The literal interpretation of what Ted says is that if you're too drunk to know that someone hasn't granted consent, it's not rape. Maybe that's not what Ted meant. He's had the opportunity to say so and hasn't. But until he does, you're reading something into his claims that isn't actually written, and everything you're then saying follows from that. I don't think Ted limited that claim to the symmetrical case. I don't see any reason for that to be the natural reading of what he wrote. You clearly disagree, and neither of us is going to change the other's mind. If Ted wants to clarify that point, he's free to.