Yeah, I'm probably just parsing hairs here. I think we agree on the modern definition of rape, and we agree on what the Bible and the Law says about rape. And by either of those definitions David is a rapist. The only thing that I'm trying to say is that those definitions are not the same.
By the modern definition, consent requires two equal parties, neither of which has undo power over the other, full working mental faculties, and enthusiastic participation. Under those definitions David was always a rapist. He always had undo power over every sexual partner he had. Just look at the scandals involving the sultanate of Brunei. There are plenty of women who were invited there and ended up being raped. Some agreed to sex while there, but they were basically prisoners in a kingdom where their food, water, clothes, and freedom were all provided or withheld at the whim of the Sultan. Someone in that situation cannot give consent. Refusal could cost them their lives or freedom, and there is a good chance their refusal would be ignored anyway.
We rightly call that rape today. However, that was the norm for thousands of years in any monarchy. It was also the case to a lesser extent in every marriage at that time. The same coercion and lack of self-determination was present on a smaller scale. So you could legitimately say all women prior to the sexual revolution were raped. I think that takes away the agency of women during that time. Surely there were women prior to that time that were happy with their situation, despite having less control over it than a modern woman would have.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full
Medical Disclaimer.