heh, fair enough.
2. Patently and observably true. We may take foolish risks for sex, but if our species copulated once and then died, most of us would still be virgins.
your statement was that a sufficiently powerful biological impulse (in this particular case, the male imperative to have sex) could not be constrained by social conditioning - this is absolutely a false statement.
impulses even more powerful than sex (such as starvation or self preservation) can be constrained or overwritten entirely by social conditioning.
a person starving to death could be standing next to a pile of food, and not touch it if they've been conditioned to consider that to be stealing. a person being threatened with death can stand there and let themselves be murdered rather than retaliate if sufficiently conditioned against physical force towards others.
have you ever been so angry you wanted to hit something? that's instinct converting rage into action - that is a biological imperative to do bodily harm to something once the correct physiological conditions have been triggered.
most people are conditioned well enough to keep a lid on that and not to act on those impulses, and some people aren't and they act on those impulses any time they have them.
likewise, most people are conditioned well enough to keep a lid on it and not act on those impulses for sex, and some people aren't and they act on those impulses any time they have them.
3. I just made the statement, so someone has said it.
okay, well then... i have no idea what you're talking about, because i never suggested that and it seems completely out of the blue.
Nice try, but our big human brain comes with optional equipment which means we are not "like any other animal." We are a similar to a few animals, but the thing about the "impetus to have sex doesn't give a shit about consent" is an adolescent fantasy.
i think you're rather stupendously and absolutely without merit or justification foisting on humans the idea of being a hell of a lot more separate than they actually are from their biological history.
our big brains don't automatically impart some magical humanist moral compass that everyone follows by way of natural behavior, it just gives most of us an intellectual stop-gap sufficient to decide to not follow certain instincts that have been deemed socially inappropriate.
If a woman decides to pull a man's pants down and ram a dildo up his ass for her amusement and he is too drunk to consider whether or not he is not interested in the experience, then he is fully entitled to claim he has been raped, and with good reason. When a man is too drunk to understand he should not drive a car, we don't give him special consideration for being too drunk to know better.
while i agree with your general premise and i don't want to foster a total derail about the hypocrisy of your position that "too drunk to consent" only counts for women, i will say that one very big difference is that neither ramming dildos up asses nor driving cars are fundamental, inherent, and necessary functions of all biological life on this planet - whereas sexual reproduction is a fundamental, inherent, and necessary function for almost all biological life on this planet.