I don't agree with much of what Cannoli and to some extent RT have been saying in this thread, and actually I still think the original statements reported on in those articles made a lot of sense. But. What you're writing here is several steps too far. You know very well that proving a negative is often close to impossible, and it's hard to see why rape should have an inverse burden of proof compared to any other crime, even including still worse ones like murder or heinous torture. Silence or an absence of resistance does not mean "yes", that's true, but you can't seriously expect people to obtain the kind of proof that would hold in a court of law before engaging in sex with anyone. Proof that they believed in good faith that the victim consented seems like the limit of what you can reasonably require (combined of course with the usual judgement calls on what does and doesn't constitute a reasonable good faith belief under any given set of circumstances - if the victim is borderline comatose she can't realistically provide credible indications of consent).

Being the victim of a crime as horrible as rape is awful, and seeing the guilty party walk away scot free is even more so, but that doesn't justify overturning the basic tenet of the Western criminal justice system which holds that letting a criminal walk free when in doubt is a lesser evil than punishing an innocent.