ABSTRACT
Consent plays a particularly important role in protecting sexual autonomy. The defendant's claim about belief in consent must be tested against what the reasonable person would believe about consent in the context. Many people saw serious problems with this ruling, as it permits a defendant to be acquitted of rape just in case he believes a woman is consenting, no matter what his reasons are for believing it. They argued that any belief in consent, as long as it was honestly held, would be incompatible with the intention to commit rape. Douglas Husak and George Thomas III reject the strategy of many rape commentators of changing statutes, for example requiring affirmative consent, thereby foreclosing the defense of reasonable mistaken belief in these sorts of cases. Consent figures centrally in unaggravated rape, providing the key to understanding the moral wrongness and seriousness of this form of rape.
