The fact that I got drunk and passed out doesn't mean that someone else can steal my wallet or beat me up, even if I can offer no resistance against them. Similarly, if someone is clearly past the point where they can give informed consent that doesn't give you the right to assume their answer would be "yes".
I don't think anyone argue against that, exept if two completely drunk peoples sleep with each other (consenting enthousiastically) while with no one is around to separate them. Then it's both their fault.
Yeah, I was talking about situations where the drunk people still consent (and were drunk of their own volition).
It's true that my bicyclist analogy was a bit of a stretch, though...
I think the problem is that some people think drunk people can't actually consent. The exact amount of self-imposed drugging that would make consent impossible is unclear to me. But I reject that notion because it does, in a way, suggest that we aren't responsible for what we do if we drug ourselves first.
That's why I brought up drunk drivers. A lot of drunk drivers don't *choose* to drive drunk, they think they're slightly tipsy. Yet if they drive themselves to a party, and misjudge the amount they drink, they're still fully responsible for what they do. If that means driving drunk, they're guilty of drunk driving and potentially manslaughter. Yet if that means having sex with someone they wouldn't normally, they have a legal case for "rape" against the consenting partner. That's unjust.
And again, if the drinks were spiked, then the unknowing victims are blameless. *That's* rape, even if they appear to give consent, because their decision making process has been *stolen*.