>>Doesn't this way of formulating the scenario assume your conclusion in
>>advance?  The issue that we're discussing is when is it a crime, or,
>>rather, when it should be a crime.  I'm not saying that voluntary
>>intoxication excuses someone else for committing a crime.  Rather, I'm
>>arguing that consent which occurs when one is voluntarily intoxicated
>>should be considered legally effective, and that therefore, if consent
>>is an element of the alleged crime, then no crime has occurred.

> I'll quibble just slightly here.  Suppose that Jane goes to a party,
> and voluntarily gets drunk to the point of impaired judgement.  Joe,
> who has been shot down repeatedly by Jane in the past, observes that
> this is his chance, and propositions her.  In her drunken state, she
> says, Sure, why not, and they get busy.

> I would argue that, in this scenario, a moral if not legal crime has
> occurred; but that crime is not rape.  Joe is, at the very least, an
> asshole; he's hoping that Jane will agree to something that he knows
> she would not consent to if sober.  He is not a rapist, because she
> did give knowing, albeit drunken, consent; his crime is substantially
> less serious than rape.  But he's still knowingly taking advantage of
> her; and I'd say that's a crime, at least morally.