I must admit that this "affirmative consent" actually does somewhat scare me. Not because I am a misogynist who is searching for an excuse why it was not rapist, but because I see it is as absurdly easy to abuse, and because I think to call every sexual act where the consent is even slightly ambiguous devalues the horror of someone brutally forcing you into sex.
I am a prudish virgin with Asperger, my sexuality is even more alien to me than my emotions, and I will never truly understand it. However, I think this might give me a bit of insight that often seems to be missing from comments here: Human sexuality cannot be treated simplistically. Of course, I do not want to excuse rapists or technically-not-rapists, but I also see the risk for genuine misunderstandings to go punished. I would never want to hurt anyone, especially not a woman I love, but I do not know whether I would always be able to keep my hands to myself, or that I would be able to get the cues that she is too vulnerable to think clearly, et cetera. I think that one should always try to resolve within the relationship at first, and only to involve the authorities if he/she shows no will to improve, or if there was obvious malevolent intent. To me, it comes across (which is very important to keep in mind) as an attempt to enforce prudishness again, this time from the other side.
In addition, I think investigations for sexual misconduct should be handled with utmost discretion, as it is one of the most sensitive crimes in our society. Even if innocent, the reputation of the accused will be destroyed forever.
When it comes to "rape culture", in as far as it exists, females raped by men are actually the most fortunate (so to speak) group. Yes, these idiots exists, but the far overwhelming reaction is the very opposite - paternalistic, maybe, but positive. However, Americans (and not just the far right, even those on these boards) consider male-on-male rape a form of justice (apart from the obvious issues, it also means satisfication for the most nasty criminals), and in many parts of the world, a man who admits to being raped would be looked down to as a wimp, if not executed as a sodomite.
I am in no way sympathetic to neo-misogynists - I am a true egalitarian, and the idea of any discrimination is absurd and abhorrend to me. But there are legitimate issues with modern-day feminism, issues that allowed the Neo-Misogynists to emerge by hijacking these concerns for their own agendas, but true nonetheless.
Finally, I want to leave those bitter and controversial (to say the least) thoughts, at least until I return to see my arguments demolished (and I would indeed be happy to be shown wrong), and turn towards the quote:
"I had to explain to him that men are victims of violence far more often than women are, and that if women want equality we should be beating them more to make up for the inequality."
Now assuming that there is indeed more female-on-male domesric abuse than male-to-female, this is actually an archievement of feminism, since it means that, beyond the abolishment of legislation that allowed a man to inflict corporal punishment unto his wife, the attitudes of men towards women, at least in this regard, have changed for the better. The solution here would not be more domestic violence (obvious, but humans are notoriously stupid in this regard), but to stop treating domestic violence as a gender-related issue - reduce it in general, against men AND women.
