Oh long legged queen

As you step nervously over me

I write poetry

About your parts

About hearing the ocean through them

Hoping to join the parade

At your door, in the race of your words

Leaving the shores behind to keep pace

And reach consensus, which to me is a dance

A folly, a dusty ruffle of some queen left on the credenza

Or stuck in the sabots militia.

Oh those tiny tourist boats as they float by like

Genies close.

I make wishes on their tapping shoes and their vaulting poles though

I can never explain to you why I smash my glass to pieces mid sentence.

It is an ancient wrong

Played out like a deck of cards

Face up and face down

And mine is a tired bear performing

Applying too much pressure to maintain its grip

To muffle its speech;

Worn out like the waxy sound

Lips make against tape,

It yawns and you slip out

Mistaking the sound of the train coming to collect

For the cold steel barreling down.

And though I’d love nothing more to touch the nape of your neck

Run my fingers across its map and say finally

I was wrong

Against your prunts

Your little wire spires that twist and catch

Those sinews  that say don’t or can’t or won’t

Forever I know

Lurks the humming tingle that froths at the back of my mouth

That longing whose flavor is aluminum

That shakes the rafters of my mouth and the remaining glasses to toast

Until I won’t

So sure I have broken enough glass figurines trying to make them into

Action figures

That the electric keys behavior is the only answer

The only game of scrabble that counts in On or

Off.

If just once you had the fortitude to refute my position like an arrow

Your spine straight knew its mark beneath my doublet

My shielded bark;

For the single instant that it flew

And you believed in that intercession

Without parachute, that you were a hawk

Grappling from an undefined field

The ears and tail and heap of my agreement

I ‘d love you then

And there would be no struggle.

The butcher quips flirtatiously in a dance with the widow ____when at the counter she asks with a coy tone and a wry smile, "what is the price of chicken" the ticket in her hand absorbing the thawing reserve.

If we realize that any relationship is an economy, we have to ask ourselves if others see in us what we want them to see. If they ignore what is ultimately important about us even if it is burried or merely wished for, and more importantly if they denigrate our attempts to resurrect a dying movement, then they in no way see who we are and only see themselves or rather what they want or need us to be.

I have contemplated for some time now why men and women's ideal for female body type don't overlap. If you look through the mens magazines like Maxim and those of women say Vogue you will notice that though they share similar features, thin and young, men's magazines depict more robust females (although this is a diminishing difference) But if one compares more drastic examples say playboy the results are almost bipolar. One would think that if the goal orientation for each is to garner a mate then the Venn diagram would align. But there in lies the fundamental truth, because they differ that implies that our motivations are exclusive. Men look to sample the wares, to imagine the most fecund of objects and to attain said object of lust, so the symbols: the wide hips, thick lips and large breasts further that fantasy because they represent high levels of estrogens and thus of fertility. Women, not being lesbians for the most part look at other women as fellow symbols of ideal. They have a narrowly focused notion that the ideal for men is thin, one so culturally pervasive that it has detached itself from the origins and has become a self generated standard for and by women. Therefore to sell this ideal, the models depicted in their magazines are the extreme of this psychopysiological standard; they are waifish not because it has anything to do with sexuality, but because it represents the maintained ideal that thin will ellicit the attention and affection most desired. The bonier they are the more despereate we can assume women are to be loved, so much so that they ignore entirely the predilictions of the audience.

    It is true that some men follow this model as well, they seek out the ultra thin or to be fair most mens magazines recruit the healthy. And perhaps this is something that we should cheer. In health lies a resignation from the supernormal stimulus of each disparate side. In health lies the median, the real or potentially real standard. Though not every woman can be ripped or need be tone, it is a relative goal, that moderation and health of the individual be the guiding light and not the cynosure of the saline filled and the botox injected

Pundit:Froum response

       I have to disagree, though the times are indeed improving sometimes for the better, to just follow blindly does not imply cognition. One can follow the way of things, can do whatever is allowed and never have to think. Even though postformal thought means being open to possibility and ambiguity, and requires making a decision in situ that does not necessarily mean that one automatically accepts. I tend to agree with Kramer and Kailbaugh (1994) that though objectivity is called for in the decision making process, being postformal also means having beliefs and standards that are cherished and applied. True some people's beliefs and standards are rigid and perhaps destructive, but ultimately it shows that they have valued their own path enough to mark it. To me the difference lies in preoccupation or self centeredness. One may have values and believe that they are beneficial for their person and perhaps even for others, but are only detrimental when they narrowly attend to facts both quantitative and qualitative. 
       For  example I think it is wrong to have sex with your friends. I haven't done the research, but I believe that it is both harmful and confuses and complicates relationships of value. Ultimately for me I would say it would never work, but if I keep an open mind that it could be feasible that someone else can make it work (no matter how much incredulity attends my openness) then I am still in effect practicing post formal thought. I could argue that the immediate effects versus long term implication are two different sets of proof, but ultimately all I can say is that I believe, because I don't have data, and await someone to prove me incorrect. And direct personal experience may not be necessary. Selman (1980) marked that the height of perspective taking was to take on the third person perspective, that is to imagine both their motivation and the consequences. If that is possible I need not experience to know, only be aware that I have a theory and await the reality to bear it  out or encourage me to discard it as a faulty supposition. 
     However it is true that even Selman's stages end in the mitigating factors of context. But just because society approves does not mean that I have to as well. I am allowed to believe that what I value is true, that ultimately it is beneficial, because just as I work in my interpersonal interaction, having a place to start from provides a vantage point, a base from which to stand or to move from based on the lay of the game. Although people would like to say that there is no objective right or truth, in application in the world and in history we do not necessarily hold so steadfastly. If we did not ultimately value and find positive consequence for some values we would still adhere to the full law of the Bible, we'd still be a colony, and our president elect would be owned by another man. Postformal thought then, in essence means to me willingness to be corrected,  to be open and not necessarily accepting.

    Just like I didn't think about when I wrote my paper, about how postformal thought could be applied to untypical careers or women's full participation in the work force. Even though the loosening of gender roles has been a glorious occurrence, it is still beneficial to hear the champions and the opposition. The champions value a side and set of specific facts that the opposition may overlook or undervalue, and vice versa. But in the dialogue, in that plurality too one in a sense collects all the facts. With value (which to me seems like a form of identity) the individual transcends his or her own personal ability to store all sides of  the story. Because values differ I may not consider the impact on marriage, on the psyche of the female and male, or the cost of not having a parent at home. I may overlook these issues, but valued by someone else, they come to the forefront. That to me is what Postformal thought means.