Thanks for the squid.... I think the main takeaway I was trying to get at here was the sheer complexity these tiny moments have. In answer to your question, I don't know where Ms Tepfenhart is from - but I gave her the British legal stuff, because British people read me too. It may be different in different parts of the world but a good reading of the law would help enormously for everyone.

What Ms Tepfenhart did was take one example and then turn it into a different example. It's these little differences that matter. In the example as given, when someone 'relents', then there was no evidence to suggest one way or the other that someone consented. Based on this, we can presume the fiftieth time of asking was also a no... and a reasonable person could conclude a failure to get consent is a rape conviction. The defence have a lot to do... (and this is presuming the defendant doesn't lie, which he most probably would) - but as Ms Tepfenhart reported it, there was a 'yes' - now the case is COMPLETELY different and the prosecution has to prove that 'even though the plaintiff said yes, she meant no - and that the defendant KNEW the plaintiff meant no' and do this beyond all reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. Little short of finding a diary or a text message in which the defendant says it was rape, this case is dead in the water.

It is these minor slip ups in the way we talk about such important things that cause emotional chaos for victims and collapsed cases in court. No always means no, and we must must must get better at educating people about consent.