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.
your false equivalencies aside, the concept of passing laws which says "yes means yes" rather than "no means no" pushes the burden of proof onto the accused. if you are accused of robbing a store, you don't say "they shouldn't have left the door open with their cash register sitting out where everyone can see it", you establish your alibi and use that to show that it could not possibly have been you robbing that store. if a victim feels at any moment that they are not willing to participate in someone else's sexual advances, at that point any further action can and should be construed as rape unless the accused can prove that they had the full consent of the victim when it happened.
but if you want to go the pedantic route, i'm sure if you signed a contract while drunk there could be a case made that you did not fully give your consent to whatever you signed. tattoo artists are not legally allowed to put a tattoo on a drunk person, but that doesn't stop drunk people from getting tattoos. drunk people will still make terrible sexual decisions whatever the law says, but if they feel they were taken advantage of (i.e. raped) then it is on the accused to prove their innocence. trying to prove the accused is guilty is too high a bar and this is the reason these laws are starting to change to "yes means yes". it would be a much nicer world if people would just stop taking sexual advantage of each other, but from a legal standpoint, proving your own innocence is a much easier legal burden.
"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman
*NM*