He's allowed to make those statements. People are allowed to point out that his statements have repugnant implications. Talking about the complaining witness having sex with someone else has such a repugnant implication.

To the extent that this is correcting patently false statements (e.g. the defendant forced his way into the victim's apartment), the defense attorney is completely justified. The slut shaming (talking about evidence clearly inadmissible under any shield law), however, is repugnant.

Oh agreed, being persuaded or enticed is very different than being overwhelmed. The point is that an eventual "yes, you've convinced me" isn't necessarily the conscious and voluntary consent required by the CA standard.

"Have you given in to sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because you were overwhelmed by a man's continual arguments and pressure?" counts as sexual victimization in the most common surveys.

Does anyone believe that the new definition will result in the punishment of even a single additional person? The same sexist administrators will still find ways to protect the same rapists as always.

Are you doing those things to impress or attract men? If not, don't worry about it.

I think that's an uncharitable reading. A 'cool girl' aka 'chill girl' aka 'guy's girl' is defined by it being a performance - a women who conforms to the values of a particular man or set of man.

But the expectations for child raising are gendered. Fathers don't suffer the same penalties mothers do in their careers.

I think cool girls tend to be associated with 'bros.' Both require a certain level of disposable time and income, so there could be a class element.

For many, the 'realness' of one's thirties is just as much a performance as the 'coolness' of one's twenties. I'm authentic, you're just responding to social pressures.

This is a change in CA law governing the policies of schools that receive CA funding. I don't see how it would affect their liability under federal law.

No, it just requires that faculty be 'trained' not to do that. It doesn't actually require them to or impose any consequences.

It's unfortunate that the discussion of this law has been focused on a relatively minor aspect. The only novel part is the duty to "take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented." It was and is illegal to have sex with someone…

Jury: Guilty under Cal. Pen. Code 261(a)(3) [unable to resist] or (4)[unaware of what's happening].

That's not correct. California law says that it's rape if it's against a person's will, if the person can't resist or if the person is unconscious of the nature of the act. Cal. Pen. Code 261(a)(2)-(4). There is no requirement for the state to prove the victim did or said anything.

Since it wasn't clear from the story, and it's important: everyone, including the author's clients, has the option to decline being interviewed by police, and the police must inform them of that option (right) prior to "custodial interrogation." Not talking to the police isn't a crime* or evidence of bad behavior,…