the idea might be a bit half-baked
imho, it's not a bit half-baked, it's all the way...
Come on, as nerds, we should try to be more accurate. Is it a quarter-baked, or maybe 10%-baked? Could it be 80%-baked?
Stay tuned on the site formally known as Slashdot!
What's it informally known as?
Some women recant, not because a rape didn't happen, but because of the shit they'll have to face. Only 40% of rapes are even reported because women know they'll deal with all the usual shit (were you drinking, what were you wearing, did you smile at him -- which to people like you seems to mean 'she was asking for it')
This is a problem with your laws requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt that consent had not been given. The solution is to change the laws so that absence of consent is not required to be proven for a successful prosecution. If a woman accuses a man of rape, and it is able to be proven forensically that penetration happened, it should be enough for conviction of rape. Testimony of the victim would not be required and so the woman would not have to go through all that shit you talk about.