Two bills dealing with Rape are no-brainers

And if they are buried in committee we won't just acquiesce:

North Carolina is the only state in the country where continuing a sex act after being told to stop is not a crime due to a decades-old legal precedent. And while the law says sex with an incapacitated person is rape, a court precedent more than a decade old says the law doesn’t apply if the victim caused his or her own incapacitation through drinking or drug use.

The two bills that would change the pair of legal precedents have so far not had a formal committee hearing, but that could change after the legislature’s spring break.

Probably not the time or place to have this particular discussion, but we're going to have it anyway: Sexual intercourse is (of course) the most intimate stage of a relationship, but it's also extremely hormonal in nature. People react differently under that physiological change, and not always for the better. This provides new information to each of the individuals taking part, and what seemed like a great idea fifteen minutes ago can become repulsive fairly quickly. A good analogy might be: You want to cross the road, and the only car you see is a half-mile away. But as you step out, you realize that car is going faster than you thought, so you decide to wait. Should you be forced to cross anyway, because you initially thought it was safe? Of course not, because you have the freedom to change your mind. And so should women who have previously given consent for sex. And as for the drug and/or alcohol situation:

House Bill 393, with 64 sponsors, would, among other things, make rape of an incapacitated person a crime, even if the incapacitated person drank or used drugs.

A 2008 legal precedent interprets language in that law to mean raping someone who is mentally incapacitated is illegal only when victims didn’t voluntarily cause their own incapacitation by drinking or drug use.

I believe the precedent referenced is State v. Haddock, where the CoA merely ordered the rapist be given another trial (it did not exonerate him), but that's really beside the point. Nobody could seriously argue that a woman who orders too many drinks is also granting consent for sex. That's a leap that Evil Knievel wouldn't even contemplate, with a rocket-powered motorcycle.