[solidsnack9000]

In the absence of evidence that indicates non-consent — signs of a struggle, injuries, presence of date rape drugs — evidence of sexual intercourse doesn’t need to be explained. Actually, even in the presence of clear evidence of non-consent, evidence of sexual intercourse doesn’t need to be explained — it’s the evidence that creates the impression of an assault that needs to be explained.

It seems wrong to take evidence of sexual intercourse alone, and a statement by a plaintiff claiming that the sexual intercourse was non-consensual, as a basis for a conviction. That amounts to just deciding to believe one side and not the other. If that what’s happening, why look for any evidence at all?