243 • Crim. Con.

243 • Crim. Con.

I observe that your wife has undressed.
My brief telepathic request
Was never expected
To be intercepted …
I trust you don’t think me a pest.

The priest who spouts Mosaic law forbids us to ‘covet’ another man’s wife; the attorney, blethering about ‘criminal conversation’, concerns himself with ‘physical contact with an alien and unlawful organ’. These pests aside, where does blame lie in the present, sad case? The disrobing spouse, responding to a supernaturally-registered suggestion, perhaps believes she is obeying the will of a Higher Power. Can the true issuer of that command really be guilty, if he never expected his libidinous impulses to come to light? Many would consider him no adulterer; but more would consider him a fool, since – by apologising so stiffly to the no-doubt startled husband – he proclaims his otherwise-unprovable involvement. Yet, to the woman, the putative adulterer is a hero, having rescued her from possible charges of wilful exhibitionism, or lewd and wanton provocation. Bravo for him, therefore; and huzzah for such a tiny bulletin, fairly bursting with such sapient doctrine.

2 thoughts on “243 • Crim. Con.

  1. Why is the psychic perve not apologizing to the woman he’s abused. Why does he apologize to the man who he thinks possesses her. This limerick stinks

    1. Greetings,

      Thanks for leaving a comment, albeit a puzzling one. Granted, the behaviour depicted stinks, but I hope you don’t think the rhyme is recommending such conduct. Anyway, it would be pretty pointless if it did, no? How could such a recommendation work? Who can decide to turn their thoughts into telepathic commands?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 1 MB.
You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, other.