You’re missing my point.
There is no action by the rapist that in and of itself constitutes rape. There are a remarkable number of women who prefer “rough sex,” up to and including tying up, slapping, beating, etc. If the victim participates willingly, it’s not rape. If she does not participate freely, it is rape. There are probably not as many women into this as in the fantasies of their male opposite numbers, but they certainly do exist.
That’s why the crime of rape depends entirely on the POV of the “victim.”
(Scare quotes only because not all claims of victimization are valid. Many, probably the big majority, certainly are.)
There was just recently in CA a case of a young woman who recruited a guy via Craigslist to beat her up. She promised sex with her as the payment. She then claimed rape, and the obvious assumption is that the beaten-up woman with forensic evidence of recent intercourse was indeed raped. But of course she wasn’t. There was no difference in the actions of the (disgusting) man. The only difference was in her head.
I remember reading about a case in SC I think, where a man (I use the word loosely) was on trial for a truly horrible rape-assault which was all recorded on video from beginning to end. I will not tell you the details: it debases the mind to entertain the images. Think, "Really bad".
Well, he was acquitted. Turns out there were several videos of this same "man" doing those same sick stuff to this "woman" on several occasions; and the existence of multiple videos was successfully used in his defense, in that they established his story, that the "woman" liked the abuse,consented to the abuse, actually arranged for the videos for their later viewing enjoyment, and therefore "no harm, no foul".
I was shocked. What he had done to the woman was objectively harmful (she required medical treatment in the aftermath) and if she "consented" to it, it must be that she was out of her right mind and thus not capable of consent. No rational person would consent.
And I still think the view that consent or lack thereof is what determines whether something is a criminal offense, is sorely deficient. Germany had a case a few years back where a man consented on video to be stabbed through the heart and eaten (yes, cannibalized) and the legal system was all confused as to whether there might be something wrong with that.
We ought to recognize that there actions which are objectively abusive whether there is consent or not. What those actions are, would be good subject for a debate. How applied, will be determined by legislators. Individual cases might be murky, but that's what juries are for.
Things which are objectively harmful are to be proscribed. That's why you can't sell your baby, your willing wife, or both your kidneys.
Can't buy that. If a man proceeds with sex against the consent of the woman, if she is saying no, or actively resisting him, or even not actively resisting him due to the fact that he has threatened force, then that is rape. Claiming rape after consensual sex doesn't make it rape, of course. the difference between consensual "rough sex" and rape exists in reality, not just in the mind of the woman. The rapist might confuse the two, but only as a defense for what it had done.