THE BEAUTY OF A FLOWER

Beautiful metaphor, JZ.

Please help me to see that this piece IS a metaphor.  Where is it apparent that this piece is a figure of speech that describes an object or action in a way that isn't literally true, but helps explain an idea or make a comparison.

Isn't every line an literal assertion of what a flower is and what touching it is like?

Cue the remark not only that I am an "intruder"  (isn't this a public forum?) who should be ignored but that that you need not be responsible for backing up your claims when you are asked to do so.

Dear Ahavati,
Thank you very much for your like and comment. I really appreciate it very highly.

You're very welcome, JZ.

If you are looking for a metaphor,  I think the following might be one -- at least to those with eyes to see.

I touch the petals of a flower --
its outer flesh.
I’m lured by all the softness there
to then explore what I might find
if I probe deeper with my fingerings
along, within,  its lower, inner parts
in sudden eagerness aroused
by thinking  they may hold
in smell and  touch,
in color and in vibrancy
a something that is virginal,
beyond compare to eyes and lips
as sources for concupiscence
to those who dare
to plumb their depths.

I imagine l have eyes to see. I think there is a metaphor in my poem because l consider the flower is a woman. In what is supposed to be your poem, there is a metaphor because you consider the flower is a woman, and l do the same in my poem. If you understand poetry, you can see what l say very clearly. Please, don't write pages if you want me to read your writing because l have no time to waste.

"I imagine l have eyes to see. "  
 
You only imagine that you have eyes to see??  Don't you really have them?  
 
And what is it that your imaginary eyes actually see?  
 
"I think there is a metaphor in my poem because l consider the flower is a woman.  
 
And I think that I'm the greatest actor in the world because I consider that I am.  
 
"If you understand poetry, you can see what l say very clearly."    
 
But you've just said that the reason for seeing your poem to be about a woman has nothing to do with whether anyone understands poetry.  It's because you consider it to be the case.  
      
Sorry, but given your title, the awkward way you've worded this piece,  and the obscurity of your last stanza, it is not at all clear that you are actually speaking of a woman.      
     
Moreover, the way you speak about this flower is confusing as well as both pedestrian and boring ..   
     
Take your first line.  Syntactically it is an assertion that **you have the ability**  to touch petals.  It does not convey the idea that you are actually touching them.      
     
Then there's the double use of forms of the word "soft".   
     
And these lines   
     
"lures my fingers      
deeper than the surface to go      
as l expect something softer."      
     
are not only obscure in meaning  (because of the deixis there -- the surface of what?) but awkward since  of the placement of "to go" **after** "surface" makes you say "to go as I expected I would go" and when a more natural way of saying what you wanted to say that avoids this ambiguity would have been "lures my fingers to go deeper ...".    
   
And here:    
   
"it arouses eager eyesight    
to see more of what is inner.    
   
we have an adjective ("inner") being used as a noun.    
   
Then the smell comes to distract me    
moving me from top to bottom.    
What is hidden underneath them    
must convince me to go deeper.    
   
Your syntax here makes the antecedent of "them"  "top to bottom".  Did you mean "it"?  You'd have to have meant this since the subject of this stanza is "the smell" of the inner parts of the flower you are speaking of.    
   
And what on earth were you trying to say here:  
   
"When the petals fell, l hurried  
to encouter [sic encouNter] what was pleasant,  
but l saw what made me cower  
as [since?] the beauty was the cover."  
   
When do you note that you have cowered  
   
and what was it that "the beauty' [deixis -- which beauty?] covered?    
   
And didn't you say that what was beneath the petals was something that was pleasant, not something that would make you cower or run away?  
   
Sorry, but this is poorly written and in no way metaphorical.

1-Who can be interested in touching a flower so deeply. It's in one case only if he doesn't understand poetry. " ... to see more of what is inner." Of course it must be, for those who don't understand poetry, to the inner of a flower. What are they going to see there. A child can know it must be a woman.
2- "... must convince me to go deeper." What can you discover if you go deeper when you smell? Really, l am surprised at what you write.
3-"...as the beauty was the cover." It also doesn't mean anything to those who don't know anything about poetry if they think it's a flower, and not a woman.
4- Why did Ahavati understand it, and you didn't?

2- "... must convince me to go deeper." What can you discover if you go deeper when you smell?  
 
I wonder if you realize that given the syntax of this sentence you are asking me what I might be able to discover when I give off a bad odor/  
 
"Really, l am surprised at what you write."  
 
No more than I am about what YOU write when you construct sentences that are as poorly  phrased and as ambiguous in meaning as the  one above.  
 
"3-"...as the beauty was the cover." It also doesn't mean anything to those who don't know anything about poetry if they think it's a flower, and not a woman. "
 
Really?  It's still not clear if you are indeed speaking metaphorically of a woman, what the beauty of a woman was covering, let alone that whatever it is it would be a cause for cowering.  
 
"4- Why did Ahavati understand it, and you didn't?"  
 
Did Ahavati actually say that what she saw your awkwardly written description of what your probing fingerings of the petals and the inner  parts of a flower discovered (and how you cowered away from a flower once its petals fell off its stem)  was a metaphor for (the probing of) a woman?  
 
You have read things into her compliment to you that she did not say.  But this is typical of you given the way you have often put words into my mouth.

"It arouses eager eyesight
to see more of what is inner."
Is INNER here a NOUN or an ADJECTIVE, Baldwin? And why?

inner
From Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
in‧ner /ˈɪnə $ -ər/ ●●○ W2 adjective [only before noun]    
1 on the inside or close to the centre of something OPP outer
 an inner room
 inner London
 the inner ear
2 inner thoughts or feelings are ones that you feel strongly but do not always show to other people
 Yoga gives me a sense of inner calm.
 She’ll need great inner strength to get over the tragedy.
 She never shared her inner thoughts with anyone.
3 relating to things which happen or exist but are not easy to see
 the inner workings of the film industry
 the fascinating inner life of a political party
4 → inner circle
5 → somebody’s inner voice

Is INNER, in my line of poetry, a noun or an adjective?

It is mistakenly used as a noun.  And to anyone who is a native English speaker, it comes off as a solecism and makes that speaker think that you do not know how to use the English language.  
 
Yes, yes, you teach English.  But all that means is that you have a claim to know what good English looks like.  It is not a guarantee that you will use it with proficiency.

No Ambiguity

The softness of this woman’s skin
that I, in subtle, indexed touch,
have traced the markings of desire upon,
now lures me to discovering
if all or any of the insides of her nether parts
possess the same such thing
and if the feel of them
will send me reeling with
a hungering that I would need to satisfy.

They are. It does.

And so I find my prudish sense
that I should stop myself
engaging in the further plumbing
and the sampling of her moistening depths,
once strong, is gone.

What is the purpose of writing these lines here?

To show you how what you were trying to do -- if you really were speaking about exploring a woman's inner parts -- might actually be done without clunky meter, lack of imagery, solecisms, incoherencies, deixis, inversions, etc.  -- i.e., without any or all of the literary infelicities that plague your submissions and which  have the potential for taking a reader right out of your "poem".    
 
Cue the response that I know nothing about poetry, let alone  about how to write something that contains good ideas,  consistent rhythm, imagery, and rhyme -- all the things (save perhaps for  rhyme)  which your supposedly metaphorical piece lacks, but which this present piece of mine does not.

You say CLUNKY METER, what is the meter in this poem, and why is it CLUNKY?
DON'T YOU KNOW THE POEM WE ARE WRITING ABOUT HERE?

What is the referent of "this poem"?  
 
And you've been writing about what I wrote, so your question is ambiguous.

I'll ask again -- when you say "this poem"  which submission are you speaking of,  your "Beauty of a Flower" or my "No Ambiguity"?

I mean my poem as this page is mine.

I can TOUCH the PETals' TISsue
which is SOFT and LURES my FINGers
DEEPer than the SURface TO GO
as l exPECT SOMEthing SOFTer.

THEY reVEAL a LOVEly COlour
which can TOUCH my LOVing PUpils.
It aROUses EAGer EYE SIGHT
to see MORE of WHAT is INner.

Then the SMELL comes TO disTRACT me
MOVing ME from TOP to BOTtom.
WHAT is HIDden UNderNEATH them
must conVINCE me TO go DEEPer.

WHEN the PETals FELL, l HURried
to enCOUNTer WHAT was PLEASant,
BUT l SAW what MADE me COWer
AS the BEAUTy WAS the COVer.

I've asked you what the meter is?

You tell me.  It's your submission and you should know what meter you intended to set your lines in.

I know what rhythm it is, but l doubt that you do because you criticize the rhythm.

The issue is whether the "rhythm" that you attempted to set your submission out in (trochaic) is consistent from line to line, let alone within any given line.

As I've shown above, it's not.  And how could I criticize the "rhythm" of the piece if I did not know what you were trying (unsuccessfully) to employ?

I knew your answer before asking you. Do you use a perfect meter in your writing, or even can you give me any English poem with a perfect meter?

"  can you give me any English poem with a perfect meter?"  
 
Yes,  Look at the work of Alexander Pope, for instance.    
    
E.g.  From His '"essay" on criticism"    
     
But you who seek to give and merit fame,    
And justly bear a critic's noble name,    
Be sure your self and your own reach to know,    
How far your genius, taste, and learning go;    
Launch not beyond your depth, but be discreet,    
And mark that point where sense and dulness meet.    
     
Or Edna Vincent-Millay    
     
All I could see from where I stood    
Was three long mountains and a wood;    
I turned and looked another way,    
And saw three islands in a bay.    
So with my eyes I traced the line    
Of the horizon, thin and fine,    
Straight around till I was come    
Back to where I'd started from;    
And all I saw from where I stood    
Was three long mountains and a wood.    
     
or  Sir John Suckling      
     
Why so / pale and / wan, fond / Lover?    
Prithee / why so / pale?    
Will, when / looking / well can't / move her,    
Looking / ill pre / vail?    
Prithee / why so / pale? -      
     
It's quite evident that you are not as widely read in English poetry as you (quite falsely) imply you are.    
     
But since you are (quite question beggingly) appealing to  poems of the past masters to justify your claim that it there is authoritative precedent for writing in "not so good rhythm" (notably against your claim that to be a good poem a writing must have good [i.e., consistent] rhythm),  please show me one or two poems from them that not only  display faulty/imperfect rhythm,  but, more importantly,  have the **particular** metrical irregularities (and as many of them and as frequently) that yours do.      
      
Cue the avoidance of this challenge.      
     
And now to the tu quoque -- as if the way I write has any bearing on whether or not I am correct in noting that your submissions are poorly written when it comes to the issue of  metricaly "clunckyness".    

 As to the "rhythm in my "No Ambiguity",  I challenge you to show me which of its lines are metrically inconsistent with the meter in which the first line is set out.      
     
To help you with this challenge, here's the way it scans.    
 
The SOFTness OF this WOman’s SKIN      
that I, in SUBtle, INdexed TOUCH,      
have TRACED the MARKings OF deSIRE upON,      
now LURES me TO disCOVerING      
if ALL or ANy OF the INsides OF her NETHer PARTS      
posSESS the SAME such THING      
and IF the FEEL of THEM      
will SEND me REELing WITH      
a HUNGerING that I would NEED to SAtisFY.      
      
They ARE. It DOES.      
     
And SO I FIND my PRUDish SENSE      
that I should STOP mySELF      
enGAGing IN the FURther PLUMBing AND      
the SAMPling OF her MOIST’ing DEPTHS,      
once STRONG, is GONE.   
     
Cue the avoidance of this challenge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8y-qy9N01I

Difference Between Meter and Rhythm
Many people use the words meter and rhythm interchangeably due to their similarities. However, as literary devices, they are different. Rhythm is a literary device that sets the overall tempo or pace of a literary work. Rhythm can be applied to poetry, free verse, or prose. Meter is a literary device that creates a measured beat, often in a work of poetry, that is established by patterns of stressed and unstressed syllables.

Meter is considered a more formal writing tool, particularly as it applies to poetry. It can enhance the rhythmic quality of poetic writing. However, its purpose is to set steady timing in poetic lines with metrical feet, just as a time signature and metronome might set steady timing in a musical work.

Unlike meter, rhythm is less about a steady and measured beat of syllables. Instead, the purpose of rhythm is to create natural patterns and flow of words that enhance a poetic work’s tone and content. This is especially true for poets that write free verse. In this case, meter is not emphasized to give the verse poetic structure. Instead, poets of free verse focus on natural rhythm and pacing.

https://literarydevices.net/meter/

Look at the first line of Pope's poem:
but you who SEEK...
and the line before the last:
LAUNCH not beyOND your DEPTH...
Is this good iamb?

"Look at the first line of Pope's poem:  
but you who SEEK...  
and the line before the last:  
LAUNCH not beyOND your DEPTH...  
Is this good iamb?"  
 
It's    
   
but YOU who SEEK  
   
and    
   
Launch NOT beYOND your DEPTH.  
   
More proof that you don't know how to read without misunderstanding  what is set before your eyes,  let alone how to scan poetry  and how to write it well.  
   
And it's "Is this good iamBIC (meter)?" not "is this good iamb?".  
 
Now where's your instancing of a poem or two from the "greats" of poetry that show that they wrote in the same irregular meter that you write in? Is your failure to produce anything along these lines a silent admission that you don't know of any?  But haven't you proclaimed more than once that you are exceptionally familiar with lots and lots of English poetry? If you are,  there shouldn't be anything preventing you from posting a few  of these imperfectly metered pieces.

So you don't follow the common, acceptable STRESS. We can use the stress intended in the poem. This is what l know and use in my poetry.

Since you are not a native speaker of English, you don't know what the  common (let alone the "acceptable") stress of English words is, let alone what Pope was emphasizing in his lines.

Still waiting for you to produce some poetry from the greats which justifies the way you write --  i.e.,  in which they write like you do.

I am not a native speaker of English, but l know quite a lot about it through native speakers who supplied me with the needed information to make me better than a lot of the native speakers.

Better at what?  At speaking English?  Were these native speakers well educated?  Did they speak with the standard BBC English pronunciation?

In any case,  when are you going to produce examples of English poetry from "the greats" that display the metrical infelicities that your work displays and as often as yours does?

 "...can you give me any English poem with a perfect meter?"

Here's one from one of the "greats"

Fair youth, beneath the trees, thou canst not leave
Thy song, nor ever can those trees be bare;
Bold Lover, never, never canst thou kiss,
Though winning near the goal -- yet do not grieve;
She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss,
For ever wilt thou love, and she be fair!

(Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn)

Looks like your claim that no English poem, and especially those written by those you say whose style your "work" follows and emulates,  ever displays perfect meter is falsified and that you do not know what you are talking about when you make such claims.

Now where is your evidence that "the greats" always wrote not  only without perfect meter, but with the **particular** metrical irregularities that your submissions display?

I said RARELY and not NEVER, and l didn't say, "the greats" always wrote without perfect meter and with metrical irregularities.

Please show me exactly where you said "RARELY and [sic] not NEVER."  
 
And in the message above, you asked me if I could provide you with an English poem (which would include those written by "the greats") that displayed perfect meter  with the implication that there **were none.**  
 
In any case, you've still not shown that there are English poems that display the** particular** metrical infelicities that yours do.  So your appeal to the "fact" that others do what you do when they write and therefore set precedent for writing the way you do is groundless.