Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
This is a continuation of my previous thread about sexual consent and drunkenness, and why, after more consideration, I have come to the conclusion that holding to the position that a drunk person cannot give informed consent to sex is problematic. I recognize that the majority of people about to read this probably already agree with me. However, there have been some people in my experience (including at least one on this forum) who seem to think that a person who is too drunk to drive is too drunk to give informed consent to sexual activities. So, I want to make another case for why this is a problematic position to hold. The idea that a drunk person cannot give informed consent is, according to my understanding, based on the idea that a drunk person cannot be held responsible for the choices that they make while drunk. For instance, if someone enthusiastically consents to sex while under the influence of alcohol, but would not have done so while sober, the argument (from some people) is that the person was taken advantage of while intoxicated since the person was not in their normal mental state and thus should not have to deal with the ramifications of the choice that they made while drunk. But, if we carry this logic to its next step, then no person who commits a crime while drunk should be prosecuted. Driving under the influence should also no longer be a crime since the person made the decision to drive under the influence of alcohol while intoxicated, and thus cannot be held responsible for his/her choices. So, clearly, the idea that a person cannot be held responsible for his/her sexual decisions while intoxicated is a difficult position to hold, since, to be logically consistent, one who holds this position is also forced to conclude that a person should also not be held responsible for other decisions made while intoxicated, meaning that drunken driving should no longer be a crime.
But, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the argument. Is the idea that a drunk person cannot give informed consent based upon the idea that a person should not have to be responsible for choices made while drunk, or is it based on something else? Is it possible to logically argue that a drunk person cannot give consent, but driving while intoxicated should still be a crime? I don't see how, but it's possible I could be wrong.
But, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the argument. Is the idea that a drunk person cannot give informed consent based upon the idea that a person should not have to be responsible for choices made while drunk, or is it based on something else? Is it possible to logically argue that a drunk person cannot give consent, but driving while intoxicated should still be a crime? I don't see how, but it's possible I could be wrong.