Also the fact that while he thought it was okay in his mind, the people who were victims didn't think it was okay. The fact memories don't get the details right doesn't mean the incidents didn't happen. Kav was a schmuck.
It wasn’t just that he saw it in movies. Cultural attitudes around what constitutes consent and sexual assault have changed dramatically since then, which is reflected in the movies. And not just for the super-affluent class. How we decide right and wrong, whether our actions fall outside the boundaries of what’s acceptable, is shaped entirely by the cultural environment that we are exposed to. We can agree that in retrospect he was wrong and he should feel shame over his actions while drunk as a young college student, if true (and it probably is). What does it say about the type of person he is today? Well, I think his refusal to acknowledge and express remorse for some of those actions, if true, is certainly a mark against him. But that he did those things as a drunken college student in the 80s doesn’t in itself mean he’s a bad person today. One has to look at things in their cultural context when reviewing decisions made in the past
I understand. But it also doesn't mean that people victimized and traumatized by those actions don't deserve justice. I feel like the focus should be on those people rather than the guy who didn't understand his predator behavior was damaging the victims.
Am I to assume then that people of the 80s by modern standards committed more unreported cases of sexual assault than people do today in 2023? https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/marital-rape-laws.html EDIT: I believe there was a point in time where it was legally permitted to rape your spouse. Ignoring the fact that I consider it a bit of an oxymoron to claim to be willing to love and care for someone for the rest of your life while still simultaneously being able to rationalize to yourself raping them, I'd sincerely like to think married couples back when raping your spouse was legal, still did not do that. That the norm back then even when it was legal to rape your spouse was instead to have consensual sex every time you have sex with someone. Am I to assume though that pre-1976 ruling, more unreported marital rape occurred because the culture permitted it compared to modern standards? Were most people pre-1976 ruling unable to discern right from wrong when it comes to sexual consent until the courts deemed it illegal? Would Stanley Kowalski make a good USSC judge given his behavior was more permissible for the time in A Streetcar Named Desire? I would think someone given supreme authority to interpret the law of the land would have a moral aptitude that exceeds the cultural norms they grew up in. In truth, the reality is at one point in time multiple USSC judges rationalized the legality of owning slaves demonstrating they were no better than the norms of their time. Perhaps your argument demonstrates my own fallibility in assuming the people that interpret the law of the land should have a moral aptitude that is so extraordinary they exceed that of your average person caught up in the same social mores that rationalize such actions as owning slaves and raping spouses.
I would be shocked if that wasn’t the case. Young people were also just having more sex in general back then, weren’t they?
Honestly, I don’t know if he is, but I hope he is. Because then it sends a positive message to the rest of the sex offenders out there: Being a sex offender is not the end of it all. If a sex offender can be one of the Supreme Court justices, he/she can be anything they want to be. Brett has an opportunity to touch a lot of people’s lives.
Generally, agree with this. Shouldn't "punish" a person for something that was (assuming it's true) cultural norm during that time. Definitely shouldn't be a reason to "cancel" the person to the point of not being able to live a typical normal life. But Supreme Court Justices are held to a very high standard. Sorry, this behavior, if true, is 100% disqualifying. It's not only about him but also about maintaining a very high standard. Well, hopefully, none of this is true, and we can continue to maintain a high standard. Otherwise, water under the bridge.
I hear you about Supreme Court justices needing to be held to a higher moral standard to be qualified. The incident is referring to something that happened when he was a college freshman (18 years old) and drunk at a frat party. In the 80s, when this sort of stuff was sadly normal (or so I believe -- maybe I'm wrong). I think we disagree on the level to which this should reflect on his character today.
"He also recalls on the audio an alleged episode he’d heard wherein a drunken Kavanaugh attempted to insert his penis into the mouth of a young woman at a dorm party while she was nearly passed out on the floor from drinking." I was in high school and college in the 80's and went to many alcohol/drug soaked parties. I never saw anything remotely like this. I did hear stories about girls being sexually assaulted while passed out (which I have no doubt has occurred throughout history), however it was acknowledged at the time as really ****ed up, not excused as rowdy hijinks.
Not excused as rowdy hijinks, and yet a mainstream, popular comedy of that decade makes light of exactly that scenario: ‘Sixteen Candles’ Cast Members Open Up About That Date Rape Scene In The Wake of #MeToo | Decider When discussing some of the scenes in these John Hughes films that didn’t quite sit well with her, Ringwald recalled a storyline in Sixteen Candles that had aged remarkably poorly. In the film, Jake (Michael Schoeffling) orchestrates a scenario in which the Geek (Anthony Michael Hall) can bed Jake’s girlfriend, high school villain Caroline (Haviland Morris) in order to get her underwear. It’s unsettling to watch now, as Caroline is entirely too drunk to give any form of consent, and she’s seemingly nothing more than a plaything to these two boys. “The Geek takes Polaroids with Caroline to have proof of his conquest; when she wakes up in the morning with someone she doesn’t know, he asks her if she “enjoyed it.” (Neither of them seems to remember much.),” Ringwald wrote. “Caroline shakes her head in wonderment and says, “You know, I have this weird feeling I did.” She had to have a feeling about it, rather than a thought, because thoughts are things we have when we are conscious, and she wasn’t.” I suppose it's possible that people were willing to make light of such scenarios happening to characters in movies because it's not real, while they would have been aghast if it happened in real life.
In the 80’s and 90’s having intercourse while highly intoxicated was far more common. It was also more common to get consent or to lead an intoxicated woman into sex. The fact she didn’t really contest it was viewed as sufficient by a lot of men. There were men that would wait for last call to see if they could take the drunk girl home. Having sex with an entirely drunk and passed out woman was more controversial but it still happened and if it was by a boyfriend or sometimes by a single person, and there was no violence, it was often condoned. The attitude was that if a woman doesn’t fight physically, then it is consent. Also, men badgering women to the point they gave in sexually was considered consent as well. Men like to take a high moral stand on these types of things, but many men have and still cross boundaries. I am sure that many men in this forum have pestered and pushed women to have sex with them. That they have had sex with drunk women. They claim consent after constantly asking a spouse. We even deify some like Kobe Bryant. So I am not sure surprised we have a sexual assaulter on the SCOTUS and I guarantee he isn’t the first or last.
I'm sure someone's already said this in this thread somewhere, but based on what we've all heard, no, I don't think he's a "sex offender." What I believe he is a ****ing liar (turns out he's not the only one on the SC now... ). Had he came out and said something to the effect that he was ashamed of his juvenile behavior, that the events took place but not quite as described, and that this is not the type of person he is today, I could've accepted all that. That would have actually shown courage on his part and growth. Instead we had a sham investigation/cover-up and at least one truly courageous woman's life and reputation was dragged through the mud. Of course he's on the highest court in the land.
I'm not sure the Rracist Uncle argument that "he was a product of his times" really passes muster when it comes to giving Kavbro a break. Ofc, since his vote is 1/9th of what interprets the law of the land, you probably don't want to piss him off with movies indirectly calling him a rapist. But what do I know, Alito doesn't need any motivation to be more of a partisan prick.
Yes very likely in the history of the USSC there has been a sexual assaulter on the court. As others note what we consider sexual assault today was far more accepted and in the history of the court there were likely justices who even a while on the court committed sexual assault. The thing I would be very cautious about though is that yes there are a lot of stories about Kavanaugh and we know what things were like when he was in College and a young man. I don't think we can tar Kavanaugh with his cultural milieu. Certainly he's not guilty for what was shown on Porky's or Sixteen Candles. For the specific stories about him there is no definitive proof yet and as previously stated even witnesses in the same house as the incident with Dr. Ford couldn't corroborate her story. That is where I would be careful about making accusations about Kavanaugh without more evidence.
I would agree with this. As a young man he certainly appeared to be someone not to be admired. By his own admission he drank a lot and behaved boorishly. He should've just accepted that and showed some humility about it. My biggest problem with Kavanaugh wasn't the accusations about him from 40 years ago but that instead of showing humility, calmness and basic dignity that we should expect of Justice on the highest court of the land he went into a self-pitying grievance driven rant. That should've disqualified him as how can we expect him to ever be dispassionate regarding a case with one of "enemies" that he railed against might appear before him. The sad state of things though is that the audience he was playing for doesn't want dispassionate deliberative figures but wants bombastic grievance obsessed figures.
I agree. Well said. It was so strange watching a large part of the country go to bat for and cheer on a man they hadn't even heard of weeks earlier when he was so obviously, at least in my opinion, completely full of ****. It wasn't like Trump or the Republican party was going to lose the seat to a Democrat or something if his nomination was withdrawn. All they had to do was simply nominate someone else.
