I've read and listened to various discussions this morning of barrister complaining that women's groups are saying this sets a precedent and will stop victims coming forward. They say this doesn't set any legal precedent, that this was a "very exceptional case" where the evidence of her sexual history was relevant.
But it does set a precedent, even if not a legal one. It makes it so, so much easier for men to get away with raping extremely drunk women. That's the precedent I think people who are outraged are referring to.
Now, all a rapist needs to do is see a woman who has fallen over from drink and is acting "vacant", start having sex with her without even speaking to her, and then say that she said something that resembles something that the woman may have said during (consensual) sexual intercourse with someone else (whom you've bribed with 50k, incidentally).
I have said "go harder" various times while having sex, with various people. So now, if I'm raped, and he says I said that, and I have no memory either through alcohol or a date rape drug or I'm asleep, they just need to speak to any of my exes and bingo: reasonable doubt. A jury must now concede that you had "reasonable belief of consent", which is a defence to rape. Even if you could just be making up that the phrase was said.
And that's why this verdict is so dangerous for all past and future victims of rape.