So there's no doubt, Cosby was a rapist

It's power/control rather than strictly violent, you don't have to use violence to control the other person (even if it's a situation that has nothing to do with rape). Obviously it's pretty complicated and has many intricacies, but at the root of it is that word 'control', however it's gained.

and like I said, that may be the legal definition, but in the real world, that's horseshit, and anyone with half a brain that isn't full of horseshit understands this. That you would argue it matters not a jot if eg a husband and wife were both drunk, and had sex with each other (in your words, raped each other) shows you for the clown you have proven yourself to be over and over on this forum.

You do indeed do a disservice to genuine victims of non-consensual sexual abuse, and for that, you're a horseshit filled cunt

Agreed. I was just saying that when I was growing up and you said someone was "raped", it meant that you were forced against your will.

Then there was "statutory rape" which meant that anyone under a certain age didn't have the right to consent to sex.

The first example was the one I was referring to when I said that psychiatrist's have always labeled "rape" as a crime of violence as opposed to sex.

If Cosby slipped girls knockout drugs and then fucked them while they were passed out...it's not an act of violence like the classic "rape" definition was.

It's purely sexual and some kind of fetish. Most likely the "control" thing you're speaking of.
And yes, drugging a person without their knowledge and fucking them while they are out is definitely a form of "rape" and if Cosby did that he should have went to jail.

Which is the fucked up part...because if any of these women had went to the police and had a rape test done...then none of this would be discussed now.
Cosby would have already been in prison 30 years ago.

The legal definition of rape is part of the real world, because people are prosecuted and jailed for committing that act as defined.


In terms of the legal definition of rape, it does not matter. All that matters is if the act fits the definition. Whether, a DA decides to actually prosecute is a different question, like I laready stated above.


Moving the goal posts...rape does not necessarily indicate "abuse", so the victims of sexual abuse should not have any qualms about who the law considers victims of rape. Those two issues can stand on their own.

well I can see why they didn't - at that time, all it would have proven is that they'd had sex with Cosby, and just like now it'd be their word against his. She'd claim being drugged, he'd say it was all consensual drug taking/sex.

It's easy with hindsight to say what we would have done, but not everyone is the same, none of the victims knew about the others, and it's like the jimmy savill situation over here - this huge presence of a guy, well-known, loved by millions, the perception of who he is, and some kids come along and say he was a kiddie fiddler - kids in care no less, tarred with that same kind of brush as 'aspiring actress attempting to kick-start a career'.

One in-care kid... one aspiring actress... they pretty much know nobody is going to believe them, so each one says jack shit - to say nothing of the mental process that happens with such an intrusion on a person, which is the main 'event' if you like, like being smacked down by a woman, the bruises heal quick, but knowing mentally how you just got taken for a cunt is a lot harder to get over, and come to terms with internally.

Of all the doubts to have, in any sexual assault/rape case, the passage of a long amount of time is one that is often used, and is the least relevant (in fact it has no relevance). It's *extremely* hard to understand the mental anguish of sexual assault/rape victims, which is why most people just can't grasp why sometimes/oftentimes nothing is said nearer the occurences, and often is never said at all.

tclgirls, you're a fucking moronic troll (I assume you are trolling, surely no self-employed person can be as dumb as you are pretending to be), so:

you are right. I am wrong.

It's just a little rape guys

Ps Cosby is obviously a serial rapist.... Obviously

It's clearly not about the sex when he can basically tuck anyone but has to resort to this

I cited the legal definition of rape. If you have a problem with the legal definition of rape, you could always lobby your local representative to draft new rape laws.

Yes but.... That makes 99% of all men and women rapists. Nearly all of us have had drunken sex before, and by these standards that's illegal because one or both parties were unable to give consent.

Technically, this means my wife raped me after her Christmas party last year.

There could exist intoxicated states of mind that are still within the scope of legal consent. This I have not denied. So if a person wishes to thread that fine line, then so be it.

I'm just here for the pink letters ...

Not where I am from...that's called a typical Friday night out.

After the first few, OK i gave him the benefit of the doubt, but after 40? Come on this guy needs to put in jail

Yes. The most fucked up people claim richeousness and moral value. It's a sad time when you find out people you've admired are bigger pieces of shit than the ones you are brainwashed to hate.