http://www.hometownstations.com/story/29493795/bill-cosbys-public-moralizing-was-his-undoing
Public moralizing was his undoing. Did you see in one of the posted articles that he offered to pay for Constand's education provided she maintain 3.0 GPA.... ever the education defender
That seems just a slap in the face imo, for a rape victim having to report to the rapist about her educational success...
This is, IMO, a sickening perversion of justice.
Of course it was a slap in Miss Constand's face. It is also perfectly in keeping with BC's need to control other people, IMO. The setting of a 3.0 GPA implies that Miss Constand would not put in her best effort in the course work if he did not tie the money to proof of performance. In a demonstration of one of the classic characteristics of an abuser, BC uses this demand to belittle Miss Constand's academic achievements. Of course BC's abuse of Miss Constand began, IIRC, with BC fraudulently offering to be her mentor. So this little requirement allows him to perpetuate his lie. At a glance, it could seem that he was giving her a bursary or scholarship by claiming to have a goal of scholastic achievement. Again, IMO, the 3.0 GPA demand also moves the giving of money from a penance or punishment for his heinous behaviour to being a form of his largesse. Instead of being immediately seen as a form of compensation for the pain and suffering which he caused Miss Constand to undergo, and, therefore, proof that BC was guilty of rape, the addition of that little caveat makes BC seem as to be a stern but generous benefactor.
Through this device, in my opinion, BC is keeping Miss Constand within his sphere of influence. He keeps his place of power and influence which is far beyond her position. Just another reminder that even if she's had a tiny victory, he holds the opportunity to have yet another huge negative impact in her personal and professional life. The condition of maintaining a 3.0 GPA is, I believe, nothing more than a poorly veiled threat--a form of blackmail, another kind of abuse. Miss Constand must please BC in order to receive the financial compensation which he has agreed to give her. If he cannot demand that she sexually please him, then she must meet his terms in her academic life. And, an added bonus, he can always claim some credit for her achievements because, after all, he paid for her education.
As well, this reinforces what seems to be BC's rigid stereotypical gender roles--a classic characteristic of abusers, IIRC. He, being the man, is allowed to set the rules for the woman to follow. She must prove her worthiness to him. Instead of apologizing and grovelling and begging for forgiveness, BC demands to be recognized as an authority figure in Miss Constand's life. He is also reserving the right to pull back that money should she not meet his standards. The standards set by a man who bought his degree! IMO.
He's a control freak. He's an abuser--giving women drugs without their knowledge or consent, as IMO happened with Miss Constand, is not only "abusive" it is violent. It is potentially homicidal. Not only is BC not really an educator, he's not a medical authority and unlikely to be able to recognize the symptoms of a bad reaction to drugs, or an overdose. In a demonstration of yet another characteristic of abusers, BC appears to have indulged in acting out fantasies in which his victims were helpless. Such as would be the case when a woman is unconscious after being given the equivalent of a date rape drug. He has, through his actions, recklessly endangered Miss Constand's life.
Please note, in this post I've been referring to a document from the Independent Living Resource Centre for Thunder Bay and the Northwestern Ontario region.
http://www.ilrctbay.com/upload/custom/abuse/content/abusers.htm