in my humble opinion I think Dawkins ballsed the comparisons up, he said rape by knifepoint is worse and Ive got to be honest I'd put my neck on the block here by saying that no woman who has ever been raped has thought to herself 'well ive been violated there, but at least he never had a knife/weapon' it also by suggesting that one is worse than the other dilutes the crime of rape and gives it tiers of severity, but as an earlier poster said rape is rape. even if the victim survives or dies it is still rape the only difference is that if the victim dies there will be an additional charge for the dirty so and so of manslaughter or murder. However the drunk argument is something that seems to have connotations within our society, when someone is 'vulnerable' it seems they're fair game, take for example whats just happened in Rotherham, the victims of that where vulnerable girls and the rhetoric seems to be i feel from radio phone ins etc that they where fair game, because the parents didnt care about them and they where care of the state their seems to be an acceptance amongst the general public that they where expendable, however contrast that with what has happened in scholls etc there seems to be more of a public outcry. some may disagree with what I've said there but i can only call it as i see it.