@wrench248 may comment further but to PROVE rape, you have to demonstrate penetration without consent. “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” And as I mentioned in a prior post, that brings up the definition of consent: “The term “consent” means a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. Lack of verbal or physical resistance does not constitute consent.” so the idea that DW made a woman feel like she had no other choice but to provide oral sex or he would “break her career”is going to require a lot of other evidence. And she’ll need to have that statement indisputedly recorded to withstand defense attempts to discredit the authenticity. as far as a medical exam, by the old definition of rape, it was the standard form of evidence for attaining a conviction. By the new definition, it’s a standard to prove the event occurred in conjunction with the lack of consent. as far as “rape” is concerned, I stand by my former statement that a medical exam is necessary evidence if you’re going PROVE rape.