Whether a woman has been raped should be a straight forward, black and white issue but the Ched Evans case could have set a dangerous precedent.
What it comes down to is did the woman give her consent to have sex. If she never then it is rape, it really should be that easy to define.
With regards to Ched Evans, the court heard independent witnesses who testified the girl involved was very drunk, had glazed eyes and was incoherent and stumbling on the night she encountered Evans.
If she was not in any fit state to give consent, and she says she never, then Ched had sex with her without he giving him permission to.
What seems to have swung it was that the woman involved was sexually promiscuous, having been with two men in the previous weeks, and due to her previous sexual behaviour she wasn't raped.
To take into account a woman's previous sexual behaviour is an abhorrent thing to base such a massive decision of whether she was raped on.
The fear is now that the events in the case will mean more women are subjected to the kind of humiliating and intrusive dissection of their sexual behaviour which could prevent the jailing of rapists.
Did the woman give her consent for Ched Evans to have sex with her should be the only question anyone needs to ask. She never, so Ched raped her, it is that simple.