This love poem is better than Shakespeares sonnet 147

Warning: Graphic language (due to mature topic). Hi shakuntala, and thanks for the opportunity to debate! Intro/Criteria My opponent has offered an awful, erotic poem written by Colin Leslie Dean, according to the blog that my opponent has introduced, as being better than Shakespeare's sonnet 147. It is unclear whether the criterion of the debate is overall quality or on "real passion emotion and love." Thankfully, Shakespeare's sonnet is superior in all these criteria. However, I still ask that my opponent clarify regardless. Plagiarism: I should point out that the entire text that shakuntala has written is WORD-FOR-WORD the text of the blogger. Dionysian/Apollonian Pro claims that Shakespeare, in approaching love "intellectually" is Apollonian (which is bad), compared to the less intellectual approach, which s/he claims is therefore Dionysian (and this good). I find this analysis to be overly-simplified. The identification of Dionysian and Apollonian elements in literature (and life) came from Neitzsche in his Birth of the Tragedy. In this book he claimed to have found a tension of Apollonian (The Greek god associated with medicine and other intellectual pursuits) and Dionysian (the Greek god associated with drunkenness and revelry) within early Greek tragedies. Importantly, he emphasized the tension of the combined elements: the Apollonian craft constructed a Dionysian undercurrent of passion. The Apollonian construct was necessary for the purposes of identifying situations, whereas the Dionysian emotive undercurrents issued a gothic-like passion in which one transcends one's context and even identity. That is, one loses one's conscientiousness, one's self-reflectedness, one's self/other divide. Hence, the Dionesian form is more like the union of the self with the context (such as being irrationally moved to anger in a scene, forgetting oneself). The Apollonian on the other hand categorizes and identifies, and is in fact quite reflective. Neitzsche did not criticize the later Greek tragedies for being Apollonian, but for being ONLY Apollonian. The Apollonian element is important for understanding the forms and features of a situation, but if successful can lure the audience into a state of unreflective passion. [http://www.historyguide.org..., http://denisdutton.com...] Like the later Greek plays that Nietzsche describes as being the downfall of tragedy, Pro's poem similarly suffers from an overdose of the Apollo and a deficit of Dionysus. The Pro's poem is in fact entirely reflexive, and extremely forced. I feel sorry for the narrators of the poem--they are obviously forcing themselves to feel. Instead of actually having passionate sex, the narrators are constantly commenting on what they are doing, and how much they love each other, treating the present as the past. This is the opposite of Dionysus: instead of taking pleasure in sex, they are trying to muster pleasure in the thought of the fact that they are having sex. They are like the annoying people at a party that are constantly reminding people of what a good time they're all having. In making the sexual language explicit, it is the naughty words themselves that are erotic, and not the passion of the audience (which the audience must approach themselves--Dionysian passion can never be forced). Thus, Pro's linked poem is entirely self conscious (Apollonian) and not Dionysian. In contrast, Shakespeare's sonnet is a paradigm of a Dionysus/Apollo dialectic. Shakespeare uses humor and unexpected language constructs to surprise the audience into a state of un-reflected passion. Instead of saying "I want to have sweet sweet sex," which is designates a certain kind of emotion but is hardly Dionysian, Shakespeare says "My love is a fever," an Apollonian construct that leads to a kind of perplexity, and out of that that perplexity comes a moment of understanding in which the reader is swept away with the narrator in a passion for the disease. The reader loses herself at the humerus image of Reason as the angry doctor, and the narrator as the irresponsible madman, not taking the dosage of sobriety from love's high. I picture the words coming stammering from the lips of one inches away for her lover, and briefly forget that we are different people. Hence, Shakespeare's sonnet is both more intelligent and also more genuinely emotive in a Dionysian sense than the crass sex un-metered, un-rhymed line-by-line. (Don't forget that the Dionysian does not exclude intelligence--After all, all of Nietzsche's works are incredibly intelligent). Whereas Pro's poem tries to calculate and hold captive love, Shakespeare's sonnet wonders at it (and evokes it). Reduction of love: Despite the couple's constantly reminding themselves that they are in love, it is clear that in Pro's poem the couple's relationship is with each other's body parts and not each other. Unlike Shakespeare's sonnet that address the person, the "lovers" address each other's genitals, as well as other body parts as they relate to sex. By the end of Pro's poem, we do get a clear picture of the combatant's physiological arousal, but honestly with less crass language I could find these same effects in an anatomy textbook. We get no feel for the wrestlers' emotions (hopes, fears, embarrassment, familiarity), their internal states, their passions. Love, in this case, is nothing more than two people stimulating each other's privates. Pro's poem is hardly a demonstration of love, or even emotions. It equates love with sex, something that is obviously untrue. Supposing a friend asked about love, or a child. What is a better depiction of love: "Lick up the dew... from my c***'s hole" (Pro's poem), or "love is a fever."? While the former lists the basic movements involved in some sex, Shakespeare's narrator address a person, not a pleasure-utility robot. Under Pro's depiction of poetry, one in search of love should leave one's kids in search of better sex potential. Whereas Pro's poem reduces the Beloved to a mere sex toy, Shakespeare's descriptions raise the individual, casting the Beloved in materials that showcase the Beloved's qualities. Shakespeare actually speaks to how the person is feeling (out of control, partaking in guilty pleasure, humbled, keen, dazzled), and not merely how one's genitals look. Normative genitals. Pro's poem restricts its love to a preoccupation with certain genitals--the poem then is only inclusive of "love" (intercourse) for cisgender, heterosexual or bisexual men and women with normative genitals. There is no room for queer relationships and Trans* bodies, including intersex, agender, lesbian, disabled, old, etc. individuals. By being preoccupied with only normative bodily functions, the author fails to acknowledged actual love, which is surely experienced by queer, Trans*, old, and disabled persons. In contrast, Shakespeare's sonnet allows any sort of human to take the position of either the lover or the beloved. This is a signal that Shakespeare has described love more completely and usefully than Pro's poem. In the sonnet, the focus is on the relationship between people, which is something that fits in an inter-sectional conflagration of narratives (consider how the old unsighted gay intersex generfluid male with no use of genitals fits into the story flawlessly), rather than merely the straight, young, cisgener, and able individuals. Objectification: Pro's poem (unlike Shakespeare's) reduces people to the sum of their sexual body parts, which is a kind of objectification. Calling that objectification "love" is a highly fallacious understanding relationships that is at the root of sexism. People are more than their body parts' utility in sex, after all, and love is between people. Thus, Shakespeare's sonnet better embodies love.