Thoughts on "The Flea"

This is not a rumination, but rather a call for interpretations and thoughts. :)
There's something bothering me about the typical interpretation of "The Flea." I'm here to offer a different perspective. So we've covered the erotic and sex-implications of the flea, the "mingling" of two bloods, and various other images. Because of this, we are prone to say immediately that the two lovers did, in fact, commit the act. I would beg to differ.

"Mark but this flea, and mark in this,
How little that which though deniest me is;
Me it sucked first, and now sucks thee,
And in this flea our two bloods mingled be;
Thou know'st that this cannot be said
A sin, or shame, or loss of maidenhead,
    Yet this enjoys before it woo,
    And pampered swells with one blood made of two,
    And this, alas, is more than we would do."

Line two has the key word "deniest." This implies that the lover is denying the narrator something - but what? Something as trivial as what this flea has just done - bitten "me," then, "you." He is trying to convince his lover to have sex with him, that it's not as grave as she perhaps thinks. He also implies that the act would end with "one blood made of two," that the act is to create another being, but "this, alas, is more than we would do."

"Oh say, three lives in one flea spare,
Where we almost, nay more than married are.
This flea is you and I, and this
Our marriage bed and marriage temple is;
Though parents grudge, and you, we are met,
And cloistered in these living walls of jet.
    Though use make you apt to kill me,
    Let not to that, self-murder added be,
    And sacrilege, three sins in killing three."

-- But here, in this flea, our blood is already mingled! See, it is nothing more than this. In this flea, we are more than married! -- so it would not be such a big deal to have sex. "though use make you apt to kill me." this phrase implies that he is used to being denied, and the fact that she is denying him is killing him.

"Cruel and sudden, hast thou since
Purpled thy nail in blood of innocence?
Wherein could this flea guilty be,
Except in that drop which it sucked from thee?
Yet thou triumph'st, and say'st that thou
Find'st not thy self nor me in the weaker now;
    'Tis true; then learn how false fears be:
    Just so much honor, when thou yield'st to me,
    Will waste, as this flea's death took life from thee."

This stanza implies that she continues to deny him - metaphorically killing the flea, cruel and sudden. But how could the flea be guilty, if it only sucked one drop (purpled thy nail in the blood of innocence)? Therefore, she has killed an innocent thing. But she triumphs over this, in denying him - It seems to him that she believes she has become stronger, gained honor, in denying him. That, or that even if they do not have sex, neither of them are weaker because of it. But his final logic is this: Just so much honor, when thou yield'st to me, will waste, as this flea's death took life from thee." Essentially saying that she would not lose any honor in yielding to him.
.
.
.
.
.
(Of course, I could take all this back and say that they have committed the act, and he's trying to tell her that it's not a big deal that she's lost her innocence, and that she is no less honorable, that neither of them are weaker because of the act, and that in the end, it is nothing more than the bite of a flea in which their two bloods have mingled.)

What are your thoughts?