Why is having sex with a drunk woman considered rape?

Anecdotes are fun too

 

Zsa Zsa sez "There are no ugly rich mem."

 

So he was deemed incompetent by a judge and appointed a guardian? And, he can't be held responsible for other actions, such as driving either?

 

And if they're both drunk and can't give consent, they've raped each other?

You would want to criminalize heavily intoxicated sexual relations?

 

I believe that there is credible evidence and there is no hard evidence which is impossible to get. Weinstein is another example of
credible and not hard evidence.

 

Is that an answer? Weinstein innocent too? No hard evidence, but credible evidence.

 

Anecdotes have zero predictive probability in regards to Trump

 

Credible evidence is not evidence which is necessarily true, but is evidence worthy of belief, that is, worthy to be considered by the jury. It is often natural, reasonable and probable as to make it easy to believe.

 

Those cases have nothing to do with Trump and thus have zero predictive ability

 

That's virtually the absurdity we're on the verge off.

 

Possibly, we've already had some cases against him thrown out.

 

I shattered your argument and all you are left with is ad hoc. My point was not in support of sex with children, but to illustrate how idiotic your argument was. So break it down for me. Why specifically, without resorting to the ick factor, is sex with children wrong? Once you have answered that then you will have answered why sex with an intoxicated person is wrong.

 

Suppose she says she was .23 and you say she was .03.
And neither of you have a breathalizer.

 

Seriously? You've demonstrated that you are not that stupid. Sex with children is wrong why? Because they cannot provide informed consent. Nor can an intoxicated person. Thus if one is going to claim that intoxicated consent is valid, by extension so would be child consent, and the need for consent to be informed consent means nothing.

 

The rub is that we are holding men to a different standard the women. And yes that is the point of saying that a person who is intoxicated cannot provide consent. If they are not within their normal senses, then it is not informed consent, any more so than a child or mentally handicapped person

My point is that the evidence needed to bring to trial is not as strict as that to convict. If you have sufficient evidence you can arrest and charge. But the greater emphasis is now on the evidence to PROVE guilt. Proof of guilt is not required to bring to trial.

 

Informed consent, like for a medical procedure?

 

A prosecutor will not try the case if it is just, he said/she said.

 

Or a contract, or many other things under the law that required informed consent.

 

Granted, but that still doesn't mean that the evidence for taking a case to trial will be as strict as that to convince. All you have shown is that there is a point of too little evidence.

 

You need some kind of evidence.

 

Consent

 

Very true, and nothing I have said goes against that point. The only thing I have said is that the level of evidence to take to trial is not as strict and high as that required to convict. There is nothing in that statentst that denies a level of evidence too low to take to trial. It's not an all or nothing deal.

 

Sometimes they will.
There's nothing in the law that says they can't.

(And if you don't believe me, you might read this long story here)

 

They are not going to waste the courts time trying a case unless they think they can win.