It exposes the accusation as being spurious and impetuous, and the accuser as being shallow, though, because whether the ‘crime’ actually occurred or not is now dependent on how attractive the woman judged the man to be.

I don't think so. It's a crime to do something (to me) against my will. And I decide what I want and don't want other people to do to me (my will is subjective). If an attractive person kisses me out of the blue, I might enjoy it, and it's not a crime by any definition. If I didn't like the other person, I didn't want them to kiss me, and the accusation is fair.

That they mention the physical appearance doesn't mean they wouldn't have accused anyway. And it certainly does not mean the accusation is spurious. A crime is a crime even if you don't like the moral character of the victim.

But it’s not a crime as established by a criminal conviction, hence the quotes where I use that word. It’s treatment as a criminal by (fairly, or unfairly) passing moral judgement with a desire that others do the same — no better than a lynch mob. Or, as the article puts it, a witch hunt. That it relates to physical appearance makes it all the more ridiculous a proposition. The accused was guilty in part because they were not deemed attractive enough by the accuser. If not the case, why even bring up the accused’s appearance given the supposed gravity of the alleged ‘crime’?

Hahaha. Welcome to the real world. It is not pretty.

Would you please read the site guidelines and not post like this here? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We're looking for civil, substantive comments only.