So now you're declaring a moral judgement on drinking? That's got nothing to do with this discussion. At question here is about culpability for rape when a victim is inebriated. The counter question is whether two equally drunk people having sex are raping each other. I think we can agree that being drunk doesn't excuse one from raping. And being drunk to the point of passing out or nearly so means a person cannot give consent so anyone having sex with them is raping them. If both parties involved are in such a state, they probably won't have sex anyway since they'll just both pass out. So the interesting case is where both parties are just drunk enough to lower their inhibitions without becoming incoherent, and have sex with each other. Due to the symmetry of the situation, it's hard to conclude that a crime has been committed since it would mean both parties have committed crimes against each other (unless you apply some sexist-based logic). And that finding (which you seemingly are attempting to avoid) leads to the question of case with one party being in that state, but the other not drunk, or less drunk and doing exactly the same thing. In that case the drunker person is doing and has done to them the exact same thing, so how can they in one case be a victim, and one case not?