Saida is off on this one. Bad poetry by bad writers is the one below good writers that know poetry who don't care. Think about it this way: the scholar that has a proficiency for language against another person of the opposite sex whose proclivity is geared toward emotional intelligence. (You may get the idea here.) It's that no matter what is the person of the opposite sex is doing, if it only depends on which person leads as the protagonist - the protagonist will always win or lose in the end. Point being what Saida tells us is either both trivial misconception or out of scope with how reality works. The poet who is dangerous comes from the heart. Rejection is futile. The power the poet has cannot be compromised. The antagonist over compensates for everything to get what they want, so if the person of the opposite sex doesn't care about poetry written to her, she's easy to manipulate. Which to the poet is a automatic turnoff. Women with authority wouldn't know the difference. Poetry always wins.

°••○○•°•••

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/164WeTBcEQ/