Then stop trying to derail the thread by attempting to make it about the female experience, and let it be about this one man’s experience. Jokes are a way to enforce the dominant narrative, to laugh off any challenges to it, and your joke is exactly that. It’s a big, fat “What about the women!” dumped right into the middle of a thread where a woman raped a man, and now you try to pretend you have empathy for the male victim.
I didn’t derail the thread. The OP himself made it about women from the very beginning. Take it up with him. As a reminder, here’s the entire content of the OP (entitled “Why is this woman not being charged with rape?”):
Doesn’t sound like a thread about men at all, does it? In fact, it sounds like the OP wanted to start this thread to talk about women. So stop pretending like this conversation was about men. It never was.
How about you stop trying to derail this thread with accusations about an individual poster’s motives, and worry about responding to the OP? You’ve made your opinion on the former more than clear at this point. If you want to go after another poster, this isn’t the forum for that.
Well, I have reviewed the OP carefully:
The thread title is, “Why is this woman not being charged with rape?” (emphasis added)
The OP says:
It’s not clear at all to me that “slam dunk” refers to a conviction. Can you point to the references to a conviction associated with the OP’s use of "slam dunk? It seemed clearer to me that the OP was referring to charges, and I have highlighted those for clarity. Where are you seeing “conviction,” Eonwe?
And ETA:
It many of the stories I’ve found, I see that the police are quoted as saying that “sexual intercourse without consent” (rape) charges may still be filed. Why they haven’t yet, I don’t know.
You’re right. I retract my statement; I misunderstood/read the meaning. Sorry for being snarky at you about it.
Here’s a guess:
- In that state there are extra hurdles to charge a spouse with rape.
- That state considers them “common law married” due to a long cohabitation period.
Legal sleuths: go, confirm or deny my guess!
Great Falls.
No worries! Glad it was cleared up. 
Nope, that’s common, across the board. As it should be: right now the woman is merely alleged to have committed these crimes. But she stands before the law presumed innocent. What if the man fabricated or exaggerated his account? We are hearing only the allegations and not her defense.
Indeed, she could offer no defense at all and remain clothed with a presumption of innocence until the state proves each element of a charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
Spot on.
And as is often said, we distinguish between the default position in believing the victim and the barrier needed for legal proof.
I have zero reason to believe this gentleman’s story is fabricated or exaggerated. However that may not be enough to file charges yet.
And note- you made this thread about the legality aspect (charges) not about default sympathy or belief of the victim.
Fair enough.
But for any proposition, the proponent bears the burden of production of proof – I’m not speaking of legal burdens, but of logical ones. A claim demands evidence before it is accepted.
Here, we have evidence: the man’s accusations, and the inference we may draw by seeing that those accusations resulted in charges being filed.
But we don’t have the woman’s defense. There are three basic defenses for this kind of accusation: (1) the entire event is fabricated; (2) the event happened, but it was consensual; (3) the event happened, but it wasn’t me but some other person doing it.
I don’t agree that we can uncritically say, “I believe the man,” without first learning what, if any, defense the woman offers. Again, this is not an enunciation of a legal standard, but a logical one: the baseline assumption needs evidence from the accuser to overcome it, which it has, but also an opportunity for the accused to be heard.
That doesn’t quite answer the question that was asked, though. People accused of crimes are given the presumption of innocence, and are referred to in news accounts as “alleged” perpetrators, but K2500 asked about the victim. I can’t recall if I’ve ever seen woman in similar circumstances referred to as an “alleged” victim.
Then you haven’t been paying attention:
http://upnorthlive.com/news/local/alleged-victim-of-otsego-county-csc-dies-accused-could-walk-free
(the above doesn’t mention the sexof the victim, other articles refer to the victim as “she”
http://www.wwnytv.com/story/38418250/alleged-victim-testifies-in-breault-rape-trial
This one does not say if the minor victim is male or female:
That took a few moments of searching on “alleged victim” in the news.
I think it should depend, again, on where the controversy rests. “It happened, but it wasn’t me?” There’s no need to refer to an"alleged," victim; there is no serious question about a crime, only the identity of the perpetrator.
But “It never happened,” and to a lesser extend, “It happened, but he consented,” suggest that even the existence of a victim is in dispute.
I never gave it much thought before. I just thought it was interesting that the question was about a victim but the answer leapt to a discussion of the perpetrator; and particularly from Bricker, who is usually quite precise in his use of language.
That’s because I wasn’t paying attention.
We always document alleged assault when someone claims they were assaulted in my ER.
As far as the OP goes, I have no problem with a prosecutor filing some charges to get a violent criminal off the street, now, and filling in the rest as the investigation evolves.