There is nothing in this article that contradicts Emma's claim that she was raped. This is a dated, recycled and sexist argument along the same lines as claiming that a married woman, by definition, cannot be raped.

It is typical for perpetrators of sexual assault to bring forth "evidence" that the victim had sexual interest in them prior to the alleged assault. Rapes frequently occur between individuals who at one point had a consensual relationship; prior sexual interest in someone does not preclude the possibility of being raped by them.

Further, civil or even friendly texts from the victim to the perpetrator after the occurrence of the alleged assault DO NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that an assault did not take place. Victim psychology is complex and multifaceted. In the aftermath of trauma, it is common for victims to express a range of emotions towards the perpetrator that often appear contradictory. In reality, they are not. Think Stockholm Syndrome. These are natural responses to traumatic violation.

The politics of a rapist are fairly consistent. He will try to silence the victim, to question her credibility in the public sphere, and to make it appear as though the victim "wanted" him all along.

These texts are not "Damning". These arguments are old and thoroughly debunked. Please read up on rape psychology before you jump to the conclusion that this victim fabricated her entire story. Did you ever think to ask yourself why in the world a college student would go to extreme length of carrying a mattress around, of bearing the burden and the pain of thrusting herself into a public discussion of rape dominated by victim-blaming and misogyny, if she did not believe she were actually raped? Do you really think she just made this entire thing up?