Actually, a victim's sexual history is scrupulously barred from evidence in a rape case with only very narrow and specific exceptions, yet consent is a defense. It is just argued from other facts, because anyone's sexual history is mostly irrelevant to whether or not they consented to a specific sex act. My paradigm would allow, for instance, this accused to argue consent on two levels -- first, that the alleged victim had the mental and emotional ability to consent l, and second that he actually did. But you don't really need to air his/her sexual history to do that. The point to me, is to let a jury weigh facts about the actual power mechanics and individuals in the case and not just sweep it aside on the basis of their respective ages. How many of us here lost our virginity prior to the respective age or majority? Or the applicable age of consent? It is rhetorical, I am not taking a poll, but think about it, go back to that age, do you think it was more the exception or the rule that you and your peers were fully capable of deciding to have sex of your own free will?