http://nypost.com/2015/07/16/is-bill-cosby-really-a-rapist-or-has-the-definition-just-changed/
Is Bill Cosby really a ‘rapist,’ or has the definition just changed?
This article seems like a huge slap in all the women's faces. We're back to forty women are lying forty years afterwards for no good reason.
Yes, some of the accusers said they agreed to take some pills from Cosby. This doesn't mean that they agreed to have sex. They say they did not know the pills would knock them out and Cosby would then have his merry way with them. If you believe the women that there was an encounter, why not believe the details?
To my mind, even if there had been a consensual plan to have sex, having sex would be off the moment that the presumptive partner falls unconscious and thereafter it's rape because they're no longer able to consent or withdraw the consent.
And the way the accusers describe Cosby behaving afterwards does not sound like Cosby thought he was having consensual sex either. Patricia, the latest one, says that Cosby told her she fell ill and passed out and was naked because he had to wash her dress. Why would he be pretending it was purely platonic if it was consensual to begin with?
I find this article a bit odd because the same reporter was writing earlier:
http://nypost.com/2014/12/22/camille-cosby-is-the-ninny-of-the-year/