First is that across the board, many people seemed shocked by the idea of people saying heterosexual sex = rape and there is no ability for a woman to consent in a patriarchal society. I was surprised that people hadn't heard about this line of thought.

Hee. I hadn't, as I haven't been exposed to much in the way of radical feminism. But I could totally jive with it. Reading up on it, I understand totally what Andrea Dworkin was trying to say and I think it's a lot different than what a few people (namely, the anti-Firefly/Joss girl) was saying.

From wiki: Such descriptions are often cited by Dworkin's critics, interpreting (sometimes even falsely quoting) the book as claiming that "All heterosexual intercourse is rape," or more generally that the anatomical machinations of sexual intercourse make it intrinsically harmful to women's equality. Dworkin rejected that interpretation of her argument,[41] stating in a later interview[42]that "I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality," and suggesting that the misunderstanding came about because of the very sexual ideology she was criticizing: "Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I do not think they need it."

Which, maybe I'm wrong? But seems to be Dworkin herself is rejecting the POV that is depicted in the Firefly essay.