For eons conflicts arising in the realm of social interaction have been settled on an
ad hoc basis, relying on the good judgment of friends. As an example, an all male tribunal has rendered verdicts on such immutable laws as "Man Code", whereby it was found that a man who introduces an attractive female to a social circle is given a “reasonable” period of time to pursue an intimate relationship with her before his friends can advance their own interests. Now, with the legal expertise we have gained in law school, we can put our education to use consolidating years of common law doctrine which have we have developed since junior high.
Without further adieu, I present the Court of Social Arbitration, where precedent will be set for a variety of conflicts ranging from beer drinking contests to hook-ups and dating. Presiding over the proceedings is none other than the Honourable Judge Offender.
The inaugural case heard by Offender J. involves the doctrine of “Cock-Block”, an issue which has caused much uncertainty in the “hook-up” scene, often occurring inconspicuously, as the case at bar illustrates.
“Hot Chick” v. “The Friend”
The judgment of the Court was delivered by Offender J.
FACTS
On Friday, May 13, 2006 the plaintiff invited the defendant to the Bar. Prior to that, the defendant had a previous engagement at a house party, where he consumed copious amounts of alcohol and delicious brownies. The defendant, in a disoriented stupor wandered all six floors of the Bar, exposing himself to several waitresses. At 2 am the plaintiff, a highschool friend of the defendant's, left the Bar for an after-hours party, inviting the defendant to join. Instead, the defendant wandered home urinating in several locations and asked several homeless men for change. In a haze, the defendant fell asleep, waking up occasionally between 2 am and 5 am, sending several text messages inviting the plaintiff to “hook-up”.
After leaving the Bar, the plaintiff met a desirable male, with whom she had sexual chemistry. The desirable male was only in town for a week. Allegedly, he was a “nice guy”. After hearing several text messages, he may have suspected that the plaintiff was someone else’s booty call, at which point he may have forgotten he had a penis and decided not to hook-up with the plaintiff. The plaintiff defined hooking-up as not being a sexual encounter that night, but the possibility for such encounters during the course of the desirable male’s stay in Edmonton (or so she has testified to the Court). Plaintiff expressed to the desirable male that the text messages were just a drunk friend.
The plaintiff later exchanged contact information with the defendant, although the desirable male expressed to the plaintiff that he was unsure that she would answer her phone when, as he claimed, he would call the next day. The aforementioned douchebag never called the attractive plaintiff, leaving this court to conclude that he did “the stranger” in the privacy of his own home later that night.
ANALYSIS
Introduction
It is well-established that the Cock-Block (latin
penis impedimentum) is one of the most intolerable of all the social crimes. Correspondingly, the stigma and penalty attached are high. Often a repeat Cock-Block offender is no longer invited to social situations with the possibility for "hook-ups"; and, repeat offenders are often ostracized from their social group altogether and sentenced to receive sexual gratification from the backroom of Blockbuster.
The Cock-Block is not limited to cases of one male interfering with another or one female interfering with another. The Cock-Block may occur when the “Got-to-Go” girl, who is generally defined by her hideousness and gross disfigurement, emerges from the dark abyss and wrenches an attractive female from the grasp of the unsuspecting male. Or, a Cock-Block may occur when one party who is sexually attracted to a friend but due to a lack of an ability to procure other sexual partners, blocks the advances of other third parties, to the detriment of the friend. The scope of the Cock-Block is by no means limited.
In the case at bar, however, the alleged Cock-Block was committed via negligence and therefore requires neither the sanction of the intentional Cock-Block, nor the subjective
mens rea, leaving the defense of automatism unavailable.
As a remedy for the Tort of Cock-Block, one must procure an equally desirable sexual partner for the aggrieved party (or possibly several unattractive sexual partners), discharging the obligation by being the "wing-man", “pimp”, or other appropriate method as the court may find just.
In the case at bar, however, the Tort of Cock-Block was not committed, for the following reasons given:
1) Remoteness:
Had the plaintiff been psychologically offended by being hit on by the defendant, given his extreme intoxication, the lesser Tort of Intoxicated "Letching" may have been committed. In that sense it is not disputed that the defendant had created an unreasonable risk. Furthermore, the plaintiff is of the class of friends to whom a duty of care is admittedly owed by the defendant.
However, the creation of the unreasonable risk was surely not unreasonable due to the possibility that the plaintiff's cell phone would be heard “beeping” by the potential "hook-up", resulting in the desirable male not wishing to pursue further phone conversation the next day, which only potentially could have led to more. It is extremely unforeseeable that the defendant's admittedly negligent conduct could have led to the class of injury which the plaintiff allegedly suffered; that is, lack of orgasim. Although the plaintiff could have reasonably contemplated that repeated phone calls would intrude upon the potential for hook-up, the text message is a historically discrete way of “sending smoke signals”.
2) Cause-in-Fact:
The possibility that a potential male suitor would be deterred by several text messages which the plaintiff vehemently denied attached any pith and substance of “booty-call” is certainly in question. Whether or not the potential "hook-up" was a "nice-guy", he surely had a male libido and had committed significant energy to the potential transaction by the end of the night. Having been assured that the text-messages did not involve “booty call”, coupled with the possibility to call the next day and receive reassurance in a sober state, the potential "hook-up" would likely have taken steps to make said phone call.
This Court can only hope that the fact that he was in town for only a week adds to the likelihood that he would have had something come up, or have gone somewhere, or that he was looking for a one-night stand and had no intention of making said phone call. Although
prima facie confident originally, his lack of confidence in requesting the plaintiff’s phone number lends to the possibility that he was simply too scared to call. On a balance of probabilities, it cannot be said that the defendant's actions caused the failed hook-up. Nor can it be said that those actions materially contributed to the failed hook-up and subsequent orgasim. It is more likely that the desirable male was merely
douchous nogutus.
3) Contributory Negligence
Even if the defendant had been guilty, the majority of the tort rests with the plaintiff who contributed to the failed hook-up in two major ways: 1) plaintiff did not properly request the defendant to masterbate and call it a night and 2) the plaintiff did not contact the potential hook-up the following day, an action which would have alleviated the concerns of the potential hook-up’s fragile ego.
For these reasons, I find the defendant not liable, morally or otherwise, for the alleged Tort of Cock-Block, although the Court finds that he has no game.
Question for Lower Courts:
Plaintiff introduces defendant to two hot girls claiming that the defendant has recently broken up with his girlfriend and that he is a nice guy but shy. Defendant talks with one girl for half an hour. Plaintiff comes by and the hot blonde friend starts grinding against him and is showing strong buying signals. After fifteen to twenty minutes the girls leave claiming they are coming back. The hot girls do not come back for fifteen minutes at which time the plaintiff and defendant move to a new area in the club, but pass the girls on the way by, as they were actually coming back to meet the plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff goes to the washroom, at which time the defendant converses with the hot girls, but feels he is not getting the love he deserves. To promote his Street Cred, the defendant then claims to be a corporate lawyer proceeding to tell them how much better than them he is. Plaintiff no longer has an opportunity, not even a remote one, of hooking up with the hot blonde, as both girls were extremely offended and associated the plaintiff with the defendant. Although the possibility of a hook-up ultimately may have been remote, were the defendant’s actions, which eliminated any possibility of hook-up, a time-saving and face-saving maneuver, or a negligent cock-block? Send in your verdicts and potential remedies to the email below and you may become a future authority quoted in the Court’s jurisprudence, forever enshrining your name in glory.
Do you have a case you want to have heard by the Court of Social Arbitration? To request leave, send your factually detailed accounts to Judge Offender at:
mailto:public.offender@gmail.comPublic Offender
