You can try the whole 'it's very telling...' hanging sentence accusation if you like, but it's somewhat disingenuous as an ad-hominem. Disagreement doesn't mean you can start throwing names and veiled accusations around, it doesn't support what you're trying to argue.

For what it matters I'm not making an ethical case FOR this behaviour - I think it likely falls under the banner of coercion and is morally dubious. I think anyone in that sort of relationship needs to get out and fast... it's not healthy and it isn't good for them.

What you said in your article was.... 'they are raping their partners and sexually assaulting them'. This is wrong - and if you encourage young men and women into police stations with this definition of rape then you're going to collapse a lot of cases and cause a lot of emotional distress.

The fact that the law doesn't always reflect morals and ethics is neither here nor there. It's the framework by which we make sense of disputes. It's there, in part, to stop people making up their own definitions of what constitutes a crime and/or implying others are guilty of it. If we want change (and we do) then we have to change the framework of the law - that's what happened here in the UK, and there is a 2015 law around coercive control which some of this sort of behaviour might fall under, though in the example you gave - it would not.