Discussion for article #244190
Sorry, Iâve read to page 2. But, if anyone ever ââout of the blueââ or not âunbuttonedâŚpants and began touchingâ my body without my consent I would never be alone with them again, specially if they were rich and famous.
(PS-Not a Cosby supporter in all this.)
1 Like
This is difficult to understand, but I think it fits in the same category as women who have suffered physical abuse who cannot seem to make themselves leave their abuser. It also seems that it would be hard to accept that a person would take advantage in this way, especially after establishing some kind of rapport or mentor relationship.
Ultimately, we often convince ourselves that we have been complicit in some way when we allow ourselves to be tricked, and that makes it hard to acknowledge the event to oneself. Abusers are very good at sending mixed messages that keep the abused from openly rebelling against their manipulations.
And of course, Cosby was immensely powerful in the sense that he could affect the careers of the women that he used in this way, again making it hard to confront him effectively.
Thatâs my admittedly amateur take on the psychology of it all.
1 Like
And the lure of celebrity, the trust created by regular network appearances in millions of living rooms as we note elsewhere, cough, coughâŚFinding fault here isnât the problem, itâs the serial avoidance of justice.
1 Like
True, and she very well may have believed she led him on in some way, that it was she who was sending mixed messages.
A serious case of afluenza here. I hope they throw away the key. Poor folks go to jail and the rich buy off lawyers. Sickening.
1 Like
I call shenanigans. The accuser has an expired driversâ license, is six feet tall, and weighs nothing. Wait, my badâŚthatâs Cosby himself. Carry on.
If she believes that she was sending him signals to proceed, then it could not have been an assault. She was signaling him to proceed.
This whole thing looks like a political prosecution designed to capitalize on a public witch-hunt. Cosby sounds like a serial adulterer, and womanizer who promised young women fame, in order to get sex, knowing that he had no intention to deliver. But these stories, including the one mentioned in this affidavit, donât rise to the level of rape or sexual assault. Asshole-ery is not illegal, sadly.
I was talking about the two prior attempts. She may have believed she was sending him mixed messages that she was interested in him beyond a friendship or mentor. She may have thought he perceived her laughing at his jokes, complimenting him in some way, etc. as an expression of romantic interest, and may have explained away the initial advances as being her own fault.
Also, itâs actually quite normal for a person, man or woman, who has been victimized in some way to wonder if they somehow invited the behavior, to wonder if there was something they couldâve done differently.
Wow, so drugging a woman and then fondling her while sheâs passed out, unable to respond, or consent isnât sexual assault to you? Thatâs stunning.
1 Like
That would be sexual assault. The problem is these women are telling us they drugged themselves. Basically they are saying that Bill told them plainly, âtake this pill, it will alter your mental stateâ and they did it without force or coercion. These women were all at the age of majority according to their own stories. Therefore they, themselves, are responsible for whatever pill they took.
If Bill slipped something into their drink unbeknownst to them, then that would be Bill drugging them; but them knowingly taking something, to âget highâ, âfeel goodâ, âhave funâ etc. is them doing it to themselves.
So at what point is Bill to be held responsible for reading her mental state and unilaterally deciding that she is not capable of making her own decisions and to assume the power to make her decisions for her, as well as the duty that comes with that?
So, what youâre arguing is that if a woman chooses to get drunk and then passes out, sheâs fair game to be sexually assaulted? Because thatâs not how any of this works. A woman is allowed to get inebriated, that doesnât then give a man the right to assault her because she chose to pass out in his presence. It no more gives a man the right to assault a woman than it would give another man the right to rape a man with whom he chooses to get intoxicated.
The point isnât whether or not they took the drugs knowingly. Itâs that he proceeded to have sex with or fondle them once they were unable to consent after they were passed out. Because someone canât handle their liquor/weed/pills doesnât mean someone gets to do whatever they want to do to them.
This isnât a situation where the women were fooling around with him and then became too inebriated to consent at some point. The women werenât even conscious when the sexually activity began. This wasnât two intoxicated people who started to get it on and then one passed out in the middle. This was one intoxicated person who never consented or participated.
1 Like
Actually, that is what we are dealing with here. These are two people who were dating. According to the woman, they had been several places together, according to Cosby they had been to third base several times before.
[quote=âPluckyInKY, post:11, topic:30645â]
So, what youâre arguing is that if a woman chooses to get drunk and then passes out, sheâs fair game to be sexually assaulted?
[/quote]No, thatâs not what Iâm saying.
What Iâm saying is that even if you this womanâs story complete and in full, AND reject Billâs story complete and in full, AND ignore the lack of evidence; the story doesnât conclusively depict a crime worthy of jail time, on the part of Cosby, unless perhaps, you count drug distribution.
- By her own account, this woman wasnât passed out.
- An intoxicated person is still responsible for their own actions.
If she consented while drunk that should count as a consent, provided she freely chose to drink.
Your contention is that because she chose to get intoxicated, then her consent is null and void. Furthermore, by default, you assign to her partner a legally enforceable duty to evaluate her mental state and make his own judgement as to whether she in fact has the right to consent. I reject your contention.
Iâm saying that the law canât work this way. Voluntarily choosing to take a drink or pop some pills can not be an reason to argue âI wasnât in my right mindâ in court. Likewise, a fully grown woman has the right legally binding power to consent to sex whether she regrets it later or not. Whether the guy she gave consent for is actually a no-good SOB or not.
P.S.
Lastly, still your point is a double-standard. You want the man to be responsible and guilty simply because the man is a man. If they were both drinking, why is her ability to consent any more diminished than his? The answer is you donât actually care about diminished capacity, you want the man to be guilty because he is the man, even though at 64 years old, he probably was the weaker of the two.