I'm sorry, I'm doing something I always promise myself not to do and haven't read the whole thread just the last few pages so if this is well trodden ground somebody shout at me and send me back.
But I was talking about this with someone today and we came to a place that gave me actually a clearer picture of rape generally and the whole 'consent argument'.
It's a bit like what dervel said. What seems to be the focus is, yet again, the women. They were naive and did something few people would do, therefore 'it's not rape'. They 'chose'. Or whatever.
But surely it makes more sense to say ok well what is the explanation for his actions. Is it reasonable to say that he thought he had consent?
In this case, surely, the very thing he did says that no, he was absolutely not expecting consent and moreover that's why he did it. Is there any other explanation?
And so if rape is forcing or coercing another into sexual activity, then yes, it's rape. I mean it's a fairly unusual sort of situation, but did it cause harm or upset? Yes. Did he think it might? Yes he obviously did.
Thinking about it made me think more about rape and about how if you frame it just in those terms - would a reasonable person see consent here? Are these actions taken in good faith? Then it all gets really simple and you never even have to look at 'was she naive' or 'was she drunk' at all.