Horus, "Even consensual sex of a prolonged or vigorous nature can leave the woman sore/injured"

Yes it can. However, I doubt many women who enjoy men to that extent are going to run to the police to file a complaint.

At least not directly. :-)

Aqvarius - you said that doctors can tell whether the sex was consensual or not.

Does that mean they can actually tell whether a person has been held at gun point or knife point just by looking at a person's genitals?

Or that they can by the same method determine whether a person has been told that if they don't give in or if they scream their parents/children/spouses will suffer?

Or that they will be killed/maimed/stabbed/beaten if they struggle?

In that case then how could any false charges ever be laid?

Romany, if it's not consensual everything else is rather moot to the point don't you think. Does it matter if a man is raped at gun point or knife point? Does it matter if the little boy is molested by his baby sitter or his school teacher? That he's told that if he screams the other boys will think he's weak, unmanly. That he will be beaten or maimed, or stabbed if he doesn't perform for her?
Does that mean no charges will ever be laid?

Aqvarius - you misunderstand: I was responding to the posting in which you said when mischievous charges are laid doctors can tell the charges were false by looking at the alleged victims genitalia. You were commenting on how much court time is wasted in 50% of all rape charges laid by women.

I was marvelling at how evidence from the "vaginal clock" - which I had always thought (erroneously it now appears) could only provide information as to approximately how much time had elapsed since semen was introduced - could be used to prove a charge false?

How, in fact, doctors definitively provide enough evidence to dismiss a charge and state empirically that no coercian, threats or intimidation had been used - simply by examination of the genitals?

Damage can be done to the vaginal area during rape, yes, but it is not necessarily a sign that rape has or had not happened.

From my memories of court cases it seems that when a woman is inexperienced she is less likely to tilt her pelvis in such a way as to avoid injury, therefore an inexperienced woman / girl is more likely to show signs of injury than a woman with enough experience to be able to tilt her pelvis.

This is not to say that the rape of the 'experienced' woman is in any way less criminal than the rape of an inexperienced girl or virgin. That is not what I am implying.

In terms of semen, this is not a good indication either way when it comes to rape, as many rapists now are using condoms: mind you the stupid ones don't discard them in a hurry, and are sometimes caught out by their DNA contribution being on the inside with the woman's on the outside when the condom is found. Anyway, ejaculation is not required for a rape to be a rape. What semen, whether inside a condom, or inside the woman, can show is that sexual contact has taken place, particularly where the attacker denies contact with the victim.

Medical evidence can be useful, but as with all evidence it must be placed in context, in a matrix of other evidence, both physical and of witness testimony. Medical evidence, of itself, cannot prove or disprove non-consensual sex between people over the age of consent.

At no time did I represent the forensic use of the "vaginal clock" as THE determining factor in establishing rape. The vaginal clock doesn't have anything to do with time but, suggests a "normal" or forced act of sex in physical examination relative to the areas of injury.

From my every work a day experience with men and women and children of violence I can assert with out worry of contradiction that one of the most time consuming, and waste of money, and wasted emotion, and unnecessarily physical and mentally taxing efforts is that time dealing with liars and manipulators of care facilities. That includes my military career, 10 years of emergency nursing, and these last 16 years of community outreach.

I'm always disappointed with those people who want to use numbers to exacerbate the truth of any situation to drive an agenda. Especially when it's done on the backs of those who truly are victims.

If for example, 4,000 rapes are committed each year in Australia. That is a genuine issue of concern and requires study into the whys and wherefores. And if at the same time 50-60% of these cases are false accusations by police reports and trial outcomes, (and all the numbers are configured for miscarriages of justice where the guy got off scot free). That is also of equal issue and concern. And requires study into the whys and wherefores.

The math is very simple, if 4,000 women say they were raped and 50% are proven false, by extension, that means at least 2,000 men are victims of rape. That makes rape a issue of equal concern for both sexes and both equally victimized.

That there are those feminist and others who want to down play this and suggest that it is two separate issues don't really want to investigate, or find solutions, or even resolve some of the mitigating circumstances or conditions that go into creating the totality of the issue. They only want to finger point and demonize and create a sense of one-sided victimization and moral self righteous superiority for their sex.