The thing is, there is a whole world of difference between the absurd scenario, with the Lawyer, and the Woman who woke up next to him, with no memory of the night before, or the inexperienced drunken teenage fumble that gets a bit out of hand, and the predatory rapist, who stalks women, and violently rapes them as his modus operandi.
The former examples are just something that you chalk up to experience, regrettable maybe, but unless there is clear coercion, violence, or a wilful ignoring of the womans pleas to stop, then it's not rape. Consent is mostly unspoken, and mutually accepted anyway in casual sex. I have never actually asked a woman, verbally, whether I could have have sex with her. Consent is generally implicit, and non verbal. You know whether someone wants to have sex with you or not, and if they don't want to do it, they are at liberty to withdraw from the activity, at any time. Those are the rules! And we learn them fairly early on as a normal part of our sociosexual developement.
This is all a very different kettle of fish to the predatory rapist, who sets out with the intent, not to have sex, but to rape a woman. This is how he operates. He doesn't commit rape because his responsibilty is diminished, or by mistake because he misreads all the the signs, he isn't even motivated by wanting consensual sex with a woman, in fact, it's not a sexual drive that motivates him, it's a power thing. He is a woman hater, a violent nasty inadequate little man, who has no desire for a normal sexual encounter, he wants to dominate, subjugate, and abuse women. He is a very different creature to the normal Man indeed.
The promiscuous "Jack the Lad" man about town, who goes out every weekend, and cops off with Partners down the Pub, in an atmosphere of alcohol, and testosterone fuelled bragadocio might be a little sad and seedy, but he is driven by a completely different motivation to the rapist. His exploits are not driven by a systematic need to disempower, and dominate women, but from honest lust.
The rapist is driven by a psychopathic need to dominate, and humiliate women. He is aroused only when his victim is begging him to stop, or trying to fight him off. He is never out of control, or impulsive, he knows exactly what he's doing, he has a favourite "type" of victim, and he sets out from the start to rape. He doesn't get carried away by a momentary loss of judgement, he is a predator, and he does it because it empowers him. He doesn't even pretend to want consensual sex, often lying in wait for his chosen victim somewhere quiet, where he will not be disturbed.
To treat the Office Lothario type, as being cut from the same cloth as one of these monsters is not realistic. Clumsy, Drunken fumbling sex when one or both parties are inebriated, is just that. Drunk, and clumsy. Nor borne out of hatred, or misogeny, but normal sexual desire. But there do seem to be both scenarios getting caught up in the the Court system. Jurys are not stupid. Nor are they acting from personal agendas.
The British Legal system is very tightly structured, and the Laws don't give much room for ambiguous verdicts. Guilty, or not guilty. And if the two people I've been describing here, are brought before the Court because of their sexual appetites, then they will both be charged with the same offence. And that's not really fair.
But this "degrees of rape" question does have to be addressed if we want to look at sentencing policies, and Judiciary attitudes th the problem.
Although that would be nice. IME, while most men I've been with will accept a "no" whatever they happen to be in the middle of doing, although on occasion it has taken a bit of shoving.
