Rape prosecutions may just be the nastiest kind of criminal prosecutions.
It's a nasty sort of offense, obviously, but unlike other nasty crimes (felony assault, armed robbery, murder), the biggest defense is always going to be something like "implied consent of the victim". The law may not use those two words, but that's what it is going to amount to in the eyes of the finder of fact.
And that means the case inevitably turns on the credibility of two people: the alleged perp, and the complaining victim/consent giver. And when credibility controls, the strategy on both sides is ... well, lets just say that "nasty" is what happens.
Because when it comes to "character," it's extremely hard to keep separate those parts of character that go to the question of "doubt about consent" and those that merely speak to a person's general moral character and judgment (and which should not be counted).
And it isn't the job of the two advocates -- the defense counsel OR the prosecutor to make those distinctions. It's the job of the two advocates to get the real finder of fact to make the distinctions in a particular way.
So the defense counsel is going to try to make the alleged victim look like a sleazy dockyard whore who corrupts young men and spreads disease and ungodliness, and the prosecutor's job is to make the defendant look like a cross between Ed Gein and the bad guys in a Steven Seagal movie.
Frankly, I'm amazed whenever a rape victim agrees to prosecute. IMO that very act says something positive about their character -- whatever else they might be, moral or immoral, they possess a kind of fortitude. And to my mind, fortitude IS a virtue. Even in a sleazy dockyard whore.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)