A reader who asked not to be named describes how the military has come to define rape:
One of my fellow company commanders in Afghanistan invited a CID agent to give a lecture on sexual assault. I had my Soldiers attend and I attended as well. The agent told a story about a female Soldier who had sex with a male Soldier, admitted she was on top most of the time, texted her friend while he was in the shower, then had sex with him again. When her boyfriend found out, she cried rape. The accused was convicted.
I asked the CID agent if that meant that if someone regrets having sex, that means it’s rape. He said yes. I was shocked.
The key thing to remember is this is not the new policy on rape having unexpected results. This kind of outcome is entirely intentional. Accusations of rape have become a general purpose weapon for feminists to use against men. Whether a rape has occurred or not does not matter. The goal is to make men live in fear of accusations, as Ezra Klein explained in “Yes Means Yes” is a terrible law, and I completely support it (emphasis mine):
The Yes Means Yes law is a necessarily extreme solution to an extreme problem. Its overreach is precisely its value.
If the Yes Means Yes law is taken even remotely seriously it will settle like a cold winter on college campuses, throwing everyday sexual practice into doubt and creating a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent. This is the case against it, and also the case for it. Because for one in five women to report an attempted or completed sexual assault means that everyday sexual practices on college campuses need to be upended, and men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.
…To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.
This is why regret equals rape, and why a college student can be expelled for rape even though the ostensible “victim” never claimed to have been assaulted, and in fact has consistently stated otherwise.