This "drunk sex = rape" thing is just BS though isn't it? From the same source as the propaganda about Christmas being banned or Obama being a secret Muslim. It's so obviously untrue it only acts as a shibboleth.
Your first link includes this description: "He would later describe that night as the drunkest he's ever been, and a neighbor from down the hall would describe his level of intoxication as a "shitshow." He was "slurring his words, stumbling over the others when he got up." That kind of drunk."
The girl involved was, by independant reports, about the same level. Both had vomited repeatedly(!) as a result of their level of intoxication.
This is far away from the bizarrely popular notion that any sexual activity after a couple of beers is considered rape.
If either of these people had ended up having sex with someone who was sober, then that person would clearly have been taking advantage of them in their compromised state. The only reason it's any kind of gray area is because both people appear to have been utterly out of it, and it seems the only reason that this particular case got picked up was because the college had a history of ignoring and downplaying sexual assults and rapes to such a degree they were getting sued over it.
The piece you link does not stake out radical territory. The core point is this:
Consenting to one type of sexual interaction does not mean you consent to everything else. Even assuming that the victim did voluntarily and knowingly remove her clothes, this in no way means she consented to a kiss, let alone full-blown sexual intercourse. Consent is an ongoing process. Even if she had initially consented to engage in sexual activity, any subsequent request to stop needed to be respected. Otherwise, that’s rape.
It nicely avoids the semantic fuzziness invoked by "drunk", which might mean different things to different people.
