(Insert title here)
Madanthonywayne said:
Say your girlfriend is nagging you about wanting some really nice piece of jewelry. You pick up a second job to cover it. As a result, you're not getting enough sleep. You fall asleep at the wheel and die. Or maybe the second job is as a bouncer at a bar. While trying to show some roudy drunks out the door, you're stabbed.
And?
So far you've got issues on the self and the rowdy drunk who stabs you.
Furthermore, if you see your doctor or simply are faithful to your wife/gf, you can be sure that nagging her for sex is not exposing her to any of the dangers you listed.
Ah. So that's how it goes. Of course, everyone is faithful to their partners, aren't they? And all the partners
know it, don't they? That's why people who think they're in committed, monogamous relationships get various surprises, including herpes, gonorrhea, and AIDS, from their partners. Right?
A curious perspective, I admit. But I don't understand it. Why is it that people who are so frustrated with feminism and the boundaries of what counts as rape so overwhelmingly look at the situation according to their own position in the potential equation?
For instance, if (man) goes to see (man's) doctor, or simply is faithful to (his) wife or girlfriend, then (woman) can be sure that his nagging her for sex is not exposing her to any of the dangers.
Turn that around:
If (spouse) goes to see (spouse's) doctor, or simply tells you s/he is faithful to you, then you can be sure that (spouse) is not exposing you to any dangers.
Two anecdotes from the last several days.
• An epidemiologist was on one or another radio show. It will take me a while to figure out what show and find the archive. But she talked about HIV testing in the early part of the epidemic, and the question of whether a positive test result should require mandatory informing of potentially-infected partners—e.g., should the patient be forced to name names.
• A cousin was talking about how her ex-husband apparently called to inform her that he has herpes. Naturally, she up and jetted off to her doctor for the full screening. Everything came back rosy, but she's still glad that, while her current husband—a cancer patient—has signed a release allowing his doctor to discuss his condition, she has not done the same. In other words, she's glad that her current husband doesn't know her ex-husband has herpes. She's clean, so why should it matter? Never did get an answer to that point.
The point of those two points is to remind you that just because your spouse does or does not say so does not mean it's real or not.
The lack of human sympathy as you've expressed it is not particularly shocking, but only because I'm accustomed to it. It's a fairly common line: (Shrug.) "I'm not going to be giving her any diseases ...."
Anyway, I've not read thru this entire thread, but do you actually believe that trying to convince a woman to have sex with you once she's said no is rape?
Well, see, that's the problem with the lack of human sympathy about the discussion. I've nagged a partner before, and if she really wants to make an issue out of it, I'll be happy to let a jury decide. Life goes on.
Likewise, she has violated terms of consent for sexual intercourse before, and also lied to me about her reproductive status. In neither issue am I going to make a court case out of it. Life goes on.
But not everyone is like me. Not everyone lives the way I do, experiences the circumstances I do. Curiously, some of my most vocal critics will imply that I don't recognize this fact, yet it is at the heart of my human sympathy. Some people have it better than I do, and some people have it worse. When we reduce the issue to "nagging", we disarm it somewhat. However, there are many households in our culture that are rife with constant psychological abuse. The victims of this abuse do see their perspectives and judgments narrowed, their lives often polarized into the most basic of decisions.
And in these circumstances, I can certainly perceive the weight of "nagging". Perhaps you have never encountered a victim of psychological exploitation, but it's rather a frightening thing to witness.
If you do, that really cheapens the definition of rape. It's like calling negotiation theft. Perhaps we should make a similar list for theives. Item one:
If you don't accept the initial asking price for an item and somehow manage to convince the seller to give you the item for less; you're a thief.
I tend to think that people cheapen the issue of rape when they pretend it's such a simple issue.