Because of the overall flexibility recipients have beneath these closing polices to adopt a definition of consent, the Department disagrees that the scope of the next exception to the rape protect protections is far too broad or favors respondents. Rather, the scope of the "offered to prove consent" exception is determined in element by a recipient's definition of consent, which may perhaps be wide or slender at the recipient's discretion. The Department disagrees that the first exception ("offered to confirm that an individual other than the respondent" committed the alleged misconduct) is way too wide, simply because in get for that exception to use a respondent's rivalry should be that another person other than the respondent is the man or woman who fully commited the sexual harassment commenters have educated the Department that this protection is not common in comparison to the protection that a sexual interaction occurred but consent was present, a conclusion buttressed by commenters' assertions that a major number of sexual assaults are fully commited by intimate partners. The Department disagrees that the evidence exchange provision in § 106.45(b)(5)(vi) negates the rape shield protections in § 106.45(b)(6)(i)-(ii). As noted by the Supreme Court, rape defend protections usually are made to shield complainants from harassing, irrelevant inquiries into sexual behavior at trial .
