From:I raped my girlfriend. I did not threaten her with a weapon of any kind, I did not physically force myself on her, and she verbally gave consent, but it was still rape because she did not want to have sex—I just did not know it at the time.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/1 ... dvice.html
It sounds like their mutual crime is fornication. They aren't married. I am a little alarmed at the growing definition of 'rape', especially with fornicator definitions creeping into marital relationships.
A few decades ago, if a husband and wife had sex, legally it couldn't be rape. Back in the 1970s and in the years that followed, legal systems created the category of 'marital rape.' I suppose most of us guys don't think a man should hold his wife down screaming 'no'.... unless she's into that sort of thing. But now it is rape, and what if a woman just accuses a man after a nasty divorce? There are people saying, 'Believe the victim.' How about innocent until proven guilty?
A few decades back in some states, fornication was technically illegal, unenforced, though the courts could still do so.
I overheard someone on a university campus training student volunteers or workers on 'consent.' She described scenarios where someone is saying, "Is it okay if I put my hand here? How do you like this?" to get consent for every step. I understand if trying to create some non-rape steps for fornicators is the goal, but it is unnatural to try to put that stuff on married couples. If she gets out of the shower and lays on the bed naked, or he takes her clothes of and they are just grabbing each other wherever they want and she touches him wherever she wants, and they just do what they normally do to each other, there can be zero 'verbal' consent, but it isn't rape in the slightest. She might say, 'stick it in me now' or whatever, but if she says nothing, and they just have sex, that' isn't rape.
If a man comes up to a random girl on the street or a drunk girl he took to a party and starts touching her all over, takes her clothes off, etc., that's a different story.
And sometimes if a woman doesn't really want to have sex, would rather do something else, etc., and has sex with him because he wants it, or because he asked... now that is supposed to be rape? What idiocy? In fact, it's reasonable if a wife (or husband) isn't performing sexually for the other partner to confront the one who is slack about not meeting one's sexual needs. If he/she puts out after that, that's fine. It's not rape. If you rightly marry someone (not talking about another man's wife or gay stuff), you take upon yourself the obligation to take care of your spouse's sexual needs. That might mean having sex when you might otherwise have slept or done the laundry if it were up to you. It isn't rape if your partner prioritizes your desires over some other preferred activity, 'takes one for the team', isn't all that interested but does it anyway and has a great time, engages in 'duty sex,' etc. (Duty sex sounds pretty depressing, but it isn't rape.)
I wonder if the article is clever satire of idiotic feminist rhetoric, but it's too detailed, so I suspect it is some man who has allowed himself to be brainwashed by some idiotic philosophy, possibly manipulation from a girlfriend.