If a man deliberately sets out to get a woman drunk so she loses her inhibitions and has sex with him, I doubt too many would object to the state charging the man. Until it recently changed its law, Wisconsin apparently was the only state left that did not define alcohol as a potential legal intoxicant in rape cases:
The change, long sought by rape-victim advocates in Wisconsin, means that victims who are very drunk during a sexual encounter can be judged incapable of giving consent, triggering a possible second-degree sexual assault charge.
But suppose a man and a woman each got drunk independently of each other, then met and had sex. Would the man still be held liable? Apparently so:
Blanchard also stressed that the somewhat lower bar on consent standards for victims does not extend to perpetrators, who can be charged for crimes whether they have been drinking or not.
Somebody please bring some moral clarity to this for me. Alcohol breaks down the inhibitions for everyone, right? Are we saying that men are to be held responsible for their actions even when they're under the influence of alcohol, but women are not? What kind of equal treatment under the law is that?
