Say for example I am with a guy, and we are having a nice conversation. And he leans over and kisses me, but I didn't say whether I wanted to be kissed or not. I could make the claim that he is a rapist and legally that is true. This situation could also happen vice versa. This law leaves too many open interpretations. It prevents a romance from happening without needing to confirm every action, so no surprise or spontaneous act can be both legal, and secure.
I can understand where the law is coming from and it does sound like it would but it doesn't. All the law does is impose that if at any point in time a person says no to something you don't do it. Like there are examples that are ridiculous I've seen about how a girl kisses her boyfriend before asking she is breaking the law. Yes she is but what kind of douchebag boyfriend would you be to go,"You didn't ask to kiss me so I'm calling the police because I didn't give consent." That sounds absolutely absurd. If you did that you'd never get a girl again because you'd have the reputation of a guy who jails his girlfriends for kissing him.
All the law says is that if a girl/guy says no and you continue regardless, you are raping them. It is comparable to before where you got consent in the beginning and then they didn't want to do something but you already got consent so therefore you weren't raping her. It's more like the law is about safe words that if the partner isn't okay with something they say no and it's supposed to be over.
So no, I do not believe it outlaws all sex, it just adds a layer of protection for people who don't want to do something and aren't considered raped because they gave starting consent.
(If anyone sees something wrong in my logic or reasoning please respond as I'd like to hear from people on the opposite side of the debate or even on my side.)