Then that's you choosing ignorance to protect your ego. You're not here to have a good faith discussion.

Something doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong and severely frowned upon socially. So sure, 40 years ago what Pelicot did to his wife Gisele (say her name) might not have been illegal but the public outrage would have been more severe. He would have been given no quarter to public censure. He would have become an absolute pariah in his community. Certainly the notion that his life is being ruined by his wife would have been routinely scoffed and mocked rather than given air and space.

You keep insisting on data metrics for "objectivity" but data metrics don't look at social disgust. And what is legal and what is not is not the sum total of what is 'allowed' and what is not. It's only what the state can and maybe will penalize you for if you got caught and held to account.

Like it or not, there is a marked lack of disgust about the Pelicot case amongst men. There wouldn't have been a rallying to consider if maybe he's being treated too harshly or unfairly with the case being made public, or Gisele's right to make that choice as a civic duty being labeled as revenge seeking.

Lastly, sexual predation exists on a continuum that swells like a wave back and forth across that continuum based on overall attitudes about certain things and environmental factors and social stresses like economics, civil liberties, legal bounds, technological advancements, etc.

I don't need state sponsored and produced metrics on crime to know that it's getting worse but also that the 'swell' is currently out of view of those state metrics. If the tide doesn't turn or the wave doesn't dissipate, you'll get your precious metrics soon enough. Prepare to be humbled. Until then, for further data, consult my middle finger.