The woman voluntarily went with the man to a hotel room shortly after meeting him. I don’t know the statistics, but lacking a plausible alternate explanation for going to the hotel room, any other evidence of rape as opposed to consensual sex, or demonstrating a pattern of rape by the man under similar circumstances, I think the man would be acquitted. This is very similar to the Kobe Bryant case, and that one never went to trial.
Was she the prosecutrix, though? I am pretty certain that in early common law, rape wasn’t a crime against the woman - it was a crime against her husband or father (if she was unmarried). The latter because it would reduce her dowry value if she was not still virginal.
ETA - of course I don’t mean dowry. I mean the word I cannot think of… 
Another observation: I have never heard of a male victim doing anything other than “alleging” a rape or sexual assault. (Because, the thinking goes, no man would ever falsely claim so humiliating and emasculating an occurrence. Thus any such allegation needn’t be treated with the skepticism that “cry rape” signifies.)
Not really. Rape and child molestation are both crimes that can plausibly have little or no evidence for them, and ones that people in our society go into an irrational berserk rage over, so a false accusation can do an awful lot of damage. That makes them attractive to people who want to harm or blackmail others. Just as in some other societies an accusation of “fornication” can get a woman’s reputation ruined or her killed, so it makes sense for someone unscrupulous to make false accusations of that; or in a dictatorial society false accusations of disloyalty are attractive to the ruthless since they can easily get the accused hauled off and killed.
So, you’d have to pick somebody who’s outwardly successful, happy, and well-adjusted, but who might plausibly be believed to commit rape under the right circumstances…
What you’d have to do is find a Senator or other politician (sports figure, perhaps?), with a penchant for infidelity (so you could seduce him), but you’d have to somehow arrange the seduction so that it didn’t look like a set-up, and find something icky in the guy’s past that hasn’t been brought out yet.
You could get a private investigator to go in the deal 50 / 50, but that would be risky; he’d probably talk once the police got to him.
And we still haven’t covered problem #2 – who are “you”, and how can you build a credible enough backstory that 's not so credible that it wouldn’t be worth it for you to do the set-up to begin with?
But anyone could be “plausibly believed.” It’s not like people go around classifying people as potential rapists. There’s no way of knowing before the fact.
Yeah, and why is it “MAN has consensual sex with WOMAN”? Right away putting the woman in the subordinate, and thus inferior, position. Funny how nobody ever says “man accepts the gift of consensual sex from woman.” No, instead he has sex; it’s something that he takes from her. Sex, and by extension the woman, are his property.
Ah, sorry. I just got caught up in the frenzy of deconstruction going on.
I think most people make gut judgments about who is more likely to commit a crime whether it’s robbery, murder, or rape. I think it’s how we are wired as animals to try to avoid danger. The real problem occur when someone we’ve mentally classed as harmless isn’t. Also, many women who have lived through violent and unpredictable situations, especially someone who is a rape survivor, will evaluate the all the men she encounters as to their potential as rapists.
I think the fact that you need to resort to imaginary things that I never said sort of speaks for itself.
Quoth Kimmy_Gibbler:
Only when used sarcastically, and it’s chosen for that sarcastic usage because the plain meaning is exactly the opposite. You “cry bloody murder” or “cry rape” or “cry wolf”, instead of “proclaiming” or “alleging” or whatever because those are all things that you need immediate community response on. If someone steals from you and it takes a week to get to the bottom of the case, there’s no lasting harm done: You catch the perp, get your stuff back, and life goes on. So you don’t need to “cry theft”. On the other hand, if you’re getting murdered or raped, or see an out-of-control fire, or spot a wolf in the sheepfold, you cry out right then and there, so the community can respond immediately and help you fight off the attacker, or kill the wolf, or put out the fire.
Yes they do. I’ve heard more than a few people, including on the board, classify men as a whole as all potential rapists. And advocate that men always be treated as such, to treat every man walking down the street or sitting on a bench as if he might grab you and drag you off to be raped. And they get very offended when someone calls that unfair.
Can you provide an example of a time somebody used “cried bloody murder” sincerely? I mean, nobody says anything like: “Yesterday, my elderly neighbor was the subject of a home invasion robbery. They bound him and were beating him with a table leg. But, luckily, he was crying bloody murder the whole time, so I was able to alert the authorities!”
Nobody says that, maybe, but I have heard things like “It sounded like someone crying bloody murder, so I called the cops, but it turned out it was just a peacock that got loose from the zoo”.
OK, that’s true.
“Murder! Murder! Help, Murder!”
“So just the regular murder then?”
“Yes, God, somebody help me, murder!”
“Not bloody murder? You sure?”
“Murder!”
“Well…I’ve got to get to class then. Don’t want to be late again.”
“…”
Really? On this issue, the big concern is the phrase “cry rape”?
What about “cry foul”? People do that alot. Is that feminine in some undesirable way?
And why do people only ever stave off elimination? Nobody staves anything else anymore. I see this as an indictment of men.
Example: Teenage boys should never be used as babysitters because … well, apparently because they’re male.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13794364&postcount=15
But they’re looking at all men that way–they’re not subcategorizing men into “men who rape” and “men who don’t rape.” It’s not like you could say, if someone who seemed nice was accused, that he couldn’t have done it–he’s just not the raping type.
Though actually, in the pit thread about the maid who was raped by the banker, I did see a couple people saying that the guy seemed rich and successful so why would he need to rape, so I guess that kind of attitude is still around…
Which was a common defense of Kobe Bryant - he could always get a woman voluntarily, why would he rape one.
Perhaps one of our resident insurance agents / loss adjusters could chime in? I certainly recall reading stories about fake claims, and I know that shop theft - both by ‘customers’ and employees is a serious problem. I wonder if the problem is that these crimes are too common?