Make Your Picks

Bill Cosby

Tools    





But regardless, there's not any evidence left, I'm sure.
Well, what if one of those rapes led to pregnancy.... ?

I mean, that sort of is the whole point of sex, anyway. Reproduction.



Well, what if one of those rapes led to pregnancy.... ?

I mean, that sort of is the whole point of sex, anyway. Reproduction.
Oh, yeah, sure. No one has sex without intending to reproduce. Of course, a child wouldn't prove rape. I mean, not technically speaking.
__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.



Oh, yeah, sure. No one has sex without intending to reproduce.
Well, I'm just saying that's why sex exists in the first place, okay? We don't have sex organs on our bodies just for kicks.

Just like we don't eat primarily for pleasure. We eat to keep ourselves alive.

Having sex without reproducing is basically the same as overeating, in a way. It's not really necessary. It's a form of gluttony.

Of course, a child wouldn't prove rape. I mean, not technically speaking.
I guess not -- but it is something, at least. It's proof he's been inside the woman before.



What's tragic is that all these instances happened when he was making the Cosby Show, bout 25 years ago. Any possibility of true evidence is long gone, and prosecutors say they cant do anything about it now.

So its safe to say his careers over, but it doesnt matter cause hes filthy rich. Its fricken foul!
Yeah. It really bothers me that the US has a statute of limitations on rape. We don't have one in Canada and Cosby would be in jail if he did those rapes here. I don't think violent crimes should have statutes of limitations. It really is FOUL.



Registered User
It's estimated that between 25-35% of American women have been raped at some point in their lives.
I doubt that statistic strongly - just due to the fact that the percentage of rap-ists is around 6%.

I have a hard time believing that 6% of the population has raped 35% (that would be mean the average rapist has around 6 victims). Especially considering that the majority of rapists and molesters are not serial rapists that you'd see in Law and Order; they're someone close to the girl or the child.



I doubt that statistic strongly - just due to the fact that the percentage of rap-ists is around 6%.

I have a hard time believing that 6% of the population has raped 35% (that would be mean the average rapist has around 6 victims). Especially considering that the majority of rapists and molesters are not serial rapists that you'd see in Law and Order; they're someone close to the girl or the child.
Yeah, what the hell do you know. You can't even spell "bastard."



Registered User
Well, I'm just saying that's why sex exists in the first place, okay?
It's one of several reasons actually. Much like a toothbrush has multiple functions and uses beyond "brushing your teeth" (such as scrubbing your toilet).

We don't have sex organs on our bodies just for kicks.
We actually do. The act of sex releases chemicals which are beneficial to the body Lack of stimulation of the sex organs results in lower testosterone and poorer health in men, for example.

Just like we don't eat primarily for pleasure. We eat to keep ourselves alive.
The majority of ingredients which Westerns use in food are for pleasure. Unless you're saying you never use sugar, salt, butter condiments on any of your foods?

Having sex without reproducing is basically the same as overeating, in a way.
Not really - unless your definition of "overeating" is eating anything other than plain bread, beans, and rice with no salt, butter or spices. And you don't ascribe to this diet, do you?

It's not really necessary. It's a form of gluttony.
Not unless you're a Carpathian monk (and if you are then then speaking is also "unnecessary").

Internet forums, movies likewise are like "not necessary". They serve no survival function.

Thankfully humans are not machines which have emotional needs and purposes beyond mere "survival". What an unhappy life that would be.

Well, what if one of those rapes led to pregnancy.... ?

I mean, that sort of is the whole point of sex, anyway. Reproduction.
The "point of" reproduction is actually not nearly as significant in modern societies as it would've been in more primitive cultures.

In an ancient tribe plagued by warfare, the threat of the entire group dying off was much more directly significant for one (but in a world of 7 billion people, and orphanges full of children without adoptees this isn't a threat for the foreseeable future). Likewise in agrarian societies, a family's only source of provision might be their family farm and their land; so raising a large family to help with day-to-day farm work was a necessity; but in a Western society fill with Wal-Marts and Starbucks', most people do not grow their own food.

In a modern society having children actually has little practical purpose at all - it's more about emotional fulfillment (because in addition to food and shelter; the 3rd thing which all people live for just as much is purpose or meaning).

In more primitive cultures there were also far fewer was to create purpose in your life or "leave a legacy" other than produce offspring and carry on your family's name (along with the existence of "social classes" - which essentially prevented anyone from rising above the class they were born into).

In the modern world however, there are far more ways to create a legacy, and purpose than to produce offspring. Such as starting a business, or writing and publishing a book (and things such as these are no longer limited to the nobility or clergy - now anyone with enough ambition can create their own legacy).

It's also much easier to impact larger numbers of people with one's legacy. How much more people has someone like Warren Buffet, or Steve Jobs impacted than the average Joe for example?



I doubt that statistic strongly - just due to the fact that the percentage of rap-ists is around 6%.

I have a hard time believing that 6% of the population has raped 35% (that would be mean the average rapist has around 6 victims). Especially considering that the majority of rapists and molesters are not serial rapists that you'd see in Law and Order; they're someone close to the girl or the child.

1 in 3 girls will be sexually molested, and 1 in 5 boys will be. The 6% of population that is raped only signifies how many get away with it. Many times its by a family member, date rape, drugged rape, raping a child that cant fathom whats happening to them, etc...



Registered User
1 in 3 girls will be sexually molested, and 1 in 5 boys will be. The 6% of population that is raped only signifies how many get away with it. Many times its by a family member, date rape, drugged rape, raping a child that cant fathom whats happening to them, etc...
Based on those statistics, that would mean that the average rapist has 6 victims each before getting caught - I find that very hard to fathom.



It's one of several reasons actually. Much like a toothbrush has multiple functions and uses beyond "brushing your teeth" (such as scrubbing your toilet).


We actually do. The act of sex releases chemicals which are beneficial to the body Lack of stimulation of the sex organs results in lower testosterone and poorer health in men, for example.


The majority of ingredients which Westerns use in food are for pleasure. Unless you're saying you never use sugar, salt, butter condiments on any of your foods?


Not really - unless your definition of "overeating" is eating anything other than plain bread, beans, and rice with no salt, butter or spices. And you don't ascribe to this diet, do you?


Not unless you're a Carpathian monk (and if you are then then speaking is also "unnecessary").

Internet forums, movies likewise are like "not necessary". They serve no survival function.

Thankfully humans are not machines which have emotional needs and purposes beyond mere "survival". What an unhappy life that would be.


The "point of" reproduction is actually not nearly as significant in modern societies as it would've been in more primitive cultures.

In an ancient tribe plagued by warfare, the threat of the entire group dying off was much more directly significant for one (but in a world of 7 billion people, and orphanges full of children without adoptees this isn't a threat for the foreseeable future). Likewise in agrarian societies, a family's only source of provision might be their family farm and their land; so raising a large family to help with day-to-day farm work was a necessity; but in a Western society fill with Wal-Marts and Starbucks', most people do not grow their own food.

In a modern society having children actually has little practical purpose at all - it's more about emotional fulfillment (because in addition to food and shelter; the 3rd thing which all people live for just as much is purpose or meaning).

In more primitive cultures there were also far fewer was to create purpose in your life or "leave a legacy" other than produce offspring and carry on your family's name (along with the existence of "social classes" - which essentially prevented anyone from rising above the class they were born into).

In the modern world however, there are far more ways to create a legacy, and purpose than to produce offspring. Such as starting a business, or writing and publishing a book (and things such as these are no longer limited to the nobility or clergy - now anyone with enough ambition can create their own legacy).

It's also much easier to impact larger numbers of people with one's legacy. How much more people has someone like Warren Buffet, or Steve Jobs impacted than the average Joe for example?



Registered User
I'm stunned at the sheer numbers of women alleging rape. So far there are 20 women that have come forth with rape allegations and two more with close calls. This guy needs to go to jail.
I have a very hard time believing that 20 unrelated individuals are all making it up - this sounds like it could be the next Jerry Sandusky scandal.



Registered User
My post was meant to inspire the individual I was replying to to think a little (assuming the post I was replying to wasn't sarcasm).



I doubt that statistic strongly - just due to the fact that the percentage of rap-ists is around 6%.

I have a hard time believing that 6% of the population has raped 35% (that would be mean the average rapist has around 6 victims). Especially considering that the majority of rapists and molesters are not serial rapists that you'd see in Law and Order; they're someone close to the girl or the child.
I do not know about the stats you posted being accurate, but with regards to crime as a whole, a substantial part of crimes are committed by "life time persistent offenders" to use the proper criminology term. So the idea of a small group of sex offenders committing a large amount of rapes is not out of the question.

And with regards a a good deal of sex offenders, pedophiles in particular; they will never stop because the urge will always be there.



It's one of several reasons actually. Much like a toothbrush has multiple functions and uses beyond "brushing your teeth" (such as scrubbing your toilet).
We actually do. The act of sex releases chemicals which are beneficial to the body Lack of stimulation of the sex organs results in lower testosterone in men, for example.
The act of sex releases chemicals which are beneficial to the body because we're doing what nature wants us to do -- which is to have sex. Which means nature thinks we're making offspring.

Sex is not just for pleasure and to heal the body. It's to get us to make children. If it feels good, that's because we're doing what nature wants us to do -- reproduce. At least the body is being tricked into thinking that's what we're doing.

I think nature would probably like it if we reproduced all the time. Or we tried to keep reproducing, at least. That's why people will roam around and have sex with different people, even if they shouldn't. That's why people rape. The sex instinct -- the drive to reproduce -- is making that happen. It is not just for enjoyment and relaxing. Its primary purpose is to get us to produce children.

As horrible as it is, I think rape is actually a natural instinct, although a very savage natural instinct. My man, Sam Harris, actually agrees with me as I've heard him say this himself.

A female dog goes in heat and a male dog goes and mounts it. A dog will hump your leg. It's the instinct to reproduce. It's what we're designed for. Rape is sex where the woman did not want to be having sex with the man who raped her. It's unwanted, intrusive sex on the person who has the right as a free human being to not be violated. But outside of all of that, it's based on biology and the instinct to reproduce. If sex boosts testosterone in men, it's because it's a reward for having sex. The man has accomplished something he's designed to do.



Registered User
The act of sex releases chemicals which are beneficial to the body because we're doing what nature wants us to do -- which is to have sex.
Nature is not a person with a "will" - therefore it cannot "want" - it simply exists.

Which means nature thinks we're making offspring.
Sex is not just for pleasure and to heal the body.
But it is for it - whether it is just for it or not is a moot point.

It's to get us to make children.

If it feels good, that's because we're doing what nature wants us to do -- reproduce. At least the body is being tricked into thinking that's what we're doing.
Much like watching an action movie or playing a video game "tricks" the body into thinking it's viewing a gun-fight. Thereby releasing a satisfying adrenaline rush. However the "purpose" of adrenaline - it is to escape an actual flight-or-fight situation. This is just deception of the body

I think nature would probably like it if we reproduced all the time. Or we tried to keep reproducing, at least.
I think if nature had the ability to "like" anything - I think it would like it much better if people with no will or means to support children didn't have them. And I think it'd be more worried about overcrowed orphanages, and starving North Korean children than other people's private sex lives, or an elderly couple having sex (which I assume you're against for the sake of consistancy - since they can't have children, right?)

That's why people will roam around and have sex with different people, even if they shouldn't.
Ah but they should. So long as they use protection( or avoid actual copulation) then they're far more healthy than those who practice sexual repression based on ignorance of the subject matter.

The dangers of smoking or eating nasty fast food are far more dangerous than those of having sex - even if a person was an actual swinger they'd still be putting themselves at far less statistical risk.

That's why people rape.
People rape due to sexual repression (and a bit of sociopathy doesn't hurt either). Serial killers such as Ed Gein, and serial pedophiles such as those priests in the Catholic abuse scandal for example.

Having a healthy sex life removes any "benefit" from rape; much like being well-fed would've alleviated the Donner Party's desire to cannibalize each other to survive.

The sex instinct -- the drive to reproduce -- is making that happen. It is not just for enjoyment and relaxing. Its primary purpose is to get us to produce children.
In the modern world it's primary purpose in practice, is pleasure, not to have children. The number of times a normal couple has had sex for fun definitely exceeds the number of times they've had sex "planning" to have a child.

As horrible as it is, I think rape is actually a natural instinct, although a very savage natural instinct. My man, Sam Harris, actually agrees with me as I've heard him say this himself.

A female dog goes in heat and a male dog goes and mounts it. A dog will hump your leg. It's the instinct to reproduce. It's what we're designed for. Rape is sex where the woman did not want to be having sex with the man who raped her. It's unwanted, intrusive sex on the person who has the right as a free human being to not be violated. But outside of all of that, it's based on biology and the instinct to reproduce.
And who would a woman want to have sex with less than a sexually-repressed religious indoctrinate who gets squeamish at the sight of a woman's breast (yet at the same time probably tells you he's against homosexuality? This reaffirms my point that sexual repression causes rape, not a healthy sex life.

If sex boosts testosterone in men, it's because it's a reward for having sex.
Or masturbate. Or foreplay. Etc. "Yawn"

The man has accomplished something he's designed to do.
Your view is based off of religion and has no factual basis to back it up. It's just "begging the question".

I also pointed out your double-standard above with a few analogies - if your outlook was remotely consistent then it would not apply just to "sex" - it would apply to other forms of "pleasure" as well which serve no survival purpose (such as food seasonings, video gaming, movie watching, posting on message boards, etc). The fact that it ignores this consistency shows just a religious fixation on "sex" and nothing more.

Not to mention traditionally men took multiple wives and concubines, and men played little to any role in raising the child (this was a primarily feminine role) - so if you're trying to appeal to tradition, or what men have been "designed" to do - then you open that can of worms as well.



To suggest that rape is a product of sexual repression exclusively is extremely short sighted. Rape and sexual violence of the serial variety is about constructing a fantasy. It is a power trip. The power is what gets them off. Not the actual penetration.