The tests don't predict military performance, ability to perform in the field, or overall physical fitness. Which is what my first comment said. Don't know why this is hard for you to understand, but okay.

I think it is entirely possible for people to check people out in a nonthreatening way. But being leered at is another thing entirely. I am glad you haven't been harassed. Neither has one of my closest friends, and I am happy for her as well.

So, the fact that you are okay with predation by men that has not led to rape but has led to "anger" (does anger mean threats? because I have been threatened) means that we need to be okay with predation by men who are (or who at least assume they are) bigger, stronger, and more likely to physically attack us.

It doesn't FOR YOU. You are not a woman, and I am guessing that you've never had a fellow gay guy yell threats or insults at you after staring. If we don't give the "right response" that is likely to happen. Context is everything here. And there is also a difference between playfully looking at people and being…

They had a past relationship. And if she believed it was self defense, then it isn't that surprising. A lot of violent men are very, very charming.

They had a relationship in the past. Also, he was acquitted, and many people said he never should have been charged. Many people on this site argued with me that he wasn't guilty. People who are convicted of crimes have partners, so why are you surprised that people who are acquitted do too?

This is what keeps people in abusive relationships. They freeze, and don't leave, and if that is used to justify the abuse, then the initial freezing just mires them more in the mindset that they deserve to be abused.

When your hair is that big, trimming it an inch or two will not decrease bulk, which is what they seem to be focused on, since her hair is above her shoulders.

The problem is that girls are punished for having short hair, too.

That's not true. Plenty of respectable words drive up the bidding on google adwords. Others try to write dozens of substantive blog posts, so that if laypeople and other lawyers google a sexy area of the law, they get respect and referrals/getting hired.

I don't think a woman would have opened the door.

I suggest you read her books. I have. That lady labels other women as a certain kind of lesser feminist for believing in equality. So now, she is no feminist.

I think in most jurisdictions that is probably undefined, but my take would be that if someone reasonably but mistakenly believes they are in private, i.e., they don't realize that there is a vantage point from which their bedroom can be seen, or the curtain is left slightly askew, that would be considered a…

To show consent? That is a weird argument. As far as a reasonable expectation of privacy, the camera was hidden. So it was not obvious the person was being filmed.

Okay, well understand that this is an academic discussion. But academically, zoom lenses are pretty much automatically an invasion of privacy under Civil Code 1708.8.

The prosecutor doesn't have to prove a negative. So, unless the defense actually argues that, no they don't have to prove it wasn't for documenting consent (?—by using nonconsenually obtained images, so logic fail anyhow), they just have to prove (and inferential evidence is fine) that he was doing it for sexual…

Things that might have happened but did not are not defenses.

And he can try that defense. But I seriously doubt it will fly, and you are straining credulity by arguing that was what was going on.

Bedrooms are private places, and consenting to sex in someone's home is not consenting to being filmed during sex.

Nope, if someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their bedroom, and doesn't realize that you are peeping (a j offense) then it doesn't matter that your are on public property.