Can't buy that. If a man proceeds with sex against the consent of the woman, if she is saying no, or actively resisting him, or even not actively resisting him due to the fact that he has threatened force, then that is rape. Claiming rape after consensual sex doesn't make it rape, of course. the difference between consensual "rough sex" and rape exists in reality, not just in the mind of the woman. The rapist might confuse the two, but only as a defense for what it had done.
I agree as to what constitutes rape. I am merely pointing out that rape is the only crime in which the consent or non-consent of the purported victim is (often) the only question at issue at trial. All agree intercourse occurred, the only question is whether she agreed to it.
So the only issue to be appropriately discussed in court is what was going on in her head at the time. Since she is the only person who can testify to this, they only question at issue in the whole trial is what she now says that POV was.
There is generally a tendency to accept a woman’s story of being raped, or at least there is more so now, as compared to the past. But (some) women do lie, as do some men. And some women are confused or delusional, as are some men.
In actual fact, in many cases of claimed rape, the whole trial boils down to who is more believable on the stand to the jury. The problem with this is that we have all known people who were exceptionally good liars, very believable while lying through their teeth. And most of us have known people who are nervous in tense situations, such as courtroom testimony and respond by acting in ways that make them less believable.
I just think it odd to determine guilt or innocence by who tells the better story. I find it very difficult to see how guilt beyond a reasonable doubt can be determined based solely on two conflicting sets of testimony.