To be clear, false rape accusations are an actual thing. The OP is a sarcastic reference to TRP specific situations.

I'm specifically referring to TRP methodology. For so many of them, sex is described such that pretty much no 'encounter' could be considered rape under their definition. As eluded to in my OP. While a bunch of stuff is described which implies rape or almost-rape under another name. Terms like 'last minute resistance', 'hamster' and 'shit test' are front and center.

This is coming from the initiators. No room for explaining away by citing 'lies' on the part of the alleged victim.

I have literally seen this type of story play out as part of an 'I was falsely accused' anecdote. I'm serious.

As for Ghomeshi, I honestly haven't really followed the story, and so I can't provide informed commentary. Suffice to say it is completely aside from my point here.

As for your description as a general one, it depends on the specific case, for the most part, though I should point out whether or not she feels violated is not up to the rest of us, nor can we say whether or not she was, absent clear evidence to show consent or lack of it, for the given sexual act.

I see this description of 'regret rape' and 'she felt violated even though she wasn't' constantly in anti-feminist circles, yet almost never from investigators. It's always a handful of high-profile cases that get cited over and over, some of which are themselves inconclusive.

Even in those cases where it's shown no rape actually occurred, that alone doesn't tell you the motive. It is assumed on the part of the speculator that she did it because she was cheating, or because she 'regretted' it. And it's still further speculation trying to figure out why she supposedly 'regretted' it.

Let's not muddy the waters with other terms like 'violated'. It's a simple distinction, even if proving one or the other in a court of law isn't: did she consent, and the initiator knew this? Not rape. Did she not consent, and the initiator knew this? Rape. Whether or not she 'feels violated' has nothing to do with this, and talking about it just serves to perpetuate rape myths.

I won't assume your position on this, but most often when I hear the 'she feels violated but wasn't really' argument, it's in tandem with the myth of 'transitive consent'. The idea that for example if she consents to vaginal, it's on record as an automatic consent to oral, anal, being called a slut or whore, toys, or whatever else.

I got into a debate with a woman a month or so back who was arguing this. "If you consented to so-and-so, you can't expect me to believe you justifiably felt violated because he did this other thing also. If you didn't want to you wouldn't have gotten into bed with him." (paraphrased summary of her argument)

The false rape issue legally comes down to consent vs non-consent. Bringing up all these other things only fosters myths and misconceptions about actual rape victims. You can substitute 'violated' for 'nonconsent' and keep it simple.

It is the classic response from the misogynist to place himself upon the seat of judgement and decide whether or not it's 'reasonable' for a woman to feel violated when she says she does. He(and the occasional she) will typically take into account how much sex she's had. How she dresses. What building she was in. How loudly and repeatedly she said 'no'. Whether or not she fought with every ounce of strength. The financial status of the alleged perp. Whether she is known as a 'slut'. And so on. As if to think of every possible avenue to take to the conclusion that she's a lying liar who lies, instead of considering the possibility that she might be telling the truth.

Usually the 'verdict' is, "she lied". Check out any comments section under a story about an alleged rape.

The real (non TRP-context) anatomy of a false accusation: Alleged victim actually consented to the specific act, when they say they didn't.

Everything else comes down to the specific case.

Whether or not her emotion is deemed 'valid' by John Q citizen means absolutely nothing. Legally, it's all about consent or lack of it, as expressed to the initiator by the alleged victim. Finding that out is a job for investigators. And until those investigators do their job, us non-investigators have no evidence to show she lied, much less why she lied.

Given that legally the issue comes down to consent or non-consent, adding all these terms like 'she felt violated but wasn't' just sounds either very ignorant, or unempathetic and presumptive about actual rape cases. Why? Because one of the most common responses from misogynists to a woman saying she was raped, apart from disecting it as described above looking for any possible piece of 'evidence' that can be twisted to fit the narrative of 'liar', is to make an arbitrary judgement about whether her rape was a 'big deal' or not.

"Yeah I know you didn't consent, but come on, it's not like he held you at knife point. Is this really worth ruining a man's life over? You're just overreacting. Maybe you meant yes when you said no. Or just didn't declare your 'no' loudly enough, often enough, or with enough commanding bravado for a long enough period, accompanied by a clear and concerted effort to physically throw him off you from beginning to end, and then immediately dialing 911 within one minute after it's over. If you don't, how's the guy supposed to know?"

etc. etc. etc.

If none of this sounds familiar to you, talk to some women. They can tell you all about it.