Low Conviction rates in the case of rape

There are disturbing grey areas in law , it seems where rape is whatever the woman wants it to be.

Yes vigilance is wise but… there’s a thin line between advising vigilance and victim shaming( according to some ) . The former is before the assault and the latter is after the assault .
Some even think that both former and latter are victim shaming .

No if they have multiple rape victims and the proof evidence to link one suspect or more to all of them the suspect or suspects will be charged and all will be dealt with in one trial, if at all possible

A woman I knew invited me back to her place for sex. After a few minutes she screwed up her face and said: "I've come. Have you finished?" I carried on ... for some time. She suddenly got annoyed at me ... but after a couple of words of angry verbal: "GET OFF M...", she climaxed. Her skin went pink. She began sweating profusely and making loud orgasmic sounds. Then she gave me an almighty shove and I ended up on the floor. She sat up ... with an ecstatic look on her face ... and said: "Your making me ill". Followed by: "I'm having visions of hellfire". I was a squatter. She told the others I'd raped her. The women acted as if they were turned on by the thought of me being a rapist. Three women with excited looks on their faces wanting to know what I'd done.

I had to talk my way out of being beaten up by several of the men.

If I'd ended up in court would a jury have accepted that she'd never had an orgasm before and it freaked her out?   

The problem with rape as a prosecutable crime is that there are rarely any witnesses to it, so it comes down to his word against hers. If she reports it soon enough and is sensible enough not to take a bath or a shower until afterwards, DNA evidence will often prove that intercourse took place and that it was with the accused. But proving that it was forced and not consensual is very difficult unless sufficient violence is used to leave evidence of that violence. But quite often a woman will freeze with fear instead of fighting back, especially if a knife is held to her throat or something like that, which can mean though still a rape, the supporting evidence of violence or physical restraint might be lacking or at least inconclusive.

And demonstrating a mans guilt if he has been spotted by numerous witnesses in a bar or some such place, laughing and joking with the alleged victim, and leaving with her arm in arm, is going to be a problem because consensual sex will look at least as likely as rape. A rapist of course might well turn on the charm so that it looks that way to numerous witnesses. Yet there are cases where women consent to sex but regret it in the morning, thinking they have been taken advantage of and make a false accusation.

These inherent difficulties will inevitably result in low conviction rates because of the long standing legal convention of innocent until proven guilty, with that guilt needing to be demonstrated to be beyond any reasonable doubt. And there will often be a very reasonable doubt about the certainty of guilt in many cases, in which cases the jury are advised to acquit.

The best thing women can do to protect themselves, deter rapists, or have them successfully prosecuted if they do commit such a crime, especially when out drinking, is to always be in groups. Rapists are unlikely to target women in groups, and if they did a group of them would have a good chance of fighting one man off, which the rapist on the hunt will know. And even if he did manage to abduct one of them, the friends she is with will alert the police immediately, and act as witnesses if necessary in court.

For such reasons, rapists on the prowl will almost never target a woman in a group but will look for one on her own.

Of course an additional problem is that many rape victims are raped by people they know and have previously trusted - work colleagues or even people they have been dating, even their husbands in some cases. Until recent decades that latter was not even recognised as a crime. The added problem of course in many of these cases is that the rapist will often have enjoyed genuinely consensual sex with the victim on many earlier occasions. In most such cases, proving rape beyond any reasonable doubt is going to be next to impossible. All I can say is that women should exercise wisdom in whom they choose to have sex with and when and would be best advised to make such decisions when sober. Going off with some guy she has only just met when drunk, either to his place or her own, is very high risk behaviour.

And the effects of excessive alcohol upon the judgement of both parties could all too easily result in giving out or receiving misunderstood signals, as well as screwing with the judgement of both in regards to their own behaviours and actions. And it can lead to things being misremembered or not remembered at all in the morning.

Rape is potentially a life imprisonment offence, steppenwolf. (And rightly so).
It therefore deserves a high standard of evidence to convict. You appear to want to reduce the standard of evidence to get more convictions. As I said earlier, it can't be done, and for good reason.
We don't want to be sending anyone to prison for life on substandard evidence.

Let's face it, there are people on here who claim the standard of evidence was not high enough in the multiple murder case which put Lucy Letby inside.
You want a lower standard than that?