Enough intentional contrariness for one day; let's try something less controversial. Granted that it's reprehesible to get somebody drunk for the purpose of taking advantage of the loss of rational judgment, shouldn't our standards be different if both parties are drunk and stupid?
A drunken woman can still consent to sex, the Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.
Three senior judges were giving reasons for clearing a 25-year-old man of raping a student, aged 19, after both had been drinking heavily.
Sir Igor Judge, sitting with Lady Justice Hallett and Mrs Justice Gloster, said sex would amount to rape if the complainant had lost her capacity to choose as a result of drink.
"However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape," he said.
The judges could not set a level of alcohol consumption that would negate consent, they explained.
If both are drunk and we call their sex rape, aren't we saying that we should hold men but not women accountable for losing judgment under the influence of alcohol?