Can you give consent if you intentionally get drunk?

[Mellonhead]

Can you give consent if you intentionally get drunk before sexual intercourse?

I have been thinking that alcohol consumption may not be such a bad idea, especially during one's first sexual experience. Since one's first sexual experience is most likely going to have nervousness, is it okay to agree with your partner that you and your partner are both going to get yourselves drunk before sexual intercourse as a way to reduce nervousness, to black out any memories from the sexual experience, and to lower your facial symmetry ability (which may aid in finding your partner more sexually attractive than what would be otherwise)?

I am aware of the use of alcohol consumption during college hook-ups among young adults. Although in those settings the young adults may use alcohol and have sex spontaneously, I am wondering about a situation where you are using alcohol to the point of inebriation and having sex intentionally with full consent. Although you can't give consent to have sex while you're drunk, perhaps it is best to give consent before you're drunk, so that you and your partner both agree that you two are going to get drunk intentionally and have sex at the same time for 3 reasons:

1. To lower your inhibitions.
2. To forget about what happened the night before.
3. To find your partner more sexually attractive by lowering your innate ability to detect facial asymmetry.

[Jacob]

Hi again Mellonhead,

I think get the curious place you're coming from, however, especially here, I don't even think this is a question we should be asking. Really, who am I or indeed you to decide the legitimacy of someone else's consent, with or without relation to their drinking habits?

Aside from this, you've also listed some reasons for drinking where I would also strongly recommend against drinking for any of those reasons.

Of course, some people do feel positive effects, when they drink, otherwise they wouldn't do it. But it is their choice, as someone in my position, it'd be extremely reckless to promote the idea that inhibitions should be ignored, or that people should drink to forget things they regret, or to find anyone 'more attractive'. Inhibitions, doubts, suspicions and gut feelings are part of our own decision making and can help prevent us from making poor decisions, or delay some of our decisions until we are ready to actually deal with them.

Also again, this idea that how much one side of your face looks like the other side is anywhere near relevant to enjoyable sex, or attraction to me is a bit offensive for all of us (and this is everyone) whose faces differ in size and shape from left to right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my general vibe with most of your posts here are that you are musing with different ideas of which you have lots on lots, and I do actually think that is swell... people build entire academic careers on theorising sexuality and researching sexual practises. But in doing so, some of those thoughts are really being voiced in a place that isn't for that and can mess with the safe space we want this to be, where we address the personal concerns people have about their own sexuality. It is for them to speak about themselves, and ask about themselves, especially here, more than it is for me or you to speak about them hypothetically, and then for us to address the problematic representations which inevitably occur when we're making it up. Does that make sense to you?

I'm just wondering if you've considered anywhere else as an outlet for your thoughts, like a blog or a diary or a journal? These message boards just feel to me like a really unsuitable place.

[Mellonhead]

My apologies. I think I've just wasted everybody's time here by posting things under the impression that people can share their reflections based on what they read or observed, not using the website as a self-help service.

I think I am going to leave now, as I do not have any personal problems.

[Jacob]

No apology necessary - sometimes we step in a puddle it happens! Seriously, I hope it all goes well for you after this.

[Mellonhead]

Sorry that I have to make this additional post, but what I said about alcohol dosage affecting the human ability to detect facial asymmetry is actually an observed phenomenon.

Halsey, L. G., Huber, J. W., & Hardwick, J. C. (2012). Does alcohol consumption really affect asymmetry perception? A three-armed placebo-controlled experimental study. Addiction, 107(7), 1273-1279. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03807.x

The authors actually supported their hypothesis: that alcohol consumption really does affect asymmetry perception. It is also an established fact that one characteristic of sexual attractiveness is facial symmetry.

[dday76]

Mellonhead,

I hope you don't run off after one response. Here's a perspective as well.

Basically 'no' is the short and simple answer. This is a hard and fast 'no' if you're not the one who decided to get drunk. Especially if you're not in a committed relationship, you just open yourself up to liability if you have sex with someone who is drunk and unable to give consent (being drunk means they can't give consent). We can add the caveat that drunk sex isn't automatically rape or sexual assault, but that's because the person who woke up the next day sober and decided it was ok 'gave consent' after the fact, to the great relief of anyone else involved I'm sure. Remember consent is always revokable, and considering all the many and wondrous things that qualify as 'sex', anything could happen in the sex part between drunk and sleep/departure that someone might not consent to. An important one is not using protection because you were too drunk and full of lust to make good decisions. That one is pretty common.

And those 3 reasons you gave for deciding to get drunk and screw are pretty bad. And it's always a bad idea to get blackout drunk. I'm sorry I'm not sugar-coating it, but please never agree to those 3 reasons and please don't encourage anyone who is considering it. There are tons and tons of other ways to get each other excited.

[Mellonhead]

Mellonhead,

I hope you don't run off after one response. Here's a perspective as well.

Basically 'no' is the short and simple answer. This is a hard and fast 'no' if you're not the one who decided to get drunk. Especially if you're not in a committed relationship, you just open yourself up to liability if you have sex with someone who is drunk and unable to give consent (being drunk means they can't give consent). We can add the caveat that drunk sex isn't automatically rape or sexual assault, but that's because the person who woke up the next day sober and decided it was ok 'gave consent' after the fact, to the great relief of anyone else involved I'm sure. Remember consent is always revokable, and considering all the many and wondrous things that qualify as 'sex', anything could happen in the sex part between drunk and sleep/departure that someone might not consent to. An important one is not using protection because you were too drunk and full of lust to make good decisions. That one is pretty common.

And those 3 reasons you gave for deciding to get drunk and screw are pretty bad. And it's always a bad idea to get blackout drunk. I'm sorry I'm not sugar-coating it, but please never agree to those 3 reasons and please don't encourage anyone who is considering it. There are tons and tons of other ways to get each other excited.

Thanks for responding. No, I haven't run off just yet.

I wonder whether the situation would have been different if one had been in a married or committed relationship. After all, sex is how marriage is consummated, isn't it? Or does it really matter how you engage in sex in order to consummate the marriage? Or perhaps, the answer to my previous question varies from individual to individual?

[Eddie C]

I think is very important to keep in mind that "marriage" does NOT equal consent. Being in a committed relationship doesn't mean that consent is unlimited nor irrevocable.

[Mellonhead]

I think is very important to keep in mind that "marriage" does NOT equal consent. Being in a committed relationship doesn't mean that consent is unlimited nor irrevocable.

I think I should really stop posting to this thread. But this post has triggered a thought in my head.

I think the marriage issue is tricky. I mean, if one partner refuses to consent to the sex act, assuming that it is the first unprotected penis-in-vagina sex act, then that refusal is also grounds for annulment. The tricky part is determining whether your partner is willing to respect your refusal or opt for marriage annulment on the grounds of refusal to give consent to consummation. Understandably, that can be a terrifying scenario.

[dday76]

I think you should definitely post to this thread. I think you're asking good questions and getting good feedback. Edith is totally right that marriage doesn't equal consent. There are countries in the world with laws that let husbands rape their wives. One of those countries was the US until recently. But I hope you don't leave here thinking that wives can't say no to sex. Read more:
https://www.rainn.org/public-policy/sex ... rital-rape

In its noblest form, Marriage is about love, not sex, not babies, not a business arrangement between families, not a civil contract, not a religious commitment. I don't want to digress into other topics, but while you are correct that 'no sex' may be legal justification to seek annulment for a marriage and that sex as the 'physical act of love' is an important part of relationships/marriage, it is not the most important. And on any given day, any given moment, both partners must consent to sex or it's a problem. The consenting partner might be irritated at the non-consenting partner, but that's a conversation and much better than sexual assault.

I think is very important to keep in mind that "marriage" does NOT equal consent. Being in a committed relationship doesn't mean that consent is unlimited nor irrevocable.

I think I should really stop posting to this thread. But this post has triggered a thought in my head.

I think the marriage issue is tricky. I mean, if one partner refuses to consent to the sex act, assuming that it is the first unprotected penis-in-vagina sex act, then that refusal is also grounds for annulment. The tricky part is determining whether your partner is willing to respect your refusal or opt for marriage annulment on the grounds of refusal to give consent to consummation. Understandably, that can be a terrifying scenario.

[Heather]

Another reminder, please, that what is hypothetical for someone, is actual for other people.

So, be sure that if and when you're posting like this, you're bearing in mind that we have users, volunteers or staff for whom the things you're ruminating on are lived experiences, so a high level of sensitivity and care for that is required for our community to stay feeling safe and sound for everyone. That seems to be strongly absent in a lot of these posts.

For those who want to discuss things like this more academically, we suggest finding an academic place for that, like web communities that are more academic in nature, or classes on these subjects.

[Mellonhead]

I am receiving mixed messages. However, since Heather is the administrator, owner, and executive director of this website, I will prioritize her opinion.

Like Heather said, I do not think Scarleteen is the right place for me to post topics of interest in my usual emotionally distant tone of voice. I initially created this account, because I wanted to help that one person with her research project on sex education. But since that's already over, I don't have anything more to say. I wish the OP of that thread has read or found the information useful, though.

Heather, I will heed your advice and seek out web communities that are not only more academic in nature, but also strive to put the intellect way above emotion, making emotion negligible in the course of discussion.