I don't know the backstory, and I don't know OP, so I want to be careful and clearly state that I am not minimizing or in any way commenting on the facts of his case.
However, the statement above is dangerously wrong from both a legal and a biological standpoint, and needs to be debunked. Any forensic toxicologist will tell you: the point of alcohol intoxication which interferes with forming long-term memories is lower than the point at which one cannot consent.
Exercising poor judgment while drunk and later having a spotty memory of it does not mean you were a victim. Consenting to something when you're black out drunk is still consent. If you exercise poor judgment about having sex and later can't remember, it does not mean you were sexually assaulted. If you exercise poor judgment about buying more shots and later can't remember, it does not mean the bartender stole from you. If you exercise poor judgment about driving and later can't remember how you got home, you and you alone are still responsible for your decision to drive drunk.
The neurobiological capacity to make decisions and the neurobiological capacity to form long-term memories are not identical. Conflate them at your own peril.