Calling for changes to law on the basis of outrage or other strong emotions is unwise. Says the author:

"We also need to develop a legal, medical and social consensus around the line for capacity to consent. Men have been acquitted in cases where complainants have been staggering, slurring, even vomiting."

In effect the author is calling for a legal intoxication limit for consenting to sex, akin to the limit we put on driving a vehicle. It's an irrational solution- the kind that are often proposed on the basis of outrage- that ignores the real harm this new regime would bring.

People who break the law by engaging in non-consensual sex are already punished. Now the author wants to punish men- specifically- when they cross some arbitrary moral line. Slurred speech? That can occur between 0.07 and 0.09 BAC. Staggering can occur between 0.10 and 0.125 BAC. That's just one to two drinks. Yet the author suggests that consent is invalid at that point.