Then follow it independent of context… except you know you won’t. Besides which, most people interpret the non-agression principle in an inconsistent way to begin with. There is actually no reason why trying to harm an agressor is less agression than agressing against them for any other reasons. One can at least attempt to defend oneself without trying to harm an attacker. In the end, the non-agression principle is only logically consistent as true pacifism. The situation becomes even worse with the rationalizations people have for agressing against people for previous crimes.
Can’t you rape with an object? What if a retarded person, who resists (and cannot give truly informed consent anyway), needs a colonoscopy? Anal rape with a big tube… Try again.
How so?
Maybe if you’d read any of the relevant literature on consent for the mentally impaired (children, mentally handicapped), you’d know that your attempt at disproving this rule fails.
Furthermore, why do you assume that I would say it is okay to give a colonoscopy to someone who could not consent or to someone who actively resists?