Overusage/Implications of Rape Tag?

I don't know if this is just me being overly prudish, but lately I've been seeing rape tags on things that just don't seem like rape to me.

There's posts like the ones at:
post #333921
post #337243

That have the tag, and then ones that I've actually removed the tag from, such as:
post #41363
post #351304
post #358648

Now, I know that a lot of cases the argument for rape is subjective, but in cases like 41363, just because the look on the woman's face is pained does not mean auto-rape. It's worth noting as well that one image is of bukkake, with no signs of overt rape anywhere, but is still tagged as such. Looking around I've also noticed that there's at least one circumstance where a user put a rape tag that was later taken off because the image was pretty much agreed on to not be rape, that being post #337219.

Now, I'm not trying to force this issue, but I'd at least like a gauge of whether or not I'm overreacting to this, or if this is overusage of the rape tag leading to things being tagged as rape which are really just rough sex. I've already talked to one of the senior members about this, and the suggestion was that I start a thread to gather opinions, so that's what I am doing.

Just noting that every post you've linked there were all tagged rape by the same user.

I didn't want to look like I was pointing the finger at anyone. While it is true that the same user tagged all of those with rape, I'm not trying to get on his case, rather just point out some of the problems that I think are present with rape.

Sorry if that was seen as subversive. I'm not trying to be an ass here, I just wanted some honest thoughts without any one person or group being targeted.

While it may not be your intention to single out one person, it may be the fault of one person that things are getting tagged incorrectly.

Also noteworthy, his only favorite tag is rape.

I only clicked the button once I have no idea why it double posted.

Grahf said:
I don't know if this is just me being overly prudish,

...? Isn't that the opposite of prudish?

The problem is that rape is just too subjective. The wiki defines it as "forcing perverted or sexual acts on an unwilling participant," which leaves it way too open for overuse from individuals with extremely loose personal definitions of what appears forced and what appears as an unwilling participant.

I don't know if this would work, but for tagging purposes perhaps rape should be defined as a list of elements in the image. If an image contains several of those elements (like a character being restrained, tears, pained looking face, glazed over eyes, etc) then it would count as rape, where those with not enough elements would not count.

Probably going off-topic, but additionally I think rape really should only apply between humans and/or humanoids.

Truly off-topic: If you think about it, with the current definition you could have a human forcing sex upon an unwilling tentacle monster and count it as rape. I know, that sounds awesome, but that's just wrong.

I would always allow the tag if someone thought it should be added. Presumably they know the story behind the photo and if it's rape or not. For example, a game cg where she's surely enjoying some normal sex, but she's drunk or otherwise being raped if you know the story behind the picture.

Or this bitch post #66451

Dr_Fine_Rolo said:
I would always allow the tag if someone thought it should be added. Presumably they know the story behind the photo and if it's rape or not. For example, a game cg where she's surely enjoying some normal sex, but she's drunk or otherwise being raped if you know the story behind the picture.

Or this bitch post #66451

I suppose while that's really the only solution that works, it also opens up the kind of situations like the one here.

I'm willing to admit that for individual images, there's sometimes no way of divining artist intent other than the artist coming right out and saying "Yes, it's rape." for example I am willing to concede that post #358648 might very well be rape, but on pixiv there was (to my knowledge) no tag or implication in the comments of the artist that it is as such, so I merely thought of it as somewhat rough sex.

As for cg sets, I find that sometimes an individual image can be misconstrued, or that someone who obviously hasn't seen the entire cg tags something that isn't there. This was the case in post #351304 where I have the cg set in question, and one of the images in that sequence is of the character smiling and clearly enjoying herself, not to mention the fact that the sequence is part of a larger scene which contains nothing but really consensual looking sex and the woman in question is clearly not drunk or being forced to engage in the activity in any way.
----

I guess all that was just harping on the "human error" factor in the system. But, for what it's worth, a type of approach like the one that NWF Renim suggested, that if an image doesn't have at least X characteristics out of this list, then don't put it as rape, might be the way to go.

EDIT: Rather, unless the person knows and can give the relevant details that it is rape, even in cases like post #66451 where it looks completely consensual.

My opinion is that unless there is exceptionally clear unwillingness on the part of one participant (trying to escape, or something), it's best to err on the side of not tagging with rape.

If rape can only be identified by previous knowledge of elements outside the image, then it's not enough to be tagged rape, I'd think. Again, we're focusing on the visual here.