i recognise a mediocre take to verse, this is a mediocre take to verse, i know it is, because i'm not as drunk as i'd like... it's too apollonian... to coherent... not juice... not frenzy, no tornado; basically nothing but the fact that i've been listening to you-tube "creators" talk crap, about whatever it is they talk about.

what has *respect for someone,
have in common with
loving someone?
nothing...
     an old man once
uttered to me:
i still don't know how
to love,
  i don't know what
love is!
well...
        me neither...
to me love is a wild
relationship that lasted
half a year,
spanned three countries...
and ****,
the *** was wonderful...
easing her cramps
on her period
while doing it in the bath...
sour milk
              on ******...
that was love...
   but love is much too
mingled with ***...
       and that's fine...
it doesn't last for
          more than a year,
if by miracle, it gets
to a year...
you see...
     respect is so much
more necessary
       as an "alternative"
to the epitomes
   of cohesion between
two strangers...
   the lesser respect?
      courtesy,
       or in the fine details?
manners...
              to me, that's
the definition of love...
    i'm not going to shove
my **** up your ******,
all i'll be doing is whispering
into your ear,
   and that's not
         even tounging it...
so there, that's love...
god, i hate love poems,
   the whole genre
                 of love poetics...
if it's only: how you feel,
and not how throbbing and
barbaric your limp sergeant
can become a copper-statue
and penetrate (akin to
       the knitty-gritty
                  of ovid's verse)?
as i've known to begin -
you learn love by respecting
old people...
     and then you work
your way down...
        you don't really get
to learn babies...
  you learn the tactic of turning
into a cushion,
   or the first man
         to step on the moon...
you don't learn love,
you learn tenderness...
           if there's a love to begin
with... you learn it
   in how you treat old people...
the same fragility
         you see in babies...
even though the cradle
  is that of death, and not
that of the yet-to-be-explored...
      just look how the supposed
  "love" looks...
it requires vampires,
warewolves, fiction...
               i too don't know
what love is...
   having visited a *******
i think the argument is secure,
respect counts above all of what
"love" offers...
             i'd rather show respect
than the utopian "free-spirit"
   hippy jargon of "love"...
                           respect can satisfy
more people with a greater
number of instances,
  than, this so-called love,
    in a bedroom,
      or in a relationship...
well, sure, atheism and god,
fair **** enough...
                              i'm a-amorous...
ugh... typical, the sophists' take on
the cartesian "equation" -
state the "i am" first,
                to keep talking...
the hi, my name is...
           bob the goldfish,
in saying that,
  nietzsche reinvented sophistry,
   and grounded the basis
           of the rhetorical
stronghold...
   he inverted cogito ergo sum,
  into sum ergo cogito...
       annoying as ****...
      in the reverse people
     always have to
identify themselves as:
such & such, so & so...
                        it's a great bullet-point
system to just keep on talking...
on & on, & on...
  but that's how sophistry works...
you invert the cartesian
   equation...
     picked up by sartre...
   that pickle of:
existence pre- essence -
                   the nietzsche quote?
in one of the footnotes
  in human, all too human...
               sum pre cogito...
        and that's true... for babies...
   you can't tell me that
the essential humanity exists inside
a baby,
   given that the baby
can become a non-essential human,
e.g. a murderer...
  but then here's the problem...
  there's no such thing as a "non-essential"
human being...
             paradox... even
****** is necessary...
                              but sartre
expands on nietzsche's
    cartesian inversion...
  but in existentialism nearing
its end...
       sum = exitence
     and cogito = essence...
        meaning?
   the essential human being is a being
that can think...
                  to be human is
to be able to think,
  however genius, or however stupid...
   stupid... yes... but not *******,
i.e. not having the capacity of
   cogitans per se, id est ego
             (thinking in itself, that is, ego);
it would be easier
   to show a blind-man heaven
and blind the seeing when stepping
a foot into the realm...
           it would be easier
   to allow a deaf-man the heaven
of music,
   than it would be to let a man of hearing
to see past dyslexia.