So you asked for help in understanding, and so I want to provide my humble opinion to the discussion. I see where you are going with this, and I have to say that it would seem that what is happening is we have an issue that, ultimately, suffers from the same problem as many others: definition. As an example, consent versus deep consent. When we start to really question what a word means in one context or another, we begin to run into a very serious problem which is trying to define a concept with one word. What we really need to do instead is look at the given word within context. So as an example rape is all about consent, was it given or no? If it wasn’t, then it wasn’t. Thus, any act after non-consent is rape. The question of relationship between the actors (people involved in the relationship, be it a passing glance or lifetime commitment, or anything in between) is irrelevant.
So as an example, if a husband comes up and begins to be “loving” to his wife, and she says: “I’m sorry honey but I have a headache”, if he pursues it anyway, then that is, by definition, raape. Consent in any for was not given. Later on, she may decide later that her headache is gone and now she’s in the mood and makes similar advances, the negotiation of consent must occur all over again. If he suddenly finds he isn’t in the mood and says no, and she pursues it, that is also considered rape. The next night they are both in the mood and jump each other’s bones, that is consent and not rape.
When we utilize a qualifier with a word like consent, I feel we begin to lose the power of the word itself, and begin to conditionalize it based on the situation. It is an academic, public collegiate way of thinking about issues that really detracts from solutions for problems, and lends itself to the broader issue of political correctness many in this country has come to loathe. In other words, it becomes a semantic argument that muddies issues in a black and white world (e.g. the presidential election). No just needs to be no.