Other № 68228
Unloyal Poon (Free Puss) by A Spanish Devil
An unloyal poon she burns with regretful
toss of nair, alone, up a creek
of massengil without a paddle.
I grope for her gentle poon,
to finger her as she glides by,
(like a snail on my marble floors)
quivering for smoke and pork shoulder,
but she sloshes wryly away
like an off white bride blushing,
menstrual clots in fluid cramping
hypnotized as love seeks instead her cleaner ass...
Whole moon, barren of yolk or egg
her booty reduces my hard, pure, undefiled,
staff of relief, no fingerprint, but a mushroom
print, and spooge of face cream on her forehead
she pools the line of men into a lottery
passionately, vibrantly capable of fucking (them all)
"with billowing skirt til break of day."
I watch her fall in love with the black guy
in the corner as I cry holding my red cock
to the sky in sorrow as she slips
and fades away upon his HUGE UNCUT MAMBA, sighing...
I say farewell to her gaping unloyal poon.
16 comments
youll find that many good poets carry some "poetry crafted to offend, shock, and anger the masses"
then again, -shrug-. but its wise to not discard anything too quickly- i learned this the hard way. :)
jealousy and cock size can produce some interesting and unpleasant results.. heh. 8.
in the corner as I cry holding my red cock
to the sky in sorrow as she slips
and fades away upon his HUGE UNCUT MAMBA
"huge uncut mamba" - perfect unveiling of the mans mental gears in action, lmao.
No, you don't. <Putting on my pretty pedant hat,> Parody is a form of expression protected under the First Amendment here in the U.S.--it's considered fair use. The Supreme Court (aka the Felonious Five & colleagues) confirmed this in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (92-1292), 510 U.S. 569 (1994), when (this is true) 2 Live Crew was sued by the music company that owned the rights to Roy Orbison's Pretty Woman, because 2 Live Crew did a parody of it in their own inimitable fashion. (I don't make this stuff up.) You can read the Court's Opinion here: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/
Justice Kennedy (who wrote the concurring opinion) set out these relevant observations:
". . . certain general principles are now discernable to define the fair use exception for parody. . . . parody may qualify as fair use only if it draws upon the original composition to make humorous or ironic commentary about that same composition. . . . It is not enough that the parody use the original in a humorous fashion, however creative that humor may be. ***The parody must target the original***[my emphasis], and not just its general style, the genre of art to which it belongs, or society as a whole (although if it targets the original, it may target those features as well)."
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/
Just sayin'.
is there a fee, or do you work pro bono?
is your dayjob something that has to do with law? (im guessing yes)
ive copy pasted this and stuck it in my "legal insurance folder"
its good to have readily available shields.
Log in to add a comment.