You analysis about the implications of past history is very insightful. In addition think about the harm.
Would one rather err on the side of the victim when say a 17 year old previous virgin claims rape v. a 21 year old with a long long past. Of course either might be lying, but I know where I think the greater harm was done.
If the woman in this case was raped, it was a crime and something terrible was done to her. But she is not the 17 or 14 year old girl whose first sexual experience is an nightmare for the rest of her life.
Sexual history was meaningful to juries and they used it in their decision process. For that reason leftists decided they needed to take that information away from a jury?
Current law does not allow such evidence's admissibility unless it is relevant to a particular issue at trial.