[Glenn Wright]

Hi, Matt—

I think the advantage of “shields” over “veils” is that it suggests the combat that brides who defy society’s taboos will be engaged in. The speaker is warning the lady that if she accepts his proposal, society will attack her. (Granted, this is less true today than a generation or two ago.) Is it unfair that such attacks target women and not men? Absolutely.

As I write this, I am watching the news coverage of Stormy Daniels’ testimony in the Donald Trump coverup case. It is interesting to see the talking heads trip over their own feet in trying to strike an appropriately serious and disapproving yet tolerant tone in describing her actions, mixing words like “salacious” and “compelling” in the same sentence. I’m reminded of the old Seinfeld show where they discuss the activities of a gay friend, “not that there’s anything wrong with that.” In this poem I wanted the readers to think about their own feelings about our society’s mixed messages about sexual behavior—its self-righteous judgment, its unfairly distributed permissiveness, and its hypocrisy.

In the same vein, “promiscuous” was deliberately chosen to create discomfort. Some readers, like John, had a lot of discomfort with it. Whatever you call it—“unfaithfulness,” “open marriage arrangements,” or “promiscuity,”—the speaker is carefully setting out the terms of the deal he is proposing.

Thanks for your reactions and suggestions.
Glenn