What has been the past relationship of the speaker and the woman? What has she denied him? How has she habitually “kill[ed]” him? What is his objective in the poem?
The past relationship of the couple is indicated as one that has consisted of love, one that makes the male in the relationship feel as if he could present to the female to take their relationship of emotional love to the physicalness of sex. The woman in the relationship denies the man of his proposition of sex, "habitually" killing their love, which is symbolic in the form of a flea, something that contains both of their bloods. The central point of the poem is for the boy to get across his love and passion which can now be taken to the next level of sex, as well as how little a sin it would be to engage in premarital sex.
In many ways this poem is like a miniature play: it has two characters, dramatic conflict, dialogue (though we only hear one speaker), and stage action. The action is embedded in the dialogue. What happens preceding the first line of the poem? What happens between the first and second stanzas? Between the second and third stanzas? How does the female character behave and what does she say during the third stanza?
Proprietary to the first line of, The Flea, it is imminent that the male in the relationship is attracted to the woman, trying very hard to flatter her, show her admiration and clarify the depth of the love he believes is present in the relationship in hopes of her accepting his request to have intercourse with him. In the second stanza, the male reiterates this plea and answers any pushing questions which had most likely come about preceding the question of sex that the woman was unsure of. The male tries to make the woman feel guilty that if she is to deny him of sex, she is killing their love they had built in the relationship. Rejection is clear in the third paragraph after the female denies the male of his request leading to the explanation that participating in sex is no bigger sin that what would be if the woman were to kill in the flea in the process of denying him the sex. The male proposes this idea in a ploy to making the woman feel guilty if she was to just deny him and kill their love in the process. The woman voices to the man that if she does not have sex with him it would not have been any worse than her killing the flea, inferring that she has grown weary of his constant bothersome proposition of sex.
What do “parents grudge, and you” in stanza 2? What are the “living walls of jet”? What three things will the woman kill by crushing the flea?
The point the male is attempting at getting across be the fact that although the two are not married, they basically can be considered to be so because of the level and maturity he believes their relationship has amounted to due to the flea (love) that they have created. The statement, "...parents grudge, and you," reflects that the couple's parents, more specifically the female's parents would not approve of their daughter having premarital sex. The "...living walls of jet," symbolize the love and blood which is contained and confined inside of the flea. If the woman were to reject the male of sex, the three things the woman will be killing is a biblical reference of the father, the son and the holy spirit. This statement further goes back to the male's declaration that killing the flea would be a bigger sin.
Why and how does the woman “triumph” in the third stanza? What is the speaker’s response? How logical is his concluding argument?
The woman triumphs in the fact that she turned down the premarital sex being proposed by her boyfriend and standing her ground by not falling for his creepy and cheesy offer. The speaker declares that the woman killed the flea (their love) "cruel and sudden[ly]" and that her turning down his offer is just as heavy as a sin as it would've been to her to have premarital sex. The male's argument is well thought and further reflects his desperateness of wanting the woman to have intercourse with him, but the woman sees through his reasoning therefore making the argument not persuasive enough to encourage her to do the act.
What action, if any, would you infer follows the conclusion of the poem?
Due to the woman's decline of the man's offer of sex, it can be concluded that the woman comes to the realization that the man was not a true love in her life, due to his obsession and persistence with getting her to have sexual intercourse with him rather than working diligently to make her happy. The male however may be very distraught that such a good thing had gone so bad just because of his so seemingly proposition of the two having sex