&quot;The legal verdict on whether sex is non consensual still often rests on the perspective of the alleged perpetrator rather than the experience of the victim.&quot;<p>I&#x27;m not sure I entirely understand this quote to its fullest. It is being argued that it is the experience of the victim that matters if sex is consensual. Isn&#x27;t this quote logically wrong? Consensual by definitions means both parties agreed. But is the author arguing that it is the victim&#x27;s opinion that makes it consensual only?<p>How would that work in a situation where both parties start having sex, then it stops being consensual half way (from the victim changing their mind). The victim changes their minds but says nothing, and continues as before during the act. From the authors opinion, the victim experienced rape, hence the perpetrator should be convicted. But from the perpetrator&#x27;s perspective they have no knowledge the partner&#x27;s consent was revoked.<p>As far as I understand, an accusation should examine a perpetrator&#x27;s perspective more, since that person is being charged with a crime. Why is the author arguing that the victim&#x27;s experience is what the trial should hinge upon? If the victim raised an accusation, that is enough! It is the perpetrator that is being tried and attempted to be found guilty, hence the trial focuses on the perpetrator&#x27;s actions and perspective.<p>Can someone better weigh in? This seems like one of those thoughts that sounds profound, but does not stand up to scrutiny.