I think what angered me most about it was the theory that while they agreed the sex in the example given was definitely non-consensual, it WASN'T rape because there was no violence. Which is totally missing the point that if she was that knocked out by drink, he didn't *need* to be violent.
Tho I do take their point that he was possibly so drunk he didn't realise what he was doing either. HOWEVER surely that makes him just as much 'at fault' for letting himself get so drunk he couldn't tell the difference between yes/no/unconsious? He has just as much responsibility for his actions as she does. Why does she have to bear the blame for being too drunk to say no, rather than him for being too drunk to understand that this is not a good thing to do?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 12:36 pm (UTC)Tho I do take their point that he was possibly so drunk he didn't realise what he was doing either. HOWEVER surely that makes him just as much 'at fault' for letting himself get so drunk he couldn't tell the difference between yes/no/unconsious? He has just as much responsibility for his actions as she does. Why does she have to bear the blame for being too drunk to say no, rather than him for being too drunk to understand that this is not a good thing to do?