Rape is now guilty before proven innocent.

Sounds like 2 sides of the same coin to me.

The CPS says to interpret the law you ask 2 questions:

1. Did the defendant believe the complainant consented?
2. If so, did the defendant reasonably believe it? It will be for the jury to decide if his or her belief was reasonable

Oh dear lord yes.

No one deserves to be raped, but men already have little say in a relationship scenario anymore. OUTSIDE of this event of cozrse!

I mean seriously there are people who would say it's only rape if he's ugly

Equally there are wives who will file false rape accusations just to win a divorce case with a hubby they're bored of

They should have thought this through.

How many people actually ask each other if they want to have sex before actually having it? Maybe people should be carrying around contracts that have to be signed before anything happens! They'll be no such thing as one night stands, they'll become 'too risky'.

How is a guy supposed to know how drunk someone has to be before it would be considered rape? What if both parties are drunk? Men could easily argue that they were too drunk to consent also. Men who knowingly take advantage of women are pigs but if women choose to get themselves legless, surely they must realise they've also chosen to be more vulnerable and at risk of these things happening. I disagree with people who say women are entirely innocent and blameless when it comes to rape because of drunkenness.

How moronic lol. What a terrible injustice done onto the justice system.

Respect. It is very hard for a guy to share these fears and not sound like hellspawn, so I appreciate it.

Why was Ched Evens even convicted? The woman slept with three blokes that night and boasted on twitter about extorting money

http://www.chedevans.com/the-disputed-tweets

Then the police arrested people who shared the tweets because 'it named the victim'.

Something needs to be done about these Nazis.

I would say a lengthy prison sentence and permanent stigma of being a convicted rapist simply because you couldn't prove your innocence is pretty bad.

By this logic, just about every crime in law is "guilty until proven innocent".

:
Being raped - No STD, no bodily harm, feeling upset, feeling angry.
But how you feel depends on how you approach the incident. You can change it.

Personally, I am ok with greater awareness about rape and protection for rape victims. However, I want to know why is it only women who are protected in these new guidelines?

How so?

I'm kind of naive in that I don't have that in depth knowledge of how our legal system works.

then neither should be putting themselves in a position where they could be accused

Well, suppose I take something of yours, or burn your car, come up to you in the street and start violently attacking you, etc. Now, if, for whatever reason, you genuinely willingly consented to whatever it is I did, then I'd be fine (though there are some obvious exceptions to this, such as homicide, which would be illegal even if you did consent). But the law would not assume that you consented unless you can prove you didn't - it would assume you did not consent unless I can prove you did.

There might be some kind of general distinction between having sex and being beaten/having your car burned/being a victim of theft. I'm darned if I can work out what it is though.

Oh, as an aside, you might want to consider the case of R v Brown.

You're looking at it in a very black and white way. You don't consider that pregnancy is an issue for women (and some women aren't allowed contraceptives/ would find it difficult to obtain them without telling someone, which they might not be ready to do).

There's also blame culture. What was she wearing etc. and some religions shun raped women and deny that men can be raped at all