I just find the whole argument odd. I must assume that they are somehow missing a giant point somewhere.
Do you think they are thinking along the lines of "Woman agrees enthusiastically to sex, wakes up, can't remember, is horrified, "cries rape""? And that's what they're trying to stop?
I mean they're not surely saying that it's perfectly fine if a woman is drunk, to rape her, as in forcibly have sex with her against her will? (Even though that's what they would effectively be allowing if there was some kind of law passed saying drunkenness is not lack of consent)
Maybe they are? As some kind of punishment? I can't get my head around it.
If it's OK to rape somebody who is drunk, do they think it's okay to rape somebody who has dementia? Or somebody who has taken sleeping pills? Or somebody who is under anaesthesia for surgery? Or somebody with extreme learning difficulties? An animal? A pre-verbal child?
I just can't see the logic anywhere, which confuses me because I always assume that people act in a way which makes sense TO THEM. But in whose world DOES this make sense? 
