Abandoning the ill?

"but I think it highly likely that it's not all arbitrary social convention either. I fear it is inherent to innate long-term patterns of feelings among many girls -- at least a significant minority."

I don't think that "inherent" and "innate" mean what you think they do.

If its "innate" to girls how can that apply to only a minority?

Could something be "innate" and only be found in one person?

And why shouldn't a minority of one be "significant" when it comes to something "innately" harmful.

Is my allergy to garlic enough to ban it?

"You could claim that a person cannot feel good about sadistic fantasies because harm to another is inherent in full expression of the desire."

Or you could realize that they're fantasies. And no expression of a fantasy is any fuller than another.

Clearly you haven't met any BD/S&M couples.

Heck, I've got no rape fantasies myself. But my lover Luz did. As soon we figured this out I was able to stop frustrating her by being a "gentleman" and pausing everytime she said, "No, Dante, No.!"

This is why I don't trust you to handle fantasy very well. You cannot tell a fantasy about harm from the infliction of harm; and you believe that there is a relationship between the two characterized by "fullest expression."

In reality the fantasy is a fantasy. And what someone wants in RL might not remotely match your impoverished imagination.

( In reality the person being "harmed" in most such fantasies is claiming a power over the other. Luz's rape fantasy was hers. And my part in catering to it was very clear once we finally had our little chat. )

"Suppose I really want to have intercourse with a grown woman, who reciprocates those feelings. Suppose I the find out (but she doesn't) that this will make her very sick. I have no need to suddenly feel guilty about my desire for intercourse -- all I have to do is abstain from the activity."

Or maybe you're misinformed and treating her with contempt by refusing to talk to her about why you're "arbitrarily" refraining.

Perhaps she deserves to know why so that it can be addressed by her with info you don't have. You aren't Ghod, you know?

Perhaps if she's got this illness that intercourse with you will trigger, she deserves to know why so that she can avoid the next guy who might make her sick with this trigger.

There is no situation in which your decision to unilaterally abstain without telling her why is justified.

The only time you need not tell her why is when its because you know its entirely you. Maybe you have some rare pathogen she will never encounter otherwise. Maybe you're turned off by redheads. But under the circumstance where she doesn't need to know your reasons.... guess what?; she also doesn't need to know that you could f*ck her but you won't.

"The parallel is not perfect (it never is)"

Actually there are plenty of parallels which are perfect; because they're perfectly real.

We can learn stuff from RL, because ultimately our choices are expressed in RL.

So engaging in "what ifs" which indulge what we would like to see rather than what are seeing can be seductive, but dangerous. ( Did I just say that? )

If we can't learn about "harmful" fantasies from those who do "fully express"them, nor about communicating so as to avoid the "communicable," then we've learned nothing from reality and are just retreating to strained analogies to avoid engaging with reality.

I'm not sure I'd trust a girl to someone who would leave a woman rather than alert her to a potential agent of sickness.

Dante