It’s implicit in two places that I could see, the sex trafficking (it can’t be viewed as anything else) of virginal female children from ethnic cleansing wars, and where it implied not crying out indicated consent on the part of the woman. Beyond that wherever consent is not the primary concern it is condoning rape.
The only way out of a logical argument is by being irrational?
Those passages condone, and in at least one place explicitly endorse non-consensual sex with underage female prisoners of war as long they are virgins, if he doesn;t think they are rape, then ask him if he considers sex without explicit consent to be rape? If says he does not, then ask him he’d be ok with another man raping and sodomising him, as he failed to convince anyone he’d put up a sufficient fight?
Personally I’d just stop engaging with the guy, as he is happy to endorse rape by pretending it is not rape, I couldn’t care less what his motives are.
I’ve seen a range of attitudes from people who do this, but being an misogynist isn’t a crime per se sadly. Ask if he would ever have sex without explicit consent, ask him how he’d feel if he had an underage daughter who was trafficked in an ethnic cleansing war because she was a virgin?