Categories
allegedly false accusations men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny rape rape culture sexual assault sexual exploitation victim blaming

Hey, Cosby defenders: Look these women in the face and tell me they’re lying. All of them.

Click image to see a larger version.
Click image to see a larger version.

Anyone who, at this late date, is still defending Bill Cosby needs to take a long hard look at the portraits of 35 of Cosby’s 46 accusers in the latest issue of New York magazine.

Look these women in the face, and tell me they’re lying. Read their accounts, and tell me they’re lying. Watch the videos in which six of these women tell their stories to the cameras, and tell me they’re lying. Each and every one of them.

 

This is Lili Bernard. Is she lying?

cosbyLiliBernard

Go watch her video and tell me that.

This is Victoria Valentino. Is she lying?

Cosby

Go watch her video and tell me that.

This is Louisa Moritz. Is she lying?

cosbyLouise

Go watch her video and tell me that.

I believe all of these women. Their stories are all too believable, and all chillingly similar. Not identical, as if they’re reading off a script, but similar, in that they all describe a practiced predator with a standard MO.

But, Cosby defenders, you don’t have to believe all of them. If only one of them is telling the truth, Cosby is a lying, sleazy, predatory rapist.

Can you honestly tell me you think each and every one of these women are lying?

Please read the newly revised COMMENTS POLICY before commenting. Rape apologists will be banned. If you feel compelled to tell me you think all these women are lying, send me an email.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

120 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mildlymagnificent
mildlymagnificent
5 years ago

Thank you for reporting on this, even though it’s not strictly speaking directly involved in online misogyny.

Dismissal and criticism and accusations against the women involved are very much online.

And those things are all based on misogyny.

alaisvex
alaisvex
5 years ago

@Ikeke35,

Thanks for explaining better, and sorry for jumping to conclusions as well.

alaisvex
alaisvex
5 years ago

The other reasons I’ve heard are:

1. “They just want more drugs!”
2. “They had consensual sex with him, and are now regretting it!”
3. And the usual drops of victim blaming that are evident in every rape case.

Number 2 might be the stupidest one that I’ve heard. Why would you call attention to sex that you regret and don’t want anyone to know about by accusing someone of rape? That will only make people focus more on the sex.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Speaking of famous men who are rapists, Donald Trump apparently raped his ex wife Ivana.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/27/ex-wife-donald-trump-made-feel-violated-during-sex.html

This is how Trump’s lawyer responded to this when the Daily Beast asked about it.

Michael Cohen, special counsel at The Trump Organization, defended his boss, saying, “You’re talking about the front-runner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as private individual who never raped anybody. And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse.”

“It is true,” Cohen added. “You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.”

I can’t even.
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j316/liz_marcs/Reaction%20Gifs/X8Ufi_zps62cda975.gif

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

@WWTH

ARE. YOU. FUCKING. KIDDING ME.

OH. MY. FUCKING. GOD.

It should be legal to punch people in the face after they’ve publicly said something so stupid.

alaisvex
alaisvex
5 years ago

@WWTH,

What the fuck? That was their initial tactic? To claim that it wasn’t legally rape because they were married? I can’t…I can’t even.

Snuffy
Snuffy
5 years ago

“It is true,” Cohen added. “You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.”

Case law from before the United States made marital rape illegal doesn’t count, dude. Do you even lawyer bro?

Snuffy
Snuffy
5 years ago

No, mammoth no! The last sentence is my words.

banned@4chan.org
banned@4chan.org
5 years ago

“Bill Cosby is going after his accusers–this time with lawyers instead of Quaaludes!”
“You know the shit you did is bad when ‘I’m a drug pusher’ is your defense!”
Larry Wilmore is doing God’s work.

LightNS
LightNS
5 years ago

The fuck? It’s been settled law that you most certainly can rape your spouse for…a long time now. Spousal rape has been recognized in every state.

What disturbs me immensely is how this stuff about Cosby has been out there for a long time, but wasn’t taken remotely seriously. I wonder why so many women would feel a bit reluctant to come forward with that environment…

gosuamakenatek
gosuamakenatek
5 years ago

I’d like to hear Cosby defenders explain to me why this “conspiracy” isn’t happening to any other famous men? Or why it really hasn’t ever happened before? I mean essentially the only people still dumb enough to defend him are ignorant misogynists who assume that all these women are in on some conspiracy together to get his money or ruin his reputation for some reason, because all women are evil liars, so I would LOOOOVE to hear them explain to me, why him? Why just him? Why not anyone else ever? I mean I can name dozens of rich and famous men who people would believe are rapists much easier, men who have more money, men who are still in the prime of their careers, why was only Cosby targeted for this completely false conspiracy and nobody else? Also, if they were all totally lying about all of this, why wouldn’t some of them say he did it more recently, before the statute of limitations was up? Because if you’re gonna falsely accuse someone of rape, wouldn’t it make more sense to pin it on a date where they could still be charged for it?
By the way, isn’t it just lovely that there’s a statute of limitations on rape? Because there’s totally a statute of limitations on a rape victim’s trauma, they just completely forget about it after a specific amount of time, that’s how it works. Cosby raped about 50 women or so and will spend less time in prison for it than anyone who has ever been caught with a small amount of drugs for personal use. Great job legal system, you really got your priorities straight.

Wetherby
Wetherby
5 years ago

We don’t have a statue of limitations in England.

For some minor offences like traffic violations the authorities have to issue a Notice of Intended Prosecution within 6 months, but for everything else there’s no limit. We’ve prosecuted people for offences committed during WW2.

Although successful prosecutions for historic crimes have to be sentenced according to guidelines in place at the time they were committed – which is why a celebrity convicted for sexual assault that took place in the 1970s can only get the maximum sentence that he would have got back then, which is usually a fair bit milder than he’d get now. Judges have expressed regret at the time of sentencing that their hands were tied by this.

That said, this policy isn’t completely consistent, otherwise someone who committed murder in the 1950s and was only convicted for it in 2015 would be given a mandatory death sentence.

Wetherby
Wetherby
5 years ago

“It is true,” Cohen added. “You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.”

It’s not true. The alleged rape took place in New York City after 1984, which is when marital rape was criminalised there. You’d have thought that a lawyer would either know that already or would have bothered to check prior to sounding off in public, but Mr Cohen’s language elsewhere doesn’t suggest a man overly drawn to the notion of thinking before sounding off.

Wetherby
Wetherby
5 years ago

The fact that they had no prior contact with each other, yet so many of them describe a remarkably consistent modus operandi, makes me believe them even more than I already do as a matter of course when a woman says she has been raped.

In the UK, this has helped convict rapists even in cases where there’s no physical evidence. The former gameshow host Stuart Hall was found guilty as a result of multiple testimonies from women of varying ages (he had a long career as a sexual predator), from all parts of the country, none of whom knew each other, and all of whom described a virtually identical modus operandi – and did so entirely independently of each other and in conditions of extreme secrecy prior to the trial. (The police normally leak to the tabloids on a regular basis, but not in this case, as it would clearly have undermined the prosecution if they had.)

If anyone’s interested, here’s a PDF of the judge’s complete sentencing statement in the Stuart Hall case, during which he brings up the topic that I mentioned above whereby he’s forced to give milder sentences than would be the case today.

Queez51
Queez51
5 years ago

Red Pill “philosophy” is that they all actually enjoyed it, that they are lying to gain attention and possibly money because that is the “real nature of women”.

Abandone all decency, ye who enter here.

Moggie
Moggie
5 years ago

Reading Trump’s lawyers threats, I was struck by the thought:
If someone made a movie about a mob boss running for president, and used dialogue like Trump’s and his lawyer’s, people would dismiss it as too on the nose.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ Moggie

There’s some general advice defamation lawyers give when you’re writing a story based on real people that you should always make a point that the protagonist has a tiny dick and is crap in bed.

The theory is that that stops people saying “Hey, that character is clearly meant to be me”.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ weatherby et al

Prosecuting old offenses does bring up a few issues as you point out.

Generally the courts apply the *law* as it was at the time of the offence but the *evidential rules* as they are at the time of trial.

So if you’re prosecuting an old murder the victim would have to die within a year and a day of the assault (which was the old law) but the defendant could raise diminished responsibility” (which is a recentish defence).

You have to impose the sentence as it was at the time, *if that sentence is available today*, so you can’t sentence someone to death or borstal training for instance.

As we’ve said there’s no statute of limitations. You can apply for a case to be dismissed before the trial on the grounds that the passage of time makes running a fair defence impossible. Generally though courts will allow the case to go forward but the jury get a special direction as to the difficulty in defending in such cases and they are told to take that into account when considering people’s recollections etc.

There are similar provisions in relation to old civil claims. Normally there are time limits on civil claims but there are ways around this, especially in historic sexual abuse cases when the victims were minors at the time.

maghavan
maghavan
5 years ago

Though the conspiracy theory is so absurd in the light of so many accusers.

JET FUEL DOESN’T MELT QUALUDES!!!!

JET FUEL DOESN’T MELT QUALUDES!!!!!

JET FUEL DOESN’T MELT QUALUDES11111

idledillettante
5 years ago

Even if one assumes 10% (and that’s generous) of rape claims are false, it would still mean Cosby raped/assaulted 41 of the 46 women accusing him.

Sadly most of the women profiled by New York Magazine were assaulted many years ago, and because of the statute of limitations their only legal recourse is to join the handful of women who can peruse litigation against Cosby as “supporting witnesses”. I’ve read Gloria Allred is representing these women in court.

It’s a shame. I think each and every one of Cosby’s victims is entitled to a day in court, whether they were raped or just assaulted, whether they were minors or age of majority, and whether it happened in the 1970s or in the 2000s.

idledillettante
5 years ago

http://youtu.be/e3XhiEPtc5Q

Latest on the Allred’s case against Cosby. It sucks that it’s only a civil lawsuit, and not a criminal matter.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

This is sort of relevant, and as we’ve been discussing legal things this is as good a place to put it. This is the Crown Prosecutions Service’s report on ‘Violence against Women and Girls’.

It’s got some criticism about the title as it also covers violence against Men and Boys, but that’s the CPS for you. Anyway, an interesting read if you like legal stuff:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/cps_vawg_report_2015.pdf

Tilikum
5 years ago

High status males get away with this shit constantly. It usually rears its ugly head for them once women realize that it’s not a secret between her and Mr. Famous, but she was part of a pattern.

All the rationalizations disappear once you realize you were tricked, made a fool of, and who likes to feel like a fool?

Then the dam breaks right over dudes head.

lkeke35
5 years ago

One of my biggest questions is how is this affecting Bill Cosby’s wife? This has got to be incredibly difficult for her and I hope she has a great support system.

The loss of their son and now to find out these things about her husband. He talked of her so often during his routines, that you often felt like you knew her almost as well as you thought you knew him.My heart just aches for her.

Anarchonist
Anarchonist
5 years ago

@Tilikum

Ignoring for a moment that you walked in here spouting Manuresphere terminology (come on, dude, no one besides redpillians and other grains-for-brains talk about “high status males” unironically), I’m going to have to ask you to clarify your comment, because it sounds to me that you’re insinuating that the rapes Cosby committed were consensual and that the women are only coming forward because they found out they weren’t exclusive with him – kinda rich, considering Cosby himself expressed concern that the women he raped might “fall in love” with him. Yuck.

Or possibly you’re blaming the women for going for said “high status male” and getting raped, thus making them deserving of it. Either way, you’re a hateful misogynist and a despicable shitstain, just the kind of person the post title is aimed at. If I’m interpreting your comment wrong, please rephrase. Though I’m pretty sure I’m not.

Falconer
5 years ago

@Tilikum, maybe I’m hard of reading, but it seems to me like you’re saying these women were, each of them, okay with what Cosby did to them until they found out that he’d done it to other women. That the only reason they’ve come forward is jealousy.

Are you sure you want to be saying that?

Falconer
5 years ago

Whoops, ninja’d by anarchonist.

Falconer
5 years ago

@maghaven:

Though the conspiracy theory is so absurd in the light of so many accusers.

JET FUEL DOESN’T MELT QUALUDES!!!!

JET FUEL DOESN’T MELT QUALUDES!!!!!

JET FUEL DOESN’T MELT QUALUDES11111

I’m in tears!

Falconer
5 years ago

@gosuamakenatek:

I’d like to hear Cosby defenders explain to me why this “conspiracy” isn’t happening to any other famous men? Or why it really hasn’t ever happened before?

Or even why is this happening to him now, and not thirty years ago when he was big?

All these women have missed out on that sweet, sweet Pudding Pop money.

AndreTheFireant
AndreTheFireant
5 years ago

Meant to post this in the last Cosby thread, but I think it is more than appropriate given Cosby’s hatred for good music.

https://youtu.be/fyMAsedWzCk

maistrechat
5 years ago

Especially in regards to cases involving child sexual abuse.

In Illinois, the statute of limitations on child sex abuse cases is until the victim is 38. After that point I’m not sure it would be possible to prosecute the case effectively which I assume is why there’s a statute of limitations at all.

We get some things right.

Ibis
5 years ago

@Falconer & anarchonist

Wow. I read Tilikum as saying that powerful men can exploit their “untouchable” status to prey on women who are unaware that they aren’t the only one he’s assaulted. The isolation of victims works to the predator’s advantage, but once it’s no longer a secret, everyone can see that it’s part of a pattern and the abuser finds it more difficult dismiss single accusations by claiming “that bitch is crazy/jealous/vengeful/a gold digger/etc.”

Ellesar
Ellesar
5 years ago

As someone pointed out earlier, this is not something happening to lots and lots of high profile men. This points to the veracity of victims account when a high profile man IS accused by many victims. There is nearly always corroborating evidence too. I don’t know about with Cosby, but with Savile lots of people knew about what was happening, and Savile was devious and clever enough to cover his arse effectively so that none of it went further (emboldened by a rape culture that turned a blind eye in many instances).

And sadly, even if they had reported to police their suspicions the chances are high that nothing would have been done, which I suspect would have been the same with Cosby, and other rich powerful men who have been habitual rapists/ abusers.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ Ellesar

Ironically, Like Cosby, Savile had been called out by a comedian years before as well (Jerry Sadowitz).

bvh
bvh
5 years ago

@Ibis

“Wow. I read Tilikum as saying that powerful men can exploit their “untouchable” status to prey on women who are unaware that they aren’t the only one he’s assaulted. The isolation of victims works to the predator’s advantage, but once it’s no longer a secret, everyone can see that it’s part of a pattern and the abuser finds it more difficult dismiss single accusations by claiming “that bitch is crazy/jealous/vengeful/a gold digger/etc.””

This is what I read Tilikum as saying too.

This is also why I rarely comment these days except to share links to information: there is not enough time in the day to return repeatedly to re-re-re clarify a thoughtful, supportive comment that is taken to be hostile for no discernible reason.

Namaste.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

I gave the comment the benefit of the doubt at first but he’s in the other thread trolling right now. Anarchronist and Falconer read it correctly. They weren’t being overly hostile.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Oh, and SFHC just discovered via Google search that he’s a racist and a misogynist who posts at Chateau Heartiste.

Turns out the people who have been posting here for years know a manospherian troll when they see one and we’re not just meanie pants who like to abuse innocent new posters.

I’d like to point out that the new comment policy doesn’t say we have to be nice to misogynists and trolls. Nor does this count as a pile on when there were two criticisms, one of which ninja’d the other.

As long as the comment policy isn’t being violated, we really need to stop with the “you’re soooooo mean!!!!” type posts. If you think someone has been abusive or is piling on, contact David. If not, engage with the post you disagreed on its content instead of trying to guilt trip people.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

@BVH

You going to apologise to Falconer and Anarchonist now?

Kat
Kat
5 years ago

@Tikkum
High status males get away with this shit constantly. It usually rears its ugly head for them once women realize that it’s not a secret between her and Mr. Famous, but she was part of a pattern.

All the rationalizations disappear once you realize you were tricked, made a fool of, and who likes to feel like a fool?

Then the dam breaks right over dudes head.

Translation: Rich, powerful men sometimes rape women. They expect that their wealth and power will immunize them from prosecution. All too often, this strategy works. But if one women (in this case, Andrea Costand) speaks up, then another (in this case, Barbara Bowman) might find the courage to do the same.

From the Daily Mail, October 2014:

“In 2004, when another rape victim Andrea Constand went public with her plight by filing a lawsuit against Cosby, Barbara said she made it her ‘mission’ to support her.

‘I believed her because the details of her assaults were eerily similar to mine. I knew she was telling the truth and needed someone to support her because no one else was.'”

Ibis
5 years ago

I don’t know about with Cosby, but with Savile lots of people knew about what was happening

Many of the stories had agents putting these young women in Cosby’s sphere of influence. That makes me wonder if any of them knew what was going on. Also, some of his friends were certainly complicit according to a few of the reports.

History Nerd
5 years ago

The scary thing about Jimmy Savile was that it was an “open secret” in the BBC that he was molesting and raping children. Or, at the very least, people knew he was a sleaze who had sexual interests in underage girls but didn’t do anything because they thought rape and molestation were rare.

History Nerd
5 years ago

People probably knew what Cosby was doing but didn’t think it was rape. But it clearly was, even by the bullshit legal standards in the 1960’s through 1980’s.

sanitybroke
5 years ago

Yeah, I don’t think it would matter if Cosby was prosecuted and got like 20 years of prison time, there would still be people defending Cosby until their last breath.

cupisnique
5 years ago

I’m not sure how anyone read Tilikum and thought he wasn’t spouting off PUA-type bullshit . . . “high status male”, it’s usually a dead give-away.

katz
5 years ago

Sanitybroke: If Cosby got jail time that would just be proof that women are conspiring to ruin men’s lives.

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

High status males get away with this shit constantly. It usually rears its ugly head for them once women realize that it’s not a secret between her and Mr. Famous, but she was part of a pattern.

All the rationalizations disappear once you realize you were tricked, made a fool of, and who likes to feel like a fool?

Then the dam breaks right over dudes head.

Actually, Trollicus, it’s more a case of no “rationalizations”. They knew what was up when he urged them to take drinks they didn’t want, and got angry if they demurred, promising to ruin their careers. So they took the drinks, unwillingly, but Then the drugs kicked in and they couldn’t fight him off, even though he was hurting them. No “rationalizations” necessary.

And a lot of them having been fighting for years to be heard. It’s not a case of realizing they were “tricked” or “made fools of”. It’s a case of being RAPED, then silenced for years by a noxious old fart with a lot of money, the best lawyers that money could buy, and a rape culture that tells women they won’t be believed no matter how credible and consistent their declarations. And where their professional reputations would suffer BECAUSE they were victims of a crime, while his continued to thrive even though he was a fucking pervert. Until enough others came forward, AND another man called him out during a comedic monologue.

“Who likes to feel like a fool”, indeed. Maybe you’d like to tell us now that you’ve been unmasked for a fool yourself, eh?

sevenofmine
5 years ago

This is also why I rarely comment these days except to share links to information: there is not enough time in the day to return repeatedly to re-re-re clarify a thoughtful, supportive comment that is taken to be hostile for no discernible reason.

For whatever it’s worth, I’ve been around this shit a long time too and I didn’t immediately read Tikilum as definitely a manure-spherian. I read it as ambiguous, perhaps deliberately so. I don’t think BVH and Ibis’s reading is unreasonable but, given the kind of trolls this blog attracts on a regular basis, I think it’d be rather unjustifiably optimistic not to ask for clarification, which is exactly what people did.

Which makes this quoted comment kind of piss me off because people were asking for clarification. Both people who responded said “here’s what it reads like to me, is that what you actually meant?” And still that’s not good enough for the ‘oh em gee so meeeannnnn’ crowd. But hey, someone who rarely comments here couldn’t discern a reason for suspicion so I guess there can’t have been one, can there? Blargh.

skiriki
5 years ago

Alan Robertshaw

Ironically, Like Cosby, Savile had been called out by a comedian years before as well (Jerry Sadowitz).

I can’t help but to feel that the Death of Certain Big Political Person kind of burst the dam when it came to Saville and what he had been up to. Also, there’s that other paedo-scandal going on right now, which also feels like aftershocks of passing of She Who Must Not Be Named. (Mind, I don’t subscribe to that re-heating of Satanic Panic that has been pushed around, because child sexual abuse is common enough to actually happen without fanciful stories of SRA.)

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ skiriki

Yeah. I doubt very much that the particular late (not very) lamented person was directly involved, but her attitude may have facilitated a certain nonchalance.

It was well known that MT had no interest in people’s personal lives. In some ways that was a good thing. She didn’t give two hoots about people’s sexuality, and she made it clear that she didn’t want to hear any ‘tittle tattle’ (as she put it) about what people got up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

That of course may have led to a culture where people in the know would have felt safe not to pass on the rumours about Savile and as you rightly point out it was around the time when one major panic about suspected child abuse had turned out to be an unwarranted disaster. Politically there probably was a disinclination to be associated with what might have seen to be another witch hunt amongst her advisors as well.

As to the Westminster thing, I remember at the time there had been all sorts of rumours about certain people. There was so much abuse being hurled though generally that it would be easy to dismiss such allegations as yet more slurs. When child abuse allegations are wrapped up with ‘blood libel’ innuendo they do lose a lot of credibility.

Hmm, come to think of it, I do somewhere have a copy of a magazine that was withdrawn because it featured a rather lurid cover and story about Michael Portillo and Peter Lilley; I’ll have to dig that out sometime.