A Classic Example

by Mr. Excitement

Amy Benfer has more on the sexual assault in Sixteen Candles that we were discussing here.

"Over martinis with the Geek, played by Anthony Michael Hall, Jake hatches a plan, letting Anthony Michael Hall cart her off in his parents' Rolls Royce at the end of the night when she's too drunk to anything -- including, um, consent. She wakes up in the morning in the Rolls with her hair chopped off and says something to the effect that she doesn't remember what she did, but she thinks she liked it...The scene only works because people were stupid about date rape at the time. Even in a randy teen comedy, you would never see two sympathetic male characters conspiring to take advantage of a drunk chick these days."

To follow on my previous points, I like Sixteen Candles, but I think Samantha's storyline holds up much better than the subplot with Farmer Ted -- who may be a Hughes nerd, but he's also a douchebag. His main reason for wanting sex is to trumpet his conquests to his nerd friends; he's more interested in the males who will worship him for his imaginary prowess rather than in actual relationships with women. In the scene with Caroline, she's passed out drunk and he proceeds to place her in compromising positions and take photographs, which only his ham-handedness prevents from being disseminated. We don't need to imagine what happens afterward for this to be an assault; what happens onscreen already is. (And, yes, I get that this is a teen comedy -- the fact that this is supposed to be funny is one of the most disturbing things about it.)

Hold your fire, Hughes lovers. Benfer also offers a nice appraisal of what Hughes got right:

"Were the John Hughes movies progressive? In terms of their sexual politics, they were often not. They merely reflected some of the prejudices of their time. Considering the horror of Long Duk Dong, the Jar Jar Binks of the '80s and one of the worst Asian stereotypes ever committed to film, maybe we should be grateful that in his best films, Hughes rarely tried to move past what he knew: white, suburban Chicago teenagers. But he did class better than almost anyone else. In the middle of the hedonistic '80s that glorified all things yuppie, he made heroes out of working-class teens and and villains out of wealthy kids, who were often callously exploiting their peers in ways that reflected what some thought their corporate parents were doing to the country."

Indeed.

Comments

[Joshua James]

"with Farmer Ted -- who may be a Hughes nerd, but he's also a douchebag. His main reason for wanting sex is to trumpet his conquests to his nerd friends; he's more interested in the males who will worship him for his imaginary prowess rather than in actual relationships with women. In the scene with Caroline, she's passed out drunk and he proceeds to place her in compromising positions and take photographs, which only his ham-handedness prevents from being disseminated. We don't need to imagine what happens afterward for this to be an assault; what happens onscreen already is."

Sigh.

Caroline wakes up before the picture gets taken, the picture is screwed up by her enthusiam for the picture. She screws up the picture. She wakes up and joyfully joins in.

And you suggest a compromising position, like she's naked or she's in something of a dirty pose, when in actuality he's just sitting with his arm around her ...

Sigh.

Ted didn't want to take her home, Ted didn't want to have sex with her (he fought her off all the way in the car, telling her to behave) ... she's the aggressor and, may I add, she's the adult (Ted's too young for consent, at 15) ...

And again, they wake up the next morning, Ted honestly can't remember having sex ... she does. She was the aggressor, the initiator, the adult, it's on her ... yes, she's too drunk for consent, but remember that Ted is too young for consent (and he obviously didn't want to give consent, well before). She told him she loved him. And they were both awake when last we saw them ... come morning, both wake up, Ted doesn't know where he is, she has a pretty good idea and knows they had sex.

If there was date-rape, it's on Caroline (who, it should be noted, also probably outweighed Farmer Ted, who looked to be about 80 pounds soaking wet). Or it could be they both agreed. We don't know. We only know, Ted ... DOESN'T REMEMBER! She does!

Crikey.

I'd make the argument Ted doesn't even really want to have sex, he just wants to be cool, hence the picture as proof ... proof is more important to him than sex. You acknowledge it yourself, he's less interested in women than he is in being cool.

And as far as the "douchebag" aspect of it, Farmer Ted was just in there defending Sam's honor to Jake, telling him that if all he wants was a piece of ass, stay away from Sam.

Farmer Ted, a douchebag? That's utterly ridiculous!

The only way he could get ladies underpants was to ask nicely, and he did, and he got them.

What kind of douchebag does that?

And I gotta say, they are kids, it is comedy, on my dorm floor when you passed out drunk, we all wrote nasty shit on you in permament marker so that you had to go to class with the word "DICK" on your forehead ... that was a douchy thing to do, but it's also funny.

This movie is funny. The fact that you think it's disturbing that I find it funny is almost a weird as the fact that you believe there's a date rape in the film that didn't happen or doesn't exist. Really. To me, that's disturbing.

I don't get it, I really don't. There's a whole lot more movies with far more negative actions toward women and girls and sexuality (American Pie, etc) you could focus on (even a Hughes film, have you seen Career Opportunities? I have) and you pick on the ONE film that has as it's lead a 16 girl who lands her dream boy, the other two stories are about geeks who triumph and are seduced by older, more powerful women (Duk's arc nearly predicts Farmer Ted's) and come out of the experience wiser.

Sigh. Okay, I guess I've said my piece.

[J.]

Um. I didn't necessarily want to engage in this, but...I gotta.

Let's just start with I love John Hughes' work. It was massively important to me as a teenager and a young adult and it remains pretty important. But there is definitely a dark side, particularly with his earlier teen comedies (Weird Science, Sixteen Candles, etc.).

Dude, you're basically saying that if a woman, who is TOO DRUNK TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE, comes onto you, and you respond, WITHOUT MAKING IT CLEAR THAT YOU'RE NOT THE PERSON SHE THINKS YOU ARE, it's not sexual assault? Because that's what happens. Caroline's "dream" boyfriend decides he's bored with her, dumps her in the hands of a randy kid and doesn't really give a crap about what happens to her. She thinks this kid is her boyfriend because she's falling down drunk. He doesn't (as I remember it) do much to disabuse her of this notion, and pretty much can't consummate the act more out of his own inexperience. There is really nothing defensible about any of that.

I love me some Anthony Michael Hall and, as a kid, I certainly identified with Farmer Ted. But I'm an adult now and can see that, repeatedly, he throws himself, physically, at women who are not interested. I probably did the same as a kid. IT IS NOT COOL. I was a douchebag for doing it and so is Farmer Ted.

And don't get me started on how there's anything "triumphant" about Long Duk Dong's arc. Because there's really not.

You actually make Isaac's point for him: Farmer Ted isn't interested in sex because he actually cares about any of these women. He wants to be cool and the path to cool goes through some random girl's pants. It doesn't matter who or how you get there (let's also remember that he tries to jump Molly Ringwald about three times before "settling" for asking). Yeah, that would be textbook sexism. Women exist as a path to something, not as beings in their own right, who you might actually like.

John Hughes' movies are, I think, a great time capsule of their times and milleu. In too many suburbs, things like this happened and were considered funny, or, worse, normal. Hopefully we've all grown up enough to see that it shouldn't be. That doesn't mean the movies should be condemned or buried. Weird Science is about 7 on my list of all-time favorite movies. That doesn't mean I can ignore the blatant sexism that pervades it. We can hold both ideas in our heads at the same time.

[J.]

Just as a sidebar, Isaac's piece reminds me of the Robot Chicken sketch where the nerds from Revenge of the Nerds are arrested and charged with multiple felonies, including rape. Because, yeah, they totally did that.

[isaac]

Hey J,

I'd just note that this was, in fact, written by contributor Mr. Excitement, not yours truly. Other than that, I don't disagree with anything you've said.

[J.]

My bad! Mr. Excitement, I offer my apologies!

[Joshua James]

You want to make a case about the rape / assault in Revenge of the Nerds, I wouldn't argue ... but that's not the same as what we see in 16 Candles ... yeah, she's drunk and yeah, he's underage.

You bet. Doesn't make what we hear about the next day SEXUAL ASSAULT.

I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, but I do. She's the aggressor, he fought her off ... they wake up, HE can't remember what happened, she tells him that she had sex and that, actually, she kind of enjoyed it.

HE DOESN'T ASSAULT HER. Nowhere does it show / demonstrate that. Words and actions in the flick tells us SHE ASSAULTS HIM.

The fact that she's drunk doesn't matter. If a man gets rip-roaring drunk and sexually assaults a woman, is the woman to blame because the dude was too drunk to consent?

HELL NO! He's still to blame. Take it one step further, an 18 year old dude gets smashes and sexually assaults a 15 year old girl who keeps refusing him ... do we blame HER because the 18 year old dude is too drunk?

HELL NO!

So why, if we're fair to the sexes, would it be the case otherwise?

I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself, but she's the person who initiates, who crawls all over him, she's also older, more powerful and in charge (even at the end, after they wake up and are MAKING OUT ... SOBER ... she's the one in charge, she goes to talk to Jake) and that's always the case throughout.

We don't even know how DRUNK she was by the time they had sex. Perhaps she had sobered up by then, perhaps not (she did get a nap in, right?) ...

Text says, he doesn't remember, and in fact fought her off. Text and action says she initiated it, she remembers.

We don't see the actual sex, the actual act, nor do we even know WHEN they had it during the night.

Nor do we even know that Caroline actually believed Jake when he told her Ted was him and vice-versa. It looks that she got less drunk as the night wore on (when she woke up for the picture, she was definitely not sleepy).

Really, I don't know where this is coming from, but I find this repeated claim ridiculous. And interesting, too, that's it's couched in a sexism ...

Revenge of the Nerds? You bet. Great, funny movie, but yeah, that was a nasty piece of sexual assault on moonland, no argument. Funny but nasty.

That's not what happens in 16 Candles.

And if Robot Chicken did this one, they'd arrest Caroline for statutory rape.

[Tarhearted]

I'm going to have to side with Joshua James on this one. Kind of. I think the movie does work a lot in antiquated gender expectations. Ted is a geek because he lacks masculinity: things like aggression, control, dominance over females. He's put in his place by Sam, the girl in the neckbrace, and Caroline. We constantly see Ted trying to reconcile the douche bag his peers expect him to be and the sensitive person he actually is. He's repeatedly derided as a 'fag'. Joshua is quite right when he points out that Caroline is always in control. She's older, bigger, and yields way more power than him. And both of them are drunk, not just her.

When they wake up the next day (and by the way, am I the only person who thought the joke was that they never actually had sex?)it's Ted who walks away with a new found maturity and understanding of sexuality, not Caroline.

[Tarhearted]

Oh, but I will go with the crowd on Long Duck Dong. Yikes.

[J.]

So...apparently, a woman can't be sexually assaulted if she is:

A) heavier or taller than the guy in question,

B) older than than the guy in question,

C) more popular than the guy in question, or

D) the guy in question is drunk.

Really? Do you both really think that?

I didn't mean to wade back into this because I'm pretty sure that no one's mind is going to be changed here, and I haven't had a chance to watch the movie again. In my recollection, which may be faulty, Farmer Ted is far from drunk at the end of the movie (which wouldn't excuse it, even if he was), and certainly in a position of actual, physical power over a woman who is falling down drunk, despite any imbalance in age, weight or social power. We're not sure what exactly has happened, and, yes, maybe it was just innocent cuddling or something, but it wasn't something that happened with actual, adult, informed consent from one of the participants. Period. Call it a gray area, call it Hughes' eliding over an unfortunate rite of passage for a lot of suburban boys and girls, call it whatever you want. For me, no amount of excuses can make that go away. But most importantly, it doesn't make the movie any less sweet, any less funny, really, or any less spot-on. So...what's the argument here? Mr. Excitement accused a fictional character of possibly committing a sexual assault and that requires a full-throated defense? I know I've succumbed to it as well, but still. If a friend of yours told you this story, maybe you think it was cute, maybe you would think it was creepy. But defending it...that's too far for me to go.

[Joshua James]

"So...apparently, a woman can't be sexually assaulted if she is:

A) heavier or taller than the guy in question,

B) older than than the guy in question,

C) more popular than the guy in question, or

D) the guy in question is drunk."

You left out ... BY A CHILD. Sure a woman can be assaulted under those circumstances ... but it's also possible, under those circumstances, that she's not.

Or reverse it ... can a YOUNG MAN be assaulted by a woman even if he is ...

A) heavier or taller than the girl in question,

B) older than than the girl in question,

C) more popular than the girl in question, or

D) the girl in question is drunk.

Is it possible?

Yes. It's possible for a man to be assaulted by a woman, younger and drunker than he ...

But the question isn't what is possible, the question is ... Did Farmer Ted sexually assault Caroline?

I've listed off the data again and again, I can't understand why you're missing it but ... your argument is ...

1) She's drunk.

2) Ted made a move on Sam (a different girl) before and was rebuffed.

3) Ted tried to get his friends to take a picture of him sitting next to her in the car so people would believe he actually was with her, which some people view as douchy.

4) Jake told Caroline to pretend Ted was Jake, and she agreed (again, I don't see how this is on Ted, but that's one of your arguments).

5) They wake up in the car together, the next morning and talk about the "sex" they had.

Therefore ... Ted must have sexually assaulted her.

Our argument is:

1) Ted didn't want to drive her home.

2) Caroline made obvious sexual advances on him, which he rebuffed. Again and again.

3) She was awake (at the end of the picture-taking session) and happy before they go off and have sex, so she wasn't passed out when last we saw them in the night.

4) Caroline looked very capable of defending her virtue, despite her drunken state. Yes, size matters. Power matters. Caroline, even in her drunken state, obviously had the power (she made Ted drink a beer while driving and take a birth control pill).

5) Ted is 15, and she is 18, therefore he's not old enough for consent, and she is. He's not to blame for her drunken state, she is.

6) When they wake up, Ted doesn't know for sure if they had sex, or even if he liked it. Caroline remembers that they had sex, remembers that they both enjoyed it.

7) WHEN SOBER, Caroline still finds enough attraction to Ted to MAKE OUT with him ... the NEXT DAY. She did that ... SOBER.

8) as pointed out before, we don't even know for certain if actual sex happened, much less sexual assault. Simply because Caroline says it, doesn't make it so.

9) Neither Caroline or Ted feel they were assaulted the day after, if anything, they act as though what happened was consentual.

Now then ... the argument? You're asking what the argument is? Why ask that after you've waded in twice to defend someone else's point of view (seeing as that they're not interested in doing so) ... Mark (Mr. Excitement) posted this not once, but twice (there was a previous post) and I believed it to be a false interpretation of the facts regarding the actions and text of a movie I quite like ...

Is it worth getting worked up about? Nah, I'm not angry or hot, this ain't health care.

But if it's not important, why would Mark post it twice? I don't know, you'd have to ask him.

But it's important to me, because the the man's work (John Hughes) is important to me, and while I can certainly understand someone not liking it as much as I do, I don't really care for it to be misrepresented, and calling what happened sexual assault is exactly that.

Yes, it's a fictional character, but so what? It's a terrible accusation to make WHEN WRONG, regardless. It really is.

Yep, it's just a movie, you got that. People argue over movies, film and theatre all the time (isn't that part of what blogs are for) and I got involved because it does bother me when a piece of work I greatly admire is misrepresented and, in fact, slandered.

There's a whole wealth of books, films, plays that I'm sure both Mark and Isaac love and care about and wouldn't like to be misrepresented and would argue voraciously for ... we care about such things because this work is what we do and why we do it.

Finally, you find me defending this too far for you to go, yet you're here defending the other view ... why is my position too far and yours not?

[Joshua James]

I should add, as someone who taught self-defense to women ... assault and sexual harassment is about power.

It's always about power ... no one assaults or harasses someone they view as more powerful than they ... women are just a capable of harassing men as men are of women (and it's been documented in many a work case, well before DISCLOSURE came out) and in those situations it's about who has the power.

A woman can have the power in a male-female dynamic, and Caroline obviously has it.

Your view that, since she's female she cannot, is just as sexist as anything else. Of course women can have power over men.

It matters that Caroline has power in this situation, it does. Why wouldn't it?

[J.]

You know what? It's really not worth it. Like I said, no one is convincing anyone of their side here and we're both acting like a couple of jerks. I disagree with your read on the situation. You disagree with mine. I'm not going to sit here and tout my experience or knowledge about women's issues, because, well, dude, I'm not a woman and I don't really have the right and I think that doing that makes you sound like a jerk. Let's just let it go. Because, in the grand scheme of things, you're just some dude on the internet, and so am I. My life isn't going to change because we disagree about this. Like I said, I still love this movie, I love John Hughes' work, I am deeply saddened both by his death and by his retreat from Hollywood. We can agree on that. Anything more and we're getting into trolling. And I should know better. Don't feed the troll.

[Joshua James]

We can agree that we're saddened by John Hughes passing, sure. I am. Many people are.

That doesn't mean either of us is trolling. We're arguing, heatedly, over events in a movie. I'm not fighting just to fight, nor did I even start this conversation ... Mr. Excitement did, twice. I left a comment and it sat for a whole day before you picked up the glove.

I'm only talking about a movie.

That happens all the time, in 90s when I worked at a video store (when they still had them, that is) I spent hours doing that with my coworkers (now if you're pissed because I worked in a video store and you didn't, and that makes me come off like a jerk, having that experience when you do not, I apologize in advance) and it was enjoyable and also edifying, too, for someone like me who wanted to work in movies.

We're not agreeing, true ... for the most part I think it's because you're ignoring my arguments ... I've listed yours in my post above and addressed them, you're ignoring them while taking potshots at me like the above, that my answers makes me sound "like a jerk".

The thing is, we're not arguing over which move is best, Sixteen Candles or Ferris Bueller, we're not arguing over matters of taste ... we're talking about actual actions and events. So it's not about opinion, rather interpretation of actual actions.

We do this in theatre, too, at least we did when I was in grad school ... it's called dramaturgy. It's a good thing to do.

And lastly, accusing someone (even a fictional character) wrongly of sexual assault is a terrible, terrible thing. I know one or two people whose lives have been nearly ruined by such a false accusation, and I don't think it's something to be tossed out lightly even. It's a terrible thing to do without basis, and so for me that's something worth pointing out, even though it's just a movie.

If that makes me a jerk, so be it. I can live with that. But it's not fucking trolling. I've backed up my arguments with substance from the text in question. If you can prove me wrong, fine, I'm open to it. Absolutely.

The fact that you haven't been able to doesn't mean I'm trolling. It could also mean you're just not listening.

It may seem jerky about this because I've shared experiences that I've had and you haven't ... if may seem jerky to you because you can't think of a way to counter my points ... whatever, fine ... But that's not trolling ... that's called losing an argument, and I'm sorry it seems jerky when it happens to you, but that doesn't make you any more right or wrong, or me, and it doesn't make me a fucking troll. I'm not.

[J.]

What makes it trolling is that nothing is making a difference here. I've stated my point, made my observations, you've made yours and it's just going around and around with no actual end in sight. Who said I need to back any of this up with some personal reference point? Then we're not actually talking about a movie; we're arguing about the actual definition of sexual assault. Which is not germane to any of this. What makes it trolling is that you're implying all kinds of things about me and basically baiting me (which I keep rising to) for no actual reason or to achieve any point.

This entire thing is totally about opinion. I'm of the opinion that when a young woman is falling down, nearly incapacitated drunk, and someone takes advantage of her for his own gain (i.e. driving her to his friend's house to take pictures of her and him in a compromising position) no matter what else happens is at the very least borderline sexual assault and definitely douchebag behavior. You're of the opinion that a drunk girl flinging herself at a young boy is at worst statutory rape. What evidence/arguments/well-written statements are going to change that?

We're not arguing about the value of theatricality in Paula Vogel's work or the evidence of Brecht's socialism in The Good Woman of Sezchuan. This is nerd recess. We're arguing about whether Superman can beat up Batman. Sure, it's important, but no one is changing anyone's mind here.

I've backed up my arguments, too, which you seem to ignore, and you tell me that how I saw those events wasn't how I saw them. How do I counter that? And you keep returning to the same arguments over and over, when I've already made it clear that I don't agree. Repetition isn't argument. It's annoying. And I'm annoying myself.

Seriously. Joshua. I'm done. You want to think you "won" this argument because you bored me, pissed me off and, frankly, disgusted me all at once, enough to make me leave the thread, hey, pal, you're a winner. Good on you. Pat yourself on the back and take a bow.

[Joshua James]

Thank you, I will.

And again point out, since you keep inventing things that did not happen ... Caroline was awake and happy last we saw her, glad to have her picture taken in a "compromising position", (just sitting next to Ted, fully clothed), Ted didn't give her the booze she drank, didn't make her drink it, didn't want to have sex. The next morning, Ted doesn't remember having sex, she does. She still digs him and they make out.

All Ted does is try to get her home and take a picture of them sitting together so his friends will actual believe they were in the same car together. For that you call him a douchebag.

It's not a matter of opinion, those things happened in the movie. Not a matter of opinion, and I have to keep repeating myself because you keep making shit up. We can interpret different things from those actions, but those are the actions.

But whatever, I'll pat myself on the back happily.

[J.]

Oh, what the fuck? Talk about making things up. When Ted takes her picture? He has to wake her up from a drunken stupor. She has no idea where she is, who's taking her picture or why. Yes, she goes along happily. Because she's drunk. That's not a matter of opinion. It's actually the thing that makes the scene make sense. It's the thing that makes the scene funny at all. It's the point of her entire storyline in the second half of the movie. She is falling down, blackout, doesn't remember having her friend cut off a hunk of her hair blitzed, remembers the next morning that "something" happened, but it was "nice" drunk, wasted. I'm not accusing Anthony Michael Hall of getting her drunk. I'm saying he takes advantage of that fact. You, however, are so wrapped up in making it sweet and romantic, you're missing the actual point: she's drunk. That's one of the reasons Jake abandons her, that's how she winds up with Ted. She is in no position or condition to give her consent to anything, much less anything sexual. So, yes, if you completely ignore the point of the scene, you're absolutely right.

I can't believe you dragged me back into this.

[Joshua James]

Takes advantage of it by TAKING A PICTURE ... that she poses happily for!

Where does it show that he takes advantage of her SEXUALLY! It doesn't show that, it shows the opposite.

It DOES SHOW Caroline jumping all over HIM, it DOES SHOW him refusing her, it DOES SHOW her telling him the next day that they had sex and they liked it, and it DOES show her MAKING OUT WITH HIM WHILE SOBER!

So how do you get to her sexually harassing a meek 15 year old kid to HIM sexually assaulting her?

You don't, and that's why you're making shit up.

I get that she's drunk, yep ... she's an adult, she drank ... and AS I POINTED OUT, if she were an 18 year old GUY who got DRUNK on his ASS and didn't remember shaving part of his hair off, who kept crawling all over a 15 year old girl (or fuck it, a 15 year old boy) you wouldn't say, HEY, HE'S DRUNK, HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING!

The fact that people get drunk and have sex ALL THE TIME (yes, it happens) and at some point consent happens ... with Caroline, it's obvious she wanted to have sex, even though she was drunk, she wanted to ... AT NO TIME does she claim she didn't want to (even the next day, while sober).

If she got drunk and got behind the wheel and got into an action, would you say SHE WAS TOO DRUNK TO GIVE CONSENT TO DRIVE?

No.

Hell, if a person gets drunk and passes out and some dude comes across and has sex without their consent ... that's assault, that's rape. No argument.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS FUCKING MOVIE!

And Ted is TOO YOUNG FOR CONSENT, as I've pointed out over and over again.

Being DRUNK doesn't excuse Caroline of her own personal responsibility.

If it was a guy, in her shows, would you make the same argument?

No, because it would be ridiculous.

You're saying anytime two people get drunk and have sex for the first time, it must be assault because they were too drunk to consent?

If that's true, I was sexually assaulted multiple times by older more experienced women when I was in college.

A lot. Of times.

Come on, man! Seriously?

And Jake "abandons" (actually, gives Ted a car to drive her home in return for Sam's underwhere) her for what she did to his house, in order to chase after another woman, for whatever reason.

I keep saying this, but two things are fucking us up.

You're stuck on she's drunk, therefore she must be pitied and easily taken advantage of.

I'm stuck on the fact, he's under age and not the person in power.

Lastly, I keep saying this, they don't show us who started with who ... so we're interpreting this based on what happened before and after ... and AS I KEEP SAYING, SHE WAS THE AGGRESSOR, SHE WANTED TO HAVE SEX, HE DID NOT WANT TO HAVE SEX, THEY WAKE UP, HE DOESN'T REMEMBER HAVING SEX, SHE DOES, THEY LIKE IT, THEY MAKE OUT ... ergo, it's logical to presume, based on the text, that she continued to impose her sexual will upon him and he gave in.

I'm not dragging you into anything, you're responsible for what you do, you want to continue, don't fucking blame me ... you're an adult, I'll assume you're not drunk and therefore not able to consent to this discussion ... it's not on me that you keep coming back to this argument.

[cgeye]

She was still drunk when she woke up, wasn't she?

He still knew that she was so out of it that if someone asked him whether what he did was right, he'd have a problem?

She assaulted him, too... it was statutory rape. But do two wrongs make everything OK? Did he get absolved for not walking away, because he got some?

Would it have been better or worse for an older stranger to have taken those pictures, then had sex with her? Would that make what actually happened to her clearer, if we take his age and nerdity out of the picture?

[cgeye]

... and of course this laff riot led to the slippery slope that was the rape scene in SERVE AND PROTECT. If they released STRANGE DAYS this summer, it would be a comedy.