I've been having an argument with some feminists about the merits of Warren Farrell's work. Eventually, one of them pulled up a copypasta regarding some statements that Farrell made in his book, and I was wondering if one of you could help me repudiate the fact that he's a rape supporter.

"[Male rape of women] does not derive from power, but, rather from powerlessness." Page 310

Argues that date rape is not a crime but a misunderstanding. pp. 311-12 (bold mine)

Says “the label ‘date rape’ has helped women articulate the most traumatic aspect of dating from women’s perspective. ." and equates this with men’s trauma from “date robbery,” “date rejection,” ‘date responsibility,” “date fraud,” and “date lying.” p. 313

“Evenings of paying [for a date] to be rejected can feel like the male version of date rape.” p. 314

Repeatedly says date rape consists of “a man and woman having sex while drunk and having regrets in the morning” or "a man engages in sex without wanting to make a commitment and does not call the next day so the women “feel[s] ‘raped’" E.g., pp. 315, 317

Denies “rape is rape.” Says stranger rape, acquaintance rape, and date rape should be treated differently. Date rape is not really rape because, when a woman agrees to a date, she may not choose to have sex but she does make “a choice to explore sexual possibilities.” p. 315. (bold mine)

Complains about “ever-broadening definitions of rape.” And, as an example, says the Mike Tyson “date rape trial” made women consider “themselves raped if they felt forced.” p. 317-318

Criticizes the view that it is rape when a woman says “yes,” even when “she is forced to say ‘yes’ in order to survive." p. 316 He adds that not only are we unfairly expecting “men to find out which ‘no’ means ‘no,’ [but] now we’re expecting men to know which ‘yes’ means ‘yes’” and “we’re convicting him as a criminal if he doesn’t know.” p. 319 (bold mine)

Objects to considering cases where a man has sex with a woman who has “diminished mental capacity” as rape – specifically including cases where the woman is unconscious or incapacitated. Claims [falsely] that rape laws now say a woman cannot consent to sex if she is “under the influence.” He then says men are “’under the influence’ the moment they see a beautiful woman” and, therefore, it “is men—far more than women—whose mental capacities are diminished” in sexual situations. pp. 319-320, 327-328.

Repeatedly refers to men are “the salespersons of sex” and says date rape laws are sexist because they put “men in jail if they sell well.” E.g., p. 321

Repeatedly implies Mike Tyson’s “date rape” trial, conviction, and sentence were unfair or points to the Mike Tyson case as an example of sexism against men. E.g., p. 328, 334, 339.

Falsely claims courts in rape cases no longer “make jurors aware that a guilty verdict must be based on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” p. 332 [This is an instruction given in every criminal trial in every jurisdiction in the U.S., usually repeatedly. Many U.S. jurisdictions add additional cautions in cases of sexual violence.]

Objects to the changes in law that mean “a rape conviction to be based on the accuser’s testimony alone, without corroboration.” p. 332 [Laws used to require independent evidence (sometimes even a third-party witness) in addition to a female victims testimony to support a rape conviction. The corroboration requirement was unique to rape cases and was a vestige of ancient, extremely sexist doctines.]

Objects to rape shield laws as unconstitutional for violating due process by “shield[ing] one party more than the other” in a criminal trial and for violating equal protection by “protect[] men less than women.” p. 332-334.

Argues at length against the criminalization of spousal rape (i.e., the removal of the exemption to forcible rape when the perpetrator and victim are married). Among other things, he says Ms. magazine “can call [spousal rape] rape,” but “a relationship counselor will call it a relationship.” He adds that “spousal rape legislation is blackmail waiting to happen” and “spousal rape legislation is worse than government-as-substitute husband; it’s government in the bedroom.” pp. 336-338 (bold mine)

Argues strongly against laws criminalizing date rape. For example, he states: “Big Sister with leave America as impoverished emotionally as Big Brother left Soviet citizens impoverished economically. A law can give us security—but the hope of a date is love. Love requires risks. As does the life in which we hope to share that love. A law that prevents risk prevents love.” He says that if “we chose to retain laws against date rape, . . . we both trivialize rape and criminalize only the male portion of the male-female [courtship] role[s].” pp. 338-340 (bold mine)

Claims that retaining laws against date rape will “reinforce men’s need to objectify women—which will lead to more rape. . . . Laws on date rape create a climate of date hate. Only communication will lead to love.” p. 340.

Asserts that “if we retain laws against date rape” all alleged victims should be polygraphed and the results of the “lie-detector tests” of the alleged victim (but not the accused) be admissible at trials: “To elimination them as one admissible piece of evidence is to eliminate the single biggest protection men have against their own lives being raped.” p. 339

Argues that the best way to reduce rape is “resocialization.” Part of this is teaching “females to take responsibility for their verbal and nonverbal cues (including dress and makeup), what they attract, and how to change these cues to attract a better relationship” and to “learn to understand the subliminal [mixed] messages” in women saying “no” to sex. For men, “resocialization” includes “train[ing] boys to appreciate what the less attractive girls have to offer, thus reducing boy’s addiction to beauty . . .” Thus, “we will be minimizing the male anger and powerlessness” that lead to rape. pp. 339-343

Equates many things involving men to women being forcibly raped: "Do male-only draft registration and combat requirements amount, then, to the legalized rape of men? Yes." p. 134

Asserts that unemployment to a man is the psychological equivalent of rape to a woman: "Unemployment deprives men of that which has given many men the respect and love of women; rape violates the body that has given many women the appreciation and love of men. Few men feel they chose unemployment, just as few women feel they chose to be raped." p. 173 (emphasis mine)

"A friend of mine who ran one of the largest research firms in California let go a woman who was unable to get along with most of the employees. A few weeks later, she sued him for sexual harassment. . . . My friend felt as though he had been raped." [Farrell gives no details as to the litigation or its outcome.] After observing that “criminalization reflects the failure of prevention” and emphasizing the “law cannot compete with nuance,” Proposes the following response to date rape: “If we give driving violators the option of retaking driver training, we can give first-time dating violators the option of taking courses on relationship training—courses they never had." pp. 339-240, 342. (bold mine)

Says "[t]he federal government expanded the legal definition to anything a woman defined as a “hostile work environment.” . . . Does the federal government actually make a dirty joke potentially illegal? Yes. And a look? Yes. And calling a woman “honey”? Yes. All these things are illegal if a woman decides she doesn’t like it, and if a man committed the “offense.” Aren’t these guidelines gender neural? Sometimes, yes; often, no. . . . Who defines ‘hostile environment’? The woman. Not even the man’s intent makes a legal difference. In all other criminal behavior, intent makes all the difference. Even in homicide. Sexual harassment legislation in its present form makes all man unequal to all women. It is in blatant violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection without regard of sex." pp. 287-288 [Almost every aspect of this paragraph is untrue.]

States: "In a sense, sexual harassment lawsuits are just the latest version of the female selection process—allowing her to select for men who care enough for her to put their career at risk; who have enough finesse to initiate without becoming a jerk and enough guts to initiate despite a potential lawsuit. . . .In the past, though, the process of his overcoming her barriers was called 'courtship.' Now it is called either 'courtship' or 'sexual harassment.'” p. 291

"Sexual harassment legislation increases the price of hiring women and therefore gives employers a legitimate reason to discriminate against women." p. 296 (italics mine)

Proposes that unwanted sexual advances at work should only be considered sexual harassment if they persist after the victim-employee has said “no” in writing. p. 299 (emphasis mine)

My responses, based on the limited knowledge that I have, were that it's highly unlikely that a bestselling book and a positively reviewed book would outright support rape. Also, if he repeatedly claimed that date rape was the act of "having sex and regretting it in the morning", then that may be the definition that he's going off of.

But can anybody who has actually read the book shine some light on the context?