I’m not sure where you are getting your information from here, but it’s off base. That particular distinction does not exist in the law. Rape falls under the umbrella of sexual assault. Fondling is not even sexual assault, atleast in how it is codified.
Philosophically, I don't disagree that the "penetrative qualifier" is problematic and risks obscuring other forms of sexual violence behind the "king crime" of rape. But out society
does understand "to **** someone" without consent (whether vaginal, anal, or oral) to be the contingent part of "to rape", and we're not talking about my definition or yours, but the collective definition.
This is from the Department of Justice website, clarifying the definition of rape (which had been unchanged from 1927 to 2012):
“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.”
This is from the website of a rape crisis center:
Rape is defined as unwanted penetration, whether that is oral, anal, or vaginal. Sexual assault refers to any unwanted sexual contact, including fondling and molestation.
Clearly, the overriding working definition of "rape" is a kind of sexual assault that includes penetration—both for groups whose job it is to support victims, and for federal entities tasked with investigating and prosecuting abusers (FBI, Department of Justice). Statutory definitions vary wildly amongst states, but Montana likewise makes a codified distinction between "sexual assault" (defined in
Montana Code section 45-5-502 as "knowingly subject[ing] another person to any sexual contact without consent") and "rape" (defined in
Montana Code section 45-5-503 as "knowingly [having] sexual intercourse without consent with another person"); the former carries with it a first time sentence of "a fine of up to $500, and/or imprisonment for up to six months", while the latter carries "imprisonment for between four and 100 years and a fine of up to $50,000". (Bizarrely, there are even differing consent ages defined between the two in Montana—14 versus 16—so apparently it's legal for an adult to sexually contact a 14-year-old, but they'd have to wait two more birthdays for intercourse.) Likewise, the Title IX training I just had to go through certainly made a big point of drawing this distinction—another federal perspective on these two formulations of abuse.
So that's where I'm getting my information from, and it doesn't really seem off-base at all. Like I said, I don't necessarily disagree with you about how we
should look at sexual violence, but I'm talking about how we
are defining it as a society right now; and, in that context, "rape" is penetration and "sexual assault" is all other unwanted/non-consensual sexual touching.
I’m saying the coercion was inherent.
Because of the power dynamics?