The post was about a man being cleared of rape due to a medical condition called "sexsomnia", in which he engaged in sexual acts while asleep, similar to sleepwalking. It's a real condition and he was clinically diagnosed with it.

A commenter chimed in with the following:

"I can accept that it’s a real thing. But if I’m diagnosed with a real seizure disorder and I know that I have seizures but choose to drive a car anyway, I’m responsible for the deaths I cause when I black out behind the wheel. I can’t speak to Australian law, but in the US people have been convicted of murder for driving with a known disqualifying medical condition and subsequently killing somebody.

If you have a disorder that makes you dangerous while you sleep, you are now responsible for making sure you sleep alone. Fail in that, the consequences should be on you."

In which I responded:

"Okay, so let’s take your logic and apply it to something else. If a woman gets blackout drunk, decides to drive and kills somebody, she is accountable for her actions, right? She chose to drive, and no amount of alcohol can take that accountability away from her.

So then if a woman gets black out drunk and sleeps with a man, she should still be held accountable for her actions, no? What’s the difference here? I don’t know how one can be true and not the other. With your logic, claiming to be too drunk to consent isn’t a valid defense since in any other scenario there’s no such thing as being too drunk for accountability.

Again, just using your logic here, SHE would be responsible for putting herself in that scenario in the first place, like you are arguing should be the case for this man."

My comment was immediately removed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a fair comparison, no?