Picture a woman who is drunk and has sex. According to this feminist and some other people, she was raped.

But what if her rapist happens to be underage? If she is truly a rape victim, it would be ludicrous to suggest that she should go to prison because her rapist happens to be underage. If her rapist used physical force and violence to rape her (and was male), it would make no difference that he is underage, she would still be a victim. And of course underage people can commit crimes against adults like murder, etc. so they can also rape them.

So the conclusion of many people that say women cannot consent to sex while drunk would be simply to not charge the woman in this situation with any crime, despite the fact that she had sex with a minor.

And yet, if you picture a drunken stepfather who has sex with his underage stepdaughter, and ask them whether or not he committed a crime, their answer will be "of course" he committed a crime.

It makes no difference to them that the stepfather was drunk. It makes no difference to them who initiated the sex, which makes sense because if he was sober he could never use the excuse "well she started it".

So here you have two identical situations, where both parties are unable to legally consent to sex (for either drunkenness or being a minor), and yet in both situations the the male is the one who is seen as a rapist, and the female is the one who is seen as a victim.

People who believe drunk sex = rape must decide whether a woman who is a rape victim should go to prison if their rapist is underage, or whether a man who rapes an underage girl should be excused from his crime because he was drunk, when that's never been a viable excuse (only a mitigating factor at best for certain crimes and certainly not enough to turn the criminal into the victim).