Hypothetical Situation:

After meeting that night (having seen each other before in passing only) - Person A (under the influence of alcohol/a drug) goes home with Person B (influence unknown). It was likely silently understood/expected/? that Person A and Person B would copulate.

Person A becomes very anxious about the situation (maybe enhanced by the influence or maybe sobering up).

Person B notices and gives Person A a prescription/recreational drug (and took one too). Person B waited until Person A was calm and led to the copulation.

Person A woke up (sobered up?) five hours later with no recollection of events after the added drug began to kick in.

Person C suggests Person B took disadvantage of Person A with the “extra” drugging. Person A disagrees because they were aware when they agreed to take the extra pill.

Both parties are adamant about and have personal history that could explain their position.

Is Person A, Person C, neither or both's logic correct?