4.2.12 WC: 191694 Chapter 14: The changing politics of rape: From “no” means “maybe,” to “maybe” means “no.” No legal concept has undergone a more dramatic change over the course of my legal career than the crime of rape. When I started to practice, there were enormous barriers to the successful prosecution of rapists. The testimony of the alleged victim had to be corroborated by external evidence, unlike other crimes where the testimony of the victim is sufficient. The alleged victim could be cross-examined about her entire sexual history, thus discouraging rape victims from coming forward. A husband could not be convicted of raping his wife, no matter how much force he used, because by law, “the husband and wife are one,” and “he is the one.” Under this bizarre sexist metaphysic, a husband was deemed “incapable of raping himself.” Juries were reluctant to convict “upstanding” young men who were accused of raping "loose" women (often defined as unmarried non virgins). Moreover, being “dressed for sex” was considered a form of consent by some courts, and prostitutes could not be raped since they were in the “business” of consenting. In some states, lack of consent alone wasn’t enough to establish rape; the victim had to "resist" to the “utmost” even in the face of deadly threats.” Some commentators even suggested that it was physically impossible for a non-consenting woman to be raped. Most importantly, date rape wasn't even considered a crime. Instead it was deemed a manifestation of macho entitlement among certain groups, such as some college fraternities, soldiers, gangs and athletic teams. Within some such groups if one “brother” was accused of raping a woman, all the other brothers would say that they too had sex with the complainant. The upshot was that many predatory males got away with rape either because victims were unlikely to complain, prosecutors were reluctant to bring charges, jurors were eager to acquit or appellate courts were quick to throw out con