Bill Cosby

Thank you, gunslinger. I was trying to respond but I was actually too dumbfounded to.

It's a no brainer that a normal person is not just going to go out and rape someone because they "haven't had sex" in a long time.

On the same note I believe there's a relationship between "supply and demand". If you look at the lowest income brackets, the rate of petty crimes such as theft is a lot higher. I can see why a person who's desperate for money would be more likely to steal than a person who has it in abundance. (You don't hear about many billionaires robbing convenience stores for the $180 in the register).

So I can definitely see why an ancient Hun warrior who's been on the road for months would be more likely to rape a young maiden while pillaging a town - than his wealthy lord who has 500 concubines at his disposal.

I think the Hun example is more a reflection of the violent life style they lived and they want to be the most violent people they can so that includes rape. As opposed to blue balls.

And while billionaires may not rob a convenience store, they do have ponsi schemes, stock fraud, and other forms of white collar crime despite being already rich.

Human behavior is very complicated in everyday life. What causes crime is no less complicated.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

Nature designs things to run a certain way. Humans, as well as other creatures, have definitely been designed to produce offspring. Otherwise, there wouldn't be 7 billion people on the planet.

That urge to have sex is always there in most people, whether we end up having sex with someone of the opposite sex or not. I think our bodies want to reproduce, whether or not our "souls" -- ourselves -- want to or not. That urge to have sex is constant in most people, especially men -- daily. And I don't believe it's just to be healthy. When you ejaculate, you're shooting sperm off somewhere. That sperm can make a baby. If sex is just about staying healthy, why is sperm always getting involved? Shouldn't it have some days off?

Women, though -- they have days off. They only have some time when they can get pregnant. That's why a man needs to have sex a lot -- so he can find a woman who's ready to give birth at the moment.

Sex may keep us healthy, but I think the ultimate goal is reproduction. When a man ejaculates, however he does it, into wherever it goes, I think the body always assumes the act is an act of reproduction.

Escape a flight-or-fight situation? Obviously, you can escape by taking flight, or you can stay around and fight.

No, no, no. I'm not saying I'm for regulations based on biology like that. Elderly couples can have sex as much as they want to. I'm not like a fascist who thinks the world should be run a certain way. I just think there's biological truths about humans, not that we should necessarily work FOR them. If that was the case, then rape ought to be allowed since I think it's ultimately a natural, though savage, reaction. But of course, we don't allow that. We let people have the freedom to live as they want and to have the right to not get raped.

Goodness. I'm not like a prude here. My name is Sexy Celebrity, afterall.

I'm not certain repression actually means you're healthier, but I get you. Too much sex can be dangerous, though. In our world, you risk STDs and HIV and such if you go out there and have sex. It isn't always better to lead such a "healthy" sex life. There are dangers to doing these things.

It all depends.

I don't believe that "sexual repression" is the big problem. Many people are sexually repressed and they're normal. I think there are ultimately other issues that cause people to be this way, both physical and psychological. You can be a virgin for life and be just fine. A lot of people are able to practice restraint.

You can't have sex for the sake of having children all the time. Society does not allow it. You CAN, but it's gonna cause problems, most likely. Society makes you pay up for every kid you have. So, you've got to take steps to not get pregnant all the time, or else you're going to be fiscally responsible for whatever you make.

It doesn't. A rapist is not repressing anything. A rapist is EXPRESSING. Sexual repression would keep a rapist from raping.

Wrong. It's based on biology. Religion is just basing its ideas off of biology.

Yeah, and one of the many complications of rape is that the psychologists, psychiatrists and behaviorists can't determine exactly what determines why some men rape. There are many variations man to man. Add that to the fact that most rapists will never see a day in jail nor seek any sort of psychiatric or behavioral help, there is a huge gathering of information problem.

If living in the UK has taught us anything in the last few years, it's that the allegations are probably true. There's a whole host of TV presenter and entertainers being only just found guilty of sexual crimes here, people like Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris.

And then those who do are not exactly known for their honesty. Ted Bundy anyone?

I can agree with this. It's why I had trouble with Miss Vicky when we did the Casualties of War commentary. I thought that was such a stupid movie, or at least it felt stupid at the time because Miss Vicky was hollering at me for what I said. It's about these guys who rape this Asian woman -- guys who have been at war for a long time -- Vietnam, I think it was? They hadn't had a woman in a long time, I guess, and they were in a war. They risked getting killed everyday. So they all grabbed an Asian girl and raped her. Everyone except the sensitive looking Michael J. Fox.

I said -- okay. I get this. These guys... they're out in the middle of the war. They see a woman, grab her, rape her, etc. I said it wasn't a normal situation. It didn't make it right, but these guys probably had warped psyches because of the war. OMG. Miss Vicky lost it because I said this. So I didn't agree with that movie if it expects you to just cry over a woman getting raped when it happened during a severe situation. These people are killing nonstop in a war, and we should be more horrified over one rape? Whoop-de-doo, I thought.

I'm in the camp who think he's guilty, especially with the way he's been reacting around the allegations.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

I sincerely believe that Britain is ahead of the game when it comes to ferreting out child predators and sex predators in general. I think the Jimmy Saville revelations woke Britain up to the fact that anyone can be a child molester. I just wish Hollywood could catch up because I think that's probably the most dangerous place on earth for children. I think the fact that Cosby's allegations have been out there for years is proof that celebrity counts for too much in North America.

That 90s basterd guy makes me almost appreciate Guap's "pithy, statistics/facts"-filled posts... almost. WTF?

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Anyone see this disgusting guest editorial on The Wrap? donotlink.com/clyt

The guy has no clue what he's talking about and should be ashamed of himself for some of the stuff he says in the article.

"The recollections of events that happened as long as fifty years ago are dredged up by aging actresses who have one eye on the CNN camera, and the other on a book or reality show deal."

**** off. That goes beyond asking for evidence or waiting for a court to make a decision. That's directly attacking women who have probably been raped.

Brilliant response little man.

I made a good argument against the idea that "sex outside orfprocreation is unnatural because the pleasure of sex is meant to be a "reward" for producing a child".

I used the movies analogy and showed that the same argument could be made against anything "fun". Adrenaline is meant to be a "reward" in animal kingdom from escaping a flight-or-fight situation - therefore getting an adrenaline rush from watching a movie is "unnatural". Not to mention with the above argument you'd also have to be against elderly couples, or couples who can't reproduce on their own having sex.

So I showed that it wasn't a well reason or consistent argument - just a negative hangup on "sex" which is common in religious cultures.

Much like if someone claims to be concerned about "crime statistics" - but focused exclusively on "black criminals" - that just shows a negative fixation on "black people" - not a real concern with crime or resolving crime.

NOTHING!! Youve made a good argument against nothing! When you say something and someone responds, just because you wont defer your point whatsoever doesnt mean youve made ANY ground, at all. You will learn this by having arguments in real life (not internet), and in time after you grow up some, gain maturity.

Nature doesn't design, it's designed.

That is one of hundreds of functions which they have been designed to do.

There are 7 billion children on this planet (including starving children, and children who'll never be adopted) to to apathy and lack of education. Ideally there would be less, and those which are produced would be supported - not just popped out and then forgotten.

If you're honestly more worried about people "not having enough children" than you are the thousands of kids who already exists who're starving to death, or being neglected in orphanages - then I find that troubling.

A body cannot "want" to reproduce - a body simply wants to survive. In ancient cultures with low life expectancy reproduction actually served a survival function; today in 1st world cultures it does not so it's about emotional fulfillment.

As I pointed out humans are higher level animals; the one fundamental thing which every person wants is to leave a legacy or purpose for their existence - producing offspring is 1 way to do this, but since humans are thinking animals - they have many more ways in modern society to leave a legacy - so the necessity to have a child or be forgotten for generations to come isn't the same today as it may have been 2000 years ago.

The idea that "sex drive" is mainly a male thing is actually a myth - women's sex drive is activated differently than in men, but it isn't necessarily "less".

But it won't if you're using protection. Or if you've had a vasectomy.

If adrenaline is "just about "feeling excited while watching a movie" then why does it get your blood flow involved? Shouldn't it have some days off?

You could use any scenario and come up with the same conclusion as you have about "sperm".

"Begging the question" fallacy

Just as the body "assumes" when it releases adrenaline that the person is in danger - therefore watching exciting movies is unnatural since it "tricks" the viewer into feeling that he's in actual danger. This is unnatural. Therefore movies are evil. Right?

Your argument about sex is equally applicable to the movie scenario - yet you focus strictly on sex, and not how watching an exciting film "uses" the body in an unnatural way. Why is that?

Why? It doesn't serve the purpose of reproduction - Grandpa is just tricking the body into thinking he's making a child right?

Rape is not a common practice in the animal kingdom. Most animals perform a mating ritual, and the female either accepts or declines the male's advances or she declines.

Your argument also doesn't show consistency - if "rape is natural", but on a same note you find that sex without "reproduction" unnatural - then why would you have a problem with rape at all? And how would "having more children" reduce a desire to rape

Statistically though the chances of receiving STDs are much less likely than dying from health problems as a result of the Average American's diet. So my point is that this shows a negative culture hangup about "sex" which exists partly because of religious influence.

They're not "normal" - they're lacking a fundamental component of their health. They may not all become Ed Geins but they're certainly not normal

It's not "practicing restraint" - it's self-deprivation - much like a person who consumes no vitamins and minerals is self-deprived. So a virgin for life is definitely not a healthy person.

[quote]
You can't have sex for the sake of having children all the time. Society does not allow it. You CAN, but it's gonna cause problems, most likely. Society makes you pay up for every kid you have. So, you've got to take steps to not get pregnant all the time, or else you're going to be fiscally responsible for whatever you make.

He's expressing the result of his repression, yes.

In fact this is actually true about all sociopaths, not just rapists. As I mentioned the 3 things that all people want - food, survival, and purpose.

So when a rapist or sociopath harms a person - he's expressing the end result of his social repression - he's unable to adapt and interact with people in a normal capacity - so he lashes out and harms people since that's the only way he'll ever have any type of "power" or "legacy" in the social world.

So repression actually encourages anti-social outlets of behavior. Why do you think rape is so much more acceptable in sexually repressed cultures than it is in Western ones?

Much like banning alcohol stopped people from drinking it in the 1920s. Or requiring chastity of priests stopped them from molesting boys. :lol; You can't be serious.

All you're basically saying is you're basically saying here is "if no one murdered then there would be no murder" (wow, ya think!).

Your views are based of of actual biology about as much as "young earth creationism" is based off of science. There's no evidence other than your original research that sex or sexual stimulation outside of procreation is "unnatural" or harmful - or that it "leads to rape".

In fact it exists in nature:

http://www.zimeye.org/even-animals-m...ific-evidence/

Whether you're religious or not that sounds like something which could've easily been spewed from one of the tongues of some holly roller.

Excuse me, but I never said anything about adrenaline being a "reward."

It's a stimulant. It's a motivator. It's an energy drink that's gonna make you MOVE YOUR ASS so you save yourself. It is not a pleasurable reward.

If people are getting pleasure from playing violent video games or watching violent movies, then there must be something about those people where they physically/psychologically crave it -- crave ACTION -- they have a need for it -- and when they get it, they get pleasure. That's kind of more in line with murderers and rapists, I think, who seek violence for thrills, if that's even why they're doing it. Not saying it's the same, though -- one is fantasy, one is real.

An addiction to adrenaline -- or a need to always feel it -- could become pleasurable if you start feeling it like it's a drug. This is not necessarily a bad thing, though -- athletes, bodybuilders, etc. -- I'm sure they all like the feeling of adrenaline.

It is a pleasurable reward - people crave excitement in their life. This is why most people would never want to spend life in prison - even though technically they'd never have to worry about survival, and have food and shelter provided for them for the rest of their life.

This would technically apply to movies/video games, not just "violent ones" - though the pleasure chemical might differ depending on the the type of movie (ex. a romantic movie might release more endorphins instead of adrenaline) - but the same principle still applies.

Again - you could make the same argument against video games and movies. For example in CoD, the person imagines themselves as a soldier fighting against terrorism - he gets an adrenaline rush (and possibly seratonin as well) - therefore he's "tricking" the body into thinking he's actually a soldier on the battlefield fighting for his country - this is an "unnatural" use of these body chemicals - because "Nature designed" them to be a reward for actually responding to a life threat, not just playing a video game - right.

I'm sorry that you feel that Call of Duty players, or fans of Die Hard films are similar to rapist and murderers.

The same argument is applicable to your theory that sexual stimulation is "unnatural" unless it's done for procreation or survival purposes.

I mean aren't even athletics unnatural? Since they're not actual survival scenarios which a primitive ancestor would've faced?

Okay.

Go be Angelina Jolie and adopt as many babies as you want. I don't care. Never in my conversation did I mention that it was my belief that people should reproduce like crazy so they'll have enough children. That's not what I believe. There are people who believe such things, but I am not one of those people.

No. Absolutely not. The body wants to reproduce. Cultures and societies may change, but nothing will change the human body. Nothing will change nature except nature. Thinking it's all about "emotional fulfillment" is thinking about the needs and the desires of the culture/society at the time.

We all have to grow up and go through puberty and turn into beings that can have sex and reproduce. The body becomes equipped to reproduce. We are not on this planet just for emotional fulfillment.

What happens is the body ADAPTS. And I believe that includes the mind, too, as my scandalous self doesn't believe in free will and I personally believe the mind is part of the body. The body adapts and if conditions are not right to having a baby, it doesn't happen. Not everyone's trying to get pregnant all the time because as I said, having babies is expensive. It's just like how you wouldn't try to get pregnant with someone else if you were both about to burn to death in a building on fire -- except in some weird movie -- it's not important at the time.

Right. Times have changed.

I'm sure women have large, healthy sex drives, but I've personally gotta say that based on my observations, women got nothing on men when it comes to sex drive. I don't care how many silly Fifty Shades of Grey books those gals read, women don't think about sex as much as a man does. Or as intense as a man does. If so, where are all the female rapists at? There's a reason Bill Cosby is a rapist and not Phylicia Rashad.

Oh my God... there's so much more to respond to. Not right now.....

I'm just trying to keep the subject on rape since this is a Bill Cosby thread.