The first two are obviously rape but astro was illustrating more so on whether or not to believe the accuser over the accused right away so I’ll skip those.
The third one, if you’re so drunk/high/whatever that you can’t even remember what happened the next day them you were not able to give ‘consent’ as you’ve become incapacitated by whatever it is you took. Per the definition of rape for the US Department of Justice: “Furthermore, because many rapes are facilitated by drugs or alcohol, the new definition recognizes that a victim can be incapacitated and thus unable to consent because of ingestion of drugs or alcohol.” The legal weight of how this is determined varies by state however.
Being intimidated into sex is most definitely rape. When was the last time you ever told a victim of a mugging, ‘Well I mean did you TELL him you didn’t want to give him the money?’ California actually enacted a law that specifically addresses this, saying "“Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent,” the law states, "nor does silence mean consent. " And hereis a good article about sexual coercion/intimidation
The last example is just victim blaming pure and simple. Just because I consent to one type of sexual act doesn’t mean I automatically am consenting to all.
This Video is a great and kinda humorous illustration of what consent is.
Well.
Rape is sex which occurs when there is absence of consent* and the perpetrator knew or should reasonably have known about it*. Consent is not the only issue.
In scenario 3 and 4 there, it not clear that the second bit is in fact there, that the Accused knew or should have known that there was no consent.
Secondly, drunk consent is still consent, the complainant’s drinking does not vitiate any consent, merely by the fact of drunkenness, drunkenness to an extent that a person no longer has the capacity to understand what is happening, and in scenario 3 its not clear from what is stated that it was in fact the case.
Only Scenario no 1 is unambiguously rape. The rest of them vary from likely (2, 5) to probably not (3,4), with all needing more information.
IOW no. 3 can be rape, which is what you should have said to begin with rather than the simple provocative absolute that all the scenario’s are rape, which you’re now effectively hedging with your own cite, though your own statement still sounds pretty absolute.
Credible testimony that an alleged rape victim has no recollection of consenting, no other evidence except that sex occurred, isn’t and shouldn’t be enough to send somebody to prison for rape. All kinds of other evidence or context could establish that a rape occurred in a generally similar scenario. In fact astro’s scenario is loaded in the sense that it says the person claimed to have been raped, which for an honest person would imply a reason to claim so beyond not remembering having said yes.