Sorry for this misunderstanding; I wasn’t imputing to you any views at all. When I said ‘I’m not sure approving of wife-rape is consistent with libertarianism,’ I was simply pointing up the fact that disapproving of wife rape is not inconsistent with libertarianism.

Nothing to do with your views at all.

My first thought on seeing this was, ‘Fuck me if I can see how she thought that I said that’, and then I got worried for a moment that you might think that would be a good idea…until I read you properly

You have a fair point on the reverse scenario. But while I have no experience or inclination to that particular practice, i certainly would neither disapprove or condemn anyone who did that on a mutually consenting basis. Who am I to load guilt on to two people who, in innocence, mutually enjoy something with each other? I’d certainly have to give it some really serious thought, too, if my other half said that they fancied the idea. It’s quite intriguing, actually.

However, non consenting sex in any context is a no-no. I have no idea why you seem to think that I approve of marital rape. What I wrote did not explicitly say that I did, nor do I think it can be validly taken to either imply or infer that. (I was tempted to add ‘reasonably’ too, but I reckon we start from such different places, that your stating that might not be unreasonable from your point of view :-) )

I don’t mind a decent argument but, unless it was an honest mistake, I’d really rather that you didn’t impute to me something that I didn’t say,or at least not without some qualification.

Oh, and should I ever find myself bite the pillow for my other half’s sake, I won’t be thinking of England. Or St George for that matter. I’m not English ;-)

Let’s consider the reverse scenario, shall we? Suppose your wife derived enormous sexual pleasure from giving it to you up the backside with a prosthetic. Would you roll over and bite that pillow for England? No. Nor should you feel obliged to. I wouldn’t approve of that, either, even if St Paul says it is partly her ass, too.

I was merely trying to say that it’s interesting that no matter how, and I use your wording as it’s better than anything I can come up with, authentically libertarian many of us would wish to be, there is almost always something that each of us finds hard to take, in what others think, say or do and have to grit our teeth over while maintaining principle

Perhaps its a background thing. I tend to equate libertarianism with social tolerance, and many of the people I know, while generally a most generous and forgiving bunch, are at their most illiberal and authoritarian over things in which, for them, ‘a personal attitude toward something is the same as ‘drawing a line’ for other people’. They seem all too willing to suspend principle when it suits their own prejudices

It’s difficult to get tone from the written word and I’m sure that had I been able to hear what you were saying, doubtless I would have understood you properly the first time. I trust that you can forgive my curiosity

And while I agree with you that your chosen words of Pauline wisdom are ‘hardly one-sided,’ how is St Paul an authority on modern sexual relationships (or anything else, for that matter)? Not to mention the article in question doesn’t refer specifically to married couples anyway.

Sorry if my tone is a bit hostile, but it really gets my goat when people assume that a personal attitude toward something is the same as ‘drawing a line’ for other people and use that to question whether or not I am really a libertarian. I don’t agree with or approve of lots of things; why should saying so mean I forfeit libertarian authenticity?

But I could easily now fit in the ranks of the ‘miserable, angry, and really disappointed.’

If someone provided advice that convinced my partner that perhaps, in putting some sort of value on me, preventing me being so meant that once in a while they might ‘want’ to do something about it for my sake, what’s wrong with that?

Interestingly, all Ms Arndt is doing is re-iterating part of the advice St Paul gave regarding marital sex

‘The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.’

And that’s hardly one sided, is it? (nor for that matter, is he as misogynistic as is normally put forward by the less well informed)

But, like all suggestions of this kind, it will work for some and not for others. If this might help some, why are you seemingly so determined to draw a line for them at the point where your personal sensibilities are offended, by labelling it ‘disgusting and senseless’?

Doesn’t feel much like the stance I should expect from someone who professes themselves to be a libertarian

No offense intended, just challenging the principle. I’m sure that I merely draw my lines elsewhere :-)

This also infantilizes men and presupposes that sex is the most important part of a marriage. Is she married? Does she know WTF she is on about?

Maybe it’s just Australia.

SHEEP-SHEARER [his first words on meeting SHEILA]: D’ya fuck?

SHEILA: Nah.

SHEEP-SHEARER: Well, lie down so I can have one.