Since this is in respect to a comment I've made, I think I should expand upon it.
Intuition in philosophy is controversial, and certainly the question on whether it is epistemically reliable or even essential (for instance in idealist/platonist metaphysics) is a matter of some debate. But even in discussions featuring intuition it is with reference to a background account of the role that intuition is playing, such as with respect to evolutionary adaptation, connection to an abstract realm, one's learned linguistic or otherwise social practices and so on. If you're appealing to intuition you need to be clear about what work this is doing, because otherwise you can just pluck whatever you like out of thin air. It's not a totalizing philosophical panacea.
The point I made was in a sense more basic than this, though it does relate to the broader problem about intuition. There is a certain amount of sensitivity due on matters of sexual assault, because it is worth bearing in mind that regardless of the definitions of the law, the act in question is fundamentally a form of violence brought to bear upon a person.
In the question of what constitutes "rape", the methodology of your questioning is incredibly important. What is it you're asking the question in order to accomplish, how are you asking the question, what kinds of testimony and evidence are you considering; and, critically, how does this draw on and interpret the relevant contexts that you're assessing?
Trying to resolve these kinds of questions with appeal to intuition indicates a methodology of "self-reflection", that you're looking at your own background beliefs and premises in an attempt to come to an answer. But unless you're specifically connected somehow to concrete instances of assault, this is an insensitive methodology; it doesn't appeal to anything outside of your own head, in particular victims, societies, perpetrators, consequences etc.
Why would you ever think that intuition was a suitable technique for answering questions about sexual assault? It is certainly neither suitable for effective legal or sociological assessment. The charitable take on all of this is that you're using intuition in a way in which you absolutely have no cause to because you're trying to apply a habitual totalizing technique in a field in which it has no purpose being used.