As much as I think this feminist professor -- who cheated on her husband with a disabled man -- is a cancer on society, I don't think we should be happy about the verdict in this trial.
I read the entire article, and there is no evidence that she was violent or forceful, or that the "victim" tried to get away. In fact, the prosecution is not even claiming that. The prosecution's entire case is that this man was legally not able to consent to sex, due to his mental state. That means that any woman who ever has sex with this man is automatically guilty of rape.
The implications of this verdict are not good. First of all, this means that disabled men like this "victim" are legally forced to remain celibate for their entire lives, since any woman who they manage to have sex with will automatically be considered a rapist. Second of all, and more importantly, this verdict sets a dangerous precedent, and will lead to future rape convictions for men who had sex with drunk women who "could not legally consent."
As far as I'm concerned, "rape" means forceful sexual intercourse. If you want to make it illegal to have sex with a disabled and/or incapacitated person, then make a law forbidding it, but don't change the definition of "rape" (and "sexual assault," for that matter) to include consensual sex in which one of the two parties is disabled or incapacitated.
"But Rob, you wouldn't be saying this if it were a male professor having sex with a disabled female. You're clearly biased against men!"
First of all, my reaction would probably be a bit different if it were a male professor fucking a disabled woman. Men and women are different. The power dynamics just wouldn't the same. Men tend to be more aggressive and forceful during sex, whereas it is almost impossible for a woman to forcefully have sex with an unwilling man (even a disabled man), since the man needs to be erect. Additionally , the situation would be far more likely to affect a disabled woman negatively, whereas for a disabled man, it is more likely to be a positive experience (considering it is probably the only time he's ever been laid).
And for those who believe in "equality under the law," why should the law not be able to acknowledge the differences between men and women? Should we start arresting women for domestic violence every time they slap a man in the face (I'm not a fan of the current domestic violence laws, but I don't think arresting more women is the answer)? If a woman flashes her tits at a man in public, should the law treat her the same as a man who flashes his dick at a woman? Let's say a woman and her husband are in a heated argument, and the woman decides to walk out onto the street by herself at night in a dangerous city. The husband decides to physically restrain her, for her own safety, until she calms down. Should the husband be arrested for "unlawful imprisonment?" I don't think so. That is why the law needs to acknowledge the (very real) fundamental differences between men and women.
All that being said, if the gender roles were reversed and it was a male professor with a disabled woman, I don't think he should go to jail for rape. Like I said, "rape" implies that violence or force was used. Yes, it is fucked up to take advantage of a mentally disabled person for sex, but it is not "rape" if they are both enjoying it and neither one is being forceful or violent.
