Let's see what happened:
The lawyer for a woman ordered to pay nearly $24,000 to the man she accused of sexual assault, has asked for the small claims court case to be thrown out, arguing the decision was based on "inappropriate sexual stereotypes" about a how a real victim behaves.
In his decision, Black found the woman lied to police and was seeking "retribution" out of jealousy because she believed the man, her ex-boyfriend, had cheated on her.
How did the judge reach this conclusion?
Collings pointed to several passages of Black's decision where he relied on texts and emails sent from the woman to the man following the alleged sexual assault at his residence in March 2011.
Black ruled these messages appear to indicate she "felt positively about the encounter."
However, sexual assault survivor advocates say it's common for victims to maintain contact and even try to smooth things over with their attackers, especially if they knew each other before the assault.
So, this is how this works:
A) Woman gets raped. She cries, calls police, describes the whole horrible event. She feels broken. She is a victim who ought to be believed.
B) Woman has sex. She sends naughty texts and emails to the man. She feels positive about the whole affair. Years later she accuses the guy of rape. She is a victim who ought to be believed.
In other words, nothing can discredit a woman who has accused a man of rape. One can see why MGTOW has so much appeal.