See the recent Steubenville rape case where a significant portion of people were arguing against it being rape, despite the lack of consent and her being too drunk to respond to anything.

Whether it was "rape" or not is a matter of definitions. The more interesting question is whether what they did was wrong, and there it's very hard to make a utilitarian case for it being so. This blog comment by Jessica Boxer discusses the issue. Relevant part:

However, here is a question I have been struggling with from a moral point of view. Recently two football players in Steubenville, OH have been convicted of rape. It was a huge story here, there is a big piece on it in wikipedia.

There is some dispute of the facts, but the most commonly believed story is that the girl got really drunk, and was partying with the boys who were also super drunk. She passed out, and the boys digitally penetrated her vagina, and slapped their dicks on her thigh. The next morning she woke up naked, not remembering what had happened, and continued in that ignorant bliss for a couple of days. However, the events had been captured in social media and she soon found out. After she found out, she complained, and the boys were charged, and ultimately convicted.

I am baffled by the morality of this case. The harm caused to her was the embarrassment from being told what happened. No actual physical harm came to her directly, she wasn’t even aware of the harm. Especially so with the specific nature of their actions, with fingers only. But clearly the boys acted very badly. Honestly, I am a little confounded on the morality of this case. You read the comments on news sites and people want to string these boys up by their necks. But to me they acted badly, but it was just a bunch of drunken revelry, especially since the girl’s actions earlier in the evening indicated that she would welcome their advances, and the fact that there is some question as to whether she was in fact conscious and at least a little participatory in the action.