Coitus interruptus

Morton testified that because of his impaired vision he tended to freeze in response to unexpected events. Crabtree comments: "In these circumstances, feeling a small mouth and sharp teeth around his penis would be a genuinely startling event and freezing is a normal non-volitional reaction to startle. Additionally, even when he had recovered sufficiently to make a neurocognitive assessment, he would be justified in his fear of his penis being bitten if he reacted in any other way than freezing. "

As Crabtree points out the startle response has been described in the literature for over 100 years. It's well understood that the "fright fight flight or freeze response" is an involuntary reaction to a sudden, sharp, unexpected stimulus.

Like a blind man feeling a small mouth gripping his penis.

Or any man wallowing in the pleasure of a consensual sexual experience who is suddenly told the deal is off. He's now having non-consensual sex. Which means rape. Which could mean prison.

Dr Crabtree explains that after the initial shock, it takes time for a man's body to be capable of the much slower cognitive assessment and decision-making process required to process that troubling message, particularly when his body is subject to the sensory overload associated with high levels of sexual arousal.

He explains: "At high levels of sexual arousal, males are subject to sensory overload, where their psychological/physical resources are focused on their growing excitement. This means it may take very clear, repeated and even forceful intervention for the male to perceive consent is being revoked. It is unrealistic to assume a man at such a time is in full control of his neurocognitive processes, and physical responses. It is unrealistic to expect that cessation of the sexual act and withdrawal of the penis can occur instantaneously or near instantaneously at the time a complainant decides to revoke consent."

It is Dr Crabtree's view, that given the serious consequences for accused men, women should be required to make sure their message revoking consent is not only sent but received and understood – "even if this requires clear repeated and escalating intense words and actions."

Yet Theodore Bennett's summary of relevant case law mentions an alleged victim who revokes consent by saying, "Wait."

What's that supposed to mean? Surely, she could simply be saying, "Slow down and wait for me."

There's also a 1988 case where the complainant says, "Quick, it's them" when she hears the sound of her mother's car. As Theodore Bennett explains this could mean "quickly finish" rather than "quickly withdraw."

Note that there's active discussion amongst American legal scholars regarding a legislative requirement that revoked consent must be effectively communicated, but no apparent interest in this issue in Australia's feminist-led legal community.

It received absolutely no attention from the trial and appeal judges involved in Australia's most famous revoked consent case, involving Kevin Ibbs, a Perth man who became known as the "30 Second Rapist" because he was convicted of sexual assault after continuing for 30 seconds after his partner revoked consent.