General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Wall Street Journal thinks that rape is not a crime or that women are criminals for being raped. [View all]tableturner
(1,702 posts).....I remember reading and hearing countless times that "if someone is drunk, they lack the capacity to give informed consent". Over and over again I have heard and read that explanation and standard, or something very similar, as being the law. In other words, the incapacity is caused by being drunk, and a person need not be passed out and completely incapacitated to have been sexually assaulted.
So I think that you are factually wrong about the law. Drunk is the standard. How drunk? Even you do not know (and I think that you do not even know the law, much less be able to interpret it), nor can anybody else. But I am fairly sure that drunk is the standard, and if so, then someone who thought what you stated (the standard being "incapacitated - not drunk" , and had sex with a person who was drunk, but not fully incapacitated, would be breaking the law.
This points out how difficult it CAN BE to know for sure. CAN BE, i.e., meaning not always, but sometimes, so don't castigate me by interpreting what I write as being totally clueless. There are aspects of the law in certain circumstances that can be difficult to interpret.
Instead of attacks masquerading as ambiguous answers, why not answer the questions I asked in post #'s 31, 62, and 65?
Edit history
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)