Rape, fundamentally, is a clear violation of a person's intimate life. That is what happened in the article, sponsored and directed by the state. It wasn't the

Rape, fundamentally, is a clear violation of a person's intimate life. That is what happened in the article, sponsored and directed by the state. It wasn't the "oh, they changed over time" story that you're making it out to be. In both the article and my twins comment, the bad actor premeditated the duplicity, and was intentionally dishonest from the start. The woman in the article has had her intimate life violated, funded and directed by the state, no less. That violation is the essence of rape. Whether or not it fits the relevant legal definition (which varies wildly between jurisdictions), what has happened is functionally the same. It's just like it doesn't actually matter to the victim who comes home to find their house ransacked, whether the law terms it 'robbery' or 'burglary'. And when the victim says "our house was robbed yesterday", the person who corrects them with "actually, you mean 'burgled'" is missing the point.