I need to get far more graphic than I really care to here to describe it, but there is a characteristic injury that occurs only during rape.
A woman engaging in consensual intercourse (no matter how "rough" she likes it) positions her hips so as to accommodate the man. A woman being raped does not position herself in that manner. The difference in position causes injuries to the back wall and cervix that simply do not happen otherwise. This kind of injury is very distinctive to rape, and is the kind of injury documented during a rape examination when the victim goes to seek emergency medical treatment. This type of injury also is part of the reason why pregnancy rarely results from true rape. Yes, Akins was correct.
There will also be differences in external injuries between someone who likes S&M and someone trying to fight off an attacker. The person trying to fight off an attacker will have abrasions and bruising inconsistent with S&M play, and often has blood and bits of skin under her nails.
True rape is a violent act; no violent act occurs without leaving behind physical evidence.
Sorry, I find that really difficult to believe. I will not attempt to dispute your claims about the specific injuries associated with forcible rape.
I do have a question, though. If these injuries are prima facie evidence of rape, is the absence of such injuries equally considered evidence of consensual sex? If not, why not?
Not all rape is forcible, as women are often terrified or threatened into submitting, which is no less rape. For instance, a gun at the temple leaves no physical evidence. Or a threat to a child. In such circumstances, I find it difficult to imagine a women would not position herself so as to minimize the discomfort she's enduring, which would seem to make the characteristic injuries of forcible rape less likely or at least less severe.
There is a dirty little secret about rape charges. The Left makes a lot of play about the many men whom DNA evidence has "proven innocent" as a way of attacking our legal system.
What they seldom go into is that the considerable majority of such cases involve rape, for the obvious reason that usable DNA is most often available in a rape case.
This means that most of these men were exonerated by the evidence showing they did not have sex with the accuser. Which leads to the fairly obvious question of how many more men are in jail for false accusations of rape where the only question at issue is one of whether the sex was consensual and thus DNA cannot be used to prove their innocence.
Personally, I think men who engage in one night stands and similar behavior are comprehensively insane. They can be accused of rape at any moment, and their conviction or acquittal hinge entirely on a jury's opinion as to who tells the better story. And even if acquitted they are likely to be considered "really" guilty by many for the rest of their lives. As I say, insane.