more    
that  just a  rank poseur.    
     
In fact, from what we’ve seen      
of  your  oeuvre    
you’re hardly worthy even to be classified      
an “amateur “    
since you don’t show yourself      
in any way proficient in the bardic art    
or versed enough in it    
to do just what it is    
good versifiers do    
and that’s to write a piece    
that is so truly sensual      
that it will set a woman’s heart    
on fire”    
     
So can you prove them wrong?    
My money’s on the answer “No”.    
In light of how you always write    
in manned style that’s dull,    
all tell, not show, and shows awareness none    
of how the sensual in verse is spun,    
The chances that you’re able to,      
are minuscule and dire.

Very dear Baldwin,
What makes you attack me in such a horrible way and write a lot of your poetry about me and my ability to imitate the greatest poet and give me such a long time if l am worthless to such extent? Now, look at your lines,"...is that when you make claims that you possess
as others don't
the grand facility to write things
that will endure though time..."
Why did you write all these lines? And why do other poets of this group like my poetry? Just look at the likes l have. Please, Baldwin, don't exaggerate. However, thank you very much, Baldwin, for your great interest.

"What makes you attack me in such a horrible way "

So you equate stating facts your about your ability to write a type of poetry that those poets you admire reveled in is attaching you, let alone in a horrible way?

"and write a lot of your poetry about me"

I'd do not write about you, but about (1) how you mangle the subjects you write about, (2) how your posts are grammar gaffed and full of solecisms, question begging claims and  distortions of fact as well as the sacrifice of  sense on the altar of rhyme,  (3) how they do not show the degree of poetic talent you boast that you have, and (4)  how the nature of your submissions -- which are imageless and never contain fresh and sparkling language and are, instead, all tell, no show, and lack the capacity to bring a reader inside an experience -- do not accomplish what poetry should do your pieces do not  .   And then, as I've demonstrated, and as you have failed, when asked to prove your claim about how often I've written about the way you write and how you mangle what you write about,   it's hardly the case that this is the subject of "a lot" of my submissions to DUP.  Moreover, writing about whether you write poorly and whether you mangle the subjects that you write about is **what you ask for**  when you say you want honest criticism of your posts.  I note that  you have never shown my remarks in this regard to  be inaccurate or off the mark.  

"and my ability to imitate the greatest poet"  

But, aside from the fact that I mentioned several poets, not one,,  this is a claim you yourself have made, especially when you've claimed that the poets of the "golden age of poetry" have given you leave to make the grammar gaffes and forced rhymes that your submissions are filled with.

"and give me such a long time if l am worthless to such [an?] extent?

I take it you meant to say "and spend the amount of time that you do in critiquing my submissions if they are worthless".

Writing clear English is not your forte.

In any case,  who are you to tell me how much time I should spend upon you "work", especially when, given the way  it  is written, it takes time to give you what you say you want to receive, i.e.,  honest and thorough criticism of the whole of  it.

The likes you have are all from the same small group of sycophants who have shown themselves incapable of knowing what good poetry looks like.  
 
And the central issue that I raised is  whether you have the talent to write a love poem that is in its form and style and wording as sensual and evocative as the ones those whom you claim to be the poetic heir of wrote.  
 
But typically you avoided  speaking to that issue, let alone demonstrating that you do indeed have that talent.  Ironically, in not demonstrating that I was wrong in claiming you have no idea of how to write seductive poetry, .you have lent credence to my claim that the reason you have never written anything that has the power to bring a woman into a state of desire for you or that makes a reader  know what desire feels like is that you are incapable of doing so.  
 
And once again you engage in the underhanded tactic of selectively  [mis]quoting me to support your claim that  I abused you. I wrote:  
 
"Another thing of which we’re sure    
is  that, when you make claims that you possess    
as other’s don’t    
the grand facility to write things    
that will endure through time,    
you are little more    
that  just a  rank poseur.'  
 
You claimed that I said only    
 
"is that when you make claims that you possess  
as others don't  
the grand facility to write things  
that will endure though time..."  
 
Note how you ignore the fact that there is a comma after "that"  and that in  the way you quote what is a circumstantial clause,  you give the impression that it is a full sentence when it is not.,  
 
And as to why I wrote what I wrote, it's because I'm convinced that the poets whom you've claimed have given you the right to write in the grammar gaffed, forced rhymed, solecistic way that you do, would, after reading your submissions and seeing that you claim to be a master of poetic art, indeed note that you are a poseur.

So let's get back to your submission.  What is the reason that the couple you write about **can't** talk about their nocturnal coupling?