You're arguing against a 'point' that she didn't make.Since rape is about power and not sex, then of the millions (billions?) of rapes that must surely leave history awash with this particular atrocity, do you happen to know of one single case where sexual contact wasn't the mode of expression? Would it be reasonable to revise the existing laws to include a new definition of rape as being a power crime, rather than a sex crime? Shall we remove rapists from the sex offenders registers, in light of this new definition, since it's somehow inaccurate? We could reasonably choose to recognise no distinction between rape and, say, a verbal threat, since power and control are the qualifiers, right? Or blackmail, for example? A politician abusing his position to have a woman removed from her job just raped her, is that correct? He'll be charged with rape? I'll wait patiently for a single example of a case where rape occurred without sex.
Now, you might say it's both. That it's power by means of sex. Interestingly, even consensual sex can occur with power as the motive, as in certain forms of fetishism. But that’s consensual, so no harm no foul. But then the only difference between rape as some cruel and ruthless pursuit of power and regular sex is the element of consent itself, correct? By extension, if I punch a woman in the face without her consent, I just raped her. No sex was necessary. Christ, I could steal a Snickers bar and be guilty of rape. Let's be clear. There's no denying the sexual component of rape, but 'power' is merely (politically) interpretative beyond physical domination. No complex, degradative, diabolical mind game is necessary. While rape is destructive, there are numerous other avenues one might pursue to that end, and without any attendant jail sentence.
Also, does knowing the victim in advance make the crime any less opportunistic? Even a jewellery store smash n' grab, though planned, would entail the element of opportunism. Or a mugging. Whatever. Does intention necessarily constitute a lengthy period of premeditation? Because if there's no established temporal baseline, then a ten year campaign of threats that culminates in rape is no more indicative of planning than the ****bag who jumps women in car parks. That a victim might know her attacker in advance is no refutation of opportunism, that representing, literally, a moment of opportunity. A 'plan' can be formulated in seconds. All that’s required is a dark alley and a passer-by. I doubt very much if serial rapists who attack complete strangers would be accused of putting much thought into who their victims are. It's opportunism, not military logistics. How much planning does it take to rape someone, requiring only physical domination? If anything, doesn’t knowing the victim in advance make for far less planning than with a stranger?