Leave the Sabines out of it...
No, no, no , no, no.
The "rape" of the Sabine women is a reference to the taking away of those good ladies by force. The meaning of "rape" here tracks back to its original Latin root, which is about snatching something away. I suspect - but can't be arsed to look up - that the original text will reference a "raptus"...
The reason for snatching them was that the Roman colony was originally - according to legend - rather light on women. So they needed to find some fast or die out. Cue raid down the road to remove the female occupants of Sabina/Sabinum (?).
Of course, it could be argued that what happened to the women AFTER they got returned to Rome was rape. Although in fact the fate that awaited most of them was forced marriage.
Having said THAT, it does raise a most peculiar piece of pedantry that I ended up arguing the toss over with some feminists a few months back. In the small screem production of Rome there is a scene in which one of the protagonists loses his cool and "rapes" a slave girl.
I say "rapes" (in inverted commas) because under Roman Law, he did no such thing. If the slave wasn't his, he might have been done for criminal damage (or equivalent) - but not rape.
That, in turn, raises a serious flaw in this proposed legislation.
Violence is something with a fairly definite definition. So is necrophilia and bestiality. Let's face it, if you have your private parts inserted in a sheep, its pretty much an open and shut case.
But rape? Well, no. That is something that depends on the intentions and understandings of the parties involved, and the state of the law at the time of the event.
Assuming - I'm sure it doesn't - that scene from Rome came before the Scottish censor, would it be possible to argue that because the action was "rape" in modern terms, that was enough to secure a conviction - or might a defense be acceptable in court that as no such crime was possible, it did not represent a breach of the law.
What about a husband forcing himself on his wife?
Would it matter whether the action depicted took place before or after the 1970's landmark ruling?
What about good King Arthur who certainly committed incest (according to legend) and probably also statutory rape by modern standards?
Oh, what a wonderful can of worms we are opening here.
Paris. Because he committed one of history's most infamous abductions. Or rapes.