NBC employee claims Bill Cosby paid off women, invited young models to dressing room.

[gwap]

What im saying is all these women came out in the past, didn't win their cases or agreed to settle out of court, or passed the legal time limit they had to do anything about it and now debating this is 100% pointless as nothing will be done about it because nothing can be done about it.

legacy > a single lifetime

Wanting his legacy shattered is righteous indignation

I believe what was wrongfully done should come to light no matter how insignificant the retribution.

He will be cemented into history as a sociopathic rapist.... this is worse than any lawsuit honestly

 

[Top Boy]

 

What im saying is all these women came out in the past, didn't win their cases or agreed to settle out of court, or passed the legal time limit they had to do anything about it and now debating this is 100% pointless as nothing will be done about it because nothing can be done about it.

legacy > a single lifetime

Wanting his legacy shattered is righteous indignation

I believe what was wrongfully done should come to light no matter how insignificant the retribution.

He will be cemented into history as a sociopathic rapist.... this is worse than any lawsuit honestly

He's just a TV personality fam...

 

[nako xl]

 

 

 

 

what would you call it?

Not rape. I should have clarified and said consensual sex. An example is the "casting couch". You may not really WANT to have sex w/ that person. But you willingly and consensually do it b/c of the influence and stature of that person.

Yeah consent is the key word. I'd call it coercion if not 100% consensual.


Example, "if you don't suck the pudding pop you'll never work in this town, ever". While I wouldn't outright say yo that's rape, it's clearly malicious and a means of forcing an outcome.


Falls in that sexual gray area.

It's not a gray area at all.

Coerced sex isn't consensual sex. It's considered "forced through coercion" and is still sexual assault.

Just because dudes want to blur that line doesn't mean it is so.

I feel like you took what I said wrong. Rape and sexual assault aren't categorized together, right?

It's a gray area to me because people view some of these things differently. The law saying one thing doesn't make it inherently truth, it just means you'd be ****** in court if you tried to argue.

Rape and sexual assault are the same thing. Rape is a type of sexual assault.

But if I told you, you have to have sex with me or I'll ruin your life, how is that any different than threatening you with physical violence?

Sure in your opinion the impending harm may be more imminent with physical violence, but both scenarios are still a threat of a type of harm that you sense is real. You're not consenting to have sexual relations because you want to, you're doing so because you feel you don't have a choice.

 

[nako xl]

 

 

Has anyone came out within the statue of limitations?


If not, this is really a bunch of gossip.

Not a single one, which is why my care tank is running on empty.

So the old man next door has raped 20 women in his life time, of age and under age. Never got charged let alone convicted so he's not registered as a sex offender. You don't care?

You sound like Cam'ron talking about he'd just move if a known terrorist was living next door

Some incredibly stupid hypothetical tailored to deliver your point does the exact opposite.

And then you try to play it off by saying some dumb ****. Im not surprised.

 

 

Has anyone came out within the statue of limitations?

If not, this is really a bunch of gossip.

Not a single one, which is why my care tank is running on empty.

That's not true though... multiple came out within the statute of limitations but couldnt prove it enough to warrant prosecution a la Jameis

Winston.

He also paid/settled out of court with a few.

Again, these aren't new allegations...

He wasn't convicted, the cases wont be revisited. I didn't feel like I had to outright say that for it to already be implied.

I think people are trying to spin those of us that don't care into a, 'You don't care that he possibly raped these women! What's wrong with you?'

What im saying is all these women came out in the past, didn't win their cases or agreed to settle out of court, or passed the legal time limit they had to do anything about it and now debating this is 100% pointless as nothing will be done about it because nothing can be done about it.

He has millions of dollars to live off of and probably around 5-12 years of life left in him. Im sure regardless how this situation turns out, Cosby will be okay regardless.

I don't think most people are trying to spin anything though.

You say debating it is pointless. I'd argue the contrary and say, as evidenced by this thread alone, 90% of the public didn't know he had these accusations against him. Now they do. That alone to his accusers is worth it. A lot of the women who did come forward had their cases brushed aside because it was he said she said. Now the greater public knows their stories and they've gotten the satisfaction of publicly accusing their attacker.

At the very least, his name is forever stained, to a MUCH greater degree than it was before. You may find that pointless, but in a scenario where most of them have very little other recourse, I'd say having people know what according to them this man really is in its own way a bit of justice.

He's not going to go to jail, and to the ones who didn't sue him and aren't seemingly interested in money, this is what they have. He'll bear the mark like a scarlet letter. To a man who speaks so much about his murdered son, his character, and his legacy I think this probably matters to him a lot more than you're giving it credit.

I mean he has paid a ton of money in the past to make sure these women never had the opportunity to testify in a court of law and out him on the record.

 

[senorroboto2k5]

Plus, this has resulted in his current projects getting axed, plus networks dropping syndication of The Cosby Show.

He's paying a price because of these allegations, just not a legal one.

 

[RIP sleazyy]

 

 

 

 

what would you call it?

Not rape. I should have clarified and said consensual sex. An example is the "casting couch". You may not really WANT to have sex w/ that person. But you willingly and consensually do it b/c of the influence and stature of that person.

Yeah consent is the key word. I'd call it coercion if not 100% consensual.



Example, "if you don't suck the pudding pop you'll never work in this town, ever". While I wouldn't outright say yo that's rape, it's clearly malicious and a means of forcing an outcome.



Falls in that sexual gray area.

It's not a gray area at all.


Coerced sex isn't consensual sex. It's considered "forced through coercion" and is still sexual assault.


Just because dudes want to blur that line doesn't mean it is so.

I feel like you took what I said wrong. Rape and sexual assault aren't categorized together, right?


It's a gray area to me because people view some of these things differently. The law saying one thing doesn't make it inherently truth, it just means you'd be ****** in court if you tried to argue.

Rape and sexual assault are the same thing. Rape is a type of sexual assault.

But if I told you, you have to have sex with me or I'll ruin your life, how is that any different than threatening you with physical violence?

Sure in your opinion the impending harm may be more imminent with physical violence, but both scenarios are still a threat of a type of harm that you sense is real. You're not consenting to have sexual relations because you want to, you're doing so because you feel you don't have a choice.

Rape and sexual assault are not exactly the same thing, but rape is a form of sexual assault. Rape is penetrative whereas sexual assault can be verbal. You can't verbally rape someone. There are different categories of sexual assault up to "fourth degree". There are different levels of rape too.

If someone says you have to have sex with me or I'll ruin your life, you can walk right out and nothing could happen. They could threaten your life and nothing could happen. That's why I don't view rape and coerced intercourse as the same thing.

I can admit I didn't know that coerce implied force until today though. I always thought coercion could involve promises of breakfast in the morning, as I have bribed my sleepy girlfriend with goodies to get dat mouf late at night on more than one occasion.

 

[nako xl]

@RIP sleazyy someone could say have sex with me or I'll kill you and you COULD walk out and nothing COULD happen as well.

It doesn't not make it a form of forced intercourse...

If you want to get technical with the language, in some jurisdictions a woman has to physically resist intercourse for it to be even considered first degree rape.

At the end you're just arguing semantics but saying the same thing. If your affirmative behavior leaves a woman feeling she had no choice but to have sex with you it's sexual assault. Arguing it's sexual assault and not technically "rape" doesn't make it any less worse.

That's why I said there's no gray area (despite the fact that legally there isn't.) Unless you are implying one is "less bad" than the other?

 

[sn00pee]

Hate it had to be Cosby...

Dude has inspired millions of african americans to reach higher and become more than just an althelete, or drug dealer.

Forget about his rants (although he made some valid points), dude literally put black entertainment programs on the map. Made the black family just as regular as a white family. I'll never forget watching the cosby hoping that when i grow up, i'd have a family just like he did.

I mean, its a hit to the heart. I say it again, i hate it had to be him.

He ruined his own name, in the worst possible way. He better make a statement. And it better be a damn good one. Cause nothing is just gonna wash this away, not the money, not the fame. Nothing.

Man, I hate it had to be him.

 

[RIP sleazyy]

@RIP sleazyy
someone could say have sex with me or I'll kill you and you COULD walk out and nothing COULD happen as well.

It doesn't not make it a form of forced intercourse...

If you want to get technical with the language, in some jurisdictions a woman has to physically resist intercourse for it to be even considered first degree rape.

At the end you're just arguing semantics but saying the same thing. If your affirmative behavior leaves a woman feeling she had no choice but to have sex with you it's sexual assault. Arguing it's sexual assault and not technically "rape" doesn't make it any less worse.

That's why I said there's no gray area (despite the fact that legally there isn't.) Unless you are implying one is "less bad" than the other?

Well force and resistance are qualifiers for first degree rape in the first place, as well as use of a weapon or instrument that causes bodily harm.

You were saying they were the same thing and I explained why they are not the same thing. That's not really arguing semantics.

And yes, me saying "I'm gonna titty **** you" or "suck this or I'll dump your dinner on the floor" (sexual assault) is nowhere near as bad as pinning someone down and forcing them to have sex with me against their will (rape).

Unless you mean coerced sex and rape. Even then I don't think they're on the same level.

 

[bravelude]

Rape and sexual assault are not exactly the same thing, but rape is a form of sexual assault. Rape is penetrative whereas sexual assault can be verbal. You can't verbally rape someone. There are different categories of sexual assault up to "fourth degree". There are different levels of rape too.

If someone says you have to have sex with me or I'll ruin your life, you can walk right out and nothing could happen. They could threaten your life and nothing could happen. That's why I don't view rape and coerced intercourse as the same thing.

I can admit I didn't know that coerce implied force until today though. I always thought coercion could involve promises of breakfast in the morning, as I have bribed my sleepy girlfriend with goodies to get dat mouf late at night on more than one occasion.

 

[nako xl]

 

@RIP sleazyy
someone could say have sex with me or I'll kill you and you COULD walk out and nothing COULD happen as well.

It doesn't not make it a form of forced intercourse...

If you want to get technical with the language, in some jurisdictions a woman has to physically resist intercourse for it to be even considered first degree rape.

At the end you're just arguing semantics but saying the same thing. If your affirmative behavior leaves a woman feeling she had no choice but to have sex with you it's sexual assault. Arguing it's sexual assault and not technically "rape" doesn't make it any less worse.

That's why I said there's no gray area (despite the fact that legally there isn't.) Unless you are implying one is "less bad" than the other?

Well force and resistance are qualifiers for first degree rape in the first place, as well as use of a weapon or instrument that causes bodily harm.

You were saying they were the same thing and I explained why they are not the same thing. That's not really arguing semantics.

And yes, me saying "I'm gonna titty **** you" or "suck this or I'll dump your dinner on the floor" (sexual assault) is nowhere near as bad as pinning someone down and forcing them to have sex with me against their will (rape).

Unless you mean coerced sex and rape. Even then I don't think they're on the same level.

I mean sleaz, I know law... lol. I know they're not the exact same crime, but the conversation you guys were having that I butted in on was implying somehow using coercion was somehow not a crime because it wasn't done with physical force. I can admit I maybe misunderstood what you were implying.

 

[gwap]

He's just a TV personality fam...

nope. He's a sociopathic serial rapist who just happened to be a TV personality

 

[RIP sleazyy]

yeah man I thought you misunderstood off break definitely sexual assault.

 

[heliumclinton]

It's kind of scary that some of you think a woman can't change her mind when it comes to sex. It's very possible these women went to his crib at 2AM with all intentions of having sex. Guess what though? They got drugged and he took it from them before they can consent.

GOING TO SOMEONE'S HOUSE LATE AT NIGHT DOES NOT MEAN A WOMAN IS CONSENTING TO SEX. SHE'S NOT CONSENTING UNTIL SHES AWAKE, COHERENT, AND NOT SAYING NO.

 

[wavycrocket]

It's kind of scary that some of you think a woman can't change her mind when it comes to sex. It's very possible these women went to his crib at 2AM with all intentions of having sex. Guess what though? They got drugged and he took it from them before they can consent.

GOING TO SOMEONE'S HOUSE LATE AT NIGHT DOES NOT MEAN A WOMAN IS CONSENTING TO SEX. SHE'S NOT CONSENTING UNTIL SHES AWAKE, COHERENT, AND NOT SAYING NO.

Nobody here thinks that at all. People were simply pointing out that it's not out of the realm of possibility to question that.

Rape can happen at anytime...but it is important to look at situations like that.

 

[heliumclinton]

If no one thinks then we wouldn't read comments like "so why did she go to his house at 2AM you can't be serious if you think she didn't want sex"

What is the point of saying that? If she wanted sex but didn't consent to it does that negate it? I don't get it

 

[Master Zik]

 

Has anyone came out within the statue of limitations?



If not, this is really a bunch of gossip.

Not a single one, which is why my care tank is running on empty.

So the old man next door has raped 20 women in his life time, of age and under age. Never got charged let alone convicted so he's not registered as a sex offender. You don't care? You sound like Cam'ron talking about he'd just move if a known terrorist was living next door

Some incredibly stupid hypothetical tailored to deliver your point does the exact opposite.

And then you try to play it off by saying some dumb ****. Im not surprised.

Incredibly stupid and dumb **** is what comes to mind when I think about your stance and what you're actually putting in effort to argue for. This whole I don't care approach is bull ****. **** outta here if that's how you really feel.

No surprise you ducked the question and my post. Call it one thing when it's damn near mirroring real life save the next door neighbor part but yeah you don't care yet you in here looking for a reason to?

 

[gwap]

 

[OBAMA]

im not cosby's biggest fan(due to his obsurd comments about the black community)

but dont you find it odd that now all of a sudden these women are coming out of the woodworks making claims about something that happened so long ago

it is also odd to me that these women all had the exact same experience with cosby

an experience that they dont remember because he allegedly drugged them. but they somehow remember anyway...even tho they were given powerful drugs

im sure the news of cosby settling out of court for a large sum of money plays a part in this too. considering bill cosby is worth a fortune and in a position to pay out tens of millions and still be rich af

 

[Mark Antony]

Strength in numbers. The support system is there now.

 

[gwap]

 
im not cosby's biggest fan(due to his obsurd comments about the black community)

but dont you find it odd that now all of a sudden these women are coming out of the woodworks making claims about something that happened so long ago

it is also odd to me that these women all had the exact same experience with cosby

an experience that they dont remember because he allegedly drugged them. but they somehow remember anyway...even tho they were given powerful drugs

im sure the news of cosby settling out of court for a large sum of money plays a part in this too. considering bill cosby is worth a fortune and in a position to pay out tens of millions and still be rich af

NBC employee in OG post has no money to gain.. and can actually be sued for libel for saying these things about cosby...

can't be sued for libel when he still has the receipts tho...

 

[gwap]

Indeed many media types are copping to inadequacies in covering Cosby in the past. New York Post columnist Richard Johnson  says a tabloid ran a story about Cosby’s daughter that was given to them by Cosby himself, instead of a running a story about Cosby’s alleged infidelities.

Johnson said the story comes from a tabloid journalist he's known for years, who was working for the National Enquirer in 1989, when Cosby was at the height of his fame. Johnson said his fried was working on a story to run in the Enquirer about Cosby “swinging with Sammy Davis Jr. and some showgirls in Las Vegas.”

When the paper contacted Cosby for comment on the story, the reporter says the comedian offered them another one as a trade. That story was about Cosby's 23-year-old daughter daughter Erinn's battles with drugs and alcohol.

“My editor told me that daddy Cosby was the source," the source told Johnson. "He ratted out his flesh and blood.” 

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...ue-mea-culpas-on-botched-bill-cosby-coverage/

 

[the qbz]

But dont all men in power do this?

 

[nako xl]

 
im not cosby's biggest fan(due to his obsurd comments about the black community)

but dont you find it odd that now all of a sudden these women are coming out of the woodworks making claims about something that happened so long ago

it is also odd to me that these women all had the exact same experience with cosby

an experience that they dont remember because he allegedly drugged them. but they somehow remember anyway...even tho they were given powerful drugs

im sure the news of cosby settling out of court for a large sum of money plays a part in this too. considering bill cosby is worth a fortune and in a position to pay out tens of millions and still be rich af

You gotta read through past pages before you say things like that man.

no one's coming out of the woodworks.

It's been asked and explained.

 

[gwap]

But dont all men in power do this?

nope, they have willing women to satisfy their needs