Maybe? In this situation I didn't see the pretext as relevant enough to note in my comment – there definitely is legal precedent to invalidate consent afterwards if not enough information was provided beforehand. For example in the case where one party neglects to inform the other of having some STD, in which case it could cause real harm, or if one party is underage or doesn't have enough understanding of consent to know they were pressured/sexually assaulted.

However in cases like this it seems significantly less severe. It would be flippant of me to say "ok? just don't have sex with them again then", but from what I've seen, real victims of rape tend to see similar cases as abuse of a system intended to protect people who misunderstood the meaning of their consent or were pressured into thinking they did. Thank you for pointing that out though, consent vitiation is indeed a wider and more nuanced topic than I originally thought.