Reply #19: On the first point...

[punpirate]

... that's not stated. It was available but not prominently displayed, as an enticement, according to the description.

Second, the film, in the context of the situation was objectionable, and she said so, explicitly. Backrub immaterial in that context.

On the last point, she didn't "provide" a porn movie. According to description, it was sought out by male guest among other tapes available, but not prominently displayed.

Yes, it is her word against his in this regard, and the lack of physical exam makes the question more difficult, but there is the principle of presumption of protection of self. To establish deceit on her part, one would likely have to first offer a motive for her deception. From the description, there is none apparent.

Cheers.