Well, if a drunk man is raped...it is the rapist fault. Him being drunk didn't make the rapist rape him.
The same goes for a drunk woman...if she is raped, it's STILL the rapists fault.
Now if the man is drunk and the woman is drunk, and the man rapes the woman...It's STILL the rapists fault.
And the same can be said in reverse. If two men are drunk, and one rapes the other...it's STILL only the rapists fault.
It's not radical feminism to put the blame on the rapist, and we can do it no matter what gender. If a man gets raped...it's still the rapist's fault.
To say that it is partially the victim's fault, no matter what gender, is just reason to be condescending. It makes no logical sense.
If a man get's raped, no matter what, I will be the first to put ALL the blame on the rapist.
Let's try and keep it logical.
1 If BOTH parties are drunk it's notoriously hard to decide if rape took place at all. But certainly the idea that if both parties are drunk that only ONE is guilty is pretty illogical. Either both are or neither.
It's a question of the capability to consent.
And leaving aside misandrist nutters like McKinnon who think that women 'can't consent to sex' because of 'the unequal power relations between the sexes' if both parties are drunk in real life what actually happens is that NEITHER 'consents' in any meaningful sense of the word.
I KNOW: I've been there.
Not just my trauma at 18 but even after I'd often get drunk and then I and a strange man would find we'd fucked each other and neither of us even remembered much about it.
But (unlike my long weekend of brutal rape) I DIDN'T feel that I was being taken advantage of or that I had NO responsibility for what happened.