I am totally baffled by the audacity of this judge to remove the right to adequately describe what a person has experienced. The people in this case must pretty it up? Spare me. How on earth can anyone attempt to hold anyone accountable if you cannot adequately describe what happened to you? Why must the emotional side of anyone's experience be hidden from the jury? How is a jury supposed to empathize with either side of a case if they cannot be exposed to emotion? Are people so weak and fickle and stupid that if a jury is exposed to an ounce of emotion they cannot make the right decision? Am I the only person on this planet that can have an emotion and still make a practical decision? I seriously doubt that.

Are you also the only person unable to figgure out a way to say he was having sex with me while I was passed out without using the word rape? You assume that you know more about this case than the judge who made this ruling and this time I beleive you are wrong. This was a case where the facts in dispute are whether the woman was too drunk to consent and if she was was the man sober enough to know that she was not sober enough to consent. although this may be defined as rape legally in some juresdictions it does not equate to what I think of when I hear the word rape.

There are words which by their assosiation illicet overly strong emotion and rape is one of those words. Jurors are suposed to determine a case by facts not empathy and sometimes inflamtory words like rape cane interfear with a juries job of finding based on facts. also remeber that this judges ruling was for this one case and not a blanket ruling, In this case it was absolutly the right ruling.