If a girl or boy is at a party and is so drunk that they can't walk or talk, then no one has a right to try and have sex with them. Thatâ??s what this law is for. Itâ??s for those revolting people who wait until someone is so drunk that they are blanking out and falling over before they try to get that person alone to have sex. You all have to agree that's wrong.It's not the person's fault for drinking, and it's most likely they don't realize how bad off they are..we don't plan on getting trashed at a place that puts us in a bad situation.

If the person has barely had anything to drink and is capable to talk and consent, then even if they try and charge you, it's a long process that the person has to prove they weren't able to consent. Rape is crime where it's the victim's job to prove their case. So donâ??t be thinking lots of women are going to be able to take advantage of this law for regretting sex. Yes, some people will try and use this law because of regret. But, then all they have is their word, not evidence...so it's highly unlikely a person will be wrongly convicted.

Have compassion, and think this through before you post hurtful comments. If someone is raped while they are drunk, they have a lot of guilt and shame already..so stop saying it's their fault for getting drunk in the first place. There is a *very* small percentage of people who lie about rape and take it to court.

People can be so ignorant.

I agree with 'just me' government should not even be involved in these types of situations. It is a form of tyranny and is exactly what the founding fathers would be against. They were against an overly invasive government. These types of laws are overly invasive and chip away at the legitimacy of the government. This madness must end.

P.S.--'just me' great observations.

Well I am a woman, and this is the safest choice on her part. It isn't so much that she deserves it, but that it is a good choice to not place yourself in a situation where you can't have an easy route for escape. Getting plastered to the point that you can't say "no" or say "yes" without thinking through isn't a wise choice. I don't think the guy who has sex with a woman in this circumstance is acting criminally in most cases.

I think this kind of law actually gives the woman way too much power-especially in a next day regret situation.

From the perspective of a guy, itâ??s simple; if a woman is drunk, even if she seems â??willingâ?? to do the deed, just donâ??t do it. Simple.

Great advice and I agree with it, but what if the guy is drunk too, which more often than not is the situation. Is he more or less criminally cupable? Since the intoxication absolves the woman of her part in the situation, does it also absolve him?

Like I said, this law I think seeks to criminalize stupidity on the part of people who got to drunk to think things through. Maybe we should just let people learn from their own stupidty, rather than criminalizing one of the parties and absolving the other.

I agree with the essence of the law. Alcohol, in so many cases, unfortunately functions as a drug to aid in rape. The problem I am a bit concerned about (and I haven't read the bill yet, just the news stories) is how broadly "intoxication" is defined, as it would be very bad to assume that a drink or two would be universally incapacitating. Also, the law would, of course, need to be applied evenly in regards to the sexes.

Nonetheless, we as a people need to get away from the notion that people who get drunk deserve to be taken advantage of sexually. Particularly, why is there an assumption that it's the woman's job to avoid rape by not getting drunk? From the perspective of a guy, it's simple; if a woman is drunk, even if she seems "willing" to do the deed, just don't do it. Simple.

I am betting the feminists were pushing this idiotic law.

If a woman gets so drunk she is unable to consent, then I think her poor choice was in the choice to drink to the point she couldn't control herself-no real excuse for the man, but I really don't think this is criminal, it is just stupidity on the part of the participants, and stupidity isn't always criminal.