【Cthulhu Archives #03】The Qi Zhendong Case: The Production and Spread of "Revocable Sexual Consent" Panic
Case Summary
| Item | Content |
|---|---|
| Type of Behavior | Narrative manipulation and panic diffusion under information asymmetry—a case with only one-sided narratives and no official sources was packaged as a legal horror story about “revocable sexual consent” |
| Setting | 2022–2024 Nanchang university rape case, amplified by the defendant’s family’s lengthy online post and defense attorney’s online appeals, overlapping with the Datong case to form a complete picture of criminal panic in romantic settings |
| Impact | ”Revocable sexual consent” transformed from a concept non-existent in current Chinese law into an internet-accepted “fact”; exacerbated mutual distrust in romantic relationships; demonstrated a replicable paradigm for public opinion to intervene in the judiciary |
The core of sexual consent is “willingness at the time,” not “regret afterward.” Confusing the two turns every ended relationship into a potential rape accusation.
Timeline of Events
The Parties and Their Acquaintance
Qi Zhendong: A student at a Nanchang university, part-time mobile phone repairman. Xiao Liu: A female student at the same university.
In early 2022, Xiao Liu met Qi Zhendong through multiple phone repairs, and they interacted frequently on WeChat. According to a public post by the defendant’s sister, Xiao Liu allegedly sent flirtatious messages and selfies wearing lace lingerie.
The Incident
On May 7, 2022, Xiao Liu went to Qi Zhendong’s dormitory to pick up her phone, and they had sexual intercourse.
The following is a one-sided account released by the defendant’s sister (Note: All content is unverified independently):
- The defendant kept a 21-minute audio recording of the entire encounter, in which the female party voluntarily assumed the cowgirl position and said, “If you can’t do it, get up” and “I’ll beat you to death if you’re tired”
- Afterward, they left calmly; hallway surveillance footage showed the female party waiting for the male party
- On May 8, Xiao Liu visited again; they walked hand in hand and drank beer together
- Xiao Liu requested a committed relationship, but Qi Zhendong refused
- On May 9, Xiao Liu reported the incident to the police on the advice of a school counselor
Judicial Process
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 2022 | After initial police questioning, only residential surveillance was imposed |
| June 2022 | The female party submitted a depression diagnosis certificate; the case was formally filed |
| August 2022 | Qi Zhendong was criminally detained and arrested |
| 2023 | First-instance verdict: guilty of rape, sentenced to six years in prison |
| 2024 | Second-instance verdict: sentence reduced to three years, suspended for three years. Released in court |
How the Narrative Was Constructed
Only One Source of Information
Two key facts about this case are the premise for all discussion:
First, all case information comes solely from Qi Zhendong’s side. There is no statement from the victim, no official announcements from the court, prosecutor’s office, or public security bureau. The verdict was not made public due to privacy concerns.
The widely circulated online claims—“cowgirl position audio,” “post-incident surveillance,” “the woman retaliated after failing to secure a relationship”—are all one-sided accounts, with no independent verification.
Second, Qi Zhendong pleaded guilty and accepted punishment.
Under Chinese criminal law, one prerequisite for a suspended sentence is “showing remorse,” which includes admitting guilt and expressing regret. A person insisting on innocence cannot receive a suspended sentence. The second-instance verdict of three years suspended for three years—the minimum sentence for rape—is predicated on the defendant having no objection to the criminal facts.
These two points together create an incoherent narrative:
If the evidence was truly “obviously unjust,” why not insist on a not-guilty plea? If the lawyer believed “the verdict should be acquittal,” why advise the defendant to plead guilty?
Why the “Cowgirl Position” Evidence Couldn’t Overturn the Verdict
Even in the defendant’s sister’s account, the core issue isn’t the position—it’s whether the female party’s words at the time could prove “consent.” But the key legal question is always: Was the female party cooperating under her free will at the time?
There’s a common cognitive blind spot here: rape victims may cooperate out of fear or self-preservation. The position itself is not sufficient evidence of “consent.” This isn’t legal injustice; it’s the law’s empirical understanding of complex human behavior.
Furthermore, the surreptitiously recorded sexual audio itself has questionable legality. Criminal evidence requires legality, authenticity, and relevance—making private recordings made without the other party’s consent extremely difficult to pass cross-examination. The judge’s refusal to approve a voiceprint identification application is not procedurally unreasonable.
The Leap from “Cowgirl Position” to “Revocable Sexual Consent”
The internet’s logical chain from the Nanchang case to “revocable sexual consent” is as follows:
- The defendant’s sister claimed: the female party consented to sex because she wanted to establish a romantic relationship
- After being rejected for a relationship, the female party reported the incident
- The court ruled rape was established
- Inference: The court determined that “consent based on a promise of a relationship can be revoked when the promise is not fulfilled”
This inference has been repeatedly circulated online, becoming a legal horror story. But no official source has confirmed that the court used this logic. Even the defendant’s sister and defense attorney never publicly claimed the court used “mistake of motive” theory to convict—this is entirely an inference drawn by netizens from limited information.
“Revocable sexual consent” has no legal basis, but in the court of public opinion, a sufficiently terrifying guess spreads faster than a hundred verdicts.
Extension: A Replicable Paradigm for Public Opinion Intervention
The Qi Zhendong case, along with the Datong case and the “Chasing the Wind Xiao Ye” case, demonstrates a narrative generation model that is solidifying. I summarize it as “narrative arbitrage in an information vacuum”:
- One-sided disclosure—Family members publish detailed but unverifiable “essays,” supplemented by emotional screenshots (e.g., a plea letter stamped with an elderly person’s fingerprint, a depression diagnosis certificate)
- Lawyer endorsement—The defense attorney, adopting a “fighting for the people’s justice” persona, forwards the content, lending credibility to the one-sided narrative through their professional identity. Lawyers’ positions dictate their narrative choices—they are paid by the defendant
- Information vacuum—The case is not publicly tried, and the verdict is not made public. The legal process itself provides a greenhouse for rumor growth
- Public opinion diffusion—Under the guise of “case analysis,” self-media outlets package the one-sided narrative as a “case summary.” The boundary between truth and speculation blurs with each share
- Consensus solidification—After repeated dissemination, “cowgirl position can still lead to a rape conviction” becomes an accepted internet “fact.” At this point, anyone pointing out “incomplete information” is labeled as defending the guilty
This model is unrelated to the truth of the case itself. It is a tactic of information warfare, and the Qi Zhendong case is one of its most successful applications.
The Significance of Documentation
Documenting the Qi Zhendong case is not to judge whether it was a wrongful conviction—without a complete chain of evidence, no one can make that judgment. The second-instance verdict of three years suspended for three years itself implies: the judge believed guilt existed, but the circumstances were minor, or the evidence had certain flaws. It is neither a “clear wrongful conviction” nor an “ironclad case.”
It is documented because it shows how information asymmetry can transform a legal case into a symbol of social anxiety:
- After the Datong case, people feared “being falsely accused of rape after an engagement”
- The Qi Zhendong case further created the fear of “being convicted of rape even after consent”
- The two layers of fear combined to form the entire foundation for the “shackled survival” phenomenon
In the absence of public verdicts and transparent information from all parties, the truth is suspended. Every seemingly authoritative analysis is an imagination built on incomplete information.
In an environment where information flows one way and verdicts are not made public, “truth” is not something to be discussed—it is merely a product to be consumed.