You can have sex without responsibility by the method
you just outlined of saying "not it". Every male (excepting the ones who
are ready to commit) will say that, thus all consequences will fall on
the woman; and they should.
The male has to
state before the pregnancy exists to the female that if she gets
pregnant, he won't take responsibility. If the female agrees to have
sex with him nonetheless, the pregnancy is her fault. The guy in
advance has to state that he won't take responsibility if she gets
pregnant, and this has to be in writing as proof. Otherwise, it's
assumed he didn't mention responsibility and therefore he would have to
take care of the kid he chose to create.
People won't do that without motivation, but if there was a law which put your kidneys and fertility at risk everyone who is currently having sex not intended to procreate will simply keep these forms in their pack just like they do condoms and birth pills.
It will drive down unwanted pregnancies, by increasing attention to birth control; it will not significantly reduce sex. Your comments on virginity continue to have nothing to do with this alleged justification.
Drunk people choose to be drunk people before they are drunk, children do not choose to be young before they are young.
Fair
point, but drunk people still don't know any better when they are
drunk, so having sex with a drunk person should be illegal.
With apparently the straightforward workaround of getting drunk yourself.
If the difference between rape and not-rape is choosing
to impair your own judgement it is obviously in the self-interest of
the sex-seeker to impair their own judgement.
The sex seeker wouldn't impair their own judgement because nobody would want to have sex with them.
Oh no, that really isn't true. I don't want to ask your age [or maybe you live in a super religious isolated community], but it really is clear this is all theory to you . Besides which it's not a binary state, it's continuous; a factor I also mention below.
If you applied it to drunk driving, it would be better
to be drunk and hit someone than to be sober because the sober driver is
a murderer and the drunk driver is blameless. This obviously doesn't
work out too well and that is why it is not policy.
If
you applied a similar situation to car accidents, an adult with a
license driving a car would be viewed as worse than a child with no
license driving a car. I don't agree with this statement, but it's the
same logic. When your drunk, you deserve the same rights as a child.
You missed the point. Whether by direct action or taking your brain out of the equation a person is responsible. A voluntarily impaired person may lack malice required for the definition of many crimes but they certainly are not blameless.
I wouldn't group children in the same category of misinformed as drunk
adults because the drunk adults still have some level of sexual
awareness at least in terms of sex (just not enough to give consent).
In my book, child + drunk adult = rape (drunk adult is the rapist).
"not enough to give consent" so it's a continuous variable this sexual awareness thing. Impairment is also continuous, every drug has a dosage.
Some drugs can reduce you to the state of near unconsciousness. Others can cause you to lose all awareness of agenda and answer questions truthfully because you can't think of a reason not to.
Along the axis of "sexual awareness" where X is the awareness of a child and Y is the awareness of a sober adult, there must exist some impairment that would render the adult's lessened awareness Y' <= X as unconsciousness is < X.
So too it follows that no two drunk people have the same awareness, someone is always more impaired. Thus your claim of "not rape" if they are both drunk is a simplification. It would be "not very much rape".
If this doesn't all strike you as so absurd as to make you abandon the theory entirely let me point out explicitly that:
1) No such continuous variable "sexual awareness" can be defined in any measurable way, at least not in our lifetime. It isn't science or sound logic, it isn't even a guess, it's pure imagination.
2) The concept is useless on top of being baseless, it informs nothing that is not better understood by alternative concepts.
3) You say "sexual awareness" but it is a wider concept you allude to. The drunk driver has impaired physics awareness, yet the notion that drunk drivers are no longer responsible for their actions is itself another ad absurdum.
You can't have it both ways, it can't be different categories and yet refer to quantized responsibility in reference to a common continuous variable.
In reality drunk people can consent. When they reach for a beer that is consent to drink a beer. It is not consent in their right mind, but it is consent. The only time a creature with discernible will cannot consent is when they are unconscious or otherwise unable to communicate or act.
