>>11264544
>>11264564
I really like the legal trial idea. Having "protection" against sexual assault is one of the many ways free women are "privileged". Slaves don't get such security, it would be laughable, a slave can't be raped, she doesn't have bodily autonomy. If a guard or taskmaster forces himself on a slave, that's just a perk of the job, and if a random man does it, the worst he might get is a fine for interrupting her work(maybe extra if he damaged her to the point she can't perform her duties)
Plus, men would want to know there are laws to ensure their wives are safe from unwanted attention.
There could be two legal codes for it, there's rape by real world definitions, which like you said is almost impossible to prove since arousal is consent. It's a grueling, humiliating and likely painful experience to try and go to court for a woman, one that almost always ends with her either enslaved or MUCH further in debt than she was prior, plus her sponsor is STRONGLY encouraged to try and correct her behavior with increased discipline and her job might choose to add things like bondage uninform rules and unpaid overtime to make up for the days she missed while in the stocks.
The other kind of rape is when a man's wife is sexually assaulted, and this kind is taken much more seriously. The man himself will be the one doing most of the arguing, and the court will usually side with him if he says he wants his wife to be his alone. Businesses that continue to force married women to serve sexually(without her husband's permission, since some men don't care if she's sucking dick or giving a handy) can be heavily fined, and since a married woman's contract is between her employer and her husband, restricting her career because she doesn't put out can get a business in trouble for essentially defrauding a man.
Men who rape married women are actually likely to see punishment, especially since there's the obvious, but unspoken reality that he could have picked anyone else