No one is suggesting that anyone be convicted without due process.
How about expelled from university without due process?
No one has suggested that anyone be convicted of anything without proof beyond a reasonable doubt, all legal rights observed, legal counsel provided, etc.
But they weren't convicted, just expelled. A convenient way to avoid having to prove guilt. But major punishment anyway.
The government keeps looking for ways of bypassing the concept of having to prove it.
This is one such example (the universities were acting as encouraged by the government).
Pushing the payment system to shun industries. Look at the porn market: incest-themed stuff suddenly shifted to step-incest themed. Again, the government was behind that.
Some places it costs you more to challenge a ticket than the fine--and it's court costs that you don't get back even if you prevail. Or what happened to a former coworker--ex lied about child support. The government was after him to repay what they had paid her--didn't matter that it was an open-and-shut case, proving he didn't owe the money would cost more than paying it, and he wouldn't recover costs if he fought it.
We switched to the millimeter wave scanners at the airport. It's been proven in a real world situation that you can smuggle small metal items past them, and it has been shown theoretically that you can't see explosives carefully feathered onto the body. Combine those, they have basically no chance against a well-disguised bomb that would have been caught by the metal detector. Security went down--but the scanners stop money mules carrying cash on their body. Somehow I find this highly suspicious. (Millimeter wave is better at detecting a clumsy bomb, but to date every attack has been by means that security could not catch--don't assume a stupid adversary!)
And, on a related note: CBP conducting searches pretty much anywhere (within 100 miles of a border--but international airports are borders) without a warrant. I drove through one of their traps once--directed everyone off the highway at a rest stop, one lane going past a bunch of equipment. No indication of what was going on but it makes no sense other than as an electronic search of the car. Nope, cops are free to use cameras without a warrant but any form of sensory augmentation (but not simply magnification) requires a warrant.
I'm sure this list is far from complete, it's just what comes to mind at the moment.
I think that (some) men have a pretty vested interest in believing that women lie about rape. Otherwise, they might have to think poorly of some of their buddies or even of themselves.
Doesn't mean all of us. I have never been in a situation with the slightest doubt about consent.
Thinking of young adults abd teens, I think that there definitely can be some room for differing perceptions. Certainly judgement can be clouded by growing sexual urgency coupled with lack of general life and sex experience.. it would be lovely to think that couples are deeply in puppy love and heavily invested in their partners well being but honestly, young, inexperienced, flooded with hormones: people do not perceive situations the save way.
Which underscores the need for enthusiastic consent. A more passive person might withdraw emotionally if they are overwhelmed and reluctant it avoids t and a more dominant person could see acquiescence as consent instead of fear and not knowing what to do to get out if a situation. We’re talking heat if the mom t decisions being made without much actual thought process.
Withdrawing would be neutral, not positive.
