Given the talk of women facing double standards, it seemed only fair to consider what would happen if you applied the legal standards governing male sexual conduct to women. The Don't Be That Guy posters popping up in various Canadian communities lately are pretty much all focused on a single scenario: men having sex with someone intoxicated. (I think I've seen another similar same-sex example again with a male perpetrator but it's not on that site). Given that both men and women are capable of consuming intoxicants, what happens if you flip the situation around and ask just how likely women are to initiate sex with intoxicated men? Meet Variations in College Women's Self-Reported Heterosexual Aggression which notes:

... the question concerning initiating sexual contact while a man was under the influence of alcohol or drugs (question 20) was not used in defining sexual "aggression," despite the fact that women from both samples engaged in this behavior frequently (East = 52.4%, South = 33.1%).

Does this mean that between a third and just over half of (college) women should be locked up for sexual assault of the exact sort described by these posters?

There's another thing to account for:

In cases involving intoxication, it is likely that both parties were under the influence. In the data set from the South, 30.7% of the women who answered yes to question 20 also stated that they were intoxicated with alcohol or other drugs at the time.

In the common scenario where both involved are intoxicated do you wind up with a situation akin to Schrodinger's Cat - famous for being simultaneously dead and alive - wherein both involved are simultaneously completely guilty and totally innocent? (Should they be simultaneously jailed and awarded victim compensation?)