1. In this case, I already conceded that this is true. That is not the case everywhere.
2. This point reads, "this is the only thing that could happen unless something else happened." You are treating a claim of consent being given as absolute here as well. Presumption of innocence does not require this. That is something that would need to be established during investigation or potential trial. So we don't ever start from a notion that consent was there. The case that started this thread is interesting primarily because she admits she likely gave consent while intoxicated. That usually isn't the case.
3. Arguably, some people that have sex while drunk don't want to have sex while drunk, but are told that they consented and maybe they shouldn't drink. This is circular logic that goes nowhere.
- - - Updated - - -
If you are done with your fake soapbox, there are actual legal principles at play here that I explained a few times. Feel free to read up and come back with an actual point.
- - - Updated - - -
Because you think rapists are violent criminals preying on strangers that they'll never see again. That's not reality for the majority of cases.