to secure a rape conviction, prosecutors have to prove to a jury not only that a complainant did not consent but that the defendant did not have a reasonable belief that the complainant was consenting. In other words, the law allows for a situation in which a woman did not consent but a man could have reasonably believed that she did (that “reasonably” is critical), and juries can believe a woman’s account, sympathise with her, yet still not convict a defendant of rape.

Assuming this happened (it didn't) what she is asking for here is to destroy the entire legal system just to give women an unshakeable instant win card.

Because beyond a reasonable doubt is the cornerstone of the legal system we exist under, and its important to protect the innocent. Its the reason we moved away from lynch mobs to passive "let the law do its business." There are a lot of failures in our current system, but that is not one of them. For every Casey Anthony that gets away with murder because of it, a dozen innocent men get to avoid prison.

Its also amazing that she said all those words just to hide the easy solution that would make all women breakdown. Which is OPENLY AND PLAINLY SAYING THE WORD NO. No subtle implications, no body language, just saying the word fucking No.

That's why all feminism is doomed to fail when it tries to "empower" women, because the moment they are faced with actually dealing with a decision they will always default back to being cowardly little waifs who can't do anything without a man to take care of them.

Also having daughters did nothing to change my sexist ways, other than feel more secure in them. Because I got to see that many of the traits I am disgusted by in women isn't inherent, its a choice they make. And the rest is just basic paternal instincts I am in no way going to combat just to be "progressive."