If you’re on a PC, you can zoom in by holding CTRL and spinning your mouse wheel.

I can’t read a damn thing!

HELP!

Totally threw me off my game for at least 2 minutes because all I could think was “damn, Prof. XXX blawged about that.”

As far as I can tell this train of thought fails to draw the difference between a business transactions e.g. the Bungee jumper analogy and a human relationship.

It’s amongst one of the most stupid things i’ve heard in a long while, and it does feminism an injustice.

But seriously, I agree, what the fuck? I thought we wanted *less* government meddling in our bedrooms. I can just imagine: Judge Judy or some other know-it-all presiding over sex court at 7am after plaintiffs do the walk of shame down to the county clerk’s office. One step forward, two steps back…

All these “choice” arguments are ridiculously hackneyed, and I can’t think of a good law review article or judicial opinion that revolves around such an amorphous, easily abused, and unclear concept. You could follow the “freedom of choice” train to absolve any number of negligent or tortious actions.

For example, a person who wants to sue a bungee operator who lies about the condition of the cords. It certainly was my “choice” to believe the bungee operator. I could have chosen someone I “trusted” (step one), taken adequate protective measures (step two) and taken personal responsibility (step 7).

The main purveyor of the “choice” modality of argument has always been vendors of harmful goods, especially cigarettes. The Marlboro Man was invented in order to make smokers feel like they were making their own “decision” to addict themselves to a drug (which, of course, controls the smoker in any realistic world view).

Policy choices revolve around so much more than these lame “choice” arguments. I actually kind of like your “thrill” argument — of course, I assure you that “thrill levels” would go up if tort law withdrew from the extreme sports market. Thrill levels would go up at work if harassment were allowed. And Putney would have had a gay old time if tort law hadnt prevented him from pulling that chair out from Vosberg. So what is the difference?

Maybe the difference (ie, the explanation for our instinct that this is a stupid reform) is that there are no damages! If I knowingly get a lady into bed promising to date her, but without any intention, her damages are arguably only emotional. Generally, the public is uneasy about torts where the damages are purely emotional (hence, IIED has an “objectively outrageous” requirement).

Now, maybe she would argue that she was expecting more dates which have a cash value! But, if the law were to enforce that bargain, it would imply that she offered the sex as legal consideration for future paid dates, which is a crime (prostitution). So, maybe we are uncomfortable with the idea of damages being paid for “intentional sex torts” because it implies a cash value equivalent to sex . . .

Some things fall outside the realm of tort law. If you open up this realm to tort, you can’t do so selectively. It’s an onslaught of bullshit.

Ironically, this proffered “feminist” idea is actually quite otherwise. It assumes that women cannot take care of themselves.. cannot be good judges of character… can not make wise decisions re sexual partners….

What about fraudulent inducement to love.. how about that next?

You don’t? If he’s over the age of consent and consenting, I thought you did. You don’t have the right to rape any random cute guy, but sleep with, you do.

PS – I hope that this didn’t come off as sarcastic. I appreciate the fact that you obviously strongly disagree, but you were very civil about it. I hope that my intent to be civil in return is clear… but when talking about this particular subject, sometimes that can get lost in the necessary terminology. If so, give me the benefit of the doubt, please.

You’re focusing on the apparently frightening notion that men will have to be more upfront with the women they sleep with (what a concept!) You seem to forget that, your unsupported assumptions about gender neutrality notwithstanding, women would also have to be honest. That means if she says she’s on birth control and she lied — how about that, you are off the hook. She tells you she’s disease-free and she gives you AIDS, she’s covering your medical bills the rest of your life.

This obviously would not make every single lie unlawful, any more than every single lie a salesperson tells in inducing a sale is unlawful. You’re forgetting the key inquiries in any fraud case: materiality and objectively reasonable reliance. And, fear not, my friend — most judges — you know, the ones who get to decide if that issue even gets to a jury — are men. You have very little to worry about.

And, come on. Your cockblocking analogy, while humorous, completely misses the point. I have the right to make informed choices about my health. I don’t have the right to sleep with any random cute guy who makes conversation with me at the bar. These two are nowhere near the same thing.