Travis, good point about the legal definition of rape in many states — I brought that up myself back when Mac Donald’s article came out.
I think there’s at least something to the argument about drunkenness, though. If you define “too drunk to consent” as “too drunk to participate,” you’re right — physically, if a man is too drunk to participate, sex cannot occur, while the same is not true of a woman. If the laws were clear about that, I’d support them.
But the laws I’ve seen typically say something very unclear along the lines of “incapable of consenting,” which means not literally incapable of saying yes, but drunk enough that yes doesn’t count. I think this is vague enough that there’s room for overlap with men — men can be drunk enough that, if they were women, they’d be considered “incapable of consenting,” yet still be able to, you know…
UPDATE: Should have made this point before, but in the UNH survey, 8 percent of men said they’d had sex when they were too drunk to consent. This is barely lower than the 11 percent of women who said the same thing.