Probably the person who raped the other person? Rapists aren't "too drunk to consent," too drunk to consent is also too drunk to rape...
Okay, if that's how you define, it I would agree with your position. It seems the law/accusations have a lower threshold of intoxication, but I would readily agree that if we're talking people that far gone than if both people are in that state nothing's happening anyway, aside maybe a pool of vomit or so.
Having enough evidence to prove it in a court of law is a different matter.
This is the worst thing about it as an environment IMO. I'd estimate most accusations are not fabricated, but since some are it lets a lot of criminal behavior go free because the nature of the crime is such that there normally wouldn't be witnesses, least of all sober/reliable ones.
Why make a general and unrelated point that drinking lots of alcohol is bad in a thread about rape? What does the fact that drinking a lot is stupid have to do with the responsibility that rapists have for committing rape?
I got partially tangential from MB's comment, because thinking about the "intoxication" aspect of a rape claim caused me to recall some things, both stuff I saw go on in college parties and one hearsay story from high school.
These are the ones where you have legitimate doubts, not situations where the victim is either unconscious or so sluggish/not with it that they aren't expressing much of anything effectively. The latter are pretty obvious assault/rape cases and should have trivial convictions if you have witnesses/evidence.
The analogy is perfect because when you say "oh well it was stupid of that mugging victim to go into that bad neighborhood" when someone wants to talk about the problem of muggings it has an obvious implication.
As Flying Pig points out, people are typically mugged in a place they think of as safe. I doubt many rational people will tell you that they believe drinking enough alcohol to black out is safe (regardless of location!), so we already have significantly different standards applying from "go". These are not "perfect" analogies of each other. It's more like a mugging victim walking up to greet someone they see has a gun out from 100+ yards away. Going into the neighborhood might be reasonable, the latter not so much.
The gunman is still a criminal if they mug/shoot the person. The person still made a poor choice to approach someone brandishing a weapon. I hold that removing bias from sentencing is a better solution than dancing around the issue of choices. I see no reason to believe a judge is superior to other human beings to the extent of consistently avoiding bias in sentencing, which carries a direct implication of injustice applicable to the end of Flying Pig's paragraph. Insofar as we can determine an optimal sentence, it should be consistent to the crime.
The choice (and it is a choice!) to drink sufficient quantities of alcohol to black out is *strictly* poor. That's a sensible "no go zone", similar to stabbing yourself in the forearm is a sensible no go zone, and should not be compared to simply entering a neighborhood!
The obvious implication is that criminals exist. While it would be great if they are caught/punished and even greater if they didn't exist, they do. Rational people shouldn't live in fear, but nor should they knowingly engage in behavior that is risky and damaging in a consistent fashion...even if there is no criminal activity at all, people still die from that choice. Not at high odds, but at much higher odds than if they don't.
. But if I'm wrong in creating this analogy you'll need to present more evidence than how you feel about it to be convincing. This isn't a "no go zone" type issue, this is a "don't toss excessive quantities of a (usually temporarily) debilitating drug into your body" issue, and that makes it different than flying pig's example with mugging and closer to intentionally exposing oneself to risk.
