You're sure going to great lengths to pick defend a rapist. What the fuck is wrong with you.

Why are you assuming (or, stating without any support) that he was "blackout drunk"? That information isn't anywhere in the text; you're inventing it.

"DNA found in her hair, on her tank-top, and on an anal swab matched that of Lueke's, despite the fact that he'd said there was no physical contact between him and the victim. After his arrest, he changed his story, telling police they'd had consensual sex."

You're so right! We should stop letting all of these rape survivors consult on the matter, because they are clearly drowning out the opinions of men who have no first-hand knowledge or experience with it.

It should go without saying that if someone is too intoxicated to remember an event, they're also too intoxicated to consent.

white people dislike intelligent outspoken black men more than actual criminals? i'm fucking shocked.

Great post, Stacey.

Which means he's not even admitted to that much. Which shows he's taken exactly zero steps to redemption and deserves every bit of hate he's earned.

"DNA found in her hair, on her tank-top, and on an anal swab matched that of Lueke's, despite the fact that he'd said there was no physical contact between him and the victim. After his arrest, he changed his story, telling police they'd had consensual sex."

...does it internally register to you that, in posting that, you've both posited yourself as an irredeemable piece of shit and you've managed to contribute nothing to the discourse?

Are you fucking kidding me?

It isn't quite that simple with our current society. She will be attacked by legions of bro-dudes who will make it their mission to destroy her for having the audacity to report their hero as a rapist, facts be damned. Have you not been paying attention to every high-profile rape case and how it suddenly turns into…

Putting aside the issue of consent and inebriation, you can consent to sex and then decide for whatever reason, that you no longer want to have sex. If sex is continued at that point, it is no longer sex but rape. Not only is this painfully obvious and doing otherwise would make you an immoral and indecent human…

Ah, right on time, the classic, "Hurr durr what if they're BOTH drunk?" Because suddenly you can't tell if she's too drunk but you just know they're both equally drunk———even though she's the only one who passes out. l also love how you demand we normalize rape because it's too common to punish.

Ever person has the right to revoke consent after a sex act has begun. If sex continues after consent is revoked, it is now rape. Being unconscious is a lack of consent so it stands to reason that once a person passes out, consent is revoked and the sex needs to stop immediately.

You know what else isn't a great idea? Raping people.

....That is victim blaming

It's weird to me that you see any of this as "baffling." Look at all of the colleges undergoing Title IX investigations right now for not investigating, or even covering up, sexual assault on campus — and that's not even when there's a star athlete involved. Look at the backlog of untested rape kits in jurisdictions…

Of all the things that never happened, this story never happened the most.