@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:In the scenario that u have delineated,
the law has (by intimidation) put everyone beyond the reach of the drunk,
such that the "punishment" is enforced celebacy, until sobriety. Right ?
Not really. The law refers only to the behaviors of those who have contact with the extremely drunken woman. The underlying assumption is that the drunk is too cognitively impaired to even make a meaningful, fully conscious and aware decision, about whether "celibacy" is desired or not. Therefore, there is no "punishment", even in an indirect sense, if the drunk is not legally seen as able to make rational decisions in an intoxicated state about what they want or do not want.
The law seems not to be problematic for those women who do get drunk. There are no protests from large groups of women demanding that the law be abolished. There are no outcries that the law is "punishing" them. The people the law is intended to protect are not complaining about it. Nor is any woman compelled to report a rape that occurs under such conditions of intoxication, it is simply an option that is available to her.
The complaints we are hearing, certainly in this thread, are from men who resent the fact that extremely intoxicated females are legally off limits to them. They don't care how impaired the female is, they don't like the restrictions placed on their behavior under such circumstances. And then they complain that, once the woman sobers up, she may consider what they did to her a rape and report it to the police. If it was their choice to violate the law, they really cannot cry "foul" when they are subjected to the consequences of their own actions. If they don't want to violate law, they should control their own behaviors.
What is difficult to understand, in terms of this discussion, is why it is such a hardship to forgo sexual contact with an extemely drunken woman until she sobers up so she fully knows what she's doing.
