If the wife said, "no", and the man used violence to force it on her, it was assault. If the man didn't use violence... like, why didn't the wife resist? What evidence could the courts really have that a 'no' was spoken? Do you understand how hard it would be to prove she said 'no' and then just unhappily let him have his way? And if her husband did, is this equivalent to a stranger busting in and holding a knife to her throat?
The old standard more strongly assumed the independence and strength of women than the new system by the way. If a woman couldn't prove violence was used against her, then it was proof she didn't resist and why didn't she? She is a person, no? I get that it is not that simple and I do accept that they were wrong, but I also understand them. I try to understand other people's point of view and that was their point of view. They didn't 'hate' women and consider them property. They assumed women would resist like a man if she didn't want sex. They were wrong. Men and women are different.
I am responding to the impression you try to create that this is a dangerous society for women. Its not and you undermine women in real danger when you pretend that one in three women in this society are victims. Our societies are the best societies women (or men) have ever lived in and obsessively focusing on contrived problems is some kind of mental illness.
My statistics are right, which is why you simply said, 'they are wrong' and utterly failed to substantiate that claim.
No about the ads. Advertisers try to sell shit to people. If they get more sales with sexy girls or by appealing to female homemakers, then that is what they should do. They are companies selling products, not everyone is trying to manipulate everyone around them. Since that is something that you and yours are constantly focusing on, you impute that motive to them, but they are merely trying to connect with target audiences because it helps sell products.