No sometimes means no?

Feministing was all over this months ago, but I only got as far as folding down a page of my Ms. and then burying it in a pile of other things about which I keep meaning to blog. In Maouloud Baby vs. state of Maryland the court ruled that

JURY INSTRUCTIONS; COURT’S RESPONSE TO JURY QUESTION REGARDING WHETHER PRIOR CONSENT VITIATES CRIMINAL CHARACTER OF POST PENETRATION WITHDRAWAL OF CONSENT; BATTLE V. STATE, 287 MD. 675 (1980); QUESTION POSED BY JURY, “IF A FEMALE CONSENTS TO SEX INITIALLY AND, DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEX ACT TO WHICH SHE CONSENTED, FOR WHATEVER REASON, SHE CHANGES HER MIND AND THE . . . MAN CONTINUES UNTIL CLIMAX, DOES THE RESULT CONSTITUTE RAPE?” WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND THUS REQUIRED A SPECIFIC ANSWER AND, NOTWITHSTANDING WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY TO THE CONTRARY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE UNDER THE MOST
CURRENT MARYLAND LAW TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE.

In other words, once sex begins, it really doesn't matter if you change your mind or he starts to hurt you or for any of a million other valid reasons you decide not to finish the matter. You're in it until he's finished. Jeebus.