No. Not being capable of making an informed decision is not the same as not being capable of doing something that is ethically wrong. They aren't the same thing at all.
Add another dimension to the story and it becomes less cloudy for people.
The manor woman are drunk...have never explicitly said they want sex...the woman isn't on birth control and no condom is used. The man or woman is not capable of making an informed decision yet the other party initiates unprotected sex with the other person. That is not only illegal but ethically reprehensible. You are risking the transmission of deadly disease and a possible pregnancy. Be it the man or woman who initiates unprotected sex without clear consent is committing rape, endangering the other person and in the womacs case violating her bodily autonomy or the mans right to choose transmission of sperm or not.
Add a condom and birth control...its still morally wrong.
Think of it another way. A person is so drunk they cannot stop someone from piercing their ears, cutting their hair or ripping off their clothes or stuffing peanuts in their mouth. The person who did it said I was drunk and really believed she didn't mind. Is the woman partly responsible for having a hole punched through her ear, her clothes ripped or hair cut off? No. She's too drunk to stop it.Is the drunk person responsible for subjecting this woman to bodily abuse? Yes even if they are drunk. However the abuse is usually considered minor and many would laugh it on. Shoving your penis in a vagina is not minor abuse.
But what if the person is not so drunk that they cannot stop someone from "piercing their ears, cutting their hair or ripping off their clothes or stuffing peanuts in their mouth." What if they they are only somewhat drunk and asked for any of those things to be done? There is certainly a case to be made that when one's judgement is significantly impaired that those around them should not give in to one's demands, but what if they are only slightly impaired? Does that make any difference?
In the extremes of intoxication issue of moral and legal clarity are quite compelling and would indeed be rape no matter what the sex of the raper or the raped.....
The question I find most difficult would be when one is impaired but not frankly intoxicated. This would happen with any alcohol at all and would be a spectrum from sober as a judge, to first sip, all the way to passed out.
At what point do you consider the person unable to give consent due to pharmacologic impairment?
In other areas of the law as soon as the drink crossed your lips you are considered unable to give consent due to impairment (ie elective surgery)
How about that Alexander Pope, ha, ha?
Other commenters seem to of missed the point, imo, of this discussion. We're talking about a man and a drunk woman having sex which would otherwise be consensual except the woman is drunk. Not passed out, but heavily intoxicated. This is considered rape because the woman is unable to give informed consent due to intoxication despite her otherwise signalling her consent, both verbally and non verbally.
Now imagine that both parties are similarly intoxicated. Neither are able to provide consent, despite verbal and non verbal signalling of consent, due to their intoxication. If they have sex, is it still rape? If so, who raped who? How can you tell?
Personally, I don't think the former is rape, so that negates the second question entirely. If you're not able to live with the consequences of your choices when intoxicated to that degree then don't get intoxicated to that degree. Alcohol and drugs are a privilege to be enjoyed responsibly, not a right. As Davis has said: if you commit a crime while intoxicated, you are still held responsible, so why wouldn't that apply to other decisions/actions.
From a moral perspective, mine in this case, it depends upon the relationship if there is one, etc...and if it is reasonable for them to have sex while drunk in that scenario.
IE: A lot of people have sex while drunk...and, even when sober.
If you have sex every Saturday, after pounding down 2 six packs, then, the man knows that's the routine, and, that the partner is not going to have an issue with it; The consent is implied.
If while sober, consent is given, that too is fair,
Basically, if one party does not know the how the other party feels about it, that's a no go.
If its reasonable to believe they'd be fine with it...that's fine...and, one should be sure that "reasonable" is going to fly to THEM, later, too.
Now, drunk is not the same as unconscious. Being drunk DOES lower lots of people's inhibitions, and, DOES increase the odds of them wanting "to do it" in many cases.
Some girls pretty much got drunk so they COULD do it, etc.
I have partied hard enough in my youth to remember some choices, and, I NEVER took advantage of a girl that I thought would have objected if she were less inebriated, etc...and there were a LOT of times it would have been SO easy...but, it just seemed WRONG.
I have ALSO not taken advantage of "revenge sex/rebound sex", etc, and other scenarios that have popped up...even though I knew they actually WANTED to do it. It was STILL wrong, to me at least.
IE: The girls wants to eff bad, and, its mostly because her BF dumped her or something, and I was the chosen receptacle of her revenge lust, etc...and I'm the guy saying "Are you sure you want to do this? Bill will probably realize he was an idiot, and, be asking you to come back soon, and THIS will make it harder for you later...." and so forth.
So, I have made girls angry at me for NOT taking advantage of drunken lust, revenge lust, rebound lust, etc....because even if I REALLY wanted to, I KNEW it was a mistake for THEM.
Of course, I'm a smokin hot well endowed genius Adonis type, and, especially when younger, I was a magnet for sex, and, had I looked more like Louie from Taxie, etc, I might not have developed the same standards for consent, etc; I have no way of knowing.
I do remember FEELING that some things were right, or wrong, and consciously CHOOSING to do what at least seemed at the time, to be the right thing.
I did not want to act like most of the father figures in my life, they were negative examples. I wanted to feel good about myself and my choices.
So, yes, there WERE bad choices, as teens and kids are not known for their wisdom per se...but, I TRIED to learn from them.
BEFORE I was done BEING a kid, I decided to live my life as IF "my children" would find out about everything I ever did...so I would never do anything that I'd later be ashamed of or have to apologize for.
It is STILL my personal philosophy, and, over the decades, luckily, I DID get increasingly better at living up to it.
And, if applied to potential opportunities for sex with drunk people, it actually works reasonably well as a rule of thumb.
We seem to end up on tangents, especially that of trying to turn a purely philosophical question into a legal one. The law can be wrong. The law, which seems to hold males as inherently more responsible than females may not have an ethical leg to stand on.
If two people are equally inebriated, to the point where either can't be called capable of exercising clearheaded judgment, and the female consents, how can we say that one is more responsible for the sex than the other?
No. Its not legalizing a philosophical question...something can be morally wrong and also illegal (as us the case with this question).
If someone harms a person and you are both drunk...that person who harmed you is more responsible...in every scenario be it spending a fortune, playing Russian roulette or any other. Whether he talks you into playing a knife game where you loose your finger, whether she talks you in to playing lawn darts even though you can barely speak and she takes your eyes out or whether he asks if you wanna drink 3 bottles of champagne that cost 500 euros each, you mumble no clear response...he drinks it...he hands you one glass from each bottle ad you lift your head off the table to take one sip as your friend insists...and when the bill comes he takes 750 euros from your wallet and pays the other half. These scenarios as well as rape or drunk driving or others...there is a disparity in responsibility (morally AND legally). One is more responsible. The laws are dead-on in this topic and sex (rape) is not different from losing a finger or paying half that champagne bill (almost always its much worse). One is more responsible.
Yes, but is accepting drunken consent "harm"?
Let's assume that the female isn't totally naive (can anyone be THAT naive?) and doesn't understand the effects of alcohol. Since she isn't totally naive, she accepts that she may ake stupid choices while drunk. No responsibility at all there? I find that baffling!
The point ------------------------------------------>
Still missing the point...
Yes...of course it is harm. If it was yoyr daughter or wife who woke up next to a guy she never would have slept with if the was capabke of makig that decision...it would be harmful. If you woke up with the taste of your friends penis in your mouth (something you never would have done if you werent drunk) there is harm. If yor daughter or wife got pregnant because of it? What if you woke up with a sexually repulsive woman you hated with her arms around you ad a used condom on your dick (you didnt initiate it or never would have let it happen if you werent drunk). And it turns out sheis pregnant? Or is your boss? Or your student? Or an enemy?
You dont see the harm because you probably havent experienced pedatory sexual behaviour and you're probably think if sex happens then its a fun thing for both parties (regardless of the horrid consequences).
So you're still talking about two people not equally intoxicated, You insist on avoiding my hypothetical by creating your own hypothetical. We can discuss your hypothetical elsewhere if you like. Let's stick with mine.
BTW, you have a career ahead of you writing erotica, assuming you're not doing it already. LOL