10/02/2026
Content warning: sexual assault.
In the Cornell 7 case, I think we may be having the wrong discussion.
Yes, consent matters.
Yes, due process matters.
Yes, the legal system has to sort through evidence, statements, intoxication, memory, and criminal standards.
But there is another conversation that should not be hard.
If a woman is intoxicated, impaired, isolated, surrounded, pressured, or vulnerable, the masculine response should not be:
How much can I get away with?
It should be:
How do I create safety?
That is the part I think we are missing.
The highest expression of masculinity is not conquest.
It is protection.
It is restraint.
It is strength in service of safety.
It is the ability to create a container where the feminine can exist without fear, without coercion, without being reduced, used, or consumed.
I use masculine and feminine here symbolically. Both exist inside each of us. But in a situation like the one being alleged, the masculine should have shown up as order, protection, courage, and intervention.
Not escalation.
Not performance.
Not group cowardice.
Not turning a vulnerable human being into an opportunity.
A truly masculine man does not need a prosecutor to explain that something is wrong when an impaired woman is in a room full of men and the situation is becoming unsafe.
He knows.
And if needed, he uses his strength, his voice, his body, his social power, and even his willingness to create conflict to get her out of that situation.
That is what strength is for.
Not to dominate vulnerability.
To protect it.
So yes, we can talk about consent.
But consent is the floor.
The question for men should be higher than:
Was this technically defensible?
The question should be:
Did I create safety?
Did I protect dignity?
Did I listen?
Did I honor the humanity of the person in front of me?
Did my strength serve something sacred?
Because what is being alleged in this case is not masculinity.
It is the collapse of masculinity.
And we should say that clearly.