On the subject of what *should* constitute rape (not what ugly lesbian feminists wish would qualify as rape), commenter “Game in BK” wrote:
If a girl is drunk and she says yes to sex- it isn’t rape.
If a girl is sober and she says yes to sex-it isn’t rape.
If a girl is sober and she says no- it is rape.
If a girl is drunk and she says no- it is rape.
Yes, this sounds right. Drunkenness is no plenary discharge from personal responsibility. If you are a woman who is worried about getting “date raped” at a frat party filled with drunk horny guys where you will be drinking so much that you won’t be able to give consent or you give drunken consent, it’s up to you to make the choice not to binge drink in that environment. There should be no legally sanctioned “Get out of regret” rape card for women who wake up the next morning ashamed of their behavior.
Note that this does not absolve sober men who take advantage of drunk women who cannot give consent. If a girl is so drunk that she’s lying there comatose, a sober man having sex with her could be fairly charged with rape. But a drunk man would be off the hook. After all, if she is too drunk to consent to sex, he is too drunk to know whether or not she has consented. Which brings us round to personal responsibility again; if you are a woman who is afraid your inner slut might escape to have sex under the influence with a man at a party who is also under the influence, it’s up to you to refrain from drinking a lot or attending that party. The responsibility to remain sober — or at least avoid getting lights out drunk — should not rest solely with the man.
If feminists are truly interested in not being treated like morally undeveloped children under the law, they will agree to my definition of rape. But since feminism is about power dynamics and not at all about fairness or justice, they will never agree with me. That is why feminists are discredited.