And yet, last year in Toronto a judge ignored texts which were much more akin to explicit consent than they were to "merely flirtatious" because he wanted to find a guy guilty.  That is the concern: by making the default "nothing which involves the accuser is admissible unless they want it to be", that opens the door for activist (or just plain crappy) judges to create courtroom conditions of a highly biased nature.  

It demonstrates a terrifying state of our system that a text saying "I'll be by in 20 to ***** you" is treated in any way differently than "if you're there when I get home, I will kill you".  The existing law already has a mechanism for relevance so why does that need to change?