Suppose a woman accuses a man of rape. Sometimes there is physical evidence to indicate the truth of the situation. But what about the cases where it's his word against hers? Who should you believe and why?

Well, after watching many episodes of Law & Order SVU (though not claiming to know jack on the subject) I'd say you really need concrete evidence (DNA, testimony to put the people in the right places, thorough background looks on both parties). People can be extremely manipulative. It's hard to be 100% certain.

Is it even possible to reasonably say 'trust the man over the woman' or 'trust the woman over the man' as a blanket, general decision?

Absolutely. But what do you do if you don't have any solid evidence?

in dubio pro reo

Without evidence of some sort, there is no way to tell for sure legally. However, if it involved people close to me, I would get to the bottom of it myself. If for no other reason, to know who is who.

I had to google it to figure out what that means, but I agree.

I agree. And I think that at a personal level, you could probably get enough evidence to satisfy yourself even if it isn't enough evidence for legal purposes.

And god help the guy if it is rape.

Indeed.

well, someone is innocent until proven guilty beyond a doubt...

unless you got solid evidence, i stay with innocent

What if it was reversed; man accusing woman of rape?

Well, I would probably want her phone number. That's just sexy!

IMO, it's the same deal. If there's proof, then you convict. Otherwise, innocent until proven guilty.

It is a much stickier situation. A man has to be arouse to have intercourse, A woman can be forced.

The question becomes; If she was able to get him aroused, is it rape?

Arousal is a purely physical response. It is entirely possible to aroused against your will. The burden of proof is the same, though. Just because the two people had sex doesn't imply rape at all. Regret the day after doesn't give either one the right to say it's rape.

I don't think arousal is a purely physical response at all, at least I know it isn't for me. Granted, it is more consistantly easily achieved when one is younger.

As a woman who was raped by her boyfriend (at the time) and didn't report it or tell anyone for a while, I can assure that DNA evidence is irrelevant.

To me rape = one party saying no and the other ignoring that request. It isn't about anything more than that as far as I am concerned and for someone to suggest that there needs to be arousal for there to be rape so therefore the woman is partly to blame is totally incorrect. Remember we aren't talking about normal functioning human beings who do this sort of thing, they have serious issues.

My friends believed me and that is all that I needed. His friends, family, new girlfriends, etc didn't believe me but by that time their reactions to his behaviour were nothing to do with me.

Support those you care about and if you have any doubt in someone's story ask yourself - what effect does believing it really do to you?

I'm sorry!

I don't think anyone is suggesting arousal is necessary. I was making the point that it would be difficult for a woman to rape a man who was not aroused. I'm sure you get my meaning.

I'm glad your friends and family stood by you, I would do the same. And I agree with your advice, thank you for it.

hmm is this thread about how to react legally or how to react personally?

for that matter I laws can't tell what to believe, and my first reaction would probably be to believe the "victim" which I think would be more like instinct rather then rational thought.

My decision, if having, doubt may also be affected whether I know the person and how I can put that in line with his/her personality.

however, I wouldn't put someone in prison having doubts, this may sound cruel espiecially for the victims. But it would be against my principles, even if I would have the feeling the person is guilty.