Not All Rape Requires a Rapist

I was just thinking about the boundaries between rape and consensual sex, and the areas where the distinction is unclear. And I realised that I support a more broad definition of 'rape victim', and a more narrow definition of 'rapist', which means that I believe someone can be raped by someone who is not a rapist. (I'm still not sure what to call the person who does this act.)

Essentially, I define a rape victim as someone who had sex that they did not want, and that felt emotionally damaging and/or violating to them. Whereas, a rapist is someone who knowingly had sex with someone who, as far as they could tell, did not consent, could not consent, or when the rapist felt uncertain whether or not they consented.

Examples of situations I'd consider rape without necessarily having a rapist involved:

Someone who believes they have no right to refuse sex acquiescing to sex that they don't want because they see no other option. (Examples include asexuals or gays and lesbians having sex with a partner they're not attracted to because they don't see non-heterosexuality as an option, or CSA survivors who've learnt that their 'no' isn't listened to so they don't bother anymore.)

Someone who feels that sex is required for practical purposes, despite strongly not wanting sex. (For example, having sex in order to have a place to stay and someone to support you, or having sex with your partner to disguise a pregnancy caused by cheating.)

Being forced into unwanted actions that you consider sexual by a person who doesn't see those acts as sexual. (For example, being forced into an activity that triggers a fetish of yours that the other person is unaware of, intersex children being forced to have genital exams and/or genital procedures, or children in behavioural therapy programs being undressed against their will.) Note, in many cases this involves morally problematic behaviour by the perpetrator, but since the intent was not sexual, they're not a rapist. (Conversely, if you are tricked or coerced into an unwanted act that the perpetrator sees as sexual and you don't, they are a rapist. For example an omorashi fetishist interfering with someone's access to the toilet is rape, even if the victim is unaware that this was sexually motivated.)

Being unable to consent due to a neurological, chemical or psychiatric condition that the other person is unaware of. (For example, being too drunk or high to consent, being in the middle of a manic episode, having a complex partial seizure, sexual impulsivity due to a brain tumor, having a metabolic issue such as hypoglycemia, etc, and the other person is unaware of your condition or how it affects your ability to consent.)

Engaging in BDSM or role-play without agreeing on a safe word first because both parties are inexperienced, and the top not being able to tell the difference between role-playing and genuine nonconsent.

Interestingly, this also means that in certain situations, it's possible for both parties to have been raped unintentionally by the same sex act. For example, two sex-repulsed asexuals in a romantic relationship with each other, who don't see non-sexual romantic relationships as an option and don't know that their partner feels the same way they do about sex, might decide to have sex that neither party wants and both feel violated by. Or two people who were both drunk or high might have sex that neither would want if they were sober.

I think drawing this distinction is a good thing for many people. It means that people who need help for unwanted sexual experiences can feel free to sex out help intended for rape victims, without worrying about whether or not the other party was a rapist. It could also help people who aren't ready to admit that their rapist was a rapist, but are ready to admit that the sex hurt them. And it can help us look at how to reduce the risk of accidental unwanted sex, without necessarily stigmatising the people who engage in sex unaware that their partner doesn't want it.