the question is in what situations and to what degree the threat is implied rather than overt but still real and what specific actions and responses (or the lack thereof) are considered forceful or threatening. Beyond the theory is the question of what can be proven. Traditionally since without witnesses nothing could be proven it wasn't considered provable unless the woman could demonstrate physical damage of a sort that no one would believe anyone would consent to. To some degree this attitude still exists.

Unfortunately for them the evidence clearly is that the inbred religiously psychotic republican base IS that stupid.

what i will do is secretly record her consenting speech and behavior when possible.

either way the technology guarantees that it will happen so we had better figure out how we are going to deal with it. At the very least I think everyone can agree that it is better to have the power that this technology makes available widely distributed with at least the possibility of "checks and balances" than to have all of it's power concentrated in a few hands. BTW rape would become impossible too (or at least impossible to commit more than once) in this situation as would at least the more overt forms of "coerced consent"

believing that they are surely guilty of SOMETHING. If someone is against anybody, at least anybody male and straight, having ANY sex that a feminist committee doesn't approve of then it's all good, isn't it?

how will the boys ever be impressive enough to get the girls to fuck them. A woman just has to show up with a pussy but unless you are gay just showing up with a dick isn't enough. Obviously the instinct that leads to this desire to be special isn't rationally connected to it's real object here, but that is hardly unusual.

even after the worst depression in history in the 30s demonstrated to everyone the essential role for govt in managing the economy and providing a social safety net the denial of those needs is both respectable and in some times and places ascendant. The ideal of social and religious freedom and equality that was (more or less) established in the 60s has been fiercely and somewhat successfully resisted. No, they haven't been able to erase all the gains of the 20th century but they have managed some very successful and very destructive delays and impediments to progress and they may again if everyone who knows what they are up to doesn't stay focused.

No but it is the only standard for judging whether it is illegal. I hope you are not implying that because false accusation is rare (it isn't) or that because some sex is, supposedly, "reprehensible" that there is no real problem. There is no good solution, the best you can hope for is more rather than less real information and to try and balance them reasonably, but remember that absolute power (to act OR to accuse with impunity) corrupts absolutely.

no body, no stolen property etc. You can prove whether they had sex or not, maybe, or whether they were beaten up, but proving directly whether the SEX was consensual, or NOT consensual, is very difficult. It WILL be possible very soon, if it is not already for the well off and technically inclined, to record yourself, at least on audio, in almost any situation without the presence or knowledge of anyone else.

Because if the one making the accusation doesn't tell anyone that she faked it AND IF she can be CERTAIN that the event was not recorded she can be CERTAIN that it will be impossible to PROVE that the accusation was false and therefore she can be certain that she will not face punishment no matter how serious the punishment could be in theory.

because nearly all the public/anonymous forums are censored and celibacy is too high a price to pay for telling the truth.

(well except for the ropes, handcuffs, kidnapping, etc).

seriously.

There are plenty of feminist sites and this is the only one I know of where you can say whatever you want about feminism without being censored. I've looked. Plenty.

was widely distributed online.

the interesting thing will be whether she is held accountable AND whether this will lead to my long predicted establishment of recording of sex as a norm just to protect against these allegations will come to pass.

Please point me to a single example of such a place that does not censor critical points of view.

Sometimes things are so fucked up that nobody does and everything stops. When the vast majority of the population lived as subsistence farmers the world could go on and eventually something would start moving again. In the modern world you can't just wait for that to happen. When you have a few people on farms you can live without water and sewer systems, in a big city you can't, in a similar way a complex modern economy has to be kept moving, by the govt. when necessary.

the only question is whether the New Deal spent ENOUGH or whether it took the vastly greater spending of world war 2 to do the job. Only among nutjobs is there any denial that WITHOUT massive govt spending the economy would have stayed in the toilet for a very, very long time. So long in fact that if democracy had failed. i.e. been unable to produce the necessary govt. action to make the economy move we would have ended up with a dictatorship which would have done so.

In the west that is true, but only because they live longer than men.