I think we both know that&#x27;s neither a mainstream, nor a neutral source, and it&#x27;s not presenting it&#x27;s argument fairly.<p>It puts scare quotes around &quot;activitists&quot; for goodness sake. That doesn&#x27;t even make sense.<p>I don&#x27;t see anything particularly shocking in your quotes, yet it&#x27;s all written as if I should. For example, a &quot;yes&quot; from a sufficiently drunk person, may not count as consent, even if they&#x27;re not literally unconcious. That doesn&#x27;t sound particuarly extreme to me. In fact I&#x27;m more worried about the schools that apparently require incapacitated to mean unconscious since I&#x27;ve seen plenty of people unaware of what was going on due to alcohol, without being literally passed out.<p>So we&#x27;ve arrived at a solid definition of &quot;drunk&quot; at least, as this article makes clear that if you&#x27;ve not literally passed out, then they consider you capable of giving consent to sex. That&#x27;s not the line I&#x27;d choose, but if you continue to argue for this, please just state that up front so overyone knows where they stand.