If you're so freaking drunk you can't even remember what you said, it's not consent. Period.

Yes means yes. Alcohol is never an excuse as you decided how much to drink.

Nice victim-blaming, pal. However, what you said is simply not true: at least in my country an inebriated person can not legally give consent.

You have to be of sound mind, according of the law, to be responsible for all sorts of things.

Just to make sure that I understand correctly here, in your scenario an adult woman willingly and of her own volition went to a public forum, drank until "black out" inebriation and is therefore a victim? At what point was her agency compromised by external forces and she forced against her will to drink until becoming a victim?

If two consenting adults, both under the influence of alcohol commit some form of sexual act, why is only one party a victim in your estimation? Is it purely based on regret? If Avellone had regretted hooking up with her, and she didn't, would he have been in his rights to #MeToo her? Have we advanced in victim culture to such a degree that it's now a race to whomever can claim victimhood first, or is it still gendered? Would his claim have carried no water because he's a he?

The "drank until black out" wasn't coerced in your example, but she is in no position to consent after getting smashed like that. Getting drunk isn't a problem (well, it is, but not for what we're discussing), but you can`t and shouldn't offer someone very drunk to have sex. Because they can't consent. Simple as that.

If you accord with someone to have sex AND THEN both of you got drunk ("blinds as rats", we say in Spain), there's not problem here. No regrets anywhere. But that's not what happened with Avellone at all. In fact, he incited the woman to drink more, and THEN tried to make his advances. This is simply not acceptable, I don't understand what is hard to understand for all of you. You don't get someone drunk so they accept your offers.

If she has no ability to consent then it is rape (depending on what exactly happened). Yes. Exactly. No question.

-edit- maybe this helps: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent

An interesting video has been released about this recently:

https://www.reddit.com/r/vtmb/comments/ioxl3n/an_indepth_exoneration_of_chris_avellone/

She was drinking and had no ability to consent, okay. Now, he was also drinking, how come his right to consent isn't likewise violated? Every time the same hypocritical nonsense. If two intoxicated people have sex, who was raped? Whoever is higher on the social justice victim index. Let's hope Chris doesn't come out as LGBT because that index score trumps western CIS white woman and she'll have retroactively raped him.

From the reports I've read, he was the active party. The one initiating, the one in the driver seat. I have heard nothing to suggest that she was attempting to get him to comply with intimacy. Or don't I understand what you're getting at, here. It seems like such a simple answer that I'm not sure I get it. If I don't get it then I apologize and please explain it in tinier words so I can figure it out.

I'm trying to get you to see past your sexist bias in the situation. As we've established, being drunk alleviates anyone of any level of personal responsibility. Whoever was the initiator is immaterial, since they were drunk they had no ability to consent. Imagine the reverse. If a drunk girl approached a guy, would you make the same argument that as the initiator the onus of responsibility was entirely on her? No. Inebriation = absolution of personal responsibility.

Unless, of course, your point is that a drunk man can still give consent and is responsible for his actions but a drunk girl cannot.

From what I have learned in this video, it's not at all about consent. To me the weird thing is that this girl found everything fine at the time and also for years after, as visible in her own twitter postings. Only when Avellone broke up with her friend she decided to retcon the whole thing to get him cancelled. And all her girl friends went right with it...

If you are too drunk to know right from wrong and you decide to rob a bank, you do *not* get a pass. True if you are male or if you are female. If the infraction is molestation or rape it is still true, whether the initiator is male or female (though it is a lot rarer when a female does it - true for robbing banks, as well).

So, she made out with Avellone who was drunk. I assume you support her getting MeToo'd and losing her job since he was incapable of consent?

I'm starting to detect a theme here. Have fun.