Legally? Yeah, too many gray areas to really argue in court.

Otherwise, like I said, there are a lot of gray areas. Did she intend to get that drunk? Did you get her drunk with the intent of sex? Is it her first time getting drunk and is unaware of the repercussions, or is she fully aware of the imminent danger she puts herself in getting drunk around men who default to baser instincts when drunk? For that matter, is the man aware of what he can do while drunk, or is he a greenhorn?

Too many variables to objectively say yes or no. That's why it's automatic rape in court, just like you're automatically at fault for rear-ending someone.

gotcha, here we call it pre-school for 3-4 and kindergarten isnt until 5

Is this some joke ? So basically everytime I was drunk having sex the girls raped me and I raped them ?

People are not transforming magically into toddlers after a few drinks. People should still be responsible for their actions even intoxicated. You really need to be unable to walk or talk. I mean if you are in an alcohol induced stupor you are not able to consent but just being normal drunk definetly able to consent. Also I dislike greatly drunk girls slightly tipsy is ok but totally drunk and I wont even consider sex.

But yeah, I dislike looking for excuses, to deflect any kind of responsibility, for stupid behaviour, by blaming the alcohol for your own actions.

Intoxication nullifies consent. Since sexual assault is a question of consent, yes, sexual acts with the intoxicated are acts of sexual assault.

If all parties involves are intoxicated, everyone would meet the criteria for the Actus Reus (guilty action) but no one would have the Mens Rea (guilty mind); everyone should be found Not Guilty even IF this case wasn't thrown out.

I wouldn't mind because I'm not so stupid to get that kind of drunk in the first place. My sister isn't that stupid either and if I ever had a daughter she wouldn't be this stupid either. Yeah, we're a clever family.

Seriously whoever gets this drunk on purpose deserves what's coming because apparently that person does not care about consequences.

It's not nice taking advantage of people but no insurance in the world would pay you if you invited the robbers into your home on purpose.

Thank you.

It isn't victim blaming when people state the obvious. Don't get super drunk and risks of being raped decrease. 

No it is not. I have been drunk and turned down sex, so I don't buy this "has no control" crap. Unless you are utterly WASTED, you can still make decisions to some extent.

I think if that person has the intention of taking advantage of the fact that the other person is drunk, it's rape. But if someone willingly gets drunk, knowing that something like that might happen, they shouldn't pretend to be a helpless victim, because you except that risk if you're doing that stuff. Like if I jump in front of a speeding car and try move out of the before it hits me, and I get ran over, it's obvious that the person shouldn't have been speeding in the first place, but I wasn't a helpless victim.

No. Unless the girl is either unable to give consent (passed out) or unwilling to give consent, it shouldn't be.

It doesn't seem like there is any other situation where "I was drunk" absolves you of any responsibility for your decisions. If you knowingly ingest alcohol to the point where it will destroy your decision making faculties, then you're responsible for the decisions made.

It's very immoral for a sober guy to have sex with a drunk girl (or vice versa I suppose), but I don't think it should be considered rape.

Then I guess its time to stop prosecuting drunk drivers, huh? I mean, its not their fault they got in a car and drove. They were drunk and didn't know better.

@ OP

If they are wasted out of their mind, yes it's rape.  If they're just tipsy, then no.  Tipsy can lower your inhibitions, but its not going cause you to do something you truly don't want to do.