I provided a sensible, logical argument why the guy who's also DRUNK is not completely at fault either, just like if a woman who was drunk and gave a handjob to a drunk guy who had passed out would not be a rapist either. But you're completely ignoring my point by beating a dead horse with your exhausted argument. I'm not defending rape. If a DRUNK man who is unaware of his actions has sex with a woman who is drunkenly unconscious, it is not okay, but it does not quantify as being the same level of sex crime as a man who holds a woman at gunpoint and rapes her while both parties are sober and conscious.
…
The fact that you're trying to equate ACTUAL RAPE with a person drunk out of their mind having sex with another drunk person who can't say no is disgusting. Not only does it villify people who are simply under the influence, but it is an insult to women and men who are actually raped. Someone who is forced to have sex while both parties are sober and aware of their surroundings has gone through a much more horrifying ordeal than someone who passed out drunk and another drunk person had sex with them.
…
Now, if the person having sex with the drunken and unconscious person is SOBER, then it is absolutely rape. But that's not what we're talking about. What we are talking about is how YOU are saying that if a man and a woman are drunk, it is the man who must be put to blame for anything that happens.
…
I do not defend rape, I think it's horrible, whichever gender it happens to. But if something is NOT rape, then it shouldn't be treated like rape.