I see your point, but it would matter at a trial, because if you take the positive action to fuck them both willingly after you were aroused, that would be considered consent, unless you were under some sort of duress, like you were being held at gunpoint or knifepoint or were drugged or something.
So, you're expressing the view that raping is ok,
as long as consent is given post-facto? Even
temporarily? Wow.
i am pretty sure (not with PI, though), that most women will agree to this.
but, only if it had happened to a man and not a woman.
While I think it is possible for a woman to rape a man, I think it would be even more difficult for him to prove in court than it is for a woman.
In an acquaintance rape situation, if it is prosecuted and goes to court the defense will often raise the issue of consent by the victim, because if the perpetrator reasonably believes he or she has consent to sexual intercourse from a person who is of legal age and mental status to grant consent, then the sexual intercourse is not defined as rape. That is why acquaintance rapes are so difficult to prove FOR BOTH MEN AND WOMEN.
In your case, you were only 17, which is below the legal age of consent in California, but your two perpetrators were 14, so the age issue would not have been in your favor. If the perpetrators had been adults, then it would have been. That is why the issue of implied consent matters. In my opinion, based on what you have said so far, if you had gone to the police with a rape accusation you would have been more likely to be prosecuted than the two 14 year olds.