?? That a drunk man can rape a drunken women and be found guilty of rape because the drunken woman is deemed not to be able to give consent. Yet the drunk man can be convicted of rape even though he's not in his right mind? I'm assuming THAT must be what's being bandied. Ha!
I'm going to make an assumption that it would be very difficult for a woman to prove rape if they were both drunk. Sans witnesses, she's probably screwed. (Accident, I swear!) But that's not what this particular case is about, is it? She was unfreakin'conscious! And there were witnesses. There's no double standard here.
And do I assume, then, that you find it wrong to convict someone of murder if they were drunk? Or vehicular homicide if they were drunk behind the wheel? There's no double standard. If there is, please to explain it to me.