'Some amount of pressure or coercion' is still rape; no matter how you use language to minimise it, it adds an amount of 'non-' to the 'consenual'.
I'm not trying to minimize the issue or trip you up here. There is obviously enough coercive and violent SA taking place for it to be a major social issue no matter how broad the definition is. I'm trying to figure out how pressure as a sufficient condition for rape squares with the lived experience of people like myself who do frequently feel pressure to have sex.
Coerced consent isn't consent [1]; the fact that there are different levels of violence and pressure involved in some cases of coercion doesn't mean that the less-obvious levels are okay.
IMO in an ideal world there would never be any pressure or obligation associated with any interaction. But in the real world, "okay" must have a wide enough margin to include situations that aren't ideal but are limited in terms of harm caused and moral responsibility of participants. It can't be that I am a rape victim for not wanting to hurt my partners feelings by sexually rejecting them. Some pressure is surely okay.
Is not the same as
> to avoid a fight
or
> to stop them from nagging me
There is a subtle but important difference between 'having sex for reasons other than immediate desire' and 'pressured into having sex'.
So-called "duty sex" has been recognized as a complex topic where consent is concerned. Surely this is a continuum rather than yes/no. I can't go around calling an ex-girlfriend a rapist because she nagged me for sex now and then.
And to reply to those who say that boys are also raped, yes. But only 4% of males reported that.
That doesn't make the less-obviously traumatic incidents okay; they're still very bad.
> It's insulting to victims of the former to pretend otherwise.
There's nothing insulting to victims in acknowledging other victims. There is something extremely insulting to victims in refusing to acknowledge any harm to them if it doesn't meet your arbitrary standard for significance.