Basically? What she said:
As I read the trending topic and watched women boldly share their truth, it occurred to me why R. Kelly's comeback disturbs me so much. If R. Kelly's victims had looked different, had fit the archetype of what we believe victims typically look like (whiter, blonder and more in line with what we're taught to associate with innocence), maybe there would be uproar. The bodies that R. Kelly has violated belong to girls we do not believe are worthy of protection or uproar. In fact we're taught to believe this type of girl "asked for it" or did something to warrant her abuse.
[...] But R. Kelly's never-waning popularity isn't just about power and race. It's about how we treat our victims of sexual assault. By celebrating R. Kelly and other men like him, whether it's because they're geniuses, family members or "pillars" of our community, we're implicitly saying to victims of sexual assault that their bodies and stories don't matter. You can be urinated on, married at an age when you cannot legally give your consent, manipulated and coerced. You can gather the courage to come forward to the police; however, we will honor, protect and revere the man who violated you, rather than honor your courage by ensuring your words aren't in vain.
You should really read the whole thing on XOJane. The author gives a pretty good breakdown of his "legal troubles". I actually didn't even know the list was that extensive until now, although I'm not surprised.
Also, as an aside, this is why I don't think that the Kimmel clip of Cumberbatch reciting R. Kelly's lyrics is in the least bit amusing. By trying to make the lyrics "funny" with a wink and nudge, they're ignoring the context in which the lyrics were created and essentially mocking the victims of R. Kelly's abuse.