Last month, it seemed we'd seen the end of Paul Nungesser's attempt to sue Columbia University after Emma Sulkowicz and two other students accused him of rape: a Manhattan judge tossed out his suit on March 11th, arguing that Nungesser's claim that he'd been subject to Title IX discrimination had no real basis. But the judge's dismissal left the alleged rapist (who was never charged by police, or suspended from Columbia) one small opening—the ability to revise his complaint and make it more convincing—and Nungesser and his lawyers just took him up on that, filing a 100-page amended lawsuit that, among other new additions, devotes a full section to presenting a hypothetical scenario between "Emmet" and "Paula" to demonstrate that Nungesser was subject to gender-based harassment and discrimination.

This latest iteration of Nungesser's complaint also devotes substantial space to rehashing his assertion that the university encouraged, "pandered to," and "directly sponsored" Sulkowicz's activism. Throughout the 2014-2015 school year, Sulkowicz, then a senior at the university, carried her mattress around campus in protest of Nungesser, her alleged rapist, being found not responsible by the school.

Sulkowicz continued "Carry That Weight" through her graduation, even after Columbia asked her not to bring the mattress to commencement events. But Nungesser's suit spins a different version of events, arguing that Columbia afforded Sulkowicz "special privilege" by allowing her to carry the mattress to commencement.

The lawsuit further argues that "Columbia's practices and policies perpetuate the stereotype of the sex-driven male" by assuming that most rapists are male—an "assumption" that, it's worth noting, is grounded in extensive research. In a fictional interlude, Nungesser and his lawyers imagines a case in which "Emmet" reports "Paula" for gender-based misconduct, and "Emmet" carries a mannequin dressed in lingerie to his classes in protest of "the educational disadvantages male students face due to female student-male faculty relationships."

After this imaginative segment, the lawsuit goes on to make the case for the word "rapist" being a slur, arguing that "similar to 'whore,' 'rapist' is a term, that can either describe a fact—a person is offering sexual service / a person having committed sexual violence against another person—or be used as a gendered slur" (never mind the fact that the word "whore" is far from the standard or "factual" term for those who perform sex work, and is widely considered to be a slur when applied to sex workers themselves).

It's hard to imagine that these baffling and arguably offensive analogies will win Nungesser his case, particularly after the judge so scathingly dismissed his previous attempt. Plus, as Jezebel notes, though more and more students accused of sexual assault are suing their universities, those that win typically argue that their rights to due process were violated, rather than that they were the victims of reverse sexism.

Beyond claiming that Columbia violated his Title IX rights, Nungesser also says that he was subject to human rights law violations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unfair or deceptive trade practices, and breach of contract. He's suing for declaratory relief and unspecified damages.

Representatives for Columbia did not immediately respond to request for comment, but Nungesser's lawyer told Newsweek that he expects the university to file a new motion to dismiss the suit.