In recent times, Feminism has done great things to broaden the definition of rape. In the beforetime, the 19 hundreds and suchlike, the common perception of what was rape was limited to that of a violent and mentally unstable man forcing himself upon a woman against her will. But now, thanks to the great work of Feminists everywhere, we all know that image is a lot more diverse and nuanced—something that in turn makes it much easier for us to put away creeps for a long time without that pesky “evidence” they’re always asking for. We still have, like, a really long way to go, however—many people still don’t think it’s rape if the woman regrets it the morning after (I’m not even kidding—these people EXIST); also, “Emotional Rape”, “Visual Rape,” and “Thought Rape” are only just emerging as legitimate crimes, but it’ll be a while before they are regarded as seriously as “Rape Rape.”
There is one aspect of rape that’s like not addressed enough though, maybe because it’s quite rare. I call it “Reverse Rape” and no, that doesn’t mean a woman raping a man because that can’t happen—men can’t be raped because men are the oppressors—no, reverse rape refers to the rare times when a man refuses to have sex with a woman.