I don’t see why you find it strange.
People don’t generally engage in consensual theft or extortion or murder. But they do commonly engage in consensual sex.
So claims that an act of sex was consensual or non-consensual are both plausible claims.
Consensual theft is called “giving.” Consensual extortion is also called “giving.” Consensual murder–okay, you’ve got me there.
And actually it’s sometimes used as a defense against theft and extortions that the materials transferred were transferred consensually. And yet prosecutors are able to obtain convictions despite such protests.
That, friends, is why proper punctuation is so important.
As **LHoD **pointed out above, people do routinely consensually give or exchange property or money. So claims that an exchange was consensual or non-consensual certainly are both plausible claims. And yet, as noted above, there’s no crying burglary or extortion.
People do see each other in court, usually not amicably, but most suits are not fraught with allegations of abuse of process, although it does happen sometimes. After all, when a defendant tells us she is being proecuted because the police or the state’s attorney has it in for her personally, we usually find it ridiculous. So claims that a lawsuit was or was not wrongfully instituted are both plausible claims. But there’s no crying malicious prosecution.
So, I’m afraid I don’t find your reassurances that’s there’s nothing strange about rape, almost alone among all crimes, as being capable of being “cried” very convincing.
Couldn’t the woman’s story also be broken down until cracks appear? She’d be asked about the events leading in the bar/church, and admit to willingly going to his hotel room.
She’d be asked about what the did in the room, did he prevent her from leaving, did she try to leave?
Then asked about the events leading up to intercourse, were they making out? Naked? Was this part consensual?
Then asked about the act itself. What indications did she give that it was not consensual, that she didn’t want to have sex? Did she tell him no, did she struggle? What did he to do restrain her?
And then afterwards, what happened?
She’ll be asked this over and over, so will he, eventually one of them will make a mistake.
Sounds like a good setup for an Alfred Hitchcock movie: how to construct the perfect rape extortions scheme.
I see two elements that would need attention:
(1) Extortion victim / accused rapist. You would have to pick somebody with (a) liquid funds, and (b) a “checkered” past. If you find some low-life with no money, there’s no point, and if you find some upstanding citizen who’s independently wealthy, the “motive” bit doesn’t fit – otherwise happy, well-adjusted people don’t just go around raping strangers, as a general rule. You’d have to find somebody about whom you could gather evidence that a jury would believe. In other words – Martin Sheen? – No. Charlie Sheen – yes.
(2) The extortionist / rape “victim”. Why is this person trying to set up this guy? If it’s for a personal vendetta, that truth will out soon enough, so it has to be for some monetary reason. But a financially-strapped “victim” will draw immediate scrutiny, so, the “victim” has to be financially solvent. But why would a financially solvent woman want to extort money from a stranger unless she needed it?
Seems to me that, with a minimum of detective work, the “motive” of the extortionist would be exposed in any case.
Any creative types able to fashion a bullet-proof scenario, a la Strangers on a Train?
Bruising and tearing usually appear whether or not the victim struggles, because women who are being raped typically are not aroused and hence not lubricating.
Euthanasia?
Are you also making allusion to the Strauss-Kahn incident ?
Euthanasia isn’t necessarily voluntary. Putting down a dog is a form of euthanasia, but vets typically don’t require the dog to sign a waiver first.
Assisted suicide would be more accurate.
You forgot “havoc.” And letting loose the dogs of war, of course. Though I am not certain what the penalty for that is.
Dinner with Ate.
Good point; I hadn’t considered the distinction between the two terms.
Let’s face a little reality.
You and I appear in court. You testify that I stole your watch and wallet. I testify that I was walking down the street and, in a moment of spontaneous generosity, you gave me your watch and wallet as a gift.
Which of our stories sounds more plausible?
Don’t watch many daytime court shows, do you? 
This is about the most common kind of case they have after security deposit claims. She says the money was a loan, he says the money was a gift. Or he says he lent her the car, she says he gave her the car. Now what, Judge?
The difference is that there is generally no supporting documentation when I have consensual sex.
If I claimed that I loaned you $500 and you say no, it was a gift, the first question Judge Mathis is going to ask me is if I have a written loan agreement. Or a letter. Or even an email or text message (daytime court shows being held to lower standards of evidence than real courts) where you used the word “borrow” or wrote, “I’ll pay ya back ASAP.” SOMETHING has to exist that indicates that you acknowledged it was a loan, or I’m sunk. I have no evidence, so I have no case.
Now, I do remember there was at least one company selling condoms with an area for either a fingerprint or initials and date indicating that the intercourse about to be engaged in was fully consensual, but I don’t think it really took off. And really, it shouldn’t have, because consent to sex can be revoked at any time - even if I wrote out a letter saying that the sex we were about to engage in is consensual, I can change my mind and if you don’t stop, it’s rape.
You can’t change your mind that the loan I gave you is suddenly a gift after you accept it, so the loan agreement stands, even if you claim the money was a gift.
As I suspect you already know, I used that particular word because it tracks with the common law requirement for the prosecutrix in a rape case to be able to demonstrate that she complained as soon after the attack as possible.
If you are subtly pointing out that English common law crica 1700 was not all that enlightened when it came to feminist issues, I don’t imagine you’ll meet much dissent.
I am subtly pointing out that we no longer need to use that terminology, considering that the elements of rape circa 1700, and in particular the one you point out (and, btw, you are scarcely the only person to use it in this thread, and I rather doubt the other posters had this tidbit of legal history in mind), are much changed from the ones now in place.
As mentioned above, the only other crime that a person routinely (in some quarters) “cries” rather than “alleges” is “bloody murder.” I understand that “bloody murder” is not a crime, but murder certainly is. It is illuminating to reflect on the meaning of “crying bloody murder.” It means to make a big deal of nothing. “Crying rape” is meant to intimate similar dismissiveness.
As to your last clause, you need only look upthread to see what kind of buy-in I’ve gotten.
I don’t think that’s true. You can be happy and still be a rapist. And many people seem well adjusted–it’s not like rapists go around acting creepy and maladjusted. You could argue that by definition a rapist isn’t well adjusted but just because someone seems upstanding doesn’t mean they aren’t a total creep.
Outside the edit window: I will also add that when it happens that the evidence for the crime is incontrovertible nobody then refers to the accusation as an instance of “crying.” So it is not merely an old-fashioned synonym the way “suborn” might be said to be one for “solicit” or “encourage.”