and that should be the end of it, but people like your author think it's their right to force themselves on someone who can't otherwise make rational decisions, or would make different decisions if they weren't so fucked up they could barely stand still. it's about respecting boundaries, and not just taking what you think is yours because "she was asking for it". if you're so desperate to get laid that you literally can't stop yourself, you should probably not be allowed out in public anyway.
The problem why "she was asking for it" is a phrase with such negative connotations, is that it is used to claim intent in direct contradiction to the literal meaning of the phrase, when the person in question was not actually asking for it.
When a person is LITERAL asking for it, that's consent. Don't want to give consent you regret? Don't get drunk! Are restaurants, stores or credit card companies forced to refund purchases you made while drunk? If you commit a crime while drunk, are you allowed to evade the consequences? Obviously not, as per this very sort of situation. If you perform a foolish action and are injured, do you get magically healed, or are you permitted to skip the doctor's fee?
This article is obviously not talking about people who take advantage of a person too inebriated to resist unwanted advances, which is also the sort of case Sauders et al are using as a cover to prosecute a much larger array of behavior, it is talking about a person who GIVES consent , only to have her partner punished after the fact because that permission is arbitrarily invalidated.
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
*NM*