Rape allegations mount against Bill Cosby #2

[LinasK]

Classic predatory grooming behavior. See: Sandusky, Jerry.

See Michael Jackson too.

 

[MyBelle]

Even if a woman was perfectly willing to have consensual sex with a man in order to further her career, it would still be a crime to drug her unconscious and have his way with her in a manner that she did not consent to.

Of course it would be a crime but the crime needs to be reported to the police rather than to a journalist 30 years later.

 

[LinasK]

'Course if the women didn't go to a private place with him, hoping for whatever their goals were, they probably would have been spared all this anguish. I'm not saying they had any greedy goals in mind, just that sometimes people put themselves in situations "hoping" their dreams will come true.

Hell, I'm old, and all of my generations knew better. Now that everyone is so knowing and sophisticated, I cannot image how exploitation is possible. Did mothers stop warning their daughters?

It's all well and fine to warn your daughters not to go into "lions dens" and they may still get attacked through no fault of their own! Did I suspect when my uncle whom I had no reason to distrust asked me to stay behind in my very own backyard, when the rest of the family went back into the house, that he would ambush me and molest me??? This was no Playboy Mansion, it still happens! Just because I didn't take him to court doesn't mean either that it didn't happen. I was only 13, and wouldn't have been believed. My own mother didn't believe me when I got up the courage to tell her years later.

 

[LinasK]

Of course it would be a crime but the crime needs to be reported to the police rather than to a journalist 30 years later.

3 words- Statute of Limitations, and in my case, my attacker is dead.

 

[LinasK]

It's been hard to change my thinking about who this man is.

At the end of the day, Cosby is an actor, and he played the part of a trustworthy fatherly figure well. We just didn't realize that his public persona was all part of the act.
JMO

Gitana, jennapuppy nailed it. This is what you need to realize to accept who Bill Cosby really is. The "trustworthy" Cliff Huxtable, Fat Albert, Kids Say the Darndest Things, and the Jello Spokesman were all just roles for Bill Cosby, not the real person.

 

[Donjeta]

Of course it would be a crime but the crime needs to be reported to the police rather than to a journalist 30 years later.

Yeah, if you want to make a criminal case out of it.

But I contend that a crime that goes unreported is still nevertheless a crime.

The criminal doesn't know whether it will or will not be reported at the time he's committing the act so it does not justify anything imo if he gets lucky and there is no report.

 

[wendiesan]

So we're back to "if they went there willingly, they couldn't have been raped." I guess any woman who accepts a man's offer of career advice and goes to meet with him willingly about this should just expect to drop her drawers and give it up, or be forced to do so.

IIRC, several of the women now making allegations have said their coffee or tea or whatever was drugged and they don't remember what really happened after they drank the doctored beverage. Not all of them, IIRC, are saying that they would not have had sexual relations with BC willingly. However, it seems from their accounts that they did not even get the opportunity to say yes or no.

A person who is under the influence of drugs (legal or illegal) cannot consent to participating in a sexual act. Therefore, IMO, a man who has sex with a woman who is unconscious, who is physically incapable of giving her consent, is raping her. Drugging a woman in this way, IMO, clearly demonstrates the rapist's dangerous indifference to human life. As I, and other posters have stated, this behaviour is a step away from homicide charges let alone rape charges. If the allegations are true, these women were exposed to STDs, unwanted pregnancies, mental and physical health problems stemming from the drugs and possible drug interactions with previously ingested drugs, emotional issues, as well as the immediate and the long term side effects of the drugs allegedly administered by BC. These could include: repiratory depression (inability to breathe), confusion, depression, hypertension, heart or kidney failure, anxiety and paranoia. (ttp://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/clubdrugs; http://www.medicinenet.com/date_rape_drugs/page2.htm)

If a woman was willing to "sleep her way to the top" with a notorious womanizer like BC, why did he feel the need to drug her? Did he need the extra sexual stimulation of being able to totally dominate a woman? Is he a fetishist, a somophiliac--does he need to be Prince Desiré to a comatose Snow White? IMO, probably only a psychiatrist may be able to answer those questions. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/health/when-rapists-weapon-is-a-drug.html?_r=0)

At any rate, if the allegations are true, it doesn't matter why BC acted in the way he did. BC knowingly gave them a drug that could have life threatening effects. He knowingly did this probably so that they would conform to the appearance he needed to fulfill his fantasies. If BC gave them drugs to make them unconscious, then he knew that the women could not object. Again, JMO, but it only matters that the women involved were not able to give their consent, so whatever happened was nonconsensual. Nonconsensual sexual relations are rape. Since, if the allegations are true, BC knew that what happened was nonconsensual then he knew that he was raping them.

I know that I'm rehashing what other posters have said and what I've previously posted, so my apologies for that. Still, I think if we're going to look at what the motivation of the women was for being there (money, advice, status) we should also look at why BC was there (power, obsession, sexual insecurity).

 

[BirdycatNY]

Of course it would be a crime but the crime needs to be reported to the police rather than to a journalist 30 years later.

Trauma from sexual assault/rape is complex including the time it takes to come to terms with it (if ever) and that many victims/survivor(s) never report it to LE, speaking from experience. So I am not going to explain it to you because there are plenty of personal stories and research out there.

QUOTE=MyBelle;11340264]...The problem my husband and I are having is that they waited a few decades and now claim they were raped...I declined offers to sleep my way into a promotion but I know women who didn't decline those offers.

I don't judge women who do/don't put out for a promotion, a. I hope never to encounter it, and b. I most certainly would place blame on the sexual harasser, not the person being exploited. It's repulsive behavior to begin with. But you also presume that these women knew what the "score" was, right? Hypothetically, so the PR firms must have clued the women in that BC would be expecting sex if they were to get any part? Links please that show women knew what they were getting into? Or hypothetically they really consented to sex with him but are angry that they didn't get the part or make it big? Is that where you are going with this? Have you ever considered may be some of these women wanted to keep it bottled up and buried it, but when they found out that another women, Constand 2004 claimed similar account with BC, maybe they felt guilty or empowered to say this isn't going to happen to any more women or just to back up Constand claims (if allegations are true). What have the alleged victims publicly stated to make you think this was consensual? And BC?

 

[Slebby]

Even if a woman was perfectly willing to have consensual sex with a man in order to further her career, it would still be a crime to drug her unconscious and have his way with her in a manner that she did not consent to.

What is it that makes some people equate "willingness to have consensual sex" with "willing to be drugged unconscious and rendered incapable of consent and then raped"? It's like saying, "heck, she was willing to give it away, so if he took it without her permission, what's the big deal?"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wendiesan]

What is it that makes some people equate "willingness to have consensual sex" with "willing to be drugged unconscious and rendered incapable of consent and then raped"? It's like saying, "heck, she was willing to give it away, so if he took it without her permission, what's the big deal?" Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly.

 

[LinasK]

As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing is BS. Anyone who goes/meets alone. . .well, you know the rest, and drinks it or takes it is., .well, you fill in the blanks.

Cosby and a lot of others must have been like buffalo in new grass with the women wanting stardom and/or recognition. Shame on 'em, and I don't mean Cosby.

I think that's what is wrong with today's world, no one takes responsibility for their OWN actions, they want to foist it off on someone else.
My opinion of course.

Buffalo in new grass? Seriously??? How offensive! So Bill Cosby bears no responsibility for his own actions because he was just a buffalo in new grass???:gaah::maddening::notgood:
How about when Clarence Thomas sexually harrassed Anita Hill?? My mother defended him because she thought Anita might get a book deal out of it, not that he cried "public lynching" because his Supreme Court nomination was on the line. Who had bigger motivation to lie???

 

[BirdycatNY]

Mybelle: There were two priests that molested/sodomized "troubled" 12-14 year olds and the victims did not speak about it until many years later. So many years later in fact that the SOL passed. But you know what, the priest(s) admitted to drinking alcohol/smoking pot and sodomizing/molesting the boys. One of them claimed that the boys seduced him. As punishment, the priests were sent out of state.

What do you think of this (btw - these are real facts/this really happened)? What if the boys were of age (17years), would you question non-consensual/consent?

 

[LinasK]

Or maybe we should just follow sharia law to prevent coercion and rape -- never allow women to be alone with unrelated men period. That way no form of coercion can possibly take place!

The feminists should love that idea, it would finally put an end to date rape and guilt rape and he-talked-me-into-it-rape and all of the other sorts of coercion they encounter!

Ummm, no! You'll never get me wearing a burqua, or even a hajib or a wig or scarf. I shouldn't have to cover my hair or my face to not get raped!!! How about teaching males that rape and especially unconscious rape is UNACCEPTABLE!!! And that "No" means NO!

 

[MyBelle]

Yeah, if you want to make a criminal case out of it.

But I contend that a crime that goes unreported is still nevertheless a crime.

The criminal doesn't know whether it will or will not be reported at the time he's committing the act so it does not justify anything imo if he gets lucky and there is no report.

To be convicted of a crime requires evidence. Without a prompt report and a rape kit, nothing can be done. Making accusations 30 years later in order to ruin someone's reputation can be considered as defamation, which is likely where this case will end up, imo.

 

[MyBelle]

Mybelle: There were two priests that molested/sodomized "troubled" 12-14 year olds and the victims did not speak about it until many years later. So many years later in fact that the SOL passed. But you know what, the priest(s) admitted to drinking alcohol/smoking pot and sodomizing/molesting the boys. One of them claimed that the boys seduced him. As punishment, the priests were sent out of state.

What do you think of this (btw - this is based on true story)? What if the boys were of age (17years), would you question non-consensual/consent?

The boys made accusations. The Catholic Church made a monetary settlement. I think it highly unlikely BC is going to offer one dime in monetary settlement to these latest accusers.

 

[LinasK]

To be convicted of a crime requires evidence. Without a prompt report and a rape kit, nothing can be done. Making accusations 30 years later in order to ruin someone's reputation can be considered as defamation, which is likely where this case will end up, imo.

I agree with most of this, except the part "in order to ruin someone's reputation". I would still publicly name my molester uncle to this day if it weren't for the fact that I fear his wealthy adopted daughter could go after me for defamation (she never knew) and I can't afford that. Otherwise I wouldn't hesistate to name him here on Websleuths!!!

 

[Donjeta]

To be convicted of a crime requires evidence. Without a prompt report and a rape kit, nothing can be done. Making accusations 30 years later in order to ruin someone's reputation can be considered as defamation, which is likely where this case will end up, imo.

I am not a lawyer but I think generally a claim needs to be false to be defamation.
Cosby would need to prove that the statements were untrue.
Not sure he wants to go there because things might come up that he doesn't want into the light.

So far I think Cosby is the only one who is being sued for defamation here.


Rape kits weren't even theoretically available for the women who were raped in the sixties or early seventies.

Developed in the late 1970s, sexual assault medical forensic exams (commonly known as “rape kits&#8221 are intended to assist in the adjudication of sexual assault cases. Nurses allied with the anti-rape movement have led advocacy efforts to promote the adoption of rape kits in hospital emergency departments. Like other medical procedures, sexual assault medical forensic exams are conducted according to guidelines and protocols that lay out evidence collection routines and classify the physical injuries associated with the incident. Seeking to enlist their profession in the service of rape prevention and to increase the prosecution of alleged rapists, nurses created the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner certification and eventually formed the International Association of Forensic Nurses. Although many anticipated that rape kits would increase prosecution and conviction in cases of sexual assault, this seems not to have happened as intended. Indeed, human rights organizations have reported that many rape kits languish without ever being tested for DNA.

http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/5/1/8/0/9/p518092_index.html

And even if available it may not prove anything if the issue is not whether sex act happened but whether it was consensual.

 

[MyBelle]

I agree with most of this, except the part "in order to ruin someone's reputation". I would still publicly name my molester uncle to this day if it weren't for the fact that I fear his wealthy adopted daughter could go after me for defamation (she never knew) and I can't afford that. Otherwise I wouldn't hesistate to name him here on Websleuths!!!

Didn't you say your uncle is deceased? If so, he can't be defamed. It's also very possible he abused his adopted daughter and she carries as much a burden as you carry after so many years.

 

[Donjeta]

The boys made accusations. The Catholic Church made a monetary settlement. I think it highly unlikely BC is going to offer one dime in monetary settlement to these latest accusers.

No he probably won't. It would just be seen as an admission of guilt and wouldn't serve his reputation any more as the damage has been done so there's no motive for him to give anyone any money to silence them.

 

[tlcya]

I have avoided this thread since page one thread one, back when all this started to break in the press. Mainly because I have for so many years held BC in such high regard. So I sat back. And watched as week after week more and more women came forward with similar tales. I was at war within my own mind. One side of me thinking "well it's not hard to come up with a similar story and jump on the bandwagon, with the press covering each story and each detail offered giving someone new more to work with." The other side of me thinking "but there is so so much smoke here, musn't there be fire somewhere?"

When Janice Dickenson jumped in with her story I began to swing heavily toward the bandwagon theory. I intensely dislike her and that probably played a role in my inner debate. I do not believe one word out of that woman's mouth. Period.

But I am tending to believe that not all those other women are not lying. I do feel a couple may be jumping on a bandwagon because they can. But I have just about concluded that there would be no wagon on which to jump if at least some of these women were not telling the truth.

Add to that, executives and other hollywood insiders who are not claiming rape but are offering a pretty ugly picture of America's favorite dad, and I admit with great disappointment, that I think BC is not at all who I wished he was. I hope his victims have found some sense of healing by telling their stories at long last. But I will never believe Janice was one of his victims.