Is this a trick question? Am I walking into a trap? I'm trying not to pick sides...
Technically (and generally) prior conduct means little to the law in regards to sex crimes. One partner can remove consent at any point during the sexual encounter. So, defendant could have had sex with victim 1000 times, and on the last second of the 1001st time, victim says no, and it is rape. It wouldn't matter if the victim had initiated the act, prepared for it, dressed up, decorated the room, and begged for it...at the instant consent is removed, it is a crime. That is the prosecution's argument.
On the other hand, there are 12 jurors who have to listen to and see the evidence. If that sort of evidence is presented, it is hard to filter the prior conduct/communication in any way other than continued consent. That is the defense argument.
Theoretically and philosophically it is admittedly hard to parse this dichotomy in a meaningful way. If two parties have a history of consensual sexual encounters, with evidence of communication and of consent (or initiation), what could change in that last instant to turn the whole thing non consensual without there being a massive change in the defendant's behavior, or some ill will on the victim's part? I think that is the conundrum that worries/complicates most people's perception.
