If you read the story which prompted this thread, it was clearly rape. Arguably the girl changed her mind: that is, it appears she gave implied consented and then withdrew that consent. Or perhaps she was only interested in some heavy petting. But on the evidence she was saying "no, don't" while the young man performed the deed.
Is this as bad as being attacked by a crazed lunatic while walking through a park? Obviously not, but it is still bad. So yes, there are times when rape is not as bad.
However, the issue the story raises is not the culpability of the rapist but of the victim. The rapist here was a young man without a history of violence, he admitted his error and demonstrated remorse. It would be safe to assume he would not re-offend and it may be argued that a conviction with the consequential listing on a sex offenders register would be too harsh punishment. But the judge identified as a mitigating factor the sexual history of the victim. Rape may be bad or very bad but I cannot see how the seriousness of the offence can be mitigated by the characteristics of the victim.
