This most recent arguments lately (re: the Rolling Stones botched story) are around false claims of rape where, supposedly, intercourse or sexual assault never took place, not about trying to separate out consensual and non-consensual sex, although many recent comments seem to be mixing the two
We have, in general, two separate scenarios here - the "She's lying, I never touched her" defense, and the "I thought she wanted it" defense. The two are very different, and mixing them up to keep an argument going doesn't do anybody any good.
There's certainly precedent for the scenario where someone falsely reports a theft for insurance purposes, just as there are a few women who falsely report rape for whatever psychological reasons they may have. There's also precedent for the person who gives someone a valuable article and then reports the theft of that article to the police. And then, of course, there is the scenario where somebody actually broke in and stole something.
In the case of real theft, which is the third and by far the most likely scenario, most often the response of the police is pro forma because the likelihood of finding the actual thief and obtaining restitution is really, really slim, but in any of the three scenarios they will accept the report of a putative crime having been committed, even as they caution that there may be never be a resolution.
Somehow, though, when it comes to rape, the third scenario (real, non-consensual rape) seems to be the least considered, though probably the most likely, as in the parallel cases of theft. And so the police/campus authorities would really rather not even accept the report, even (or especially) when there is a clear shot at a resolution.
And I can't entirely blame them. False allegations about rape are a hairball from both sides. Trying to draw a clear line between consensual and non-consensual sex that will cover all cases is another. But ignoring the third scenario because you're uncomfortable with the arguments and potential legal intanglements for the first two strikes me as total and abject cowardice.
Have I made the difference clear enough? I hope so.
Thanks to chaunceydevega, whose recent diary sparked the comments that led to this.