You can consent to one act but not another. You can consent to sex with one person but not having their friend join.
That’s not conditional consent. That’s consent to one sexual act, and then consent would be required for the further/different sexual act of introducing another person.
Quite the same as consent to oral sex does not automatically give consent to penetrative sex.
In the case of the prostitute you are quite correct, she has been robbed.
I agree that it is abhorrent behaviour, but there is a difference between rape and taking advantage and to act as if it is otherwise is, in my opinion, counter productive. It makes us look ill informed.
The jury in this case had no choice but to aquit. The judge had no choice but to act as she did to avoid an inevitable appeal. The prosecution acted within the scope of the law to discredit this young woman.
It is the law that stinks, regardless of the facts of this case, it is the law that needs to be changed.