That was ascribing human emotions and behaviors to animals without a lot of evidence.
It reminds me of this photo[1]. People thought the male was hugging the dying female in a fit of grief. So touching.
When they asked animal experts, it turns out the male was actually forcing the female to mate. In human terms we call that rape.
[1] http://www.couriermail.com.au/technology/science/dying-kanga...
If animals have rape, it's a subset of human-on-human rape, and carries fewer of the nuanced consequences of rape among humans.
Psychological trauma is probably not even in the equation when it comes to rape among most animals below a certain level of intelligence, particularly when considering untamed animals.
Due to the minimal psychological aspects, which assuredly are a hallmark of human-on-human rape, and the bald fact that the very word "rape" itself carries loaded connotations when considered as a concept by humans, I wonder if it is appropriate to use the same word for variations of sexual intercourse and related behavior among wild animals.
It was humans have always applied our feel good emotions to animals and we do it incorrectly all the time. Here's one example.
To the grief, most humans might rape but most won't commit necrophilia. I think it's a pretty good argument against grief in animals. (There's a lot of additional evidence of necrophilia in animals)
The image is of a highly stressed male that is trying to get the attention of a dead female by nudging and lifting the head with his arm. It might look odd, but its no more strange than a peacock lifting his feathers over a cat. In human terms we call that confused behavior, as we don't generally say that peacocks are raping cats.
Mammals, like humans, do both good and bad things. They have similar brains. Those similar brains probably experience the world in similar ways.