because im sure people can say "what really is proof of rape aside from non-consent."
Proof would be such things as (but not necessarily or exclusively);
DNA Evidence (e.g; blood from either party found on the other, as if coming from defensive/offensive wounds, or more likely, sperm from the culprit found in/on/around the victim)
A report of the incident at the time (which is useful when you have scenarios where someone comes forth and says they were raped 20-30 years ago).
Physical markings left upon the victim which could suggest rape or abuse (such as bruising from fingers held firmly on the neck, or arms or legs) (Obviously only available at a time soon after the event)
Any evidence/testimony to prove that the victim and the accused were in the same place at the same time.
Character Witnesses, while not evidential, also help give away whether someone is or is not a rapist.
It's not really worth arguing about with these sort of people.
All they want to do is care/protect the victims. Which is noble in it's own right, but they'll ignore what happens to the accused.
And yeah, really, you shouldn't believe anyone's a rapist without proof, or at the very least you shouldn't condemn someone as a rapist without proof of it. False rape accusations can cause serious defamation and ruin lives.
But people are still going to come to conclusions (right or wrong) without all the evidence anyway. You can't stop that.
The court of law doesn't (usually and hopefully) act that way.
But people will. And they'll defend their conclusions vehemently. If you don't want the argument, don't try to discuss or debate with people on such controversial topics.
