Look, I looked it up, and this is what my dictionary says (minus all the stuff about turnips and vinegar and rope, all of which the word relates to in secondary, seldom-used terms):
Rape: 1: the act of taking anything by force; violent seizure (of goods), robbery. 2: the act of carrying away a person (esp. a woman) by force. 3: violation or ravishing of a woman.
An entry or two down (there are five entries for the word, including the bits about turnips I mentioned above), here's something more concrete:
2: to carry off (a person, esp. a woman) by force. 3: to ravish, commit rape on 1577.
I don't know what the hell the bit about 1577 means, but note all the descriptive terms used. "Taking... by force". "Violent seizure." "Carrying away... by force." "Violation or ravishing." Slightly antiquated uses aside, rape means violence is involved, FORCE is involved. There is no such thing as a nonviolent or pleasant rape; rape by definition violates, ravishes, traumatizes - it is forced. If you consent to having sex, and you are not forced, and no violence is involved, and it is not traumatizing, then by the basic definition of the word, the term rape does not apply. Michelle was not forced into having sex - the Chameleon made advances, which she then responded to. The fact that she thought it was Peter is definitely a major factor here - of course it is - and that makes it a crime, and a violation of her rights, and it was a horrible, horrible thing to do, and the writer and editor should both be ashamed, and I'm not arguing with any of that - but it was not rape. Some other variety of sex crime? Absolutely. Rape? No. The Chameleon didn't drug Michelle, he didn't bash her over the head, he didn't force her to the floor, he didn't even say that he WAS Peter (although I'll grant you that's a minor loophole) - he started to kiss her, she started to kiss him back. No force was involved; he started to kiss her and then they had normal sex (unless, of course, something happened off-panel which would refutes this, although judging by Michelle's reaction to Peter's entry, I'm inclined to doubt this). The fact that it was consentual and nonviolent, DESPITE the Chameleon's representing of his identity, means that it wasn't rape. I'm not taking issue with the statement that is was wrong - of course it was; it was a vile, hideous thing to do - I'm taking issue with the statement that it was rape, with the use of the word 'rape'. The word does not apply; some other must be used. The Oxford English Dictionary, Third Edition, says so.