"
Just because they
love your mind
Doesn't mean they have to have your body too."
Richard Brautigan
I propose an intellect of the body as well as an intellect of the mind. I propose there can be no drop-dead gorgeous without the intellect of both. I propose that 'gorgeous' is laden with things it doesn't need and will be so much more wonderful without that weight.
You can admire architecture and flowers and poetry without fucking them. Gorgeous is gorgeous; does that mean "doomed to be the object of sexual desire"? Perhaps i would like to touch the small indentation of your temples and look for the feeding pulse that makes that thought possible. Does this leave you disquieted and wondering what's between us? Perhaps, lost in thought, listening to you speak, i admire the way the skin passes over your collarbones - so smoothly i must touch it with my lips. What then?
Your strings of words surprise me, they're elegant as tendons. I can remember the way our spoken tangents and branches, references and interjections verbally fit like fingers interlocking. What is one without the other?
The first word of the title sets up a duality that's been played out for ages in drama poetry and sermon. The interpretations set up a connection that rankles - declaring gorgeous in a person implies desire to have. I never wanted to be hadthe book - a paper weapon- i certainly wouldn't want to impose it on anyone else. If gorgeousness is a posession, the amount of it in the world decreases. In that way it's like love.