Hold the phone - is it a statement?
This makes so little sense that it could well be genius in disguise; an artistic statement on the devolving intelligence of society and the bleakness of human existence.

Just note the "typo" in line one - "Women are only god for one thing". Taking a stereotypical sexist comment and, by apparently making a mistake, turning it into the most ultra-feminist theological statement ever known. What does it mean? Is it that women as a whole are a gestalt god, but that humanity and existence are so meaningless that even with infinite power and wisdom this divinity only amounts to one generic "thing"? Or are women only god for the benefit of one thing, perhaps men? Is this statement meant to dehumanise males?

"Anything that lets you come up its arse and see see the results must really be stupid"

This line is outrageous, beautiful, terrible, sublime. So sexual, yet scatological, it defies and obfuscates our expectations. Yes, anything that lets "you" do that must really be stupid - you would think. Of course you'd think that, as a male! This clearly plays and preys on the patriarchal viewpoint prevalent in society. One thinks first of all "yes, the woman is stupid in this way, in such actions" without noticing the repetition of "see". This is no accident. "See see" is a homophone of "cc" - cubic centimetres, the unit semen is commonly measured in. The whole line refers to the semen wasted by coming up the arse. I think you'll agree that the structure of "must really be stupid" as opposed to "must be really stupid", by putting unconscious emphasis on the word "really" deliberately carries with it a heavy air of irony. The implication in this line is that though men think they have the upper hand with women letting them come in their arses, the woman is the one avoiding getting pregnant.

This is borne witness to by the previous line, the succinct

"Glue babies."

What is a glue baby? What indeed? This brings into sharp focus a damning indictment of a society in which vile sexual acts have become so commonplace and disseminated that the author can simply make something up, something that sounds vile, messy, sticky, reminiscent of the racist and troublesome "tar baby" expression of the USA, paedophilic and associated with substance abuse; and still trick the reader into thinking it has something to do with natural human sexual interaction. By this technique we are fooled into revealing to ourselves our depravity and that of society. Apart from this it also brings into relief the fact that though this "glue baby" exists, the real baby has been bypassed by this waste of human sperm. A catholic piece of propaganda? Or a metaphor for a society so overtly sexualised that we have lost our infantile naivety and innocence?

Finally, the apocalyptic finality of

"Can I bite the head off first?"

This initially appears to be a total non-sequiter, ludicrously nonsensical and nothing to do with anything, but dig deeper; what is the "it" being referred to? I am no poet of this stature, but I submit that they are suggesting the human execution, or radical reformation, of society - by biting the head off it could be suggesting that in an act of primaeval savagery the author destroy humanity before it destroys itself, by utilising the base instincts for violence that modern, male-oriented civilisation has made us try (and fail) to forget.

This is lofty and high-minded radical feminism, another layer of delicious irony being added because of its publication in a sexism QOTW - perhaps this is an angry rebuttal of militant feminism? The fact that typos make up much of the double meaning and depth might imply that feminist thinking is but a mistake, or that women hide their intentions behind other words, knowing that men's arrogance will blind them to the truth i.e. we think it's just a stupid woman making an error - in fact it's a dire call to revolution. I would urge you not to disregard this poem out of hand (and I only use the term poem grudgingly because this post transcends classification).

On the other hand, this might actually be a post by an absolute spacking imbecile. Bear that in mind too.
(StapMyVitals wouldn't mind a bit of that, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 4:41, 6 replies)

I like this.
Really, I like this very, very much.
( Moey, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 10:59, closed)

This reply is fucking awesome.

( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 11:34, closed)

I love this...
...I've logged in just to tell you that...
( TheMattInAHat has a particular... odour..., Mon 4 Jan 2010, 12:32, closed)

That
means more to me than is reasonable.
(StapMyVitals wouldn't mind a bit of that, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 18:14, closed)

Best reply to a turd of a post ever.

( girlinthehole, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 12:48, closed)

I thought 'see see' was a reference to 'carbon copy'
That delightfully outdated term for sending the same email to everyone on a list...so perhaps the poster has made some amateur porn and distributed it amongst his mates.

"Can I bite the head off first?" brings to mind jelly babies - maybe an obtuse reference to the "glue babies" referenced in the first line?
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 16:45, closed)

Damn good point
But isn't that the beautiful thing about this sort of emotive word-artistry? We can take different things away from it and it will lose none of what little meaning it had in the first place.

Honestly, I invested such thought into the above passage I was beginning to believe it myself by the end, and when I read your post my first thought was actually something like, "ooh, interesting, I can't believe I didn't think of it".

Like polishing a turd so furiously while pretending its ironic I actually start to think "hey, that sweetcorn's looking pretty good now".
(StapMyVitals wouldn't mind a bit of that, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 18:13, closed)

Wow!
Does remind me of when a student writes to, say, Ian Rankin, asking about the significance of the Templars in 'Knots & Crosses'.

I must go back and read the original post now...

By the way, I gave you a 'click' for your riposte (NOT a typo), just for the hell of it.



EDIT: Have now re-read the post and some others from the Baroness. I think she may have just been really pissed when she posted. It may have been a dig at homosexual men. The typos now look like drunken mistakes rather than Freudian slops.
(Che Grimsdale Best before:, Tue 5 Jan 2010, 14:09, closed)