Well, I don't know where to put this comment, and don't intend to much elaborate anyway, but it's feeling like I have to say something (even though I still don't know if i "like" the poem), since I don't seem to have read this poem like anyone else has ...

To me, the first sentence of the poem tells us that it - and thus for me the entire poem - cannot be taken other than metaphorically. It's a given that the first sentence is not literal ... isn't it? Some here seem to not be attending to the fact (as I read it) that "she" AND the "weeping boy" are climbing (together) into his sleeves and pant legs. Since that scenario is like something out of either a drug-induced trip or a fanciful children's book sojourn or ... other surreal exotica, I told myself from the outset that this was not a poem to be taken literally (okay, I already said that).

Hence (or not), I read what ensued as a kind of lover's "tripping" about the intense intimacy of bond with "her" - a highly fused sense of oneness in two bodies - where hands and legs get confused as to whose is whose, where sensations pass from, through and between one and/to the other such that a real sense of displacement takes place, no longer knowing where one's own boundaries stop and another's start... The spooning position is described in a way so as to evoke a sort of "swimming" into each other (I imagined it as potentially reciprocal even though the story here focuses on one - recipient's - experience of the 'fusion' ... and lostness in this new thing that is coupling, coupledom, loss of 'self' into it ...

And since "goose flesh" itself is metaphor ... well, that's how I first read it and so far it's the only reading for me that makes sense of the totality ...

fwiw :-)

z