I am sad to read Edam's Indie article about our sisters being the first the stick the knives and MT's Guardian article about how we no longer look out for each other. Certainly attitudes in the judiciary, community need changing.
At the risk of being hounded off this thread, I think the law is right on the balance of proof. Rape is a charge which, if sticks, seeks to affect the civil liberties of - not the victim (who has allegedly already been sinned against) - but the alleged rapist. Therefore, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the man intended to have sex with the victim against her will. The man is presumed innocent unless proven guilty otherwise the balance would tilt too much in favour of the victim and leave it wide open for any woman to make allegations that could put a man away for a long time.
MT, like you, I cannot believe that any self-respecting woman would bring such a charge if it were not true. In rape it tends to be one person's word against another because of the lack of witnesses. But at the very least, the law expects the woman to be able to say confidently that she did not consent, not that she cannot remember and therefore the inference must be that she must have been raped because in the cold light of day she would not have done such a thing. Otherwise, it is one man's word (he is swearing black and blue that she consented, yes, drunkenly) against ... well, nothing concrete from the woman.
I don't want our ds' to live under a legal regime that condemns him to jail on a woman's whim. But yes, there are men who will take advantage of the protection that the law affords to innocent men to get away with unprovable rape.
That is why women have to take precautions - but that is not to say that the predatory men are not wrong in doing what they did.
And all women who are raped are innocent. It is so clear that the crime is perpetrated by the man and there can be no justification for it. I will stop now because I am rambling