I don't agree with the idea of being too drunk to consent

I literally said in my post that it'd be disgusting to take advantage of a drunk person, I don't know how you think that I would do something like that. What you're describing is even worse though, I would absolutely deem that as rape. Forcibly making out with anyone, whether they're drunk or not, is sexual assault. And if they then forcibly have sex with them as well, then it's undoubtedly rape.

I did. There's nothing in your comment to counter anything I said though. If what I wrote was so wrong, then you should be able to give multiple reasons why. You're insulting me instead because that's the only possible response you can think of.

Actually yes. Legally all the responsibility would fall on the drunk person who got behind the wheel despite him being purposefully set up.

Well if someone forces you to do something, then it is entirely their fault, regardless of whether you're drunk or not. If someone forces you to have sex with them then it's rape, it doesn't matter whether you've been drinking or not.

However if someone merely takes advantage of the fact that you'd be more willing to have sex with them of your own free will when you're drunk, then it's not rape (assuming they didn't spike your drink, that you chose to get drunk). It's just very scummy. And someone pressuring you into having sex with them, regardless of whether you're drunk or not, again isn't rape, it's just very scummy. You're choosing to have sex with them in both of these scenarios, so it can't be called rape.

That's true, there is a double standard there alright. If the following morning, the guy regretted sleeping with the woman, then people would think he's a jerk. They'd say that he just used her and now he wants to be rid of her because she's not attractive enough.

Or if the man and woman are equally drunk that night, then the responsibility for calling it off always seems to fall on the man.

And I'd bet that most people would still be far more willing to believe that the woman was raped by the man, rather than the other way around, even if she was perfectly sober while he was barely functional.

I don't blame women for all these double standards though, I blame society in general. And I'm not trying to turn this into a 'men vs. women' debate, obviously there are plenty of double standards against women too, probably more than against men. But still things like this need to be talked about as well.

I don't know why people get involved in the first place. Usually low life wimps that think everybody wants to rape them.
I once briefly started crushing on this guy at work. He's gone now RIP. Anyway, as soon as he first put his hand on my private area, people saw. The next day all these little wimps were like, "oh, he did that to you and you didn't say anything to HR so I'm telling HR"
As If u gotta tell your employer every time you 2nd base with someone
I was like, "bitch, girl likes boy, they end up touching each other"

I've seen worse. I found out an aquintance of mine was a rapist just by the way he was talking. I was like, "ok man, I'm getting out of your house" as I try to make it to the front door, I'm trying to block him out and I'm like "no no no". HE WAS FOLLOWING ME THE WHOLE TIME! I ended up losing my defenses and end up "uh uh uh", what I didn't know was that he had the cops on the line and HE said that I raped him, me. We don't even talk like we're intimate. The cops fell for it because as soon as they mentioned sex I started laughing.. no shit.
Anyway, the cops ended up taking his side, and I know the only reason why they took his side is because he could manipulate people , I can't and I'm glad that I ain't like that.
But I don't care much because I know what's true

I agree with most of what you say, I'm not trying to defend taking advantage of drunk people, I just don't consider it rape (although it is really despicable).

That's true that someone who's just a little tipsy would be fully capable of making their own decisions, including the decision to have sex or drive. But if they drive while even a little tipsy, that is still enough for them to kill someone, and so they should be arrested alright.

However if you say that someone who's really drunk isn't capable of making the decision to have sex (and that therefore if someone has sex with them then they should be charged with rape), then the same should be true for any other decision, including driving.

If the person was completely drunk (rather than just a little tipsy), then that'd mean they were incapable of making the decision to drive in the first place. Therefore if they were caught drink driving, then arguably they shouldn't be arrested for it, because they couldn't have possibly consented to the act in that state. Of course this argument is ridiculous, they should be held responsible and face the consequences. But then why is the same not true for the decision to have sex with someone? It's a double-standard, and just such a glaring flaw that I've found in this argument about drinking and consent.

Well I chose that example because I wanted to show how the same excuse of being too drunk to consent could be used as an argument to get away with doing something really bad.

In your example, if you did have sex with that drunken person, even knowing that they may not remember or would regret it, then I still wouldn't regard that as rape. I'm not defending it though. It would still be disgusting alright, and it astounds me as well that many people would go through with this. But I still couldn't call it rape.

Well "No" means "No". It doesn't matter if they say it in a drunken stammer or not. Pretending you didn't hear it or not taking it seriously because it was barely comprehensible isn't good enough. It's still rape if the person still has sex with them after they said "No".

I think the key here is responsibility vs consent. You can't consent drunk. If drunk you decides drive you still get DUI. Pretending a drunk person can reasonably consent means you are a rapist. Also a lot of people think drunk person not fighting back is consent. This is a barely functional person I not sure how that equals consenting to rape.

"You can't make decisions when drunk". But with that logic, if I murder someone when drunk then I shouldn't be held accountable for my actions and so I should be let go.

No I don't think people should be allowed to drive drunk. That's a bad comparison though, nobody dies if a drunk person has very bad sex. But if someone makes the decision to drive drunk then I do think they should be prosecuted for it. They shouldn't be let go because they argue that they couldn't possibly have made an informed decision to drive. They're responsible for that drunken decision, same with someone who decides to have sex drunk.

When someone gets drunk, they decide to do so, fully knowing the risks of making stupid decisions when drunk. Children have no such choice, so that's not a good comparison either.