Judges can't have it both ways.  In the case below, being too drunk seems to be a defence for committing a sexual assault.  So how can a woman who is too drunk to speak possibly consent to sex?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/judge-reinstates-controversial-drunkenness-defence-in-sex-assault-case/article578863/

"Presiding over a sexual assault case in Southwestern Ontario, Mr. Justice Terrence Patterson of the Superior Court of Ontario ruled that Parliament violated the Charter of Rights with a 1995 law that prohibits the so-called defence of excessive intoxication.
The ruling opened the door for Carl Frederick Fleming, 62, to argue that he was too drunk to appreciate his actions when he sexually assaulted a St. Thomas, Ont., woman in 2009."