How Is A 'Wet Willy' So Different From Rape?

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, a 'wet willy' is a procedure typically performed by children whereby the perpetrator sneaks up behind the victim, moistens his or her pinky fingers by licking them, then proceeds to shove them into the victim's ears.

So here we have a procedure that involves the use of an appendage to perform forcible penetration of up to 2 orifices, accompanied by a transference of bodily fluids-- exactly what you would have with rape.

But even though these 2 concepts are essentially identical, our society has a vastly different perception of them. One thing is viewed as the worst thing you can possibly do to a person short of killing them, while the other is viewed a harmless joke that school children play on one another.

I know some of you will try to argue that rape is inherently different because it carries the risk of pregnancy. But would these people contend that a woman who is post-menopausal who gets raped is getting no more than a wet willy? I doubt it. Besides, the pregnancy risk can be eliminated by taking emergency contraceptive within 72 hours of the event.

Others would argue that rape is much worse because of the disease potential. But would these people say that the rape is no big deal if a condom was used, or if the victim didn't get any diseases?

So exactly what is the logic behind the vast difference in our society's perceptions of the criminality and victimization level between a rape and a wet willy? Which level of response would be appropriate in order to be consistent-- should we treat wet willy victims like we do rape victims, or should we treat rape victims like we do wet willy victims??