I've asked this elsewhere as well now, just getting more input.

There seems to be this strange substandard for alcohol and sex; when infidelity is involved, I've found more people I know consider being drunk to not be an excuse. "A drunk (wo)man's words are a sober (wo)man's thoughts" and whatnot. But on the other side of this, people argue that being drunk means you can't legitimately consent, which follows to mean you can't actually cheat on someone while drunk. What are your opinions on the matter?

From this, discussion elsewhere has honed the topic to have a bit more detail in terms of being more specific regarding circumstances.

  • There is a sliding scale of drunkness. The further into the "blackout" side, the less likely one is to even be able to give some sort of consent, and the more likely rape - in the strict sense of nonconsensual sexual contact - is to be the case when sexual contact occurs. The nearer the "sober" side, the more likely one is aware and capable of giving consent (the legal validity of such being discussed at a later point).
  • Sex is a circumstance in which drunkenness invalidates consent, but not the circumstance. Legal contracts are also void if signed while intoxicated
  • Poisoning (exposing a person to any sort of intoxicating or otherwise harmful element without their consent) functions to automatically disqualify the issue of consent being valid; only in circumstances which a person chooses to consume to the point of inebriation themselves could validity of consent be argued. *Drunkenness is not the 100% filter to rape, consent is.

That said, is drunken consent either valid or invalid? There's an issue in which it seems to be valid in circumstances for which the victim of the matter is not the drunken party, i.e abuse or drunk driving.

Is a drunken person responsible for their actions, even consent to sex, or does being drunk absolve one of liability for their behavior? In such a case, are drunken abusers or cheaters innocent by way of not being themselves?