So I suppose if someone mugs you when you're passed out drunk, and he's caught on camera, the state shouldn't prosecute the mugger? This equivalency is nonsense.
Anyway, I think few would agree that some degree of alcohol drinking isn't enough to remove a persons ability to consent to sex. Otherwise, we'd ban most sex.
Interesting.....now what say our learned Atty. at law....
is this the way it is.....alcohol drinking isn't enough to remove a persons ability to consent to sex....?
although I don't get the mugging example.....you're passed out, you don't consent to being mugged....no body passed out ever consents to anything...whats your point ?
Last edited: