I can understand this reaction.

It seems lots of people are thinking this. Legally speaking - from the perspective of every US state with relevant case law (see California, Oregon, Texas...) - this is entirely incorrect. This was terrible behaviour but NOT rape. Consent of any sexual contact provides some barriers against sexual criminality later in the sexual event. We can dislike that till the cows come home but it doesn't change the fact that sexual consent is complicated. It's mixed with verbal and non verbal signals. There is such a legal precedence as probative sexual consent before the evwnt begins (hugging, kissing...) AND sexual modification after consent is given (changing positions...). It sucks. It's complicated. Plenty of consent is non verbal. She did not give consent for anal sex but there are so many examples of case-law where initial consent matters most.

Consent to sexual contact is consent to all forms of sexual contact until withdrawn. Feel free to disagree but I'm speaking from a legal perspective. Imagine having to consent to every form of sexual contact. It is untenable from a legal perspective. You get into an infinite regression of forms of sexual contact. Not just oral, anal, vaginal. What about sideways sex and downward dog and all other varieties. It's an infinite regression. This was fundamentally NOT rape. It was absolutely abhorant but not legal rape. She withdrew consent and he should immediately react to that. The guy is obviously an asshole. Consent is absolutely protection against most sexual crimes and once it is withdrawn both parties are granted leniency (reasonable time) to stop the sexual contact.

Consent can be withdrawn at any time but consent can also be given verbaly and nonverbally.

See State v. Leistiko, 282 P.3d 857, 861-62 Or. 2012.....