KAZ
Not gonna quote anything, I mostly agree with you, but I think you may be a bit extremist or maybe passionate about this feminist/rape thing.
Do you think it's just as bad if you forcibly rape someone (withouth a condom) as if you "simply" deceive them and don't use a condom? I'm by no means saying the later is acceptable or anything near it, but I think there's a difference. Do you?
Also, is it normal for the Interpol to look for this kind of thing? I'm really asking as I don't know.
Anwyay, what I really wanted to say and my point on you being a little over board was that, yeah, it's kind of hard to convict for rape on these cloudy situations, but you can't really go all out and simply punish the guy by default. The way it is some women you abuse it (it's not most cases, I agree). If it was actually easy to convict it would happen a lot more, and that would really, really suck.
It's also completly against the well respected principle that you can't convict someone of a crime unless there's really good evidence, the whole burden of proof thing, etc, that's in place for any other kind of trial. These things just can be really nebulous by their nature but your approach seems to be the wrong one. I'm all for equality, but reversing the burden of proof in something this shady (not this specific case) is all but equality.
Edit: Oh, I do find the UK thing funny. There, I made an on-topic comment :P
