Will people ever realize that rape myths really are just myths?

Reading "Rape: On Coercion and Consent" I was struck by the question of whether beliefs about consent and the issues of believing whether sex was consensual based on the amount of force used have really changed all that much. 

I realize that many people work very hard to counter the negative effects of myths surrounding sexual assault, many of the work focusing on just how many people are assaulted by people they know and that some times rape is not violent or extremely forceful. However, I really wonder how much of it is actually getting through to the public. 

This thought was triggered when I read the passage about men saying it isn't as traumatic for women who are raped by somebody they are close to (177). I know many people who have actually said that they wish their assault had been more violent because then at least they wouldn't get to look at the doubt in a police officers face or hear their mother ask how it was assault if they were dating this person and had consented to other sexual acts. 

When people think of rape or sexual assault, it is most often the "acceptable" form of assault - when one is pulled into a dark alley by a stranger, their life is in danger and they are brutally injured and require immediate hospitalization. (Jaclyn Friedman describes this much better in her article What We Talk About When We Talk About Rape) People don't think of the girl whose boyfriend went too far or the woman whose husband didn't take no for an answer - people rarely acknowledge the people who were assaulted and were not injured. Often the people who are not seriously injured by their attacker are looked upon with doubt, as acknowledged in 'Rape: On Coercion and Consent', when discussing marital rape cases:

"In marital rape cases, courts look for even greater attrocities than usual to undermine their assumption that if sex happened, she wanted it"(176)

So, essentially, violent force is necessary for rape to have occurred - this is not only the case in marital rape, often people assume violence is necessary for rape to have occurred in any situation. 

It just bothers me that people who are not in classes like ours and people who are not affected by sexual assault often view it in such a skewed way, even though there are campaigns out there that challenge the myths surrounding sexual assault, the public refers to the 'acceptable' form of assault as one of violence and force rather than of coercion or just plain old not taking no for an answer. 

Is it because rape was defined (with the help of Brownmiller) as a violent crime about power and defacing the property of men? How do we change the knee-jerk reaction to immediately think of sexual assault as a violent act (the 'ideal' version Friedman speaks about) and realize that it comes in many shapes and sizes?

The law may have changed to acknowledge the many faces of assault, but why are survivors still confronted with doubt and scrutiny if they survived uninjured by the same people who are supposed to enforce and maintain these same laws?