was 'the rape' truly rape? -Comments welcome

I was just thinking about "the rape", and was wondering if it can truly be considered rape. I mean if Neil wanted to press criminal charges could he? I'm not to sure. I mean the legal definition of rape(from the u.s department of justice website) is as follows:

Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal or oral penetration by the offender(s). This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.

Now of course by this definition, it was indeed rape, seeing as though it was forced(we know that because we saw the entire situation/movie unfold.) We know about Neil's tragic childhood because we saw the movie, BUT WHAT IF this was a trial, and we were jurors? We weren't there, we didn't see what happened from beginning to end, all we know is that Neil claims to have been raped. From the definition above ^, it's an open and shut case. He forced himself onto Neil. But wait, the Defense will of course throw a wrench into that theory of "forced sexual intercourse". I mean look at the situation from the p.o.v. of the defense:

Neil is a prostitute who WILLINGLY got into the defendants vehicle, and went to the defendants home with ALL INTENTIONS of having sexual intercourse. While @ the defendant's home, Neil snorted cocaine WILLINGLY, and WILLINGLY removed his clothing and proceeded to have sexual relations/interaction with the defendant. Though the interaction was aggressive, up to this point there were NO objections on Neil's behalf. So okay fine, he did excuse himself to "use the restroom", where he had ample time to do what he had to do. The defendant came in (he didn't break in did he? i mean it is his house, bathroom and lock) and they proceeded to have AGGRESSIVE (but not forced) intercourse. Neil never yelled, asked for help, or resisted. There was no verbal threat to his life or the lives of his loved ones, he simply just went along with the situation.

Now of course the defense would have to come up with a logical explanation for beating neil with a shampoo bottle, but they can say that Neil was into that(people are into all kinds of *different* things).

Bottom line, i'm just saying that if this was real life and went to trial, the "rapist" would probably get off. (so to speak) I mean, i'm sure the defense would bring up Neil's life style and call him a drug abusing prostitute-hardly a model citizen or typical "victim", and Neil wouldn't stand a chance. Which is probably why in the film, he seems to bounce back so quickly. To have been "violated" just 24 hours earlier, he seemed fine, if not somewhat jovial when breaking into the coach's former house and swiping cookies.

I don't know, perhaps someone disagrees? I have no problem with hearing anyone's objections/opinions...

Ojos que no ven, corazón que no siente.
What the eyes do not see the heart does not feel.