S04.E06: Black And Gray

[Scarlett45]

Eek, I'm more than a little nervous to wade in here, but as a parent of three teenagers -- one girl, two boys -- and as a teacher in high school and college, I've thought about these issues a great deal.

It happened that I watched this episode with my fourteen year old son -- and I flat-out told him to never have sex while drunk or with someone else who is drunk. I told him that I want him to respect sex enough, to respect himself enough, and to respect the other party enough to simply not do it. We talked about the dangers of the he said/she said. And we talked about how consent is simply different for women (I'm talking strictly about heterosexual male/female sex -- certainly there are all sorts of issues in other relationships, and I mean no disrespect to those, but for the sake of this conversation, I want to be clear.) because of the fundamental anatomical differences between men and women and because of the culture that surrounds sex. The reality is -- it is far more likely for a woman to be violated than a man in a drunken sex encounter. It doesn't mean that Tank intended to violate Bay, as his judgment was most certainly impaired. And certainly intention matters, or at least Bay thought it did. But Tank's intention does not negate the fact that Bay, in fact, felt violated.

For all that I have bitched about this show and these writers, I thought there were some things that were handled pretty realistically here. One -- Bay's confusion. Some have said that Bay never thought it was rape until others put that in her mind. But isn't that kind of the point? That women have so long been shamed into silence about sex that "didn't feel right"? Bay never latched on to the word rape and wanted to reject the victim status. She seemed to own her part in the situation -- that mistakes were made all around. But perhaps it is important for Bay (for culture) to have the paradigm shift that sex that "didn't feel right" is a violation and might even be rape (and perhaps I'm splitting hairs in trying to make a distinction between violation and rape). She was falling-down, room-spinning drunk, and he had the foresight to get her a bottle of water. I would argue that she was a good deal more drunk than she was. Her confusion and shifting perspectives the next days seemed quite realistic.

And sadly, the whole reporting aspect spinning out of her control seemed realistic -- though I would think that up until very, very recently (when universities have been under fire to handle sexual assault more seriously), the likelihood of the powers that be taking Bay's "side" would have been very small. I thought some of what happened with the Title IX woman was that many universities, in an attempt to take themselves out of the line of fire, may well take what "she said" far more seriously. Certainly we could argue a lack of due process for Tank here, and I think it truly matters that Bay never wanted him to be expelled, that she doesn't think he is a monster, but a man who made a bad decision. But that the decision about Tank was taken out of her hands seems realistic.

I liked that Daphne (FINALLY!!) served as a supportive sister, and that the parents actually parented. John's hug for Bay slayed me. Emmett's initial reaction irritated the hell out me -- especially throwing his computer. Dude, that's expensive equipment.

Finally, the underlying issue -- the incredible amounts of binge drinking that goes on at colleges. THAT is a societal scourge. I have recently read some studies that show it is getting worse, yet it is treated as some kind of normal rite of passage by many who look the other way. As we as a culture address issues of consent and rape, I hope we also address issues of alcohol abuse.

I appreciate your post a lot. In the show, the best thing that can be done now is helping Bay deal emotionally with all this.

In real life, I too think this is the next step from cultural acceptance of "No means no"- 30 years ago, "no" meant "I'm a "nice girl so I have to say no" but I mean yes, and if I really meant "no" I would be screaming at the top of my lungs and clawing your eyes out"., to awareness regarding drunken sex and what capacity means. No Bay did not even think that she could've been raped (she may not have been, she doesn't remeber etc), but women used to think it wasn't rape if they knew the guy, consented to the date, or to a kiss, it was just "unwanted sex" or "un gentlemanly behavior". Thankfully things are better now but that doesn't mean we can't improve on how we understand consent.

The posters up thread made a good point about the cultural evolution of drunk driving. I think we do can change the culture around binge drinking and sexual activity.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Scarlett45

[MyRealName]

I just read that article and all I can say is wow. Its very similar to the show, except that there is text and witness evidence that she came on to him and they were both drunk out of their minds. And still he gets expelled. I get that he was in violation of the sexual conduct policy, but she clearly was too.

I'd like to hear from those who think Tank definitely raped Bay. Do you agree with the school's decision in this case? And if so, what's the justification for punishing him but not her?

[morakot]

Bay is not a student at the university so there is no way the university can punish her except by banning her from the campus. Tank's father could still sue her and her family for defamation of character and the complete ruin of his son's academic future. 

[darkazc]

The problem with the show just "bringing it all up for discussion" the way they have is that the takeaway message for someone watching could easily be: 

If I get raped, anyone I tell might go to the authorities and blow it up more than I meant it to. It will be made public, and I'll be slut-shamed across the community and all of the internet. The person who did it could end up with consequences more serious than even I think is warranted, and they will be really, really mad at me. (and having someone who has already demonstrated a willingness to physically violate me get mad at me is honestly scary worrying about what they may do in retaliation)

 

The show may have gotten across some elements of the "don't be that guy" campaign, but they didn't make it look at all like a good idea to talk about it. To make it worse, she didn't even report it. She told her brother, and the reporting decision went entirely out of her hands. I would much rather have seen the storyline have her talk to a few people and then decide herself whether to make it official. 

 

 

What was Bay's bad judgment call, apart from the drinking itself? She was at a party with friends. She trusted Tank. He had shown himself to be entirely trustworthy in the past. She agreed to lie down in a bed because she was dizzy and concussed and couldn't stand straight. If anything, she was being responsible by attaching herself to a friend instead of a random person at the party she didn't know. If Tank had acted with her like he had in the past, nothing would have happened. But his judgment call was much more active - he wanted her to do something she had actively, consistently said no to in the past, she didn't seem to be resisting enough, so he kept going. From what we've seen, even though they kissed she didn't give him any more encouragement than that, and might have shoved him off even then. The drunk walker/drunk driver analogy is a good one. Drunk walking, or drunk hanging out with a trusted friend, is something that doesn't naturally have any bad consequences to it by itself. Drunk driving or drunk sex, though, is an active action that is well-known to result in bad consequences. People don't lose 100% of their judgment when drunk, right? If you gave a drunk person a gun and told them to go shoot a person, their brain would still be able to process and say no to that? So the trick is to get drunk sex in people's minds to that same category of "don't ever ever ever do that", so that even when drunk, they don't do that thing.

I didn't say Bay made a bad judgment call. I thought posting the same thing over and over on this sensitive topic would make that clear. You clearly missed my point if you think I am saying Bay made a bad judgment call. I am only making a one to one comparison about how some people in this thread are not treating both characters to the same standards. 

 

I'll say it again, and maybe it will make more sense. 

 

One:

 

There are a lot of people in this thread saying Tank should have known better and realize she was falling over drunk. He should have slept on the floor, and it seems like he took advantage of her. 

 

Two:

 

The same people who believe the above about Tank are saying Bay was too drunk to consent. Consenting is a judgment call. If she is incapable of consenting and making judgment calls then Tank is equally as incapable of realizing Bay's true state because of how drunk he is. Asking him to make the gentlemanly decision in his state is incredibly unfair. It would apply if he was sober, but he wasn't. 

 

Now if you read those two points and can't see the double standards people are applying to this situation, then I'm not sure what to say. It is clear logic. 

Edited February 13, 2015 by darkazc

[stopeslite]

The standard some of us are adhering to is that the less drunk person recognizes that the more drunk person is drunk and therefore not in a capacity to consent. Bay completely blacked out; Tank remembers everything and was able to make the entirely rational decisions to bring her water and to use a condom. They were not equally incapacitated according to what the writers showed us. The Slate article on the prev. page made the statement a few times that a situation in which both participants are entirely, equally incapacitated is almost nonexistent, and the writers did not choose to show us a situation in which Tank was unable to make any rational decisions.

[darkazc]

The standard some of us are adhering to is that the less drunk person recognizes that the more drunk person is drunk and therefore not in a capacity to consent. Bay completely blacked out; Tank remembers everything and was able to make the entirely rational decisions to bring her water and to use a condom. They were not equally incapacitated according to what the writers showed us. The Slate article on the prev. page made the statement a few times that a situation in which both participants are entirely, equally incapacitated is almost nonexistent, and the writers did not choose to show us a situation in which Tank was unable to make any rational decisions.

 

Neither Bay nor Tank can make the judgement about who is more drunk WHILE drunk. That's why I made the off-hand comment "you might as well start installing breathalyzers next to everyones' beds in college." That is such a slippery slope, and no one should go there. It's a ridiculous expectation. If you are drunk, you are drunk. Let's not get into ranges and levels of drunkness. People don't have a handle on who is more drunk at any given time if you are all drunk. Tank was pretty damn drunk too based on what was written. If that doesn't make you understand how silly it is to try to judge and rate who is more or less drunk then I don't know what is. Bay being blackout doesn't make Tank any less drunk. He's still drunk. Nothing has changed. His judgement is also impaired. No ifs or buts. If Bay were to drink a little less than Tank, would that mean Tank would magically inherit worse judgement than Bay and Bay would have to recognize this? Would Tank be the one who is absolved of making the proper judgement call in this scenario? No logical or sane person would ever ask anyone to do this.

 

Some people here are saying "well she was drunk so she can't consent." You are ridding her of making a judgement call while drunk while asking Tank to magically alter his mental capability just because he didn't blackout. You are moving goalposts. Call it how it is. You know just as well as I do that trying to alter expectations for a person based on their level of drunkness while they are drunk is silly. 

 

Look this is a serious issue, and I want awareness to be spread about this, but I don't know how anyone can think the show runners handled this well at all. It was handled terribly. Like I said before, we are just going from extreme to extreme. Years ago it was "okay" to victim blame people who suffered terrible crimes (and that's finally starting to change thankfully!), but this show went in the complete opposite direction and vilified someone who absolutely did not deserve to be vilified. If this is where they wanted to go with Tank's character, he should have been sober or drugged Bays' drinks. Then it's totally okay for us to talk about criminal time and expulsion because in this hypothetical, Tank is actually acting like a predator and someone deserving of punishment.

 

This show went WAAAY out there in a BAD way for not only the male demographic but the female demographic. These episodes made it seem like women are incapable of making proper judgement calls while drunk ("Bay can't consent while drunk!") but men can ("Tank should have known better! Who cares if he is drunk! He should have known he was less drunk!") while also scaring females away from reporting sexual assault after all the crap Bay had to go through with Melody and the crisis center. Poorly handled and terrible lessons to teach all around for both men and women. 

Edited February 13, 2015 by darkazc

[maraleia]

OK I'm going to say this again. If you cannot have a civil conversation/debate about this episode I would advise you not to post here in the future. The bolded comments need to stop as well.

Knock it off.

[BC Mama]

Sorry, but this is kind of crazy. How far are we going to go to try to find someone to blame? I'm not even sure what you are trying to say honestly. I'm not blaming anyone or saying someone should have done something differently. My previous post boils down to: they were both drunk, and they both made the mistake together if it was a mistake at all. Asking someone to make proper judgment calls while drunk and giving a pass to the other is a straight double standard. No arguments can be made in my mind. No grey area and no subjective opinions there. Maybe that sounds harsh, but if they were both drunk and neither remember the situation 100%, a proper ruling cannot be made on this case at all. I feel bad for both of them, and Bay clearly felt weird about them going for Tank's throat during the interview and post-interview when he was expelled. The message would have been much better and clearer had Tank been sober. Then we can start questioning his judgment calls and his intent (rape and/or taking advantage).

If it comes out that Tank drugged her or fed her drinks throughout the night, then we can start talking about him getting arrested and going to jail for YEARS, but based on the information we have now? Nothing. I was going nuts the last two weeks watching everyone jump to conclusions ridiculously (ESPECIALLY Regina, Daphne, and Melody). Kathryn, John, and Tobey handled it much, much better.

I didn't say Bay made a bad judgment call. I thought posting the same thing over and over on this sensitive topic would make that clear. You clearly missed my point if you think I am saying Bay made a bad judgment call. I am only making a one to one comparison about how some people in this thread are not treating both characters to the same standards.

I'll say it again, and maybe it will make more sense.

One:

There are a lot of people in this thread saying Tank should have known better and realize she was falling over drunk. He should have slept on the floor, and it seems like he took advantage of her.

Two:

The same people who believe the above about Tank are saying Bay was too drunk to consent. Consenting is a judgment call. If she is incapable of consenting and making judgment calls then Tank is equally as incapable of realizing Bay's true state because of how drunk he is. Asking him to make the gentlemanly decision in his state is incredibly unfair. It would apply if he was sober, but he wasn't.

Now if you read those two points and can't see the double standards people are applying to this situation, then I'm not sure what to say. It is clear logic.

Mary Beth and many posters here have said that Bay should not have been drinking, and that had she been sober, she would not have been raped. I was pointing out the double standard that people have (due to the rape culture our society is entrenched Iin) where women are taught not to drink in order to stay safe, yet no one says men shouldn't drink so they don't rape (being too drunk to determine consent). Edited February 13, 2015 by BC Mama

[Bec]

No arguments that alcohol could have impaired Tank's judgement, and he didn't mean to cause any harm.

 

The difference between what Tank did and someone consciously drugging and raping someone else is like the difference between manslaughter and murder one. The intention is different but the harm is still done.

 

I understand some people fear the implications of "drunk people can't consent" is that people will accuse others of rape at the drop of a hat. No one wants to deal with the reprecussions of accusing someone of rape if they don't absolutely have to. This is not something people do for funsies. This is not something people do to avoid "taking responsibility" for sex they agreed to. I think that was the point of the show making the aftermath so awful for Bay.

 

Focusing on what people's blood alcohol levels were, and what is or isn't consent, kind of misses the point behind all of this, the "goal posts" that has not moved since the days when women first became considered "persons" and not "property".

 

The point has always been making sure your sex partner is, as Bay would say, "okay with it". Not just kind of sure. Really damn sure. Without a doubt sure. (If in doubt? Don't do it. Just don't.)

 

Consent is a tool to help with that. It wasn't meant to be a legal technicality to help rapists "legally" call rape "just sex". But in some cases that's what it has been twisted into.

 

Of course, for as long as the concept of "you have to make sure your sex partner is okay with it" has been around, there has been dudes trying to get around it:

"What about if we're married?"
"What about if she doesn't say no?"
"What about if I'm drunk?"
"If she says yes to a handjob I can go ahead and cramp my penis down her throat, right?"

 

The definition of rape hasn't widened. It's more like every little thing that's not okay has to be explained bit by bit to some dudes.

 

I'm starting to run out of patience.

[BC Mama]

^^^ very well said

[maraleia]

Here's the deal. I think this episode is sparking some needed conversations about consent, assault and rape and I'm glad that they ventured into these waters since there are very few shows with college aged women on the air right now.

My feelings are that American youth get little to no sex ed before they enter college and that is what is causing so much divisiveness in this thread. When young men and women are taught the same things, especially respect for other people and their bodies things will change. Since that isn't the case here, women like Bay are left feeling like they caused the assault/rape to happen and men like Tank feel like they are able to engage in sexual activity in any situation.

Add alcohol and you've got a combustible situation.

The first thing that shouldn't have happened was that party and the second thing that shouldn't have happened was Bay going to a party that had alcohol just hours after taking off her ankle monitor.

Bay going to the party and getting drunk did not give anyone, in this case, Tank the right to sexually assault her since the flashbacks showed it was Tank that had more clarity (him getting her water) and Bay was in no position to give consent.

[MyRealName]

I don't know how anyone can think the show runners handled this well at all. It was handled terribly.

 

 

I agree with everything you said except this. I thought it was handled very well. They conveyed the confusion, the differing points of views, and the outside opinions. Although I don't agree with the resolution that was given, I do think its possible it could turn out that way.

[purplemonkey]

Aside from Emmett's dramaaaaaa, I think the show did use a very even hand here. Tank was a sympathetic character (he's bad at art, his dad is a jerk, and he didn't get the girl he wanted even though he showed integrity with the fraternity dilemma) who got into a bad situation. Bay was a strong-willed character who dislikes being a victim and who got into a bad situation.

My real life question is, if the students understand school policy, (does UMKC explain all this when they enroll?) then should we still feel bad for Tank that he got into a situation where he could be accused of rape? This is why private teachers/ tutors have windows on their doors or leave the doors open. If there's a scenario where you can't cover your ass, you're liable whether it's fair and right or not...

[Perfect Xero]

I couldn't help but wonder at the scene with Emmett at the end.

 

First the way it was staged, with Daphne dramatically walking in first as if to announce his arrival. Why? Was it a situation that really needed a "turn the page" moment of drama where we might think that Emmett had told Daphne that the rape thing was sad and all, but he was going to stay in LA and Bay could just text him? Was Emmett sitting out of sight, waiting for a cue from Daphne to make his dramatic entrance?

 

Then there was the scarf he was wearing: At what point between being told that his girlfriend had been raped, getting rid of the friend he seemingly brought over to seduce, and boarding a plane for KC did Emmett look at himself in a mirror and decided that he needed a little color to make his outfit pop?

 

Or are we supposed to believe that he sat there and thought to himself, "Turns out that my girlfriend who I've been refusing to communicate with was actually raped, and no one has ever worn winter clothes on this show before, but before I go I'd better make sure my neck doesn't get cold."

[stopeslite]

 

if the students understand school policy, (does UMKC explain all this when they enroll?)

Most schools are getting better about this, particularly because of these kinds of regulations and colleges suddenly realizing that yes, they are responsible for what happens on their campuses. It used to be that the student handbook was published and it was just the students' responsibility to read it, but now a lot of schools have a session during orientation where they explicitly go over the policies and consequences.

 

 

 

Then there was the scarf he was wearing: At what point between being told that his girlfriend had been raped, getting rid of the friend he seemingly brought over to seduce, and boarding a plane for KC did Emmett look at himself in a mirror and decided that he needed a little color to make his outfit pop?

Or are we supposed to believe that he sat there and thought to himself, "Turns out that my girlfriend who I've been refusing to communicate with was actually raped, and no one has ever worn winter clothes on this show before, but before I go I'd better make sure my neck doesn't get cold."

 

I am laughing so hard at this. I noticed the scarf and went "whaaaa?" but couldn't quite put into words what was so incongruous about it. But yes to all of this, especially that they've never bothered with the concept of winter in the midwest before, and Bay and Emmett just went on that picnic last week when she got the bracelet off, but wasn't it supposed to be January or February by then (200 days after just before the fall semester started)?. I like to think that they were on the plane, and Daphne said "Oh Emmett, but you're not dressed for Kansas City!" and a little old woman sitting across from them gave him the scarf she was knitting.

[izabella]

To me, it looked like the school was just covering its ass by expelling Tank.  Lily was covering her ass by reporting it, and Melody was covering her ass by reporting it.  That's why they took away Bay's agency on the subject without even talking to her.  This wasn't about Bay, but about following policies that protect the university.  (I guess Melody didn't have any duty to report Travis for buying and providing a keg for a party in a campus dorm full of underage undergrads, eh?  Maybe if universities lost their government funding unless they expel all underage drinkers and those who buy the alcohol for them, they won't just continue to turn a blind eye to on campus drinking.)

 

Even Bay doesn't think she was raped and didn't want Tank to be expelled.  The thought of rape never even entered her mind until it was planted there.  And even when everyone kept telling her she was raped, she still wasn't convinced of that.  Saying, "it wasn't ok" did not answer the school investigator's question - did you regret it, or did you not consent? 

 

Tank got no due process, either, just expelled.  I guess "guilty until proven innocent" is how schools are supposed to handle these situations?  I had actually been in favor of universities doing more about campus rape, but this story line turned me in the other direction entirely.  Now I say let the police handle it if someone wants to report it, and stay as far away from campus "investigations" as possible.  Unversities don't know shit about investigating rape, and they're more concerned about developing policies that cover their ass (funding) than anything else.    I hope Tank's family gets a lawyer.

Edited February 15, 2015 by izabella

[Bec]

Considering the show had Tank expelled a few days tops after the start of the investigation, and it looks like he was notified of his expulsion via text ("U r expelled. K Bye! LOL"), maybe it would be best not to take that part so seriously.

 

As for the part about Bay not thinking of rape, I find that really true to life. Nobody wants to be a rape victim. Nobody wants to think someone they know and trust could be a rapist. Those are very scary thoughts. Denial is an understandable human reaction to cope with it. When I was in university, this girl I knew crashed at someone's house with a whole bunch of people after a house party, and the next day she told me when she woke up she felt like something happened to her when she was sleeping, she was feeling kind of weird "down there". I was all "oh my god, we have to go to the police!" And she demurred "um... it's probably nothing. Just forget it." I respected her wishes, and to this day I still don't know if that was the right thing.

[possibilities]

I think the show did a good job of saying: "This is a terrible situation." Their choice to make it terrible for everyone seems to me to be a measured and deliberate one. There is no scenario in which it's going to turn out well. Report it, don't report it, expel someone, don't expel him... it's not a happy ending whichever way it goes.

 

Showing that Bay's experience with the system was terrible might discourage a few women from reporting, but I think most of us already know how bad it is when we report. If they had white washed that, and shown that Bay reported it and everything was all sunshine and roses for her, I would have found that to be dishonest and a real disservice because it feeds the idea that it's not a risk for women to report this sort of thing, and I think that's just nonsense. However, showing how horrible it was for her, I think might expose something people who have not been raped may need to understand better, and also it calls on the system to improve. If they just paper over it, it seems to me that would just sugar coat and bury the issue.

 

I actually thought the show was tilted towards eliciting sympathy for Tank by quite a wide margin. It surprised me when I came to the forums and saw that some people think he is being vilified (by the show). I thought the show was saying he was a nice guy who was blindsided by a witch hunt and everyone turned against him and ruined his life over an honest mistake. Even John backed off when Tank gave his "I would never hurt her" speech. I like that they are not getting him off the hook entirely, that they are at least giving lip service to another point of view. But I didn't think they were by any means saying he got what he deserved. Actually, I thought this was the most sympathetic to a rapist story I've ever seen. They could easily have written a story that lacked any ambiguity whatsoever, made him totally sober, or shown Bay either passed out or resisting during the act, or they could have picked a character we found generally to be an obnoxious jerk all along. I think they very deliberately chose a character we've seen as an okay dude, who's been vulnerable and had his feelings hurt at other times, etc.

 

If anything, the show made a case for how bad alcohol is.

 

But being drunk is not an excuse. If you commit a crime while intoxicated, you still committed the crime. Having impaired judgment because you choose to get drunk is a choice. You may find that a lot of people are very angry about things you did under the influence, and you are responsible for those actions anyway. Daphne essentially got away with her own intoxicated actions only because she was not caught, not because anyone excused them based on her being high. I remember how angry people were about her throwing a couch out the window. It could have hurt someone! She didn't mean to hurt anyone, but if it had happened and she had been outraged and said: "I would never hurt anyone on purpose!" people would have rolled their eyes in disgust over her spoiled brat routine.

 

I thought the show very carefully showed multiple points of view and that the people who were made to look the least sympathetic were the crisis counselor (Bay got more upset after her visit) and the Title IX officer (who acted stern, came across like a robotic bureaucrat, and treated Bay like an idiot), and even Regina-- who apologized for bringing the crisis counselor to see Bay. Even Lily apologized.

Edited February 18, 2015 by possibilities

[Everleigh]

I feel bad for Tank. He did not deserve to be expelled or be the target of a witch hunt that even the alleged victim didn't want.

 

I can only hope the only message teens watching this take away from this story arc is that getting blackout drunk is not a good idea. But somehow I doubt that.

 

I thought Tank received a fair punishment. The legality of his actions aside, he violated the school's sexual misconduct code and was punished for such.  

 

 I hope so, too. Not only because they might be assaulted while drunk like Bay was, but because they might assault someone while drunk like Tank did. 

 

 

I might be the only one but I don't like that they called Tank a rapist and said she was raped. I just don't think that was established in what we saw. I think it's clear she didn't say no. But just because she doesn't remember doesn't automatically mean she couldn't consent. 

 

Actually, that's pretty much what it means. Someone cannot legally consent to sex if they're incapacitated by alcohol, this means clearly intoxicated, not simply unconscious, so if someone is drunk enough to lose their memory then they were likely heavily intoxicated and therefore unable to give consent. I'd say judging by what we saw from Bay...stumbling, falling into walls, needing to lie down, slurring her speech, and being unable to remember a huge chunk of time from the night before, she was very clearly intoxicated and not in the right state of mind to give consent. Tank may not have realized that or may not have wanted to acknowledge it, but that doesn't excuse his behavior or suddenly make Bay capable of consenting. 

 

It's so typical, too, there seems to be more worries about Tanks life getting ruined by this. As if the impact on Bay's life is nothing, and she should just suck it up and pretend everything's just fine. I see the same thing play out in the commentary for every similar real-life news item. Lots of worries about how allegations "ruin" the alleged rapists' lives. The lives ruined by rapists? Too many people don't even want to spare a thought about those. "It was just sex, and she was just a slut," too many people would say, "she should get over it."

 

Downright terrifying that after watching Bay hit her head hard, say the room is spinning, and have difficulty walking under her own power, there's still plenty of commentary out on the interwebs saying "But Tank was drunk, how can he tell how drunk Bay was? If drunk people can't consent, then doesn't that mean she could have raped him? Waaah, no fair, people blame Tank for everything just because he's a man."

 

WTF? Have we completely taken leave of common sense? When someone is feeling so sick they can't even stand and require help to keep from falling down, maybe that is a clue that doesn't even require sobriety to figure out.

 

You don't have to be a knight in shining armor to know "having sex" with someone who is literally "falling down drunk" is a very bad idea. It only takes a moderately decent human being.

 

I'm no Sherlock, but she couldn't have raped him because she couldn't even stand up. It's really not that complicated.

 

But maybe I'm just too dumb to come up with a conspiracy theory for how this was all a trap for Tank because everyone secretly had it in for him all along and wanted to destroy his life for… reasons?

 

Tank mistakenly thought what he did was just fine and got himself into trouble because he is a product of the culture he grew up in. This is a culture in which people are very comfortable with thinking it's not rape unless a bogeyman jump out of a bush and force his dick into a woman while she screams and struggles. It's a culture that encourages people to take advantage of others and call this "just what everybody does". That's why people call this "rape culture". We need to teach our boys better than this. Change what society considers acceptable. That's what people mean by "teaching men and boys not to rape".

 

Pretty much agree with everything you've said regarding the matter. I'm sympathetic towards Tank to a degree because it's clear he's not a violent sexual predator who meant to hurt Bay, but unfortunately he did assault her and he has to be held accountable for that or he'll continue to do it to other girls. All the hysteria over how the boy's life is ruined in this situation, yet no concern for the girl who has to live with the trauma of being assaulted by a person she trusted for the rest of her life. Yikes. I just don't get it. 

 

Right. This "well they were both drunk, why is the boy always blamed" argument is such bullshit. This argument is hardly ever considered valid because almost always one person is more incapacitated, it doesn’t have to be the woman but generally the person who is considered less drunk and who initiated the sexual contact is responsible. Many schools consider incapacitated by alcohol to mean a person isn’t capable of making rational decisions or appreciating the consequences of one’s actions…by this definition, Bay was incapacitated and Tank was not. Tank was thinking rationally enough to use a condom and remembered the sex, whereas Bay was falling down drunk and couldn’t remember how she got into the bed.

 

 

 If you re-read this paragraph and cannot understand how you are applying a safety net for Bay because of her being drunk but not allowing Tank the same safety net, then you are not being logical. 

 

Huh? I don’t understand. You’re upset that people aren’t allowing Tank a safety net to rape?

 

 

 

I'm frankly disappointed with how Switched at Birth has handled these two episodes. There was way too much reasonable doubt and story switching for Tank to have received such a harsh punishment. From what we have heard and seen, no one can really say Tank sexually abused anyone, but I guess we are okay with going with guilty until proven innocent in today's society. It's disgusting. If Tank was sober, you would definitely have a point about him having common sense (and I'd be right there with anyone else looking to punish him), but because he was drunk and his judgement was impaired, he CANNOT be hung out to dry like this if he felt Bay consented. I find it ridiculous that you are mocking people for saying Tank couldn't tell how drunk Bay was. You are asking HIM to use his judgement and common sense when he was impaired, but you are totally okay with Bay getting a pass for her judgement calls while being drunk. 




And because he was drunk he shouldn’t be held accountable for his actions? If he stabbed someone while intoxicated, would that be okay too? I mean, his judgment would be impaired and maybe he felt the person wanted to be stabbed or maybe he didn’t realize he was stabbing that person, so why should he be held accountable for that, right? And if the person he stabbed was also drunk and didn’t clearly say, “hey, no, don’t stab me,” then I guess that person bears equal responsibility for getting themselves stabbed so no one should be punished. 




I just don’t understand your logic. Being drunk isn’t an excuse to rape. If you commit a crime while intoxicated, you don’t get a pass, even if the victim of your crime was also drunk, it’s still a crime and you’re still accountable. This seems to be universally understood and accepted for every crime but rape. 




It’s one thing to argue that what Tank did wasn’t rape or assault, (although it is illegal to have sex with a person who is incapacitated by alcohol), but to say that it doesn’t matter because his judgment was impaired and therefore he's not accountable for any criminal actions he may have committed while under the influence of alcohol is insane, IMO. Could you imagine if being drunk was a reasonable defense for committing a crime? Anyone who had a few drinks would be allowed to do whatever the hell they wanted. 




 

Can you honestly not see how hypocritical this thought process is? I don't want to hear anything about Bay bumping her head or struggling to get up. They were both drunk. Point blank. Both have admitted to it. If we start getting to the "well she was THIS much more drunk than such and such so her judgement was this much more impaired than such and such," you start to introduce such a huge slippery slope, it's not even funny. We might as well start installing breathalyzers next to people's beds.

On one hand, you are allowing Bay a pass for being drunk, and on the other, you are scolding Tank for not having better judgment...while he was drunk...that is just messed up. You are essentially saying that Tank should have been able to process and make judgement calls about Bay's sickness while he was drunk, but at the same time Bay can't make judgement calls about whether to consent or not because she was drunk. If Bay can't remember whether she consented or not after being blackout drunk while admitting her partner was also VERY drunk, then he should not have been expelled

 

Bay bumping her head and struggling to stand shouldn’t be ignored, even if you don't want to hear it, it shows that Tank knew she was drunk and wasn't functioning as she normally would. If you see someone can’t stand, you should know they’re not in their right mind to consent to sex. And yes Tank was also drunk, although obviously not as drunk as Bay, but that’s not an excuse. It might explain his actions but it doesn't excuse them and it doesn’t make it okay.




And no, it’s not hypocritical, it’s the law and any decent human being would recognize and respect that. A person is considered incapable of consenting to sex if intoxicated. There's no such law that says a person is incapable of committing a crime while intoxicated. If Tank had been completely sober and had sex with Bay while she was that drunk, that would be considered rape and I doubt there'd be any confusion or discussion over the matter here. Tank being drunk doesn't change his behavior or Bay's state of mind, so even though he was also drunk, him having sex with a clearly intoxicated Bay is still sexual assault because she was unable to consent.

 

 

Yet know one is saying Tank should have remained sober enough to be able to accurately determined whether Bay was sober enough to consent! The oness is on Bay to have remained sober.

 

Right? We tell teen girls not to get too drunk or they might get raped, yet no one tells boys not to get too drunk or they might commit rape. If a boy is warned of anything concerning getting drunk it's to be careful or some crazy chick might accuse them of rape. Such a weird culture. 

 

How Drunk Is Too Drunk to Have Sex?

Just read this article today. It talks about an incident that reminded me a lot of this episode

 

This article deals with the who's at fault when both parties are intoxicated dilemma pretty well. The man considered the leading campus rape and Title IX consultant says true cases of mutual incapacity are incredibly rare in his experience and puts the responsibility on whoever appears less drunk and whoever initiates the contact. Tank definitely seemed less drunk and while Tank and Bay disagree about who kissed who first, Tank never says that Bay initiated sex which would have been his best defense, just that she seemed into it, so I don't think this could be considered one of the rare instances of mutual incapacity. 

 

The standard some of us are adhering to is that the less drunk person recognizes that the more drunk person is drunk and therefore not in a capacity to consent. Bay completely blacked out; Tank remembers everything and was able to make the entirely rational decisions to bring her water and to use a condom. They were not equally incapacitated according to what the writers showed us. The Slate article on the prev. page made the statement a few times that a situation in which both participants are entirely, equally incapacitated is almost nonexistent, and the writers did not choose to show us a situation in which Tank was unable to make any rational decisions.

 

Yes, exactly. Based on what we saw and what we know to be true, this was not a case of mutual incapacitation. Bay couldn't even stand or remember anything, whereas Tank was making rational decisions that showed he was considering the near future, i.e. bringing Bay water and using a condom. Also, physically it’s unlikely that the act of sex could occur if both parties are truly incapacitated. Someone has to initiate the act and be guiding things and that’s the person who’s responsible. That could very well be the woman in the encounter but there’s no indication that that’s what happened with Bay and Tank. Tank says Bay kissed him first and Bay says he kissed her but neither of them say Bay was the aggressor sexually. Tank argues that Bay seemed into it, not that she initiated it. As understandable defensive as he got when Bay confronted him, he never says she initiated sex or was in control during it, which would be a stronger defense than “seemed into it,” which could very well imply passiveness, i.e. she wasn’t resisting so he assumed she was okay with it.

 

Sorry for the super long post but I do think this is an important conversation that needs to take place and I'm grateful that the show brought it up and got the ball rolling, even if I disagree with a lot of what was said here. 

[joanne3482]

I mean, his judgment would be impaired and maybe he felt the person wanted to be stabbed or maybe he didn’t realize he was stabbing that person, so why should he be held accountable for that, right? And if the person he stabbed was also drunk and didn’t clearly say, “hey, no, don’t stab me,” then I guess that person bears equal responsibility for getting themselves stabbed so no one should be punished.

 

To me, part of the problem lies in that consensual sex between adults is perfectly legal. I can go out right now meet a random stranger while we are both stone sober and we can have sex and as long as we both are adults and we aren't doing it in front of school children or in a public park, we're good.  Stabbing a person is never a legal activity. If I meet the same random stranger and he hands me a knife and says "please stab me" I can still be arrested even though he literally asked for it and even if he doesn't want me prosecuted. Stealing from a person is never legal. Killing someone (with the exception of Oregon's right to die law) is never legal so whether I have a diminished capacity or not, I have clearly broken the law if I engage in one of these activities. There are really clear cut examples of rape. I'm just not sure that this one was.  

[darkazc]

I thought Tank received a fair punishment. The legality of his actions aside, he violated the school's sexual misconduct code and was punished for such.  

 

 I hope so, too. Not only because they might be assaulted while drunk like Bay was, but because they might assault someone while drunk like Tank did. 

 

 

 

Actually, that's pretty much what it means. Someone cannot legally consent to sex if they're incapacitated by alcohol, this means clearly intoxicated, not simply unconscious, so if someone is drunk enough to lose their memory then they were likely heavily intoxicated and therefore unable to give consent. I'd say judging by what we saw from Bay...stumbling, falling into walls, needing to lie down, slurring her speech, and being unable to remember a huge chunk of time from the night before, she was very clearly intoxicated and not in the right state of mind to give consent. Tank may not have realized that or may not have wanted to acknowledge it, but that doesn't excuse his behavior or suddenly make Bay capable of consenting. 

 

 

Pretty much agree with everything you've said regarding the matter. I'm sympathetic towards Tank to a degree because it's clear he's not a violent sexual predator who meant to hurt Bay, but unfortunately he did assault her and he has to be held accountable for that or he'll continue to do it to other girls. All the hysteria over how the boy's life is ruined in this situation, yet no concern for the girl who has to live with the trauma of being assaulted by a person she trusted for the rest of her life. Yikes. I just don't get it. 

 

Right. This "well they were both drunk, why is the boy always blamed" argument is such bullshit. This argument is hardly ever considered valid because almost always one person is more incapacitated, it doesn’t have to be the woman but generally the person who is considered less drunk and who initiated the sexual contact is responsible. Many schools consider incapacitated by alcohol to mean a person isn’t capable of making rational decisions or appreciating the consequences of one’s actions…by this definition, Bay was incapacitated and Tank was not. Tank was thinking rationally enough to use a condom and remembered the sex, whereas Bay was falling down drunk and couldn’t remember how she got into the bed.

 

 

 

Huh? I don’t understand. You’re upset that people aren’t allowing Tank a safety net to rape?

 




And because he was drunk he shouldn’t be held accountable for his actions? If he stabbed someone while intoxicated, would that be okay too? I mean, his judgment would be impaired and maybe he felt the person wanted to be stabbed or maybe he didn’t realize he was stabbing that person, so why should he be held accountable for that, right? And if the person he stabbed was also drunk and didn’t clearly say, “hey, no, don’t stab me,” then I guess that person bears equal responsibility for getting themselves stabbed so no one should be punished. 




I just don’t understand your logic. Being drunk isn’t an excuse to rape. If you commit a crime while intoxicated, you don’t get a pass, even if the victim of your crime was also drunk, it’s still a crime and you’re still accountable. This seems to be universally understood and accepted for every crime but rape. 




It’s one thing to argue that what Tank did wasn’t rape or assault, (although it is illegal to have sex with a person who is incapacitated by alcohol), but to say that it doesn’t matter because his judgment was impaired and therefore he's not accountable for any criminal actions he may have committed while under the influence of alcohol is insane, IMO. Could you imagine if being drunk was a reasonable defense for committing a crime? Anyone who had a few drinks would be allowed to do whatever the hell they wanted. 




 

Bay bumping her head and struggling to stand shouldn’t be ignored, even if you don't want to hear it, it shows that Tank knew she was drunk and wasn't functioning as she normally would. If you see someone can’t stand, you should know they’re not in their right mind to consent to sex. And yes Tank was also drunk, although obviously not as drunk as Bay, but that’s not an excuse. It might explain his actions but it doesn't excuse them and it doesn’t make it okay.




And no, it’s not hypocritical, it’s the law and any decent human being would recognize and respect that. A person is considered incapable of consenting to sex if intoxicated. There's no such law that says a person is incapable of committing a crime while intoxicated. If Tank had been completely sober and had sex with Bay while she was that drunk, that would be considered rape and I doubt there'd be any confusion or discussion over the matter here. Tank being drunk doesn't change his behavior or Bay's state of mind, so even though he was also drunk, him having sex with a clearly intoxicated Bay is still sexual assault because she was unable to consent.

 

 

The whole point of me saying his judgement was impaired wasn't to give a pass to rape if it occurred. Tank didn't rape Bay, and he was also drunk. She couldn't remember what happened. I know it's been said and its repetitive, and for whatever reason neither side is understanding each other, but to me there is an illogical association being created here when judging both characters. If it is illegal for someone to have sex with someone who is drunk, then by that logic Tank was also raped by Bay. If you think that statement is ridiculous (and you should), maybe you will better understand why people are saying double standards are being applied here and not enough evidence was out there to make the judgement that was made. There is absolutely no way anyone could say someone was raped by the evidence presented, and there is also no way to judge who was more drunk. One says they blacked out. The other remembers the night better. We don't know who's BAC was higher. That's why it is a bit silly to say the person who is less drunk should make the judgement call.

 

When you are drunk, you are incapable of judging who is more drunk. The only piece of evidence we have is that Tank said she consented. Bay doesn't remember the night so we don't have an opinion from her. She doesn't know whether she consented or not. She has to trust that Tank didn't force himself on her, and honestly by the way she talks about it, she's also not ready to point fingers towards her being raped because she doesn't really remember. And you can't say "if she doesn't remember, then she was raped." That's really the point of pointing out that Tank was also drunk. He wasn't sober. No blood tests or breathalyzers were used. A he says, she says of who is more drunk and who has more power to make the judgment call simply does not fly. 

 

You are assuming a crime happened. There is no evidence of a crime occurring. If it had, Tank would be sitting in jail awaiting court orders. 

Edited February 19, 2015 by darkazc

[Bec]

I get that the question of whether any particular case crossed the line between sex and rape can be a sticking point. That's why rape cases are so hard to prosecute. All the defense needs to do is argue that "she could have wanted it, which would mean it was not rape, it was just sex" and that would be enough reasonable doubt to ward off a conviction. You can have DNA evidence up the wazoo, it wouldn't matter if "maybe she wanted it". And the defense would do everything they can to cast this doubt, including basically calling the victim a slut. That's what happened in that case where a bunch of teenage boys filmed themselves raping a teenage girl. This defense strategy worked. Those boys walked.

 

Now, I don't think Tank is a "great guy", but because he is not the "worst guy" he didn't try to flip it around and claim that he was the one taken advantage of by her (which some other dudes have claimed when charged with sexual assault, in order to get themselves off the hook). In this instance, whether "he wanted it" is not in question. He is very vocal about the fact that he "always wanted this to happen".

 

Everleigh has a good point that if she jumped his bones, he would surely say so to save his ass. Instead the best he could come up with was "you kissed me" - no matter who kissed who (whom?) a kiss doesn't mean "I want you to put your dick in my vagina now". His "I thought you were into it" does imply he initiated taking it to the next level. From his words we can tell he wanted her to be into it, but we can't rely on his words to conclude that she wanted this to happen. That we have to ask Bay.

 

Bay doesn't seem to have a very conclusive answer on whether she wanted this to happen, what with her whole "I can't remember what happened, what if I said yes?". But read between the lines of "something happened and I wasn't okay with it." It means she didn't want this and she felt violated.

 

Toss her words aside on account of it being too muddled if you must. After all, a defense lawyer would certainly also say she has no credibility whatsoever because her memory is spotty (or because she is a felon, or because she is "promiscuous", or a multitude of other reasons… there's always something that can be used to discredit someone.)

 

Lastly, there is the fact that she was so impaired, she was falling down and had to be helped up. By Tank. This means he noticed she was at a "falling down" level of incapacitated. He went ahead with intercourse anyway. This point would be the most damning one, and one that can be confirmed by multiple witnesses.

 

Taking all these points together… No, she didn't rape him. Yeah, what he did to her crossed the line. No, he didn't mean to, I know. It still crossed the line.

 

But quite right that if this went to court it would probably never get a rape conviction. It would be child's play for the defense to seize on Bay's uncertainty to create reasonable doubt.

 

I see her uncertainty as her way of coping with her trauma. The defense would paint her as an unreliable headcase.

 

This is one of the many reasons people who have been raped are often afraid to go to the police. The lack of police being called doesn't necessarily mean no crime took place.

 

Thank you and good night.

[Everleigh]

The whole point of me saying his judgement was impaired wasn't to give a pass to rape if it occurred. Tank didn't rape Bay, and he was also drunk. She couldn't remember what happened. I know it's been said and its repetitive, and for whatever reason neither side is understanding each other, but to me there is an illogical association being created here when judging both characters. If it is illegal for someone to have sex with someone who is drunk, then by that logic Tank was also raped by Bay. If you think that statement is ridiculous (and you should), maybe you will better understand why people are saying double standards are being applied here and not enough evidence was out there to make the judgement that was made. There is absolutely no way anyone could say someone was raped by the evidence presented, and there is also no way to judge who was more drunk. One says they blacked out. The other remembers the night better. We don't know who's BAC was higher. That's why it is a bit silly to say the person who is less drunk should make the judgement call.

 

When you are drunk, you are incapable of judging who is more drunk. The only piece of evidence we have is that Tank said she consented. Bay doesn't remember the night so we don't have an opinion from her. She doesn't know whether she consented or not. She has to trust that Tank didn't force himself on her, and honestly by the way she talks about it, she's also not ready to point fingers towards her being raped because she doesn't really remember. And you can't say "if she doesn't remember, then she was raped." That's really the point of pointing out that Tank was also drunk. He wasn't sober. No blood tests or breathalyzers were used. A he says, she says of who is more drunk and who has more power to make the judgment call simply does not fly. 

 

You are assuming a crime happened. There is no evidence of a crime occurring. If it had, Tank would be sitting in jail awaiting court orders. 

 

Yep, because all rapists are arrested and tried for their crimes. Rape isn't overwhelmingly under reported and doesn't have a notoriously low conviction rate. Nope, our society makes it so easy for rape victims to come forward! 

 

I'm not assuming a crime happen. I know it happened based on what was presented on screen. Bay, as we saw her, was intoxicated to the point of incapacitation thus making it illegal to have sex with her as she wasn't capable of giving consent. If it would be considered a crime for a sober person to have sex with her in her state (and based on your past statements you agree with that) then it’s a crime for a drunk person to, as well. Being drunk does not excuse someone for committing a crime. It’s not a legal defense. Tank, as we saw him, was also drunk but not as intoxicated as Bay and did not appear incapacitated as he was shown making rational decisions and being in control of his own body.

 

Why is this so hard to grasp for some? Why are we looking to make excuses for rape? I don’t think the issue is whether or not what happened was sexual assault because based on everything we know, including Bay feeling and saying it wasn’t okay, it was sexual assault. The issues I think the show is trying to tackle is did Tank, who is a decent guy and not a violent monster, intend to commit sexual assault? Did he know that Bay wasn’t capable of consenting and that simply not resisting isn’t an invite to have sex with someone who’s really drunk? Did he know that he not only needs an explicit "yes" from her, but that the yes needs to come when she's coherent and capable of consenting? Does him being drunk and maybe unaware of the laws of consent excuse his behavior or make her trauma any less severe? And if he didn’t intend to harm her, how should he be dealt with and how do both parties move forward from that?  

 

I mean, you yourself said that if Tank had been sober it would be wrong and he would deserve punishment, which means that you acknowledge the act of having sex with Bay in her incapacitated state was indeed wrong and illegal: 

 

 If Tank was sober, you would definitely have a point about him having common sense (and I'd be right there with anyone else looking to punish him), but because he was drunk and his judgement was impaired, he CANNOT be hung out to dry like this if he felt Bay consented.

 

But for whatever reason you don’t think Tank should be held accountable for his crime because he was drunk too. Fortunately, the law and most university policies disagree with you on paper. Unfortunately, our society looks for excuses to get around these policies so that the rapists are protected and the victims are either dismissed or put on trial themselves.

 

I understand that you don't think Tank was capable of making the distinction because he too was drunk, but that's not an excuse or a legal defense. And Tank is not being held responsible because he's the guy, he's being held responsible because, as far as we could tell, he initiated sexual contact and he wasn't fall down, room spinning, need to lie down, black out drunk and she was. People are tried and convicted of committing crimes while drunk all the time. Lots of people do stupid illegal shit while drunk that they wouldn't do while sober, yet they don't get away with doing said stupid illegal shit (unless it's rape apparently) because it's still illegal and being drunk isn't a valid defense. If you'd like to test this theory out, get hammered and go on a crime spree, see if the cops or judge will let you walk because your judgment was impaired.




And Tank was not also raped by Bay because whoever is less drunk and initiates the sexual contact is responsible and everything we saw points to that being Tank. If you read that article that was posted here by another poster (I think I even quoted it) you'll see that mutual incapacity hardly, if ever, actually happens, so him also being drunk doesn't matter because he wasn't more drunk and they were not equally drunk. For whatever reason you're refusing to accept that Bay was shown as being more intoxicated than Tank. That's not my interpretation, that's what was presented on screen. You're saying there's no way we could know for sure but we can... Bay was falling down drunk, she literally couldn't stand and felt so sick she needed to lay down. We saw and heard her say that the room was spinning. Her speech was slurred and when she was looking at the stickers on the ceiling they were blurry and out of focus. Tank's speech was slightly slurred but other than that he wasn't displaying any of the other signs of intoxication Bay was. He could not only stand on his own but he was able to help Bay up and lead her around, the stickers on the ceiling were in focus for him, and most importantly he was making decisions that showed he was considering the consequences of his actions... bringing Bay water because he knew she'd get dehydrated, using a condom because he knew he could get her pregnant. And he was also able to remember the night whereas Bay was too drunk to recall anything that happened. You're acting like it's impossible to judge how drunk someone is when that's simply not the case. There's signs, things you look for… that’s why cops perform in field sobriety tests, because you can tell. If this was ever to go to trial, witnesses would be asked how drunk both Bay and Tank appeared and the other kids at the party would say they saw Bay stumbling, falling into walls and asking to lay down, while they saw Tank standing on his feet and helping her up.  




For this ridiculous "well then Bay also raped Tank" argument to hold any weight we would need to have seen that 1) Tank was more intoxicated than Bay or 2) that she initiated sex, not just a kiss, but actual intercourse. We know Tank wasn't more intoxicated than Bay based on what we saw. And while we weren't actually shown Tank initiating sex, as I said before, if it had been Bay who did initiate it, Tank would have said so because it would have been a better defense than “you seemed into it".  When Tank's defending himself to Bay he says he would have stopped if she said no and that it would be ridiculous for him to stop at every turn and ask if she wanted him to go forward, which implies he was in control of the encounter and therefore responsible. He was taking Bay’s lack of resistance as consent and that is considered rape when the person is intoxicated. When Bay asks if she deserved having something done to her without her permission, Tank doesn’t counter by saying she gave her permission, he says he didn’t know it was without her permission, which would imply she didn’t say yes or do anything to indicate she wanted it to happen, just that she didn’t say no or resist. Tank isn’t even certain that what he did wasn’t wrong, he said he didn’t know and looked confused so even he was starting to doubt himself. 


[maraleia]

I would ask the few posters who keep arguing back and forth to take a breather and walk away for at least a few days or more. I know this is a heated issue but none of you will solve this issue in this episode thread.

[MrsMommy]

When does the new switched at birth come air?

[AmandaPanda]

It will be back at the end of August.

[greekmom]

Due to Netflix Canada being behind, I finally saw S4 and this episode.  I wish it was played a bit different.  I wanted it played out by Tank's perspective, then replayed and shown in Bay's perspective (spotty at best because she was blacking out here and there) and then at the end, after the first part of the credits, breaking the 4th fall and showing the audience what really happened. 

Doing this would have shown the real culprit: not Tank, not Bay but both of them over indulging and impairing both Bay and Tank's better judgement.

[Scarlett45]

On 1/3/2017 at 10:00 PM, greekmom said:

Due to Netflix Canada being behind, I finally saw S4 and this episode.  I wish it was played a bit different.  I wanted it played out by Tank's perspective, then replayed and shown in Bay's perspective (spotty at best because she was blacking out here and there) and then at the end, after the first part of the credits, breaking the 4th fall and showing the audience what really happened. 

Doing this would have shown the real culprit: not Tank, not Bay but both of them over indulging and impairing both Bay and Tank's better judgement.

Maybe I'm giving the show runners too much credit, but I thought it was a deliberate choice to NOT show the audience an objective version of what happened because in situations like these you can't get one (save for a nanny cam or something of the sort).

[Perfect Xero]

On 2/12/2017 at 2:34 PM, Scarlett45 said:

Maybe I'm giving the show runners too much credit, but I thought it was a deliberate choice to NOT show the audience an objective version of what happened because in situations like these you can't get one (save for a nanny cam or something of the sort).

I think it was intentional on their part. Of course I'm not sure if Bay's flashbacks were supposed to be things she remembered or what she imagined must have really happened based on what Tank was saying.