‘What do you mean by “reasonable” (belief in consent)’?

With a small number of notable exceptions, the meaning of a ‘reasonable belief’ in consent has received limited judicial attention, and yet difficult questions arise in connection with a number of pressing issues in the modern law of sexual offences.  What is the difference, if any, between a ‘reasonable belief’ and beliefs held by ‘reasonable people’?  Does this mens rea requirement properly assess the culpability of those who lack capacity to form correct beliefs about consent? Is the question sensitive to empirical analysis, purely normative, or some combination of the two? How should the law handle heterogeneity in community standards of ‘reasonableness’?  The law, as it currently stands, has largely failed to grapple with these questions and, where it has, I suggest that its answers are far from satisfactory.