Thank you Cardinal Fang. She had the great blessing of passing with her children by her side and knowing that they were well, settled and successful.
I’m pondering how some of these issues might affect somebody who is comatose but is also an Ultra-Orthodox Jew.
I respectfully disagree and so do grammar experts. Canadians do not like hockey. Most Canadians do; or, many; or, more Canadians than Americans; or, Canadians like hockey compared to Mexicans, etc.
If your version of English were correct then I could say “women are prostitutes” or “women are dumber than men”.
I would not give a blanket “yes” to the first phrase. I think that the default position should be that the sexual life of a couple is decided amongst themselves, and that even an impaired person can still participate in and benefit from intimacy, so that their accustomed private understandings should not be interfered with by anyone, much less the government, UNLESS there is real evidence of physical or emotional distress on the part of the impaired person. To me, it would be the province of the family and/or the impaired person’s doctor to discuss this with the spouse–and both spouses, if possible–if this situation arose, but this intervention should not be undertaken lightly.
Does what I describe sound like the Rayhons situation? Yes, with one huge exception: there seems no have been absolutely ZERO evidence that whatever sex life the couple had in any way, shape, or form distressed the impaired partner, and in fact quite the reverse. The unfortunately successful efforts of outsiders–meaning those outside the marital relationship–to invade their privacy and set limits on their liberty by keeping them apart clearly distressed the impaired person. (The fact that this was done without the involvement of either spouse and using obviously debatable diagnostic tools and standards only exacerbated the situation.)
This was, IMHO, an intervention that never should have happened.
On a related point specific to the Rayhons, I continue to be curious as to how one of the daughters was able to obtain POA for her mother several weeks before she died. It may be that they had a springing POA set up before she remarried, and never changed it.
Baloney. I AM a grammar expert. At my first job, I worked with Stanford linguists to produce a parser for English.
“ like ” does not mean that every single person in the set likes the thing. If we say “people with dementia still appreciate loving touches” that doesn’t mean that every single person with dementia appreciates loving touches; there will be some people with dementia who feel pain from touches, however loving. You’re insisting on some grammar rule that doesn’t exist.
I give you [url=https://books.google.com/books?id=of5LAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=%22canadians+love+hockey%22±why&source=bl&ots=xZz72-D2NF&sig=ObTYvpWp4coS4MOlXusXzTn3YGk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cEM5VcGMFMa3ogS5ooGgBw&ved=0CEkQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22canadians%20love%20hockey%22%20-why&f=false]this[/url], an excerpt from The Semantic Representation of Natural Language, which as it happens uses the very example of “Canadians love hockey,” and explains that it doesn’t mean that every Canadian loves hockey.
Canadians love hockey.
Small world!!! I’m the guy (editor) that Stanford hired to fix the grammatical errors in the parsers that it produced :-)-
I’ll answer this later, but I truly AM a grammar expert as well and have worked as an editor. I’ve also checked with other English majors and professors, and so far they all agree with me. I will try to find written proof later. The short answer is that you are basing your opinion on common usage and informal English, not formal English.
I use common and informal English for this message board, and so, as far as I can tell, do other writers including you. I’m pretty sure that no emoticons appear in formal English, yet there one is in your first paragraph.
^^^You are correct, I do. I also have no problem with informal English. I am just saying that when someone is introducing a subject that is potentially contentious that they need to be a bit more careful with how they phrase things.
Imagine the blow-back I would get if I said “women like being used as sex objects”. Using your thinking, my phrase is fine because there are women who think that way (albeit a small percentage).
You appear not to understand my thinking. My thinking is that “X like Y” in informal speech is true if members of X generally like Y. I’m perfectly fine with “Canadians like hockey” because in general, Canadians do like hockey. But I won’t say “Canadians like torturing kittens” and justify my statement by saying that there exist some Canadians who like to torture kittens.
Nor should you justify your statement of “women like being used as sex objects” by a weaseling resort to “Oh well, most women don’t like being used as sex objects but there are a few women who do and that’s what I meant.” That’s not the interpretation of your initial statement in formal English or informal English or any English register at all.
I understand your thinking and I actually agree with you. I too sometimes forget the modifier if generally a group fits into what I am saying. Your original argument, however, didn’t say that. More importantly…men generally don’t like having sex with someone that doesn’t want to have sex". You used an example with such a small percentage that it is the equivalent of my statement that you said would not be ok.
@Cardinal Fang Also, we were talking about what would happen if men were allowed to have sex with their spouse who was in a coma. You then said that men want to have sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with them. Therefore, one could reasonably conclude that you meant that “men want to have sex with a spouse who is in a coma”.
And, since you leave out the modifier when “generally” you think there is group-think, you must think “most men want to have sex with their spouse who is in a coma”.
I hope you don’t think that, but even if you insert the word generally in your original sentence it is extremely confrontational and demeaning.
Ok, I’ll retract that men generally like to have sex with women who don’t want to have sex with them, and modify to “A substantial minority if not a majority of men will have sex with a woman who doesn’t want to have sex with them if they can get away with it.” We know this because a few men rape, many men pay for prostitutes, and in a world where husbands could have sex with their wives when the wives didn’t want sex, a substantial minority if not a majority of men did have sex with their unwilling wives.
This chart says that 15-20% of American men have paid for sex at least once. Men having sex with women who don’t want to have sex with them is not rare.
http://prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004119
That is much better 
although I still disagree with the generalization that a prostitute does not want to have sex with her client. There are certainly some who only do it because they are forced to by a pimp. Most do it because the pros (money) outweigh the cons.
I don’t want to undergo painful medical procedures but, after weighing the benefits vs the cons, I agree to them. By agreeing to them it means I want to have them. Wanting something doesn’t mean liking it. I want the procedure even though I don’t like it.
I’ve also already discussed how husbands today generally are different than husbands from past generations.
Therefore, my thinking is that very few men want to have sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with them.
@hunt <<<
Imagine this scenario: wife says that A always wanted to be sure to receive extreme unction, including being anointed with oil, if he was dying. But daughter says that now that A is demented, he gets very upset when an unfamiliar person enters the room, so she doesn’t want the priest to enter. Who prevails? After all, A will not be able to tell if he’s getting extreme unction, or even who the priest is.
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
lol…the Catholic Church hasn’t called the Anointing of the Sick, “Extreme Unction,” for decades. It’s not even called Last Rites anymore either.
When I was a Catholic, it was called Extreme Unction. My mom, who is still a Catholic, probably still calls it Extreme Unction. In any case, if I’m there when she is dying, she’s getting it, even if it’s now called Anointing of the Sick and even though I don’t believe it has any effect.
<<<
my thinking is that very few men want to have sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with them.
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
I agree. And I would add that even far fewer men, who are devoted loving husbands, with no history of abuse, want to have sex with a wife who doesn’t want to have sex with them.
“A substantial minority if not a majority of men will have sex with a woman who doesn’t want to have sex with them if they can get away with it.”
I find this statement appalling and not true. None of the men I know in my life desire to rape women or to have sex in any context other than (enthusiastic) mutual consent. The fact that you believe this, though, explains volumes about your posts and outlook in general.
BTW, I’m willing to bet that the rape examination of Mrs. Rayhons was probably far worse for her, both physically and (if she was capable of this) emotionally, than her husband’s advances. Since you’re so concerned with consent, would you as the person charged with performing a rape examination have stopped entirely and not proceeded unless you had prior written consent from Mrs. Rayhons that if she was in a state of dementia and it was believed she was raped, that a rape test should be performed?
We know a substantial percentage of men would have sex with a woman who didn’t want to have sex with them, if they could get away with it. We know this because (1) they will say so if we ask them and (2) when given the opportunity, a substantial number will do it. The fact that you deny this, Pizzagirl, while charming and optimistic, speaks volumes about your posts.
[QUOTE=""]
BTW, I'm willing to bet that the rape examination of Mrs. Rayhons was probably far worse for her, both physically and (if she was capable of this) emotionally, than her husband's advances.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent point! She probably was scared and confused by this intrusion.
<<<
We know a substantial percentage of men would have sex with a woman who didn’t want to have sex with them, if they could get away with it. We know this because (1) they will say so if we ask them and (2) when given the opportunity, a substantial number will do it. The fact that you deny this, Pizzagirl, while charming and optimistic, speaks volumes about your posts.
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
PG is not some kind of Pollyanna nitwit who lives in some cloistered bubble.
@cardinalfang You actually “know this” because men “say so” when you ask them? If so, you need a better social circle.