Have you ever had sex after consuming alcohol (any amount)? If so, then you're a rapist – or rape victim, depending on your sex.

Coastal Carolina University, in South Carolina, is continuing its apparent quest to become the biggest panderer to the extreme wing of the campus sexual assault crusaders with a new poster claiming that only sober people can consent to sex.

Nearly a decade ago, the same university hung up posters around campus claiming that women could not consent if they had been drinking, heavily implying that men could. That poster was discovered after an old coworker of mine sent me a photo of it on Twitter.

The poster claims that while Jake and Josie were both drunk, only Josie was unable to consent, making Jake an automatic rapist. "A woman who is intoxicated cannot give her legal consent for sex, so proceeding under these circumstances is a crime," the poster read.

Forget the fact that an "intoxicated" man should also be unable to consent, this poster implies that women are weak, unable to handle themselves when drinking and therefore need additional protections. By this same logic, a woman who is caught driving while drunk should be innocent because hey, she's a woman, she shouldn't be responsible for the things she does after drinking alcohol.

Now, obviously, a man taking advantage of a woman because she is drunk is reprehensible, but there is most certainly a line between tipsy, drunk, intoxicated and incapacitated. Most colleges and universities now have adopted the "incapacitated" standard for being unable to consent, although in practice it doesn't matter how much alcohol an accuser has had, all she has to do is say she had too much without offering proof.

But CCU has since "changed" its stance on whether women can consent while drunk. Now no one can consent after drinking alcohol, only stone-cold sober people can have sex. Everything else is rape. That's according to the school's new poster, currently being distributed on campus.

The new poster, provided by the university to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), states that consent must be "enthusiastic," "sober," "mutual," "voluntary" and "communicated clearly before any sexual activity."

As FIRE's Colin Crossman notes, "no one argues with the notion that consent is required for sex," but the CCU poster creates more problems than it solves.

For example, how is "enthusiastic" defined? Does the person have to joyfully scream "yes" with a smile on her face to be sufficiently enthusiastic? Or is a simple, audible "yes" sufficient? This would seem to indicate that the accuser gets to decide the level of enthusiasm, after the fact, whenever she decides to bring forth an accusation.

As for "sober," this would seem to indicate that any alcohol in the bloodstream would negate consent. Do students need to start carrying breathalyzers? The first question for any sexual encounter would always have to be: Have you had any alcohol? If yes, stop, put your hands up and get as far away from that person as possible, because anything done at that point is rape.

This is, of course, absurd, as drunk sex is not illegal. Sex with someone who does not consent is illegal, but people – yes, women too – are perfectly capable of consenting after consuming a little or even a lot of alcohol. The notion otherwise is infantilizing.

"Mutual" and "voluntary" are acceptable. No one argues that consent can be one-sided or coerced.

But then the poster takes a turn back by saying "communicated clearly before any sexual activity." What does "communicated clearly" mean, exactly? Do no-verbal gestures work? Probably not, since even an intense kiss or heavy petting can later be determined ambiguous. And before any sexual activity? This falls in line with the extreme "yes means yes" policies which turn sex into a contractual question-and-answer session rather than a passionate encounter.

"May I hold your hand?" "May I kiss you?" "May I touch you here?" and so forth become the new foreplay, each requiring a "yes" and counter question to proceed. No one has sex this way, making these policies a rather intrusive form of government regulation.

"Unlike what CCU or anyone else says, drunk sex is not unlawful – incapacitated sex is. Conflating intoxication with incapacitation is inaccurate and misleading, and it undermines legitimate efforts to stop rape," Crossman wrote. "The use of vague standards, as presented in the new poster, is the consequence of the current moral panic gripping our college campuses."

In it's attempt to become up-to-date on consent, CCU has gone above and beyond what even the most stringent sex regulators are demanding. I'm interested in what its next poster will say.