Sex with someone too young is "statutory rape" even if both parties consent. Despite this, female chauvinism so esteems female sexuality above male sexuality that most consider boys who are induced to have sex with adult women "lucky" rather than the victims of rape they really are: "The term statutory rape refers to the legal proscription, existing in most countries, against a man's taking sexual advantage of a child, a mental defective, or other person presumed to lack comprehension of the physical and other consequences of sexual intercourse." (Britannica Micropaedia, Vol 9, p 941, 1986)

Despite that this definition is biased against men, it highlights how consensual sex can be rape. But pop-feminists have gone beyond this to define two new cases where they consider consensual sex rape: economic need, and reluctant consent.

During World War II, fewer American GI's engaged in rape (non-consensual sex) than the Nazis, Communists, Japanese and Moroccans. But Brownmiller rejects this, asserting American GI's are guilty of rape by virtue of the European prostitutes' economic need:

Free enterprise, the murky line that divides wartime rape from wartime prostitution, cannot be cleanly delineated. ... The lure of the dollar to starving women in war-torn liberated countries was coercion enough. -- Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, Susan Brownmiller, p 75

This arrogance presumes two things: first, that the American GI's were responsible for their "victim's" destitution, and second, that they were morally obligated to help their "victim's."

Obviously, American GI's were not responsible for the destitution of the "war-torn liberated countries." To assert otherwise is naive at best. But, shouldn't we expect generosity of Americans? Yes. But need, as Ayn Rand pointed out, is not a license to steal.

The European prostitutes and American GI's exchanged value for value: money or food, and sex. The GI's felt a deep need for sexual closeness, the warmth of a woman; the prostitutes, for food and money. Their trade was to mutual benefit. If this was rape, then it was mutual, with the GI's guilty of economic coercion, and the prostitutes guilty of sexual coercion.

Naturally, pop-feminists will reject this because, in their world, only men are ever too blame.

The idea reluctant consent makes sex rape also assumes this.

Only men are responsible, not women. That is, what a woman felt or thought counts for everything, what she did counts for little or nothing. Many women believe they are victims by definition. (Women on Rape, Jane Dowdeswell, p 17) This, they use to excuse themselves from responsibility. (In a Different Voice, Carol Gilligan, p 67) Thus, a woman who reluctantly consents to have sex is a victim of rape, while a man who does the same is guilty of exercising poor judgment.

Similarly, they believe that women who impair their judgment with alcohol are victims. If they drink and then engage in a coupling they later regret, they can cry rape. May men do the same? Get drunk, get laid, feel regret and cry rape? While few would take men's allegations of rape seriously, there is no reason to doubt many men have, in this sense, been raped.

Years ago, when I was in college, my buddies used to speak of a secret fear. The fear that they would go to a bar one Friday night, get drunk, and then wake up the next morning in the arms of some female-equivalent of a "dirty old man." This is popularly referred to as "coyote ugly." I had friends this happened to, and they felt violated. Like these women had taken advantage of them. This clearly demonstrates men may, while suffering from impaired judgment, engage in sexual intercourse they later regret. If such makes women victims of rape, then only prejudice would prevent us from recognizing that men may, with equal legitimacy, claim the same.