Expert testimony on “make-up sex” is not analogous to expert testimony on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS). Appellant was charged with spousal rape by force. Despite her account of rape by her husband to five different parties following the incident, at trial, the victim recanted. Appellant’s motion to introduce expert testimony on the subject of “make-up sex,” a “phenomena of sex being more arousing after a fight in some circumstances,” was denied by the trial judge. Finding no abuse of discretion in the denial, the appellate court rejected appellant’s argument that the expert’s intended testimony was akin to CSAAS testimony. The court noted that the proffered testimony (1) was not offered to rehabilitate the complaining witness, it was offered to explain consent and support her recantation at trial; (2) did not relate to behavior of the complaining witness subsequent to the criminal conduct that was inconsistent with the crime; and (3) the defense identified no myth or misconception held by the jury that needed to be addressed.