The main problem I have with Levine is that she supports a legal angle that is faith based prosecution. It doesn't require any evidence that fits a scientific criteria. A person may only say they were raped and that is all that is neccessary to find guilt. This is the prosecutorial logic used to send Jews to gas chambers and witches to the gallows. I am for a draconian movement of complete removal of it from our system of law. A technocratic system of law does not create victims, but a faith based one said to error on the side of protection is hypocritical in that it is guaranteed to manufacture victims. It is not the responsibility of the law to create faith based ideals for protection, it contradicts the integrity on which the law functions--emprical reason. I think the fact that chemicals are present are of primary importance. It establishes an objective basis. The amount chemicals present for any given activity can be used to quantify the degree of an act. Acuracy is very important in making a sound judgement. The power imbalance is important, I wouldn't rule it out. I think it's only relevant when a threat is made to the person with less power in the situation and that threat must show that the person with less power will have their rights trampled if they do not engage in some kind of act. If a threat is not made, this power relationship is irrelevant. Definitely who benefits matters because this forms a basis for exploitation. If the act is one sided exploitation can be proven. Harm is fundamentally the most important. If an act causes no harm it doesn't fit in the category as criminal. The philosophy of the law is based upon the common good of individuals and the whole. If an act doesn't harm someone and it's considered a crime then this is moral preference legislation. which is against the common good of all who would prefer to act freely and not be dictated on matters that affect others in a nuetral way.