Girls, if the basic idea behind rape-fantasies is non-consent that is consented upon, why does this inconsistency exist?

FýrdracaDócincel
Okay, rape-fantasies..

I actually spent the better part of today looking through this site for questions and such involving it. But across everything I found, I saw that one aspect about it was routinely either ignored or brushed aside when gently mentioned.

So the basic consensus is that you want to feel desired by someone you really like (and TRUST) to the extent that they will, to some degree, fight you over you. That probably doesn't even begin to cover it, but the overlaying point is that you wanted it anyway. Fair enough.

So considering that, why then does the erotic material that draws from these fantasies have ACTUAL RAPE in them. I'm sure we've all stumbled across some writing that made us raise an eyebrow or two.

Now I'm not sure if there's something in-between the lines that I'm not quite picking up because I'm not a girl, but in a lot of the aforementioned material, it seemed strongly to me that the heroine did NOT want it beforehand. Sure, the heroine may orgasm in the scene. But isn't it common knowledge by now that just because a woman cums during rape, it doesn't mean she will be any less traumatized? Yet in these literary instances, if the heroine orgasms during the act, it suddenly becomes this insanely passionate thing and all the potential scarring is immediately wiped.

So just in case the question isn't obvious by now... If the rape-fantasy is about getting overwhelmed by someone you wanted it from to begin with, why is the fantasy presented otherwise as legitimate violation?
Updates:
+1 y
Oh and before everyone freaks out, I am aware that the rape scenes in the material are (typically) nothing like the life-threatening, knife-to-the-throat stuff that actual rape is.

But the question of prior desire still stands.
Girls, if the basic idea behind rape-fantasies is non-consent that is consented upon, why does this inconsistency exist?
7
Add Opinion