I don't know about you, but I find it kind of unfair that the man's name was given in an article titled 'Accused rapist...' when it was found by the court that he wasn't guilty.
[The] attorney told WALB-TV that his client had been taking a number of prescription pills for years because of health problems, and a side effect of the medication was impotence. There also was no physical evidence of rape because the woman waited eight days to report it, Murrah said. "He cried," he said. "He did not like to tell the world about his condition." [The man] and his accuser were both married to other spouses and attended the same church. They had been having an affair that did not involve sex for a couple years, and when [the man] tried to break it off, the woman responded by accusing him of rape, Murrah said.
One could also question the term 'affair' if sex was not involved. (Why not call it an 'intimate friendship'?)
Usually I'm on the side of the 'victim' when I read about court cases, but this outrages me. The circumstances seem highly dubious. I don't think the man deserved this kind of public humiliation.
Maybe he can take comfort in the fact that the majority of men his age could use the same defense... or why would pharmaceutical companies clog our airwaves with all these commercials for 'enhancing the quality of the experience'?!
