If there is such a thing as "made to penetrate," I would think it does not get reported more than it is(which is to say it is never reported) maybe because no existing rape law addresses this problem. If any of our resident legal scholars know different, I welcome their input.
Let's suppose "made to penetrate" is a distinct class of rape, in the same vein as date rape. Date rape may have never been seen as "normal" behavior, but it was seen as a normal consequence of ordinary behavior. The change which came about when date rape was defined was not a greater reporting or support of date rape victims, although some of that occurred. The real change was in the realization among men that this kind of behavior was wrong. It was selfish and harmful. No rational person wants to harm others in the pursuit of their own pleasure. Once the rational man realizes this, his inner voice says, "I really want to have sex right now, but I can wait for a better time."
If I think about it, I maybe a victim of "made to penetrate." My natural male machismo makes it difficult for me to see myself as any kind of victim, but I'll give it a try. There were times when I would have preferred to go to sleep. I knew the experience wasn't going to be that good for either of us, but it was easier than arguing with a drunk woman. This may have happened twice in my 43 year sexual history.
The idea of "... forced to penetrate someone else with their own body parts, either by physical force or coercion, or when the victim was drunk or high or otherwise unable to consent," is so far from my actual experience, it sounds laughable. The only reason for pursuing this strange new form of sexual violence which sounds plausible to my mind, is to further the general misogyny that always comes out when violence against women is discussed. By showing that "men can be victims, too," what we are supposed to see is that women can be sexual predators. This would come from someone who is jumping up and down, pointing and yelling, "See, see. I told you so."