Maryam Ivette Parhizkar


We thought about what was said. That is, we thought about what you said, what the other one said, what they said you said, what they said the other one said, what they said someone else said. We have found the other story to be more believable.

The other one being him. That is, we find him to be more believable.

We believe that what the other one said has been steadfast.

Whereas, on the contrary, you have lacked sufficient clarity.

The other one told us that your iteration of events was a fabrication.

We have the tapes to prove it and the tapes are your own.

Almost certainly we believe that you had given the your permission, though you did not speak it. You said so with what you had done.

We believe that on that particular morning what you did was just part of the pattern.

You were in it together.

The touch was mutual.

We believe that though you did not speak, your projection indicated something willful.

Your form willfully unfolded in a way that was in opposition to closure.

The unfolding became a conduit.

We believe that this is the way it has always been.

We believe your shape was a conduit until the other one could no longer bear it.

We admit that an individual is not beholden to speaking a word in order for an event to be a violation.

We confess our understanding that an association between two parties is not the same as an authorization.

Nevertheless, we must remind you that you told us that, previously, you had spoken with clarity.

You conjured language. The other one responded accordingly.

Even as you told us that you were afraid of speaking because you were afraid on the day of your fight, we did not entirely believe in your fear.

Not then, not before.

Your actions following the offensive do not fit our understanding of a fearful person.

Yet it was your hand that hit the face. And yet the other one’s body did nothing.

We must add that in the time that followed, you persisted and resumed contact. We do not recognize these as acts of fear. 

We have noticed: you have a way with words.

We understand that your disputes were fervent, full of vehemence.

We understand and recognize that you have a reputation for resilient conviction when it comes to your sovereignty.

You told the other one what you believed.  He told us he believed in that.

We don’t know what to do about the greyness.

Nevertheless, we believed you to have been clear about the past.  

We spoke to each of you and understood that spent a lot of time explaining that your relationship was rooted in the other one’s attempts to understand you.

The events of that day do not strike us as breaking from the pattern.

Therefore, we have decided that the actions that followed were agreeable.

You were sentient, adding to the pattern though you conjured no word.

We believe that the pattern of the body is always faithful. 

Therefore, your fate was in your hands, if not in your speaking.

Therefore, we have decided what we have always already known.



The speechless body is not a sufficient document but for our purposes the act of the body is sufficient. The speechless body is not a sufficient document but for our purposes the body is sufficient. The speechless body is not a sufficient document but for our purposes the body is sufficient. The speechless body is not sufficient. The body is sufficient. The speechless body is not sufficient. Therefore the body is sufficient. Therefore the body is not sufficient. The act is faithful. Speech is not faithful. The act is faithful to the body.

The body is not faithful to speech. The speech is the act. The speech is insufficient. Speak.