would you cosider this as rape?

The only way that legally isn't rape is if the man could reasonably have believed you were sober enough to consent. Given he was talking to you, knew you had drunk a very large amount and you clearly weren't in control of yourself, that is very hard to believe. So yes, it is rape

Are you slow it's not me who is recording it was another guy, I simply explained the reason to you why he might do that because it didn't seem like you were able to understand.

lel.

And your response made it clear that you agree with doing it, you said you'd rather get done for illegal recording than rape.
You're so dumb lmao.

No you are dumb
and embarassing yourself

Just because she's drunk a lot doesn't mean she can't consent, that's more like if she was passed out/barely able to speak or understand what's going on. And anyway? What if he were drunk too? Who's to say he's raping her rather than vice versa?

The first part is true, but the second part is too restrictive. The current precedent is that "capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious" (as per here). The line is where she's capable of choosing. Considering that a) she would not have consented if sober and b) was so drunk she could not remember the incident, this criteria is clearly met. With the only defence to this being if he could not reasonably known she was drunk - which as per my previous post is not the case here - this is rape.

As for your second point, for a start the law as it stands in England and Wales means that you can't be convicted of rape unless you have a penis. Apart from that, it is possible that he was far less drunk than her - going by the OP she drank more than most others at this party so it is distinctly possible, as well as with the fact that men have higher tolerance on average. We don't know for sure, but he may have been able to consent, and even if he were not it would not legally be classified as rape.

The first part is true, but the second part is too restrictive. The current precedent is that "capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious" (as per here). The line is where she's capable of choosing. Considering that a) she would not have consented if sober and b) was so drunk she could not remember the incident, this criteria is clearly met. With the only defence to this being if he could not reasonably known she was drunk - which as per my previous post is not the case here - this is rape.

I did not say only unconscious, I said it was an example that they could be unconscious OR barely able to speak. Because she wouldn't have consented of sober is absolutely no way of determining that criteria to be met. As the article states, ""However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so this would not be rape."
So simply because she wouldn't have done so without the drink doesn't make it rape at all. There is absolutely no way to determine whether she was, at the time, capable of (and did) consent. Therefore, we cannot assume it is rape, no court would convict and it would be morally wrong for her to report it without further evidence that confirmed she either did not or could not consent. The criteria is in no way met.
I'm well aware of the definition, absurnd though it is. I'd call it rape because I think it is, but for the legalities we can refer to it as sexual assault.

I don't see how the criteria are clearly met...

Anyway, on a more general note, I find it amusing that being drunk apparently absolves a woman of all responsibility, even if she actually consents at the time. Should people who commit a crime while drunk be found innocent because they were "too drunk to know what they were doing"? I think not.

You didn't consent. Therefore it was rape. Just because you chose to drink that night does NOT make it your fault. It is never, ever, ever the victim's fault.

If you were both drunk then no. He might of not wanted to sleep with you either. Situations like these piss me off, why do you want to wreck someone elses life just because you made a stupid mistake to get drunk. Did someone rape you into going? Did they rape you into taking a drink? Did he pin you down and rape you?

This ain't even rape, srs. I am all for rapists getting what they deserve, but this sounds like women who make dumb choices blaming other people for their mistakes. This is why i record everything, so dumb girls don't come bite me in the ass with their double standards of peace.

i'd jut like to point out - i added more info in post #99

i was at a party a few months ago, i felt absolutely horrible before i got there so i thought i'd get very very drunk to feel better for a few hours. i was talking to one of my friends who is a guy while drinking and in no time i was blacked out and completely lost control and he had sex with me. i had no idea about it until a few hours later until someone told me while i was sobering up. apparently he was drunk too. he was my friend and i did not want it to happen. would you say that it was rape or not? i don't know really know what to think anymore.

The point is that even IF she said "Yes, okay" that doesn't necessarily constitute legal consent, in much the same way as a 15-year-old saying "Yes, okay" isn't consent either. If she was too drunk to be able to make a clear decision then it's rape. Considering she was very drunk, to the extent she can't remember anything and completely blacked out, it's reasonable to conclude she was too drunk to give informed consent.