No it's not. The rape had nothing to do with BDSM. It wasn't about any kind of confusion -- not that it would be anyway, that's at best a pathetic excuse (or, rather, lie).

Never said it did.

Rapists rape because they like to rape people. It's not sex or kinky sex or being a dom or playing out fantasies they want, they want to rape.

I would agree, although there was a lot of intent discussion going on, which is where my comments stem from. My point was to say that rape is still rape regardless of the intent of the perpetrator. If the victim says "no" and really means "no" but the perpetrator really believes that "no" means "yes" then that is STILL rape.

And fantasy ravishment does not always have to be planned out in intricate detail, particularly in long-term relationships. This is why safe words exist and why the dom is always checking, in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways, that the sub is enthusiastically participating.

Perhaps, but it's super risky territory. Granted, as I stated above, I find non-con fantasy personally distasteful, so all of my perceptions about it are going to be biased.