Rape is under reported, the conviction rate is far too low, allegations of rape are treated with initial unjustified suspicion and the experience of women reporting rape (who used to be called prosecutrices) too harrowing.
There is little evidence in the media that there is equal concern that alleged perpetrators may be sent to gaol for substantial periods on evidence which is ambiguous or ambitious.
There is no doubt that the acquittal rate of those cases which come to trial is very high.
Why is this so ?
Juries these day are usually of mixed composition and it it fair enough to say that every jury is likely to have women and men who are fathers in the panel. Neither group is likely to be in favour of irresponsible verdicts.
So the reason might be found elsewhere. We are dealing with one of the most fundamental drives in human beings.
Human beings are fundamentally animals.
To get the idea of how fundamental it is one could almost use the word "zoological".
No other activity is likely to generate more insecurity about the truth of the matter than sexual intercourse; the more so if alcohol has intervened.
Juries know this and no re-jigging of the law is likely to make much difference unless the onus of proof is reversed and the onus fall on the accused to prove innocence.
Juries will convict almost like a flash if there is evidence of violence or domination or breach of duty but otherwise draw a very beady eye on the evidence.
This may leave us in fact with the idea that the only real solution is to raise the level of civilized conduct of the whole society.
But after the sexual revolution of the '60's can that be done ?
And was such a thing every possible ?