Matters aren't always so cut-and-dried in practice. Globally (and in Europe/USA), I'd guess JWs want the best for their young women (and middle aged and old). Sadly, I have spoken with parents and with naive girls who did not quite agree to sex but who were certainly not forced into sex. Should such a girl be told that she was raped?
Or should she be comforted and consoled and taught ways to unambiguously communicate her future unwillingness to engage in sex? What about the second or third time she has sex even though she did not explicitly disagree or agree with it?
A woman who resists sexual advances hasn't committed fornication even if she is raped. She shouldn't be ostracized, but she should also be interested in making her unwillingness unambiguous. It's a disservice to tell a young girl otherwise.
Really, I have no idea what you are on about.
The information about a 'christian' woman's need to SCREAM or physically resist was published in the US; it applies to US views, laws and customs.
You are making this about the WT being sensitive to foreign customs; this is a red herring argument.
And you are implying that witnesses or others might suggest to a girl she call rape something it wasn't; you are turning the argument, and the situation, on it's head.
The situation is that the WT has told many women that they did not resist or resist enough, and are guilty of fornication.They have foisted guilt on them over this matter.
The fact is that for years the WT mandated, through de facto prosection via DF'ing, the idea that a woman must scream and physically resist, and implanted the idea that a woman might be guilty of fornication if she did not resist enough.
Forget custom, or foreign country views; take the US only, US publication.
The WT for years pursued a policy identical to the mosaic law, and as recently as 2008 stated that they think if a woman does not physically resist, she might be guilty of fornication, that that is a reasonable view.
Who can find that quote for me? I think it was JR Brown.