She found it odd, but not unheard of, that a single word could have two diametrically opposite meanings. The standard definition held that rape involved unwanted sexual assault; this new definition proposed that withholding of wanted sexual attention constituted rape. A bit like the word "cleave", then, she mused.
She thought it quite noble that a "culture" usually represented as staunchly patriarchal should foreground a woman's gratification in this way, but wondered about the legal implications of this. The legal burden of proof in a "conventional" rape trial was complex enough, what with everything hinging around notions of consent. She had no idea how a rape complainant in this other paradigm would go about building a case - "but your honour, I wore askirt - the defendent must have known I had needs, and he chose not to respond to those!"
"Objection, your honour! My client claims the complainant was wearing a coat over her skirt at the time. He had no idea that the signal was still intentional."
And, if there were multiple instances of male present, would they all be chargeable with the offence, or just one selected by the complainant as the target? Could the others be charged as accessories, or under "common purpose" provisions? Could a male who was not charged, claim discrimination, and counter-charge? None of this was clear to the Cow.
But also - what about public figures? What if watching someone on the tv caused a woman to have "needs", which were not addressed by the person on tv - who, presumably, had no idea of this? What if, watching the trial, a whole host of women were suddenly finding themselves with "needs", and uMalume was not keeping up his end (so to speak)? Might he not suddenly find himself with many more rape trials to face?
He also told Johannesburg High Court that if he had turned her down on realising neither had a condom, according to Zulu culture he, himself, would have been accused of rape "for leaving her in that situation".