I don't really understand the moving the goalpost argument. I don't know how old she was, I'll take you at your word she was 17. I'm not even arguing that a 21 year old f***ing a 17 old is legal, I don't really know. I'm not arguing that a sober (or more sober) person can't rape someone who is intoxicated.
I AM arguing that people of similar ages shouldn't be considered statutory rape (this is an ought, not an is). (This is a theoretical statement, note related to this specific case)
I AM arguing that two drunk people who f*** aren't simultaneously raping each other b/c neither of them could consent. (This is a theoretical statement, note related to this specific case)
I AM arguing that we don't know if ANYTHING that we have heard related to this case is true (or at least me, as this is literally the first day I heard about the allegation
I AM arguing that we should investigate it fully before laying judgement and punishment on either party.
Get the facts, make a judgment.
clear enough?