In the case of rape where a conviction carries a long jail term and massive consequences, normal rules of evidence should apply. The evidence of the plaintiff needs to corroborated, and where it is only the word of the accused against the plaintiff, the verdict must always be innocent.

as usual Nana you make a lot of sense. Unfortunately kids are very educated these days but display so little maturity. We blurt on about our knowledge of biology and then fight against it. Men will be men and women women despite what idiotic 'safe'schools indoctrination teaches. To many zoologist find out the hard way. A lion is a lion and a snake is a snake.

Our so called legal system and its alleged due process puts the victims on trial, for the sole purpose of winning! Not establishing guilt?

Decent blokes don't rape the girlfriend or date!

Moreover, I believe gender inappropriate visits of the other gender's dorm drunk or is forbidden on all military establishments?

And maybe ought result in a career termination for the drunk or sober transgressor? Who is all too clearly, not there to play tiddly winks!

The military succeeds or fails, whether or not hard and fast rules are followed or disobeyed! No ifs, buts or maybes!

Leadership is all about taking responsibility and owning your own behavior!

Even so, many of these cases wouldn't even get to trial, if we but used space age and unbeatable lie detectors, to establish evidence based guilt or innocence? Refusal to comply, reasonable evidence of guilt? Or, making stuff up?

And with that done? Let the chips fall where they may!
Alan B.

Alan,

Decent blokes don't rape women, and decent women don't lie on the stand, except we know that there are quite a few of each. To prove a man guilty of rape requires more than just the word of the "victim" irrespective of how convincing she is on the stand.

Consent is very simple, a person simply needs to voice consent, and inebriation from a few drinks does not void this. Inebriation needs to be at the point where a person is no longer capable of rational thought.

Corroborating evidence can be signs of assault, a witness that saw the woman being carried drunk into the room, etc. without this there is not enough evidence.

It's simple biology. Only the male is equipped to enforce sexual intercourse.

EmperorJulian, so I would have thought but a US CDC survey gives some results on the topic of Made to Penetrate that are worth considering https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm

There is quite a bit of debate around terms, I'm not confident I've got to the truth of the way US authorities define rape but the CDC survey does not define it in a way that includes men being made to penetrate (remembering that rape can be achieved by coercion, not just physical force). Reported lifetime rate for women and men as victims of sexual violence are quite different however the reported rates for the previous 12 month period were somewhat similar between genders.

Based on the survey results there were and estimated 1,929,000 female rape victims in the previous 12 months and 1,921,000 males who were Made to penetrate.

Overall estimates of numbers of victims in the categories of Other Sexual Violence were 6,687,000 females and 5,797,000 males (women suffer sexual violence more than men but possibly not with the disparity popular narratives indicate).

It's an area I don't have a good understanding of and I don't know that there is a significant body of research on the topic but CDC carry enough clout that it should raise some questions.

R0bert