In response to Ms. Woods "letter to the editor" ("Verdict in Phillips trial will hurt future victims," Sept. 2), I have to say that was one of the worst analogies to explain consent, but it is the best example of incoherent and illogical feminist thought.

Think about it: if a woman does not say "yes" or "no" and does not "refuse or fight" against sexual advances, Ms. Wood would have us believe that she has not given consent and is being raped. What if both individuals do not say "yes" or "no?" Who just got raped, Ms. Wood? She would tell us the woman got raped. If being drunk means you can't give consent, how can a drunk guy be accused of rape? He was unable to consent as well. Interestingly enough, feminists find themselves inadvertently admitting that they are incapable of making decisions on their own while men are fully capable.

It's these broad definitions of consent that are the problem. This allows feminists to apply rape to many situations that are not rape. This is how we get the ridiculous feminist statistic that states 1 in 3 women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. It's the ideas of victimization that give feminists their power and influence.

The fact that Anwar Phillips was found innocent does not make the Penn State community hostile toward real sexual assault victims; but the fact that the women's studies department and Penn State feminists automatically assume men to be guilty shows how hostile and sexist they really are.