Perhaps.
I get what you're saying. But I didn't feel it was appropriate to answer a question titled "Was I Assaulted" with a vague answer. The situation was already confusing — that's why he's asking in the first place.
I think I'm the only one to use the R word, but I'm approaching it from a legal perspective, not an ethical one. By law, it's not ambiguous. There is one and only one correct answer to the question. It strips away the irrelevant: the "you should have done this," or "maybe he thought that," or "you felt this way before/after". And there's value in that.
I'm willing to concede that being blunt might not always help. But male victims of SA have a hard enough time. As men, we are implicitly assumed to have control in every situation. You can see that attitude reflected in some of the posts on here. People say "It's not assault since you didn't stop him," or "Come on, if you didn't want it you would do more than say just no," or "If you didn't want it, you should've fought back — you wanted it and enjoyed it," as though you're completely in control of yourself, your attacker, and everything that ever happens around you, even when you're sloppy drunk. This is a very unhealthy thing to internalize. So I think it's worth the risks of being blunt to try to dispel these toxic and harmful myths.