scratch-mark

So Bill Cosby is a Rapist, Now

Hell, I’m sure a niece or friend had sex with Bill in the late 70s’, early 80’s.

They cry RAPE! 35+ years later?

Dismissed.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

153 Comments

  1. elmo on November 19, 2014 at 21:49

    i think there’s been a number of complaints against bill cosby hasn’t there?

  2. Dan on November 20, 2014 at 02:04

    Well thanks Richard you just sent me into hours of reading and watching videos around this. But, and as much as I hate myself for saying this, one of the ladies from the view summed it up perfectly. There is no winner here. Either 13 woman were raped by a guy who used his power to get away with it, OR some innocent guy is been destroyed because of some fame whores irrespective of whether he is found innocent. It’s a very sad situation. As for Janice Dickinson…..as someone else said…if she told me the sky was blue and the grass was green, I would check.

    • rob on November 20, 2014 at 05:02

      Given the similarities among the 13 stories, which span a number of years, it is extremely unlikely that they are invented. If 2 or 3 women told pretty much the same story you could chalk it up to chance but 13? And those are just the ones who have told their stories. It is impossible to prosecute or sue at this point (statute of limitations) so there could be many more who see no point to reliving the whole thing.

      There is a strong probability that Mr. Cosby is in fact a serial rapist.

      This is not a case of he said/she said, it is a case of he said/she said/she said/she said/she said/she said/she said/she said/she said/she said/she said/she said/she said/she said.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 07:20

      Did those stories all come out independent of one another, or one story came out, and 12 me-toos?



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 07:26

      Furthermore, there’s this continual trend towards judging the past by the societal standards (or lack thereof) of the present.

      Look at “love scenes” from film and literature pre 1970. There’s a whole lot of it that would be declared “rape” by many of today’s social standards.

      Hell, look at the latest yes means yes campaign, where not saying no isn’t enough. An explicit yes is required, and in ever progressive step along the way.

      Soon, unless there’s a signed, witnessed affidavit of consent on file, it’ll be rape.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 08:01

      And finally, there are number of reasons statutes of limitations exist. One is that evidence degrades over time. Physical evidence is lacking, unavailable, compromised. Witness testimony becomes increasingly suspect because of fading memories, death, changes in relationships, etc.

      I apply the same standard of rationality to ancient allegations.

      That’s why, for me, dismissed. If the “crime” wasn’t important enough for 13 women to come out and accuse 30+ years ago, they must have thought that it didn’t rise to that level at the time. And yes, I know. Those inclined will cry STIGMA! bla bla. Well, rape has been successfully prosecuted for a very long time now.

      To my mind, if you don’t make an accusation of a crime against you in a reasonable amount of time, then you have foreclosed on any expectation that you be taken seriously. The one area where I have different thinking is in the case of children, where often, their safety and security depends on not talking until a later time where they’re independent or have alternative means of being supported.



    • rob on November 20, 2014 at 09:42

      Another one just came out that makes 16 accusations.

      Either the 1 man is lying or all 16 of the women are lying.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 10:00

      So, you’re not going to address my points, are you?

      I don’t care if 1,000 women jump on the 35 year old bus. The story is out there, and the ride is free. Arguably, you get paid to jump on the bus.

      So what’s the deal here? They’re women, and women never lie or stretch the truth? Or, what? One lie could be just a lie. But man, 16 lies = TRUTH!



    • Dan on November 20, 2014 at 11:24

      Spot on Richard. Today it is almost a sin to be critical of woman or call them a liar especially in serious matters like this. I remember when I was in Canada and three drunk females accused a taxi driver of raping them. As it turns out he actually had a video camera to protect himself in the cab and they didn’t want to pay the 20$ fair so when he stopped the cab and told them to get out they rang the police. These self entitled bitches were fully prepared to ruin a mans life over $20. As long as examples like this exist we need to be diligent and not just find the man guilty as soon as a woman cries rape because surely no woman would ever lie about that.



    • rob on November 20, 2014 at 12:07

      13 of the women testified under penalties of perjury, I’m not willing to blow off the sworn testimony of 13 people.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 12:33

      “I’m not willing to blow off the sworn testimony of 13 people.”

      And you still don’t get it, so, at this point I’m chalking you up as dishonest.

      You have still not addressed the fact that 13 allegations didn’t independently come out of nowhere. Near as I can tell, it’s one story and 12 me-toos.

      Moreover, I’m willing to blow off all recollections from 35 years ago. Those are best saved for my grandnana telling embellished stories of her past, which I heartily enjoyed and ate up as a kid. Never fucktarded enough to think they were 100% accurate enough to tarnish or exult another person and I came to understand this at about the age of 12.

      You’re a fucktard, rob.



    • rob on November 20, 2014 at 13:46

      Nobody is anybody until you’ve called them a fucktard.



    • GTR on November 20, 2014 at 15:41

      @Richard – “Hell, look at the latest yes means yes campaign”.

      There’s a new invention – “yes means yes, no means no, maybe means no”.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RQIpwi-K9s



    • Travis on November 20, 2014 at 16:42

      “So, you’re not going to address my points, are you?”

      Ha! You’re the master! Except you call people vile names.



    • Dan on November 20, 2014 at 17:41

      It’s just basic science actually. Variables need to be independent of one another or it completely biases the results. Richard, is correctly stating that these ‘variables’ are not independent of one another. They have come out from the same media flurry.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 18:22

      “Except you call people vile names.”

      Not a single one I’ve not been called, though. What are you, some kinda pussy out there?



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 18:23

      Do names always hurt your pussy, Travis. Or your butt?



    • Bret on November 21, 2014 at 13:04

      I’m not willing to blow off the sworn testimony of 13 people.

      Richard’s right, rob. You really are a fucktard. A fucking fucktard.

      A bunch of people can lie. They can “swear” by it and still be lying (that word “swear” means absolutely nothing to many people, by the way).

      That is why we don’t come to conclusions based on “sworn testimony,” which is just nothing but unsubstantiated proclamations. In fact, it’s a ripe opportunity to lie for clever people, because they know that fucking fucktards like you will give it gravity it doesn’t deserve.

      I was raped by rob, and so were 12 of my family members. We are all willing to swear to it.

      You’re guilty, rob. Outnumbered, and thus guilty.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2014 at 13:13

      Further to Bret:

      “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

      Clever sworn testimony, before a Grand Jury, by a sitting US President.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2014 at 13:21

      …Moreover, perjury is probably the least prosecuted “crime” ever (it’s not a crime in my book: I have the right to lie to anyone any time I feel like it).

      But, going with the social fucktardism, it’s not prosecuted because:

      1. it’s typically superfluous in the face of all there other matters at hand.

      2. it’s very difficult to pin down, principally because it—logically—comes with an element of intent. That is, you can’t be convicted for a falsehood in fact, but only if it can be shown to be deliberate.

      It’s easy to get off on a perjury charge. Goes like this:

      “Is what you testified here [xyz] false? A lie?”

      “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”



    • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2014 at 14:21

      And while I’m on roll.

      Note that I am unaware of a civil tort for perjury.

      It’s a state thing. You can lie to anyone you like, but not to the state: Ask Martha Stewart. Even though, they lied to her to get her to lie to them.

      This is totalitarianism, folks.

      So, if you lie in your dealings with others, or sign a contract where you’ve lied about terms….

      I’t s a breach of contract, rationally adjudicated as such, facts on table.

      The state gets to lie to you, strike fear into your heart to induce a lie. Then, if they can’t get you for what you’re being investigated for in the first place, they’ll get you for lying.

      And here’s another thing. In terms of the state, it doesn’t even require that you deliberately sign under penalty of perjury. Federal statutes have taken care of that.

      Because, prosecutors have to lock people up in order to advance in their own careers.

      How lovely. America the Beautiful.



    • Sweetie on November 27, 2014 at 00:51

      When all this first came out, I only heard of one come over the airways. Later, what seemed like a week or maybe two, I heard that another lady had stepped up claiming she was raped by Cosby. However, I did not see any printed documentation showing when the other alleged rape victims came forward or reported the incident. I honestly believe that the others came to follow suit after the original victim stepped forward.



    • Sweetie on November 27, 2014 at 01:02

      Richard, you have hit this straight on. Any crime against your private person should be formally reported within a reasonable amount of time, based upon your physical health and mental health as well. Rape can have a very devastating effect on the victim mentally, and maybe even moreso than physical damage.

      I also agree that if it involves a child, that it should not be forced into talking about such a traumatic event for the safety and security.



  3. Beans McGrady on November 20, 2014 at 19:37

    It is a sweeps week. Cosby has everyone in a tizzy and the networks were not asked to show tonight’s royal address. So they continued with their regular shows, probably resolving cliff hanger endings from last week.

    Just see what get’s more coverage over the next few days.
    It did air on Univision and Telemundo.

    • sdiguana on November 21, 2014 at 06:16

      spot on. nothing like a scandal in Hollywood to obfuscate real issues.



    • Beans McGrady on November 22, 2014 at 19:53

      Here is the new one from Friday. Your tax dollars at work. Mr. Peace Prize going back on another promise. time to pay for more war in Afghanistan.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/22/us/politics/in-secret-obama-extends-us-role-in-afghan-combat.html?_r=1



    • Bret on November 23, 2014 at 06:33

      That was a good article, Beans.

      This has intensified criticism of Mr. Obama’s Afghanistan strategy, which Republican and even some Democratic lawmakers have said adheres to an overly compressed timeline that would hamper efforts to train and advise Afghan security forces — potentially leaving them vulnerable to attack from Taliban fighters and other extremists in the meantime.

      That bold part (which was my emphasis) really made me laugh. We’ve been there for 13 years…can anyone really say with a straight face that this withdrawal timeline is compressed?

      The Pentagon officials clamoring for more mission broadness are (at least partially) concerned about keeping the troops safe. But this misses the point completely from a presidential perspective. Staying in Afghanistan when there is undoubtedly no realistic hope that its national military forces will ever be “ready” by our assessment is what’s really inviting the danger. Not to mention the incessant violence that costs lives, including civilians caught in the crossfire, costs American tax payers huge money, and continues to convert new generations of Afghan citizens into America haters. I’m not seeing any upside whatsoever here.

      On a separate note, apparently we’re changing the name OEF to Operation Resolute Support. That’s cute. How about Operation Perpetual Stubbornness instead? Or, Operation 21st Century Vietnam.

      As the president said in the Rose Garden in May, “I think Americans have learned that it’s harder to end wars than it is to begin them.”

      It’s hard for you politicians to end wars, you stupid, colossally arrogant prick. And you’re wrong, many Americans have not learned that lesson. Conservatives are still convinced we never should have left Iraq in the first place but should have stayed forever (they’re getting their wish as we speak).

      All Obama has to do is tell the rest of his administration, “We are coming home. I am the god damn president, and that is my decision. All the rest of you, shut the fuck up.”

      But he’s too spineless to do that. He’s got no real concern for the troops or the mission. He simply doesn’t want his Democrats to endure further political defeat when Afghanistan collapses upon itself. Which it likely will, no matter when we leave.

      Mind you, none of this implies Republicans are any better. Far worse, in fact.



  4. Starch+lvr on November 20, 2014 at 09:00

    Why not enjoy this ‘American Institution’ fall, like
    other American institutions you enjoy seeing fall?

    Cosby was a legitimate ‘AI’ at one time.

    I enjoyed him when I was young, just like millions of others.

    But when I saw him give serious interviews, he seemed like a self-righteous A-Hole.

    No, that doesn’t make him a rapist, but screw him, let the self righteous get what they deserve!

    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 09:39

      So being an “A-Hole” in your subjective opinion warrants he be accused as a serial rapist 35 years after the fact?

      Mkay. I’m sure those women have absolutely nothing to gain. They just want justice done, so this 77 year old man isn’t out raping again. I’m sure that a more pressing issue of him raping in say, the 35 years ago to 20 years ago timeframe, just slipped 13 minds. So glad they’re out looking out for women everywhere now.



    • Starch+lvr on November 20, 2014 at 09:59

      Let’s see here………. Most serial killers are male. Most child molesters are male. Most rapists are male. Men are known to think with there ‘second head’. Most men have a fairly high level of testosterone flowing through their veins.

      Yeah, I see where you are coming from. Those 13 to 16 women are lying and this one A-HOLE is telling the truth.

      I don’t see other rich old men getting accused of a similar crime to ‘make a buck’. They all just decided to go after ‘Mr Pudding Pops’?

      Makes sense. Go after a ‘Captain Kangaroo’ personality that is well loved by millions!

      Yeah, right.

      I am male, by the way.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 10:13

      “Yeah, I see where you are coming from. Those 13 to 16 women are lying and this one A-HOLE is telling the truth.”

      Well, you know what they say. It is only necessary to tell a lie enough times for it to be THE TRUTH.

      35 years later. I’m just certain that women who were in a social position to share drinks with Bill Cosby 35 years ago, every single one of them, uniformly lacked the courage to come out all these years. Every single one. What, did Bill have his henchman out, or something?

      Here’s one thing that might change my mind or actually make me look harder. Can any of them, a single one, provide any evidence of “unexplained” payments from Cosby to them, in any way (i.e., unlike routine payment for typical employment, etc.).

      If not, it goes back to my original suspicion. Where have they been all this time? And trust me, I’m not interested in weepy stories of how they felt too intimidated to come out. This is what leveling accusations requires. A person needs to have the courage to do so and if not, at least explain in concrete terms that make sense, why the accusations have been so long in coming (and there needs to be some hint of minimally implicit though direct coercion, not that weepy bullshit that’s coercion only in someone’s mind).

      My oh my what a coercive force feminism has been. If you’re a woman, it suffices only to level an accusation—even 35 years after the fact—and when other women see others on TEEVEE and say ME TOO!, it’s taken as noting but “more evidence.”

      Nobody operates from a basis of critical thinking, anymore.

      It used to be that leveling false or exaggerated accusations was arguably as serious as the crime being asserted.

      If you are a woman and cry rape, in today’s culture, you are able to do so at virtually zero cost, though with serious upside, especially if it’s someone of stature.



    • Starch+lvr on November 20, 2014 at 10:34

      Believe me, I see your points, and they are valid.

      Then let’s go beyond ‘critical thinking’.

      Just your gut feeling. Do you think he’s telling the truth and these women are just gold digging?

      Don’t even give reasons, just curious what your guess is.

      I know that’s not scientific, but in this case, it just does come to a judgement call.

      And yes, my opinion of him as an A-Hole is subjective.



    • KingMob on November 20, 2014 at 10:56

      And in your subjective opinion, the societal standards of a particular past (if we are going with Hollywood as being representative) at least ameliorate criminal wrongdoing, as if societal standards dictate ethical norms. Not gonna go all Godwin’s Law on you here, but I think you see what I’m getting at. Hollywood could glorify rape and child abuse all it wanted to and it still shouldn’t serve in any capacity as a way of helping to understand a rapist or pederast. This puts me in mind of those who try to blame horror stories or movies for an increase in violent crime, while ignoring the daily, cumulative mental pounding most people receive at the hands of Power.



    • Dan on November 20, 2014 at 11:38

      lol. Are you going for your white knight badge at all? It is a myth that woman don’t molest children. Woman commit 3/4 of child abuse and neglect (not child abuse), and murder 2/3 of children. As for rape there is actually some evidence this is a lot more muddied that you think – http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1748355

      Regardless, even if true rapists are an extremely small subset of the population, and assuming that all men have to be controlled because they think with their penis is beyond naive/ignorant and is basically sexist itself.



    • Dan on November 20, 2014 at 11:39


    • Dan on November 20, 2014 at 11:40

      arggh I wish I could reedit my comment. child abuse not sex abuse is what I mean’t above.



    • Starch+lvr on November 20, 2014 at 11:45

      OK Dan. Did I say that women don’t commit weird crimes? I don’t think I did. Strictly talking
      the majority.

      You can believe what you want to.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 12:11

      “Just your gut feeling. Do you think he’s telling the truth and these women are just gold digging?”

      You’re asking me to give you my gut feeling about what happened 35 years ago.

      First of all, I barely understand what the norms were 35 years ago. It was only 30 years ago that I had my first serious and regular “experiences,” but I was a 20-something in college, not a public figure.

      Second, I would be loath to begin to understand, vis-a-vis what seems to be expected now. I’m not in that bed, or shoes.

      Sorry, I have to try to wear the objective hat of a good judge in this case and my judgment is: too late, laddies. You’ve foreclosed yourselves. There’s nothing to see here for fallible and impressionable human beings.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 12:22

      “the societal standards of a particular past (if we are going with Hollywood as being representative) at least ameliorate criminal wrongdoing”

      Logical fallacy of special pleadings, along with a smuggled contradiction. Hollywood is clearly a very essential component of societal standards.

      It’s how they make money. Only recently have some production begun to buck the everybody thinks like everybody, trend. See The Wire. See The Game of Thrones, where at least dog-eat-dog is more honest. Or, how about House of Cards, and, most recently, The Walking Dead (it’s a fucking kick…I love apocalyptic, as it makes Animals of people and they get to sort it out on their own authority).



    • Dan on November 20, 2014 at 17:49

      I do believe what I want thanks Rob.

      You said:

      “Most serial killers are male. Most child molesters are male. Most rapists are male. Men are known to think with there ‘second head’. Most men have a fairly high level of testosterone flowing through their veins.”

      I believe you just stigmatized half the population of the world as wannabe rapists and pedophiles. I’m sure it was just a throw away comment but, come on, surely you can see why that comment was wrong? And I’m not getting at you but people often use that argument and I find it offensive for people to assume I’m just a rapist who hasn’t been given his chance yet.



    • KingMob on November 21, 2014 at 07:42

      Interesting that you go afer a parenthetical and ignore the rest of my post. My post took into account the idea of Hollywood being representative, although I still don’t agree that’s “clearly” the case. Does Hollywood create societal standards or does it reflect (and often embellish) them? Most television dramas are reactionary–“ripped from today’s headlines,” as the ad cliche goes. The whole glorification of cops and the police state and obeisance to Power propagated by movies and TV shows didn’t so much create that state as help make it acceptable in society. In the end, regardless of what Hollywood pumps out, it can’t be used even even as a soft excuse for sexual crimes any more than it can be used likewise for crimes of the State.



    • Rach-b on November 25, 2014 at 11:10

      Speaking from personal experience, there are a number of reasons why it would take years before you speak out on it. You don’t want to relive events, you’re just scared, you don’t grow balls until years later. I’m not speaking for them, but this happens a lot, and it’s happened to me. Doesn’t slip the mind.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 25, 2014 at 11:26

      “there are a number of reasons why it would take years before you speak out on it. You don’t want to relive events, you’re just scared, you don’t grow balls until years later. ”

      Their choice. The tradeoff is no investigation, no prosecution, no conviction and no sentence…plus the added comfort of having the assailant continue to abuse others.

      Poor little bunnies.



  5. Todd on November 20, 2014 at 10:38

    I agree with Richard that it seems unlikely that not a single soul would have tried to push rape charges on Bill Cosby. He was and is a powerful guy, but that seems like a lot of bullshit to wait until the climate is in your favor to come forward. What service did these women do then to themselves and other women by waiting so long to come forward now?

    The man may very well be guilty, but I’m having a hard time seeing why not a single one would have came forward around the time of the alleged rape.

    • Starch+lvr on November 20, 2014 at 11:04

      You said it yourself Todd – ‘He was a very
      powerful man’.

      And yes, the social climate was different then.

      The ‘climate’ was more to the effect of, ‘if you were with Mr Cosby, having drinks and going back to his place, you were ASKING FOR IT.’

      I find it hard to believe these victims decided to wait for a ‘better social climate’ to come forward.

      Besides, this isn’t the first time I’ve heard these rumors, I heard them over 10 years ago.

      Why did Cosby settle ‘out of court’ with the one accuser?



    • hydrochloriawk on November 20, 2014 at 11:20

      The climate was and has been in Bill Cosby’s favor – he has recently enjoyed a huge comeback, and his mid 2000s organic black conservative campaign earned him another type of success (as a moral expert and family man).

      Also, the women didn’t come forward now – the majority of these allegations were brought forward anonymously in 2004-2006 in support of a single civil suit for one woman, with whom Cosby settled. The reason they have resurfaced now is because of a video of a male comedian that went viral. When these claims came out in the early 2000s, America quickly forgot about them, and Cosby’s success continued to rise. Doesn’t seem like the climate was in their favor then, either.

      And there are many reasons rape victims don’t come forward. Since most of them suffer from PTSD, it is probably a lot like someone who has seen violent combat oversees not being able to talk about it. It’s also well established that when one victim comes forward, others will feel the courage to come forward as well. One victim coming forward can kind of undo the spiral of silence, I guess. This was and is quite common with the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church. As victims came forward, others felt the courage to come forward too. Where there’s one victim, there are typically many. It seems that this is sort of what happened here. After Constand came forward in 2004 (her alleged assault took place in 2004), other victims from further back felt the courage to come forward as well.

      I get where you are coming from, and I can see how it would be frustrating to think about why women don’t just come forward immediately, but doing so is extremely difficult just from a psychological perspective. Add to that the fact that a dramatic minority of rape cases are even prosecuted, and an even smaller minority end in conviction. That is likely a big deterrent for an already traumatized person. There’s also the fact that people often assume rape accusations are just as likely to be false as they are to be true, when in fact false rape accusations aren’t any more common than false accusations of any other crime.

      Just some thoughts to consider!



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 12:49

      “Why did Cosby settle ‘out of court’ with the one accuser?”

      You can’t really be that naive, or can you?

      Would you spot someone a Benjamin if they were going to come out that you raped them, tell all those who hold you dear.

      You are simply ignoring economies of scale.

      In today’s world, lawyers go after cash. How many lawyers advise their clients to sue relatively poor people?

      Stop being a fucktard, and at least deal with the facts and realities on the ground.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 12:55

      …And it’s funny.

      Many non-fucktards now understand that the legislative climate gives average folk license to steal from big corps via the court system, effectively winning a lotto ticket without standing in line like a fucktard at the local convenience store. Some even understand that we as the other customers are paying it. No profitable company pays a cent in taxes, nor a cent in a tort settlement. The customers do, dimes at a time, but several million dimes is real money for one and the lawyer getting 30-60% on the come.

      It annoys me that a few of you can’t at least integrate ALL possible facts on the table.

      But, truth is, I will NEVER know whether this stuff is true. What IS a fact is that it’s 35 years old and I say: TOO LATE, grils. So Sowwy.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 12:58

      “Since most of them suffer from PTSD”

      Oh, yea, I forgot. They’re “combat victims,” too.

      Shessus.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 13:04

      “I can see how it would be frustrating to think about why women don’t just come forward immediately”

      And this is prefaced with the situation in the Catholic church wich I have already distinguished (dependent children—and in an authoritarian religious contet—vs. women in a bar having drinks with a celebrity).

      Have a discriminating mind, not an equivocating one, please.



    • Starch LVR on November 20, 2014 at 13:13

      so I guess Michael Jackson and the Catholic church were also just being prudent and were probably innocent when ‘settling out of court’.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 13:28

      “in fact false rape accusations aren’t any more common than false accusations of any other crime.”

      Multiple accruing references, please.

      Moreover, please explain to me what a liquor store owner, or a homeowner, have to gain from false accusations of burglary (with no physical evidence other than self-made), beyond the high and stupid risk of insurance fraud.

      More, moreover, please explain to me how a ghetto freak in harlem may have as much to gain from a false accusation of whatever quotidian assault he/she might have reasonably been a victim to, vs. what a woman upscale enough to command a spot at Bill’s table might have experienced 35 years ago, but shut up about it for 3+ decades because it was inconvenient to come out and protect other women from such a rapist.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 13:56

      ” just being prudent and were probably innocent when ‘settling out of court’.”

      Please show me where I said that.

      OK, let me throw a fucktard a bone, but only because I have a post in draft and have to set this aside for a while.

      Settling out of court is not an admonition of guilt. In some cases, there is guilt; and in others, not (unlike fucktards, I attempt to make distinctions over which is likely which). The problem with the Priest Pedophiles is very well known and documented, over centuries. There is no reasonable dispute about it. In the case of Michael Jackson, it’s still a tough call. He was no doubt eccentric and weird as fuck, but did he ever force himself on a child and penetrate his anus with his penis? I don’t know. Did he “only” fondle them in bed? I don’t know that either.

      Was he weird and completely unlike the rest of us? Zero doubt. Was that a crime? No, not if it never went to force/battery. And, never discount the fact that all those kids’ parents not only let whatever happen happen, they fucking encouraged it, seeing a lottery ticket. Where is the investigation into their reckless abandonment, particularly when insinuations, at minimum, were coming out? I’ll go a step further. How may parents purposely put their kids into what could have been, arguably, harm’s way (and you know why)?

      You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too. If you’re going to go with common law and statutory law, then stop complaining when it can’t convict a person you want convicted.

      Personally, I’d like to see how we fare the old way. You kill them. Yourself. Then, you take the fallout, whatever it may be, yourself. Or, you make a mano a mano complaint, see if you can get a settlement. 🙂



    • Dan on November 20, 2014 at 17:55

      I know right! I’ve seen some feminists claim, when faced with the why males had to go to war and die i.e. expendable, that the woman who got raped had it worse off…..than death??? Which isn’t very empowering because it’s basically saying that when you get raped your so damaged there is no point in been alive for you anymore. I mean come on!!!



    • Starch+lvr on November 21, 2014 at 12:35

      Yep, that worked real well – paid off the accuser and now nobody knows about being accused of being a rapist.

      I don’t know what it’s like to be famous or have 400 million $$$. But I think if someone accused me of something I was totally innocent of, I would like to think I would fight it.

      But us Fucktards think differently then know it all A-Holes do.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2014 at 13:33

      “paid off the accuser”

      Means they’re guilty, right?

      Have you ever run a multi-million $$$ business? I’m guessing no.

      Well I have, and I owned it. Cosby is worth $400 mil. In what world can you not imagine shooting someone a few hundred thousand dollars is impossible to simply be a good tradeoff business decision?

      Keep your lights on, pay off the Walkers when you need to. Move on.

      I’m assuming you can connect the dots from there.

      Nobody expects The Shark Inquisition.

      “I would like to think I would fight it.”

      Shorter Ivr: “I have nothing to lose.”



    • Bret on November 21, 2014 at 13:37

      I don’t know what it’s like to be famous or have 400 million $$$. But I think if someone accused me of something I was totally innocent of, I would like to think I would fight it.

      Then you don’t know what it’s like to face the risk of a handful of stupid people, called a jury, deciding you are guilty, even without evidence, because they swooned over the plaintiff’s lawyer’s show. That risk involves losing those many millions of dollars which you’ve worked hard to earn.

      Even a fucktard like you might just decide to pay less money in exchange for the guarantee that the aforementioned would not happen to you.

      And I do not use the term ‘fucktard’ ironically, because you are, without a shred of a doubt, a complete and utter fucktard. At least at the present moment.



    • Chuck on November 22, 2014 at 14:18

      That’s usually the ultimate goal in accusing a celebrity or other wealthy person, isn’t it? Get them to settle out of court to make you go away. Quick, easy, no lengthy drawn out trial, just a quick payday. The accuser gets what they wanted and the celebrity can move on with their life and forget it and don’t have to worry about possible jail time. What if I were to say the accuser is admitting their guilt of fraud by taking the money an running? If they were not lying and truly wanted justice served, why not stay and fight? It can be twisted both ways.



  6. Ulfric+Douglas on November 20, 2014 at 11:21

    None of these women are doing the right thing…
    They want money and they want to leave the getting of that money to some creepy lawyers.
    The right thing would have been (oh no, NSA is watching!)

  7. rob on November 20, 2014 at 12:13

    “Thirteen women who allege similar experiences as Constand and Green are mentioned in court papers as Jane Doe witnesses.”

    If you are a witness in either a criminal or civil proceeding you are testifying under penalties of perjury, so all thirteen of these women were willing to risk a prison sentence for the privilege of what? None of them ever filed suit against Cosby so what did they have to gain by lying?

    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 12:27

      “so what did they have to gain by lying?”

      Well, your obscure comment, and a million other attention crumbs and loaves of bread.

      If you can’t at least acknowledge that the accusers might have something to gain in a gamble, even if made up, then you are not a rational actor in this discussion.



    • rob on November 20, 2014 at 13:43

      Who cares if I am a “rational actor in this discussion”?

      The issue at hand is whether Bill Cosby has a long history of being a rapist and the evidence is overwhelmingly against him.

      Anyone who isn’t approaching this with a bone to pick would acknowledge that the odds he is innocent are very slim, due to the number of consistent stories, sworn under oath, which describe his pattern of behavior over a pattern of many years.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 14:05

      “the evidence”

      So, you’re not a rational actor.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 14:06

      “the odds he is innocent are very slim”

      Again, irrational.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 14:13

      “to the number of consistent stories, sworn under oath, which describe his pattern of behavior over a pattern of many years.”

      …And you have yet to address the essential question: are these INDEPENDENT affidavits (I like how you call them “stories,” though), or one affidavit, conformed by more “stories” coming out of the woodwork 35 years later.

      Irrational. I don’t think you can help it, at this point. You’re one of the kinda people who believed the universe revived around the sun to the day you died, because a lot of people said so.

      You have no ability to measure your thinking with the proven fact that human beings are uniformly liars—even when they affirm they’re not lying.

      35 years. 35 years. Rob: 35 fucking years. Stop being stupid. It doesn’t matter what really happened. No way for ANYONE to truly know.

      You don’t KNOW. You are pretending to, which exposes you as a dishonest person.

      I do not know. Neither do you. I’m being honest. You are being dishonest.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 14:20

      …And by the way, Rob, can you dispense with the self-serving “sworn, under penalty of perjury schtick?” It’s 35 fucking years ago.

      I could swear under penalty of perjury that I saw unicorns flying whilst farting rainbows in 1970 and Bill Cosby shot them with a shotgun.

      I’m not a woman, nor a rape cryer, but even still, I doubt I’d be prosecuted for perjury.

      You are being into an illusion of risk, where there is, in fact, zero risk, but lots of attention whore upside.



    • John on November 21, 2014 at 07:56

      Rob,

      My understanding is that there is a lack of evidence to make the “odds” of him being innocent slim. The evidence isn’t “overwhelmingly against him” if the only evidence is old words recollecting events from the past. Where’s the physical evidence or some record of it? Is there something out there that he can’t rebut by simply saying “no I didn’t do that”?



    • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2014 at 08:28

      “Is there something out there that he can’t rebut by simply saying ‘no I didn’t do that?'”

      Spot on, John.

      Amazing the remnants of lynch mob mentality still in daily evidence.



    • Bret on November 21, 2014 at 13:10

      Who cares if I am a “rational actor in this discussion”?

      Everybody but you cares, you fucking idiot.

      God damn it, rob, what are you, 13 years old? (Apologies to any 13-year-olds out there reading this, whose intelligence was understandably insulted just now.)



    • Chuck on November 22, 2014 at 14:32

      Bill Cosby must have drugged you. That’s why you believe you saw him shooting flying rainbow farting unicorns in 1970. LOL



  8. Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 12:17

    …In case anyone thinks I don’t check out the other side:

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/11/rape-sexual-assault-statutes-limitations-laws

    Gist: rape, as a special category of assault (weepy reasons), deserves special treatment, tantamount to murder. No statute of limitations.

  9. Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 12:41

    …Part of my problem with all of this is simply from my experience.

    I had this thing in college. I liked to stimulate girls, ask them to fantasize, and tell me.

    You would not believe how freaky. I’ve heard everything from gang rape to a team of football players masturbating over her naked body.

    I dismiss the notion that women are some class of special human that don’t entertain weird fucking notions of what gets them off. Accordingly, to me, you don’t get to have your cake and eat it too. And, there is a far cry between getting yourself into a fantastical situation that fulfills a fantasy, and getting attacked by a stranger in Central Park at 2 am.

  10. Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 13:34

    …Everyone needs to integrate this thought, too.

    The culture now is that unless all your little fantastical wishes went down in your gamble with putting yourself in a situation that would likely lead to nakedness, then IT COULD HAVE BEEN RAPE.

    Yea, I’m sure all those women had drinks with Bill in order to exchange what children’s books were best.

    That was what they were looking for.

    • John on November 21, 2014 at 08:05

      Well if he was drugging them to have sex with them without their consent, what they were initially looking for wouldn’t justify such action. Maybe he told them beforehand that he wanted to have sex with their unconscious bodies and they consented to being knocked out chemically, but the drugs took their memory of consent?

      Wow, adding the “I was drugged” element to the “I was having drinks with this celebrity” certainly helps avoid the “you mean you were doing all the common pre-sex rituals, with a celebrity, and you are now claiming the eventual sex was rape?” questions!



    • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2014 at 08:32

      Indeed, John.

      For one, there is not nor will their ever be any evidence of drugging. And, was there even “date rape drugs” way back then?

      Isn’t alcohol a “drug?”

      And I submit that if drunken sex constitutes rape, then virtually all men and women are rapists. I’ve woken up places myself where I’d have never found myself otherwise, had I been sober. Was I “raped.”

      And, wouldn’t it be cool if we could all get a pass on anything we do drunk. “THE BARTENDER DID IT! I WAS DRUGGED!”



    • Bret on November 21, 2014 at 13:13

      And I submit that if drunken sex constitutes rape, then virtually all men and women are rapists.

      That’s a great point. I had drunken sex just the other weekend. I had better accuse my wife of rape before she thinks to accuse me.

      Sorry, honey, because I accused you first, you’re the rapist. Be quicker at the draw next time.



  11. sdiguana on November 20, 2014 at 15:54

    This whole thing strikes me as trial by media, which as we all know, being accused means, obviously, you are guilty. Duh.

    Things to gain: Book deals, interviews, spots on reality TV shows, on and on and on. I have personally seen people, who have ruined their own lives in a desperate clawing for fame, and this happened at startling regularity. (such is life in SoCal) These people do things that ‘normal’ people would never believe ever, ever would be done for such a petty thing, but it is, and regularly.

    My personal thought, not that I have anything to back it up… Cosby probably had trysts with one, all, or even more than listed. Money, Sex Power, they all attract each other. I suspect one or more of these women thought they could be his wife, likely in fantasy, but heck maybe the guy insinuated. When it didn’t work out like they thought it should, bitterness resulted.

    We all live in our imaginations, and then when reality slaps us in the face, we feel like we were cheated. Were we? Only by our own minds…

    This case is too old to even broach the idea of if it is real or not… we simply cant know without objective proof. If there was a string of police reports filed with similar complaints from back then that all got tossed out, maybe then I’d believe it slightly more.

    Just a slow day leading to the media stirring up shit… this is why I don’t watch TV or read the MSM. It does to the brain what a lifetime of coke and candy does to the teeth.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 17:59

      “My personal thought, not that I have anything to back it up… Cosby probably had trysts with one, all, or even more than listed. Money, Sex Power, they all attract each other. I suspect one or more of these women thought they could be his wife, likely in fantasy, but heck maybe the guy insinuated. When it didn’t work out like they thought it should, bitterness resulted.”

      This is why I blog. Minds always show themselves.



  12. Steven on November 21, 2014 at 08:22

    A little long but worth it. He uses actual numbers and complies the data in a very simple to understand manner. Still doesn’t mean the goon squad will pay attention.

  13. charles grashow on November 20, 2014 at 17:23

    http://www.vox.com/2014/11/18/7236263/bill-cosby-rape-allegations
    Everything you need to know about the Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations

    http://www.vox.com/2014/11/19/7249041/bill-cosby-rape-sexual-assualt
    Bill Cosby rape allegations: what you need to know

    “in a 2005 Today show interview, a woman named Tamara Green said Cosby had assaulted her in the 1970s. This was after another woman, Andrea Constand, filed a lawsuit in 2004 accusing Cosby of very similar offenses.

    Constand’s lawyers produced 11 more women who claimed Cosby had assaulted them, bringing the total number of accusers to 13. The SUITwas eventually settled, and, as part of that agreement, the plaintiff agreed not to discuss her allegations publicly.

    Taken together, the allegations paint a disturbing — and consistent — PICTURE. The women accuse him of drugging them with a laced drink or pills and then sexually assaulting them. Cosby denies all the allegations.

    Some of the women called as witnesses in Constand’s case have spoken out since, sharing their allegations against Cosby with Philadelphia Magazine, People, the Daily Mail, and the Washington Post. None of them stand to gain anything from coming forward, as the statute of limitations has made it impossible for them to PERSONALLY sue Cosby.”

    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 18:31

      “Taken together”

      Dismissed as a fucktard. And Charles ought understand how little patience I have for him.

      I understand fully that he’s clever.

      But I don’t blog for clever, I blog for honesty and there is not even a hint in Charles’ typical BS that:

      1. ” Together” does not come even close to independent testimony, as even a rookie detective ought to understand as a pro.

      2. It’s 35 years ago.

      3. There is no downside to jumping on the bus.

      Charles is a simpleton collectivist with a penchant for clever, because he always has to be on the social side of any issue that matters. In the world of Charles, reality doesn’t really matter, least not perspective, proportion, nor most of all, a sense of past foreclosure. Especially the latter.

      See, people like Charles love holding others to standards they have never come within a mile of themselves, and most probably, because they never had the opportunity.



  14. VW on November 20, 2014 at 19:38

    Pudding pops sucked, ipso facto the man is possibly guilty. Furthermore, Jerry Sandusky coached football. In conclusion, I don’t know shit about any of this but I do have a personal bias against Cosby.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 19:45

      “but I do have a personal bias against Cosby”

      Then go kill him or lock him up and pay for it yourself.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 19:48

      “ipso facto…possibly”

      Contradiction, ipso facto.



  15. Bret on November 20, 2014 at 20:46

    They cry RAPE! 35+ years later?

    Dismissed.

    Agreed 100%. The media feeding frenzy on this is beyond retarded.

    I am once again losing my faith in humanity to see so many people riled up over this, and speculating on whether he might be guilty. It’s too god damn late, people. There’s no possible way to prove guilt or innocence at this point, so just give up and move on.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2014 at 21:23

      I knew you’d show up, Bret.

      And with very predictable input.



  16. Janet on November 21, 2014 at 05:06

    Let me know how you feel about it, you herd of clueless men, when one of your daughters or wife or sister or mother ( since some of you all obviously are still living in mom’s basement) gets raped or assaulted. Now don’t bother replying to this as I am removing this app Richard. I got what I need for resistant starch. (Where is the book, kiddo?) rest is just ravings. Signed. A woman

    • Stark Brandstone on November 21, 2014 at 06:49

      Cowardice.

      Clearly one of the accusers here.

      Fuck ’em.

      Oh wait…



    • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2014 at 08:13

      “when one of your daughters or wife or sister or mother….raped or assaulted”

      I’m assuming you don’t want to know about it if my son, brother, or father gets raped or assaulted.



    • Bill strahan on November 21, 2014 at 11:39

      Janet, I believe your anger is displaced severely.

      Go back and review the chronology of when these alleged rapes occurred. Now get incredibly, unbelievably incensed at the first WOMAN who alleges she was raped and didn’t report it then.

      If this is false, it’s all the women’s fault. If if the numerous allegations are true, then Cosby is a heinous criminal, but his first victim owes an apology to all the subsequent victims for obvious reasons.

      These women tend to band together, but if I were #2 to 16 I’d be furious with #1.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2014 at 11:44

      When are you flying out to Napa, Bill? Funny, I was just thinking about you and your hot wife this morning (I’m taking your word for it). And, the Cirrus. BTW, ever rape her, and did she ask for it? …The hot wife, not the Cirrus.

      Right now, I’m equidistant, about 30 minutes, from both Calaveras County airport, and Columbia airport. When in Placerville, I’m 5 minutes away from that.



    • Bret on November 21, 2014 at 13:20

      Hey Janet, let me know how you feel about it when your loving father, husband, brother, or son is accused of rape from 35 years ago and a mob of emotional people burns him alive in the town square, even though there is no possible way to evaluate that claim because there is no EVIDENCE.

      Blow it out of your ass, you useless, useless, worthless piece of cunt shit. (Note, I am not calling you a cunt. I am calling you the turd that drops out of a cunt like yours.)



    • Bill Strahan on November 21, 2014 at 13:37

      Once the weather warms up again! This time of year the Cirrus is a transport from Dallas to the Bahamas, and occasionally a NM or CO ski trip.

      The hot wife (thanks for trusting me) is now the hot instrument rated pilot. And while she is physically hot, there’s nothing more attractive than competence! (The opposite is true to the extreme!)

      I’ll let you know before we’re out there.

      Oh, and no I never raped her. I’m pretty old school in my belief that my wife submit to my authority as husband. But I’m enlightened enough to believe that if that’s the primary (or ever more than once a year or so) way I gain compliance then it’s a failure on my part.

      My beliefs in this area are somewhat like the offspring that would result from an unexpected pregnancy if yin, yang, and biblical principals had a threesome.

      Cosby who?



    • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2014 at 13:53

      “And while she is physically hot, there’s nothing more attractive than competence!”

      I seem to have noticed that she got even hotter. 🙂

      Hope to see you spring. I’ll co-pilot a tour of Tahoe. 🙂



  17. Gilnut on November 21, 2014 at 06:59

    Hmmmm. This whole thing stinks…..on both sides.

    Here’s what I’ve been able to figure out. 1. Women came to Bill Cosby because he had money/influence/power. 2. At some point things got sexual/physical. 3. Each of these women received money, “favors”, or some compensation from Bill Cosby. 4. Who raped who? 5. Why do I care?

    People in the entertainment industry step on other people all the time. If the woman comes out on top people say “she slept her way to the top”, if the man comes out on top it’s “rape”. IMHO, play with fire….get burned. Everybody involved likely got what they deserved……karma.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2014 at 08:23

      Decent take, Gilnut.

      It’s for the same reason we ought not give a hoot if mobsters kill each other.



  18. John on November 21, 2014 at 07:31

    I was going to comment yesterday on how awesome this comment thread is. I’m glad to see a post today directing people here – reading round 2 beginning…

  19. Steven on November 21, 2014 at 07:40

    I much prefer the old days of innocent until PROVEN! guilty.

    So much happens and the assumption of guilt is made because the oh so honest media paints such an unbiased picture.

    • John on November 21, 2014 at 08:18

      I wish the media was more transparently full of shit. It would make for better television, and may result in more critical thinking by the people that currently eat up the spoon-fed garbage they’re presented.

      Then again, the media is already pretty transparently full of shit, and their projection that they aren’t just adds to how ridiculous they seem, yet the average person seems to eat that shit up like its the modern version of Moses walking down the hill with the commandments.

      Maybe I’m just happy people eat up bullshit, and have for thousands of years (on record), and are so vocal about it, thus demonstrating “I’m one of the many idiots” quickly and clearly.



  20. Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2014 at 10:29

    OK, Janet “Judgy Bitch” Bloomfield has weighed in.

    http://judgybitch.com/2014/11/21/lets-talk-about-bill-cosby/

    Right on the mark, as usual.

  21. Chuck on November 21, 2014 at 12:10

    I was reading the NYT article about Bill Cosby and one of the comments really stood out to me. It shows how fucked up women’s minds really are. She is not talking about Bill Cosby, but about a personal experience with someone else.

    “I was nearly raped my freshman year of college, but it took me over 2 years to process what exactly had happened to me. 3 years later, part of me is still perversely grateful to the young man who attempted intercourse with me “only” FOUR times after I told him “I don’t want to” and “Please stop” each time. Even if I had realized what that incident was at the time, I would never have had the courage to tell anyone. I still can’t.”

    “Part of me is still perversely grateful to the young man who attempted intercourse with me.” My interpretation — You tried to rape me you bastard but I’m honored you think of me in that way.

    This is what stood out to me the most of all. “Even if I had realized what that incident was at the time.” My interpretation — If only I had known I could have called that rape, even though he apparently didn’t get the job done.

    How many times have you heard of women having consensual sex only to cry rape later because they were looked down upon for doing it or because of who they did it with? Or how about the girl who got 56 small stars tattooed on her face, but when she went home and her dad freaked out she claimed that she only asked for 3 and that she fell asleep while he was tattooing her and he took the liberty of giving her many more. There were also rumors that he drugged her, sound familiar? She tried to sue him in court and the truth came out.

    I can’t say whether or not Cosby did it, but some women seem to have accountability issues and say whatever it takes to make it look like it was not their fault when their judgment makes them look bad.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2014 at 12:17

      Right on Chuck. Another mind steps up to counter the regurgitate eating mob.



  22. G on November 21, 2014 at 14:32

    Not much to add except to note that this is an interesting perspective on this matter.

    I’m curious what your opinion is (if any) of the Jimmy Savile case, which is at least nominally analogous (big difference: in Savile’s case, there’s evidence of a systematic cover-up by the BBC). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile

  23. SusieCruising on November 21, 2014 at 15:05

    I was raped several years ago and did nothing about it. I knew how the courts here deal with victims of sexual assault.
    However, if a woman he raped after me, came forward, I think I would step forward to support her, even all these years later.
    Funny how illogical those thoughts can be.
    I guess it looks differently when you have personal experience with these situations (yes, I’ve been sexually assaulted more than once …you all do know that most go unreported. I’d bet that your sisters, your female friends, your wives or maybe your mother have been assaulted, but most keep quiet, out of shame or other feelings.)
    I suppose my brothers or male friends or boyfriend could be assaulted, but the statistics are against that. What they more often tell are stories of being propositioned as children by scout leaders, church leaders, etc. you know – male on male sexual assault.

    • Bret on November 21, 2014 at 15:38

      When somebody is accused of theft, he is guilty until proven innocent. Statistics say he is probably guilty, so our normally opposite system does not apply.

      Once I had property stolen from me. I didn’t do anything about it, because I didn’t think I would get a conviction. Therefore, proclivity toward premature judgment of the accused is justified.

      I’ll continue in this mindset, until I or someone I care about is accused of this crime.



    • Bret on November 21, 2014 at 15:45

      Susie, I want to clarify that I am not trying to straw man you. I am just presenting the other side of the story.

      Our culture is way too quick to judge people for rape. Statistics don’t account for a lack of evidence.

      And you need evidence to prove guilt. Otherwise, we are going down a dangerous, tragic road, where emotions trump due process.

      Just saying.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2014 at 15:46

      Susie

      I don’t want to make an argument over your comment.

      I do want to let you know that virtually every human being on earth has been forcefully dominated by another. There are levels, of course. For my money, I’d rather be raped by a woman than a man. I suppose I have been, since I’ve woken up in the beds of women I’d not have been sober.

      Have you considered that assault and rape (a special category of assault) goes even more unreported against men than women? Can you honestly think why?

      I’ve been assaulted by women perhaps about a dozen times. Punched, kicked, few bloody noses, etc.

      I have never laid a hand on a woman, though I’ve used the c-word a few times which, I’ve come to understand is far worse. Hurts their feelings bad.



    • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2014 at 15:58

      Bret

      Nobody cares about theft in America anymore.

      Hell, in this country, people line up to vote for who’s going to rule them and steal from them next. Then, they put a sticker on their lapels to advertise it.



  24. SusieCruising on November 21, 2014 at 16:08

    My guess is that men might even be more hesitant to report an assault because of the cultural bias that men are supposed to be the physically and emotionally stronger sex. It’s been my experience that you can call a man just about anything – wrong, mean, crazy, illogical – but when you call him weak….you kill him. I’ve seen that over and over again – Whenever the thought crosses my mind that I think a man is being weak, I just say nothing.

    One of the “problems” of sexual assault is that we, as a culture, seem to believe it happens when a woman is walking on a lonely road at night or when a kid is on a playground by himself/herself – and no doubt it does, but more often, it happens in the perpetrators or victim’s home, maybe after a party in which people were laughing or dancing or during an offer of a ride home from someone you know. As we’ve seen in the news, it happens a lot in church offices. These do not look like real crimes to us – but to the victim, they are every bit as horrifying as the rape that happens along side a lonely road at night.
    I’m sure you’ve considered the reasons why the c-word is so powerful. I have my own theories about that.

    • Bret on November 21, 2014 at 16:26

      I am a bit curious here, Susie. You stop short of telling weak men they are weak. You stop short of seeking due vengeance on a man who wronged you big time (I remember the explanation you gave for why — it was nothing more than a rationalization of your hesitance).

      Why all this hesitance?

      Do you not think you would feel more empowered, less conflicted and ambivalent, and overall better if you stopped holding back?

      Who is benefitting from this lack of decisiveness?



    • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2014 at 17:07

      Susie

      The world is push pull, pull push and women are as essential to men as men are to women.

      America is the land of the hipster metrosexual, weak little unsderstanding little pussyboy who eats regurgitate for breakfast.

      You are doing neither yourself nor anyone else any good by protecting them from their poor little feelings.

      In my experience, women only call men weak when it’s probably true. General statement, because there are cunts….



  25. SusieCruising on November 21, 2014 at 17:16

    Bret,

    My reaction to the trauma left me unable to think clearly and calmly for some time. I had to put it behind me to survive – to keep reliving it would have made things worse and I was focused on recovery at that time.
    As far as stopping short of telling a man he is acting weak – I think it just goes a bit too far. There are more effective ways to resolve whatever the issue is at that time.
    As far as empowerment, I’ve never waited for it. I’ve always done whatever I needed to do in life to reach my goals. Admittedly, it has involved a performing a lot of end runs. lol

  26. SusieCruising on November 21, 2014 at 17:27

    Pussyboy metrosexuals? yeah, would be fun to see that reaction.

    I’ve tended to follow Churchill’s advice – tell them to go to hell in a way that makes them look forward to the trip.

    I’ve gotten a lot out of that tactic lol.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2014 at 18:12

      Susie

      You’re good people, no matter what Richard or Bret say about you. 🙂



  27. Natasha on November 21, 2014 at 21:50

    Even though there is no telling if Cosby really did it or not (forfuxsake, I was not even alive way back then), I have a hard time believing the accusation for one simple reason. And it is that people who espouse a certain collectivist philosophy have cried “rape” so much, and redefined the term to mean anything they want, it has no meaning any more. It does no favours to actual victims of actual sexual violence. “Rape”, according to grievance-mongers, can be anything from forcibly penetrating an unsuspecting victim in some dark alley to a man adjusting his belt in front of stupid twits looking for a grievance to whine about. That little tale of a “boy who cried ‘wolf'” is being played out. But now, it’s a “girl who cried ‘rape'”. So, pardon me for being skeptical about this.

  28. Energy! on November 22, 2014 at 09:45

    Personally, I’m glad that since the criminal justice system has many flaws there are other means to bring a criminal to some degree of justice. We all are the jury and each one of us gets to evaluate the unfolding events. Not a perfect method, admittedly.

    Sure, you can just say all the women are liars, missed their chance to report the crime, brought it on themselves, pretend that self-administered alcohol is the same as someone else drugging you, concoct a conspiracy theory that women want to entrap innocent men/boys, etc. but so far the lame excuses and hysterical denunciations don’t sound nearly as plausible as what the women have reported. However, it’s impossible to prove a negative (his innocence), so I’m willing to keep an open mind.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 22, 2014 at 10:12

      Got it.

      Shorter version: lynch mobs are really cool, man.



    • Steven on November 22, 2014 at 10:18

      Democracy hard at work?

      A bunch of people say it is so sans any evidence other than their word…

      Energy! the issue is not all women are liars the issue where is the proof? Innocent until proven otherwise.



    • Bret on November 22, 2014 at 16:13

      We all are the jury and each one of us gets to evaluate the unfolding events.

      More pertinently, the plaintiff has the ability to exact revenge if the courts fail him/her. A rape victim could revisit her assailant and extinguish him. Or she could go Lorena Bobbitt on him. Nowadays, she could post to YouTube, and so on. The possibilities are nearly endless.

      Blaming the imperfect court system is a pussy cop-out, even if an understandable one. Government is slow-witted and incompetent, and this is no surprise, even in dramatic affairs. Point is, if you fail to report a crime in a timely manner — like, you know, before analysis and documentation of evidence becomes impossible — then you own that decision. You can bitter over your situation, but you certainly are not entitled to a green light of prejudice on all future accusations of the same act.

      Otherwise, let’s just throw all the courts out. Any time somebody is accused of any crime, we will regard him as guilty, period.

      That’s basically what a lot of these emotional folks are suggesting we do on the subject of rape. If anyone dares suggest that we not crucify a man who is merely accused, passions fly, and we are treated to outbursts of, “Do you KNOW what it’s like to be raped???”

      Completely illogical and stupid.

      However, it’s impossible to prove a negative (his innocence), so I’m willing to keep an open mind.

      That’s all I ask. Hearsay is one thing. Evidence is another. You cannot substitute the former for the latter, or you might as well save your breath and simply wipe your diarrhea-smeared asshole with the constitution.

      “Likely” is not good enough. If there is no evidence, then from the perspective of everybody else (who was not there to witness any alleged time together), there is no guilt.



  29. SusieCruising on November 22, 2014 at 10:38

    Yes, without evidence, nothing happens – as it should be.
    It’s an imperfectly perfect system.

  30. Robyn+Brookstone on November 22, 2014 at 16:44

    An abuser defending an abuser. Now he is a pedophile too. He abused many child actors, both boys and girls. I do not think Kirk Cameron would lie about it. That explains his fervent religious beliefs in part. What cha got to say about that now Richie?

  31. SusieCruising on November 22, 2014 at 18:28

    Haven’t we been here before – thinking of the Jerry Sandusky/Penn State media circus and on a broader scale, with respect to the Catholic church sex scandals.

    Does anyone believe the accusers in those scandals were more credible, given that those allegations also occurred over a period of many years?.

    As they say in school: compare and contrast.

  32. Robyn+Brookstone on November 23, 2014 at 15:20

    I am sure oh Richie thinks cat calling is ok too. Look out how violent it can get.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 24, 2014 at 07:24

      Classic cause/effect reversal. Cat calling doesn’t cause anything. Abusive men are simply far more prone to engage in the activity than normal men.

      …Although, I fully understand that in your solipsism, there’s no such thing as normal men.



  33. Robyn+Brookstone on November 23, 2014 at 09:19

    Yeah, many victims do not tell because people will not believe them. It can take years after the abuse for people to be ready to speak out.
    I was wrong about Kirk Cameron, that was a made up story, a hoax. I am not a fan of his at all btw.
    A lot of people are emotional abusers. The abuse can be subtle and hard to pinpoint, but undermines others non-the less. Might that be you Richie? Some of your abuse is overt, but I have a feeling in your personal life, it is more covert.

    • Bret on November 23, 2014 at 13:10

      It occurs to me that perhaps what is needed to curb sexual assault is for young women to be taught to be assertive and self-confident. Reading these accounts, there is a lot of emphasis on belittling, intimidation, hesitance to speak out. That sounds like a developmental/maturity issue.

      Rather than teaching young women that allegations and feminist solidarity can justifiably take the place of evidence and allowing well meaning but illogically minded psychologists to inspire us to forget why evidence is needed to imply guilt in any case of alleged wrongdoing, perhaps we should reinforce the need young women to say no very clearly, assertively, and unambiguously, and to report any breech of the law with a clear conscience and no hesitation.

      Three decades is an example of unacceptable hesitation. If Cosby was proven to be guilty, I would denounce him as the rat diarrhea that he would be. But it is possible he is not guilty, and since that guilt cannot be proven, it is remiss of any of us to make judgments. If you don’t bring evidence, you can’t expect a conviction. No amount of excuses or collectivist psychotherapy can change that.



    • Chuck on November 24, 2014 at 08:56

      I think women need to be more direct and clear about what they want. As we all know, women are notorious for saying the opposite of what they mean and dropping little hints. Men are expected to read between the lines and take the lead. Things can be misinterpreted very easily. Stop being so indirect about everything and just say what the fuck you want and mean. I guess if you are direct and clear about your intentions you can’t play the blame game if things don’t go how you wanted them to, right? No means no, except when it doesn’t. How many fights in a relationship could be avoided if women just said what they want and mean?



  34. SusieCruising on November 23, 2014 at 13:45

    It occurs to me that perhaps what is needed to curb sexual assault is for young women and *young men* to be taught to be assertive and self-confident…since it would appear that an abject failure on their part is the only turning them into victims. LOL

    Actually, I had to laugh at the prior assertion…as pointed out up the thread, it’s more likely that a greater number of male victims of sexual assault have failed to come forward, than female victims.

    • Bret on November 23, 2014 at 15:51

      Okay, SusieC. Given the sheer statistics — which a lot of the ‘hang Cosby’ activists love to invoke — I hope you will pardon my abbreviation of the discussion by framing the victim as a female and the assailant a male.

      Yes, males can be assaulted, too.

      I would be curious to see how many of the militant ladies in this comment section (not saying you are one, Susie) would be equally militant if a similar accusation were to occur, with genders reversed.

      I suspect there would be measurably less outrage.



    • Steven on November 23, 2014 at 16:07

      Interesting fact: 70% of all physical altercations in which only one person did the hitting the assailant was a woman. The means the overwhelming majority of abuse is in fact caused by a woman.

      Another factoid for you… More men are abused than women and a large percentage. It is not only under reported it is also swept under the carpet when it is…



    • Richard Nikoley on November 24, 2014 at 07:31

      “I suspect there would be measurably less outrage.”

      There was a YT video some months back where a couple role played out in public. In the first scenario, they had an argument and the guy starts manhandling her (interesting term, that). We’re not talking black eyes, rather grabbing her by the arm, pushing her around a bit. Tons of people, men and women, come to her defense.

      In the second scenario, she starts beating on him. The crowd of onlookers points and laughs.



  35. Robyn+Brookstone on November 23, 2014 at 15:16

    His rep is ruined and that is justice right there. Although it is rather scary how many people still attended his last event and gave him a standing ovation. I really am very afraid of the average American mindset. All the drugs are making people sick in more than one way.

    • Steven on November 23, 2014 at 15:34

      We are supposed to be a nation of equals that are guilty of nothing until proven otherwise…

      Prove to me he did anything. If you can provide me actual proof I will gladly toss you $10,000… And to sweeten the pot I will even wear a Robyn is right shirt…

      But alas you can not provide anything other than hearsay. All you have is feel good vindication. All Hallmark warm and fuzzy inside. You are part of the problem with any and all societies that actually pay heed to the least common denominator. You are the champion of the ignorant. Millions of people are also flat earthers; should we listen to them because they say so?



    • Bret on November 23, 2014 at 15:57

      Millions of people are also flat earthers; should we listen to them because they say so?

      Majority rules, except where I decide it does not.

      Everybody needs to pay higher taxes, except me.

      Every industry needs tighter regulation, except the one I work in.

      You’re a hypocrite, Robyn. Now go clean a shower drain with your teeth.



    • Steven on November 23, 2014 at 16:11

      It really is unfortunate that the word society means nothing more than a paddock for humans. And I use the word human loosely. That wonderful paddock is fertile with ignorance.



  36. CharlesQ on November 23, 2014 at 19:29

    Men get raped more than women when you include prison data.

  37. Jeff Johnson on November 23, 2014 at 22:27

    Don’t care – I have some concern for what I do with my own penis –

    other people – not so much

  38. Lauren on November 24, 2014 at 06:53

    Not sure how this is different from catholic priests raping little boys and no public outcry until decades later. Were the men who accused the priests decades later all liars? I know at least two women who were raped in their teens and said nothing. Thirty years later, if their assailant were making millions and being lauded everywhere I think they might be ready to speak up. Not

  39. Richard Nikoley on November 24, 2014 at 07:59

    “Not sure how this is different from catholic priests raping little boys and no public outcry until decades later.”

    You mean other than the fact that on the one hand, we’re talking about adult women who were admittedly trying to catch a ride on the gravy train vs., on the other, altar boys to the literal representative of doG in heaven?

    Up above in comments I already say how it’s different with kids in a dependent state.

    Beyond all of that, thousands of these abuse reports worldwide were reports given independently over decades (rather than 1 anecdote + 12 me too’s), along with a well documented and even admission from the Vatican that there was systemic coverup to keep the problems in-house.

    Still not sure how this is different?

  40. Jack on November 24, 2014 at 08:13

    It could be true. It could be false. We’re you wearing a pointy hat and holding a crystal ball when you pulled your own presumptions out of your ass. There are lots of reasons victims might not come forward until later and apparently some tried and face a lot of shit and threats over it. Yeah, they could be lying but if you think you know one way or the other based on your own emotional presumtions and confirmation bias, you really have no leg to stand on. This applies to you to Richard.

    ps Congrats on the successful link-baiting shenannigans. Too bad you had to exploit such a terribly thing to do it. Always thought you were better than the wonks at CNN. I guess I know better now.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 24, 2014 at 09:54

      “It could be true. It could be false.”

      True. And you could have had monkeys fly out your butt 35 years ago. It could be true. It could be false. But until proven that they DID (can’t prove they didn’t), I shall not concern myself with such an allegation (“I saw monkeys fly right out of his butt. I remember it like it was yesterday, back then, early November, 1984, 30 years ago. We’d just had drinks, were a little drunk, and I swear it!”)

      “We’re you wearing a pointy hat and holding a crystal ball when you pulled your own presumptions out of your ass.”

      Actually, I was exercising a legal and LOGICAL presumption known as a “PRESUMPTION of innocence” (until proven guilty). Don’t suppose you’ve ever heard of it?

      Seems to me that you’re exercising a presumption of guilt (until proven innocent—a logical impossibility). Nothing new, of course. You’re free then, to appeal to historical precedent.

      “There are lots of reasons victims might not come forward until later and apparently some tried and face a lot of shit and threats over it.”

      Facing threats from accusing others of crimes is a fact of life, irrespective of whether the allegations are true or false. What that means in the logic of jurisPRUDENCE is that if you don’t make the allegation, then there’s no investigation, prosecution, or conviction.

      This falls under the principle of LIFE and that you don’t get to have your cake and eat it too. Go ahead and wait 35 years, or until you feel YOU have something to gain from making the allegation if you like, but if you do, it should be regarded accordingly which, in absence of evidence, is generally going to mean “dismissed,” just like I wrote in the original post.

      “Yeah, they could be lying but if you think you know one way or the other…”

      I don’t, and I’ve made that clear. This is the whole point. Nobody knows except Cosby and the accusers, and nobody else will ever know. Actual evidence is impossible, it’s a he said, she said, and more more allegations of the exact same nature don’t change that basic fact. Reality does not conform to opinions.

      What if 1,000 women “came forward?” I’ll tell you what would happen. The whole “case” would collapse because then, it would penetrate the walnut “brains” of people like you. They would suddenly realize that hey, it’s way more unlikely that so many of these could be true. How could one man get away with 1,000 rapes? In fact, it’s very unlikely that one such prominent man could get away with 15, or whatever the number is, now, with NOBODY knowing, except the alleged victims themselves.

      “ps Congrats on the successful link-baiting shenannigans. Too bad you had to exploit such a terribly thing to do it. Always thought you were better than the wonks at CNN. I guess I know better now.”

      Oh cry me a river, little pussy. This is a blog, Einstein. And the reason I pull these shenanigans is to penetrate through the thick shell of fucktarded walnut “brains” like yours, one walnut “brain” at a time. The fact that you don’t get any kind of challenges contra conventional “wisdom” on CNN et al, is exactly why I do this.

      Now go fuck off.



  41. Energy! on November 24, 2014 at 09:04

    So, hypothetically, if an uberfamous, powerful person (or an obscure nobody) drugged and sexually assaulted a series of human adults over a number of years and got away with it for a long time, your (collective) solution is for the victims to continue to shut up about it?

    Free speech, anyone?

    And, I do not equate discussion of these mounting allegations with “a lynch mob.” My grandfather saw the hideous aftermath of an actual lynching while driving one day in the southern USA in the 20s. How about not trivializing the term?

    • Chuck on November 24, 2014 at 09:29

      Lynching does not always involve death. From Wikipedia — It is an extreme form of informal group social control such as charivari, skimmington, riding the rail, and tarring and feathering, but with a drift toward the public spectacle.[



    • Richard Nikoley on November 24, 2014 at 09:32

      “your (collective) solution is for the victims to continue to shut up about it?”

      No, silly boy. My solution is for human beings who are supposedly in possession of actual human minds, to exercise them and use discernment when anecdotes come to them.

      So, hypothetically, if an uberfamous, powerful person (or an obscure nobody) didn’t drug or sexually assault a series of human adults over a number of years, but was accused of doing so 35 years later with no evidence to support such allegations, your (collective) solution is for me an everyone else to shut up about it and just let public “opinion” met out “justice?”



    • John on November 24, 2014 at 12:27

      Someone on the internet is offended. Better amend your post to remove “lynch mob” and apologize.

      Please don’t replace it with “witch hunt” because my grandfathers’ mother told him how her grandmother’s sister was accused of being a witch and how horrible it was. Seriously, have some perspective on how your words can affect ME.



  42. Richard Nikoley on November 24, 2014 at 17:16

    …So here’s something that typifies the sort of fucktardation that plagues Jim, Energy! and hundreds of millions in America like them, and which is promoted on a daily basis by local and cable “news.”

    Overhead this on the SoCal local news just now while in the kitchen.

    Apparently, some guy is accused of stabbing and pretty horrifically mutilating his estranged girlfriend. The trial is just about to begin, defendant interrupt the judge to change his plea to guilty.

    Family and friends of the victim are incensed. He should be forced to endure a TRIAL!

    Do you understand the implications of that level of fucktarded stupidity?

    America isn’t worth a runny shit, anymore. Land of the TEEVEE regurgitating morons.

    Idiocracy in action. Like Jake and Energy!

    • Steven on November 24, 2014 at 17:27

      Jake and Energy! are what I call public school standouts. Or group think over achievers.

      Either way they are not capable of thought great than the group. Individual thinking is bad.



  43. Kelly J. on November 26, 2014 at 09:47

    30 years ago …. in a town in the middle of the south, a 19 year old girl LONGED to be the girlfriend of the pastor’s son. The church was a ‘mega church’ (at the time and still). The 19 year old girl helped the son run the ‘bookstore’. (the amount of money being made there is incredible, but that is an aside) Sex before marriage (even kissing) is a no-no… (going to burn in hell kind of no-no). One night, after closing the bookstore, pastor’s son decides to have sex with the 19 year old girl. She declines. He insists – violently. A ‘sub-pastor’ (yes that exists) overhears and stops the scene. Sub-pastor talks the girl into ‘talking’ with the mega-pastor. (because this wasn’t the first time) 19 year old girl trusts church and mega-pastor to do the right thing. 19 year old girl confides in one of the other helpers in the bookstore (who is dependent on the income). Both sub-pastor and bookstore helper are fired. End of story.
    19 year old moves out of the town. (and leaves the fucking church behind) Then moves out of state. Then moves out of the country and gets on with life and puts it in the past.
    Some years go by – and 29 year old woman tells her husband the story. (more as a ‘look at those weirdo church people in the southern US’ kind of story) Husband insists she tell someone. Anyone. So that the story doesn’t repeat itself. She declines. Who would believe that story anyway? (and husband is not from the south so he wouldn’t ‘get’ the whole church culture thing anyway)

    30 years later. Back in the same town. Church is 20,000 members or more. Now, so many stories of rape have come up that pastor’s son must resign.

    How many of those rapes are the 19 year old’s fault?

    • Richard Nikoley on November 26, 2014 at 10:34

      Kelly J

      Pick up the book Fundamental Seduction. It’s about Jack Hyles, pastor of a mega church in Hamond, Indiana. He was minimally a philanderer and his son David, a rapist and otherwise predator.

      I would not say any of those rapes or assaults were the girl’s fault. And in fact, she did tell someone. Same cover up stuff as in the Catholic Church. In fact, I would hold those she told and did nothing as criminally liable, especially if such happenings were known or suspected. I would say it’s unfortunate that the girl, at 19, didn’t say “fuck all you fucking fucks,” and march over to a police, make sure it’s not a born again Fucktard, and file a criminal complaint with a middle finger raised high towards pulpit and heaven.



  44. Sweetie on November 27, 2014 at 01:43

    To Address all Fucktards (Rob) and The Gentlemen

    Many of these women, have talked about being given a “RED” pill? The pill made them sleepy and groggy. Drinking beer can make you sleepy and groggy. Hell, half of the medications out there, both over the counter and by prescription causes grogginess. Maybe Cosby fed them “Turkey”, afterall Melatonin is found in turkey and we all know that melatonin is a sleep aid. LOL

    The last I heard regarding the little “red” pill, they were not even around during that time period. I have not heard the name of what they think the little pills are, but if that is the case, then the claims should be considered false accusations.

    My point being, that if they were groggy, how do they know what went on? Apparently they were not feeling the pain that would have resulted from actual physical rape, or they would have been at the doctor. Trust me, spoken as a medical professional and a victim.

    I smell scam…at least by the remaining 15. The original lady maybe telling the truth. How can these women all remember each move as it happened 35+ years later?

    It is possible, however, that they were so traumatized to the point that they managed to put it so far back into their minds that the cobwebs started to grow, and they decided to clean out their memory bank.

  45. MissMcGillicuddy on July 6, 2015 at 19:54

    You mean he’s claiming to have drugged women for sex and he really didn’t? Because that would be a ballsy move for a famous public figure. Maybe I’m naive, but I tend to take people’s rape admissions at face value.

  46. Kathy Darrow on July 9, 2015 at 00:43

    Cosby stated (admitted means something else) that he got drugs to have sex with women. When did he get them? In the ’70s/early ’80s. There was a lot of partying going on back then and quaaludes weren’t unusual. He said he gave the Plaintiff Benadryl. Little red pills back then were probably Actifed, a decongestant that also caused drosiness. Many women have made claims, but none went to the police when the alleged crimes took place. Some women continued to have relations with him. The one case from 10 years ago was a civil case. She didn’t report anything until a year had passed, so again, no evidence. As the plaintiff, she had the burden to prove her case. His lawyer’s job is to ensure his client answers no questions to help the opposition. If her attorney had phrased the questions properly, he would have been directed to answer them. Objecting to deposition questions does not mean one’s client is guilty.

    And as unpopular it is to “blame the victim,” why were they alone with him? In his hotel room? Gonna play checkers? Had any of them taken drugs/had sex with other men, before their encounters with him or after? And no, I’m not saying that their lifestyle or prior number of sexual partners makes it ok to be raped. But how do prosecutors determine if it was consensual sex or rape? Nowhere in the deposition does he admit to “drugging” women. And if they took drugs willingly, with sex to follow, how do we know they remember the situation afterward accurately? Did he cheat on his wife? Probably. That is sleazy but it isn’t a crime. People are innocent until proven guilty.

Leave a Comment





Pinterest118k
YouTube798
YouTube
Follow by Email8k
RSS780