Now that sheds some light. It's not necessarily that the woman being a gold digger that's the real issue. It's the fact that she was drunk. We can go round and round about responsibility, but at the end of the day if you meet a woman for the first time and she is drunk, the answer has to be NO! There's a fine distinction that cannot be discerned from the situation. It's the fact that a drunk woman is incapacitated and therefore has lost the ability to consent.

In short she probably said yes and then sobered up and started asking herself "what the heck happened?"

Sharper has gotten himself into a tough spot if this is how it went down.

SFIAH

That's true. But then, wouldn't the logical thing for a gold digger to do is to claim to be drunk and raped?

Yes. But given the circumstances from the article, it can be easily established that the woman was in fact bar hopping and was stinking drunk. Sharper should have left her right there on the bar stool, because no matter what she said while she was drunk, she is off limits.

I'm not giving commentary to the woman's motives. All I'm saying is that Sharper should have known better than to be found anywhere with a drunk woman that he had never met before. That's the fast track to being broke and in prison.

SFIAH