NY Post Columnist On Cosby: ‘Not Rapes, But High-Pressure Seductions’
[su_publirb]
According to Andrea Peyser, rendering a woman practically unconscious so she can’t consent to sex isn’t rape.
In a late night column on Thursday titled “I have my doubts Bill Cosby’s a rapist,” Peyser does precisely what you’d think after reading that headline — she defends Cosby. She doesn’t necessarily do a complete 180, per se, and argue that everything about the allegations against the comedian are demonstrably false. Instead, Peyser tries her hand at wordplay while trying in vain to make the “boys will be boys” argument a sophisticated one.
Bill Cosby is a lousy husband and a possible sex addict. But is he a rapist?
I have my doubts.
Is Cosby, 78, so diabolically creepy that he secretly slipped Quaaludes into the mouths of his alleged victims, as even President Obama suggests? Perhaps.
But I’m starting to think that Cosby’s “crimes’’ were not rapes, but high-pressure seductions…
Still, I wonder if some, if not most (or maybe all?), of the dozens of women who claim Cosby attempted or completed sexual assaults against them, dating back as far as the 1960s, swallowed drugs willingly before the encounters.
Peyser appears to pine for “the good old days” when women were blamed for succumbing to a man’s efforts to drug them.
…not long ago, society looked at rape differently. If a woman, and this was mainly about women, knowingly took drugs or drank alcohol before engaging in sex, and then for whatever reason — shame, guilt or seeing Prince Charming turn into a frog by the light of day — that lady regretted her tacit agreement to engage in sexual activity, she would just have to live with her stupid decision.
What was Mr. Cosby’s reason for plying women with drugs if not to make them more compliant? And who knows if the drugs were always taken “knowingly”. Furthermore, an agreement to do drugs doesn’t equal an agreement to have sex.
[su_facebook]
[su_center_ad]
