But how does the sheep know i am drunk?

Only if you're drunk around Cuckings. Problem is, that whilst this clearly isn't true, you have to take it in the context of how many US politicians and judges view the idea that the victim being drunk, is somehow a defence against a charge of rape. When you have some people claiming that it wasn't rape, even though they were unconscious, because they consent whilst drunk and getting reduced or suspended sentences as a result - you kind of end up in a situation where you may have to approach this kind of definition in order to protect women.

Absurd as it sounds, the US has a massive problem with absurdly stupid statements and preconceptions about rape and it somehow being the fault of the victim - even when there is substantial evidence to the contrary.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Because men can get drunk and not expect to be raped. How about men take some responsibility for a change - If you're having sex with someone who is unconscious or completely drunk, you're a rapist, and a piece of s**t.

Why do we make all these pathetic excuses to protect men from taking any kind of responsibility for their actions.

Maybe its me, but when I see a woman, who is puking on her shoes, or incapable of speaking, I don't think 'oh sexy'. I like most men, don't feel the need to put my p**** into every possible woman, irrespective of whether they'd enjoy the experience or not. Even when I'm really drunk.

I think its an insult to men everywhere, to protect people who don't have control over the behaviour once they see a drunk girl.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

It's not about protecting men or women. It's about fairness and objectivity.

Anyone who makes statements about what constitutes ability to give consent as some kind of fact make very dodgy statements in my view.....they may be correct and maybe not. Not everyone has the same tolerance levels.

I've worked in a nightclub in the past and indeed anyone who's spent any significant time in one knows just how tricky this is.

I think it should always be kept to an individual case basis.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

bit of perspective, completely drunk people have sex with each other every day all over the world. They're not all pieces of sh1t and rapists.

Remember though that the law includes whether its reasonable for the person who has consent to believe it was given. So if you meet someone in a nightclub, you're drunk, they're drunk, and they go home with you and you have sex, then its not rape (provided you don't actually rape them).

Which I think is a reasonable grounds. There kind of is an expectation with nightclubs that 'you may be there to meet people'. But I think its different if your also the staff there (professionalism).

However, if you happen to be say a taxi driver who picks up a drunk girl, or man, and they're very drunk and you have sex with them, then it is rape - Because its a predatory action, you're stone cold so its reasonable for you to not believe you have consent.

Problem is, we as a society, promote the idea of consent as being a technicality to men, and that women are something to have sex with. Phrases like 'any holes a goal', 'they're all pink on the inside' etc promote this idea that provided you can get a yes, by any means, then your clear to go.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]