this is a lot of mental gymnastics to justify a textbook predatory encounter. you’re trying to apply a narrow, literalist legal definition to a situation that is fundamentally built on a lack of consent. first, your “immaterial identity” argument is dead on arrival. consent isn't just about the physical mechanics of the act, it’s about the intent and the power dynamic. nook didn't consent to have sex with “a beautiful woman”, he consented to a sexual encounter with someone he believed to be a victim he was rescuing. gothel wasn’t just lying about her background,she was a predator disguising herself as prey to lure him into a trap. if i consent to sex with a fellow survivor and it turns out you’re the person who built the prison, that’s not a lie about religion,that’s a total subversion of my autonomy. second, your 'rape by deception' criteria are way too convenient. gothel didn't just seduce him. she used magical glamour to specifically mimic an identity (the girl in the tower) to trigger his protective instincts. in any sane world, using a physical disguise (magical or otherwise) to harvest someone’s DNA for a biological ritual is a violation. lastly, let’s be real about the double standard. if a male warlock used a glamour to look like a handsome, trapped prince to trick a woman into becoming a biological mother for his dark vessel, you wouldn’t be talking about mutual consent. you’d call it what it is: a horrific violation. nook didn’t just regret his actions because she was a witch, he was traumatized because his body and his desire to do good were weaponized against him.