[AAABEST]

Wrong. In both instances there will be evidence on the cervix. In the rape situation, there will be evidence on the vagina’s entrance. If the female gets off on the roughness, there will be no significant evidence on the vagina’s entrance.

Are you expecting those reading this to take you seriously?

Each of the three sentences are glaringly ridiculous.

[goodwithagun]

Are you being sarcastic? If so, bravo! I’d not, do your homework!

[palmer]

"If the female gets off on the roughness..."

goodwithagun, you seem to be basing this on one case which I've never heard of, some "training" you had following that case, and some internet searches which you keep telling people to do, as if the internet contains no misinformation. In other posts you admit there are gray areas. Here is the problem with your claim: there are rapes without your specified evidence. There are non-rapes even with your specified evidence. They may be rare but they exist. I require only common sense to know that, not an internet search.

If you post claims like the quote above, you are claiming, falsely, that there is a forensic formula for roughness. We all agree that getting a victim to a medical exam will lead to better outcomes in such cases. But nobody agrees with you that it is a sure thing. Nobody agrees with you that there is formula for rape roughness vs consensual roughness, except for general guidelines. Perhaps if you link an actual site, I will look, but most likely it will be a categorical screed like your "training".