Playing devil’s advocate a little bit here, I can somewhat agree with this in terms of communications before the act of sex. By that I mean to say that a person could consent to sex in email at a point in time, then revoke consent at a later point in time. Whatever is said before consent is revoked very well could be irrelevant.

That said however, shouldn’t that be for the judge or jury to decide, and for the prosecute to convince that it’s irrelevant?

Communications after sex should be very important. Obviously, if communications shows that the woman has no regrets, then it would be difficult to prove sex wasn’t consensual. Of course, even regret doesn’t prove anything since a man is not responsible for a woman’s regret of a bad decision. Really, the only communications that should matter is a woman states that she never gave consent and the man acknowledge that to be true.

But again, why isn’t it up to the judge/jury to decide what’s important?

Really, the bigger problem is that the mindset has switch on guilty till proven innocent. I have no problem with women being concerned that rape victims aren’t believed. It can be very difficult to prove that rape occurred. The response shouldn’t be limit the rights of a man, but for women to look out for their own security.

Restricting a woman’s freedom from doing whatever she wants, even if it’s for her own safety, is against what feminism stands for though. Hence, the opt to remove the rights of men instead.