it's irrelevant whether there are more prescient issues for you, or for anyone. the idea that if something is rape it must be the main issue doesn't make sense. the question of rape is whether someone is preventing you from acting with agency. you can question wherein the limitation moves from substantial to insignificant, but not that that the deliberate removal of agency automatically is substantial. because magic used against a person isn't just a limitation but actual removal, I think this applies as substantial.

real world examples rarely completely remove agency from a person, they mostly limit it. for the record, there are a couple of places where rape by deception is criminal (thought they are controversial laws), so this isn't even beyond the legal realm. in the US, this is usually by putting the person in danger (unknown STI's, removal of condoms), because the victim doesn't have the relevant information to protect themselves.

California has a good example of substantial agency limitation, or fraud. There was a person who pretended to be a doctor and told people that they were spreading disease and could be charged criminally if anyone found out, and the only way to get rid of the disease was a prohibitively expensive surgery or sex with a donor, (who was the "doctor" what a co-winky-dink). They had "consensual" sex, but California changed the law to be able to charge him, because that's wildly rapey.