In this reading in the Children of Adam, the themes of the natural body, carrying over from Calamus, are still the focal point, but what I picked up on particularly in this reading, was both the description of the body outside of its sexual nature (before the dive into sexual desire of course) in its sanctity as well, and then the progressiveness with Walt tying the body to democracy,

In “I Sing the Body Electric” section 2, Walt states “But in the expression of a well-made man appears not only in his face, / It is in his limbs and joints also, it is curiously in the joints of his hips and wrists, / It is in his walk, the carriage of his neck, the flex of his waist and knees, dress does not hide him.” I personally found this section particularly compelling because of the appreciation for the common and normal. Above this section he expresses that the body of both the male and female are perfect, and I like this idea, but I especially like the idea that the body in its brokenness is also perfect. Whitman grew up working and self sufficient at 14(if I’m remembering correctly), so he was no stranger to the effects of time and exertion on the body, and I thought it was pretty powerful to have him express the perfection even in an “abnormal” (meaning “flawed” or weathered) gait. I have continually been an appreciator of Whitman’s almost seeming compulsion to describe the mundane or common, and I think it might be due to my unfamiliarity with Whitman and poetry as a whole, but I think that is his point… He wants people to be able to enjoy his poetry and appreciate his message and not necessarily have had extensive studies in poetry before, and reach the masses. So I thought this particular description of a perfect body was pretty powerful (alliteration- I am learning). But a question regrading this idea would be how do you personally read the descriptions of “worn” bodies after describing them all as flawless? Do you read them in a different way or find different aspects of the same descriptions more compelling than others?

The second pretty compelling piece that I gathered from “I Sing the Body Electric”, is the connection to democracy through the description of perfection in nature. All throughout, he speaks of both male and female bodies in tandem, interchangeable in their perfection, calling out perfection of both at different times. In section 8 he does it again, “Have you ever loved the body of a woman? / Have you ever loved the body of a man? / … And in man or woman a clean, strong, firm-fibered body, is more beautiful than the most beautiful face.” Okay so there definitely more to unpack in this particular quote, but my point is the unity and discussion of both bodies in the same breath as perfect and sanctified. Again in section 9, “O my body! I dare not desert the likes of you in other men and women, nor the likes of the parts of you”. Another example of both the body as a whole, and parts of the body as being perfect, not to be ashamed or shunned from discussion, but male and female alike they are perfect. I thought this was a perfect example of his progressive, democratic stance on male and female, and thought it was compelling because through his discussion of the body; both are perfect, neither is above the other, and frequently he mentions the female body first and the male second as almost an afterthought. My questions based on this is: Is the order in which he talks about the male and female bodies important in any way? Or am I reading too much into it? Also, at what point do you think WW is guilty so then he adds in an equalizing description? For example, “The female body is perfect. Oh wait yeah so is the the male body.”

Thank you for bearing with me I apologize if this is much too surface level for you all. Let me know what you guys think and I will be looking forward to learning from your responses!