OK, so I briefly considered that interpretation but thought it was more unlikely than that he had some unorthodox meaning attached to "rape of private property".

So apparently he wants rape to be legal as long as it happens on private property.

OK, Clarity, in what possible sense is it a "libel" to accuse Roosh of

wanting to legalise rape

if in fact he

wants to legalize rape that happens in private property?

I mean, that does in fact mean legalizing a whole lot of rapes. (I would bet that a large majority of rape happens on private property, even if you adopt a narrower definition of rape than the law generally does.)

If I say I want insider stock trading to be legal provided you wear a suit when you do it, I am proposing to legalize insider trading. If I say I want murder to be legal unless it's done with a gun, I am proposing to legalize murder. If I say I want making copies of copyrighted works to be legal if it's done by men rather than women, I am proposing to legalize copyright infringement. And: if I say that I want rape to be legal if it's done on private property, I am proposing to legalize rape.

(For the absolute avoidance of doubt: I am not, in fact, making any of those proposals.)