Back in October, a Pennsylvania judge made waves across the country when she ruled that the forcible rape of a prostitute wasn’t rape at all, but robbery. Her reasoning was that the prostitute had already consented, and that all the “robbers” had done was fail to pay for her services.

Reasonable outrage ensued on behalf of the victim and other similarly-situated women across the country, but even those who were most indignant—even those who took action and wrote letters and lobbied against the retention of the judge who made the ruling—focused on what the ruling said to and about prostitutes. The real risk of this ruling is much broader: the judge as good as said that consent couldn’t be withdrawn.

The facts presented to the judge indicated that the woman had entered into an agreement to perform certain sexual services for a fee of $150. When she arrived at the designated meeting place, the man told her that a male friend was going to join them, and would pay her an additional $100. Instead, they were shortly joined by three additional men, and the original “customer” produced a gun.

Like most reasonable women, the victim decided that she was a shade uncomfortable at gunpoint and withdrew her consent—an option I’m sure we’d all like to think we retained if some new element like a DEATH THREAT was introduced into our romantic interludes.

But no. According to this court’s ruling, that wasn’t an option. She’d already consented; the only issue now was payment.

Except…what if there hadn’t been money involved? The ruling in this case didn’t technically hinge on the fact that there had been money involved in the original agreement, but on the fact that the woman had consented in advance.

Let’s imagine a different scenario for a moment. Let’s imagine that a woman agrees to meet her ex-boyfriend for dinner. The evening goes well; he invites her back to his apartment to spend the night, and she accepts. Once they’re inside the apartment, he produces a gun and tells her that his roommate is going to join them. She rethinks her decision to have sex with him, but he insists…with a gun to her head. Rape?

According to the reasoning of the Pennsylvania ruling, no. And however a chorus of voices across the country might say, “But that’s DIFFERENT”, the fact is that legally, it’s not different at all. The judge in the Pennsylvania case said that the victim’s withdrawal of consent was ineffective…that she’d consented and the fact that she’d changed her mind didn’t make the slightest bit of difference.

Forget the ramifications for prostitutes--which are serious enough standing alone—the underlying rationale in this ruling is that once a woman has consented, there’s no turning back, no matter what turn circumstances might take.