A Pocketful of Poesy was and is again a Poem-a-Day(-on-Average) Blog! For 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and now for 2017 and going forward, you may expect to see 365 poems every year, 366 for leap years.

but aren't they all random?

Wednesday, July 03, 2013

"Dear Hot 18-y.o. (On Her Birthday)"

Dear hot eighteen year old,
Now that you are legal: beware!
There are people
who may be even now, eyeing you
as a sex option. Only yesterday of course
no one would admit to that - and it would
have been truly disgusting. Of course.
Only yesterday, even -
this poem would have been disgusting!
Entirely immoral! Reprehensible,
to speak of such things to virgin ears!
Such a poem would be borderline
criminal, or even criminal depending
on how far its metaphors
were allowed to go - but suddenly!
Beware! All those protections are stripped
away! Those protections are lifted, and
you are laid open
to the prurient advance
of leering rhymes. Take caution,
grow in wisdom before throwing your panting thighs
open to such poems! Retreat, demur - flee
to your safe chamber, where you sit
pondering your ponderous virginity, which -
don't kid yourself, perv, this kid
has been doing it since middle school, okay?
Ah, you slut. My cautionary advances
are wasted on you! WHAT
is the problem with kids these days
kids these days,
kids these days


dogimo said...

The above horrible poem examines the disgusting problem of the sexualization of our children (well, hopefully other peoples' children! I mean, talk about EVEN MORE SICK to sexualize ours!) in society and in other locations. Its satirical leering eye transfixes both the diaphanous inadequacy of the measures put in place to protect kids, and the patronizing attitude society cops as it attempts to make them fit. Another disturbing and bravura piece.

Hey. What about it, should I do a capsule critique of each poem or what?!!

dogimo said...

Or does my heavy-handed overview constrict the reader's ability to plumb more personal meaning from my works? It is not to be denied that my poems contain within them more than one valid interpretation. As Frost put it, "I am entitled to EVERY MEANING to be found in one of my poems!"

That dude was dead-on on that point, because I am.

dogimo said...

Although I should note, in case anybody thinks I'm making fun of anything in the above comments - well, I am, I'm making fun of pompous critiques! My own are my own best targets.

But to be clear I would like to come out in strong support of statutory rape laws, of a hard line drawn that puts minors off-limits. Pedophilia is a crime, and it should be a crime. "A crime against nature?" WHO CARES. It is a crime against the law. And in this case, the law is righteous and just, and necessary.

Our society says it benefits every human being to draw that line, because every growing human being deserves a chance to grow, develop, and learn who they are without adults slobbering all over them.

I don't care what idiot claims it's a natural impulse. As if that matters! We're all animals. Murder is a natural impulse too, and society has every right to protect itself as best it can from animals.

I say that just to be perfectly clear. I like my poem, and I think it is a tough one to take, and puts some disturbing stuff on the spot - but I'd also like to put myself on the spot, and make it perfectly clear what I think.

Mel said...

The age of consent here is 16 (or 18 for anal which is a whole other conversation) Some of the most disturbing conversations I’ve had in my job is trying to explain to male respondents that an underage person can’t consent. “But she agreed!” they say. “But children can’t agree” I try to explain.

The worst was a mother of a respondent who victim-blamed the child. I wonder if she would be okay with her own underage daughter “agreeing” to sex.

dogimo said...


1. I agree with your dismay and/or disgust, 100%.

2. "18 for Anal" will NOT be the title of my next poem. Although it is a very weird trivia nugget.

3. Kids are declared sexually off-limits to adults for a reason: to protect the dignity of every single person. Every person spends childhood growing into and figuring out who we will be. This process is hard enough without adults zeroing in to pressure you for sex! Once you hit 18 (or 16, whatever line the nation sets - one clear line for all), you can fuck as many old people as you want. Prior to the age of majority, you have to wait, and so do they. Adults who violate this basic limit are criminals, predators, rapists "by law": their partner was not legally capable of consent. They should be prosecuted and jailed whenever we can catch them.

We, society, each nation has at least this much right to determine what the line is, and to do our best to enforce it. Every chance we succeed in enforcing it makes the world a little better.

Now personally, I think the line should be set at 16 for oral, 18 for everthing else. But it's not me who determines these things! It is the state, subject to the consent of the governed (whose responsibility it is to revolt against unjust governance as needed), which has the responsibility to set that line.

dogimo said...

Mel you had no need for my big ol' diatribe up there. I suspect you and I see eye-to-eye, entirely on all that.


THIS is why I don't usually respond under my poems! :-D

Mel said...

Yes, exactly. It’s about informed consent. A child (whatever age that is deemed to be, as you say, by our elected representatives) can not make an informed choice about what they do with and what is done to their body. Agency over our actions can only come with experience. Many a mother has said to me “but my child doesn’t want to spend time with their father!” to which I say “yes, and I’d imagine they don’t want to eat vegetables either”, Point being, as adults we have to guide and direct children, placing the onus of decision-making on them is unfair and dangerous.

dogimo said...

I do not accept that a child is incapable of consent, or decision. However, so what: I do not accept that all persons are equal, but still they are equal under the law. My position from a standpoint of liberty vs. rule of law is: "WHO CARES" whether a given child is capable or incapable?

Because we demand that government has a duty to make no law abridging liberty without being able to show necessary cause, because we demand that all government is subject to the consent of the governed, and that the governed therefore are responsible to protest unjust law and force its repeal, we must therefore recognize that law has force - legitimate force, deriving from the applied consent of the governed - and it must therefore be respected.

(Those who practice civil disobedience in order to draw attention to unjust law are of course, heroes - but only insofar as they accept the full penalty of law will fall upon them in consequence of their choice to break it. Theirs is the heroic gamble that others will side with them, and say: "hey, this law is unjust!" Any lawbreaker who isn't willing to fully accept that gamble is no hero. A real activist accepts that the public may not agree the law is unjust. When that happens, you have to be willing to do the time for the crime that you considered you had to do.)

Because we accept that in general, children lack capacity to make their own decisions, we draw a line of majority and we penalize those who refuse to respect what the law requires. One line, set at the same arbitrary place for every person: ready or not, you're an adult!

In terms of fairness...it's as fair as life is, approximately.

In terms of justice, it is 100% just.

dogimo said...

One time I was talking to a real dipshit who felt kids should be tested on majority so that kids who were "more mature" could be "not discriminated against."

I can't believe that person even remembers what it was like to get a drivers' license. Remember the anxiety of being left back when all your friends had one? Imagine if you had to take an "eligible for sex decisionmaking" test! Imagine the pressure, imagine the humiliation if you DON'T "test out"? Why not just hand out suicide enrollment forms!

And then the consequence for kids who do test early into majority: they are now capable of consent, whopee! They're also eligible for prosecution as adults, for anything they do with a peer who is not capable of consent. What a rat's nest of stupidity for anyone who thinks kids should be treated differently based on their "maturity" level. People don't think things through, that's the problem.

If a kid truly is mature, that kid would recognize that most kids aren't. Kid Mature would see the benefit to having one fair and equal line, Kid Mature would also be mature enough to wait for it, Kid Mature would be mature enough not to demand special treatment based on "maturity."

Mel said...

I guess it’s not so much that a child is incapable of consent, literally speaking they can. It’s more that they should not be put in a position of having to consent on some/most issues. I agree with you that that’s where legislation comes in, to draw the line on when people are able to make a choice. Sometimes legislation should not be involved. For example, parents are often under the misunderstanding that there’s a definitive age when kids get to automatically choose which parent they live with and that there are no legal options to have it reviewed, that the child gets final say at some arbitrarily-decided birthday. That is just not so, and nor should it be so. A child should not be put in a position of having to choose an abode, that is the role of parents (or a judge who has taken into account the unique particulars of the people involved).

I’d imagine that those who commit public disobedience want the full penalty of the law applied to them as a way of high-lighting their perceived injustices/faults of the current legislation.

Lol at dipshit wanting a maturity test. I’m the kind of person that has to smother a laugh when a client says their surname is Loveridge. I don’t think I’ll be passing any maturity test any time soon!

dogimo said...

Oh my. Does that mean you're incapable of consent?!

Mel said...

Only when it's something I don't want to do.

dogimo said...


I need to reflect on that one.

Mel said...

Qld makes 16 age of consent for all sex

And yes, his name is indeed Dick.

dogimo said...

> The Liberal National Party did not oppose the changes but expressed concerns about how young people would be educated about them. "We do need certainty and clarity from the government as to how it will educate the 16- to 17-year-old cohort around these changes," opposition health spokesman John-Paul Langbroek said.

Oh, yeah, I'd be concerned too. How to you "educate" people about a chance that should have happened a hundred years ago is just happening now? I can't wait to see the PSA on that one. Bring on the Depps!

"As we all know, Australia is a magical island..."

dogimo said...

Full disclosure: I've never had anal sex, so. That's not my motivation here.