That&#x27;s not the argument, I&#x27;m not sure how you got that from the article. In fact, all it is doing is criticising verdicts that clear perpetrators of rape if they think or say that they thought the other party was consenting.<p>In this regard, though the article doesn&#x27;t actually say this, I think it&#x27;s fairly logical that if the one making the claim they were raped <i>wasn&#x27;t consenting</i>. Thus in all claims of rape there was one party who wasn&#x27;t consenting to have sex, ergo there is no &quot;two consenting adults&quot;!<p>Let me put it this way: your own statement is that &quot;Consensual by definitions (sic) means both parties agreed&quot;. If you agree this is the correct definition, then if the victim did not agree, even though the other party claims they did, then that isn&#x27;t consensus.<p>Your idea is not about consensual sex - your idea is that consensus was <i>percieved</i> by one party, when in fact it wasn&#x27;t. And again, that&#x27;s not consensus because <i>actual</i> consensus to have sex needs to made by both parties in the act.