And I agree with you, I made that clear there and in plenty other posts here. If you don't want to have sex with your boyfriend and he forces himself that is the very definition of rape. We AGREE.

However I don't agree when you say that my logic or what you call my "mentality" can and WILL lead to marital rape.

I say: If I don't want to have sex with someone or suspect there is a chance he/she could force himself at some point in the future, I am NOT marrying that person. So NOT marrying is what my "mentality" leads to. Now tell me how a spouse can rape me if through my mentality I choose to not marry him/her? If he rapes me it's not a marital rape since we are not married THANKS to my "mentality" having made me choose not marry him/her.

No.

You are not signing a contract which accepts your spouse raping you when you get married.

That is incredibly fucked up.

Under no stretch of the imagination, does marrying someone mean that you have been warned that you might get raped, or that you should accept or live with such "flaws" in your significant other.

There is no reasonable interpretation of marriage under which the threat of rape or abuse is implied.

To make the statement that you have been warned about your spouse being a rapist when you say your vows, is to tell women who have been victims of abuse that they have signed up for this and they will be the one in the wrong should they try to flee from this abusive situation.

Further, I agree with BradleyJ. The mindset of "she married me so she should be willing to fuck whenever I am" can and does lead to marital rape, but you have also been pushing a mindset which makes it more difficult for people to leave abusive relationships, makes it more difficult for individuals to get past their abuse and makes them feel like they are the ones to blame for the abuse.

If people see me as traditional then so be it. I don't recognize with any party or consider myself conservative...although I may appear that way. With that said...speaking subjectively...I'm not in favor of any form of parenting that defects from mother and father relationship. I wouldn't even be as supportive if say the mother had to raise the child without the father due to tragic events (ie father lost in war) or vice versa...and the child is left with any other type of legal parent. However, I'm not exactly against it. 

Because I don't know what benefits or set backs can arise from those situations. I grew up in a house with a step father who was of latin decent. Me being caucasian..it was difficult at times. Culturally speaking and how it was viewed in society. 

My step father was also abusive to both me and my mother. That didn't help. But I'm sure there are plenty of same sex marriages that have raised children just as well... if not better than...some opposite sex parents... given all factors in consideration. 

maybe just not as many people are getting married, or getting married later.

"You are not signing a contract which accepts your spouse raping you when you get married."

sure but considering that we live in a rape culture there's that ever-present risk

"There is no reasonable interpretation of marriage under which the threat of rape or abuse is implied."

depends on whether a man is involved or not when you consider certain statistics

well its been a curious fact that serial killers like ted bundy and richard ramirez recieved dozens of marriage proposals in jail

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10665003/Murderous-love-Why-are-so-many-women-aroused-by-serial-killers.html

but regardless rape is defined explicitly as non-consensual penetration which means against the will of the victim

so even if you take into consideration the victim accepting the character flaws of their partner there's still the question of their consent for particular interactions occurring within the relationship regardless of whether its as extreme a situation as marrying a serial killer

"Yeah, because that's the only way these things can happen. "

actually it is... if you think for a while about what actually causes inequality between people it should be apparent why this is the solution those tribes came up with

"No one is trying to shame men out of masculinity. "

wrong, the term toxic masculinity despite all of the semantic games being played around it is being used as a catch all term for masculine traits that can be problematic when taken too far such as competition, strength, bravery etc etc etc

the problem is simpletons stupidly try to reduce the complexity of people down to neat little boxes that are considered either "good" or "bad/toxic" and then think that we can just toss away the bad boxes without understanding the linkages between different aspects of what makes us tick

I don't mean to say that you are literally "warned" that you can get raped, I'm saying that you are warned about joining a human being that can carry any flaw carried by human beings and that is a FACT.

Also you are again misinterpreting my words: Where did I say that you sign a contract ACCEPTING that your spouse can rape you? Where on earth did I say that? Of course that this would be 'incredibly fucked up", and also incredibly dumb. Who would sign a paper that literally says that you accept being raped? But what is ALSO fucked up is that you are trying to imply that I said that. Why? It's one thing to disagree with me, but it's another to make me say things I did not say.

As for the threat of abuse or rape being implied in marriage, I never said it was implied either. No one marries assuming they can be abused, obviously. I'm ONLY saying people should be careful and consider the worst. Do I know that guy well enough to marry him? But people don't ask that question to themselves nowhere near enough before marriage and THAT is what I mean by them not taking responsibility of their choices to marry.

As for the mindset I have been pushing, you got me so wrong and are so further away from what I have been pushing that it hurts my back. The mindset I have been pushing is one where a woman WISE UP and is SMARTER and more CAUTIOUS and does not too easily TRUST a man and as a consequence will not so easily marry that man because she takes responsibility for her choice of marriage, therefore such a woman is ACTUALLY going to statistically avoid situations where she could fall victim to an abuser.

YOU on the other hand with this mindset of no responsibility for her choice, nothing she can do, just marry and see what happens, if it's a good guy, good if it's a bad guy, too bad... THAT mindset is the worst in my opinion, it's a mindset of ignorance, it's the SAME mindset where women are not educated to STD's  and how they can be protected by using condoms from unwanted pregnancy or STD's or no one teaches them to be careful and smart and ask for a prenup contract to protect their assets before marrying some guy who could totally rob them blind etc. Because if you teach her to wise up and take RESPONSIBILITY for her choices, she'll be MORE in CONTROL of her life. So in my opinion not wanting a woman to take responsibility for her choices and therefore be more in control of her life is incredibly fucked up.

"It's not your choice, honey, it's not your responsibility, so no need to learn about life, choices, STD's, rape, robbers of assets inside marriage etc. No need to learn that my little girl cause you have NO RESPONSIBILITY in the choices that will be taken in your life...."

(THIS IS INCREDIBLY FUCKED UP and THIS is what I'm fighting in this debate) This is what I have been saying throughout this debate and yet some people not only ignored this but also went as far as saying that I am implying that women are guilty of men raping them within marriage which is as opposite as day and night to what I am saying.

You say that it's a non sequitur right here:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8771892

And again, you're talking about her having to take responsibility, once again trying to focus on what she should have done instead of just saying that the husband shouldn't have raped her.

I have clearly explained to you time and again that my original post was an observation on the oddness of rape within marriage, just an observation. yes I said it strikes me as odd that one would marry a person only to tell that person one does not wish to have sex later on.

it's an OBSERVATION and nothing more and as such it is indeed a non sequitur.

But from there, people began saying that I condone rape within marriage, therefore I had to ADAPT to that SHIFT and explain my position on rape inside marriage which one could say is another issue from the original one.

If you start a post saying, how the weather is weird and all and some people start attacking and accusing you of, I don't know, trying to control the weather to destroy mankind or something, you will NATURALLY SHIFT your posts from "wow this weather we have is weird" to "I am not saying we should control the weather to destroy mankind"

Then a guy like you shows up and tries to hold against me that my original post was about how weird the weather is compared to my current posts about me not trying to control the weather to destroy mankind.

In other words I don't mind discussing my original point but, and I don't know if you noticed but I'm STILL BUSY explaining and defending my argument in this SHIFT that I did not cause. So what do you want? Discuss my original point? Discuss the shift? or perhaps you are trying to imply that the shift means what? that I have no point? that I'm a bad person?

I don't mind you asking me why my original point was what it was compared to what is currently discussed, but when I ALREADY answered that question both publicly and privately and you come up with this issue again, forgive me but I can't help but wonder about your motives. Are we in a mindset of debate or back in that mindset of two days ago of my being attacked and my words being misconstrued to make me say what I very clearly did not say?

EDIT: ASLO when time and again I very clearly say that rape inside marriage is a crime and the culprit is the rapist, I pretty much answer your last line... AGAIN.