A question I've been mulling over for a bit, and thought I'd share for discussion.

It's often said that a person who is drunk and commits a crime is still held accountable for his/her action, therefore consent under the influence is still valid. For the most part I accepted this argument, but it's fishy because there is obviously some point at which consent cannot be given. If someone is unconscious, obviously s/he cannot consent. What about blackout drunk? In-need-of-a-hospital drunk? Can't stand straight drunk?

Consent to sex amounts to an unwritten contract. Generally, contracts are invalid if it's proved that on or more parties involved are mentally incapacitated, or coerced into the agreement. Having sex with a drunk person, with full knowledge of his/her drunkenness, would therefore be wrong for the same reasons it's wrong to have sex with a minor – the other party cannot enter the contract.

This leaves a few questions: What level of intoxication is sufficient to invalidate consent? Should it be considered rape only if one party is aware of the other's incapacitation? How does, this stand if both are drunk?

(This probably belongs in a law subreddit, but I want to hear MRA opinions. If it garners enough interest here, I'll cross-post.)