Context: I had quite a maddening, painful and drawn-out exchange a month ago about historical oppression with a self-described "academic feminist" in which she mentioned that husbands having a right to have sex with their wives in the past was an oppression of women.

This is the entire comment chain.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/er5kel/a_very_interesting_exchange_on_rpurplepilldebate/ff2qu1z?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

I told her that both sexes had a right to sex within marriage, and it wasn't illegal for husbands to rape wives nor was it illegal for wives to rape husbands. I told her that portraying it as a state of affairs that was oppressive towards women and only women seemed somewhat dishonest to me.

I linked her the story of Lot's daughters in the Bible to show that there was an acceptance in the literature that women could be sexually predatory towards men.

"One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”"

"That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up."

"The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up."

In this story, it appears to me that Lot's daughters ply their father with alcohol and over two consecutive nights rape him without his knowledge as he is passed out/rendered insensible and unable to consent, as is evidenced by the statement "He [(Lot)] was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up".

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/er5kel/a_very_interesting_exchange_on_rpurplepilldebate/ffi6b3b/?context=3

She responded, in classic dishonest fashion:

"Please, when answering don't bring in the factor that wives could [...] rape husbands either. I AM aware that wives had conjugal rights too, but these were not enforceable by means of personal violence enacted by the wife against the husband. The idea of a woman raping a man had no currency back then and no-one thought about it. Also don't reiterate the biblical story about Lot in his tent. This story was never taught in order to impart the moral: "women can rape too!", but rather to impart the moral that "men are not to blame!" plus "women in general are evil, wily and cunning"."

"Lot was not too drunk to do the deed and his 'unawareness' was not unconsciousness but not knowing who he was having sex with. Only from a twenty-first century perspective can this particular situation be called "rape", and even that's chancy."

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/er5kel/a_very_interesting_exchange_on_rpurplepilldebate/ffjbev1?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

As feminists usually do, she does not provide a single citation for her extremely questionable interpretation of the story, stating it as an indisputable fact that one is just supposed to accept. Her interpretation that Lot's unawareness was not unconsciousness is an extremely questionable one considering that the sentence "He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up" seems to suggest that he was not aware the sexual act even occurred in the first place.

She also asserts that the wife's conjugal rights "were not enforceable by means of personal violence enacted by the wife against her husband", whereas the husband's conjugal rights were. There is not a citation for this claim either. Perhaps she has assumed that wives were unable to force husbands into sex due to their lesser physical strength, which is unbelievably ignorant.

My favourite part of her response is her assertion that the idea of a woman raping a man had no currency back then, and portrays it as further evidence of injustice AGAINST WOMEN, instead of how it should be portrayed: as evidence of injustice against men that people did not recognise that they could be victims of sexual violence.

She seems to be extremely dismissive about the idea that women could exploit their conjugal rights as much as men did, and seems to hold a stance that women are incapable of doing harm which is unfortunately so common among many feminists. She seems to think that if women aren't given more protections than men are, women are being horribly oppressed.

So I wonder. Does anyone have any examples of women raping men in the pre-modern era? I understand that records on this are spotty, but this would help bolster my arguments for any future debates.