>

In most of the USA you need to be so intoxicated that you are unaware of what is going on to not be able to give consent to sexual acts, not just drunk. At that level of intoxication most people won't be able to start a car much less get a DUI or so any else.
A lot of people get confused because many college's terms of service allow them to kick out students for things that are not actually illegal
/u/Objective-Ad-4155 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Thank you that's is insight knowledge. >

In all your examples you provided, depending on the circumstances they could all be found void and no responsibility it's required or not meeting the bar and requiring consideration. >

How likely is could be? >

Varies heavily by circumstances of the specific case, specific strategies employed by both prosecutor and defense and then the judge/laws of the location. 
As with all things in law, it heavily depends. >

How easy would it be for me to talk you into signing a contract if you were blackout drunk? >

Very easy or absolutely impossible depending on my mood. >

Lucky for you and your bank account, contracts signed while impaired are generally considered void because you couldn't consent. >

Is that so? Okay, that seems to add a bit of consistency but there is still this "generally" and all other things that don't fall under that umbrella. Is consent to be considered a spoken contract? I feel one could paint it that way but it'd still be a reach in the face of everything else.
Δ >

You can't sign a contract without consent - a contract signed at gunpoint isn't valid, for instance. >

At would likewise be rape without question. I am not responsible for being held at gunpoint while I am responsible for non contractual actions as has been pointed out to me. This hold water considering autonomy through a legal lens but partially. >

So you agree that there's legal precedent for alcohol making voluntary consent impossible? >

That is a given. The issue is moreso uneven application. >

Please read the title of your CMV, the comment above this, and your response. What are you actually trying to do here? What is actually being argued? >

That a person is responsible for every action they take while intoxicated so long as they were not drugged. If someone gives consent while drunk but of course still conscious it is unreasonable to withdraw that consent after the fact on the basis of the alcohol changing the person's behavior. >

Try picturing yourself drunk with an older man wanting to have sex with you and picture how varying degrees of drunk would make you react:
Sober - sorry man I'm straight and not interested 
Tipsy - "nooo I'm not intetesssted"
Out of it - "where are we goinnng"
Almost blackout- "agg thenxjkmd dkxkdm"
Blackout - just silence
Men have historically and publicly looked for women they know would normally reject them and try to get with them when alcohol has made them vulnerable and less aware of their surroundings. If it is not an emphatic yes, it is probably not consent. Consent is more than just "not saying no". If you are not sure that the other person is enthusiastically and verbally consenting, protect them and protect yourself. If you are surprised the person is into you or they are not speaking in full intelligible sentences, it is probably not Consent. If you are not able to discuss birth control, it is stupid and probably not consent. Don't shoot for vulnerable people who you know wouldn't give you the time of day sober and then act surprised when they are pissed. People are rarely equally drunk - usually one is more aware than the other. >


Try picturing yourself drunk with an older man wanting to have sex with you and picture how varying degrees of drunk would make you react:
Sober - sorry man I'm straight and not interested Tipsy - "nooo I'm not intetesssted" Out of it - "where are we goinnng" Almost blackout- "agg thenxjkmd dkxkdm" Blackout - just silence

There is no level of intoxication at which I would consent to sex with another man. >

I think that's the point they were trying to make. At a certain number of drinks, "hell no" sounds more like "emnh ahg xthn" to everyone else. 
Like, one of my scariest drunk moments was at this party where a dude kept kissing me forcefully. I was trying to tell him no and push him off. But between the alcohol and the xanax I could barely move. It was like the type of unpleasantness you feel when you're dead tired and some annoying person keeps trying to wake you up... except with the added threat of creepy dude doing sex stuff. It was like I was locked into my body but still somehow kinda aware that bad stuff was happening. >

Keep in mind that many legal system don't say that being any level of drunk removes consent, but a level of drunk to the point where you really have no control of your actions. You practically have to be unconscious/delirious drunk. If you were drunk enough for you to not legally consent to sex, you would probably be too drunk to even get in a car under your own power, let alone operate it. You would be too drunk to use a computer properly to buy stock, let alone have the ability to even consider that. It is very doubtful that you would be able to assault a person while that level of drunk, since you would be near unconscious.
Also, this is a false comparison. All the examples you provides are about how a drunk person is or is not responsible for the damage they cause. A drunk person failing to consent to sex is about something that happens to them. 


Person A (drunk) hits B (sober). B is harmed, and so A is responsible. 


Person A (sober) hits B (drunk). B is harmed, and so A is responsible. 


The formula does not change depending on who is drunk and who is not. It does not really matter who is drunk, but who is inflicting harm vs. who is receiving harm. >


Also, this is a false comparison.

I disagree with that because I disagree with this:

something that happens to them.

A drunk person can definitely be the pursuer/agitator. Also, that the formula for assault remains consistent despite alcohol is part of the inconsistency of alcohol or general lack of sobriety as the rule juxtaposed to the exception.
Interesting point about the level of intoxication though I feel it was exaggerated and irrelevant. Extremely intoxicated/blackout drunk people can still do all those things at the level of intoxication that they could not longer give legal consent and in every case except a legal contract are still responsible for everything they do. >


A drunk person can definitely be the pursuer/agitator.

If a drunk person rapes someone else against their well, then they are still guilty regardless of their intoxication. But if a drunk person tries to have sex with you, and it's clear that they are too intoxicated to be making the decision, you (the sober person) can simply say no. >

This answer completely side skirts the issue to reiterate the foundation I laid in the post. >

All of the examples you provided are of an intoxicated person acting as the perpetrator of a crime or bad decision that harms themselves or another person. If I get into a car or buy bad stocks, no one else can be blamed for the results of my actions.
What I think you're missing is that when a sober person is part of the equation the responsibility shifts to them because there is a significant power imbalance. In a situation where there is a transaction between two people and one is significantly impaired, the risk of the impaired person being taken advantage of is unacceptably high. It is the responsibility of the sober person to wait until the other is capable of consenting before engaging in the transaction. I'm using the word "transaction" intentionally, because this logical framework applies to more things than just sex (such as contracts). 
As another example, let's look at the laws around Statutory Rape. Imagine a 14 year old wanted to have sex with a 30 year old. The situation is consensual, the 14 year old is pursuing the other person, and they seem to know what they want. Why is this illegal? Because society has decided that children and teenagers are not fully capable of giving consent due to the fact that their brains are not fully developed. The 30 year old knows better, the 14 year old does not, and therefore it is their responsibility to say no. >

Not all of the examples. Plus I'm not really considering statutory rape as the base of my thoughts on this matter is that a person is responsible for the alcohol they consume. >

The analogy about statutory rape seems apt because the key point here is really about responsibility. And for an additional point with emphasis, shared responsibility. As there are more than one person involved with the issue of concern.
So I guess to try to reframe your examples, how about making them involve more than one person? Like say for your example about drunk driving?
Consider a scenario where a person in a bar had given their keys to a friend. Yet when they found themselves drunk, said person asked friend for the keys so that they can drive home.
Assuming you are that friend, what would your responsibility be for such a scenario? Should you oblige their request as alcohol should not create an exception for consent? Damn whatever the repercussions could be. You won't be at fault if you give it to them. They asked for it. Whatever happens, happens. That's on them. No take backs.
So do you see the possible problem with the position?
Anyway, IMO, a blanket statement is seldom helpful as context will always surely vary. However, considering the framing that any decisions while drunk will usually lead to some form of regret? Well, as a sober party that can have part in preventing such developments, why should you continue to oblige and also consent to such behaviour that may lead to repercussions? Isn't erring on the side of caution a reasonable position? >

First, to be clear, having a single drink does not mean you are not able to consent to sex. Usually, when people say you aren't able to consent it's when you get to a level of drunkenness where it is readily and obviously apparent to everyone that you're significantly intoxicated and aren't making rational decisions. If you just get a bit tipsy, everyone generally agrees that consent is still possible. 
So given that, the main difference here is that someone else is taking the action. All the examples you listed are things you did when drunk. If you do something bad while intoxicated, you can't give a defense of "I wasn't in control of myself" in general because you are responsible for knowing what happens to you on alcohol; otherwise, every single person could defuse responsibility for anything by just getting drunk beforehand. It would be untenable. "I didn't mean to kill the person, I just know I get really angry and have poor impulse control when drunk" should obviously not fly as a defense. 
In contrast, sex involves more than one person or it's masturbation. Presumably, the person have sex with you is sober and is therefore responsible for knowing that having sex with someone who is extremely drunk is not okay. And, again, to be clear, it's generally agreed that this applies specifically to people who are obviously extremely impaired. Having one drink and being tipsy and a bit adventurous does not mean you aren't able to give consent. Slurring your speech and not being able to walk without stumbling pretty clearly do. >

If your wife goes to dinner orders 2 bottles of wine and fucks someone you are not having the “baby you couldn’t consent 😭” talk. >

I mean, there would probably be a conversation about not getting that drunk if that's how she acted while drunk. That doesn't change the fact that whoever had sex with this hypothetical wife shouldn't have done so if she got that drunk. There's nothing inconsistent in multiple people doing different things wrong for different reasons. >

So if you have a wife and she fucks someone at dinner it’s a conversation ? There’s no way you believe this lol >

This example doesn't present any inherent contradiction because social consequences vs. legal consequences may be different for the same action.
Mainly, this doesn't apply because people should ethically be allowed to enter or exit a relationship for any reason, not simply for actions performed with full, informed consent. >

If what you are saying is true, then it would be completely legal to get you shitfaced and have you sign over your house, your car, your bank accounts, and everything else to me.   
Do you believe that is an acceptable outcome? >

If your wife cheats on you drunk are you having the consent talk or the divorce talk ? >

Depends - who was it with? >

Why does it matter who it was with ? 
Your wife purchased herself X amount of drinks and is drunks. 
She fucks any of the following people no condom (let’s spice it up) 
Ex boyfriend 
Your neighbor 
Coworker 
Your friend 
Her friend 
Random guy at the bar 
Professional 
Are you having the divorce talk or the “baby you couldn’t consent 😭” talk ? >

Hey you asked the question.  
If she got drunk and had sex with Robert Downey Jr, I would react differently than if she got drunk and fucked my dad. >

If your wife goes to your neighbors house with 2 bottles of wine and gets piped out are you having the consent talk or the divorce talk ? What if she does this every week ? Has she been sexually assaulted every week ? >

Is she blackout drunk, or just tipsy? White girl wasted? >

“Shitfaced” the word you used. Please answer the question >

If she is shitfaced, then I am not having the divorced talk. I am having the "you were raped by our neighbor" talk. >

Just to make sure I understand. 
Your wife goes to your neighbors house with 2 bottles of wine. She drinks one and fucks him she cheated. But if she waits until she drinks the other one she was assaulted? You are honestly saying this is your belief ?
Edit: this is fun. 
If your wife is drunk and she grabs your neighbor she assaulted him. If your wife is drunk and she grabs your neighbors Dick he assaulted her ? >

Honestly, it depends.
There are people that follow some sort of "1 drop rule" where there can be no consent where there is alcohol.
Then there's dudes who draw dicks on some folks faces. Normally you wouldn't let someone draw a dick on your face. Not even at the county fair I'd bet. But you can be drunk enough that you wouldn't even know who drew it on you.  
Drawing a dick takes some time and the person drawing it has to be sober to some extent. Now, if something as meticulous and time consuming as drawing a dick on your face can be done, someone can also put a dick in your ass. I repeat, you wouldn't even know who drew it on you.
Can you call either of those things(Dick drawing and butt stuff) a consensual act between two adults?
Not a rhetorical question. >

In your hypotheticals of facial dick drawing, where is the indication that there was any consent?  You seem to be presenting a situation where the drawee is incapacitated.  That's quite different from two guys getting hammered and then drawing dicks on each other's faces.  As you indicated, drawing those dicks requires some level of sobriety. >

You’re not allowed to make medical decisions while intoxicated: full stop.
You’re also not allowed to claim intoxication as a defense for a crime you’ve committed. 
Rape isn’t negated by alcohol use. >

The spotlight is more so on being raped by virtue of intoxication although giving consent. You cannot overrule consent because you're drunk, yes. >


being raped by virtue of intoxication

Intoxication doesn't rape people. People rape people. >

Respectfully, you’re completely missing the point & this isn’t what is being discussed >

The problem with the analogy here is that it is conflating two separate concepts. There is the ability to give valid consent, and the potential for criminal responsibility. People casually refer to both and say whether you should be 'responsible' or not, but there are different principles in play.
If you willingly consume any intoxicating substance, you are still just as responsible for any crimes you commit as if you had been sober.
If you are sufficiently intoxicated, you are not capable of offering valid consent. Having sex with a person who does not or cannot consent is a crime. Having sex when you are drunk is not a crime (unless it is also with someone who does not give valid consent) so there is nothing for you to be 'responsible' for in the way that there is with drunk driving or something similar. >

This is semantics

If you are sufficiently intoxicated, you are not capable of offering valid consent.

If you are sufficiently intoxicated, you are not capable of ~~offering valid consent.~~ driving either, and yet would be held responsible for it. So, why shouldn't you be responsible for sex too despite being unable to consent to it? >


If you are sufficiently intoxicated, you are not capable of driving either.

Right. Because there is a law specifically saying "If you are intoxicated and you drive a vehicle, that is a crime." If you commit that crime, you are held responsible for it.
There is not any law stating "If you are intoxicated enough that you are not able to consent, and you attempt to offer consent to someone anyway, that is a crime." so you have not committed any crime which you need to be held responsible for. >


you have not committed any crime which you need to be held responsible for

But you have committed an act that you need to be held responsible for.  Whether that act was a crime or not is irrelevant.  Are you responsible for the actions you take while drunk... or not? >

Read my other analogy here.
Are minors responsible for the actions they take or not? The answer is that it's not a meaningful question. The principle is not that there needs to be one standard set of responsibility for "acts". >


Are minors responsible for the actions they take or not? The answer is that it's not a meaningful question.

What?  That's not the answer, lmao.  Human beings' lives hang in the balance of that question, of course it's meaningful.  The answer to that question could determine if a 14-year-old spends the rest of his life in prison, or spends four years in juvie.  
Just looking at current events: NYC yesterday thought that question was so meaningful that they debated it and determined that anyone under 12 years old in the city is not responsible for any crimes they commit. >

OK, sure, it's an important question. You're focused on the wrong part.
"Is a person who is (X) held responsible for crimes they commit?" is one question. "Is a person who is (X) capable of offering valid consent for sex?" is another question. My example clearly illustrates that those two questions do not need to have the same answer. One can be yes, and the other can be no.
If (X) is "a minor (above the state's minimum age to try someone as an adult but below the legal age of consent)" then clearly, the first answer can possibly be yes, and the second answer is definetly no. If (X) is "incapacitated by alcohol" then the answers are also yes to the first question and no to the second.
The latter one isn't any more of a double standard than the first. >


The answer is that it's not a meaningful question. 
OK, sure, it's an important question.

Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. >

Except you didn't change my view. It's important, in that society places a lot of focus on making that decision.
The question "Are you responsible for the actions you take while drunk... or not?" I was responding to, is not meaningful, because "responsible" is ambiguous language conflating two separate concepts. The same is true for asking if minors are responsible for their actions. It's not a meaningful question, because no single answer is possible. >

Nope, here is the question you were responding to, taken verbatim from your own comment (your words, not mine):

Are minors responsible for the actions they take or not?

Here was your View initially:

it's not a meaningful question.

And your View after I challenged it:

OK, sure, it's an important question.

Are any of my claims in this comment untrue?  If not, then you clearly Changed Your View.
Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. >

I had a girl sleep over at my place once after the bar, she couldnt drive and i lived almost next door so i offered her my spare room for the night. The next morning she showed me snap chat videos (plural) she made while i was passed out drunk in my bed of her grinding (naked) on my face, then sent it to her friends. They just laughed at me. I went to the cops and they said if i cant show them the actual videos, right then and now, theres nothing they can do.
So i was pretty much turned into a joke and people thought it was funny that i got raped. No one wanted to make the effort to try and dig deeper into retrieving the videos from snapchat.
Fuck double standards. >

Yes, women complain they can't easily win a rape case despite being protected by the same innocent until proven guilty laws but neglect man can't easily even file a rape charge. I'm sorry you encountered such a piece of shit. >

You have to understand the difference between perpetrator and victim. 
In every case when a drunk person commits a crime or hurts another person, they are responsible.
In every case when the drunk person is the victim of a crime, they are not. Yes they chose to get drunk but they did not choose or consent to being hurt/raped etc. The perpetrator is responsible.  
And in cases where the drunk person hurts themselves, they are also responsible for that. 
It's pretty much that simple. You may disagree for some reason, but at least it's consistent. >

Well... no one is held responsible for being the victim of a crime anyways regardless of any circumstance and in the case that both parties agreed to sex, one drunk and one sober, calling someone raped is the very issue of creating victimhood out of thin air. You've basically restated the issue. >

I think you are trying to contrive a scenario that conceptually doesn't make sense. If both parties consented to sex, then it's not rape. If someone didn't consent to the sex, then it's rape. You are just presenting a scenario that looks like rape, but isn't, and then trying to argue that this creates a contradiction. It doesn't.
In reality, we often run into seemingly conflicting situations because it is hard to get indisputable proof and the legal system is imperfect. But that is something that changes from country to country. In some countries it is still legal to rape your wife... but that doesn't make it not rape. Sometimes a person is raped but the perpetrator can't be successfully charged. And other times some falsely accuses someone of rape when they didn't. That doesn't change the fact that conceptually there is no double standard. You might argue that the child-support system unfairly burdens men, or whatever, but that's a separate issue, exclusive to each country. Whereas the concepts of alcohol, consent, and responsibility are more universal moral questions. And when viewed from that perspective, my original comment still holds true (and disputes your original claims). >

Except with the involvement of alcohol if both people are consenting it could still be rape and you've skipped right over that one which is at the heart of the issue. >

I'm not skipping over it, I explained my view on it. I'll try and rephrase.

alcohol if both people are consenting it could still be rape 

I think you keep focusing on legal definitions, whereas I'm trying to approach this from an ethics standpoint. People get drunk and have sex all the time, that doesn't make it rape. Nobody is suggesting that all drunk sex is rape. If the two participants both agree it wasn't rape, then it wasn't rape. In fact, the exact definitions don't even matter to my central point which is conceptual in nature. >

I appreciate the distinction but

Nobody is suggesting that all drunk sex is rape

any notion that being drunk (but conscious) is grounds to withdraw consent after the fact is a common theme. >

Are you talking about an instance where two individuals are drunk, have sex, then later one of them tries to say “I didn’t consent, I was raped” with the intention of pinning blame/responsibility on the other?
Either they were too drunk to consent and the other person didn’t realize it (as drunk people sometimes don’t), or the other person realized it and didn’t care (rape). Or, you’re talking about someone who regrets their choices and is lying by calling it rape. In that case, they’re a bad person for trying to take advantage of a good rule in place: that people can revoke consent at any time (and sometimes when alcohol is involved, people can become unable to consent without them even realizing). >

Both cases >

And you think those cases shouldn’t count as rape? >

Yeah the one you described about lying about being raped. >

Child support payments are not a punishment on the parents for the crime of having sex.  Conservatives like to think of them this way because they like to punish people for having sex, and this notion gets spread because it can feel like a punishment to the person paying them, but that's not actually what they are.
Child support payments are society's way of supporting the child.  No matter how they were conceived, the child itself is innocent, and every child deserves the same support and chance to thrive in life as every other child.  As such, society recognizes a duty to provide every child with a least a minimal level of financial support as they get started in the world.  And when asked where that money should come from, society answers 'the biological parents, if they can afford it'.
This duty has nothing to do with wanting a child or intentionally trying to have a child or anything else.  It is just a line of obligation that society draws from both biological parents to the child, in order to give the child that fair start in life, independent of anything else in the world.
You may think that's unfair - I certainly do, myself.  But the answer to that isn't 'some people have that obligation and some don't based on whether they made good decisions or not' - that's again framing it as punishing people for bad decisions, which isn't what this is about, and isn't something we want the government deciding for us anyway.  
If you think this obligation is unfair, what you should actually want is for every legal guardian of a child to receive a basic income subsidy from the government in order to support that child, so all children get that basic support without burdening poor parents unduly.  That's how you actually resolve that obligation to the children fairly, not by judging which parents 'shouldn't have to' support their children because they made 'good choices'. >

You can repackage it as not a punishment but it is still nevertheless a huge burden forced on men. And while the child is innocent the fetus is however not a person and never needed to be developed into one at the sole discretion of one person making decisions for both parties. So it's not really an obligation for both parents so long as women are the only ones with the ability to opt out of their own accord. I would not consider this unfair if the decision was left up to both parties with autonomy intact. >

pregnancy is also a pretty big burden forced on women >

It is a burden but hardly to be considered forced on account of biology and beyond consensual sex until very recently for 11 Midwest states of women it was also at all women's discretion. >

great now apply that same argument to men
having to have an abortion is a burden as well >

That same argument is called military and industrial casualties of which men are 97%. Men eat a lot of shit sandwiches on the matter. Needing to be the pursuer and sort out all this shit is another example nearly exclusively men. Having an abortion is no doubt a burden as well for both but clearly moreso for the women. Any women who doesn't want babies or abortions can practice abstinence if she prefers. Same that applies to men. >


That same argument is called military and industrial casualties of which men are 97%.

last time i checked they chose those jobs and they are male dominated because of sexism that kept women out of them

Men eat a lot of shit sandwiches on the matter

on what matter? this is irrelevant when talking about the burden of children

Needing to be the pursuer and sort out all this shit is another example nearly exclusively men.

nobody made you have to be the pursuer. just stop. women wouldnt care. women just can stay single in a way men cant because you rely on women as your free therapist, maid, and nanny

Having an abortion is no doubt a burden as well for both

"no doubt"? no, its not a burden on men at all. you arent having the abortion

Any women who doesn't want babies or abortions can practice abstinence if she prefers. Same that applies to men.

great so when they dont both know what they signed theirselves up for and women can prep for the abortion and men csn prep to pay child support >


If I'm inebriated and I make some bad bets on the stock market I'm not excused and getting my money back. I'm still responsible for for those actions I made.

I'm fairly certain few courts will uphold such a deal. Making a deal with someone who is obviously drunk does not look well in the eyes of courts. — Contract law does not exist so that people can approach random drunk persons on the street to try to make deals with them they normally wouldn't.

If I'm inebriated and I force myself on to someone sexually, being drunk and unable to consent myself does not make me anything but a rapist in anyone's mind.

It will not amount to a complete loss of legal culpability, but many crimes can be reduced in severity if they were committed drunk.

If I'm inebriated and I have consensual sex with someone sober which results in a pregnancy and that person decides to carry the fetus to infancy I can still be pursued for child support despite being 'raped'. Despite the lack of consent I could supposedly not give I'm still on the hooks.

In jurisdictions where that is the case, rape is simply not an excuse at all for child support on the argument that the law favors punishing an innocent adult over an innocent child. It doesn't matter whether you were drunk or not, you can be chained down and raped and you will still have to pay it in those jurisdictions.
Note that many jurisdictions conversely do not have such obligations for rape victims, or even for parents who don't recognize the child to begin with. >

I was sexually assaulted while drunk. His stance was that he was also drinking, so it was fine and not an assault. There was in no way consent; I said no and he was violent and forceful. That is a crime. He should not be off the hook for being a "drunk " predator. >


There was in no way consent; I said no

This is the threshold for consent.  Anything else, including alcohol consumption, is irrelevant. >

That’s what I’m thinking. This situation is totally different & not what OP was talking about. This is just straight up rape as no “yes” was ever given >

Could you say more about why you want your view changed? I'd find that helpful in formulating a response >

Mental accounting. I want to be corrected if wrong regardless of popular consensus. I'm just poking at something inconsistent. >

Fair enough - thanks for clarifying >


If I’m inebriated and I force…
If I’m inebriated and I have…

Well the issue here is that the second case is not, in fact, consensual. In order to cross-evaluate these situations fairly, you have to apply a consistent definition of consent. And if you are inebriated, you cannot have consented to the act. You would have a legitimate reason to claim that you were sexually assaulted. Moreover, false claims of birth control can also affect consent in a given encounter. If you end up in such a situation while inebriated, you have a legitimate claim to legal charges. >

Mutual consent is not the issue at hand so much as consent from the intoxicated party as it pertains to personal responsibility more specifically. That's where the discrepancy lies, like I said at the end of the sentence in the post pointing out the lack of mutual consent in that case. >


How then can the exception be made that in the singular instance of initiating conventual sex while voluntarily and deliberately self inebriated not be a double standard while the reproductive repercussions of sex are still enforceable?

Did the sober person not know the person was inebriated? >

Isn't that irrelevant? It which case does it make a difference? >

How many of the other things are "person doing something to a drunk person" rather than "the drunk person deciding to do something"?
From what I saw, only one, and that one isn't even relevant, as child support is for the child, not for the parent. >

I'm not following. If the drunk person is pursued or the pursuer it shakes out the same in both cases of sexual advances as far as the drunk person's consent goes. >

If the drunk person is pursued or the pursuer, there is still another person taking advantage of them.
If you are driving drunk, you are risking doing negative things to other people.
If you make stock trades while drunk, nobody will know you are drunk to try to take advantage of that state.
Understand? >

Yes but this is looking at one obvious and select case of the entire issue that is much broader. >

In what world is it an exception? >

What is "that"? >

What you said... who ever says sexual assault is an exception cuz someone was drunk? Like what? >

Yeah who did say that? Would you mind quoting exactly what you're referring to? >

You said having sex with a sober person while drunk is rape. It's not rape. FFS. >

Well you've don't have a quote and I don't agree with the statement you're saying I said so if I did it's either a typo or out of context. Like I said, show me the quote and I'll have a specific answer. >

I paraphrased what you said. Like what do you mean? It's what you said.

If I'm inebriated and I have consensual sex with someone sober which results in a pregnancy and that person decides to carry the fetus to infancy I can still be pursued for child support despite being 'raped'. Despite the lack of consent I could supposedly not give I'm still on the hooks.

Is the quote. Yes. You are responsible for things you do when drunk. No one is raped. Or 'raped' either. >

Yeah a quote and an off the wall paraphrasing are totally different because I don't even agree with what you're saying I said. >


If I'm inebriated and I have consensual sex with someone sober which results in a pregnancy and that person decides to carry the fetus to infancy I can still be pursued for child support despite being 'raped'. Despite the lack of consent I could supposedly not give I'm still on the hooks.

This seems like a pretty convoluted scenario--do you have evidence that this is a common ruling in such cases? Because I would like to see how many times a court has forced a man to send child support payments to a partner who was found guilty of raping them (yet somehow also has custody of the kid).
But in any event, child support is a duty you owe to the child, not the person with whom you had the child. If the child is in the custody of the other parent, that parent receives the child support payments with the understanding that they're using it on behalf of the child and in their interest (because the kid is a minor and can't make their own financial decisions). But the payments are made for the child, not the parent.
I suspect that, if you were to successfully contend that the mother raped you in the process of conceiving the child, you could get custody and receive child support payments from the rapist mother. But you would of course have to successfully make that claim (and many women can tell you that proving such a claim is quite difficult).
And in any event it doesn't change the fact that there is a child in the world now who you fathered, and that child has a right to a parent if one reasonably exists. The only alternative would be the state taking custody of the kid, and that probably isn't fair to the kid. It probably wouldn't be fair to a rape victim father, either, but hey--kids come first, friend. 
If you want to argue that parents should not be obligated to care for their kids if they claim they didn't intend to have them, you can certainly do so... but that is a pretty big can of worms with a lot of downstream impact.
One other observation: you seem to have this idea that there is an alarm that triggers any time drunk people have sex or something. That isn't the case at all. Drunk people have sex all the time and feel all kinds of different ways about it afterwards. Girls get drunk and have sex they regret all the time, as do men. And none of this is a crime unless somebody alleges they were taken unfair advantage of...and proves it in court via an incredibly painful and invasive process. Which doesn't happen very often--no significant number of people are getting convicted of sexual assault because they had sex after having one drink, someone regretted it, and decided to go to court over it.
These cases involve instances where a person is borderline comatose drunk and has a truly serious problem with what was done to them under those conditions, not frivolous games over whether someone technically had a non-zero blood alcohol level.
Anytime a man gets weird about this, I always ask him whether he has ever had sex he regretted. Most sexually active men have. And if so, I then ask this: did you ever consider accusing her of rape because you were ashamed, and had had drinks that night and thus figured you could convince them you didn't consent? Obviously, the answer to that is no! No man would accuse a woman of rape simply because he regretted having sex with her and thought he could manage it because he was slightly tipsy. That would be insane. And it is equally insane to think that women are prowling around out there just itching to accuse men of rape.
People give out the advice that you shouldn't have sex while drunk because it impairs judgement and can result in non-consenual sex if judgement is sufficiently impaired. But almost everybody who is sexually active has had sex while drunk...and it is almost always fine, because most of the time people like getting drunk and fucking.
It is only a problem when it is significantly more than just two interested people getting drunk and fucking. And splitting hairs over the exact boundaries of this seems very sketchy, because you shouldn't be anywhere near these boundaries such that this level of analysis is crucial.
If there is any doubt at all, back off and reassess when heads are clearer. And if you're so desperate for sex that you have trouble doing this, you should examine that a bit, because sex shouldn't be so life or death that you would risk harming another person to get it. >


This seems like a pretty convoluted scenario

I don't think anything could be further from the truth. It's pretty well known that women can force men into fatherhood at their discretion regardless of his state at the time of conception. 

But in any event, child support is a duty you owe to the child, not the person with whom you had the child.

Men don't have children with women they have fetuses. The fate of the fetuses development is solely in the hands of the woman, they both consensually create the fetus and then the woman solely decides what happens with the fetus because it's part of her anatomy and falls under her autonomy. A fetus is not a person and is owed nothing, no duty. Is all that not the central points to a woman's right to choose? Just like women, men do not consent to child rearing at conception - it's just that they don't get the choice to make for themselves. Sidenote, men aren't generally worried about how hard it is to win a rape case when they're preoccupied with how hard it is to file a rape charge, plenty of men can tell women about that. >


It's pretty well known that women can force men into fatherhood at their discretion regardless of his state at the time of conception. 

Then you should have no trouble producing some stats and evidence of that. How about it?

Men don't have children with women they have fetuses.

You don't pay fetal support--you pay child support. If the fetus does not become a child, you don't owe child support. Also, if you take custody of the child, you don't pay child support--you are paid child support.
There are some states in which men can be held liable for part of the medical bills for pregnancy, but that is a consequence of choosing to have sex...and if you did not consent, no court is going to force you to pay medical bills for a woman who raped you.

Just like women, men do not consent to child rearing at conception

So? Children don't consent to being born. But society has made the decision that children are owed care to the best of our ability to provide it, because any alternative would result in a way worse world for everyone.
If possible, that care falls to the parents, whether they wanted to be parents or not, because regardless of the circumstances they certainly had more to do with it than random tax payers. That often isn't fair to the parents, but again...kids come first, friend. And if a situation occurs that, no matter what, is going to be unfair to someone, we've decided that the parents get screwed before the kid does. You may wish to play "not it", but the responsibility is going to fall on someone, and I think we've made a pretty reasonable choice as a society.
Again, you may disagree with that and want to dispute it. But if you pull on that thread a lot of other things come with it, and I would want to see you reasonably explain why you think they would result in a better world than we currently have.

Sidenote, men aren't generally worried about how hard it is to win a rape case when they're preoccupied with how hard it is to file a rape charge, plenty of men can tell women about that.

That is indeed a problem. I think the way we deal with rape in the US (where I live) is horrible all around, and both men and women suffer for it. 
But you're not proposing a solution to it. If you have one, feel free. But so far you seem more concerned with attacking women than making anything better for men.
And in any event, how does any of this support the idea that it should be okay to have sex with someone who is passed out drunk. Because that is the view you're asking to have changed, yes? >


And in any event, how does any of this support the idea that it should be okay to have sex with someone who is passed out drunk. Because that is the view you're asking to have changed, yes?

I definitely didn't take the CMV to mean passed out is okay - of course it isn't. Someone who is passed out cannot say yes or no to sex. 
Someone who is very intoxicated but still awake can verbally consent to sex. The question is, whether or not that consent is null and void because they were incapable of giving "true" consent. The crux of the view is, if someone is lucid enough to say "yes, I want to have sex with you", regardless of whether or not they're drunk, then that's consent. >

Because it removes the incentive / excuse of rapist men to get women drunk to claim she consented but just doesn’t remember thereby letting them off the hook for sexually assaulting someone. 
The fact this very defense was used successfully so many times caused the law to be changed. >

If your wife gets drunk and fucks your neighbor are you having the consent talk or the divorce  talk ? >

Did she consent prior to being drunk?
-Then all is good. 

If not then I’m asking if that’s what she wanted. 
         -If it is, then all is good. 
         -If not, he’s going to be talking to the cops. >

Wait what you are a cuck ? >

I think your framing of this being an issue of consent is confusing people and making the conversation unproductive. I think any sensible person would say that a man who is raped should not be responsible for a child that was the result of that rape. 
One thing about the law is that there has to be an analysis of the impacts in implementation. This is often missed on people when discussing issues in the legal system. Let's say we change the law to allow men to not pay child support when raped. It is all but guarantied that there will be an increase in rape claims by men who weren't raped but don't want to pay child support. As unjust as it is, a law like that would be a huge net negative for society. 
This is one of this limits in how effective the law can be and it was the crux of the #metoo movement. People were upset at the low conviction rate for sexual assaults so people started looking toward other means of justice. How can the legal system help people who didn't seek help? If they lower the bar of proof it will create more injustice in other ways. The number of false claims would inevitably skyrocket.
My point here is that laws aren't created to completely fix a problem or bring perfect justice because that's not possible. They are set in place to try to minimize harm and give some sense of justice for better or for worse. >

Yes, but it starts with consent and develops into both a new issue entirely when a fetus becomes a person and involves a new set of partial rules. People don't care that a guy was raped if a woman carries a fetus to personhood they still want him on the hooks for it even though raped or drunk or neither he should still have the same ability as a woman to retain autonomy. You making a great point of the underlying issue that society gets men to take a lot on the chin for greater good and penalized for it at the end. >

Right but consent is all but impossible to prove after the fact. Every man who didn't want to pay child support would claim the sex wasn't consensual or that he was told the woman was on birth control, etc. 
My point is that these are the same issues for male and female victims of rape.  The barrier to prove it is really high and emotionally painful for the victim >

There is a big difference with drunk driving and someone taking advantage of a drunk person. 
When you drink drive. You put yourself in that car, and anything that happens to your body you would have done to yourself. 
Now, the reason you aren’t meant to drink drive is because it inhibits your decision making and reaction times. 
If you ask someone with inhibited decision making to have sex, they might say yes. Because they can’t think properly about the pros and cons of the action. 
Now, this drunk person has been put in this position, by Someone else, and any damages caused to their body will have been caused by someone else. >

If you’re drunk and you decide to drive you made a choice to drive drunk. 
If you’re drunk and you a made a bad bet you made a choice to bet. 
If you’re drunk and you forced yourself on someone sexually you made a choice to sexually assault someone. (I was too drunk to control myself isn’t an excuse to rape someone.)
If you’re drunk and you had consensual sex with a woman you made a choice to have sex with someone. (An example of not giving consent would be if you got drunk and a woman had sex with you while you were passed out and then tried to force you to pay child support. That would be rape since you didn’t give consent.)
All of these examples include you making a choice. A woman (or man) being passed out drunk and unable to give consent means they had the right to make a choice taken away from them. Unless you’re saying that if someone gets black out drunk they are forfeiting their right to consent. Is that what you believe? >

Well I don't think passed out drunk really matters. They're passed out unconscious and that's an entirely different and obviously clear matter. And just like being drunk and making decisions I find I still hold responsibility for having drank in the first place and whatever comes next because of it. That an unconscious person cannot give consent it's pretty iron clad unquestionable. >

Then I guess I’m not sure what your argument is. Someone who is drunk can give consent. It’s when someone is too drunk to give consent (either by being passed out or unable to speak and give clear consent) when it becomes a crime. Being drunk doesn’t alleviate someone from the repercussions of their actions whether is placing a bet, driving drunk or knocking someone up. >

Basically that consent given is not up change after the alcohol is passed from their system. This from my view that a intoxicated person can still consent and held to their decisions someone who was unconscious was a matter I had not even considered. >

The reason you can't consent to sex when your inebriated is because they're is an inherent power imbalance. That's why kids can't consent, it's not because people think that children are incapable of making decisions it's because between an adult and a child there is an inherent imbalance in power that is in and of itself a form of coercion be it intended or not. The same goes for being drunk. >

Doesn't that power balance go away if both people are drunk? >

Can't change your view if nowhere in your five paragraphs you make a salient stand on what view you want to be changed.
Are you saying that drunk people can or cannot be raped? You wording is beyond confusing. >

That drunk people are as responsible for their actions as sober people are responsible for drinking. >

So just a small note - cases where people are intoxicated but lucid and seemingly consent to sex, and later claim the sex was non-consensual, are almost unheard of in practice.
By far the more common circumstance, and the primary consideration in passing these laws, are cases of sexual assault where the victim is black out shitfaced to the point of being more or less functionally unconscious. Sometimes fully unconscious, but typically at the very least way too fucked up to be able to resist, call for help, or in many cases even tell what's happening.
These types of attacks are particularly common among serial rapists on college campuses, who tend to target students who are under 21, not experienced with alcohol, and binge drinking for likely the first time in their life - at parties that are frequently organized by aforementioned serial rapists. They make easier targets because they are much less likely to report an assault, out of fear of facing expulsion or underage drinking charges if they come forward.
So, just for perspective, that is the main case that these laws are meant to address, and the kinds of scenarios that people tend to think of when casually considering this topic - like full legal drinking age adults changing their mind after having sex with someone while slightly tipsy - are extremely rare and do not make up any significant portion of real world sexual assault cases. >

To /u/Objective-Ad-4155, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.
In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:

Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.
Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.

Please also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track.  Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do. >

You're blessed to not know about sexual assaults committed on drunk men. >

I think the biggest issue I see here is when both sides are greatly intoxicated. If the man is blackout drunk and has sex with a women who is blackout drunk, technically they both cannot give consent and as such have sexually assaulted each other.
However the way it is looked at generally is that the man is responsible for his actions by consuming the alcohol and the woman is not. I believe this is an inconsistency, and I’m not sure the easiest way to rectify it. >

I'd like to see data on that claim.. >

What claim? >

That in that specific scenario, the man is generally held responsible for his actions by consuming alcohol and the woman is not. >

I agree. That's why I don't understand why people drink in the first place. If you have to be drunk to enjoy something, maybe you shouldn't do it. >

Careful, the me too movement might lose their shit >

They do as they please. >

I think most people feel this way too? >

I've gotten the opposite impression. >

It’s just one person trying to justify one action for another >

It does not depend on being inebriated, it depends on who the victim is.
In a driving situation the victim is the person run over.
In a rape case it's the person whose consent was not obtained.
Being inebriated makes things worse, that is all.
Pretending drunk consent is still consent is like saying that running over someone drunk is somehow their fault.
It can be, but I suggest not running over someone drunk and not having sex with someone drunk you don't trust a lot. >

Alcohol only removes the ability to give consent when it leads to completely passing out.  Being drunk and having sex isn't considered non-consensual.  Being unconscious and having sex would make you incapable of giving consent at the time.  I don't think the premise of your view is accurate. >

I would be very pleased to find out that this topic of being unable to give consent while intoxicated only extended to very logically unconscious people. That does not seem to be the case though. It seems most people find that there is level of intoxication that includes consciousness otherwise being drunk and the pursuer of a sober person could not be an issue to begin with as limp bodies don't pursue. And while my general feelings are that a person is responsible for the alcohol that they consume a tipping Point I had neglected to mention is that I definitely agree being unconscious due to alcohol or any other reason does evaporate any prospect of consent. Though there is that medical law that EMTs have assumed consent to save unconscious people, though this is vastly different. >

would it be okay to have sex with a 12 year old if they pursue? >

That's not a question of intoxication. No, for the record but I don't consider that relevant. >


That's not a question of intoxication

we arent talking about that, were talking about rape. your claim is that if you are unable to consent it shouldnt count if you pursue. so why wouldnt that apply to children? because it would defeat your argument? >

No, we're not. >

so just to be clear if youre so drunk you cant consent but you pursue someone it should be fine and not rape but if youre too young to consent the same does apply? >

You can't sign legal documents unless you "are of sound mind" because you can't actually properly consent to something if you aren't fully aware and lucid. >

what about if the girl is drunk? >

NAL, the child support is to minimize harm to the child. If there are legal consequences, likely things will factor in such as if you had expressed a desire to have a child before you became incapacitated, or on the flipside if you had expressed non-consent. 
Responsibility ought to end up distributed as fairly as possible given the particular circumstances, but only after the needs of the child are prepared. I'm sure it's more fair in some places in the world and unfair in others. >

In all of the situation you mention here, there is not another human being deliberately and directly taking advantage of your intoxication for their own personal satisfaction/benefit. You are, in other words, held accountable for your actions because there is no more responsible party to whom fault for the outcome can more reasonably be assigned. >

Which are my feelings. The disparity is that alcohol give the excuse to withdrawal consent after the fact. To that point I disagree. >

Yea but your car or the stock market can't look at you and tell themselves she tjisd person is too drunk I shouldn't fuck them. >

Yes but what I can do is look at alcohol and say I shouldn't drink that. If I blew my money or crashed my car afterwards I can't withdraw consent for having taken the actions like I could withdraw consent from the action of having sex after the fact because of alcohol. >

Yea but once you're drunk your car isn't going to come pressure you to drive it. The stock market isn't going to promise you it'll get you home safe then try to take advantage of you. >

I find that irrelevant because even if they did or did not pressure me I would still be responsible for my own decisions. Of course being forceful with anyone while they're intoxicated or not is another matter. >

And that is the Grey area that has led to our current legal situation with this. 
Because someone who is drunk can be conscious but not capable of giving non consent or resistance. 
A drunk person wouldn't have to be forced to be raped. Even without violence it's still rape.
I'd like you to clarify your position. There's different possible situations that have vastly different ethical ramifications. 
OK so two people get drunk together and one passes out. The other one then has sex with them. If this wasn't agreed on as a possibility from the beginning then this Is rape right? And wrong? 
Or do you just mean like a drunk person willfully and eagerly has sex then later either regrets it or doesn't remember consenting and says it was rape? 
Thoughts on those two outcomes? >

We're not disagreeing on that point. >

I edited my last post to ask a question. Thought I could.be quick and get it before you'd see problems should have just made another post. >

If someone gets fucked while unconscious that is definitely rape unless very specifically free arranged otherwise. Not even a question and the point I had failed to consider at the time I wrote the post that it would even go that far.
More so on the latter point that regretful consent isn't rape after the fact. >

OK we're in agreement then as seems like common decency.
But this is why the current legal situation exists. Because the natural of alcohol and memory and the nature of intimacy with spontaneity and usually privacy and lackm
 Of witnesses this is just the way it was to be to protect victims. 
In actual prosecution its.innocent until proven guilty and better to let a guilty man go free than punish and innocent but in proactive writing of laws rhey need to be written to give a benefit of a doubt to victims therefore an admittedly unfair onus is placed on the man to make not only sure to get consent but basically to make sure the woman won't regret it. Which can't always happen cus some women are crazy so it is unfair but I can't imagine any better system. Prenups for hookups maybe I dunno. >

Well the solution in my mind is take responsibility for the amount of psychoactive drug you intake. Can drunk people still be raped, yes absolutely of course. Is a drunk person raped by virtue of the fact that they sobered up, not so much. >

mens rea and consent are two different things >

If someone A is inebriated and consents to sex to someone B that is clearly able to tell that they are not in a state of mind capable of consenting, it’s A’s fault? Is that your take? >

Making purchases or getting in a car to drive is very different to someone being pursued while they’re in a vulnerable state. And even if they were many people wouldn’t do those things if not drunk so being given alcohol until the point you say yes to sex is coercion. A lot of these times the victims are too drunk to stand or even talk, they barely know where they are. Someone is completely out of it. Like when they’re half asleep. People get wasted and get married in vegas and annulments exist because of shit like that. It’s very rare that two people who are the same level of drunk will have sex and then it’s considered non consensual. It’s about someone way more sober taking advantage of someone vulnerable. It feels pretty simple to understand. >

Yeah I put lacking consciousness in a whole other ball game that is definitely rapey. >

well i mean it’s not rapey it just is rape. and alcohol can effect consciousness. if someone is wasted the line between conscious and unconscious begins to blur which again makes it rape >

Without prior arrangements yes it's definitely rape. >

Criminal court and family court are different. You should try the argument of statutory rape if you're really trying to make a point here about paying child support without giving consent, it's less nuanced. 
Or if you're actually looking for a CMV with this fact pattern - consent and consequences are different. If I don't consent to a hit and run driver crippling me I'm still fucked. Somebody else did something criminal to me that I did not consent to and I have significant consequences with no recourse. 
We don't take rape of men seriously enough in America, I'll 100% agree on that point. 
But really, you shouldn't have worn those tight pants and gone to that party and had so many drinks and gone on a walk with her, you obv totally wanted it. Besides, guys can't produce sperm when they're being raped, and if they do get pregnant hey it's God's will and a blessing! /s >

The bit about child support is just supporting context. Well on one hand I'm not disagreeing but on the other hand that's not what I was saying. I'm talking about legitimate consent even though intoxicated withdrawn after the fact because of regret then framed as rape. But I'm not talking about is assaulting someone for any reason. >

You are thinking about this entirely in the wrong way if you think this is about responsibility. 
Drunk driving is bad because it has negative consequences and the idea of making it illegal is to try to prevent those negative consequences.
When you are raped by intoxication, you are not "responsible" for being raped because being raped does not invite negative consequences on others. It invites those negative consequences, such as psychological trauma, on yourself.
The child support analogy does not work because paying child support is not about paying reparations to the parent, it's about ensuring the well-being of child. That's why it's "child support" and not "parent support."
The only analogy you use here that holds any water is the stock market one, and frankly I think that only demonstrates that the stock market is predatory scam akin to gambling, and that stock trades while drunk should be considered invalid. (Hell, they might already be — as I'm sure someone has already pointed out by now, you legally cannot sign contracts while blackout drunk.) >

What happened to “two beers and a back massage is guaranteed to get you into her pants” >


In every single other case in which a sober person took the action to become inebriated they are still held personally responsible for their inebriated self.

If you sign a contract under the influence of something (drugs, alcohol), the contract is considered null. So no, not 'every single other case'. There are situations where being drunk is a valid reason to null something for the person. >

I don't think that alcohol and consent to sex should be a black and white concept. The main counterpoint to your OP is that alcohol impairs the ability to consent. >

It doesn’t >

CMV: the law agrees with me, the end. >

As far as a night life setting alcohol is socially intended as an excuse to do things that would typically be frowned upon. The world nowadays is too uptight and judges every move you make. Alcohol is a way to slightly free people of burden. Of those burdens would be having sex with someone that is not socially attractive but attractive to the individual. By adding alcohol to the equation it allows the person to escape being judged by saying "I was drunk I don't even remember that happening" or something.
I don't drink alcohol but a lot of my friends do. They're good people but alcohol allows them to be free whether it's having sex with a bunch of guys in public, saying things that wouldn't be otherwise said, etc...
Alcohol isn't the problem. It's the over ridgidness and unrealisticly high expectations that society expects of everyone. We're not perfect and shouldn't be expected to. >

Being drunk puts your mind in a state where you are more open to suggestion and can be more easily coerced into consenting to things that you normally wouldn't have consented to. You are still responsible for your own actions while drunk. However, you are not responsible for things that someone coerced you into doing while drunk. Instead, they are responsible for exploiting your inebrieated state to satisfy their own ends. >

Anyone who thinks alcohol is an excuse for assaulting other people in any way needs to get what's coming for them.. Too many people are forced to lie about these things as well based on real or credibly perceived threats against themselves or the people they'd like to be interacting with.. >

I think you're starting from a false premise.  Alcohol consumption isn't a magic "backsies" button that allows a person to retroactively withdraw sexual consent without consequences.
A person who has had a few drinks is still definitely capable of consenting/declining sex.  If they are honest about their level of intoxication, and there was no other coercion involved, there's nothing for them to report, no crime or tort was committed.
If they lie about their level of intoxication to make it seem that they were unable to give consent, that's both criminally punishable (filing a false report) and civilly actionable (libel/slander).
The problem is proving after the fact exactly what happened when two people have radically different accounts of what happened and they were both likely intoxicated to some degree.  Does it suck?  Yeah, but it's not the product of some man-hating conspiracy.  People suck, life is complicated and messy, and it's hard to draw clear lines. The legal system does the best it can with what it is given.
Sex requires enthusiastic consent from both parties, for the duration of the encounter.  At any point, either partner has the right to decline to continue.  Therefore, even if a person seemed eager at one point to have sex, if they pass out or are otherwise no longer oriented enough to give consent, you don't have a "right" to have sex with them since they at one point said you could.  
And really, if you are wondering if they can't or can't consent, if you have to ask... >

It's one thing if a person had a couple beers. It's another if they are fall down drunk. >

You are completely right, of course. The only time I consider it impossible to give consent is when you can barely stand/speak or are unconscious. If you kiss and touch the guy, this is consent. You can't suddently decide the next morning that, actually, you didn't mean to and that makes you a victim somehow.  
If you did no such thing then it would be rape even if you were sober. Not much changes.