I disagree with that. Like, no, absolutely not. Such an interpretation LITERALLY defeats the purpose of this definition. Not to mention, even the article you quoted clearly explains that the ICC definition implies "the penetration of (...) the perpetrator by the victim".
The article never once mentions - a horrible mistaken - belief that the person being penetrated will be considered the victim even if they were the one using force. The part I quoted above clearly illustrates that. Perhaps the article's explanation of para 1(2) that uses the phrase "circumstances where the victim is penetrated vaginally or anally" is not constructed the best way, but it has to be read in the light of the previous part of the definition. The victim is ALWAYS the one against whom coercion and force are used. ALWAYS.
Re: 5 times someone preyed on Matt sexually b/c of his blindness
The article never once mentions - a horrible mistaken - belief that the person being penetrated will be considered the victim even if they were the one using force. The part I quoted above clearly illustrates that. Perhaps the article's explanation of para 1(2) that uses the phrase "circumstances where the victim is penetrated vaginally or anally" is not constructed the best way, but it has to be read in the light of the previous part of the definition. The victim is ALWAYS the one against whom coercion and force are used. ALWAYS.