The Hierarchy of Unrequited Love

[rowens]

             The Hierarchy of Unrequited Love

The passionately or even mildly suffering unloved
are:
If a man tries to get with any woman he can, he's a creep.
If a man falls in love with one woman specifically, he's creepy.
Those stigmas hold until a woman falls in love with him.
(A loved creep is a millionaire to a poor, impoverished creep.)
As no woman loves him, he is a loser;
he loses time, delight, life; if he loses confidence
he's pathetic. Who can argue the merit of a passionate coward?
A loser who remains confident is a joke.

(A loser who remains confident is also a creep.)

Religion, philosophy, poetry, raja yoga: these are
the coward's way. Pursuit, flattery, gift-giving, cordial
conversation, compliments, kindness, even giving of space:
these are all emblems of creepiness—observed by others
and the beloved, even the offender himself,—in
the unloved man.
One who tries without or with confidence is creepiness
as one who holds back, gives space, resigns himself is pathetic
in his own eyes and in those of the public.

One-sided love is not love. And to love,
there must be permission—;
it's a wonder, love is a wonder.
That there's love in the world.

Unasked for love is often an imposition, as much as unasked for art. (or life.)

[busker]

The MGTOW anthem?
S1 is brilliant

EDIT: I don't care too much about the content of the poem, but the way that the argument is put forward is good poetry, at least in S1
Not so much S2, too whingey

[dukealien]

That's true from one point of view, but from the other, the woman who makes the first move is seen as besotted, or accepts too often as a slut.

---

The gentlemen propose, the ladies dispose.  Is it treason to one's self to see from a point of view other than that into which one was born?

---

Gnash as we will against the rules of gender which come with a particular existence, it is what it is.  And philosophical sublimation may (like chastity) be derided, but it has its place.

---

An incisive and (thought-)provoking poem.

[billy]

i find the argument of the poem fallible. to be in love one has to be loved, you say as much in your closing; therefore a man or women cannot fall in love with someone unless it's reciprocated. To do so would just be infatuation. also, as human beings isn't it inbuilt into us to find a partner. if this is so then wouldn't love be an added bonus in the continuation of the species? it reads well because it's well written as is a lot of your stuff but for me it lacks credibility. as one who has known and does at present know love and as one who at times has been loveless; most of what's said never applied. i found most women loved the chase if not the man. if i'm honest so did i re the women. to quote forest gump; "life is like a box of chocolates" so is love, you never know who until you try them on

[rowens]

The fallibility makes it worse. Because then the loop should be easy to get out of. Infatuation is like being stuck in a loop, and the poem is a closed argument. It's a trapped program. It makes sense within its own logic. But there are things outside its logic, if only there were some confirmation outside the infatuation. The only loophole in the trap is that it's a poem. A made thing. I like to use poetic dimensions to walk through walls. But then there's that dragon sitting there.

[billy]

as a poem it works well, viewing poetry is often subjective so just because someone disagrees with an argument proffered, it doesn't mean it's a bad piece of poetry.

[rowens]

Well, I obviously don't want to argue for the argument set forth either. But it's my schtick. My trope of love, and women that are too heavy. So heavy, like The Beatles song.