Love, Blood, and Rhetoric

The poem frames "him" as subordinate in several ways, not just to the narrator ("i fuck him on the floor": not that getting fucked is inherently subordinating, but the narrator has all the agency in the phrase, "he" doesn't decide what happens or where) but also to "his wife". She has filled the house with chintz, meaning it wasn't his decision or his actions. "Filled" is also a choice of words that suggests that there is no space for him in the home: the only place left for him, not already filled, is the floor. To me this framing invokes the trope of the henpecked husband, whose wife has taken dominion over the home and who has ceded its control to her because it, as the domestic space, is "supposed" to be hers.

This trope, of course, is misogynist in its normative rendition: it reinforces gender essentialism, it erases the significant material benefits such "henpecked" men derive from the domestic labor of their spouses, and it dismisses women's expressions of suffering and attempts at negotiating terms for their relationships as "nagging." In the narrator's dismissal of the wife's possessions as "chintz" (frivolous, feminine, contrasted with what is "real") we can see this same misogyny at play.

The narrator's misogyny, and the central fact of the poem which is that the husband is getting fucked by someone other than the wife, quite possibly flip the power dynamics of the poem on their heads. The wife is now subordinated: both by her social marginalization based on gender (a marginalization which drives her into the home and confines her there, like OP so cogently points out! As "he" has run out of room in the home and can only get fucked on the floor, so has she run out of room socially; the only place she can control and make decisions like filling it with chintz is the home), and by the narrator who is fucking her husband in her home.

There's an additional dynamic in reading the narrator as male, which most readers seem to have done: it invokes the particular, bitter misogyny that men-loving-men sometimes direct at women expressing femininity. There's an envy to it, of course--straight and straight-passing women get to (are forced to) express desire for men, have sex with men, marry men, love and be loved by men. His wife gets to be his wife: the narrator gets to fuck him, in their home. Straight and straight-passing women also get to (are forced to) perform femininity: they can buy chintz and decorate with it, without being devastatingly punished for it like people presumed to be men are from the time they're babies. The envy mixes with misogyny to produce disdain, disgust, dismissal. We can read the narrator fucking him on the floor of their home as an expression of power and dominance (again, not that the fucking has to mean the narrator is topping, or that topping is inherently dominant, but the phrasing is stark: "i fuck him", the narrator acts upon him as an object/recipient), not just over him but over the wife in absentia as well.

Noting that "to keep it real" is AAVE, we can also introduce race as a potential lens; is the narrator, despite their dominant language, subordinated based on race in this dynamic? Is the narrator not just claiming a dominant role, but perhaps also stereotyped and limited into it as a Black person? Is the disdain of the chintz also an expression of class difference, of a rejection of the display of white wealth on the part of the wife? This is pretty speculative, of course: the use of AAVE could also be appropriative, which would suggest another tactic by the narrator to lay claim to masculinity and toughness, since non-Black people often use AAVE to try to invoke racist stereotypes of strength, violence and resilience.

I think one of the things that makes the poem so compelling for being so short is the struggle at the heart of it, this complicated jostling for power between three people and their actions over time (the wife "has filled" the house, in the past: the narrator fucks him in the present, perhaps in the habitual). Who controls the house? Who controls "him"?

eyes hit serious diminishing returns wrt resource costs vs vision quality as they get bigger, so the question became: what the FUCK do giant (and colossal) squid need to see so badly that they couldn't see with swordfish-sized eyes that's justifying that massive energy cost? that nothing else in the deep ocean needs to see so fucking badly??

turns out the one strength eyes that big really have over much smaller eyes is: seeing large glowing objects in water deeper than 500 meters from an appreciable distance.

sperm whales are the primary predator of giant squid. sperm whales don't glow. BUT! water that deep is full of bioluminescent creatures-- these creatures light up when bumped into. something a sperm whale's size is continuously bumping into those critters, it's just surrounded by a glowing field all the time when it's swimming at those depths, visible from a distance-- if you have the right eyes-- as a massive glowing shape. so basically the only reason to have eyes the size of soccer balls is if you live in the deep ocean and your life depends on having a heads up when a hungry sperm whale lurking around

Finding all the paragraphs where you used some hyper-specific word more than once

Rearranging paragraphs that you swear you wrote in the right order but turned out to be totally backwards

Going for a walk, coming up with the perfect line, and forgetting it as soon as you get home and open your laptop

Creating a separate document where you can dump all of those nice sentences that no longer fit in anywhere

@clarencechampagne people claim otherwise because it's nice to imagine there's an inviolable inner sanctum of what you truly believe and who you truly are, and the notion that the core of your self can be changed not even from inside but by a bump on the head shakes people who emotionally rely on the notion of mental states being essential and transcendant, even when they're nominally a materialist. we like to think mind is safe from matter.

also coming from the political perspective people get very uncomfortable (understandably so) around the notion of people whose politics and conduct are cruel and harmful being that way because of a brain injury, stroke, illness, etc. some harm to them that they did not will. it breaks the notion of worldview and politics being powered by will and agency, which a lot of people, again, rely on for their moral political frameworks, even when they say they're materialist marxists.

To this view, If someone has harmful politics it means that they're a bad person. And if someone is a bad person, then they will that under their own agency. They chose to be a bad person and they could choose otherwise. The moral causation, under this view, arises solely from within the mind, rather than anything material. The notion that someone could become a harmful presence due to material situations outside of their control is deeply threatening to this sense of self, which is often taken for granted as common sense. The notion that we have ultimate and final control over ourselves, and the notion that we can keep our inner selves safe from the world by enforcing a determination on our own worldview, like, committing ideologically to a stance as protection from the world, is something that a lot of people, especially leftists, rely on, and the notion that you could get very badly hurt and come out of that with a brain that engages in harmful politics, engages in a harmful worldview, due to an injury, due to a disability, is morally threatening to a lot of people.

And I think that's understandable, but I don't think it's correct. I think there's a lot of compassion that's called for, regarding people who push back against the notion that, essentially, an injury, a disability, could make you what they see as a bad person. It's understandable why that would deeply freak you out and it's understandable why you wouldn't want to hear it. But I think the issue here is a deeper one of how people conceptualize ontology and ethics and morality and politics in general.

search result 1, AI-generated article: Since the dawn of time, humans have wondered what kind of bike helmet is best for protecting their cranium and lower intestine. In the event that you find yourself with a bike helmet, you must find a way to save your family. Therefore, we have compiled a list of qualities to look for. First, sodium content is of great importance when biking your helmet.

search results 2, 3, and 4: sponsored ads for bike helmets on amazon

search result 5, reddit thread: bikeaholic363736: hey guys, do any of you have experience with the windslapper 30g helmet from spronklegear?

spokejunkie666: it's probably the best helmet on the market right now. if you're not using the windslapper you might as well just be riding your bike into a woodchipper

anyway i wanted a memento of my first pride, you know, and this one vendor was selling keyrings, and i liked it, so i bought one. do you remember those italian charm bracelets that were all the rage like 10-15 years ago? it was a keychain like that, and it had a rainbow rooster, a rainbow cat, and then just a rainbow, and so I bought it.

i run into my mom a couple of vendors over and she goes oh you bought something? what’d you get? so i showed her, and i was like, “I’m not sure why it’s a rooster and a cat. Seems kind of random. But I liked the rainbows.”

and my mom, who was some form of minister’s wife for most of my childhood and teenagerhood, stares at me like she thinks i’m joking.

“What?” i say.

…relic…