Feminists and pop-feminists alike object to the idea that the law might not recognize rape within the context of marriage:

Consent is better arrived at by husband and wife afresh each time, for if women are to be what we believe we are -- equal partners -- then intercourse must be construed as an act of autual desire and not as a wifely "duty," enforced by the permissible threat of bodily harm or of economic sanctions. Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, Susan Brownmiller, p 428

Up to a point, this is reasonable. Marriage should be a relationship between equal partners, and neither husbands nor wives should be legally able to force intercourse on the other. But if men are to be what we believe we are -- equal partners -- then providing financial support must be construed as an act of mutual love and not a husbandly "duty" that can be enforced by the permissible threat of bodily harm or legal sanctions.

An entirely consensual relationship
From mating to money, marriage is or ought to be an entirely consensual relationship. To the extent pop-feminists disagree, they reveal their implicit assumption that marriage is nothing more than prostitution legitimized:

The harsh fact of the matter is that the institution of marriage which we are now trying to reform so unsuccessfully is based, not on love, sentiment or compatibility, but on economic necessity. ... The idea of two people being tied togetther, not by love but by economic necessity, is abhorrent to us. It smacks of prostitution. -- The Case for Women in Revolt: Patriarchal Attitudes (Patriarchal Attitudes: Women in Society [Paperback]), Eva Figes, paperback edition, pp 176-177, Fawcett World Library, 1971.

Date Rape
"Date rape" involves intercourse in which a man may often be responding to a woman's sex appeal. But according to Brownmiller, "sexual appeal, as we understand it, has little to do with the act of rape." (Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, Susan Brownmiller, pp 131 - 132)

Or does it, sometimes? Could lust compel a man to ravish a woman? Could he be driven "mad with desire"? Women can:

"The essence of male chauvinism as it is mixed with sexual desire is that first the man makes you mad with desire for him, sexually and physically, emotionally, by stroking you verbally and physically, telling you you are beautiful, wonderful, interesting, etc." -- Women and Love: A Cultural Revolution in Progress [Paperback], St. Martin's Press mass market edition, 1989, Shere Hite, p 260

If men can drive women "mad with desire," then how can pop-feminists deny the effect a "hair spray queen" can have on a man?

Commenting on the affects of androgen injections to treat menopause, Germaine Greer recently said, "You begin to understand rape; I had incredible genital tension." Thus, as men have always known, rape can be a "crime of passion." All assertions to the contrary change nothing.

Recognizing that rape can be a crime of passion does not change the rape. It is a crime, there is a victim, and there is a perpetrator. But there are degrees of difference in crimes that the law traditionally, and correctly, recognizes.

A "crime of passion" is not in the same class as a crime committed with malicious aforethought. Nor should they be treated the same. Where pop-feminists go wrong is in asserting that there is no difference, and that a crime of passion should draw the same sentence and social ostracization as a crime of violence. Unfortunately, by this they may be encouraging more violence.