He argues that if time passes and they age then her beauty shall no more be found' and his lust' turn to ashes'. In parts, the elegance with which Marvell usually expressed himself degrades into far more base and vulgar language, an example of which is when he claims that in death worms' will claim his mistresses long preserved virginity', although he later contradicts himself by declaring that the grave's a fine and private place'. This shows a far less nave, and infinitely more shallow, interpretation of love than he describes at the poems beginning. In many ways I see this as this as more of a representation of lust rather than love, disguised under layers of affectionate terms. He ends the poem far more passionately than he began, and his choice of vocabulary implies that his seduction was successful, especially the use of the first person plural pronoun we' and the plural possessive our'. While passionate, he is far from tender, which is best shown by his desire to tear' their pleasure with rough strife'. Interestingly, this poem seems to show another aspect of love, apparently unintentionally. And this is the power the loved has over the admirer. While the poet is very confident in his approach, he is still pleading to be with the woman, and as long as she denies him she has, in a small way, power over him, however ephemeral it may be.
Overall, this poem, in my opinion at least, seems to show an extremely superficial idea of love, based entirely upon physical appearance and basic human lust. As can be expected from the time it was written, the woman has no real say in the relationship.
The Whoso list to hunt' by Sir Thomas Wyatt stands in stark contrast to the above attitude. While the title (and first line) seem to indicate a similar attitude, as the hind' metaphor certainly seems to objectify women, and the choice of the word hunt' implies that they are nothing more than a trophy to be caught.
