And for the rape-screamers: She was in a body that was full of aphrodisiac. She didn't kn...

Look, idm people who like to read rape. It's a fantasy. But anyways, let's get this straight. There was no consent. Not fighting back isn't a yes. She took it as yes but she shouldn't have therefore she raped him. Same case if a man did this to a woman. There are many reasons why someone doesn't fight back or say anything so it is should always be 'no consent' by default.
I don't like the way they deal with the rape here so I dropped it. If you don't mind then sure, keep reading. But yes, this is undeniably rape.

Might wanna read what I posted. It was misunderstanding on both sides. Since she sees a strong, large man and he doesn't throw her off, she sees it as his consent.

I think you should read Ari's reply again, the default is no, without obvious enthusiastic consent the answer is always no. It doesn't matter if she was confused, he didn't give consent therefore it is rape.

This is fiction so if you like it that's fine

Lack of consent is a "no" now. Historically, not so much. Different way of seeing this stuff, just like they saw marriage and social rights differently.

And these people own slaves. Why is that okay and no one screams about that, but a "grey" situation where both parties are hiding things (add a demon to the mix, and demons are not known for human virtues) and that's worse than everything else?

Yep it is considered a 'no' now but just because the moral standards back then were different doesn't make it okay. Just because something was accepted back then like slavery doesn't mean we can shrug our shoulders and say well those slave owners can't be blamed because that was the 'trend' back then. So no this isn't okay therefore I don't like the character. That's all. And I also don't like the author because this story portrays rape as simply being a positive part of the 'strong' attitude. Just my opinion.