It happens all the time, but sometimes we see an allegation of rape because the woman was too drunk to give valid consent, same way as it's viewed that children cannot consent. I'd assume we'd be consistent and say that drunk men cannot consent either, therefore, what we'd have is a mutual rape situation, wouldn't we? I should clarify by drunk, I don't mean unconscious or passed out or drugged so the person is unaware of what's happening. Obviously, unconscious people cannot consent. I'm talking about the common scenario of a man and woman, getting drunk and screwing (like the Jimmy Buffet song).
attaching poll
Like all things related to consent, this depends on a lot of things.
The issue of drunknness is one of power, at its most basic.
A drunk person may be conscious, but still somewhat unable to assess what's happening. They might not really know you're taking them back for sex. They may literally not feel you touching them (whiskey clit: it's a thing just as much as whiskey dick). With a partner who is sober or much closer to it, this is a clear manipulation of a person not capable of clear thought at that time.
...But this can be mitigated by prior consent. Just like kinky stuff like a "kidnapping scene" can be. Just like initiating sex during sleep can be.
And this is not actually complicated. Every decent human being has a clear internal compass of when they are getting meaningful consent from a partner. If you don't feel bad walking out of a bar basically sober, half-holding up a woman babbling nonsense back to your pad for sex when you have no clear indication that's what she really wants, you're a bad person. I think we could all agree on that, as most of us are decent human beings.
And yeah, you're also a bad person if you do that to a man. I have actually known a man who was sexually assaulted in that way. Like many men, he doesn't like to think of it as an assault (and I don't use "rape" unless the person feels comfortable with that term for a variety of reasons), but he was clearly taken advantage of by a much more sober woman who is a really ****ing terrible person, and had pretty malicious motives. And he does feel extremely negatively about it.
For two people who are both schlitzed, welp, I just hope they used a condom if they're not tested partners. It's not a rape situation; just kind of dangerous on multiple levels.
But I have never known any woman in that kind of hook-up situation who considered that a rape if they were both engaging in it. It's just a crazy situation that happened when they were both entirely too drunk. Maybe she feels good about it, maybe she doesn't, but either way, there is clearly no one "at fault" for the situation.
The law must draw certain lines which are, by necessity, overly simplistic, in order to decide who they will prosecute and who they will not. Where the law draws "drunknness" is something it simply must decide on to the best of its ability.
But on an individual level -- as an individual person considering sex with another individual person -- your own moral compass should be good enough to navigate these waters without anyone needing to slam the law down on you to get you to behave decently.
Consent is not complicated. The law is a bit complicated, because it has to factor in all possible situations that could be encountered by millions of individuals.
But personal consent is not complicated. Consent is a felt sense. Any decent human being knows whether they are getting consent by simply listening and watching.
Consent only becomes even mildly complicated if you are navigating the more experientially extreme waters of sexuality. And if that is the case, you should be talking -- a lot -- before you do anything. People can consent to extreme experiences, or even negative ones, as well. But those are things you do with someone you know inside and out, and someone who trusts you implicitly, and when you trust YOURSELF implicitly to adapt as the situation may change.