Right at the beginning: I'm not a native speakter and therefore my english is far from perfect. Please excuse my faults.
The truth lies within the eye of the observer!
Who is able to judge a sexual encounter without additional information. If you see a man and a woman copulating, this could be a john with a whore, romeo an julia, hillbilly and plaine jane, with more or less consent. Even the consent can change over time: high at the beginning, low at the end.
You know, the first apple is the most precious one.
Rape is a crime! And only a judge with a jury can assess wether an action between two individuals is rape!
But ... only on the basis of facts. There ist no spirit of justice coming down from heaven, from Godfather, to enlighten the ones, who have to judge. "Gesundes Volksempfinden" ist nothing helpful in a legal process. And if the facts are doubtful?
The solution to have facts are definite signs, that, in the case of sexual encounters, consensuality has been achieved. In business, you use treaties. The signatures below the text shows the consens.
It is not usual to sign treaties in sexual encounters, but ......
If you are married, you signed a treaty, to ensure the use of the sexual organs of each other. And so, in a marriage, rape is not possible. There can be violenc, and there can be pressure, but no rape. Exept, that one of the partners has informed the authorities, that no furter intimacy is allowed, which means, that the marriage is over. If I tell my boss, that I'm unwilling to work for him any more, my employment is over.
If the sexual partners are not married, but practice sex regularely, no rape ist possible. Like in business: If a merchand regularely buys goods from a provider and recieves a delivery without an order, an if the merchand do not protest within definded period, the delivery is legal seen as ordered. If you fuck your longtime partner dispite he or she is not in the mood, without violence greater than usal in the usual sexual encounters, no damage is done and therefore, no punishment is justified.
The problems arise in random sexual encounters. What signs are warrented to indicate consent.
If a woman enters the private rooms of a man, whose sexual interests are obvious, this should be seen, as clear and lucid sign of consent, if there are no indices of violence.
Feelings cannot be the basis of convictions. Nobody can know, what happens in the head of a person.
"I did it, becaus I was in fear!" Then why did you go to his apartment?
"But before, I fealt no fear!" Why didn'd you leave in time?
I don't believe that there is something like a Rape Culture in western countries. But I believe, that there are a lot of sluts outside, who drink too much and regret there own decisions. Whe have a Slut Culture, a Spoiled Princess Culture, a Woman are always Victims Culture and a Psychopathic Feminists Culture.
If you have too much cock inside you while drunk, you'r not a victim, you'r a slut. Welcome to the club.
What Roosh wanted was, to ensure legal certainty!
A little example out of history: In both world wars, american soldiers came in close touch with british women, and wondered, why these where so reluctand to kissing. And on the other side, they wondered, that if a british woman was willing to kiss, she was even willing to fuck.
For a british woman, to be ready to kiss a man, was the sign of love, of intimate love.