No evidence indicated that the woman was incoherent, but the author states: "Why would anyone think he had the right to seek sexual gratification from a person who was so drunk that she was incoherent, who had been refused entry to a bar, who had a blood-alcohol level way over the limit?" Indeed the judge quoted evidence to the opposite, that the woman carried on coherent texting conversations, etc.

I agree that "no" means "no", and sometimes that "yes" can mean "no" as well.

Let's set the exact standard so there is no grey area.
If that means we must all record our sexual encounters, along with breathalyzer readings, so be it.
We have the technology, and it is inexpensive and readily available on everyone's cell phones.
It would be a small price to pay to reduce rape, catch rapists, or sometimes eliminate the odd frivolous rape accusation.

This possibly innocent man has been convicted in the media already, when his name should be unpublished, just like the woman's. I pity both.