Can you tell me what the speaker undercuts in Ben Jonson's poem "Come my Celia, let us prove"?

Three things are being
undercut in this href="http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=173732">poem by
Ben Jonson. The first is the lady's right to independent decision. The second is joined
in the importance of a good name and the harm of rumor. The third is the nature of a
crime. To undercut means to undermine; to diminish in
importance; to destroy something's effectiveness; to destroy someone's range of
authority or governance. These variations of the definition of "undercut" apply to the
lady's right to independently choose and thus independently govern her actions; to the
value of moral behavior and the harm of rumor; and to the definition of what constituted
a crime in the England of Elizabeth I and of James I.

The
lady Celia has evidently rejected the speaker's request for unwed love, "Come my Celia,
let us prove, / While we may, the sports of love," and he is responding by attempting to
coerce her into agreeing. One of the main arguments behind his disrespectful  behavior
is that time is not on their side because their good "gifts" of youth "Time will ...
sever." He attempts to persuade with an indirect metaphor between youth and the setting
sun: a setting sun "may rise again," however when youth sets, fades away, it results in
"perpetual night": youth once lost is lost forever.

Another
argument is that "fame and rumor" are not as important as they are made out to be. In
other words, if Celia loses her moral reputation and good name and if gossips spread
(true) rumors about her moral behavior, it really doesn't matter because a good and
trustworthy name and a few disparaging rumors are both insignificant "toys" and to be
equally disregarded.

These arguments undercut Celia's right
to decide without pressure, persuasion, and coercion. The second argument also undercuts
the truth of the importance of moral behavior and the harm of rumor, especially if it is
based upon truth--which if the speaker has his way, it will
be.

His third argument is that they should easily be able
to steal away from the prying eyes and overhearing ears of servants and family by their
"wile" (clever strategy) and find a remote place to themselves. His fourth argument
undercuts the nature of crime in the religious Renaissance period in which they live. He
says that stealing love [outside of marriage] is no sin, but that to reveal that love
has been stolen, that is the crime:

readability="8">

'Tis no sin love's fruit to steal;
But
the sweet theft to reveal.
To be taken, to be seen,
These have
crimes accounted been

These
arguments undercut Celia's rationality, her right to self-governance, and the nature of
society (i.e., right reputation is wrong and rumor is an unimportant toy). It also
undercuts the idea of what constitutes crime: in their era, immorality was sin and could
be a crime, but the speaker says the reverse.