What the thread starter believes:

It is my belief that rape has a simple definition: non-consensual sex. It’s not sex you regret in the morning, sex you’re embarrassed about, sex you were too drunk to remember, or any other kind of sex besides non-consensual sex. This definition is quite fair, assuming the parties involved will always make responsible decisions. However, in many cases, they do not. I am not blaming the victim here, but refusing to accept responsibility for your drunken decisions is sidestepping the problem.

You might then ask: so it’s a woman’s fault if a guy rapes her when she’s passed out from being drunk? No, it is not her fault. She was unconscious and was physically incapable of making a decision. But what *is* her fault is being drunk enough in the first place. I am in no way defending date rape, but if a woman wants to go out and willingly chooses to drink to extremes, she should be ready to accept the consequences of any decisions she may make while inebriated. This is because it is ultimately her decision to make, whether she chooses to be inebriated at the time or not.

The fact that a woman voluntarily hindered her own judgement is not something that anyone else should be responsible for. Alcohol doesn’t magically absolve one of responsibility. It’s one thing if the woman’s passed out, but if she’s smashed and still responsive, she can still consent. It isn’t the job of the law or government to force people to make responsible decisions, inebriated or otherwise. Hell, here in the U.S. we have state-sponsored lotteries that some people blow a lot of their money on! If I buy a lottery ticket while drunk, and lose my money, I certainly can’t sue the government for a refund.