Rape has always hinged on whether the other party consented or not.
Eh, no it hasn't.
Historically, rape was simply sex with an unmarried woman. The concept of 'consent' had nothing to do with it: you nail her before marriage, you've committed a crime. Women could not commit rape because men couldn't be raped, consent or no.
It was a property crime, either way. It's also true that rape wasn't initially symmetric. Men were supposed to have been willing. At times, so were women. In the latter case, it wouldn't matter whether the incident were what we today call rape or consensual. Both parties would be held guilty (though not necessarily punished symmetrically)
You stumbled on the truth. That the definition of "rape" is entirely subjective based on a woman's arbitrary declaration.
Always had been. Rape has always hinged on whether the other party consented or not.
They're just calling any unwanted attention, regardless of how sexual it is, rape because its an easy weapon to wield against men.
Eh, no it hasn't.
Historically, rape was simply sex with an unmarried woman. The concept of 'consent' had nothing to do with it: you nail her before marriage, you've committed a crime. Women could not commit rape because men couldn't be raped, consent or no.
Where did you get that information? That's called "adultery"
It was a property crime, either way. It's also true that rape wasn't initially symmetric. Men were supposed to have been willing. At times, so were women. In the latter case, it wouldn't matter whether the incident were what we today call rape or consensual. Both parties would be held guilty (though not necessarily punished symmetrically)