Wrong.  Your fundamental belief is wrong.  Consent must be ongoing.  Once she is incapacitated by alcohol (her blood alcohol level was over 3X the limit, incontinence and witnesses) she cannot consent.  Even if she consented earlier when she was capable, the moment she become incapacitated, there is no consent.  Just because she got drunk doesn't give anyone the right to assault her because you consider her behaviour to be bad.  Being drunk doesn't mean she lost her rights to self autonomy.  Your comparison is false equivalency.