August 21, 2014

"It was a guy I knew a little bit about, and I didn’t like his reputation... I just kind of interposed myself..."

"... and started talking to her about something. The guy got the message and he took off," said Adam Erickson, a Yale sophomore, describing something he did at a party where a female seemed to be drunk and a male seemed to be sexually interested in her. Erickson is quoted in an article at Bloomberg titled "Hook-Up Culture at Harvard, Stanford Wanes Amid Assault Alarm."

I think Erickson sets a good example of the way we should be looking out for one another. I suspect it will be hard for most people to break couples up like this. It takes some judgment and skill, and you incur some risks. Are you your friends' chaperone? People tend to feel safer doing nothing than doing something and err on the side of inaction. But just as we should stop a drunk person from getting behind the wheel of a car, we can keep a drunk person from getting isolated by someone who could take advantage of the mental impairment. It's better not to get drunk at all, of course, but students obviously do, and it's right that the standard is becoming: Don't have sex when you or the other person is drunk. Instead of worrying so much about the consequences of after-the-fact characterizations of sexual intercourse, improve the social dynamic at parties. Let everyone in the group be pro-active like Adam Erickson and just kind of interpose yourself.

74 comments:

tds said...

dog in the manger

Brian said...

"I was at this party, having a good time and talking to a guy I found really interesting, when this creeper who's always hovering around me stuck his nose in and chased the guy off."

Anonymous said...

Professor, I'm in my thirties, and this kind of thing used to happen all the time at parties. So, in the late 90's.

Was there a period of time where men wouldn't look out for their female friends at parties? I'm curious. You present this like it's a new thing, but, given what you know about your own students, does it really seem novel that friends would try to keep each other away from shady characters at parties?

In short, yes of course this sort of thing should be celebrated, but I'm skeptical this ever stopped happening.

Lyssa said...

DS said what I was about to say (I'm also in my 30s).

While I don't think that most people would have intervened if the girl was a stranger (unless she was obviously being taken advantage of), it was commonplace to look out for friends that way. I can recall a few times that I noticed a male friend on "heightened alert" when a guy was showing particular interest in me at college parties. I never actually needed it, but it was nice to know that they cared. (Girls do this for each other, too, of course.)

Ann Althouse said...

"You present this like it's a new thing, but, given what you know about your own students, does it really seem novel that friends would try to keep each other away from shady characters at parties?"

I have no idea what my students do outside of class unless they tell me. Like they might tell me they work at a law firm part time. They don't tell me about their personal life (except occasionally when something intersects with the issue discussed in class). In 30 years of teaching, I don't think a student has ever said one thing to me about their sex life. I can't even picture how that would come up. Even if we were discussing sex, and I have taught whole seminars on the subject of rape.

I never said it's "novel," but I infer from all the talk of bad sex/rape on campus that it's not happening enough. I have read accounts that may or may not be accurate about parties in which males are each others' friends and they are engaged in a joint effort to get the females drunk for the purpose of facilitating sex.

traditionalguy said...

Great post. This solves a problem without creating an all men are horrible feeling.

But query: What if the drunk lady is being seduced by a lesbian player? It would be a worse fate to save her from from straight men's point of view. We would be saving a future teammate

campy said...

So how long before guys get in legal trouble for not doing this when someone with 20-20 hindsight decides they should've?

Or for doing it when it's decided they shouldn't have?

Ann Althouse said...

And my own college experience is virtually irrelevant. It was long ago -- 1969 to 1973 -- and the people I knew rarely drank alcohol. It just wasn't the thing at the time, except maybe at fraternities, which were, of course, and we thought the fraternity people were hopelessly square and embarrassing to consort with on any level. Soon fraternities would be fully dead, we believed. And people who drank were scorned (to the tune of "America Drinks and Goes Home".

Anonymous said...

Professor, do you have the option of serving on the nonacademic disciplinary committee?

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/uws/17/07

Alexander said...

The problem is, I'm pretty sure that interjecting yourself between two strangers because you're assuming bad intentions of one party and and defenselessness on the other... is pretty much the very definition of white male privilege.

And we can't be having that.

Let her strongly and independently take care of her own situation. Women have made it clear enough that they do not want to be beholden to male protection and authority.

Now if the girl in question is your sister or a friend - of course you should step in. But some sort of all encompassing "Let's protect ALL the women!" is nonsense. And while it worked out all right for this chap, it didn't work out so well for that fellow down in Texas a few days ago.

jacksonjay said...

The little pissant do-gooder prevented her from having a disastrous relationship with a bad boy. How in the Hell are women supposed to hook-up with good-for-nothing abusers if the choir boys are getting in the way? The geek probably has a pocket protector. I bet he squats to pee.

All of these losers must be White!

Just Mike said...

If people are gonna act like sheep we'll need more sheep dogs. I say good for him.

Lyssa said...

but I infer from all the talk of bad sex/rape on campus that it's not happening enough. I have read accounts that may or may not be accurate about parties in which males are each others' friends and they are engaged in a joint effort to get the females drunk for the purpose of facilitating sex.

There are a lot of college students out there - I'm sure that it happens both ways.

Also, I will say that, from what I remember, this behavior was common if the guy creeping around was a stranger or of a different social circle, but I'm pretty sure that more of a blind eye was turned if it was someone everyone felt comfortable with. (I can't recall that ever happening in a way that raised people's alarm bells, but there were cases where people hooked up with friends without anyone intervening.) Also, the males in my group, at least, were generally protective - i.e., they would insist on walking girls home rather than allowing them to walk around campus alone. To my knowledge, that never wound up a problem, but I can see how it could have if the guy had had less good intentions.

Seems like in a lot of these cases, the encounter either takes place in a situation where the girl doesn't have many friends around, or where the girl already knows and is somewhat comfortable with the guy (in a lot of cases, the girl and guy seem to have a pre-existing sexual relationship). This would likely not cause people to have intervened, IMO (unless, of course, it was obviously wrong, i.e., the girl was passed out and the guy came over and started trying to undress her or something) (I never knew that to happen among people I knew).

traditionalguy said...

Guardian is a Myers=Briggs personality type. Everyone should have one.

Lyssa said...

I was in an honors group in college, and most of my social circle came from there. As far as I'm aware, all of the guys I knew were decent, stand-up guys. But I'm not sure that that was representative of the college experience (even at that school) as a whole.

William said...

I'm from about the same generation as Althouse, but two or three rungs down on the status ladder. It would be permissible to intervene for your sister or maybe even a close friend's sister, but for other girls such intervention would not be considered chivalrous and probably would not end well.

Shanna said...

I've sort of done this when someone was drugged, meaning stopped them from being taken advantage of (even if they would have had no problem with things sober). I don't remember any of my friends getting drunk enough that I didn't think they could make their own decisions, though.

Michael K said...

"parties in which males are each others' friends and they are engaged in a joint effort to get the females drunk for the purpose of facilitating sex."

Conspiracy theories are not healthy, even for law professors.

I would say that young fellow was a sexist pig, but of course I am too old to be hip.

William said...

By not end well, I mean the girl might take a swing at you.

Skyler said...

No, Ann. The answer is don't get drunk. If you get drunk, that's your choice and you might make bad decisions, but that's the risk you take.

We should not lower our standards.

If a man gets drunk, has sex with a woman and later regrets it, can he charge her with rape? Yeah, right. Can he deny paternity based on being drunk?

But the woman can suddenly change her mind and holler "rape!" and we all have to forget that she makes bad decisions, that she is a slut when she drinks, that she chose to drink, that she doesn't control her own behavior. So why is the man to blame?

The world is turning upside down.

jacksonjay said...

The smartest young women in America need someone to watch out for them at a party? Smart enough to be accepted at Harvard, but not smart enough to avoid a wolf? Sounds like a bunch of womenz who voted for Obama. You know, that smile!

SteveR said...

good way to get in a fight

Brian said...

Less snidely: I once was a lad with a bit of a reputation, and when a young lady got interested in me at a party (yes, we were both drinking) more or less all of her friends and one of her sisters tried mightily to warn us both off.

We've been married for 14 years.

I know for a fact that more than one of the dudes trying to "look out for" my future wife was actually trying to get her in bed himself. She's still rolling her eyes about the whole thing to this day.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I suspect Erickson just freed up a bunch of space in his social calendar.

Be said...

I was curious to see whether or not Erickson knew the woman who was getting chatted up. Apparently, yes. He sounds like a Stand Up Guy and one I'd have loved to have as a friend when I was a kid.

but I infer from all the talk of bad sex/rape on campus that it's not happening enough. I have read accounts that may or may not be accurate about parties in which males are each others' friends and they are engaged in a joint effort to get the females drunk for the purpose of facilitating sex.

The getting someone drunk to facilitate sex does have to exist somewhere. Where I went to school (in the late 80s / early 90s), my school's chapters of fraternities were forced off campus. Don't know the whys and wherefores of this, but am assuming that there were problems with the drinking culture and externalities. As I was way underage and working while going to school, didn't have much contact with the campus culture.

While sexual assault is undoubtedly a real problem, heightened attention in the media has created a “witch-hunt” environment, said Pollack, the Harvard Medical School psychologist.

“Most males would never do anything to harm a young woman,” Pollack said in a telephone interview. Rather than discouraging predators, “we’re starting to scare the heck out of the wrong people.”


The media provide a magnifier for such things, as it sells advertising.

As a result, Panic seems to be the rage of the day. Between Campus Rape/Violence, Ebola and the Militarized Police, I really don't know how I've managed to survive to the ripe old age I've attained.

jacksonjay said...

"... give themselves permission to ... let their hair down, get drunk, and "hook up" too. On their own terms and schedules."

Sluts Happen.

EDH said...

Male students need to wear penis cameras.

EDH said...

"I just kind of interposed myself..."

From the feminist perspective, this would be called "cunt blocking", right?

EDH said...

Yes, it is "cunt blocking".

exhelodrvr1 said...

If the guy is obviously wearing beer goggles, then you need to help out.

n.n said...

The "good neighbor" doctrine was explicitly rejected with unsubstantiated, generic allegations of licentious behavior and intention. It seems that "progress" has been assessed to have a negative character, and people are returning to traditional standards of morality. It's a generational thing, which for most people is an outcome of short-term evolution.

Ann Althouse said...

Remember, he didn't intervene. He interposed. And only kind of.

Let's work on the technique. It had to do with conversation. It was social. Drunken sex is much less social. Socialize!

Ann Althouse said...

EDH

The proper term is clamjam.

Sigivald said...

Alexander makes an interesting point, though I wouldn't use "privilege" language.

If actor C feels entitled to intervene in an interaction between actors A and B because "he thinks B might be a bit too drunk for her own good"...

How is that different from C telling B how to run her sex life, in general?

"She's more drunk than C thinks might be okay"? None of C's god-damn business, assuming B is capable of movement and speech.

B is an adult human being, ain't she?

I can't think of how that's acceptable, "for their own good" - as if you, C, know what B's state and desires are better than they do.

If B wants to get drunk and score, C is in no moral position to interfere, just because C is Just Sure that B is some innocent naif that can't actually be a knowing, adult participant.

(What Shanna said obviously applies; if you have reason to think someone has been dosed, especially someone you know, the calculus is entirely different.

But the original premise was mere voluntary drunkenness.)

Revenant said...

College students watching out for one another during parties or while drinking isn't a new thing. It was the norm when I was in college in the early 90s.

Just Mike said...

Sheep dogging (or Guardianing) is subtle. No one should even know it happened except the wolf and the sheep dog. You don't announce that you're here on your white horse to save the day for Chrissake.
See: "No good deed goes unpunished"

Birkel said...

The nerd factor of this block is climbing.

What gives one a right to tell others what is or is not "bad sex"? I'd like to know, sincerely. The moralistic preening is a sight to behold, without explanation and definitions.

The Godfather said...

When I went to college (1961), my father warned me to beware of predatory females, and when I went to law school in NYC (the same university that he had attended in college and medical school) he reissued the warning. The concern then was that some "tramp" might seduce the young lad with the bright future, get pregnant, and "change" that bright future. I infer that in the late 1920's, early 1930's, my father had to deal with such challenges (apparently successfully). By the '60's, all young men walked around with rubbers in their wallets until they decayed from unuse.

In other words, I really can't relate to the issue presented in this post.

david7134 said...

Back in the 60's, I was leaving a frat party with my date when I stumbled over a drunk girl on the ground. I made sure she was not ill and then proceeded to try to revive her. My date was very much against getting involved, but I had been raised as a gentleman. After a bit, I was able to get her around enough to identify her dorm (this was in the days when women were locked up at night). I then proceeded to carry her about a mile to were she lived, getting beaten when she came around every now and again. On arriving at the dorm and having the dorm mother identify her, I then had to beat a quick retreat as the hostile dorm mother thought that the girl was my date and that I had produced the state she was in and maybe had violated her. My date was mad as hell (at me) and that was the end of the evening. Most of the men I know would have done the same.

Kirk Parker said...

NSFW, but because of the semantics (i.e. no bad language or private parts showing.)

fivewheels said...

I have effected this type of rescue, but only in an office-party type environment when someone has been trapped in a conversation with "that guy" no one likes who won't shut up. IOW, when it's obvious the person wants to be extricated.

This seems much more ambiguous, and I don't see how it could be my business to make the call if he/she seems to be receptive to the conversation. It's paternalistic in the extreme, and just plain dickishness.

Steve said...

Humans are varied and complex, and simple rules cause damage. I knew of girls in college who wanted occasional casual sex, but couldn't tolerate the guys or the act. So they would purposely get drunk so that they could put up with the ordeal. Simple rules on drinking and parties can't take into account such complexities and do justice to everyone's intentions.

Kirk Parker said...

Brian wins the thread right up there in comment #2!

And Brian @ 3:56pm definitely gets the silver.

JimT Utah said...

Being of the generation ahead of Ann, I seldom (like, never) saw this situation when I was in school. Maybe because it was engineering school. My wife came from the music school across the street, as did many of my classmates'.

A few years later, at a computer conference, I was waiting for an elevator with a man and a young woman who obviously was not enjoying his attention. When the elevator arrived, I suggested that he and I take the next one. She got on and disappeared. He scowled, but waited, and we rode down together.

n.n said...

The principle is simple. When a human being is deemed or assumed incapable of offering consent, then a choice becomes immoral or illegitimate. This invites another party to interpose in order to prevent a violation of dignity or life.

So, what is the threshold for an interposition?

Perhaps a contract before either party is inebriated or otherwise incapacitated would resolve any outstanding perception of violation and respect both parties diverse sexual interests.

Revenant said...

The principle is simple. When a human being is deemed or assumed incapable of offering consent, then a choice becomes immoral or illegitimate.

The thing is, when it comes to everything *except* a woman choosing to have sex, a person who makes a choice while voluntarily intoxicated is held personally responsible for it.

For example, if you get shitfaced and decide that buying two dozen White Castle "burgers" is a good idea, you can't wake up hung over the next day, regret your culinary choices, and have the drive-thru guy arrested for "stealing" your money.

Basically, there IS a long-standing simple rule for how we handle consent by drunk people -- we treat them as having consented to "whatever stupid shit they do while drunk" when they made the choice to GET drunk.

The only thing that complicates the simple rule is that people want to carve out an exception for drunk women who sleep with the wrong guys.

Michael K said...

" Most of the men I know would have done the same."

When I was in college, a long time ago, I went next door to a friend's apartment, and found a drunk girl passed out on the floor. She had thrown up and wet herself.

Several of us stood there for a few minutes and joked about putting her in a guy's bed who was very square, then we loaded her up and carried her back to her sorority house and dumped her on the front porch. The scene was similar to Animal House where Tom Hulse drops the girl off at her parents' in grocery cart. I never knew who she was.

Paul Ciotti said...

If a woman can claim sexual assault if a guy pressures her into sex, can a man claim sexual assault if his girlfriend pressures him to get married?

rcocean said...

'The only thing that complicates the simple rule is that people want to carve out an exception for drunk women who sleep with the wrong guys."

Not really. If I get drunk and sell you my $20,000 car for a bottle of scotch, it won't be upheld in court. Its all a matter of degree.

rcocean said...

Isn't this just more "lets treat woman like kids" nonsense. Am I supposed to believe this women didn't know she was getting drunk, didn't know she was being "chatted up" and was too hammered to do/say anything if she didn't want to go away with this guy?

rcocean said...

Woman: I was too drunk to say "Yes"

Man: I was too drunk to ask.

Is this rape?

jaed said...

clamjam

That produces a mental image that is entirely, completely, and utterly disgusting. Clam jam. Eeeeuuuwwww.

Bruce Hayden said...

The young women are not just accidentally getting drunk. Rather, many of them do it on a somewhat regular basis in college. And the level of drinking for many of these young women is pretty scary - not single drinks, but rather enough to put them several times over the legal limit, in a pretty short time. Mixed drinks and esp shots.

I think that the problem is the delay in our society of marriage, esp with white upper middle class women here. At a time when their bodies are yelling out for sex and procreation, they often don't even have boyfriends. So, they get drunk to be with guys, and maybe get laid, without being a slut about it (which is essentially what's they are if they engage in sober sex with non-boyfriends). And boyfriends would mean the chance of marriage, at a time when settling down into that blissful state might very well destroy their chances at graduate school and a good career. Big difference from when I was in college (year ahead of Ann), when a lot of the co-eds were still going for Mrs. degrees.

Let me add that the alcohol culture at a lot of top schools is pretty scary, if you haven't had a kid in college recently. For a lot of really good ones, it is work hard, play hard, with much of the latter revolving around excess drinking.

Ann pointed out that there wasn't that much drinking by women around her in college. Part of that was that was the end of the Mrs. degree era, and the growth of female lib. We still had dorm mothers in the women's dorms. And part was probably the hippie era where drugs (and esp pot) were more fashionable than alcohol. But now pot in college is mostly for slackers, and harder drugs for losers.

Bruce Hayden said...

The big problem for me with this push to eliminate the fictitious campus sexual assault problem is that it is such naked pandering to women by politicians, bureaucrats, and progressive college administrators. And that in a he-says/she-says situations, the female is the one they tend to believe (because of that pandering), despite the females likely having more reason to lie. Part of the problem is the slut thing I mentioned above.

One of the interesting facts of human nature is that female preferences for mates tend to change during their cycles. For maybe three weeks out of the month, they tend to prefer their beta mates/husbands, but for their fertile time, preferences shift more to alpha males. This points to the underlying female preference for alpha genes overlaid in human females by their need for a (typically beta) mate/husband to help raise her children. But males spending their scarce resources raising some other male's progeny ends up with a much diminished genetic legacy. And, thus, why unfaithfulness by females is considered so much worse by so many human societies than male infidelity. She knows who her kids' mother is, but are those his kids that he is raising?

The corollary to this is that males prefer chastity (of sorts) in their wives, and distain sluts. Again, because of the paternity issue. Sluts are fine for the potential for bonus offspring, but not good for the mate with whom they are going to raise children, because of the increased risk that he will be raising some other guy's genetic offspring.

The importance here is that this slut dynamic enters the picture, arguably tipping the scales when in favor of males in he-says/she-says situations involving sex. To be blunt - females have more incentive to lie in such situations. Always have, and probably will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Being seen as a slut reduces their value as a wife, and that is a big incentive to fib a bit about what happened. Nothing new, except the pretending these days that this dynamic doesn't exist, and that women haven't been lying about sex since Eve.

sdharms said...

Instead of saving her, quite possibly he saved the guy from accusations of rape. Stepping in to interfere presupposes that the guy was going to "rape" her. How about we demand that women act more like LADIES, than demand that men presuppose other men are predators?

Saint Croix said...

The proper term is clamjam.

I would have said that's a classic case of cock-blocking. In fact he should wear long blue underwear and a cape, with a big "CB" across his chest.

My definitions of a clamjam includes:

1) too many women at a party. "Thank God you're here, Saint Croix, it's a clamjam."

2) A woman who wants to keep another woman from having sex. You need two clams for a jam. That's obvious, Althouse!

3) Little known Elvis Presley song that was never released. But sometimes late at night in Nashville his ghost will sing it. "Clamjam. I'm going to a clamjam. Put some jam on the clams at the clamjam. Clamjam."

4) Seafood and grape jelly (not suggested)

5) Cunnilingus and grape jelly (really not suggested, in fact there should be some kind of health warning, this is wrong, people, stop it now).

HipsterVacuum said...

And no similar hero was around to run interference against the hookup by garage mahal's parents. Alas.

SGT Ted said...

Seeing that men and women have been getting drunk to loosen social inhibitions, especially regarding sex, for oh thousands of years now, I find it fascinating that the default frame is that women and ONLY WOMEN, are expected to have no self control or self-responsibility while consuming alcohol in public and it is other peoples jobs to watch out for them when they drink irresponsibly at parties and become more receptive to sex with strangers.

Isn't that rather patronizing and treating women like tall children with no personal agency?

How about women take responsibility for their alcohol consumption in public places, like men are expected to and not over consume?

Saint Croix said...

Oh, Althouse was correcting EDH, not describing the scene. My bad, Althouse!

By the way, a woman who tries to clam jam is almost always positive for the man. It makes you look like a bad boy (even if you're a saint like me). After the warning she is now 1000 times more likely to run off with you. Clam jams are very, very positive for mankind. At least if we are talking about definitions 1, 2, or 3.

Saint Croix said...

A cock-blocker, also known as a "white knight," may be motivated by an impulse for chivalry. Yay! But there is also an unmistakable sexual one-upmanship going on. It's male rivalry in action.

Saint Croix said...

Also, bad boys who remember to use shampoo and conditioner have more success than bad boys who do not. Bad boy is just a metaphor. You're still going to have to wash up, dude.

SJ said...

@Ann,

I feel an odd double-vision coming on.

See, when I was looking at places to pursue Higher Ed, I found myself choosing between one of two types of schools.*

Type (A) was TechUniversity. Social life was not generally expected to include lots of alcohol and parties. (Though all such schools had a small circle of such party-goers to connect with.)

Not to mention that TechUniversities tended to be in the range of 60%-male.

Type (B) was Private/Religious College. Two of my siblings attended such schools.

More than a few of the Type B schools had rules in place about social life. Dorms were single-gender. Opposite-gender visitors had restricted hours, were subject to open-door rules.

These kinds of schools aren't the typical College experience. But they do exist.

I notice that this provides a template that might be useful.

If a school is really serious about reducing sexual misbehavior, they can institute rules like the following:

1. Any student organization event which has alcohol present must have adult, non-student chaperones present.

The chaperones should be trained to do "interventions" like the one described in the post above.

2. Dorms have fixed visiting hours, and strict enforcement thereof.

3. Since there might be a few students who aren't hetero, dorms should be reconfigured into single-student residences.

4. In line with point 3, all dorm visits (same-gender or opposite-gender) are subject to an open-door policy.

I mean, private/religious colleges do this for religious reasons.

But religoius reason isn't that different from strong cultural imperative to influence student behavior.

So if there's a strong cultural imperative to influence student behavior, and to reduce sexual interactions that are troublesome, the example of private/religious colleges shows how to do that.

--------------------
*For the record, I attended at a Tech School

Mostly for academic reasons, not due to these social rules.

Conserve Liberty said...

When I was in college we had a name for guys like that - it was SNAKE.

Please, understand, the 70's wasn't the hookup culture. We just wanted to date and dance. Sex was reserved for the more committed couples (at least in my group).

A man just didn't walk up and start talking to another man's date and expect to retain a straight nose.

Birkel said...

rcocean wrote:
"Not really. If I get drunk and sell you my $20,000 car for a bottle of scotch, it won't be upheld in court. Its all a matter of degree."

Not so. Lucy vs. Zehmer involved two people drinking heavily but the actions of the contracting parties suggested they both maintained their faculties in spite of drinking and being drunk.

Beside that legal point, some scotch is more expensive than the supposed value of your $20k car.

n.n said...

Revenant:

The exception can be described as the "sister principle". While it is generally extended to "brothers", it is commonly a family, community, or society's position that men are guardians of their women and children. This is an aspect of masculinity which has fallen into disrepute with the onslaught of feminism.

Perhaps this is what a [vocal] minority of women want. Actually, it is more likely that they want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want the benefits of family, community, and civilization... No, it's not just women. It's also men who dream of indulgence without risk.

The principle describes a normal (e.g. desirable) behavior, but reality dictates that some variance will inevitably, and perhaps justifiably, be expressed. Whether explicit or implicit, there are always exceptions to a rule. The concern for society is if that exception should be normalized, tolerated, or rejected by the general population. Typically, rationally, normalization only occurs when a behavior has a redeeming value to society or humanity. Most behaviors are tolerated, and a few are outright rejected.

Laura said...

"But just as we should stop a drunk person from getting behind the wheel of a car, we can keep [drunk persons from isolating in pairs while under] mental impairment."

Why should the assumption of mental impairment exclude inability to gauge reckless or careless enticement? Why assume that the process of consent begins after the door closes?

Nah, camp followers seeking profit have always been men...

Fernandinande said...

Alexander said...
Let her strongly and independently take care of her own situation.


Unless somebody was forced to drink at gunpoint, quite so, because they created the situation.

"Saint Thomas Aquinas believed that intoxication should be partially excusing. In contrast, Aristotle thought the penalty should be doubled, since in addition to the crime, the intoxicated individual was setting a bad example for others."

rcocean said...

"Lucy vs. Zehmer"

Not relevant. Key point: Defendant admitted he was not too drunk to make a contract.

Birkel said...

rcocean:

You are wrong. People can be intoxicated and still be bound to contracts based on what an objective observer would see from their external actions, not their internal perception of their own drunkenness.

After all, your rule would make it impossible for an alleged function drunk like DA Lehmberg to ever enter a contract. That is not the law.

n.n said...

sdharms:

It's not that we presuppose that men are predators, but that women are owed a certain deference and protection (i.e. the "chivalry" concept). Despite the perceived success of test tube babies and rent-a-womb phenomenon, there remains an indelible respect for biological and moral imperatives and constraints. Not only are women the mothers of our children, but in a fair match with a man, their physiology increases the likelihood of a loss, and perhaps even the development of an unwanted "burden".

It's unfortunate that an ambitious and aggressive female minority has seen fit to not only exploit the good nature of their "brothers" and the naturally-motivated "lady" status, but have also chosen to sacrifice their humanity for an equal and actually superior position. The resulting cynicism of rational and moral men and women is well founded.

Birkel said...

In fact, how can we trust the drunk to later testify about the nature of the drunkenness without conceding my point?

Do you notice the conundrum?

Kirk Parker said...

Ignorance,

You can't help using dead metaphors; that's the whole point of 'dead', they aren't necessarily apparent once they become 'dead'.

When was the last time talking about a bottleneck on the freeway made you think of a glass bottle with a narrow neck?

Anonymous said...

Maybe guys should trust their lady friends to look out for themselves. If she's barely able to stand it is one thing. Help her get home safe if she can't help herself. Do the same for your guy friends too. If she's just had a few drinks and has made the decision to hang out with the lowlife who's passed gonorrhea to half the campus she should know better and should face the consequences of her bad decision. Just like your buzzed guy friend who is hitting on the chubby girl with the cold sores should face the consequences of his bad decisions.

Mundane68 said...

As to the opposite happening, it goes on ALL the time in the communities outside military bases.

The soldier represents child support payment, a steady job and medical insurance. If it is an officer or senior enlisted that is even better. When I stationed at both Fort Knox and Fort Bragg, I served with soldiers who were dunned for child support for children that they allegedly conceived with women off of the base. Some for more than one. Almost all were relationships that were casual, but consummated with the assistance of alcohol.

I guarantee they didn't want to get the woman pregnant, and I guarantee the woman did. And that they lowered his resistance to sex with her with alcohol.

So the guy got raped AND dunned for child support afterward.