As I recall my previous rapes, it occours to me that when the woman invited me back, the first time was no longer considered rape. . .
But seriously folks, we have to remember that Miss Rand wrote that scene 65 years ago, and that the world, sexually speaking, was much more sane than it is now.
Roark was a man, not a p***y. Most of today's men can only be classified as males. That is, their anatomy is the ONLY thing that makes them a man. Otherwise, today, they are indistinguishable from women.
Women, for the most part, in America, are spoiled neurotics who have no clue what is best for them. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
But these two characters were different. Ayn Rand knew that no decent single woman could or would resist Roark. But story-wise, every scene must have some degree of conflict. So the first few minutes of the sex were forced. Dominique's resistance broke down - not because she knew she couldn't stop him but because she no longer wanted to. Do you really think a man of Roark's character would continue to have sex with her if she was truly repulsed by him?
The whole discussion of rape here is kind of embarrasing. I am embarrased for mankind when the scene is even an issue. One must take the work of art as a whole - not try too determine whether at some split-second of the novel Howark Roark was a rapist. A rapist is a man who can't get a woman any other way, just as those who can't create end up stealing or borrowing (Keating, other looters).