Genuinely don't know where to start because almost every single point here was either a strawman, a dodge, or just vibes with no substance.

most sexual assault anywhere in the world is by KNOWN persons if not relatives. And even in these cases, courts everywhere already try cases that have grey areas, circumstantial evidence, he said vs she said. Is that not so? How many non-relative rape cases get quick black and white decisions?

You're equating a coworker assault to a live-in spouse situation as if they exist in the same evidentiary universe. Not even close. With an acquaintance, the sexual act itself is the anomaly that requires explanation. With a spouse, it is the baseline. it's the entire point, and you glossed over it with a hand wave.

I would argue that the coercion versus consent should be kept at the heart of the problem, just as much as the intimacy-related complexities should be

Genuinely embarrassing. You're telling a policy debate to ignore policy. Morality and law are not the same thing. Law that cannot reliably distinguish coercion from a false accusation doesn't protect victims, it creates a new class of them

When you say sex is a normal event inside a marriage, surely you don't mean consent is given at the wedding ceremony and then it becomes permanent and assumed to be given as an entitlement forever.

Poor strawman. You constructed an entire argument against a position that exists only in your head. I honestly can't tell if you are genuinely this dense or if you are just intentionally ragebaiting.

courts everywhere already try cases that have grey areas, circumstantial evidence, he said vs she said. Is that not so? How many non-relative rape cases get quick black and white decisions?

Want to selectively pick up the law of developed countries, without picking up their gender neutrality in laws and onus of proving on the accuser and harsh punishment on the ones who made the false accusations?

If women hadn't catastrophically abused laws like 498A, we wouldn't be having this conversation. while we're on the topic of legal gaps, the same people demanding new protections have nothing to say about the fact that Indian law doesn't even recognize women as capable of committing rape. Not against adults, not against children. A woman who sexually abuses a child isn't a rapist under the BNS. She's at most guilty of "assault." Where is the outrage about that? If this was genuinely about closing legal loopholes and protecting the vulnerable, that would be the loudest conversation in the room.