system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
If a drunk guy and a drunk girl have sex, the girl is not inherently getting raped CMV

Basically I'm picturing your standard scenario where a guy and a girl have both been drinking, they end up doing stuff, and later is determined that the girl couldn't have consented due to inebriation.  I don't think she was necessarily being raped, if the guy was also drinking.

I would divide rape into two types: 

Type A) Consent may be given, but we do not consider the consenter capable of actually consenting.  Minors, people with impaired judgement, etc.

Type B) No type of consent is given, one party forces the other through physical force, blackmail, etc.

Now, I'm talking specifically about Type A.  If two people are both past the point where we would consider them capable of consenting, I don't think it can be rape based on the "incapable of informed consent" thought process.  Either no one was raped or they raped each other.

So, say a girl drinks a lot or does something else that impairs her judgement, has sex with a guy with similarly impaired judgement, wakes up and realizes she couldn't have possibly consented to it and feels violated and so forth.  If she wants to believe she was raped she must also consider herself a rapist.  That or accept that neither party was raped, because there was no one in a superior position taking advantage of the other.
gpt
Why do some people on this site continue to insist on arguing about this when it isn't even an issue? The ONLY time being inebriated is a factor in a rape case is when someone deliberately gets another person inebriated for the purposes of taking advantage of them, whether that inebriation results from alcohol or drugs...or when a sober person takes advantage of an obviously inebriated person for the same purposes, whether or not they gave them the substance that brought them to their inebriated state, as long as there would be a *reasonable expectation* that they would recognize that person is, in fact, inebriated. Two drunk people fucking is not something that ends up in court being prosecuted as a rape...so WHY continue to dilute a very serious issue with unnecessary arguments? 

Take 5 minutes to actually read the statutes pertaining to this. They state, pretty explicitly, that the offending party has to not only be less or not impaired, but also, be reasonably expected to KNOW the other person is impaired beyond their ability to give consent (in other words, essentially black out drunk). If you're sober and having sex with someone who isn't, then you're fucked up. If you need to drug someone or get them drunk to get them to have sex with you, you're fucked up. It's a pretty simple concept really: HAVE SEX ONLY WITH PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU. How hard is that, really?