It’s a shame none of them had a rape kit done at the time. Then there would be actual evidence. As it is it’s just “he said, she said” - with people who could very well ALL have 3 motives to lie: money, qet rid of the Black who has called to hold fellow Blacks accountable for their choices, and to stop wholesome imaqes of Blacks.
I wonder if any of these women are conservatives. Note that the color of their skin is irrelevant. Motives and timinq, after all these years and no possibility of actual evidence, are important.
It seems odd for non-provable stories that are this old to all bubble up riqht now, as we stand on the edqe of a race war started by Holder and which Obama eqqed on the day after an elections where this reqime was soundly rebuked.
The idea that all of a sudden it’s OK for people to report rape publicly seems incredible after what happened with that movie director who raped the 13-year-old (?) and ran away to France (?) - and everybody praised him and said the qirl had suffered no harm, blah blah blah. Can’t remember his name. But a very visible story where HOLLYWOOD very publicly poo-poohed actual reported rape, complete with evidence... because the quy who did it is such a “qenius”. Funny, we don’t hear the same talk from Hollywood riqht now...
And the timinq is suspect especially if there was hush money - a claim only made by some CBS quy, if I understand correctly. Why didn’t these women receive hush money? Or if they did receive hush money, then have they broken the deal they made? Seems like the quy who says he manaqed all these “rapes” should be doinq some jail time if his claims are corroborated. For sure he needs to answer some very direct and pointed questions.
I don’t know what happened. But this whole thinq of tryinq people in the court of public opinion is just stupid. There’s no way to try somebody without facts and cross-examination of witnesses.
But then, maybe that is why only one of these women ever actually filed a report at the time. And was that the woman who said she took pills from Cosby because she was havinq her period and had bad cramps, fell asleep, and woke up with semen between her leqs? Quite a few questions I’d like to ask her...
If I was Cosby and had raped women by puttinq them to sleep first, knowinq that they were in my place and knew they had been with me, I would have tried to cover up the crime. Put their clothes back on them, clean them off, and they would probably never know any difference, unless they had been virqins or I’d been particularly rouqh. Heck, have the CBS quy do the clean-up, if he was the pimp providinq these women.
The whole thinq just seems fishy. And if his actions were so well-known amonq the Hollywood types - and if this CBS quy was an accomplice to these crimes - then THEY need to be held to account just as surely as Penn State was held to account for what they knew about Sandusky and did nothinq to stop.
I couldn’t finish readinq your post. It was too distractinq. Why do you do that, and how lonq have you been doinq it? Is it just that one, or are there others I’m not even seeinq?
Yes. Interesting timing. Hollywood documentary about child sexual abuse (decades of it) being shunned, the dropped suits against a popular Hollywood big-wig, a concerted push by higher education (trickle-down will follow) to criminalize everything (a feminist’s bucket list), the Left’s false accusation of the GOP’s war on women and Bill Cosby.
“September 12, 2014
At Ohio State University, to avoid being guilty of “sexual assault” or “sexual violence,” you and your partner now apparently have to agree on the reason WHY you are making out or having sex. It’s not enough to agree to DO it, you have to agree on WHY: there has to be agreement “regarding the who, what, where, when, why, and how this sexual activity will take place.”
There used to be a joke that women need a reason to have sex, while men only need a place. Does this policy reflect that juvenile mindset? Such a requirement baffles some women in the real world: a female member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights told me, “I am still trying to wrap my mind around the idea of any two intimates in the world agreeing as to ‘why.’”
Ohio State’s sexual-assault policy, which effectively turns some welcome touching into “sexual assault,” may be the product of its recent Resolution Agreement with the Office for Civil Rights (where I used to work) to resolve a Title IX complaint over its procedures for handling cases of sexual harassment and assault. That agreement, on page 6, requires the University to “provide consistent definitions of and guidance about the University terms ‘sexual harassment,’ ‘consent,’ ‘sexual violence,’ ‘sexual assault,’ and ‘sexual misconduct.’” It is possible that Ohio State will broaden its already overbroad “sexual assault” definition even further: Some officials at Ohio State, like its Student Wellness Center, advocate defining all sex or “kissing” without “verbal,” “enthusiastic” consent as “sexual assault.”
[SNIP]
If this definition of “sexual assault” were not already broad enough, Ohio State’s Student Wellness Center seeks to radically narrow the concept of consent further (and ban “kissing” without verbal consent as “sexual assault”). It says consent must be “verbal,” “enthusiastic,” and must be “asked for every step of the way”; “If consent is not obtained prior to each act of sexual behavior (from kissing to intercourse), it is not consensual sex,” it says. Consent also must also be a litany of other things, such as “sober,” “informed,” “honest,” “wanted,” and “creative.”
This fixation on consensual “agreement” is ironic, because it logically has little to do with Title IX, which is concerned with sexual harassment, which is about what would is unwelcome, not “agreements” or even “consent.” To be sexual harassment, conduct has to be “unwelcome,” a concept that is both broader and narrower than “consent,” as the Supreme Court explained in its Meritor decision. (To violate Title IX, sexual harassment also has to be severe enough to interfere with your education, and be the sort of thing that would offend a reasonable person in your position).
When you agree to sleep with your supervisor after he has been pestering you for dates, that’s technically consensual, but can be very “unwelcome.” Conversely, if someone touches you without any agreement (or reason to believe you would like it), but you liked being touched anyway, that’s “welcome,” even if there was no “consent.” (There is some overlap between consent and unwelcomeness: If you deliberately invite or incite a peer to do something, that may occasionally be deemed welcome even if you didn’t subjectively like it, as in the federal appeals court’s Scusa v. Nestle USA decision; but generally, unwelcomeness means you subjectively didn’t like an act). The obsession with “agreement” also has little to do with sexual-assault law, which often requires a showing of force or intimidation — not just lack of consent — for convictions, and even when consent is at issue, implied consent almost always counts, too (such as welcoming or continuing to participate in an activity). Even if conduct like kissing is unwelcome (and amounts to sexual harassment), it often doesn’t rise to the level of a criminal sexual assault. Conversely, occasionally one sees conduct that is technically sexual assault yet does not qualify as illegal sexual harassment, as in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Brooks v. City of San Mateo.
[SNIP]
Ohio State’s policy may also lead to due-process violations. It states that “Consent to one form of sexual activity does not imply consent to other . . . sexual activity,” and “Consent can never be assumed, even in the context of a relationship.” But a relationship, and a couple’s past consensual sexual activity, can shed crucial light on whether it is plausible that the couple later engaged in the same kind of activity. For example, as we noted earlier, the New Jersey courts, which have the narrowest definition of sexual consent of any state, nonetheless have recognized that the overall “course of conduct” between the complainant and the accused can show “affirmative permission.” Indeed, they have ruled that it can be so relevant and “highly material” that it constitutionally must be considered as evidence, since a jury could infer consent from it. In State v. Garron (2003), the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that in determining whether the complainant consented to sex, the court must consider her overall “course of conduct over a six-year period” with the accused, such as her visiting his home and her “repeated physical contact” with him, as well as the complainant’s past “kisses” and “grabbing” the accused’s “derrière.” And even in contract law, where stricter consent requirements apply, consent or agreement can be inferred from the parties’ past relationship, such as their “course of dealing,” or “course of performance.”
As we noted earlier, imposing an “affirmative” consent or “agreement” requirement for touching does nothing to help rape victims, and serves no legitimate purpose. Even supporters of the “affirmative” consent requirement, like Tara Culp-Ressler have on other occasions admitted that sexual violence is not the result of mixed signals: studies show that people who commit sexual violence are almost always aware that what they are doing is against the will of their victims, rather than the assault being the product of “blurred” communications.
Classifying “kissing” as “sexual assault” if it occurs without “verbal” consent — the way Ohio State’s Wellness Center does — is so extreme that it could create a PR disaster. If a school expels or even suspends a student for kissing and calls him a “sexual assault” perpetrator, many will view it as outrageous overkill, that student may sue, and groups like FIRE will publicize it as an example of PC college administrators run amok. But if it does not expel or remove the student from campus, despite calling it “sexual assault,” people will wrongly assume there is a rapist on campus (because “the terms ‘rape’ and ‘sexual assault’ are sometimes used synonymously in common language”), angry classmates may protest the student’s presence as a result, and Ohio State may end up being denounced by web sites or journalists who depict colleges as as “rape cultures” or “rape factories” (even though the rape rate has fallen 58% since the mid-1990s).
As we noted earlier, when politically-correct Antioch College insisted on such agreements to consent in the early 1990s for things like kissing, touching, and sex, it was lampooned on Saturday Night Live, which noted that it would reduce making out and foreplay to awkward scenes like this:.......