Thankfully, in Polish law if you are an adult who is not drinking alocohol for the first time in his life, you are responsible for your actions.

Unless someone makes you more drunk against your will (adding more alcohol to your drink than you wanted, for example), it's not rape when you consent for sex.

But if you're drunk uncounciously, and someone has sex with you, it's a crime.

Polish law is reasonable, imho. If you are an adult, you should know your limits and how you behave while being drunk. It applies equally to all genders.

That's not entirely true, courts often free a man if both were too drunk to remember anything. But there is still another thing, how can anyone know if he was to drunk to know what he was doing and who knows if she said no earlier or during sex?
If he drove the car he would be the one who got the punishment, he is the one driving while drunk. Same with sex, he is the one putting his penis inside of her. If she is the one forcing him to have sex with her and he is unconsious, he is the victim. But that rarely happens.

... Are you serious?
I was talking a man raping a woman, do you know what rape means?
You're just taking what I said out of context. Why?

You said sex not rape. It's in the quote, buddy.

From context, you might say if both people are drunk and having sex, the man is raping a woman because he has a penis.

I talked about rape, said sex and now you say that I talked about only sex?
Did you even read the whole thing? You got to be kidding.

What I wrote was obviously to hard to understand for you.

No, it was obviously stupid.

Haha, really. I got a good laugh out of that. You are trying to pick a fight, I am not interested. Sorry to dissapoint you.

If you talk about rape, say rape. Then there won't be any misunderstandings. Simple, no?

Legally there's no difference, but in practice it's taken less seriously. Around here we regularly bust female teachers for having sex with students. Well, perhaps not regularly, but it makes the news about as often as men doing the same. I think ever since Letourneau was busted, we've had more awareness that it was going on.

In general the laws don't make a distinction, but women in general tend to get lighter sentences than men do. I think that's changing, but the legal system can take ages to catch up with moral attitudes. Prior to the invention of birth control there was a substantial cost to women that wanted to engage in sexual activity.
What about "surprise sex"?

We had a loud case lately with a female teacher giving birth to a child from having sex with 14yo student of hers.

And everything, including school authorities and kid's parents said there's nothing wrong with this.

I was clearly talking about rape, if some people decide to just pick a snip of my text and childishly critize that I don't think I've could've done anything else to stop that.

That's a stage that we used to be at in the US. We also used to not recognize spousal rape as a problem. I think that became criminal in the last state sometime during the '70s.

The general attitude in public here is still that boys should feel lucky to have sex wherever they can get it. And I'm not sure whether that's more misogynistic or misandrous.

And how can anyone know if she intoxicated him on purpose to have sex with him and then bring him to court? And if they were both drunk and had sex with consent, but that she decided afterwards that it was rape because she regretted the act?

To my mind, each of these cases scenarios have to be considered, regardless of the gender, the age, the race, the height, the weight or whatever.

Innocent until proven guilty, and NOT the reverse, because being male does not equal being the sexual offender in our times. Women, like men are humans, and therefore are subjects to sexual desires. And some people, regardless of their gender, will act badly to fullfill theses desires.

Another thing overviewed is that rapes accusations can also be used as weapons. It destroys lives morally and socially.

But attention, I'm not saying that all rapes are some sort of false accusations made up by vindicative women. Rape is a crime that should be harshly punished, since it is litterally devastating the victim physically, morally and socially. But we should see this crime as a double sided coin, and not with a pseudo-feminist skewed view "you are certainly the agressor, because penis".

And that's why the "97% of non jailed male rapists" stat bothers me. Why are these 97% all considered rapists? We should jail all men ever accused of rape just because someone said so? In these 97%, there will be rapists and people falsely accused of rapes, so just lock them all down? That just sounds horrifying.
Here again, innocent until proven guilty. This is not the perfect idealistic solution but this is how justice should work, to me. Or else every vindicative person could freely imprison aother person for no apparent reason.

Case law for the given country will usually give you a clue to that. AFAIK, usually you're not talking about somebody that's a little bit drunk, you're talking about somebody that's so wasted that they're having serious and obvious signs of inebriation. And likely they're on the verge of passing out.

Unfortunately, in most of these cases it can be rather tricky to determine whether somebody wasn't able to consent or whether they consented, but wished they hadn't.