I am always amazed at how women will throw around SA claims, knowing there is a mountain of evidence supporting the contrary. It really goes to show you how gullible people are to just automatically believe women. Like, the man has 100s (if not 1,000s) of eyewitnesses both behind and in front of the camera and who knows how many hours of raw and cut footage, text messages, etc.
But then again, I assume she didn't press charges or file a civil lawsuit of any kind. So, purely dragging his name through the mud of public opinion where no one requires evidence usually. Why? Because he was dating someone else and not her anymore, apparently.
Given that she is developing a quite off-putting track record, I'd lean toward him being innocent and her lying. I mean, has she provided any evidence? Because he seems ready to fight this in actual court.
He provided proof. She did not. And all you have is speculation to defend her.
You are mischaracterizing what they are saying. They are talking about her considering non-SA as SA for the sake of making her complaints. And well, legally, SA (and consent) are defined for a reason. I.e. to help avoid crazy exes, as she has apparently become.
Also, not for nothing, given the dubious consent stuff she has heavily done in the past with hypnosis, mind control or whatever, you'd think she'd have a better grasp on what is and isn't SA, since she often has filmed what would otherwise be legally considered SA in the past.