It is to the game-theoretic advantage of someone who does not want (a particular instance of) sex to be traumatizeable by non-consensual sex. People who don't care if they traumatize others will not likely be deterred either way, but people who do care about such a thing will avoid doing the thing that can cause the trauma. Sex in particular is a commonly enough not-wanted thing - a by default not-wanted thing - that we can have a societal framework designed around prohibiting people from forcing it on others, and this has (comparatively recently) generalized to cases where sexual partnership is the societally recognized default, i.e. within a marriage.

Meanwhile, uncommon strong preferences about how one is touched - for instance, my extreme desire not to be tickled, which I do think ought to have moral force for people who know about it but cannot hope to give legal force - do not have enough general currency to be supported in this way. Common strong desires which require the public identification of a non-default, like the desire not to be close to a smelly person, are ignored because as a culture we consider enforcing those desires to be rude (by default, we are presumed to be not smelly, while by default we are presumed to be non-sex-partners with arbitrary persons). The closest we come is guidelines about generically personal space which evaporate under some circumstances.