The crime is not "taking advantage of someone". The crime is rape, which happened because you took advantage of someone, i.e., having sex with someone who is not capable of consenting. That's it. It really isn't that difficult.
What you seem to be having an issue with, is whether the woman should be given that protection, or to put it differently, whether the fact that she got drunk - and for which you are assigning some moral blame to her (rightly or wrongly, that's not the point) - negates her right to not be assumed to be consenting. That's the policy underlying the law, which states that consent cannot be implied in such cases. You can agree or disagree with that underlying rationale, but not with its application which seems straightforward with the limited facts provided. I tend to agree with it, and maybe you don't. That's fine, but let's make sure we're talking about the right issue here.
