[ouzvredz] It's just surprise sex

A feminist scholar whose name I've forgotten presents a radical notion: the very concept of rape is demeaning toward women.  (We write using stereotypical genders for conciseness only.)  That is, the characterization of a sexual event as an act of violation exactly plays into the gender roles that feminism is trying to erase.

Sex is biologically designed to at least be tolerable, at best, be the most pleasurable thing in existence.  Any reason a woman would not consent to sex is oppression in action: this is the oppression feminism seeks to eliminate. Especially notable are reasons a woman would not consent for fear of social punishment (e.g., "slut"), but for which a man in an equivalent situation could consent with less or no social penalty (e.g., "stud"). These reasons are identically the "gender roles" regarding sex. These roles are the oppression; focusing on the rapist as oppressor misses the forest for the trees.

Those who seek to make a big deal about rape as a violation, who seek to present the act itself as something bad, are in fact hurting the cause.  The tremendously bad thing has already happened by the time someone chose not to consent.  Presenting as bad the act of overriding the lack of consent legitimizes the reasons, the gender roles, for not consenting: it legitimizes the oppression, it is a force of conservatism, acting to maintain the status quo of gender roles. Promoting the need to "respect" someone else's reasons for not consenting legitimizes those reasons: it legitimizes the oppression.

"It's not rape: it's just surprise sex", a saying normally presented as a bad joke, is actually an ideal that we should strive for.  But we have a long way to go. What are the impediments in the way?

What do we do about those so deeply indoctrinated in oppression that rape would cause them psychological harm?