Yes, BQ, but I woudn't go as far as you do. You almost make it sound like women enter a forest with wild animals and thus must act with extreme care. I don't believe that is true. I also don't think the law is wholely incapable of dealing with the problem of rape.
Hard core rape can be prosecuted. The case where a man jumps out of the bushes and rapes a woman absolutely can be dealt with by the law. She is going to have at least some signs of struggle. I am not saying she has to put up a huge fight but if nothing else she is going to have some scratches and what not from being tackled or from struggle. I agree at some point not resisting makes sense. However, I think there should be at least some resistence and thus at least some sign of resistence.
The problem arises when the allegation is made against a husband or a boyfriend or even someone who was just met in a bar. If you marry someone, establish an obvious relationship with some, or even leave the bar with someone, I think things change. Feminists will not admit this.
I am not saying a relationship gives rise to a privilege to rape. I am saying that the dynamics of the situation changes. The extreme example is a husband who has had sex with his wife 1,000 times before. All of a sudden she says he raped her. Look, if she doesn't want to have sex with him, she can move out. She can file for divorce. Now, if he brutally attacks her, that is a different thing. But, if it is just "I didn't consent." I say bullshit. If she is sleeping in his bed (or him in hers), I say bullshit. Feminists will say what if he locked her in the house, etc. (I think there was a TV show like that). Well, that may be different, but that is extremely rare. For the average woman who has a car, a job, family, friends, etc., she has the ability to not sleep in his bed (or vice versa) if she doesn't want to. So, I say bullshit. The risk of wrongful conviction is just too high. Even if he has sex once with her without her consent, she can certainly make sure it never happens again (by leaving him, filing for divorce, etc.). If some husband gets one extra probably less than good sexual encounter before divorce, I don't think that is the end of the world. On the other hand, if men go to prison due to at best an ambiguous situation that is the end of the world (for those men). I think most people would agree that sexual relationships contain ambiguity. If the woman establishes a sexual relationship with a man or even does something clearly leading up to a sexual relationship (like removing her clothes, allowing her into circumstances associated with sexual relationships such as say a weekend trip to a romantic place, etc., things just change.
I wouldn't for a second suggest that the law shouldn't take the stranger jumping out of the bush (or even the ex husband or separated husband jumping out of a bush) seriously. I do think these men deserve a fair trial and things might not be as claimed. But, my main point is that the so called date rape and certainly the so called marital rape allegations are extremely, extremely dangerous. Along similar lines, the cases involving no indepenently verifiable evidence of struggle are extremely danagerous. The idea that the conviction rape for these types of cases is "too low" is dangerous. The fact is that juries are the best judge of these cases. Many of them should never even get to a jury. Judgment should be exercised.