For anyone reading the "mixing drinks" line, we all know what that euphemism is trying to avoid saying. It appears she hired a male escort. That fact, even if true, is legally and morally irrelevant to the allegation of rape. Consent is not a one-time contract. It can be refused, limited or withdrawn at any moment. If she decided she no longer wanted any sexual contact, or changed her mind halfway through, that decision alone defines the boundary. Crossing it is rape, regardless of what had been discussed, expected or even paid for beforehand. If the allegations are true, a far more plausible sequence is that alcohol led to poor decisions to hire the 'male escort' (lets call a spade a spade) - and she changed her mind which led to an argument likely over money he felt owed, which escalated into violence. She suffered a serious facial injury before the alleged rape. She can be criticised for putting herself in a risky situation if people choose to make that argument. Adults are accountable for the decisions that place them in vulnerable circumstances. But accountability for taking a risk is not accountability for someone else's decision to assault and rape you. Those are entirely separate issues. The moment consent ended, any sexual act became a criminal offence. It's really that simple.
