If being impaired to the point of 'not being able to legally consent' is a basis for the charges, would a valid defense be that the alleged rapist was in fact "so impaired that he could not recognize her state of impairment"; and that "it is even possible that SHE took illegal advantage of HIS state of impairment"?
Or am I bing too "sexist", "insensitive", and "criminally logical"?
You are being logical. And not in conformity. YOU are trying to be fair. According to feminist theory, women cannot rape men, ipso, if there is any type of sexual activity in which both are squashed (or sober), it's the man's fault, anyway.