<rolls eyes>
By redefining consent you've just redefined rape to include some large percentage of people in stable relationships. If everyone's a rapist nobody is.
Also, people in stable relationships can have non consensual sex. It was legal to rape your wife until like the 90s in parts of the states.
Blowing your husband because it wastes less of your time then him trying to woo you or popping a Viagra because your wife is hitting the bong and you know what she's gonna want next aren't ideal but they're facts of some peoples lives.
There's no way you can honestly allege those sorts of things are rape. So how do you justify your redefinition of consent?
That said, there are many folks who aren't enthusiastic about the act itself, but have enthusiasm for the outcome. Many asexual folks I know, for instance, are enthusiastic that they can do something that makes their partners happy, even while not particularly enjoying the act. You are interpreting my definition in only the narrowest possible lens.
I'm not arguing about what consent is, I'm arguing about whether you bear responsibility for what happens to you if you put yourself in a vulnerable position, give consent without being of sound mind, and then regret it later. I think 1) that's pretty dumb to put yourself in that situation, and 2) you do have partial responsibility for what happened.