This is an absurd overextension of the word rape. Even if you were completely right that the young guy wouldn't have taken that decision sober and that he regretted it the next day (which you are just assuming based on 0 knowledge), as long as she didn't coerce him into getting drunk, he was of legal age, and he wasn't blackout-levels of drunk, it's absurd to call this rape.

Drunk but conscious people are very much able to consent. One of the main reasons people engoy being drunk in night clubs is the kind of reduced inhibitions that lead to talking to and having sex with people outside your regular dating choices.

Legally, you are wrong, at least per the last place I lived in the US.

"If the alleged victim is intoxicated, drugged, comatose, or disabled and the offender know or reasonably should have known of the condition, he or she is not considered to be able to consent."

source: https://cantorsexlawyers.com/sexual-assault

In practice, a lot of this depends on prosecutor discretion. I believe the same is also true in California: https://properdefenselaw.com/drunk-sex-rape-in-california-ca...

Of course, it could be that these places have themselves absurdly overextended the word rape.

Now try reading the post you replied to but with swapped genders. Would your reply be the same?

Obviously yes? How can it not be the same?

Yes, absolutely. If a woman is getting drunk in a club and she goes home with some older dude that looks hot in the alcohol fumes and has sex that later she regrets, she did not get raped. Is that controversial in any way?

You were right maybe 20 years ago. But now many judicial precedents t say otherwise!

> Drunk but conscious people are very much able to consent

"Conscious" is highly individual state. I would strongly recommend you to look up current situation, it may prevent a very nasty situation, where judge has a different opinion!

Most guys I know take god knows what drugs, mixed with vodka and Redbull... Far from shining beacon of "consciousness". But they are still able to walk and talk, and somehow get home...

> But now many judicial precedents t say otherwise!

Please provide links to precedents supporting this claim of yours:

> People who drink alcohol can not give a consent!

California Penal Code section 261 (a)(3)

> If a person is prevented from resisting by an intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or a controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused.

Look up statutory rape, duress... If you want some actual cases, search at relevant forums. I am really not going to give legal advice here.

You said this:

> People who drink alcohol can not give a consent!

Your quote quote clearly does not say people who drink alcohol cannot give consent. In fact, it says:

> If a person is prevented from resisting by an intoxicating…

Do you not understand that that is not the same thing? You made the claim that someone drinking one beer cannot give consent. Nowhere does your quote support that claim.

This is how statutory rape works. Consent is invalidated by a law!

If person are intoxicated, they are prevented from resisting. So even if they give a verbal consent, this consent is invalidated by section 261 (a)(3), because they were prevented from resisting.

You ignored my post. Drinking a beer does not prevent one from resisting. Frankly you don’t seem to be understanding the statue you posted.

Your position is ludicrous. It would imply that a married couple in California can’t have sex without it being rape if one (or both?) drink a single glass of wine with dinner. Think over the argument you’re making.

Perhaps that is true in some places in the USA. I am quite confident it is nowhere close to true in most of the world.

Wow, how dehumanizing for older people. You seem to take offense only to the fact that this person is 55 years old? I don't see anyone calling it "rape" when the rest of the population is engaging in drunken sex at nightclubs.