Hunter  GWPB wrote:

Wait!  First you jump me for saying it is easy, when I didn't.  Then you want to throw out an insult by saying it is hard for me to be brave? 

No, being brave is hard.  Being brave means you have to stand against all matters of things.  But it is a learned response and one that is strengthened through practice.  And encouragement.  I encourage any woman who has been raped to stand up and be brave.  I will support that.  If bravery was easy, then many rapists would be in jail.  If bravery was easy, then many more than 13% of the rapes would be reported.

You came across as though it was easy in your prior post. You're kind of contradicting yourself on this page so color me confused.

My point being, if you (general you) cannot have empathy can you at least understand that trauma is really hard to be brave because one is kind of going through something that strips them of being human. So not only do they have to find that again, they have to stand up and not let it get to them. That's nearly impossible without help.

Lovely Day Media wrote:

I read what you wrote. If a woman can't or won't stand up for herself lest she be revictimized by a lot of people, including law enforcement, the only thing I can think of is to make it so that she doesn't have to deal with these people. 

You're right, though. There is another alternative: lock up all males from birth. Since they all have the proper equipment to rape, the only safe place for women in the world is anywhere that men aren't .... so if they're all locked up, no woman will ever be victimized in the first place. She won't have a family to face (no children to grow up), law enforcement won't have to exist because no woman ever commits a crime and all her friends will be in the exact same boat.

Man. You've got a huge supply of straw for all those straw men you're making.

No. That's not the only other alternative -- even if that's the only one you're able to think of.

Lohkee wrote:
So, if I understand you correctly, standing up for yourself is being re-victimized? Seems to me that standing up for yourself is the most empowering thing one can do. Will it get ugly? Yep. You're going to have to back up your claims. 

In America an accused has a right to face their accuser and challenge the accusations made against them.

I, for one, would not want to live in a place where someone could make simply make a claim and, on the basis of that claim alone (30 years later), be presumed guilty and subjected to whatever punishment the state deemed appropriate.

none of that is anything near what I've been suggesting.

Especially not the bolded part.

Click Hamilton wrote:
That's speculative in general and non-specific to any particular individual.

Yes & no but that pattern is consistent.

Its the same way with other forms of mental trauma. Take combat related PTSD. They vary from person to person. But if left to their own, the victim is left with feelings of helplessness, guilt, & thinking they're the only ones going through it when they're not.

In terms of the Cosby case, remember this is before Anita Hill where even talking about sexual harassment/assault & rape involving an authority figure was almost unheard of.

Bill Bates wrote:
Didn't anyones parents teach them about not putting yourself in a compromising position??

I've not heard all the charges but at least some of the woman said they went to his room or backstage, had drinks and wiling took pills. Really what were these girls thinking. He is a big star and invited you back stage or up to his hotel room. You had drinks and then he gave you some pills to take. Cosby wasn't a doctor prescribing medication. I would assume they knew they were taking an illegal drug. I guess I would ask what the heck did you go to his room for, why did you take the drug and what did you think might happen while you were in his room alone. Come on they knew sex might be on the menu.

And to Bill Cosby, what were you thinking inviting a woman up to you room for drinks, drugs and sex. Didn't it occur to you that no matter what happened she might yell rape, sue and ask for money or maybe just turn the story over to a tabloid for money...what was your reputation worth.

Both parties here were idiots for putting themselves in a compromising position...dumb dumb dumb.

The rapist is solely responsible for raping.

Bill Bates wrote:
Didn't anyones parents teach them about not putting yourself in a compromising position??

I've not heard all the charges but at least some of the woman said they went to his room or backstage, had drinks and wiling took pills. Really what were these girls thinking. He is a big star and invited you back stage or up to his hotel room. You had drinks and then he gave you some pills to take. Cosby wasn't a doctor prescribing medication. I would assume they knew they were taking an illegal drug. I guess I would ask what the heck did you go to his room for, why did you take the drug and what did you think might happen while you were in his room alone. Come on they knew sex might be on the menu.

And to Bill Cosby, what were you thinking inviting a woman up to you room for drinks, drugs and sex. Didn't it occur to you that no matter what happened she might yell rape, sue and ask for money or maybe just turn the story over to a tabloid for money...what was your reputation worth.

Both parties here were idiots for putting themselves in a compromising position...dumb dumb dumb.

Shon D.- Homme wrote:
The rapist is solely responsible for raping.

What a crazy notion Shon! You mean to tell me if I wear a dress that is revealing I don't deserved to be raped?! You and your logic!

Jules NYC wrote:
Only about 2% of all rape and related sex charges are determined to be false, the same percentage as for other felonies (FBI). So while they do happen, and they are very problematic when they do, people claim that allegations are false far more frequently than they are and far more frequently than for other crimes.  Put another way, we are much more likely to disbelieve a woman if she says she was raped than if she says she was robbed, but for no good reason.

http://web.stanford.edu/group/maan/cgi-bin/?page_id=297

I've heard wildly differing percentages from 5% all the way to 50%, depending on the investigation.

It all depends on who's investigating.  Other organizations (police, etc) have gotten results much higher than 2%.  I would think the real figure is closer to 10%.

Shon D.- Homme wrote:

The rapist is solely responsible for raping.

This *******

aspergianLens wrote:

I've heard wildly differing percentages from 5% all the way to 50%, depending on the investigation.

It all depends on who's investigating.  Other organizations (police, etc) have gotten results much higher than 2%.  I would think the real figure is closer to 10%.

I've noticed a lot of different #'s too. Let's just say most of them, all from credible sources/study are significantly low compared to true/legit accusations.

Jules NYC wrote:

I've noticed a lot of different #'s too. Let's just say most of them, all from credible sources/study are significantly low compared to true/legit accusations.

That may be so, but it doesn't undermine the fact that false accusations are a serious problem.

Regardless, I find the fact that at least 13 different women have come forward accusing Cosby of sexually assaulting them to be too unlikely to be entirely false.

Innocent until proven guilty perhaps, but even so I find it unlikely that Cosby is innocent of all these accusations.

Wye wrote:
It's glaringly obvious that the people above who find it suspicious and incredulous that a woman wouldn't report to the police an assault/rape by a powerful man until decades later are completely out of touch with the reality of such things (as they are now and as they would have been 20 and more years ago).  Thankfully these attitudes are dying and will eventually be marginalized as they should be.

It is also glaringly obvious that people with a lynch mob mentality who claim moral superiority based on glittering generalities or some kind of self-proclaimed "empathy" for victimized women in general, and who lust for the destruction of this man without evidence or convictions should also be marginalized.

White Knights with lynch mob or vigilante mentalities are at least as vile as the accusations being dumped on Mr. Cosby at this moment, en masse, by the gossip driven media and then broadcast further by people who parrot them without concern for further investigation into the reality of the situation.

The guilt or innocence of the person being accused is a fully different situation than those who are looking for fodder to promote their own agenda or campaign, and who want to gleefully wave banners in some kind of vague victimized women's rights parade.

Personally, I'll wait for evidence and convictions by a judge and a court of law before I jump to conclusions.

Innocent until proven guilty under law.

I hope none of us ever have to defend ourselves against vile false accusations. If we are proven to be guilty, then we should rightfully suffer the consequences of our actions.

aspergianLens wrote:

That may be so, but it doesn't undermine the fact that false accusations are a serious problem.

Regardless, I find the fact that at least 13 different women have come forward accusing Cosby of sexually assaulting them to be too unlikely to be entirely false.

Innocent until proven guilty perhaps, but even so I find it unlikely that Cosby is innocent of all these accusations.

I concur.

As for the fame/money aspect, aren't there other celebrities/businessmen that have greater net worth to collect $ if that was the modus operandi?

aspergianLens wrote:
Regardless, I find the fact that at least 13 different women have come forward accusing Cosby of sexually assaulting them to be too unlikely to be entirely false.

That & how consistent they all sound.

Older, respected professional takes an interest in an impressionable, newbile young actress. Offers to mentor them in a professional setting. Starts with exercises to (under normal circumstances) helps them hone their craft. Moves on to inviting them to his house. Offers them a drink. Victim suddenly becomes groggy & passes out. Victim comes to & is told there's a cab waiting to take you home.

Wye wrote:
Man. You've got a huge supply of straw for all those straw men you're making.

No. That's not the only other alternative -- even if that's the only one you're able to think of.

Give me something, then ... if something exists. Or are you afraid your points will be less valid than the ones I already made?

Model Sarah wrote:
I've got to bow out of this thread because I think a lot lower of some of you now knowing what you really think. I can't tell if some of you are just really really dumb, sociopaths, or misogynists with a lack of empathy. Either way, they're all bad.

Haters are gonna hate, even if they think they are being cool and PC by doing so.

Seek justice under law. It may not be perfect, but it's the best we've got.

Farenell Photography wrote:
Yes & no but that pattern is consistent.

Its the same way with other forms of mental trauma. Take combat related PTSD. They vary from person to person. But if left to their own, the victim is left with feelings of helplessness, guilt, & thinking they're the only ones going through it when they're not.

In terms of the Cosby case, remember this is before Anita Hill where even talking about sexual harassment/assault & rape involving an authority figure was almost unheard of.

It is from this milestone of history of which you speak that we were gifted with this wonderfully rich quote:

“The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.”

... oopsy

Model Sarah wrote:

You came across as though it was easy in your prior post. You're kind of contradicting yourself on this page so color me confused.

My point being, if you (general you) cannot have empathy can you at least understand that trauma is really hard to be brave because one is kind of going through something that strips them of being human. So not only do they have to find that again, they have to stand up and not let it get to them. That's nearly impossible without help.

I reread my posts and yours.  Without the inflections of conversation, facial expressions, body language, we all tend to put a personal spin on the written word.  We can't foresee or address every way that a person will take the things we write.  It is one of the inherent dangers in posting in the forums.  I never intended to imply that it was easy.  I understand, the insult of being told to put your big girl pants on.  I must say, I have heard a particular mean woman I know, say many times, that a man needs to put his big boy pants on.  Although it be behind his back.  I haven't ever heard it said about a woman before. 

One of the reasons I suggested that we need to have more of a dialogue about what men and women experience, is because we are shaped in very similar and very dissimilar ways.  As a boy, I had many experiences that I think women have had as girls.  It was normal to get hit by bullies.  Authority didn't care.  Suck it up.  How we process it may have been different.  My brother and were I never taught to fight or defend ourselves.  We were not permitted to fight.  It didn't matter if we were defending ourselves.  There was a point, where I had to be willing to take a whopping and give a whopping to stop getting into fights.  Does that sound easy?   

Do you really think, that because I am a man, I feel safe walking down a city street?  I know it is different.  Nobody cat calls me.  But I am also more likely to face a gun in a robbery because they can't just snatch my bag and run.  Do you think the cops give a shit about me because I am a man?  No.  And when it comes to reporting a violent crime, is it easier for a guy?  What are the criteria that society puts on men?  Be brave.  Be a provider.  Protect your family.  Depression is a sign of weakness, not a health problem.  We are a failure if we get robbed.  We should never have allowed ourselves to get beat up.  Bravery is inherent.  We are still required to be submissive to authorities and people that abuse power.  We can never flirt our way out of traffic ticket. 

I had a woman working for me a couple of times.  A neighbor who comes out of his house screaming at us, until the employee turned and her saw she was a woman.  Then all of a sudden, everything is cool.  Guys want to go toe to toe with me often.  It gets old.  And women that want to go toe to toe;  they call their husbands or boyfriends and I have to go toe to toe with them. Oh, it would be so much easier to be afraid and leave, then to be afraid and stand up.

There were two interesting stories on PBS radio this week.  One about slavery and how it shaped this country into the economic power house it is today.  But to say anything about positive out comes to slavery would be controversial.  Even though, the history of slavery makes slavery no less horrific in retrospect.  The other story was to dispel the myth the Sherman destroyed everything between Atlanta and the sea.  The state of George posted a marker denouncing the myth.

My point is, the people involved in the discussion, myself included, really don't have a handle on the influences that make people of a gender, who they are.  Much less the differences as individuals.  And the valuable post that Jules cited, not all men respond to violence as a sexual turn on.  If you want to understand how this country developed, the facts of slavery are important.  The mindset caused by other events, like Sherman's march, are all a factor, a hundred and fifty years later.  A boy being forced to kiss an aunt, or a girl with a creepy grandfather.  Shit happens to both genders.  It affects us all.  So, we all make decisions to live with how we were formed, or change ourselves. 

I am sorry, that I responded in a defensive matter to your posts.

Click Hamilton wrote:
It is also glaringly obvious that people with a lynch mob mentality who claim moral superiority based on glittering generalities or some kind of self-proclaimed "empathy" for victimized women in general, and who lust for the destruction of this man without evidence or convictions should also be marginalized.

White Knights with lynch mob or vigilante mentalities are at least as vile as the accusations being dumped on Mr. Cosby at this moment, en masse, by the gossip driven media and then broadcast further by people who parrot them without concern for further investigation into the reality of the situation.

The guilt or innocence of the person being accused is a fully different situation than those who are looking for fodder to promote their own agenda or campaign, and who want to gleefully wave banners in some kind of vague women's rights parade.

Personally, I'll wait for evidence and convictions by a judge and a court of law before I jump to conclusions.

Innocent until proven guilty under law.

I hope none of us ever have to defend ourselves against vile false accusations. If we are proven to be guilty, then we should rightfully suffer the consequences of our actions.

-
It is interesting to me, the differences in what Gov Corbett (PA) has said about Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, just before the recent election and the day after Corbett lost, compared to what Corbett was saying and what Corbett's actions were, when the Sandusky crimes hit the news.  He permitted the man to fired and torn down and now says that he did all that was required under the law.  pattern said that wished that he did more.  Corbett used those words against him.  Corbett fed the mob.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
It is interesting to me, the differences in what Gov Corbett (PA) has said about Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, just before the recent election and the day after Corbett lost, compared to what Corbett was saying and what Corbett's actions were, when the Sandusky crimes hit the news.  He permitted the man to fired and torn down and now says that he did all that was required under the law.  pattern said that wished that he did more.  Corbett used those words against him.  Corbett fed the mob.

In the end was quilt determined, convictions made and punishments rendered?

Was justice achieved?

After the media circus of the time, I didn't hear any of the followup.

Jim Ball wrote:
When one of the accusers demanded money for an interview, it all became pretty clear to me.

Ahhh!
Hmm?
Sort of invalidates that specific accuser.
Jen

Wye wrote:
It's glaringly obvious that the people above who find it suspicious and incredulous that a woman wouldn't report to the police an assault/rape by a powerful man until decades later are completely out of touch with the reality of such things (as they are now and as they would have been 20 and more years ago).  Thankfully these attitudes are dying and will eventually be marginalized as they should be.

fwiw as I see it, as a woman...

1. If a woman comes forward after a rape it continues to keep the act of rape alive and in her present. It is work to come forward and rehash the situation and to resubject oneself to the doubters, harsh questions, self-reflection, self-doubt and judgment. However being the target, (victim) of a rape is not the fault of the target anymore than is being the target of any other crime.

2. There is little benefit for 'her' will happen from coming forward.

3. When a woman choses not to come forward after a rape it leaves no trail to document for the rapist.

4. When there is no trail to at least document for the rapist then the rapist won't be sought after or caught.

5. When a woman doesn't come forward after rape she may be protecting herself and not have the strength or courage to come forward.

6. Is justice ever served 'after' a rape? No only in preventing future targets of the same rapist.
Jen
p.s. coming forward after all these years...is not likely to prevent potential targets of this allegedness but, is obviously all about the alleged current targets... [and for them to have him tied to the crime, unless he is still doing what they claim, then it would be to prevent more.]

Bill Bates wrote:
And to Bill Cosby, what were you thinking inviting a woman up to you room for drinks, drugs and sex. Didn't it occur to you that no matter what happened she might yell rape, sue and ask for money or maybe just turn the story over to a tabloid for money...what was your reputation worth.

You obviously are a bit green to the entertainment industry then. Entertainers put themselves in compromising positions like this on a very regular basis. I know not one, not two, but three entertainers here in Vegas who have "One Blowjob Minimum" orders to their production managers who's responsibilities are, among other things, to get cute girls from the audience who want to go backstage and have sex with the headliner after the show. In many cases where there are two shows a night, it's two different women. This is not the exception to things, it's way more common than you might think.

I remember a few years ago when Copperfield got in trouble for allegedly raping a woman on his island. Everyone was so shocked at the news that he was having sex with all these women who came to his show...that is, except the people who knew him personally or worked around shows like his in Vegas. We call those days when things like this happen, "Weeknights".

You really need to realize that this sort of thing is WAY more common than you ever might think.

Jules NYC wrote:
I mentioned the Bill Cosby mess with a co-worker just to guage her response. When mentioning Janice Dickenson's contribution the co-worker said, "Oh she just wants attention."

Do I think they trying to prevent future victims of rape by him at this time? No.

Does it diminish that someone should come out and eventually report? Not at all.

Does it diminish their situation? Nah but, they are in a lot of sensationalism over it and hopefully it turns out to improve things.

Jen

Shot By Adam wrote:
You really need to realize that this sort of thing is WAY more common than you ever might think.

I understand this behavior is common. That doesn't make it any less stupid behavior.

Quick edit; change that stupid to "stupid and foolish".

Bill Bates wrote:

I understand this behavior is common. That doesn't make it any less stupid behavior.

Quick edit; change that stupid to "stupid and foolish".

I completely agree, but the egos and the power these people have over audiences is tremendous. After a while, the thought of responsibility is quickly replaced by the fact that it's a choice of blonde, brunette, or redhead they are sleeping with that night.

Shot By Adam wrote:
Entertainers put themselves in compromising positions like this on a very regular basis. I know not one, not two, but three entertainers here in Vegas who have "One Blowjob Minimum" orders to their production managers who's responsibilities are, among other things, to get cute girls from the audience who want to go backstage and have sex with the headliner after the show. In many cases where there are two shows a night, it's two different women. This is not the exception to things, it's way more common than you might think.

I remember a few years ago when Copperfield got in trouble for allegedly raping a woman on his island. Everyone was so shocked at the news that he was having sex with all these women who came to his show...that is, except the people who knew him personally or worked around shows like his in Vegas. We call those days when things like this happen, "Weeknights".

You really need to realize that this sort of thing is WAY more common than you ever might think.

A backstage pass for screened, pre-qualified Groupies used to be called a "P-Pass"

.... not sure what the "P" stands for.

"Sex, Drugs, & Rock 'n Roll" was more than a little jingle for a few songs. It was part of the enthusiastic new culture of the revolution of the 60's and 70's.

Jules NYC wrote:
I am getting so tired how celebrities and generally people with influence/big $ can get away with this kind of thing.

...

They certainly are not the only ones who get away with it by any means.

This crosses all strata of social lines and boxes. The unconscionable acts committed to one another are not just for those with money, job status, celebrity role or entourage.

There are of rape targets that have no access or means to reporting who may wish they could and there are rape targets who have access to report who choose not to. It is their choice imo.

Jen

Locutus wrote:
Bill who?

Some guy whose career and legacy is deservedly going down in flames. Huh. Looks like the people do have the power after all, even if the exercise thereof takes years to actualize.

Click Hamilton wrote:

It is also glaringly obvious that people with a lynch mob mentality who claim moral superiority based on glittering generalities or some kind of self-proclaimed "empathy" for victimized women in general, and who lust for the destruction of this man without evidence or convictions should also be marginalized.

White Knights with lynch mob or vigilante mentalities are at least as vile as the accusations being dumped on Mr. Cosby at this moment, en masse, by the gossip driven media and then broadcast further by people who parrot them without concern for further investigation into the reality of the situation.

The guilt or innocence of the person being accused is a fully different situation than those who are looking for fodder to promote their own agenda or campaign, and who want to gleefully wave banners in some kind of vague victimized women's rights parade.

Personally, I'll wait for evidence and convictions by a judge and a court of law before I jump to conclusions.

Innocent until proven guilty under law.

I hope none of us ever have to defend ourselves against vile false accusations. If we are proven to be guilty, then we should rightfully suffer the consequences of our actions.

As I've said before where there's smoke there's fire. The idea that this is some sort of orchestrated attack on one has been entertainer strains even model mayhem's version of credulity. Nobody gets tens of accusations over decades for no reason whatsoever.

That you see this as some sort of conspiracy is hardly surprising.

Wye wrote:
As I've said before where there's smoke there's fire. The idea that this is some sort of orchestrated attack on one has been entertainer strains even model mayhem's version of credulity. Nobody gets tens of accusations over decades for no reason whatsoever.

That you see this as some sort of conspiracy is hardly surprising.

I'm sorry, but as an American, "guilty until proven innocent" just doesn't work for me.

As far as conspiracies go, Mr. Cosby has had some experience with that too:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/16/nyreg … cosby.html

Here's some more smoke for that particular fire:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9707/29/cosby/

It was a $40-million extortion attempt.

Enjoy.

Click Hamilton wrote:

I'm sorry, but as an American, "guilty until proven innocent" just doesn't work for me.

As far as conspiracies go, Mr. Cosby has had some experience with that too:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/16/nyreg … cosby.html

Here's some more smoke for that particular conspiracy fire:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9707/29/cosby/

One person isn't a conspiracy.

Again.  Where there's this much smoke there's fire.  That you think that 16 women (I guarantee there's more) would lie about this one man is predictable if incredulous. Smoke. Fire. Not a shadow of a doubt.

Wye wrote:
One person isn't a conspiracy.

There were 3, Mr. Wye

"The woman, Autumn Jackson, who had claimed to be Mr. Cosby's out-of-wedlock daughter, and two others were convicted in 1997 of conspiring in a threat to sell her story to a supermarket tabloid unless the actor paid her the money."

Wye wrote:
Again.  Where there's this much smoke there's fire.  That you think that 16 women (I guarantee there's more) would lie about this one man is predictable if incredulous. Smoke. Fire. Not a shadow of a doubt.

Hard evidence has to be better than circumstantial. Smoke also comes from yellow journalism, false accusations, muckraking and trial by media sensationalism.

There was lots of smoke in the extortion effort against him.

There was lots of media smoke when his 27 year old son Ennis was murdered while changing his tire on the side of the freeway. This was at the same time as the Autumn Jackson convictions. It's hard to fathom all this pain and suffering heaped on one family at the same time, yet Bill Cosby and his family still pleaded with prosecutors NOT to seek the death penalty against the guy who murdered their son.

Lawyers have been known to manufacture smoke to build their own cases. By their visibility and the nature of what they do, celebrities are always surrounded with potential smoke. Because of fame and fortune, they are constantly under attack by prospecting lawyers and many others who want a piece of the action.

These things have to be separated in the pursuit of justice.

Your smoke:fire platitude is unsound reasoning for guilty convictions.

Click Hamilton wrote:
Hard evidence has to be better than circumstantial. Smoke also comes from yellow journalism, false accusations, muckraking and trial by media sensationalism. There was lots of smoke in the extortion effort against him. Lawyers have been known to manufacture smoke to build their own cases. By their visibility and the nature of what they do, celebrities are always surrounded with potential smoke.

These things have to be separated in the pursuit of justice.

Your smoke:fire platitude is unsound reasoning for guilty convictions.

sure, but in the real world of prosecution, there would never be any conviction (in any trial), without a measurable dose of circumstantial evidence. even in cases where there is/was a confession.

i don't know how there could be any hard evidence to support this case, after this amount of time, without a third party (possible drug dealer) coming forth and offering their testimony.

obviously, any forensic evidence would be long gone at this point.

and it is unfortunate how women who come forth like this (years after) are instantly raked over the coals. selecting a few bad examples (duke lacrosse, etc) to always assume the accuser is lying is just unsound, and further perpetuates all the bad myths, and bolsters outdated, misogynistic mindsets.