Posted on 11/24/2014 2:30:45 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
The following women have alleged as a matter of public record that Bill Cosby sexually assaulted or raped them. They are listed in the order their allegations became public.
[17entries]
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
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:.......
What doesn't make sense is that so many successful women who have nothing to gain from getting involved have come forward. And nobody's come forward to say "that's not what happened when I was invited to his room"
It was the 1970s. Nobody wanted to destroy the role model for upwardly mobile middle class blacks. In my mind it makes sense.
IF you read another story, posted on FR, another man was paid by Cosby to pay off women. He still has the money order receipts to show. He said he quit the network because of Cosby.
....yawnnnnnn.
May be true, but I wonder how long the list would be if Cosby had just filed for bankrupcy?
Well, the Hollywood crowd will again give him a STANDING OVATON.
Very incisive! Agree 100%.
Ah ha! Cosby had binders of women.
Sorry. I have a key on my laptop keyboard that is broken. I can C&P that letter but it takes extra time, which I didn’t have a lot of when I typed the posts earlier.
A comparison between Cosby and Obama is more appropriate than between Cosby and Clinton. Cosby and Obama are both famous black men that have led protected lives. Normal, civilized behavior, past, present or future, is not expected nor does it apply to them.
Nothing to gain? The timing suggests they could have a LOT to gain, if they want to help with Obama’s race war - or if somebody who wants to help with Obama’s race war is willing to slip them a little money (or an “opportunity” on the sly).
The first accusation was in 2005, shortly after Cosby opened up the debate about whether Black “culture” is whites’ fault. It involved a police report where - according to the police - the woman went halfway with Cosby consentually and then accused Cosby of assault because he tried to move her hand toward his male member. That was the only police report involved, and even that event could well have been a set-up. It’s “he said, she said” so we’ll never know.
The next year there was a civil lawsuit which named a bunch of “Jane Doe’s” who could have been cross-examined if there had been a trial, but it was settled out-of-court for an undisclosed amount. The claims were from the 1970’s - 30 years earlier with no possible evidence; all it could ever be was “he said, she said”, 30 years late. And Cosby knew he had Hollywood against him because he had “gone off the plantation”.
Now, on the cusp of a race war started by Holder and Obama, these claims of actions allegedly done 40 years ago just surface. There is no way to prove them wrong and the society had already been prepped to believe that anybody the media wants to vilify can be said to have a “war on women”.
It is possible that these accusations are true. It is just as possible that they aren’t. If they are true, Hollywood has a lot of answers to give as to what they knew and when.... just like Penn State had a lot of answers they needed to give about Jerry Sandusky. Is Hollywood willing to wink at known rape - until the rapist defies the leftist political talking points?
It does seem interesting to me, though, that the way to get rid of a Black male who is saying things the left doesn’t like is to come up with “he said, she said” claims about him being a womanizer. We’d be “racist” to say that Black guys lack self-control or that there’s reason to fear them, but this stereotype of Black males unable to keep their hands off women keeps cropping up whenever a Black guy leaves the plantation. Seems strange to me.
The guys Obama is said to have had illicit sex with aren’t telling stories now because they’re dead.
Which is the problem with all the accusations (so far).
Bummer! I used to have to skip the letter W. If I couldn’t find a way around it, I would sometimes use VV.
I vvish you a qood day!
Who would take a job to pay off women to not report rape? That’s being an accomplice to the crime, misprision of the crime, and witness tampering. Whoever is makinq those claims has some serious answering to do.
I need to correct my timeline. The first claim was in 2000 and consisted solely of Cosby putting her hand under his shirt and pushing it towards his sweatpants. She pulled her hand away, said she was leaving, and left. That was what she reported to police 3 days after the alleged event. Apparently a few days after that her grandpa claimed that Cosby was really all over her, traumatized her, etc. But that is not what she told the police. She was 20 at the time and looking for a way to advance her career. I can’t help but wonder if her grandpa figured out a way she could advance her career...
Obama gave his “Pound Cake” speech to the NAACP on May 17, 2004 - where he said that Blacks cannot blame whites for their own criminality and bad lifestyle choices. Seven months later a woman reported to police in Ontario that Cosby had touched and digitally penetrated her. I can’t see the report so I have no idea whether she claims to have resisted. Her story is such that there would be no evidence - strictly “he said, she said”.
She said he gave her an “herbal remedy” for anxiety. Not willing to say he drugged her but paving the way for the others (who do claim they were drugged and seem to have coordinated until-now-anonymous stories about him having a wet-hair fetish).
The long and short of her story is that she waited until another year and another country to make her claim - making the claim only 7 months AFTER he fell out of grace with Hollywood because he “left the plantation”.
The cops rightly said there was no evidence. So she sued for $150 million. Unless he had a gun so she couldn’t walk away from his “advances”, there’s absolutely no call for that kind of money unless you’re trying to force somebody to settle out of court. She would have to vow silence, but she had left the door open for these other women to speak out - and the settlement could always be used to make him appear guilty if need be later on.
And in that year while Cosby was deciding whether to fight or settle out of court, 3 of those “Jane Does” made media claims of 30-year-old unreported attacks - the first saying Cosby gave her “cold medicine” that made her ill but he left when she resisted, the 2nd being his former girlfriend who said after they broke up he drugged her coffee, and the third (Bowman) saying he drugged and attacked her several times.
Bowman didn’t report it to police at the time because she didn’t believe it had happened and she couldn’t get either her agent or her lawyer to believe it had happened either. She broke her silence now - right as Ferguson is about to show us some ugly images of Black behavior like that Cosby condemned in his “Pound Cake” speech - to blame everybody else for not believing her when she didn’t even believe it herself at the time, when she could easily have checked for semen, etc, and had details such as waking up in different clothes, she claims. Not only does she get to slam the “off the plantation” Black guy, but she also gets to call everybody else sexist because “nobody believed her” allegations she waited 30 years to tell anybody about.
As I keep saying, I don’t know what happened. But the stories and their timing just don’t smell right.
The guy who claims to have abetted the crime of rape as well as committing misprision of rape and witness tampering needs to be prosecuted if his claims can be proven...
lol. Thanks for being a good sport. (I’m not so rushed now so I can C&P...)
“Who would take a job to pay off women to not report rape?”
Because he didn’t think they were rape but rather affairs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.