Bray just lost the title and was still owed a rematch when he was suddenly snatched up by Raw. I have some sympathy for the Smackdown writers here. It's hard to make a coherent main title storyline after that.

It didn't need to be nicer exactly, but it could have been bigger and the property definitely should have been bigger. It needed to be badly maintained and a little gross, but it could have been older and looked like it had been an impressive home 100 years earlier.

That's weird. Switzerland isn't in the EU.

You say that this sort of scenario is "by any reasonable definition sexual assault," but you also acknowledge that it's not a crime. I think you have a distorted view of popular opinion here. The current legal standards may be seen as inadequate by many law professors, but that's really not such a common view in the…

Hah, well I guess if I alienated you I must not have not argued my case very well. I know it's a sensitive issue and I have a strong opinion, but you don't need to worry about me being uncivil.

Incapacitated, not impaired. There's a difference.

To be fair, I'm a corporate lawyer so it's not really my area of expertise, and I've been out of law school for a long time.

I'm a lawyer. It's not legally rape, and it's not a close call.

Lack of consent is rape, but what you're describing here is not lack of consent. Rape is a legal term, and it matters when people misuse it. It's a real problem when all questions of sexual morality are lumped into the definition of rape. Rape is a serious issue and your definition trivializes it.

Then you're saying that a person who didn't actually violate the law could still face some sort of liability if the facts are in doubt and the jury renders a bad decision? I guess that's true, but that could happen no matter what the guy does and even if the woman is not intoxicated at all.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic, and no, there is not a distinction. There is a distinction between legal liability and criminal law, but there is no legal liability without the law.

Ah, sorry. I didn't appreciate the distinction between "legal liability" and "the law."

Really? The person I responded to who said that a person in that scenario was "opening themself up to legal liability" wasn't talking about the law?

I understand you want that to be true, but that doesn't make it so. If a woman is intoxicated and offers a man sex, the man takes her up on that offer and then the woman accuses him of rape, the woman's risk of liability for libel would be higher than the man's risk of liability for sexual assault.

I'm curious about your definition of consent that doesn't include suggesting the idea yourself.

Sorry, no. A level of intoxication where someone can make an offer of sex on her own initiative is not a level of intoxication that can be plausibly characterized as "unable to consent." You can condemn it without calling it rape.

That's quite a stretch. It can be morally wrong, but if it's not legally rape, it's not rape. Luckily, we're talking about a television show here. If you were accusing a real person of committing rape when he hadn't committed a crime, you'd be asking for a libel suit.

If she's coherent enough to make the offer, it's not going to satisfy any legal definition of rape. She's intoxicated, but clearly not incapacitated. It would be sleazy and morally wrong to take her up on that offer, but it's incorrect to characterize it as rape. This is a bizarrely common misconception about rape law.

Very clever releasing this in late December. It will still qualify for 2018 Oscars season, but it will be fresh in the minds of Academy voters.

Yes, but Sasha and Bayley are both pretty bad even without Alexa as the benchmark. They could get away with that in NXT where the show was only an hour and the promos were shorter and pre-recorded. On the main roster, I think they've both peaked and they don't have what it takes to be top-tier stars. Even Dana is…