Or perhaps she is fine with vocabulary and you are not aware that words have both connotation and denotation.
I consider this part abuse, yes.
But without that, you’d consider to be ethical behavior on the part of Jordan?
Not particularly, but unethical behavior does not equal abuse.
Legally, they sure don’t. And by claiming abuse and assault, she has definitely eased into legal territory.
No she hasn’t. You don’t ease into legal territory, you go into legal territory when you begin to file legal paperwork. A legal complain will be written in a much more specific legalese than what is being used here. Just because I use the word stole (my daughter stole this red lipstick I bought, she steals my shoes all the time - we wear the same size) does not mean I’ve entered into legal territory.
(In addition to my other talents, I’ve done a lot of legal work, though I’m not an attorney - corporate contracts, legal secretarial back in the dark ages).
You don’t think she’s entering legal territory by using terms like assault and abuse with specific legal meanings? We’ve already demonstrated here that without specific definitions words become quite pejorative depending on the user. Assault and abuse have much more specific denitations. If she wasn’t second-guessing her own meaning, why do you think she changed the word to violated?
No, I don’t think she’s entering legal territory simply by using terms that also have a legal meaning. Any more than you’ve entered into legal territory using the word “pejorative” in the above sentence.
And I think she’s used all the words when she wants to describe different things.
So then why did she change her mind? And then change it back? Seems a bit indecisive to me.
Because all those terms have similar but different connotations. She could be angry and upset and irate - and use all those words to encompass her feelings. She may decide that irate is a better word to describe her state of mind than angry.
Using words does not suddenly make it a legal issue. Its insane to think it does.
To me, knowingly exploiting someone is abusive. If you know your lover is unable to advocate for themselves and you leverage that to keep yourself happy at the price of their emotional pain–that’s abusive. How is it not? It may not be criminal, but that’s never been the standard here.
I mean, serious, a dude tells you at a party " My wife hates sex. Cries the whole time. But she thinks it’s her duty and I’ll leave her if I don’t get some, so she lets me basically whenever I want". You just think he’s an asshole? You don’t think he’s abusing her?
A guy tells me at a party “My wife keeps having affairs. She knows that it hurts me, but does it anyway”
Is that guy being abused?
yep
Fair enough. I guess every person whose spouse cheated on them was being abused.
So, these two scenarios significantly different. And yet, you took an affirmative answer to the first as an affirmative answer to the second.
Why is that?
Because a person that cheats on their spouse knows it will hurt their spouse and they do it anyway. I don’t see the scenarios as being different at all, in each one a person was cheating on their spouse. Unless you are postulating that it’s only abuse after a certain number of times of cheating?
I’d suggest just the opposite. When you use a term with a loaded legal meaning, like “sexual assault,” you can’t just claim it means whatever you want it to mean. And she must have been at least somewhat aware of this when she temporarily retraced her steps and changed it to “violate” in her blog essay. Yer darn right it has legal implications; it’s insane to think it does not.
Yes, especially if you add “because she knows I can’t leave”. A relationship isn’t haggling for a used car. You aren’t supposed to use your advantages to keep yourself happy at the expense of your partner. If you do so knowingly over and extended period of time for no reason except increasing your pleasure . . .that’s abuse.
What do you consider the necessary element for a relationship to be abusive?
Physically or verbally abusing your spouse/significant other.
It occurred to me last night that when you say legal issue, you might be saying that she is increasing her liability. That I will agree with. But its very hard to win a slander or libel case in the United States - our free speech laws tend to favor letting parties tell their side of the story - and if its a he said she said thing, he’d have very little chance of winning. The court recognizes that words outside the legal system are often much broader than they are within the legal system - that we use exaggeration and hyperbole to make points (and to be clear, she is currently OUTSIDE the legal system - no one has brought charges or a civil suit). And when you bring such a suit, you start opening yourself up to legal discovery and stating things under oath…which means her attorneys are likely to depose every old girlfriend they can find, every women you’ve hit on at a convention - you put your own character on trial. For most people, that is likely to make it worse (I wouldn’t want lawyers to talk to my freshman year boyfriend about my immature behavior at 18 and have that enter public record - nor do I need my mother to know about my sex life between the ages of 18 and 22). So while she increases her risk, I don’t think she increases her risk significantly since, IMHO, he’d have to be an idiot to sue her for libel or slander and turn her into a #MeToo rally where she is well funded for legal fees and discovery which will find every skeleton in his closet.