You seem to be mounting a rational opposition to my views. The rest of you, please take note.
Good questions. I'll use some logical deduction to attempt to answer them, but be advised that this may get a bit complicated.
Let's start by defining terms to make sure we're all on the same page. Rape is the "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim" (FBI). Now right away, that last clause suggests that rape and non-consensual sex are one and the same. Are they?
I will answer this in terms of set theory. A set is a well-defined collection of items or objects. For one set to be a subset of another, anything in the first set has to be in the second. For example, the set of all the different shades of blue is a subset of all the different colors out there. And a set is its own subset. Now by rule, if two sets are
each others' subsets, then they are the same set.
Still with me? OK good. Let's classify the set of all acts that qualify as rape as set R, and all acts that qualify as non-consensual sex as set N. Let's agree right now that R is a subset of N. If anyone disagrees with that, then either they don't understand what subsets are, or they don't understand what reality is.
Now the big question that remains is whether N is a subset of R. If that occurs, then N = R, and we are done. But is it? Notice, we have not yet established a definition of what non-consensual sex
is. Now, merely proving that all non-consensual sex is rape would prove that N = R, precluding this need. But this brings us right back to where we started.
What is my position on whether N is a subset of R? I honestly don't know. I think it would make sense, but an interesting example--mutual drunk sex--was offered as a possible counterexample. So really, that's what we need to establish. It all comes down to examining that. Which, BTW, raises the question of what "consent" means--an entire discussion in its own right.