That doesn’t make a difference. The suggestion here is that he’s being treated differently by the media because he’s conservative, and what counts WRT this is how he’s perceived, not what he actually is.
FTR, I don’t see any indication that he’s being treated differently by the media because he’s “conservative”, or that he’s being treated differently by the media at all, FTM. But to the extent that you consider the issue in play, what counts is the public perception, not the reality.
I think he’s gotten a huge pass from the media for the last 10 years, and pretty much still is. This wouldn’t be a story if it wasn’t for viral internet action.
I don’t know if there’s a trope name for it, but there’s something to be said about the effort to make an accusation weeding out lies. Like I mentioned before, the fact that the women knew they’re attacking a rich, public, beloved figure with allegations, the subject matter and the sensitivities of that, coupled with an automatic negative reaction by some against the victims, means, to me, that only those who are very sure of what they are saying will come out. The fact that its been hidden for decades seems to prove that, as people have come out before and their voices have been buried.
You’re right, if 5 women accused me of doing the same thing Cosby did over a period of years that I don’t remember, it would be really really bad for me and completely unfair that I would have to justify myself. But in reality, there is no one who would do that because the alternatives to open themselves up for scrutiny is just too much to take for a false report. If someone, or 14 someones, did accuse me of something like that, then that would speak to their credibility as a whole. Even if I don’t like it, having that many people accuse me would rightly stain my reputation in the eyes of people.
What’s the alternative? Some pseudo-Islamic rape reporting structure, where women much provide at least 2 witnesses to any accusation of sexual impropriety? I think that’s too high of a hurdle to place in front of vulnerable people.
I’m with you on the alternative also being wrong - but at the same time I can’t help but feel that the portion I have underlined is also wrong.
I can’t help but feel that a “stained reputation” from an unproven, unsubstantiated accusation is also wrong.
What’s the alternative? I really don’t have one.
And frankly - as far as Cosby is concerned, it really has no effect on me whatsoever. I didn’t, and still don’t really have an opinion on him as a person. Not being personally connected to the any of the accusers or Cosby, and having no “investment” in him as a person, it doesn’t matter to me.
I don’t want to be seen as “defending” him either - I simply want to point out that there is a very rational reason for him to remain silent - even if he is innocent of all accusations.
And on a broader scale - I am really uncomfortable that all it takes is an accusation from 30 years ago, with no corroboration to “destroy” someone, and that such an accusation is taken by some as gospel (as opposed to a “serious” matter that needs investigation)
It isn’t “an” accusation from 30 years ago. It is 14 different accusers describing the same behavior who have been reporting it for years. Only with this many women coming forward with the same sort of method of operation and comedians challenging audiences about it has any traction been gained. This is our problem in not making sure the people charged with investigating do it professionally.
This difference between this and the Duke incident is that this is 14 accusers corroborating each other with different events, not one crazy accuser misaccusing 14 men with an overzealous and corrupt prosecutor.
People do make false accusation. Sexual predators do exist. Corrupt and incompetent government officials do exist. But we have to hold government officials to do their jobs correctly.
With none of these “victims” willing to make a statement to the police or press charges, what exactly was there to investigate?
What I’m curious about is how all the Jane Does happened to be found 10 years ago in order to offer supporting testimony in regard to Constand’s lawsuit. Did the lawyers run ads asking anyone who’d been assaulted by Cosby to come forward, or what? In other words, how did this disparate group of women scattered all over the country know to come forward with their stories all at the same time and for the same reason.
I’m thinking that in some way or another they may have come forth in order to participate in what they may well have figured might be a hefty payday resulting from the lawsuit. At least a couple of them had a history of having things paid for by Cosby years before and over a period of some time. I’m also curious as to whether they received any money as a result of the settlement.
The answer to those questions would have quite a bearing on my opinion as to whether they’re being truthful or mercenary.
That’s what good lawyers (and their PIs) do. That’s kind of a massive part of their job. Ask people who know people who know people. Most of these women probably knew other women with similar stories. Most likely, a significant number of the women with similar experiences were not interested in the lawsuit, having put it behind them with no interest in resurrecting it.
Thank you! Yes, you understand correctly, I am a lady Weasel. Happy Thanksgiving.
Yeah. Back when I thought there were only one or two accusations (before the current brouhaha), I didn’t think Cosby was a rapist either. It is specifically the number of allegations that has changed my mind.
The likelihood that at least one accusation is true goes up exponentially with the number of accusations by independent parties. This is true of any type of accusation, not just rape. (The quality of the accusation matters, of course, too.)
It’s this that makes me see a level of misogyny in denying this. I have a hard time believing that if these were each claims of just plain assault that people would be so willing to just sit on the fence.
There are times when, even if you want to withhold judgment, you can’t. You have decided that one or the other is more likely, even if you don’t want to admit it. True objectivity requires realizing this.
Has someone addressed the matter of there not being any charges of rape by women who, having just been raped by Cosby, went to the police? Did anyone, in the current group, or not, ever make a straight-up as soon as they could call the police, charge of rape?
One of the features of this current outbreak of condemnation of Cosby, rightly or wrongly, is that the numbers of accusers would tend to indicate there must have been many, many more women he sexually abused than just the dozen or so current accusers…and, so, of those dozens of women, did any of them accuse him of rape concurrent with the rape? Are all these accusations from incidents that happened ‘years ago’?
And, not to belittle the charges, doesn’t it just sound like Cosby had a very active sex life? Why wouldn’t eligible women not be interested in having sex with a prominent, successful man? didn’t Wilt Chamberlain claim thousands of sexual encounters? (though I don’t recall any scandal involving dozens of women claiming rape). so, hundreds of women wanted sex with Cosby, why would he have to commit rape? And, do the activities the women say happened sound like those that a ‘rapist’ interested in hurting his victim for the sake of demonstrating ‘power’, do those activities seem like ‘rape’ sex?
Because some men get off on raping.
Very possibly. It’s very possible that Cosby’s thing was having sex with drugged, unconscious women (i.e. raping them in a specific way). There’s a similar case currently being prosecuted – NFL star Darren Sharper has been accused by several women in multiple cities of rape. And he was (by peer accounts) an extremely sharp dressed ladies’ man. But his thing, like Cosby’s thing, may not have just been sex – it was rape. Some men want to rape. They don’t just want sex, then want rape sex.
And getting off on drugged, unconscious women or a fantasy of drugged, unconscious women is a real thing that real people are in to. It often shows up as a category on even mainstream porn sites.
In the 60s, 70s, and early 80s there was no such thing as date rape or date rape drugs. The terms didnt exist. The woman who were assaulted prior to the late 80’s would have been laughed out of the police station just for trying to report such a thing not to mention accusing the famous all around good guy Bill Cosby (who could have any woman he wants right)of date rape.
If you have been drinking alcohol and you wake up the next day not remembering what happened the night before, the first think you think of is not going to be that someone drugged you, especially not famous fatherly Bill Cosby, it’s going to be that you drank too much. Almost every one of these women did not recognize the circumstances for what they were until it became a pattern at which point they dont report because now they will be asked why they went back after the first time which destroys their credibility, exactly as people here have done.
Rape is not caused by a lack of willing sexual partners.
How many consensual sexual encounters a man has has no bearing on whether he is also a rapist.
One can be both a sexually successful man and also a habitual rapist.
How many other ways would you like me to say this?
(Replace “rapist” with “purchaser of sexual services” and you also have series of true statements, only in that case the thing is consensual and in general ought to be legal.)
Exactly! They didn’t realize they’d been raped until they’d been persuaded of it years later by changing sexual mores.
:rolleyes:
I’m glad it was someone on the other side of the argument who made this point. In this day and age where even something as benign as an unexpected kiss or a touch can be regarded as ‘sexual assault’ or ‘attempted rape’, and where sex is the only aspect of human behavior where women are given a complete pass on their behavior if under the influence (i.e., women aren’t allowed to drive a car, beat a child or rob a bank without consequence if drunk) I imagine there are millions of men from the last several decades who would qualify as ‘rapists’.
I seriously doubt either they or Cosby felt rape was involved at the time. This would explain why several of them had on-going relationships with him afterward, and why he did such things as promise them financial rewards for doing well in school, paying their college tuition, or helping them in time of financial need even twenty years after the fact.
There is no evidence that Cosby got off on unconscious women. He was apparently happy to have sex with a great many who were perfectly conscious at the time, and he expressed disgust and annoyance with at least one woman who refused to go into his hotel room after “all he’d done for her”. Some of the women who claim to have been drugged aren’t sure if sex actually even happened, so it’s entirely possible that the opposite is true and that once they’d gone under he lost interest, leaving them lying there in a state of dishabille.
You know there was actually more that came after your ellipsis, you didnt have to make it up. What I actually said was:
At which point they knew something had been done to them that they didnt have a name for because the name didnt exist.
Oh, please. :rolleyes:
I omitted that part because it wasn’t relevant. The point is they didn’t feel they were ‘raped’ until long after the fact and in view of changing social mores…and perhaps in the face of a lawsuit they may well have felt could result in a payday for them.
The idea that they knew something happened to them but they didn’t know what to call it just silly.
Besides, even if we are to believe that to be the case it only supports that which I’ve been suggesting, which is that what happened to them has only recently come to be regarded as rape and wasn’t considered to be rape at the time it happened. Otherwise there’d have been no doubt it was rape as both the term and criminal penalties for it certainly existed at that time.
Are you fucking serious? Groping isn’t sexual assault? Forcing an unwanted kiss isn’t sexual assault?
For one thing, how the hell would you know? If some of the allegations are true, Cosby drugged women and had sex with them while they were unconscious or semi-conscious. I don’t care what Cosby thought at the time, but that’s definitely rape. And groping someone is definitely sexual assault.
Many, many things would explain this, including women being conflicted by fear, revulsion, guilt, and need.
Except for the testimony of some of his accusers, of course.
I can’t believe this actually counts as a defense in someone’s mind. “He sometimes had sex with women without raping them, therefore he couldn’t have raped anyone”. What a load of misogynistic bullshit.
Yep.
No. Not unless said touching or kissing is the same as sex. To me, sexual assault has to involve actual…you know, sex.
When did I say I ‘knew’?
Contrary to popular belief all any of us are doing is speculating.
The women don’t appear to have thought of it as rape at the time either.
And it’s far from been proven that he slipped them any knock-out drugs. For all you know they simply latched onto such accusations after having had them suggested by Andrea Constand’s lawyers. By your own account they may well have been feeling “revulsion, guilt, and need” for many years after their encounter with Cosby, and what a convenient way out for them to claim to have been drugged…or to cash in on the lawsuit whose claims they’re being asked to support.
Nope, in my opinion it has to involve sex, and ‘inappropriate touching’, which might mean nothing more than putting his arm around her, is not necessarily sexual assault.
Or at least it wasn’t in more reasonable times.
Fear? Why fear? I’ve already suggested that revulsion (and possibly race-based at that, given the comment by Ferrigno’s wife that she’d never been kissed by a black man before), guilt and need my well be motivating factors to explain why these women have come forth with their claims.
Except for the unsubstantiated accusations of some of his accusers, yes. It’s also worth noting in my opinion, that in many of these cases Cosby was alleged to have given women drugs only after they’d complained of a headache, allergies, etc. What do you think he did, just randomly hit on women hoping against hope that they’d offer up some symptom so he could drug them.
And don’t forget that a significant percentage (most?) of those claiming to have been drugged aren’t even sure that sex actually happened.
Good old iiandyiiii, always ready to react hysterically over any politically loaded topic. Good to see you haven’t changed.
No, I didn’t say “he sometimes had sex without raping them”. Nor had I made such a silly comment would I conclude from that that he couldn’t have raped anyone. If you want me to continue to answer your posts I’m afraid you’re going to have to confine your outbursts to what I’ve actually said and not your ridiculous extrapolations.
This, from almost any dictionary you care to read:
misogynist
noun
1.a person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women.
None of which remotely describes me nor any of my posts.
In the other thread I asked psychobunny if a group of young men were accused in an alleged gang rape which may or may not have happened, and she were to suggest possible motivations for these guys’ actions, would that mean she hated men?
She had enough good sense and intellectual honesty to concede the point and withdraw her accusations of misogyny. It’ll be interesting to see whether you have that same good sense and intellectual honesty, but based on your emotional over-response to any and everything with political undertones I’ll be surprised if you can marshall the objectivity and intestinal fortitude it would require.