In the midst of Bill Cosby’s impending implosion, there is a good reason why he is keeping mum on all of this going on around him.

The argument is, what actually constitutes rape, or sexual assault? The easy answer is: yes means yes, and no means no. But the legalities make this case a lot less cut and dry…

Conservatives have already opined that the accusations are not of what Paul Ryan might call “forcible rape.” (CNN’s Don Lemon, no right winger, mansplained to one of Cosby’s accusers that there are “ways to not have oral sex.” Lemon later apologized. According to seven women who have come forward (sixteen have accused Cosby of sexual assault but not all have made the details public), Cosby’s alleged M.O. involves drugging his victims and then having sex with them. Odious but not quite the “classic” case of rape. Besides, some have already hinted, weren’t they asking for it by hanging out with him in the first place?

The trouble is, as all of these question marks suggest, that there is no “classic” case of rape. America’s laws regarding sexual assault are a complicated patchwork that varies from state to state.

First, contrary to some reports, not all of Cosby’s accusers claims are blocked by the statute of limitations. For example, the conduct alleged by Andrea Constand—who sued Cosby in 2005 for assault and battery, and in 2006 for defamation after Cosby’s representatives said she was just trying to extort money—took place in 2004. Pennsylvania, where the assault is alleged to have taken place, has a 12-year statute of limitations on sexual assault.

That means Cosby could still be charged.

Click through to the Daily Beast to read more on how this case could unfold.