Well, what is your solution, then? Are you really suggesting that a rape accusation shouldn't be taken at face value unless there is some sort of physical evidence (maybe bruises and semen) present at the time of reporting? Or would you claim that 10% of these reporters bruised themselves and borrowed some semen to get the job done?
The solution to the problem you pose is to impose SEVERE sanctions on those who engage in false accusations for profit or personal gain (right now the penalty similar to that of a DUI, at least in Utah; it could definitely be more severe). It is a poor and ineffective solution to discount reports of rape as false, or "has X% chance of being false". Even if false reports were 99.9% of the total, that 0.1% of suspects need to be brought to justice so it doesn't happen again.
If we were talking about murder, would you have the same stance? Sure, there are people who fake their own deaths, but those who were really murdered should get justice, and the outlying data points shouldn't disrupt that. As for the guys that have been falsely accused (actually, I was accused of statutory when I was 18 and my girlfriend was 17; not quite the same, but still) it sucks ass. I have a friend who had 3 years probation and a sex crime record for a statutory case that he was actually convicted of (he was 19 and his girlfriend had just turned 17). The stigma really does suck, bad, and even sanctions on the accuser doesn't relieve the feeling of being accused of attacking someone when you didn't.
But also, as a guy who's cousin was raped repeatedly and violently on her way home from night classes, I get that side of it, too, and the one is FAR more devastating on a life than the other (your comparison to "life-rape" is pretty ridiculous; they're not even close).
On that note, if we still disagree, so be it.