The judge, unreasonably and improperly, set the very high bar of “actual malice”.

Either the jury ignored the judge’s direction, or, more likely, the jury consciously or subconsciously realized that when every single person connected to this case piously agreed that there was a whole lot of rape on campus, they did not actually mean that there was a whole lot of rape type rape on campus, or indeed any rape type rape on campus, that these pious proclamations were intended as a theological truth rather than a literal truth, intended to signify that the speaker feels the pain and traumatization that women are feeling in sexual jungle, not to signify that women were literally being raped.

If we realize that consensual sex is apt to be traumatic for women, maybe we should not be letting women make these decisions. Jackie Coakley was traumatized because Ryan Duffin would not have sex with her twice. The reverse decision, refusing to have sex with the father of one’s children, or refusing to have sex with one’s husband, is apt to be equally disastrous for women.

If two men agree to exchange apples and iron, we should conclude the deal makes both of them better off, that consent is proof that the deal should go through, and lack of consent is proof it should not. With fertile age women possessed by raging hormones, similar reasoning is inapplicable.