Excellent analysis: "Cornell 7 case is consent-based morality failing its own stress test"

Longer excerpt of Allie's comments, skipping the legal details but keeping Allie's insights:

The Cornell 7 case is showing how the sex positivity crowd is failing their own stress test. By any credible legal analysis, what happened was legal. Even within the woman's own account, she consents over and over, and when she revokes consent, the action stops.

But I do think we all agree this is a yucky situation. Because I do think we all know that you can be two consenting adults and what can happen is still wrong.

First I think we should address what's on a lot of people's minds, which is that a lot of people are calling this some sort of legal cover-up or conspiracy or something. Many of them are misinformed or uninformed. I was initially outraged when I saw what was going around on social media. And you look into it: There is no case here. ...

[Legal details about NY state law omitted.]

Ultimately I think what this teaches us is that we all know that deep down that certain moral acts have more complexity than just a simple yes/no. That is why consent based morality is totally unable to deal with this issue. Consent-based morality really has no answer for "yeah she consented, but should the guys have been so opportunistic about it?", "Yeah she consented but it's kind of treating her like an object to talk about her like that in a group chat." The whole situation from everyone's behavior was obviously reckless and dangerous. They took advantage of the situation even if they didn't take advantage of her specifically. Or "our bodies are more than just private property. We need to steward them well."

You won't hear this from any of the people claiming that consent is the beginning and the end of what is moral. They know that it's wrong, but they think that consent is the only thing that can be wrong, so they're going to try to force it to be a consent issue, when it's not.