Oh I do love it when you start picking apart commonly accepted "logic" and realise it's total nonsense. It's one of my favourite things to do, DH thinks I am totally illogical, but it's astounding, really, to realise how many commonly accepted "facts" are just, basically, totally made up.
It is depressing though, because when you try to explain it to people they get irritatingly defensive about it, and then also, not everybody gets it so forevermore you're going "Well yeah but nobody really believes that, right, I mean it doesn't make any sense!" and forgetting that, in fact, most people still do believe this, most people don't question "common knowledge" and a lot of people don't like thinking even when this is pointed out to them or all of the thinking done and laid out in a nice logical way FOR them.
So, there is that.
It was ages ago now but about the post by the police officer who took a girl home because they felt she was too drunk to consent. There are basically two possible scenarios if they had left her be.
- The guy was a genuinely nice man, and wanted to get the girl home safely himself, because perhaps he lived near her, or he was worried that in her state she might wander into a river. Or he believed some rape myths himself and was worried she might fall prey to one of those pesky bush rapists. He didn't put her in a taxi because he trusted himself more than a taxi, it wasn't very far, or perhaps, he had promised a friend that he would see her home safely or something. He might have gone into the house with her. He may have felt flattered by her attention, they might even have had consensual but not very coherent sex, initiated by her. Perhaps they started to have sex, and she fell asleep or changed her mind, so he left or stopped. Or he might have felt unattracted to her, felt worried about taking advantage, or she didn't want sex, so he left.
- The guy was a rapist. He had noticed how she was all over him, and thought that he might get lucky. He offered to walk her home and look after her. When they got there, perhaps they would have had consensual sex. Or, she might have changed her mind halfway through, fallen asleep before or during, or she never wanted sex in the first place. The difference with the first scenario is that this man is a rapist, so he continues, or he pushes past smaller boundaries in order to get access to bigger ones. Boundaries are weaker when a person is that drunk. The difference is that this man takes advantage, whereas the man in the first scenario does not.
In either situation, they could have had consensual sex. Rapists don't commit rape every time they have sex with somebody. Some of the time it's consensual, perhaps most of the time. The difference is how they react when their partner is not so keen. A non rapist will stop, whereas a rapist carries on. That's literally the only difference.
You will notice that I did not put a scenario where the woman has consensual drunk sex and then wakes up in the morning and thinks "Shit!" and reports rape. That is because this is just not a likely scenario, as discussed many times in this thread. People who think that it is, or who claim to have known someone who has done it, are usually operating on massive misinformation about the nature of the encounter (which is not surprising considering they were not there), making massive assumptions about the nature of the encounter (which actually make no logical sense when you think about them properly) or the person that they know is a massive drama queen, who enjoys shouting their mouth off but was never actually going to go to the police in the first place, because they know themselves that nothing happened. So, again, misinformation.