Thanks, you have some really interesting insight. You've obviously given it a lot of thought, which a lot of people frequently don't do; instead they tend to carve out exceptions where if you're accused of the "worst" crimes then defending yourself itself becomes an immoral act. The problem is the "worst" crimes…

Is that enough to zealously defend your client? What if you think your chances are much better at prevailing if you do blame the victim? If you decide to go into criminal law, you are going to get into the situation where you have a choice between a socially desirable action that could prejudice your client and a…

Yes, it would be nice if the education system didn't systematically shortchange boys, but despite the clear quantitative data irrefutably showing this is the case, people refuse to recognize it.

Wow, just...ok, you are doomed to a lifetime of disappointment if you stay in that sheltered mindset. Human behavior — take this from a social scientist — is amazingly variable. People are doing, and will continue to do things, that you don't agree with or don't understand or that make you uncomfortable, especially…

No, that overly simplifies religion, culture, psychology, pretty much the entirety of human existence.

Someone who finds the idea appealing? And this is exactly what I'm talking about, they're poor and they're brown so by Jezebel standards they can't do anything on their own, they're victims of inescapable power structures, they have no will of their own, etc.

But why do you feel that there is coercion? That's what I find fascinating about the response to this story. I can't find anything in the story that would provide a basis for such a feeling.

You raise some good points, but on the other end the role of a defense lawyer is to zealously protect their clients, not subordinate the client's interests to broader questions of societal fairness. It IS hard when it comes to a he said/she said thing, but the answer a lot of people have here seems to be put limits…

Not a stretch at all. The assumption in the story is that it's exploitative, but I'm guessing it's because Jezebel writers like to cling to a narrative that only 30-something upper middle class white Brooklyn-based bloggers have sexual agency, and everyone else is either a victim or a predator.

Nothing in the article suggests that it's rape. The article makes it sound like they're volunteering.

Perfectly valid, unless the circumstances of the case are so bizarre that it becomes relevant to showing consent or not, which is almost certainly not the case here, but I'm more curious about what commenters here would argue, not what they wouldn't. I'm talking more about beyond this case, I don't know enough about…

If he's critical in a nasty way, then yes, that's wrong, but it's wrong solely for the nastiness, not the attractiveness disparity. It makes me very uncomfortable when people start setting physical criteria for who can find what attractive. The ugliest man in the world is allowed to find the most beautiful woman in…

That's a damn lie. The military is rife with repulsive sexism and a tolerance of sexual violence towards women that needs to be rooted out and destroyed. That's not what this is about. And you keep missing that.

No, you accused her of humiliating her for its own sake. Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's what you said. Obviously that should constitute rape, and I am curious as to what jurisdictions that it doesn't, but it sounds like she is arguing that the actions should be read as indicating consent. Like I've…

Whoosh. Bye.

Why the hell do you think there is a trial in the first place? You know what, I'm a little too busy to give you a lesson on how the criminal justice system works, which you obviously need, but criminal trials are ugly, tramautic things usually. Yes, they tend to traumatize the victims of rape more than other kinds…

And by the way, it's the rapists who make rape trials the horrible ordeals they are for victims.

Argh, no, no, that's a ridiculous, absurd, crazy charge. "Punitive humiliation of a victim for its own sake," REALLY? You REALLY think this woman defending the accused is doing this because she wants to punish the woman, and has nothing to do with getting her client found not guilty? You can attack her for being…

Defense attorneys have more limitations on what evidence they can use and what questions they can ask for rape than any other crime. You ask the questions that are more likely to get the jury not to convict. If you want an adversarial system, then it's going to be adversarial, you can't help that.

CivilIAN trial I mean.