I'm posting this on an alt because you banned me preemptively from your subreddit, before I was even aware it existed (literally, the first time I wandered over here to see what it was about, I noticed I was banned). Which is certainly ironic. You've probably been too busy to unban me like you claimed you were going to, and that's fine - but I'm not an especially patient lady, so here we are.

In any case, I'd like to make some points to combat the incredible misinformation you're spreading here.

In postmodern debate, whoever is offended first is decidedly the winner.

Who's "offended" in the linked thread? Frankly, I see you claiming to have been insulted first - so I suppose that's you?

More to the point, I'd like to stop to laugh about your use of "postmodernism", as the favorite bogeyman of the MRAs. I get it, it's a really easy strawman to beat the shit out of, but nothing in the thread you linked has any real relation to it. Here - do some reading for yourself; you'll see. Speaking personally, I fucking hate postmodernism, and I think anguilax feels the same - but hey, why argue against what someone is saying when you can argue against something else that's easier to bash, instead?

Cannot accept that personal opinion or belief has no bearing on reality:

http://i.imgur.com/3MNaiL0.png

You've missed the point entirely (which doesn't surprise me in the slighest, at this point) - or rather, more likely, you're avoiding the point, and reframing the argument. You keep saying things like "my opinions have no effect on reality", but what you're carefully ignoring is the fact that nobody was saying that in the first place. We weren't asking you about the state of affairs in the world as it exists, or about the historical basis of anything in particular. We were asking you what you believed, and how you felt, because that's what we were interested in knowing about.

I'm wondering if you had a lot of problems with opinion papers in school. Given this remark,

This is what comes out of our colleges, folks.

I wonder if that's why you (as you seem to imply) didn't "come out of our colleges". (Is that something to be proud of?)

Moving on...

At this point I was banned.

This makes it sound as though you were banned for that comment, and probably by me. That's entirely inaccurate. I won't post a screenshot of the modmail unless the other individuals involved okay it, but you know who banned you, and you know why:

You are boring and extremly evasive. This is a space for arguing in good faith.

 

They [your words] have the effect of making me wade through a bunch of nonsense not put forward in good faith.

 

Here at GameZero, we try to maintain a certain level of discussion. Having a discussion with someone who's blatantly dodging that discussion isn't what we want here. We want people who are conductive to discussion and respectful (within reason) to their opponents. This has nothing to do with the content of your posts, or you being "wrong". Its about what we want to foster here. Is that clear?

You were also banned for about an hour in total.

So, let's get to the meat of this. You've still completely refused to answer some simple questions about what you yourself believe. I told you I'd be more than happy to continue the conversation on your turf, so allow me to more or less repeat them - and add a few, for clarity's sake.

These are pretty simple and straightforward questions, which can largely be answered with a simple "yes" or "no", with (if you like) any amount of additional explanation expanding or clarifying your response. They aren't, as you've tried to claim in modmail, complex questions that require acceptance of an untrue proposition (or one you don't agree with) in order to answer them either way.

So, if you'd be so kind:

• Do you believe that, in a philosophical sense and irrespective of legality - ethically, say - marriage entails consent to sex?

• Do you believe that it should be considered acceptable for a man to force his wife to have sex with him if she doesn't want to?

• Do you think it's right, or just (if you'd rather), that that's legally considered rape?

• Do you think that what's currently considered "marital rape" shouldn't be a crime?

• If the law changed tomorrow, and "marital rape" wasn't a thing at all, and men were considered to be entitled to have sex with their wives whether they wanted it or not, and men couldn't be prosecuted for exercising that entitlement - if, in a nutshell, it was legally considered that marriage did entail consent to sex - would you be okay with that? Would you feel that that was an acceptable state of affairs, or would you have a problem with it? Would you consider that legislation just, or unjust?

(Added in edit:) If you do feel that husbands are (or should be considered to be, in your ideal world) entitled to sex from their wives, who have (or should be considered to have) a responsibility to provide it to them:

• Do you feel that it works the other way around, too? Do (or should) wives have the right to force themselves on their husbands against the latter's will, as much as the other way around?

• Where are the lines drawn as to what constitutes "sex"? Is a husband entitled to oral? Anal? Are there any mitigating circumstances or contexts?

Thanks in advance. Genuinely curious as to your views on this subject. <3

Edit: Forgot a bullet point I had wanted to include, then added another one as well. This was the previous, unedited version of the comment, to forestall accusations of funny business.