Sexual offenses, particularly rape, present significant challenges in criminal litigation due to the inherent complexity in establishing the relationship between the actus reus, mens rea, and legal consent. This research examines the phenomenon of the “disconnect between consent and involuntary arousal”—a state where physiological bodily reactions triggered by fear or shock, such as involuntary arousal, are erroneously interpreted as indicators of consent. Aiming to prevent evidentiary errors in criminal proceedings, this study distinguishes between involuntary physiological responses and legal consent. The findings of this interdisciplinary research confirm that physiological arousal or trauma-induced tonic immobility not only fail to signify consent but are also fundamentally inconsistent with the legal principles governing rape and coercion in the Iranian and Lebanon criminal justice systems. Furthermore, reliance on these myths undermines victim protection. Consequently, it is proposed that the focus of judicial analysis should shift from somatic indicators toward establishing free and informed will. By utilizing specialized behavioral science expert testimony and enhancing the interdisciplinary knowledge of the judiciary, judicial practices must be aligned with scientific evidence to guarantee justice in sexual offense litigation.