1) I've done two college papers on date rape. In most cases, date rape involves alcohol (ie impaired judgment) and bad communication, often due to cross cultural misunderstandings.
2) I read once that if you ask a room full of (American?) women how many of them have been raped, half the hands go up. If you ask them how many of them said "No" and then had sex anyway, 90% of the hands go up. Given that the legal definition of rape hinges on consent, I think it's pretty clear that even women who haven't had completely consenting sex have difficulty figuring out whether or not they were raped. (On the flip side, I think there is a counterargument that sometimes, even when she initially said "no", maybe it wasn't really rape -- which muddies the water even further.)
My point: I think genuinely, unquestionably consenting sex is really a quite difficult standard to meet and there are many cases of less than ideal encounters where it ends up being a judgment call on the part of the woman as to a) how she views it in her own mind ("rape" or something else) and b) whether or not to publicly accuse/charge someone.
I will toss out the idea that a man who feels not only okay with but morally compelled to publish all kinds of stuff the American government doesn't want published (ie without their consent and over their protests, with consent being the legal lynch-pin for the definition of rape) might well start applying that general thought pattern to other situations. People who are very morally self righteous frequently feel justified in treading on the will and rights of others and then pat themselves on the back for being "heroes". I can imagine someone who feels he knows what is best for others basically telling himself "these two women needed it and I'm just doing what is best for them".