Nope, And I'm not saying sex with drunk people isn't rape either, just that having sex while drunk is a bad idea that is not as bad an idea as driving a car or lighting off fireworks while drunk. Sober people shouldn't let drunk people do any of those things.
He is responding to the question of inebriation and its implications for consent, though. Those of us who agree with the law that a inebriated person cannot give consent, generally consider sex between a sober person and a drunk person rape.
When both people are drunk, those waters are muddy, but given the already fucked-up context of the conversation (whether children and animals can give consent) it seems that he is talking about one drunk person and one sober (or less-drunk) person. Which is rape.
But it lacks the key aspects that make rape terrible, those of traumatically being forced to do something against one's will. Why should it be declared to be rape without that key defining factor?
Here we have the crux of rape culture. If rape is defined as narrowly as possible, to include only forcible penetration, then all sorts of other things, from intoxicated sex to coerced sex to sex with a power imbalance where one party doesn't really have the option of withholding consent all become ok. The problem with that, aside from them not being ok in the first place, is that sort of definition makes violent rape more likely too.
Several problems wih this. Firstly it's an insane slippery slope argument akin to saying that marijuana use will becoming a crackhead. Secondly, you've used sort of a fractured argument that basically boils down to a tautology of the form "if people don't define x as bad, then people won't define x as bad". Thirdly, nobody gets to choose how words are defined, not even lexicographers or legislators. What it means is how it's used and how its used is what it means. Regardless of consequences. You're not the Ministry of Truth and you're not Humpty Dumpty.
The key defining factor of rape isn't trauma, it's lack of consent.
Firstly, lack of consent is the key defining factor of many crimes that rape is universally considered to be worse than - Theft comes to mind - how then do you rationalize the difference in seriousness? The only explanation I can think of is that you're puritanically putting sex on a pedistal, that you believe it is somehow sacred rather than just a mildly dangerous recreational actility like smoking or extreme sports.
Secondly, I believe that you're position is unfair to the drunk person. That's who I've been concerned about this whole time. You don't really care what they want. You care about what you
think they
should want based solely on what would have been the more responsible action back in the ancient past before the invention of penicillin, latex, and birth control pills.
EDIT:
Rereading that last paragraph I just realized a major problem with both sides of this argument. We haven't made clear who's initiating. I've been assuming that it is initiated by the drunk person, whereas you all seem to be assuming that it is initiated by the sober person.
