"borrowers" refuted

Sometimes in writing a poem, in trying to capture a glimmer of something universal, you have to use tunnel vision. You have to consciously ignore relevant truths...deeper truths...and not just supplemental truths, but sometimes contradictory ones. It can make you want stand up and shout "Crap!" to your own poem. By way of example, i will now refute a premise at the core of my recent poem, "The Borrowers".

Would you want
the best lover you've ever had
if having meant borrowing

Would you want
the deepest desire of your life
if having meant borrowing

Would you offer
your eager virginity
to one gentle and true
if having meant borrowing

Would you want
to be the borrowed
Caught between the need to love
and knowing their dreams
are not your own

If this writer or his "borrowers" were better able to live in the moment, the question of "having" would become largely moot. If two people share a moment, but are focused on what happens next (or down the road at a time only imagined) they're selling the moment short, refusing to commit their entire beings. They're allowing fear, the specter of loss, to shadow their every thought. They're living in a world of negotiation, but a gift that comes with a price tag is in truth no gift at all. Why isn't the moment enough? Is the me-first mentality of capitalism the worm at the core? Is that the indoctrination of selfishness that poisons us?

P.S. Sometimes writers aren't even as smart as their creations...i just had a friend point out another interpretation, placing the pain of the borrowers in the fact that the borrowed isn't entirely "present" for the experience...which is not only a valid interpretation, it may also be true of at least some of the women who inspired the poem.