Yes, there is a single sentence in his mail, "Now, actually, the way the law works is that not only does the being raped be not able to give consent, but that the rapist has to know that the the other person was not able to give legal consent.", that can be interpreted as a general statutory defence leading to absurd interpretations. But there is nothing else in his mail to suggest he actually meant such absurd results. This sentence occurs in the discussion of the symmetric case, and the only thing he himself uses it for is to argue that in that symmetric case neither is a rapist.

So, yes, there is a single sentence in Ted's mail that can be taken out of context to imply absurd consequences. But there's nothing in his mail to suggest he actually meant such consequences.

Also, I have already explicitly addressed this exact point multiple times, starting at least from this post (http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/18505.html?thread=734025#cmt734025). NOW you suddenly "see what the problem is"? If this is the level of your reading comprehension, no wonder you have problems interpreting Ted's mail.