*breathes a deep sigh of relief*

I almost didn't say anything, because, from what I've seen its so difficult to have a reasoned discussion on this, because some dickweed either dives right into holier-than-thou victim-blaming territory, OR it gets stonewalled by people interpreting reasoned discussion as such.

*hopes he doesn't fuck it up with saying anything else*

For me, the problem isn't a matter of what defines rape. That's pretty simple, in my book. Sexual activity with no consent. The problem is in that consent part. Which, also, is pretty simple until you start entering the realm of mind-altering intoxicants. And then everything goes to hell in a handbasket.

When it comes to *me*, it's not victim-blaming:it's reasonable doubt. Too many people seem to get those two mixed up. It is not unreasonable for a woman to expect to be able to go out, have some drinks with the boys/girls, and not worry about being assaulted later. It's also not unreasonable for someone to doubt the accuracy of any claims or statements of events made by someone whose memory of events is, unfortunately, impaired and/or fragmented through the use of alcohol or other substances, particularly if there is little or no supporting independent evidence.

In related news: apparently if you've been drinking, you're entitled to less compensation than if you haven't been. D'oh! The bringing up of someone's intoxication in both obtaining a conviction and in providing compensation seems kinda double-jeopardy-ish to me.
I would expect that any intoxication was already taken into account in reaching the conclusion of "Yes, rape occurred." After that point, and influence of alcohol has already been accounted for, why is it affecting compensation?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7555299.stm

Anyhow, I'm gonna shut the fuck up now before I say something stupid.

Yeah, it's hard to have a reasonable conversation about rape.  It's such a visceral, traumatic experience that people's emotions run high.  And a lot of people really need someone to blame when a rape happens.  Usually, that's easy because one person deliberately and knowingly sexually assaulted another.  But sometimes you get into a grey area where both people made less-than-intelligent contributing decisions and both people acted in good faith, and while an unimpaired partner having sex with an impaired one is still a rapist, he or she is not necessarily a deliberate one.

The problem is that when it comes to consent and impairment, it's fully possible to act with the best intentions and still have sex with someone who could not give informed consent and wouldn't have consented without being impaired.

In that case, the hard line for me to walk is to acknowledge to the victim that yes, you were raped, you were not capable of consenting to that act, and the fact that you chose to drink doesn't mean that you deserved to have sex you didn't consent to - while acknowledging to the other partner that yes, you acted in good faith, you had not seen how much this person had to drink, you did not have a way of knowing that your partner was incapable of consenting to sex with you.  You did not consciously assault this person.

The legal issue is especially ugly now that we have the sex offender registry.  Get drunk and have sex with someone at a party, and you can end up a registered sex offender.

This entire issue is why I don't have sex with people I meet at parties.  I once took home a nice boy who was very affectionate.  We kissed a few times and fell asleep watching a movie in my dorm room.  When we woke up, he was horrified, because he had been incredibly wasted (I couldn't tell; he was perfectly lucid) and thought he'd gotten drunk and cheated on his fiancee.  Had I kept making out with him and pushed things further, I'd have been sexually assaulting him.

Hit that person for me.  Hard.

Also, explain to them that "sexual assault" DOES NOT necessarily mean "rape."  If a guy came up to me out of nowhere and grabbed my boobs, that would be considered sexual assault.  If I walked up to a random guy and started fondling his package, that would be sexual assault.

No it wouldn't. Because all men are so totally down with sexual contact all the time, with all women..... Didn't you get the memo?

That one's a product of the stereotype think that says that men are always willing and raring to go with anything that comes along.
*eyeroll*

Yeah, that happy horseshit is why I've been trying to avoid gendering my responses.

Anyone who has sex with anyone who cannot or does not consent is raping that person, regardless of gender or penetration.  I've heard the BS argument that since one woman can't physically penetrate another, there is no lesbian rape.

Women are raped by men.  Men are raped by men.  Men are raped by women.  Women are raped by women.  Transgendered persons are raped by men, and by women, and by other transgendered persons.

Sure, if you run the numbers, the OVERWHELMING majority of cases of rape are a man raping a woman.  Why?  Because rape is often about power dynamics, and the prevailing social power dynamic is that men express dominance over women by use of force.  If we don't eradicate rape as we equalize the power dynamic between men, women, and GLBT folks, then I'd bet dollars to donuts that the rape numbers will equalize as well.  Men are no more predisposed to be rapists than women are to be rape victims.

Sorry, this is a hot button for me, because the "Rape is a thing men do to women, not a thing that happens in any other direction," really hits me on a lot of levels.  Pragmatically, because I have male friends (and an ex-lover) who are rape survivors.  Compassionately, because as a non-traditional rape survivor I have empathy for other non-traditional rape survivors.  And socially, because any acceptance of the dynamic that rape is a thing men do to women validates the practice of it as such.

Consequently, I get really cheesed when sometimes, people say, "Sure, they were both drunk, but he raped her because he's the one with the penis, not the other way around."  It's another thing that makes consent dodgy.  There is an implied consent, as Bunner points out, on the part of men.  It's often socially assumed that a man who had sex was willing - not just for functional reasons but because we maintain the social belief that men are always ready and willing to have sex whenever it is offered.

I used to know a girl back when I was about 16, she was not terribly attractive but she managed to get lots and lots of sex by inviting boys over and getting them drunk. If she'd been a guy she probably would have gone to jail eventually, but this was 1991 and in the sort of town there the local cops have 16 year old girlfriends.....

I think one implication of the proof of consent thing would be that if someone had in the eyes of the judge and/or jury made a reasonable effort to verify consent, even if it later turned out the other person had diminished capacity... That could be taken into account. If you kill someone with your car, but you didn't intend to and you were obeying all the road laws, you generally don't end up with a murder charge.

My freshman year of high school (oh, more than half my life ago) my teacher said this very thing (using the erection argument) in the very same breath in which she said, "Rape is not an act of sex, but rather an act of violence."  And I remember thinking, "if it's an act of violence, then why can't a man be raped?  You've just contradicted your own definition."   Of course, this was way before Oz ever graced our cathode ray boxes.  I think all respect for that teacher fled with that notion.  Luckily I only had her for that one semester. 

~Peter   

Symmetry, I'm also glad you chose to listen to body language, but I'm going to say something that may get my head set on fire:

Someone who chooses not to say no because he or she 'feels like' he or she cannot, but is not impaired and not being coerced and not in an abusive situation, is responsible for what is happening.

If I am in a situation where I feel uncomfortable saying no, where I don't want to hurt someone's feelings, where I feel like I led someone on and 'have to' go all the way or I'll be a tease, I'm not being raped.

Yes, absolutely, if my abusive partner initiates sex and I know that physical or emotional assault will be the result of a 'no', then that's rape.  If I'm in an altered state, if I'm threatened, if I feel my physical or emotional safety is riding on not saying no, then that's rape.  But if I get someone all hot and bothered and then give in out of guilt or obligation without ever letting him know I don't want to have sex, then that's on me.  If I start making out with a partner without clarifying 'no penetration' beforehand and don't stop him when he starts to push that boundary, then I'm responsible for what's happening to me.  It may be a mistake, but unless I said, "Hey, wait a second, let's slow down," it's not rape.  While a guy worth sleeping with will check my status each time he pushes a new boundary, not doing so doesn't make it rape if he has no reason to believe I'm opposed to sex with him.

If someone is not impaired in any way and makes the *conscious* choice not to speak up and say no, then that's not rape.  It's tacit consent.

Yeah, there's a bunch of socialization BS about how women don't feel they have the right to say no to a man they've turned on, but if you feel like you don't have the right to say no in that case, then he didn't rape you; society did.  And that's just a little too abstract for me.

Holding someone to the responsibility of clearly communicating a lack of consent in a non-abusive situation is really important to me, because though I have a lot of friends who have been sexually assaulted by people who misled, threatened, or otherwise coerced them, I also have friends who've been tagged as 'rapists' because someone else didn't feel comfortable saying, "This has gone farther than I am comfortable with and I'd like us to stop now."