Every behavior has a motive, but that motive isn't always going to be rational. Who knows? Maybe she was just a troubled kid that had consensual group sex and then was humiliated when pictures of that evening were circulated amongst her peers.

Consent is a legal construct. It's defined by the law, not gender studies professors. Consent is not limited to a verbally stated "yes."

"Your previous comments are pretty dismissive of the simple fact that false accusations are a teeny tiny minority of rape allegations..."

PS: When have I ever said anything that was "disturbing?" I don't toe the feminist line on these issues, but I've hardly said anything that a reasonable person would find offensive.

All quibbles over the precise figures aside, the graphic's biggest failing is the fundamental lapse of logic it employs in its interpretation of those figures.

We shouldn't just presume that everyone who was not guilty was just a rapist who got away with it, however. Which is precisely what that graph does.

You shouldn't be thanking her, that graphic is pure nonsense.

Hint: That graphic is debunked nonsense. There are several very good debunkings of the figures used in that graphic spread across the internet. You should read some of them.

States generally make it a crime to have sex with someone who is "physically helpless." This means that the victim was either unconscious or so intoxicated that she was unable to voice an objection or resist.

Serious crimes generally have two components, an actus rea and a mens rea. The actus rea is the criminal action. The mens rea is the criminal intent or guilty mind.

That's fair enough.

Serious crimes generally have two components, an actus rea and a mens rea. The actus rea is the criminal action. The mens rea is the criminal intent or guilty mind.

Huh?

David Lisak testified as an "educational witness." He talked about the common reactions of rape victims and that is all. An expert is not permitted to testify that s/he believes the defendant is guilty. That's for the jury to decide.

The law doesn't require anything to be "mutually understood." You're quoting your college's sexual misconduct policy, by the sounds of it.

That's not quite accurate.

I followed this case very closely. Jezebel is presenting a very slanted view of what went on in that courtroom.

Why are feminists so ignorant of the law?

Actually, the law in virtually every land requires the defendant to know that he didn't have consent in order to be guilt of rape.

It's not illegal to nag someone into sex.