As always, it's one of those cases where the line between where you are acting responsibly and irresponsibly is very clear, but very hard to define in any legal or definite sort of way. Having sex when drunk, good. Pushing drinks on someone in hopes they will lower their guard so you can have sex with them: not good. Having sex with someone super drunk around you at a bar, with who you didn't interact with before-hand, and never rejected you while not drunk: neutral/good. Have sex with someone who is passed out, or drug a drink: You should be in jail.
Honestly, it seems like if this is the case, it's always best to err on the side of caution, but I wouldn't say that it's necessarily bad. The article uses the phrase "Orwellian" over and over again to describe cases where higher authorities define consent differently than the individual. I agree with your list entirely, but I'd add: Having sex with someone who is drunk, while you yourself are sober: Not good. There's an inherent imbalance of power and reasoning in that situation, and I don't feel like verbal consent from someone who's noticeably inebriated past the point of cogent reasoning is enough. The question we need to ask ourselves is, "Is person A taking advantage of person B?" However, it's problematic when authorities get involved, since they can't evaluate each case based on these lines. For this reason alone, I can understand why universities would want to set up strict lines for consent like the ones mentioned in the article. It makes it easier on them as an administrative being, and the goal is that all students understand and abide by the rules. They don't hate drunken sex any more than a dry campus hates alcohol--they just want to avoid the complications incurred by allowing these practices on their campus. Not all drunken sex is rape, and not all drinking leads to bad behavior, but you can't hate an entity for wanting to do their best to minimize the cases where it is rape or where it does lead to bad behavior, even if you disagree with their methods.Having sex with someone super drunk around you at a bar, with who you didn't interact with before-hand, and never rejected you while not drunk: neutral/good.
The big issue with alcohol, in my opinion, is that it is a tool some use to make others more willing to have sex with them, when they wouldn't otherwise have. Being sober, and the other person being drunk, does not necessarily imply this. If you would have had sex with a person regardless of how sober you are, It is absolutely fine in my opinion. If you are sober and persisting and bugging the person to have sex with you until they fold, and they are drunk, then you hit the "bad" area again, since alcohol would make them fold sooner than otherwise to pressure. As to banning things just to be safe, we may as well get rid of alcohol entirely. Honestly, it's a worthless drink that does nothing but make people act in a way that lowers their inhibitions and makes them do stupid things. However, it's kind of a fact of life to have to accept that people are going to do stuff that may not be the best.
Good point, that's actually an important distinction to make! I think it's possible to do on an individual scale, but at an institutional level it's a bit different. If I come home to a drunk wife who wants to have sex, there's a set norm for the relationship, since it's likely we've had sex in the past and will continue to do so. I think when it gets tricky is when there are total strangers, since you don't have a norm to compare it to and know whether or not they would have had sex with you if sober. But that actually agrees with what you're saying, so again, good point! And yeah, but you can't blame an institution for wanting to keep it off campus. Sports stadiums often prohibit alcohol--it isn't that they (any general institution) are condemning the act of drinking (or I guess drunk sex?), they're saying that if you do it on their property, they'll be within their rights to rebuke you for it. Like we've been saying, there's a time and a place, but I don't blame an entity like a college campus for not wanting alcohol or drunk sex to happen on their property, even if they know it will anyways. Banning things on an institutional level isn't the same as banning them overall, and I think that it's an important distinction that the article doesn't differentiate between (IIRC).