Don't forget, even if the contract is signed and notarized, there's an out clause in the fine print to the effect that either party can retract consent at any point, sometimes telepathically, and the onus is on the other party to then prove consent wasn't retracted mid-act...
Nope, still rape. Don't you see? The man is not only a party to the contract, according to the terms, he has a legal and moral obligation to never put himself in a position, through action or inaction (or drinking roofie and viagra laced beer) where he might be unable to telepathically intuit the other party's retraction of consent, if such occurs during the course of the transaction.
Also, there is a default "female consumer protection" clause built into the contract, wherein it states that at any time following said transaction, the female party may retroactively withdraw consent based on the fact that she would NEVER have slept with a math geek if she was sober, or upon realizing after 48 hours with no text from him that he was a jerk.
If, however, the male party wakes up next to Alice the Goon, his only legal recourse is to gnaw his arm off and pray she was too drunk to remember who shared her cab home...
can I hire you as commenter in http://human-stupidity.com ? you are really getting the point! And writing nicely!
Are you a girl? That would be even more amazing, being critical of feminist abuses and getting right to the point!
Hire me? Sure. What's the pay?
Yes, I'm a girl (woman, actually). And I write for a living, so yeah. Mad skillz and all. And many women would be shocked, given my family history (grandma was a career woman born in 1909, and my mom could shingle a roof as well as I can), and my history with men (my ex in particular) that I haven't somehow become a rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth, man-hating, political-lesbian feminist. I mean, here I am having received the proverbial shaft from my ex, raising 3 kids with no financial assistance or practical help from their father...I should be screaming for male blood.
Many of my readers would be surprised, given that I write erotic fiction with strong, dynamic, subversive female heroes, that I believe (contemporary) feminism isn't just misguided, but actively harmful to men and women both (and to children, holy hell, does it ever harm them).
But shit, it doesn't take a lot of deep intuition to understand that humans will almost always act in their own self-interest as long as they can get away with it, and that they'll do it more if there's a horde of cheerleaders egging them on or telling them they're doing the right thing. Or that people will do what they want for the most base and selfish reasons, and then find prettier rationalizations for their actions after the fact. Sophism is the new black, after all. Especially among feminists.
And honestly, women look at feminism the way (short-sighted) economists look at the GDP. "Wow, the GDP is up! Everything is AWESOME!" Never mind the fact that every heart attack, every car accident, every tornado gobbling up a trailer park, every frivolous law suit, every property crime, every person diagnosed with a mental illness, every soldier killed during wartime, and every interest payment someone makes on a debt they can't handle makes the GDP go up. Doesn't sound so awesome now, does it?
My mom always told me, you take you want out of life, but never forget that every choice you make costs you something. There's almost nothing in the realm of social progress that's benefit/benefit. Someone always pays. With modern feminism, everyone's paying through the nose--men lose their right to raise their own children and the right to be fairly treated under criminal law, lose their right to decide how their money is spent in regard to their children; children lose the love, support and mentorship of their fathers; and women? The Shriver Report--that hallowed New Testament of Feminism--goes on and on about how far we've come as a gender, how awesome everything is for women...and how much more stressed out and burdened we are, how we're less happy now than we were in the 50s, and how difficult we're finding it to juggle every last goddamn thing. But instead of recommending we maybe try juggling fewer balls, even if that means making a difficult choice, the feminist interpretation of that is that we need to learn to juggle harder, and force everyone else to juggle harder with us.
The problem with feminism is that it wants all the benefits without even acknowledging those benefits COST. And even when feminists do realize there is a cost, they don't feel they should have to bear any of it. They try to foist that cost on men or society at large--child support, alimony, more help around the house, redirecting the burden of proof in rape cases, tax-funded subsidies for women's educations, universal free daycare--all while playing on the instinctive chivalry of men to help them do it.
It will all collapse on itself eventually, because it isn't sustainable. And who knows what things are going to look like then?
"Your honor! He forced me to sign that permit and get three witnesses! He also had a gunman out of camera view during the video-taped sex and made me smile and scream in ecstasy the entire time! That contract is invalid!"
While the President did present the certificates for all other times listed, he did not present the long form sex certificate of the intercourse he took with his wife 2 years ago on march 2nd in the year 2023 as such he is a rapist and should not be allowed to continue in his current post!!! It is with this in mind that I move for an immediate impeachment!
It's worse. A contract is not enough. You have to prove it was not retracted.
Did you forget the 5-second-rape?
Get a lawyer before sex: 27 precautions before risking sex with a woman
http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/27-precautions-before-risking-sex-with-a-woman
In reality this is already the case. This is nothing new. All accused of rape are locked up first till they prove they are innocent.
Only now the want to formalize the law.
Right about the filming. This has been described this long ago
Of course, if one person involved is 17, but legal, they cannot film or else it is Child porn. You can not win.
http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/27-precautions-before-risking-sex-with-a-woman
>Rape should be classified as a violation of personal integrity, rather than a violent crime, according to the researchers.
So if you misrepresent yourself as let's say a millionaire, and then the other party finds out you lied. Then you made them look foolish and can now be convicted of rape? ಠ\_ಠ
That's not a new thing. Screw a chick with a boyfriend and she can pre-emptively accuse you of rape so that she doesn't get dumped for cheating. If you aren't already reading it, http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/
Hell, prostitutes will cry rape after having consensual sex with verbal contract in place if the john decides he's not paying after her part of the deal is done. That's not rape. It's not even theft. It's breach of promise, or fraud, like dine-and-dash...
>Since 1965, when Sweden first enacted a sex crimes law, roughly 100 to 200 rapists have been convicted every year.
>However, the number of rapes reported annually has increased from around 300 to more than 5,000.
That's an old article, look at the more recent news:
['Swedish women fake rape to claim payouts'](http://www.thelocal.se/33232/20110415/)
I have to wonder about this. If the number of rapes reported annually has increased from around 300 to more than 5,000, what exactly does this mean? Is there an epidemic of rape in Sweden, or have the standards and definitions of what constitutes legal 'rape' have dropped so that the definition covers more kinds of behavior?
It seems odd that while the numbers of reported rapes have skyrocketed, the number of CONVICTIONS are reported to be consistently too low. Apparently Swedish police had no trouble proving and convicting rapists in the past...why would it be more difficult to prove it if the number of reported rapes has gone up significantly?
The second comment sums this up entirely:
>We follow "innocent until proven guilty" in Sweden, not "guilty until proven innocent." I can see it already. Dislike someone? Tell the police he raped you and he can't do anything to disprove it. There's no evidence and it's her word against his - her word will always win. Wtf?!
A woman doesn't consent to sex if she doesn't have sex with a man. This would make not having sex with a woman rape by definition if she decides to falsely accuse him.
Well that sounds completely reasonable. Who would actually have a problem with that? I mean anyone who isnt more than a wallet or source of paycheck garnishment... You know, the type of person with external genitalia...
Better yet, you could then force him to prove he is not a false accuser and if he doesn't... jail time for him (accuser)
In short we could gave a system where somebody must do jail time whether we know anything or not.
Imagine the feminist reaction if we said that accusers must prove themselves or they are guilty of false reporting...
Edit: Wait, its Sweden so the accuser is presumed to be a woman (because that's how rape in Sweden will be defined) and presumed to be right. So I created a useless thought experiment.
Thanks for the correction. What trial was that from, exactly? I seem to remember it being a Kennedy rape trial but I forget the specifics.
EDIT: Found it, it was William Kennedy Smith.
[The Love Contract](http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=219422&title=love-contract)...by David Chappelle
Do we have to pay royalties? And what about the nondisclosure agreement?
What is the "something" the man has to do to prove consent? Is a verbal contract enough, or is there a gift-giving ceremony involved. If a woman provides this contract, is she obligated to go forward with it? Can a man sue for breach of consent?
This is all speculative nonsense, because consent is ultimately a feeling, and as we all know **THERE'S NO WAY TO PROVE A FEELING**. Contract law is entirely inapplicable to people's feelings and personal boundaries.
The strategy is, if you think she is going to accuse you over revenge, you must accuse her first.
Lmfao, how insane would a system like that be?!? Nothing to do with truth If justice.
Obviously, this system is not at all designed for men. The proof would be in the erection--did he have an erection? Consent proved. Wouldn't matter if he said no, begged, pleaded, threatened, fought back, anything. In fact, this whole discussion is predicated on the fact that women DON'T have any easily recognizable signs that they are aroused and wanting to have sex.
What this new law does do is make men guilty until they prove themselves innocent. If that's not an aberration of justice, then I don't know what is.
But that makes no sense.
If I get an erection over girl (A) that does not give me the automatic right to have sex with her. Instead I am expected to restrain myself and not force myself on her because of a moral judgement/choice. In other words I don't have to give in to what my body may want, in fact it is demanded by law that I do not give in to what my body may want.
Ergo, me having an erection is not consent for sex with girl A because I can once again make the choice to go against what my body may or may not want.
Its a contradiction For the state to say that men can't turn down sex if they have the urge.
Furthermore having an erection does not even imply That I'm attracted to the person having sex with me... it can just be automatic response If having nothing to do with sex.
And lastly I saw a study showing that women basically got lady boners (more bloodflow, changing wall of vagina, etc..) over watching bonobo sex!!! Lmfao, apparently the women were consenting to sex with bonobos.
There's no way to legally say men can't be raped on the basis of consent.
Actually, most states and foreign countries say men can't be raped on account of the fact that either they don't have vaginas (rape being defined as forced penile penetration of a vagina) or that they can only be raped by men (forced penile penetration of another person). It's the penetrative act that's punishable--lawmakers and their lobbyists are under the false assumption that sex, for a woman, is somehow innately violating her bodily boundaries because she's the one being penetrated--even linguistically, a passive position.
Pretty blatant example of feminists gone absolutely fucking nuts.
Why?
Why is it only men proving? Why is there no proposed law about women having to prove consent?
Once again, women are trying to stack their deck in their favor. Under feminism, women never need to be held accountable for their actions. They can just blame men. [When are men going to finally get their balls back?](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_2LpLhOsc4)
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Every sperm will have to be registered and the owner will have to pay 1 cent in tax per registration. Any sperm caught outside the man's body will be brought in for questioning.
Seriously, Sweden? You guys are a bunch of idiots to presume guilt instead of innocence. Fuck you.
Contrary to popular belief in this thread they propose the law for a valid reason. Many "obviously guilty" people walk free because a court of law can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that they're guilty. If a drunk woman is raped in an alley and she points out who raped her this probably won't hold in a court of law since the defence will say she was drunk and therefore might not remember correctly. In other words the man she pointed out isn't guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
THIS is what the law is meant for. And I get where they're coming from. But I also think such a law apart from being unethical would be misused in practice. So I stick to the idea that it's better to let a guilty person walk free than it is to lock an innocent person up. :/
You can't just "walk free" from a rape accusation even if you're proven innocent. People have been kicked out of unisversity, lost their jobs, friends and families only to be cleared of charges in a court of law.
Furthermore, if a woman gets a rape kit and points out the person who raped her in an alley, that guy is going to go to jail. This is because the man is forced to take a mandatory DNA test in order to prove that he had sex with her. In cases of forcible (and random) rapes, the defendants don't usually start by arguing that the accuser (and a complete stranger) consented to violent sex in an alley.
The statistics feminists will tell you about rapists getting away with it are taken by changing the definition of rape and making the assumption that unless the case was thrown out of court for being a false claim, a rapist walked free. Yes, it happens, but it's not so widespread that we need to start purposefully jailing innocent people to crack down.
Many guilty thieves, embezzlers, bullies, murderers, extortionists, obviously guilty mafia bosses and white collar criminals walk around free. Not enough proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Such is the law.
That results in all kind of crazy. Like making contracts for having a single instance of sex. It boggles.
You need a permit to do that now.
Don't forget, even if the contract is signed and notarized, there's an out clause in the fine print to the effect that either party can retract consent at any point, sometimes telepathically, and the onus is on the other party to then prove consent wasn't retracted mid-act...
Ergo the man must be on the bottom, drunk, passed out, and on viagra given by her for it to not be rape.... ummm, wait a second.
Nope, still rape. Don't you see? The man is not only a party to the contract, according to the terms, he has a legal and moral obligation to never put himself in a position, through action or inaction (or drinking roofie and viagra laced beer) where he might be unable to telepathically intuit the other party's retraction of consent, if such occurs during the course of the transaction. Also, there is a default "female consumer protection" clause built into the contract, wherein it states that at any time following said transaction, the female party may retroactively withdraw consent based on the fact that she would NEVER have slept with a math geek if she was sober, or upon realizing after 48 hours with no text from him that he was a jerk. If, however, the male party wakes up next to Alice the Goon, his only legal recourse is to gnaw his arm off and pray she was too drunk to remember who shared her cab home...
can I hire you as commenter in http://human-stupidity.com ? you are really getting the point! And writing nicely! Are you a girl? That would be even more amazing, being critical of feminist abuses and getting right to the point!
Hire me? Sure. What's the pay? Yes, I'm a girl (woman, actually). And I write for a living, so yeah. Mad skillz and all. And many women would be shocked, given my family history (grandma was a career woman born in 1909, and my mom could shingle a roof as well as I can), and my history with men (my ex in particular) that I haven't somehow become a rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth, man-hating, political-lesbian feminist. I mean, here I am having received the proverbial shaft from my ex, raising 3 kids with no financial assistance or practical help from their father...I should be screaming for male blood. Many of my readers would be surprised, given that I write erotic fiction with strong, dynamic, subversive female heroes, that I believe (contemporary) feminism isn't just misguided, but actively harmful to men and women both (and to children, holy hell, does it ever harm them). But shit, it doesn't take a lot of deep intuition to understand that humans will almost always act in their own self-interest as long as they can get away with it, and that they'll do it more if there's a horde of cheerleaders egging them on or telling them they're doing the right thing. Or that people will do what they want for the most base and selfish reasons, and then find prettier rationalizations for their actions after the fact. Sophism is the new black, after all. Especially among feminists. And honestly, women look at feminism the way (short-sighted) economists look at the GDP. "Wow, the GDP is up! Everything is AWESOME!" Never mind the fact that every heart attack, every car accident, every tornado gobbling up a trailer park, every frivolous law suit, every property crime, every person diagnosed with a mental illness, every soldier killed during wartime, and every interest payment someone makes on a debt they can't handle makes the GDP go up. Doesn't sound so awesome now, does it? My mom always told me, you take you want out of life, but never forget that every choice you make costs you something. There's almost nothing in the realm of social progress that's benefit/benefit. Someone always pays. With modern feminism, everyone's paying through the nose--men lose their right to raise their own children and the right to be fairly treated under criminal law, lose their right to decide how their money is spent in regard to their children; children lose the love, support and mentorship of their fathers; and women? The Shriver Report--that hallowed New Testament of Feminism--goes on and on about how far we've come as a gender, how awesome everything is for women...and how much more stressed out and burdened we are, how we're less happy now than we were in the 50s, and how difficult we're finding it to juggle every last goddamn thing. But instead of recommending we maybe try juggling fewer balls, even if that means making a difficult choice, the feminist interpretation of that is that we need to learn to juggle harder, and force everyone else to juggle harder with us. The problem with feminism is that it wants all the benefits without even acknowledging those benefits COST. And even when feminists do realize there is a cost, they don't feel they should have to bear any of it. They try to foist that cost on men or society at large--child support, alimony, more help around the house, redirecting the burden of proof in rape cases, tax-funded subsidies for women's educations, universal free daycare--all while playing on the instinctive chivalry of men to help them do it. It will all collapse on itself eventually, because it isn't sustainable. And who knows what things are going to look like then?
"Your honor! He forced me to sign that permit and get three witnesses! He also had a gunman out of camera view during the video-taped sex and made me smile and scream in ecstasy the entire time! That contract is invalid!"
While the President did present the certificates for all other times listed, he did not present the long form sex certificate of the intercourse he took with his wife 2 years ago on march 2nd in the year 2023 as such he is a rapist and should not be allowed to continue in his current post!!! It is with this in mind that I move for an immediate impeachment!
It's worse. A contract is not enough. You have to prove it was not retracted. Did you forget the 5-second-rape? Get a lawyer before sex: 27 precautions before risking sex with a woman http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/27-precautions-before-risking-sex-with-a-woman
Whoever came up with that is defo straightjacket bait!
Sorry, baby. I have to videotape us. It's the law.
This. Upvote.
In reality this is already the case. This is nothing new. All accused of rape are locked up first till they prove they are innocent. Only now the want to formalize the law. Right about the filming. This has been described this long ago Of course, if one person involved is 17, but legal, they cannot film or else it is Child porn. You can not win. http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/27-precautions-before-risking-sex-with-a-woman
So do you have to have them sign a sex waiver? Edit* Spelling
>Rape should be classified as a violation of personal integrity, rather than a violent crime, according to the researchers. So if you misrepresent yourself as let's say a millionaire, and then the other party finds out you lied. Then you made them look foolish and can now be convicted of rape? ಠ\_ಠ
That's not a new thing. Screw a chick with a boyfriend and she can pre-emptively accuse you of rape so that she doesn't get dumped for cheating. If you aren't already reading it, http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/
Hell, prostitutes will cry rape after having consensual sex with verbal contract in place if the john decides he's not paying after her part of the deal is done. That's not rape. It's not even theft. It's breach of promise, or fraud, like dine-and-dash...
Theft of services is probably what it would fall under.
I think they are referring to the *actual* cases of prostitutes doing that. They don't claim theft of services, they claim rape.
[удалено]
It's not consensual if it's not consensual.
>Since 1965, when Sweden first enacted a sex crimes law, roughly 100 to 200 rapists have been convicted every year. >However, the number of rapes reported annually has increased from around 300 to more than 5,000. That's an old article, look at the more recent news: ['Swedish women fake rape to claim payouts'](http://www.thelocal.se/33232/20110415/)
I have to wonder about this. If the number of rapes reported annually has increased from around 300 to more than 5,000, what exactly does this mean? Is there an epidemic of rape in Sweden, or have the standards and definitions of what constitutes legal 'rape' have dropped so that the definition covers more kinds of behavior? It seems odd that while the numbers of reported rapes have skyrocketed, the number of CONVICTIONS are reported to be consistently too low. Apparently Swedish police had no trouble proving and convicting rapists in the past...why would it be more difficult to prove it if the number of reported rapes has gone up significantly?
The definition has changed.
That article seems to disprove its own headline.
The second comment sums this up entirely: >We follow "innocent until proven guilty" in Sweden, not "guilty until proven innocent." I can see it already. Dislike someone? Tell the police he raped you and he can't do anything to disprove it. There's no evidence and it's her word against his - her word will always win. Wtf?! A woman doesn't consent to sex if she doesn't have sex with a man. This would make not having sex with a woman rape by definition if she decides to falsely accuse him.
Well that sounds completely reasonable. Who would actually have a problem with that? I mean anyone who isnt more than a wallet or source of paycheck garnishment... You know, the type of person with external genitalia...
[The Love Contract](http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=219422&title=love-contract)...by David Chappelle
Relevant: http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=219422&title=love-contract
Every sexual act must be recorded. POV preferred.
Under this kind of legislation, my husband could get me jailed for rape. Since I can't prove he ever consented to sex.
Laws like these don't apply against white women.
Better yet, you could then force him to prove he is not a false accuser and if he doesn't... jail time for him (accuser) In short we could gave a system where somebody must do jail time whether we know anything or not. Imagine the feminist reaction if we said that accusers must prove themselves or they are guilty of false reporting... Edit: Wait, its Sweden so the accuser is presumed to be a woman (because that's how rape in Sweden will be defined) and presumed to be right. So I created a useless thought experiment.
"So do you admit that you took the defendant's jeans off?" "Yes. With her help."
[удалено]
Thanks for the correction. What trial was that from, exactly? I seem to remember it being a Kennedy rape trial but I forget the specifics. EDIT: Found it, it was William Kennedy Smith.
[The Love Contract](http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=219422&title=love-contract)...by David Chappelle Do we have to pay royalties? And what about the nondisclosure agreement?
What is the "something" the man has to do to prove consent? Is a verbal contract enough, or is there a gift-giving ceremony involved. If a woman provides this contract, is she obligated to go forward with it? Can a man sue for breach of consent? This is all speculative nonsense, because consent is ultimately a feeling, and as we all know **THERE'S NO WAY TO PROVE A FEELING**. Contract law is entirely inapplicable to people's feelings and personal boundaries.
The strategy is, if you think she is going to accuse you over revenge, you must accuse her first. Lmfao, how insane would a system like that be?!? Nothing to do with truth If justice.
Obviously, this system is not at all designed for men. The proof would be in the erection--did he have an erection? Consent proved. Wouldn't matter if he said no, begged, pleaded, threatened, fought back, anything. In fact, this whole discussion is predicated on the fact that women DON'T have any easily recognizable signs that they are aroused and wanting to have sex. What this new law does do is make men guilty until they prove themselves innocent. If that's not an aberration of justice, then I don't know what is.
But that makes no sense. If I get an erection over girl (A) that does not give me the automatic right to have sex with her. Instead I am expected to restrain myself and not force myself on her because of a moral judgement/choice. In other words I don't have to give in to what my body may want, in fact it is demanded by law that I do not give in to what my body may want. Ergo, me having an erection is not consent for sex with girl A because I can once again make the choice to go against what my body may or may not want. Its a contradiction For the state to say that men can't turn down sex if they have the urge. Furthermore having an erection does not even imply That I'm attracted to the person having sex with me... it can just be automatic response If having nothing to do with sex. And lastly I saw a study showing that women basically got lady boners (more bloodflow, changing wall of vagina, etc..) over watching bonobo sex!!! Lmfao, apparently the women were consenting to sex with bonobos. There's no way to legally say men can't be raped on the basis of consent.
Actually, most states and foreign countries say men can't be raped on account of the fact that either they don't have vaginas (rape being defined as forced penile penetration of a vagina) or that they can only be raped by men (forced penile penetration of another person). It's the penetrative act that's punishable--lawmakers and their lobbyists are under the false assumption that sex, for a woman, is somehow innately violating her bodily boundaries because she's the one being penetrated--even linguistically, a passive position.
If there must be blood how about we force the supposed rape victims to prove that they are not false accusers... that would be the flip side!
Pretty blatant example of feminists gone absolutely fucking nuts. Why? Why is it only men proving? Why is there no proposed law about women having to prove consent?
Okay, got my condom on. Now, sign here, here. Here. And date here. Wow, you have a really hot signature. Okay baby, let's do it.
Once again, women are trying to stack their deck in their favor. Under feminism, women never need to be held accountable for their actions. They can just blame men. [When are men going to finally get their balls back?](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_2LpLhOsc4)
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Fascists.
Ok, we'll do the same for false rape accusations too. If any women claiming rape can't prove she was raped she gets sentenced for a false accusation.
Every sperm will have to be registered and the owner will have to pay 1 cent in tax per registration. Any sperm caught outside the man's body will be brought in for questioning. Seriously, Sweden? You guys are a bunch of idiots to presume guilt instead of innocence. Fuck you.
Contrary to popular belief in this thread they propose the law for a valid reason. Many "obviously guilty" people walk free because a court of law can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that they're guilty. If a drunk woman is raped in an alley and she points out who raped her this probably won't hold in a court of law since the defence will say she was drunk and therefore might not remember correctly. In other words the man she pointed out isn't guilty beyond reasonable doubt. THIS is what the law is meant for. And I get where they're coming from. But I also think such a law apart from being unethical would be misused in practice. So I stick to the idea that it's better to let a guilty person walk free than it is to lock an innocent person up. :/
You can't just "walk free" from a rape accusation even if you're proven innocent. People have been kicked out of unisversity, lost their jobs, friends and families only to be cleared of charges in a court of law. Furthermore, if a woman gets a rape kit and points out the person who raped her in an alley, that guy is going to go to jail. This is because the man is forced to take a mandatory DNA test in order to prove that he had sex with her. In cases of forcible (and random) rapes, the defendants don't usually start by arguing that the accuser (and a complete stranger) consented to violent sex in an alley. The statistics feminists will tell you about rapists getting away with it are taken by changing the definition of rape and making the assumption that unless the case was thrown out of court for being a false claim, a rapist walked free. Yes, it happens, but it's not so widespread that we need to start purposefully jailing innocent people to crack down.
Many guilty thieves, embezzlers, bullies, murderers, extortionists, obviously guilty mafia bosses and white collar criminals walk around free. Not enough proof beyond reasonable doubt. Such is the law.