Gilbert Grope
I met a nice man (so I thought) who lives about 40 miles away. On our second date, we had drinks in my neighborhood. He drank too much, and asked to hang at my house so he wouldn't drive under the influence. I didn't like this because I'm used to guys using this ploy for sex, but he said if I didn't let him in, I was making him drive drunk. I grudgingly allowed him in, and he immediately started making moves on me. Eventually, I tried to send him home, but he said he was still in no position to drive, so I kicked him out early in the morning. What were my obligations here? Every man I asked said I shouldn't have risked letting him in. As one said, "Better a strange drunk on the road than a strange drunk in your home, where he could rape you." I have yet to ask a woman who can give me a definitive answer; they're all as conflicted as I am.
--Manhandled
If a stranger comes to your door and says, "I'm too drunk to drive home," you don't say, "No problem, I'll make up the bed!" Yet, this guy's a near stranger, one you didn't want in your home -- even before he took the post-date sex ploy to a remarkable new low. Yeah, forget the usual lame lemme-in tactics like "I'd love to meet that cat I've heard so much about!" or "Mind if I use your bathroom?" No, it's "Mind if I cause the fiery death of a family of five?"
A guy might present you with an either/or situation, but that doesn't mean those are your only choices. In this case, you should've told the guy to cab it to a motel. (To borrow from your friend, "Better a strange drunk cabbing to Motel 6 than a strange drunk turning your home into Motel Sex.") If your date insists on driving drunk, call the cops, report a drunk driver, and give them a description of his car. Of course, it's possible he isn't really drunk, just trying to con his way in, but that's for the cop who stops him to determine: "I can touch my finger to my nose just fine, Officer, but I'm having real problems getting my hand up a girl's shirt."
It isn't surprising that all your girlfriends are "conflicted" about what you should've done. In fact, other women would have given in like you did -- not necessarily because they're weak or dumb, but because they're women: the gender that evolved to be the nurturers, peacemakers, and consensus builders of the species. (All great until a drunk guy swinging a set of car keys is standing at your front door.)
Recognizing that, as a woman, you have a hardwired tendency to be a pleaser is the best way to avoid succumbing to it. You have to decide before you're in a dicey situation that your comfort level and safety take priority over possibly coming across as rude or unsympathetic. Keep in mind, as Gavin de Becker writes in The Gift of Fear, that "'No' is a complete sentence," and if you let somebody talk you out of it, "you might as well wear a sign that reads, 'You are in charge.'" Get his book, start a reading group with your "conflicted" girlfriends, and in the future, see to it that your door policy is determined by you, not Jim Beam and Captain Morgan.
Correct answer: "I'll call you a cab."
This is why women shouldn't vote.
brian at July 6, 2010 4:05 PM
Would have a quickie BJ killed you? Jeez--let me guess--he paid for dinner, drinks etc., drives 40 effing miles to see you and he gets nothing except the living room sofa? And you begrudge him that?
Paul Priapism at July 6, 2010 5:11 PM
Paul....I can't believe that in this day and age there are men like you who believe that because they spend money on dinner and drinks, women are OBLIGATED to stick some strange guy's dick in their mouth!! It was only their second date and yet you seem to think this guy was ENTITLED to the same "benefits" as someone she'd been dating long term. How arrogant!
Jan at July 6, 2010 5:23 PM
Jan, I think your irony detector needs a tuneup.
Rex Little at July 6, 2010 5:57 PM
"What were my obligations here? Every man I asked said I shouldn't have risked letting him in"
First, there is no fixed "rule" that you "should" follow --- it's called "using your judgment". Nobody else can really answer because only YOU had two dates with the guy, the rest of know nothing about him. Presumably you learned something about his personality during those two dates, enough to make a "judgment call". Your male friends are not going to give you unbiased advice anyway because from their perspective other males are 'competition'.
Secondly, you basically stated that you didn't want to let him in. In which case, voila, there's your answer, simple as that. If you prefer to be cautious and aren't up for 'casual fun' with almost-strangers, then that's who you are, and you just say no and stick to that, like Amy said. You have zero 'obligations'.
Third, this guy made a conscious choice to drink knowing full well he was 40 miles from home. You think he couldn't foresee that drinking leads to being drunk and therefore make his own arrangements in advance? Of *course* he was looking for a premise to get a few steps closer to potential sex with you - but isn't that normal? It's not really a "ploy", it's just what many people do, and often the woman is up for having some fun too - i.e. it's often mutual - so you can't really blame a guy for trying - just let a guy know where he stands early on if it's not your thing. If the date was going very well he might even have thought he could be 'in' --- especially given you let him into your home. But again, to really answer meaningfully, we need a lot more information that only you have, since we weren't on the date.
Lobster at July 6, 2010 6:15 PM
"What were my obligations here?"
None. Where in the world do you get this notion that you had some?
Spartee at July 6, 2010 8:32 PM
Ick. Just ick. Lobster's right in that we can't really answer meaningfully, not having been on the date, but I have to say that any guy who'd tell me that I was forcing him to drive drunk because I wouldn't let him stay at my house on a second date sure as hell wouldn't end up staying at my house. Lobster's also right in that the guy knew he had a 40 mile trip back home and chose to drink too much anyway. LW doesn't have to invite the guy to sleep over because of his bad management (or unencouraged optimism). Saying no is enough of an answer to a guy on a second date (I can see it getting fuzzier if they'd been dating for two months or something). I love this line, Amy:
A guy might present you with an either/or situation, but that doesn't mean those are your only choices.
Damn straight. I think this is a problem a lot of women have. You don't have to work within the parameters someone else sets up for you. Framing things in this way is a classic negotiation technique. You don't have to play just because he says you do.
I followed a link to a blog the other day, and I was browsing through the archives and I found this. It's actually a really hideous bad date story, but I couldn't help but yell through my computer screen at the stupid woman on the date. This line sums it up pretty nicely: Turns out he lived in Harlem (at least another 1/2 hour from her place in Hoboken, NJ), so there was no way she was going to do the late night trip back to Hoboken-- a commute that would last over 45 minutes.
Really?! So she spends the night in the same bed with this guy that she met on Match.com, on their first date-- because she didn't want to travel the extra half hour home. I know that's a pain in the New York area, but still. Not wanting to spend the money to get yourself out of the situation is not an excuse. If she didn't want to call a cab, I'm pretty sure there are motels in Harlem. Or a friend who would have been willing to come pick her up. Or anything other than sleeping in the bed with a guy she just met (and make sure to read the blog, because it was actually really horrible). The worst part is that she decided she was going to sleep over (with a guy that had already lied to her) before they got back to his place. Now, why did they have to meet near his place? Isn't that the kind of thing you set up before a date? She could have said, "That's a bit too far for me when I leave, how about something more in the middle?"
Argh.
P.S. Paul, I like your handle. You know, so to speak.
NumberSix at July 6, 2010 8:56 PM
Number Six-
You know, it gets old, but I am always up for something.
Paul Priapism at July 6, 2010 9:12 PM
As long as you have a firm grasp on the subject, Paul.
NumberSix at July 6, 2010 9:53 PM
not to firm a grip - depending in how long it lasts the skin might slogh off
lujlp at July 7, 2010 7:03 AM
You don't owe the jerk anything. If he isn't up to the drive, he can get a cab, sleep in a Motel, or sleep it off in the car. Going on a date does not oblige you to let him into your home.
A guy that does not respect the word "No" is waving a giant red flag and under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you leave yourself vulnerable to him by inviting him into your home.
Kim at July 7, 2010 7:14 AM
Yeah, a pretty transparent ploy on his part, and there's no way the LW should feel any kind of obligation to him. Give him one of two choices: a cab or his own car. If he picks the former, fine. If the latter, write down his license plate number, then call the police and tell them which way the drunk was headed when he left.
old rpm daddy at July 7, 2010 7:43 AM
I just saw this question in a Dear Prudence column the other day. Do these people answer shop advice columns expecting to hear something different each time?
Debbie at July 7, 2010 8:12 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/07/gilbert-grope.html#comment-1730272">comment from DebbieYou actually saw it in another column -- I'm going to post about it on my blog. And they did hear something different -- the other columnist asked readers for the answer. I don't do that sort of thing. I actually do the thinking myself.
Amy Alkon at July 7, 2010 8:20 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/07/gilbert-grope.html#comment-1730277">comment from Amy AlkonThe two columns are posted here:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/07/which_amy_the_a.html
Amy Alkon at July 7, 2010 8:42 AM
Hey Jan, it's not some strange guy's dick. It's my dick.
Bastiat's ghost at July 7, 2010 9:27 AM
>> Every man I asked said I shouldn't have risked letting him in. As one said, "Better a strange drunk on the road than a strange drunk in your home, where he could rape you."
The thought crosses my mind that with some basic self-defense training, and 3 months of kickboxing for strength, the LW should be able to fend of the "average" drunk, assuming she was smart enough to stay sober. Unless she's got some pre-existing disability, in which case further caution is advised.
Why do we always assume that ANY man could rape any woman at will? Isn't that a form of internalized "victimhood"?
vi at July 7, 2010 9:52 AM
"The thought crosses my mind that with some basic self-defense training, and 3 months of kickboxing for strength, the LW should be able to fend of the "average" drunk"
I disagree enough to strongly state a contrary opinion. The self-defense technique you *could* learn in most of those largely-useless classes is how to deploy pepper spray against an opponent.
No pepper spray? Learn how to shove your thumb into a man's eye socket up to the knuckle.
But don't think that, as an average-to-above-average women, you can get into a punching (or wrestling) match with a guy and come out a winner. I have met only a precious few gals who, even after literally years of physical training in fighting, could last long against an average guy intent on harming them. That is last long, mind you. I am not even thinking about how they could "win".
The strength differential and ability to take damage is usually just too big a gap for gals to fight guys focused on harming them too.
A woman's best tactic lies in trying to inflict some really painful soft tissue damage--eyes are good targets--right away.
Event the common thought that you should go for the testicles is wrong. In my experience, a guy ignores a shot to the jewels when his blood is really up. Often, after the fight, they are told they got hit there, and don't even remember it happening.
Spartee at July 7, 2010 10:36 AM
I agree with Spartee here ... there is no obligation for the female in this situation.
However, if the nurturing side of you won't let go then you should offer to call a cab. If the cab is refused, then you should be forceful. After jotting down his license plate number and vehicle description you should say:
"I'll call a cab, or the police ... your choice."
If he refuses to leave, call the police. If he leaves and you think he really is drunk ... call the police.
AllenS at July 7, 2010 11:01 AM
The knee. Go for the knee. If you hit it square-on from the front, you shatter the kneecap. Hit it from either side and you take out the ligaments. Hit it from behind and he's going down -- and landing on it, hard. Then you can kick him in the head.
But yeah, if he's in close, go for the eyes. And if he grabs you by the throat, don't bother trying to pry his hand away, just break his pinky.
Dana at July 7, 2010 11:39 AM
Call the po po (sp?). They'd put him up on a cot, or even a hotel room. At the very least they'd drive him to a hotel.
And Spartee is right. Beyond the most basic aspects of how to punch and kick, martial arts are generally not useful in real life encounters. They're just for sport and exercise. You'll notice that police and military training does not employ kick boxing, or karate, or any of the more formal MA systems.
As a rule of thumb, I think that it's a bad idea for a woman to assume that she can go toe to toe with a man, unless he's very weak and frail, no matter what sort of training she has. Men simply have an overwhelming physical and psychological advantage in this regard.
Mark at July 7, 2010 12:04 PM
Few little guys are going to select an Amazon for a rape attempt. Rapist types are obviously going to pick a woman they think they can overpower. Give this reality, the only thing that is going to give a woman physical parity with a man is a weapon (from pepper spray to a firearm).
The women's unarmed "self defense" classes I've seen are all feel-good stuff that would never work against a remotely determined man. Martial arts, even semi-reality-based ones like Krav Maga, consist of highly perishable skills and are more a lifestyle than something you learn once and can recall when you need it.
Not that the LW was asking for advice on how to physically hurt Gilbert Grope, anyway. There are better ways of dealing with her situation than fighting, obviously.
MikeInRealLife at July 7, 2010 12:55 PM
I don't care if the woman could easily take the man in question-- does that mean she should let him sleep over after he wouldn't accept her answer and guilted her into letting him stay? Absolutely not. It's not enforcing victimhood on yourself to refuse to let a guy you're on a second date with spend the night because he claims he's too drunk to drive. I'd feel uncomfortable letting a woman I'd just met sleep over at my house-- there are consequences other than rape. I wouldn't want to wake up to find my stuff gone, or my stuff broken, or a bunch of the acquaintance's friends partying in the living room. I wouldn't feel good letting a drunk, belligerent anybody sleep over if we'd only just met.
NumberSix at July 7, 2010 2:08 PM
"Paul....I can't believe that in this day and age there are men like you who believe that because they spend money on dinner and drinks, women are OBLIGATED to stick some strange guy's dick in their mouth!! It was only their second date and yet you seem to think this guy was ENTITLED to the same "benefits" as someone she'd been dating long term. How arrogant!"
---------------
Devils advocate here:
Is that worse than sticking your hand in some guys wallet for free food and drinks? Isn't accepting that, repeatedly, just as, if not more, arrogant and entitled, than to expect some sexual satisfaction of some sort in return? Why should we count the former just fine, but the latter reprehensible? (Devils advocate is a fun position to take!)
By the way...men are paying for those dates because they want to have sex with you. Just thought I'd let you know that.
---------------
Side note, a man who is comfortable getting ridiculously hammered after 2 dates...when he should be putting his BEST qualities on display, is NOT the sort worth dating.
How has this been a "repeated" issue? The real question here is...where is the LW finding these winners? Ladies, a man should be using these early phases to get to know you and to let you get to know him. We should be displaying our finer qualities in those stages, not revealing that our "best qualities" include "high alcohol tolerance". If a guy gets hammered that early into the formation of a relationship, don't go out with him again. And for fucks sake use some GODDAMN COMMON SENSE.
It is fairly OK for a man to let said woman into his home, his biggest concern is a false rape accusation.
It is NOT OK for a woman to do the reverse, because you are making yourself INSTANTLY vulnerable. Forget what the movies show where women kick men's asses, as in Dead or Alive, or the Dark Angel series etc. Want to know how vulnerable you REALLY are? I had a demonstration once for a fairly deluded young woman who was otherwise very smart.
I simply told her to hit me. She did. I laughed. I told her to do it again. She did. I laughed. Repeated until lesson hit home. A big guy to other men might as well be a mountain to most of you. Your best defenses are 4 fold:
A. A firearm.
B. Common sense
C. A man. Not just a male. A man.
D. A man with a firearm.
Mix those in any combination, and you're fine.
The LW is alive and unharmed SOLELY because said man might have "wanted" sex, but he wasn't going to force it, or otherwise do harm. She is proof that Darwin was wrong.
-------------
Women's self defense courses are like newspapers, they exist to sell themselves, not to provide a useful service.
They give women a false sense of security, an inflated sense of themselves that overrides their common sense.
Spartee is dead right, getting hit in the nuts might hurt, but you have to get in a perfect shot for it to be even remotely disabling.
-------------
Another addendum...the guy knew he was going to be driving, why the fuck did he drink so much without some means to travel home?
Not dealing with deep thinkers with either the LW or the source of her quandry.
Robert at July 7, 2010 2:12 PM
People make fun of Paul Priapism, but he has a very valid point. A 40 mile drive--to and from? 80 miles of driving, just to listen to a women's jibber-jabber? Dinner? Drinks?
Really, could anybody begrudge this guy from doing a Craigslist hooker-hottie for $120 next time, and skipping the date?
I side with the guy, not LW. Probably LW is dating some other loser right now. Good luck, loser. Somehow you were suckered into a long drive, and buying drinks and dinner--for a second time. And for a second time you can only go home and jack off (or visit the Craigslist hooker-hottie, if you have any money left). Hoo-haw, ain't it grand?
Dick Studley at July 7, 2010 2:34 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/07/gilbert-grope.html#comment-1730412">comment from Dick StudleyDick and Paul are, of course, other names for BOTU - aka the aptly named "Butthole of the Universe," for anyone who hasn't figured that out.
Amy Alkon at July 7, 2010 2:59 PM
At the risk of sounding pretty lame here, what about just putting on an old fashioned "Ewww" look on your face as you shepherd the guy to the door. I have the issue that I'm pretty much an open book. When I feel icky or feel that someone is being icky, it shows clearly on my face. I've tried to hide this tendency of mine, but I just end up looking like someone who's had way too much botox. However, I must say that a lot of times, that look on my face is enough for people to get the idea that I'm not into something. It's stopped a few people in their tracks and I'm not just talking about man/woman romantic situations.
Now...I know there was alcohol involved here, which can really affect people's perceptions, and make them more aggressive, so maybe this wouldn't have been enough for this gal to get out of this, so I'm not saying this is a winning solution. But, if the guy had hopes of seeing this gal again, maybe it would have worked. Looking like you've just been served up roadkill can kill a romantic moment pretty quickly.
Just a thought...
ie at July 7, 2010 3:21 PM
Mark, MikeinRealLife, Spartee: Addressing the critiques of martial arts - valid points, but there are a few things that have worked for me. Not perfect, but better than before.
First, not all women's SD is feel-good. There is at least one full-impact course that goes under the name Impact! or used to be Model Mugging. I took it twice and used it in a real situation. The skills I learned were not "perishable", they were right there when I needed them. It included full-force scenarios where the muggers were heavily padded, and they used psychological intimidation tactics as part of the training. That's the area where habitual victims always get stuck. They've lost before the fight has even begun.
The skills I learned in this course were pretty basic. I am not a barehanded killing machine. And that course was based on the idea that a fight SHOULDN'T last more than a few seconds, for the very reason pointed out by Spartee about endurance. It relied mostly on strategy, surprise, and soft-tissue strikes.
MikeinRealLife's comments that "martial arts are generally not useful in real life encounters" is true if you expect to become the Karate Kid or some flying kung-fu master.
However, the basic conditioning behind a practical martial arts system can greatly enhance a person's chances of survival if they've never taken rugby, boxing, or any impact sport. Even hard physical labor helps. Kickboxing is MOSTLY conditioning, and very basic boring horrible drills that aren't fun to do, whereas boutique martial arts are mostly talking and fancy forms. This sort of conditioning can also help a lot if your attacker is the ground, i.e., you fall down the stairs. That happened to me, and yes, the conditioning possibly made the difference between my catching myself in mid-flight or landing badly and breaking bones.
"You'll notice that police and military training does not employ kick boxing, or karate, or any of the more formal MA systems."
I wouldn't know what the police use beside Tasers and guns and sticks. They face different needs and situations than private citizens, and have more pressure on them. Training that was purely physical would not address everything they need to know.
"The women's unarmed "self defense" classes I've seen are all feel-good stuff that would never work against a remotely determined man."
Then you haven't seen all the courses out there, although I can believe that most of them fall into this category. Unfortunately a lot of women can't face the hard stuff even in class, so they have watered it down to make it palatable and in the process rendered it useless. Grr.
You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs!
"Martial arts, even semi-reality-based ones like Krav Maga, consist of highly perishable skills"
Mark: What is a perishable skill? A real skill should not be perishable.
vi at July 7, 2010 3:57 PM
I don't think anyone was thinking rape here, but if she didn't want him to crash at her pad, then the proper answer is "no."
There should be no need for advice on self-defense after he's in the house, he shouldn't have been there in the first place.
brian at July 7, 2010 4:25 PM
She is proof that Darwin was wrong. - Robert
Darwin postulated random mutation and natrural selection - this womans actions have no bearing on that theory
lujlp at July 8, 2010 3:03 AM
Vi: "Why do we always assume that ANY man could rape any woman at will? Isn't that a form of internalized "victimhood"?"
No, it's realism. Any man could rape, and any man could be a totally wonderful upstanding guy. Now the guy may know he would never do something like that, but the woman *can't* know for certain it's one or the other (or neither) until his behaviour demonstrates what he is. That's referred to as Schrodingers Rapist. Explained here:
http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger’s-rapist-or-a-guy’s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/
Anne de Vries at July 8, 2010 3:10 AM
Also I dont see why everyone cant figure out BOTU ackronyms, the guy always gives himself away
lujlp at July 8, 2010 4:01 AM
Paul - one of your better posts. I laughed, even if everyone didn't get it. Sometimes people get outraged because you hit a little too close to home...
But the guy in question was a prick. As many people have said, cabs are widely available. Guilt tripping a date into sex just isn't cool.
Ltw at July 8, 2010 4:59 AM
I hate to say it, but Butthole of the Universe is one of the most amusing trolls on the internet. It is doubly hilarious that someone took the bait and responded indignantly to a comment by "Paul Priapism".
From Wikipedia: "Priapism (Ancient Greek: πριαπισμός), known also as Hulseyism, is a potentially harmful and painful medical condition in which the erect penis or clitoris[1] does not return to its flaccid state, despite the absence of both physical and psychological stimulation, within four hours. There are two types of priapism: low-flow and high-flow. Treatment is different for each type. Priapism is considered a medical emergency, which should receive proper treatment by a qualified medical practitioner. Early treatment can be beneficial for a functional recovery."
Nick S at July 8, 2010 6:36 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/07/gilbert-grope.html#comment-1730600">comment from Nick SI hate to say it, but Butthole of the Universe is one of the most amusing trolls on the internet.
Hang around a little longer here before you decide that.
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2010 6:52 AM
At the very least he manages to stay with his BOTU a majoriy of the time - when he first arrived every pst was under a diferent handle.
Though given how easy it is toi recognise him I dont know why he bothered
lujlp at July 8, 2010 7:09 AM
Amy,
Thanks for reinforcing my first thought! When I see your answers to LWs that match mine I somehow feel like I passed a quiz :)
Maybe it's my growing up on the tomboyish side. I am nurturing and caring with my beloved and with friends, but I always passed the sanity test when someone wanted to trick me into a sleepover.
Suki at July 8, 2010 9:14 AM
It was a survival of the fittest joke lujlp, have a sense of humor.
Robert at July 8, 2010 10:56 AM
Congratulations ljulp, you've managed to display the quality of:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/android.htm
;)
Robert at July 8, 2010 10:59 AM
lujlp, its just BOTU being BOTU. Wondering why is like asking why a dog drags its ass on the carpet.
Its just something they do. *l*
Robert at July 8, 2010 11:17 AM
Realy?
As often as I use irony and sarcasm I do undersatand it.
I'm going to have to go thru all
of those
lujlp at July 8, 2010 12:40 PM
Amy,
A little off-topic but you are mentioned here
http://sexatdawn.com/page11/page6/page6.html
by the authors of a book critiquing the standard evolutionary psychology narrative of modern romance.
Their decision to include the large block quote of yours seems quote the compliment on your writing!
Peter at July 8, 2010 1:07 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/07/gilbert-grope.html#comment-1730757">comment from PeterThanks, Peter. The guy actually asked me whether I wanted that removed from the book, which I found a bit ethically yucky. I told him I didn't want any special treatment. The guy seems to contend that everybody's monogamy crazy in evolutionary psych, which isn't true. I've skimmed the book, and there are a few places I thought he had a point -- but he also seems to me to be a pissed-off outsider.
Buller, also, offered distortions in his "critiques." I e-mailed Buller about an incredible statement about evolution being observed in 18 generations, I think it was. That would be about 450 years, i think -- incredible. Oops, only it wasn't complex cognitive adaptations, and it wasn't even in humans -- he didn't include the study name because it wouldn't have supported his contentions quite so well. It was evolution in guppies!
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2010 1:23 PM
Yeah, luj, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I found that handle genuinely amusing. I did figure it was our resident troll, which is why I didn't say anything about the actual content of the post, unlike the unlucky poster near the top. It seems best to just ignore the actual posts.
he didn't include the study name
Talk about ethically yucky. And sloppy peer review, if there was any.
NumberSix at July 8, 2010 3:08 PM
"That's referred to as Schrodingers Rapist."
Not to be pedantic, but I feel I must at least make a meagre attempt to defend Schrödinger's cat analogy from this type of abuse by a general public who apparently enjoy feeling like they're making 'clever' physics references when in fact they're just revealing their ignorance ... the entire point of the cat analogy is not just that you can't *know* the state of the cat while it's in the box, but that the cat *is* in fact *neither* dead nor alive, but in a superposition of states --- both dead and alive simultaneously --- *until* you open the box, at which point it will 'become' one of the two states, dead or alive (as hard as that may intuitively be to grasp). So not only don't we know the state, we also can't know the state, but more importantly and crucially, not only can't we know the state, *there isn't a state*. This represents ABSOLUTELY NO analogy to the so-called "Schrodingers Rapist", who *really is* either a rapist or not. This is not just a minor technicality, it's a critical difference --- the discovery of the behavior of the collapse of a quantum superposition of states by the act of interaction (measurement) into a non-pre-determinable state was not only one of the most important discoveries in physics, ever, it also answered one of the most fundamental questions about the very nature of our universe --- determinate or indeterminate? --- and to remove this point from the analogy is to pretty much gut the analogy so badly as to leave nothing. Talk about missing the point. Given the self-important attitude and the lack of reason displayed all over the rest of her stupid blog post, it probably shouldn't be surprising.
Lobster at July 8, 2010 4:09 PM
Thanks for that, Lobster. I've always cringed a bit when people reference Schrodinger's cat in that way. It's not philosophy, it's physics. I'm certainly no physicist, but I did learn that in my AP Physics class senior year. That bugs me almost as much as when people (especially on TV) do psychological experiments with mice using positive and negative reinforcement. It's not negative reinforcement to zap the rat when he does the wrong thing, it's punishment. Punishment is the addition of an adverse stimulus, negative reinforcement is the removal of the adverse stimulus. If the mouse pushes the button to stop the shocking, then it's negative reinforcement. Drives me batty.
NumberSix at July 8, 2010 4:42 PM
I know lujlp, I was really shocked that YOU of all people would become the android...especially on a fairly obvious joke. After all, you are normally almost up there with crid when it comes to sarcasm and the like. You really should go through all those though, helluva good laugh.
And...I'd wager you'll have occasion to make use of some of those postings now and again. Satire is a powerful tool, I wish I'd found those listings years ago.
----------------------
Lobster...I wish I could have said it better, but I can't, so let me just respond with:
What lobster said! :)
Pleasant days to you and yours!
Robert at July 8, 2010 4:45 PM
Not to be pedantic, but I feel I must at least make a meagre attempt to defend Schrödinger's cat analogy from this type of abuse by a general public who apparently enjoy feeling like they're making 'clever' physics references when in fact they're just revealing their ignorance ... the entire point of the cat analogy is not just that you can't *know* the state of the cat while it's in the box, but that the cat *is* in fact *neither* dead nor alive, but in a superposition of states --- both dead and alive simultaneously --- *until* you open the box, at which point it will 'become' one of the two states, dead or alive (as hard as that may intuitively be to grasp).
I do agree it's a dopey analogy Lobster - but you've got the point of Schrödinger's thought experiment completely wrong. He used the cat as an example of why the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics made no sense. Obviously the cat is either alive or dead - and you could measure that after the fact by the level of decomposition, although if you had used one of my cats that would be the least of your worries. It's no different to Fourier analysis or summing of paths for interference of light. A useful mathematical trick that predicts the real world well but isn't intended to describe how it actually works. Schrödinger's point was that to ascribe physical reality to the observer/decoherence relationship was basically bullshit. He completely disagreed with your interpretation.
Ltw at July 8, 2010 11:22 PM
Anyway, according to Terry Pratchett there are three possible states for a cat locked in a box - alive, dead, and bloody furious! I can attest that the last is the most likely...and the only result I've ever seen on observing...
Ltw at July 8, 2010 11:27 PM
It's not philosophy, it's physics.
Arguably, NumberSix, it is philosophy - the point was to show that the current theories on quantum physics didn't explain the real world in any meaningful way. Pretty much in the same category as "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear, does it make a sound?"
Ltw at July 8, 2010 11:44 PM
See, Amy, this is why I love your blog and the community you've built up round it - we can go from whether to kick out a drunk and potential rapist to quantum physics within 50 comments...
Ltw at July 8, 2010 11:51 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/07/gilbert-grope.html#comment-1731084">comment from LtwI find it thrilling. Thank you all.
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2010 12:01 AM
What I meant by it not being philosophy, Ltw, was that it has implications in the actual world (according to physicists, anyway). It's not just "what if?" philosophical meandering. It's more focused on consequences. That's what separates out the science, philosophical and/or theoretical though it may be. It's applicable to things that actually exist in the world (at least the quantum world).
NumberSix at July 9, 2010 1:47 AM
Ok, you're not wrong NumberSix - but the implication it had in the real world was to illustrate that the theory of quantum mechanics at the time didn't explain things well. It didn't scale up to observed reality, therefore there was something wrong with it. It's still one of the standard tests used to evaluate new theories, precisely because it sums up the "how do we get here from there" problem so well.
Ltw at July 9, 2010 2:18 AM
I am a single late middle aged guy, and have remained so since the stupidity and cupidity of the typical American woman seem to be spiraling to new high levels.
The only sane women I have met have been well educated Asian/European/South American from a middle class background, and a few second generation American women who have not had good sense brainwashed out of them by either the corporate world or an established religion.
I find it absolutely incredible for example that the typical late forties woman who is loosing her looks and having her sales and marketing "career" terminated, has no retirement savings in spite of having had a six figure income for two decades.
That said what responsibility does she have for HIS decision to drink too much?
The responsibility is his and that of the establishment that sold him the drinks. All she needed to do was tell the bartender/Maitre d' that he was drunk and needed a cab home or to a hotel, and then walked out. Or he could have slept it off in his car in the parking lot.
Personally, I would want to have nothing to do with any woman who takes drunk strangers home, or for that matter frequents bars.
To me it shows a major lack of judgement, and she would not be someone I would care to share a household, bank account or life with.
And why any woman would be so damn stupid as to prolong a relationship with a self destructive drunk?
I know a lot of guys like myself, who were prematurely retired or took early retirement, and have no intention of getting back into the corporate soul grinder. We are frugal responsible decent unobtrusive closet millionaires. We cannot get "dates", because women seem to prefer the self destructive drunk or flashy putz without any substance.
Are there any single women out there, over forty, who do not harbor ridiculous ideas about coaxing a last minute child out of senile ovaries, who prefer non chain coffee shops to bars, have significant savings outside of a corporate controlled pension plan, not bitterly divorced, no children, does not have more than half a dozen notches on her head board, and prefers Eddie Bauer over Jimmy Cho,and is looking for a stable relationship without drama? Unfortunately, from my standpoint, the women I have met who meet these criteria are usually happily mated lesbians. Judging from my own sampling of what is out there, and from what is posted here, I think most single hetero-sexual American women are for the most part self destructive and just plain nuts.
Joe Merkin at July 9, 2010 6:13 AM
Joe wrote: I am a single late middle aged guy, and have remained so since the stupidity and cupidity of the typical American woman seem to be spiraling to new high levels.
The only sane women I have met have been well educated Asian/European/South American ...
Joe, your opinion of American women is more a reflection of you and why you are middle aged and single rather than a reflection of American women. Personally, I have noticed on numerous occasions that Asian/European/South American women who wish to gain status in the states make themselves very amenable to single middle-aged American men.
There are millions of great American women just as there are millions of great American men but the great ones stick to their own kind. I have yet to meet a man with your views on women who has not been a total dud. Every one of those men blame women for their singledom when the reality is no woman wants to be with a bitter, desparate woman-hater. Would you choose to spend your life with a bitter, desparate man-hating woman who blames all but herself for her own loneliness? I think not.
Your stereotype of American women is no different than someone claiming that all people with perky noses are liers, all people with green eyes are illiterate or all people with freckles are religious. Or how about, all middle aged men who are single are intellectually challenged monkey lovers?
Ingrid at July 9, 2010 7:47 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/07/gilbert-grope.html#comment-1731179">comment from Joe MerkinAre there any single women out there, over forty, who do not harbor ridiculous ideas about coaxing a last minute child out of senile ovaries, who prefer non chain coffee shops to bars, have significant savings outside of a corporate controlled pension plan, not bitterly divorced, no children, does not have more than half a dozen notches on her head board, and prefers Eddie Bauer over Jimmy Cho,and is looking for a stable relationship without drama?
This describes many of my women friends -- beautiful women (well, except for the Eddie Bauer stuff). Why aren't you meeting them? Maybe you live in the wrong place, maybe you don't ask women out, maybe there's something unappealing about you that you have yet to fix.
Example of one of them: the teacher who brings me in to the school. Pretty, in shape, great person, very smart, goodhearted and really nice, knows politics, goes the extra mile for her students, not desperate for a man but would love to have a boyfriend.
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2010 8:32 AM
"Obviously the cat is either alive or dead"
Actually in quantum physics, no, no, it isn't, it precisely isn't, which is the whole point of the analogy. Obviously it doesn't apply to objects on the macro scale, like cats, which is probably where a lot of public confusion comes in (including, I presume, yours --- since we all knows cats really are either dead or alive --- the cat is a metaphorical analogue to quantum particles).
Lobster at July 9, 2010 8:46 AM
Actually in quantum physics, no, no, it isn't, it precisely isn't, which is the whole point of the analogy.
Lobster, you're wrong. The whole point of the analogy was to show how the quantum model didn't adequately translate into macro effects. That is, that there was something wrong with it. Schrödinger's point was that where do you define the observer who collapses the waveform - the geiger counter (in his formulation)? the cat? the person who opens the box?
Yes, weird stuff happens at the quantum level, but we're all still here (aren't we? hello? anyone out there?). The 1930s interpretation doesn't tell us much is all. It's a useful guide at the micro level but it's totally useless otherwise. And no one knows yet how to reconcile them. I wouldn't keep going on about this, but you're the one that was annoyed about people misusing the Schrödinger cat analogy in the first place, and the one that totally missed the point.
the cat is a metaphorical analogue to quantum particles
Just to make it clear - Schrödinger was saying that quantum physics was wrong because it had different rules for cats and fundamental particles. He wasn't denying that weird shit happens down there, just that the explanation of how that translates into what we see was weak. To quote him "One can even set up quite ridiculous cases."
Ltw at July 9, 2010 9:26 AM
Ingrid, that was brilliant. Couldn't have said it biter myself. Especially the first paragraph. DUH. Of COURSE foreign women of middle class backgrounds are going to be everything a middle aged man with a nice pension is looking for! What a tool.
It always makes me giggle when men blame ALL women for them being single. Yeah, Joe...we're all wrong...and obviously stupid for issing out on such a catch.
Kimmy at July 9, 2010 10:53 AM
"Couldn't have said it biter myself."
Was that deliberate, or a Freudian slip?
Rex Little at July 9, 2010 11:26 AM
"We are frugal responsible decent unobtrusive closet millionaires. We cannot get "dates", because women seem to prefer the self destructive drunk or flashy putz without any substance."
Um you probably left out the part about not having worked out in over five years and have never really sat down with yourself and all your issues with women, dating, and self esteem. It's really easy to blame women or our cultural dysfunction on your inability to get a date. What's really hard is to take a long intense look at yourself, with an honest and objective eye, and fix the parts that need fixing. Maybe then you won't come off as such a bitter loser with a fetish for 21 y.o. non chain coffee shop barristas and 35 y.o. South American call girls who get paid to tell you what you want to hear.
Gspotted at July 9, 2010 12:28 PM
I think all the really together women have a huge supply of men to choose from, so Mr. Bitter is going to have to deal with the reality of supply & demand.
Chrissy at July 9, 2010 3:28 PM
Pretty much in the same category as "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear, does it make a sound?"
Posted by: Ltw
I dont think so, a tree falling makes sound wether there is a listener or not.
lujlp at July 9, 2010 10:42 PM
Well yes, luj, I agree, and that's the same absurdity Schrödinger was pointing out. That the Copenhagen interpretation didn't explain the real world well, and therefore, while useful for prediction of particle behaviour at some levels, had something wrong with it. He never intended anyone to actually believe that a cat was alive and dead in some superposition of states. What he was pointing out was that how can it be true for sub-atomic particles but not for cats? At what level does it change?
The "tree in a forest" koan actually works quite well in this context, because it relies on an observer to resolve the conundrum. It's essentially a restatement of the same thing.
Ltw at July 9, 2010 11:08 PM
"Joe, your opinion of American women is more a reflection of you and why you are middle aged and single rather than a reflection of American women."
~Ingrid
I'd like to address this Ingrid.
First and foremost, I'd like to point out to you that your assertion that the issue lies on his end of the stick, is a very very common assertion. Truth be told what you've just said is the most common first response by a disagreeing female. Sometimes, yes, I will admit, its even an assertion that is dead on the money!
BUT...his assertion is also a very common one. Did you ever stop to wonder why? Do all these men have issues and problems of their own? By your reasoning, we must assume that every such assertion by men is a failing in themselves. But let me posit this if I may:
I'd lay odds that Joe and myself could not be more different. Age, economic status, social circles, regional, probably the only thing we have in common is gender. So...while we run in completely different circles...I must point out that his statement is something that is increasingly common amongst men. It is increasingly common because it is increasingly obvious to us. I've seen it myself frequently. Now I'm a fairly young man, early 30s, well educated, professional with a career, very physically fit, and good looking as far as that goes. And "I" have encountered the same thing he has.
SO...either he and I both have the same or similar issues...as well as large LARGE numbers of other men around the United States...OR...there is a rising problem in lady land. You tell me which is more likely...we're ALL wrong...or there is an observable cultural change amongst the female population in North American culture. Your assertion that he is putting forth stereotypes is...not without merit I'll admit, but at the same time these observations are not growing out of thin air. No not every woman fits the pattern, but that is like asserting that everyone in Japan did not favor bombing Pearl Harbor. So what if some did not agree, that doesn't change the overall impact on behavior and its impact on the other population, in this case, the increasingly angry male population, as more men fall to disappointment in the fairer sex.
I've spent a good amount of time overseas, east to west, there and back again, and I'll tell you something you don't really want to hear.
Most American men who live overseas for even a brief period, learn to identify American women abroad by sight alone. Sadly, that is not the compliment that it once was. The treatment of men by women in those countries...again, vastly different. Again, that is sadly not a compliment towards our American female population.
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news to you Ingrid, I hope you are an exception to that pattern...but the plain fact of the matter is that Joe has a point. An ugly point...but a point nonetheless.
----------------
But having given you my two cents on that subject, I have to also find myself in sad sorry agreement with you as well.
American MEN have a lot of fucking dumbass issues of their own.
To the MEN I say a few things:
A. Take action. Bottom line Joe, is that drama inducing scumbag that the chick you have the hots for is dating...he went up to her. He asked her out. He PURSUED HER. If you don't do that, you have no right to bitch about her fondness for bad boy types...dude...they're going after the wenches...of COURSE they're going to get them! If all you do is sit there and look like a lovestruck shy puppy, you are going home alone. I am what I like to call serially single, I ask girls out, ergo I get dates.
B. DO NOT BE ANGRY. You don't like bitter bitches? Well duh, women don't like bitter bastards EITHER. If you think anger ruins them, well you are right, but it will also ruin YOU.
C. Have some fucking PRIDE. You're a man, act like it, have some fucking standards. If she asks you to start paying her bills after a month, drop her like a hot rock. If she cheats on you, dump her and replace her, yes I said it, replace her. Drop the bad and hunt for the good.
D. That ripped guy she's going out with, she's hot for him because he's hot. He's in shape. And yes I know, round IS a shape, but potato shaped men are not attractive physically. If you are a potato shaped man, but a closet millionaire, stop being a closet millionaire, the mercedes gives your belly some leeway. And before you suggest for even an instant that this is shallow...um guy, she has every right to prefer to have a kid with someone who won't be serving frozen fucking waffles for dinner every night like Kenny's family (See South Park). Ladies before you object to the "material display" approach, save your keyboards, a. you're not fooling anybody, b. you'd be stupid to go after poor providers. Stupid choices are not virtues. Yes he should have other qualities, but wanting him to have a good material future is not a bad thing.
There are some fine American women out there, but you won't find them if you're bitter. Women, there are some fine men out there, but you won't find them throwing up behind a bar at 2 a.m.
Said my peace, pleasant days!
Robert at July 10, 2010 1:31 PM
Robert, you make good points. I think that Joe rather outed himself bitter, but on a more general level - America is in the midst of great social change, good and bad. This is challenging for both men and women (I will say, the challenges for men are often not highlighted. I think these seismic societal changes account for a lot of what you see from both men and women on this topic of "The American women" (and to an extent about American men acting in an adolescent way).
Bottom line: looking inward: understanding onself and what one wants and has to offer, trying to work on the warts - these are usually more fruitful than lamenting the state of anyone.
AntoniaB at July 10, 2010 1:53 PM
Have really enjoyed reading the comments made here, but want to clear up a few misconceptions.
First date I drove the 40 miles to see him for a sober date of ice cream and walk around a lake. Very nice guy at the time, which is why I accepted a second date.
Second date - he invited me to dinner (not a bar, Joe), and I paid for my portion. So, even taking irony into account, he didn't earn a BJ.
Why did I feel I had any obligations? Because I was able to envision a drunk driver on the road killing either himself, or worse, someone else. I see all those road signs memorializing those who have died at the hand of a drunk, I've seen drunks driving the wrong direction on the freeway, and I knew someone who nearly died because of a drunk driver. All this flashed through my brain, and I was stuck with a decision of letting someone I wasn't comfortable with into my home or having him drive drunk.
And while the idea of sending the person to a hotel is great, or letting them sleep it off in the car, how many of you know people who are irresponsible enough to get drunk when they know they have to drive but are responsible enough to pay the $70-150 for a hotel or will actually stay in their car and not drive?
Great options, but not generally in the realm of realism.
This is what led me to seek advice, and the best advice I heard was what Amy said - call the cops and let them determine his level of drunkenness. Beyond that it's not my responsibility.
I also have to comment on men vs women in a struggle. First, I am 5'2" and slender. He was 6'3" and built. I wouldn't have a chance in a fight with him. Second, I know a woman who is 5'10 and big (not fat, just built big) and she was astounded at the strength of the small man who mugged her - he threw her like she she was nothing. Men, generally, are just far stronger than women, it's just a fact.
LW here at July 11, 2010 10:32 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/07/gilbert-grope.html#comment-1731625">comment from LW hereThanks so much, LW, for weighing in.
And again, what really helped me come to the answer I had here was my correspondence with you. Had you been yet another low self-esteemie, I would have just told you to read de Becker and given you a scolding. Instead, I saw that you were a pretty together person -- and that combined with what you reported about your female friends helped me put together a combo that I think is pretty important...with the insight into WHY women behave contrary to their safety and comfort zone...and that it's not that they're necessarily weak or dumb bunnies, but our evolved psychology as women -- to be nurturers, to be sympathetic. Recognizing that we are wired that way is the best way to avoid acting contrary to our safety and best interest.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2010 10:36 AM
Thank you for clearing up some misconceptions there Letter Writer.
I understand your desire to avoid having a hand, however remote, in a drunk driving accident. And yes, your date certainly did present two quite contradictory sides of himself, from what you say, I'm not going to describe him as a "bad guy". A bad man would have used force.
I won't call the guy a knight in shining armor either...but there is a huge gulf between guilting somebody into the opportunity for sex, and use of force to compel it.
Amy's advice was the best there was on this one, cops, cab, hotel, but your couch is out of the picture.
Its noble of you to want to protect other drivers, but there is nothing base or foul about wanting to protect yourself. A drunk bull might weave when it charges, but the getting run down won't hurt any less.
Take Miss Alkon's advice on this one, and be wise about protecting yourself in the future.
Robert at July 11, 2010 10:43 AM
To the LW: is there any way you could have possibly stopped him from getting drunk in the first place? This isn't criticism--honestly--it's hard to think on the fly and easy for everyone to make judgements after the fact. And, I've certainly had a lot of occasions, when I was out with men I hardly knew, when I wasn't sure how to proceed either. By now, though, I've had some practice.
Where I live, there are a lot of gov't sponsored reminders of the hazards of drinking and driving, and it's sort of gotten into everyone's heads that not only do many of us not let people drive drunk, we also say, "Whoa, take it easy! You've got to drive home, remember?" when we see someone edging towards the legal limit. The last time I visited the UK, I saw this happening too.
Can I make two suggestions?: meet a date close enough to home that you can either a) walk home or b) get home with cab fare that a 20 will cover. In the 50s it was called "mad money"--cab fare if a date went badly. It happened to me once. I walked out on a guy who'd drank too much and was casting a lusty look my way. I hardly knew him and didn't want to have an awkward time fending him off. I made a quiet exit and flagged a cab. He was angry, but so what? He always had the option of behaving like a gentleman.
Just some thoughts on the matter.
ie at July 11, 2010 1:59 PM
@ie: I have the best story about "mad money" My friend's elderly Gma had a live in care attendant who one day discovered thousands of dollars in cash. The attendant showed it to my friends mom and when my friends mom asked my friends Gma about it the elderly woman who had been married over sixty years said "that's my mad money! I need that." Leave it to an old Sicilian lady to have that kind of moxie!
Gspotted at July 11, 2010 4:35 PM
That's hilarious...and quite a bit for mad money, I must say! But the concept is still a good one, and I always picture some young girl with bills stuck inside her saddle shoes, wearing a wide skirt and matching twin set. So 50s!
ie at July 11, 2010 6:25 PM
Wow, Joe Merkin, that's a hell of a Nice Guy Syndrome you're displaying there. Why would any upstanding woman want to date someone who so obviously hates women?
Re the Schrodingers Rapist idea - I didn't call it that, and without going into if the label is right, it's a concept I think can help men understand why women are wary even though 'they'd never do that'
Part of the idea is that also in many cases the *guy* may not know if he's a rapist, that the situation is fluid. I think what the LW (thanks for weighing in!) experienced was one of those situations that could have gone either way. If she'd said or done something that the guy saw as reason (consciously or subconsciously) he might have swung toward 'bitch needs a lesson' and become a rapist. As it was, he didn't get to that mindset and left it at being a classless guilting asshole.
Anne de Vries at July 12, 2010 2:03 AM
Robert,
You do not actually note what differences you find between European and American women. When in Europe I can tell the difference between American women and European women too, it is easy because they follow different fashions. Another cultural difference I have noted in my travels is that Americans are by far the friendliest people I have encountered (I am not American). Yet another difference I have noted is that the European women I have met look at a man's bank account before determining if he is worth dating.
I have travelled quite a bit too and you are correct that European men treat women differently, European men are still paternalistic towards women. Groping strange women on the street is acceptable. It is also common for families to expect a woman to give up her career to cook and clean for her single adult brothers - until she is married and is expected to cook and clean for her husband. North American women expect partners not masters.
Your post reminds me of an experience I had in Spain. Spanish friends of mine claimed that unlike Europeans Americans cannot handle their alcohol, yet they were unable to explain to me why then is Barcelona covered in vomit and piss every morning after the Spanish have finished their clubbing - a phenomenon I have not encountered in Canada and the US.
Ethnicity is no barrier to being a jerk and in my travels I found 'European' jerks to be a lot more aggressive than American ones.
I should be clear that I do not think that most middle aged single men are jerks. There are many wonderful single men who do not blame women for their relationship status.
Ingrid at July 12, 2010 9:16 AM
I would really appreciate it if you would not lump 20+ distinct cultures together as 'European'. Every country here has it's own culture and within that culture there are again huge differences. As a 'European' woman I find the implication that I expect a master instead of a husband rather offensive.
Anne de Vries at July 13, 2010 4:10 AM
LW-
That's kind of sexy--he was "6'3" and built," and you are petite--and on a second date.
Problem solved--get a roaring fire going in fron of your polar-bearskin rug, and invite him in. Might be the best thing that ever happened to you. Give him a coffee first.
PS--the rape scare is usually just that. Besides, you probably had his phone number etc. I realize rapists may not always be rational, but most criminals want to avoid getting arrested.
Although, you could have fufilled a few rape fantasies with a big, strong man like that.
Ah, youth is wasted on the young and stupid.
Dawn Wan O'Toole at July 13, 2010 3:44 PM
To the LW: is there any way you could have possibly stopped him from getting drunk in the first place?
ie - depends, but probably not. I'm a drunk (to be an alcoholic you have to have more money than me! Oh and submit to AA who are effectively a cult), and I'll guarantee you can't control them. They'll sneak drinks while you're in the bathroom, before the date, after, etc. But the nice ones look after themselves, leave when asked, work out their own way to get home - or find a nice quiet alley somewhere. Hell, if he had a car that's luxury, I've slept in far worse circumstances than that. Like I said way up in comments - guilt trip, not cool. I suspect he would have tried something like that on whether he was drunk or not.
I've slept at friends' houses when I couldn't drive home - and I've slept outside them too. If he had come in and accepted offer of a couch, that would be fine. Otherwise kick him out and he either sleeps in his car or takes his own risks.
Ltw at July 14, 2010 7:32 AM
wow great comments and problem. I always have a plan B when on a date-or even out with friends, and if young possibly LW did not think of this before. Plan B involves keeping a credit card on me with enough for hotel, cash for cab, credit for cab if in NYC. BAD idea to let him in house because he could go off on a rampage or steal your stuff or create a night for the flix - the horror flix - I had a BF who after drinking and getting PO´d at me hurled tables & chairs, we both ended up covered in blood by the time the cops finally made it. Hey usually its not like this but she does not really know the guy. Why not sleep in his car? Possibly she lives in the stix somewhere - but in that case drunk driving is not statistically so worrisome. If not living in a uninhabited area, sheesh there are cheap motels all over the US - not $70-150 - more like $35-75. And maybe he could make it up to you in the mañana....
zapf at July 19, 2010 6:55 PM
It is also very essential to give importance to the comfort factor. You need to make it sure that the shoe you are wearing us comfortable and is made of good quality materials. You can try it before you actually buy it. Size is another important issue. Select the right size. Otherwise, you may face problem in walking.
Korea Fashion Clothing at July 23, 2010 2:12 AM
Leave a comment