so let me get this straight, this woman is a feminist that is doing rape activism meaning that she probably knows the "fact" propagated by feminists that 1 in 5 women is raped

she also probably has accepted that men are more prone to sexual violence and "objectification" of women

so... why would you then intentionally put yourself into a situation that could very well lead to a rape with a dangerous male objectifier?

it doesn't really add up imo...

Sounds really dodgy. Until there's cops involved and her drunk friend arrested, I'm gonna treat this with a grain of salt.

Why are people these days instinctively putting every little detail about their lives online? I know when something happens in my life, the last thing I think about about is "quick, need to upload this shit".

Social media, for better or worse, is the new normal, but many, many people are ill-informed on litigation and how social media can play a significant role. I always advise clients to minimize usage of social media, especially with regards to any sensitive and potential legal issues. There is the mistaken assumption that, in various sectors of law, good will and intent will proffer exoneration. In the very rare case that one actually goes trial, the verdict relies wholly upon the counsels' abilities to convince them of how they should render. People should always be wise to not think, "what does this truthfully represent," but to actually think, "how can this be represented to others?"

This is exactly the problem right here you've highlighted being a legal matter, social media doesn't mean it takes over every aspect of society, if she was attacked she would have also made her own case harder for any investigation as the opposing lawyer could argue about getting a fair trial and have it moved when she has put out her own side of the story to the whole world before even law enforcement knew it. Smart lawyers can also play that against her in a court whether she was attacked or not because going to social media when you're being attack is not normal.

Bingo: arguing that no jury can be impartial or that a mistrial must be declared (due to being tainted by media coverage) are known legal strategies.

Yep, and then the person could even arguee that she was obligated to sign and that the person had her finances at jeopardy or the like

Yep, the trial won't show the truth, just a version of it that they think is enough to decide.

It does, if you include possible intent on the outcome. Let's say I'm a white supremacist that say black man are thugs... so I go to a ghetto with a lot black people and filled with gold. I verbally insult a group, get stomped and them toss the gold in the floor and run away. Then I go to the media and claim I was strolling around and a gang beat and robbed me... It would sound fishy, but sex activist are above that, right?

Dunno. I just forward messages or put pictures of trips or parties. Don't like to expose too much.

Well poisining the jury is illegal, but since it was even before the case was made or open by police how would a judge look at it?

A lawyer can argue to a judge that a fair trial is now unlikely because of the action and media coverage because any potential jury may have already heard her side of the story already, as Insidb explained these are common tactics and the result is the trial either gets moved to a location deemed to not have any or much exposure to the coverage or a specific jury from such a location may have to be brought in or a mistrial will have to be called, it would be extremely difficult for her side to argue against that as well. This one major reason why investigations try to keep coverage to a minimum.

In the case where a trial gets moved or a specific jury is brought in it becomes harder for the plaintiff in this case because as mentioned a smart lawyer would use her unusual actions here against her, even a lawyer just turning to a jury and saying if you were being assaulted would you go to the police first or instagram would be a powerful blow in sowing reasonable doubt.

Surely her fault if she didn't run away fast enough?

I'm not sure what to make of OP. I really don't think having a shower with someone else is particularly a good idea whether or not you have hot water at your place. Though water at all is a third world problem, not no hot water. It's a very dubious explanation for sharing a shower with someone.

That said, if she was clear she didn't want sex it is still rape.

Most Black Feminist HATEEEEEEEEEE Black Men with a passion. Her story sounds really fishy BUT I don't want to be emotional and automatically ignore her claims.

If she was truly raped I hope she gets justice and the man burns in hell.