March 8, 2023 - 7:00am
A four-part series, We Need to Talk about Cosby, was released on Sunday on BBC Two after premiering in the US last year. The series was made by the black American comedian, author and TV presenter W. Kamau Bell, and it is intended — he says — as an attempt to come to terms with Bill Cosby’s legacy as both a beloved household name and a serial sexual predator.
The series is, in general, rather good. Cosby’s story provides an interesting lens through which to view post-1960s American history, and race relations in particular. As is typical of most of the political commentary on Cosby’s crimes, the talking heads place a lot of emphasis on the contrast between Cosby’s image as a wholesome family man and the reality of what he got up to in private — that is, drugging and raping dozens of young women over a 60-year period.
Given that the political tone of the series is very obviously progressive, some interviewees relish the opportunity to bash Cosby for his conservative politics. (A line from comedian Norm Macdonald springs to mind: “People say that the worst part of the Cosby thing was the hypocrisy. I disagree. I think it was the raping.”)
But because of the progressive politics of both Bell and his interviewees, the account of sexual violence the series presents is baffling in its internal contradictions. One clip, which has been widely shared on Twitter, features clinical social worker and sex therapist Sonalee Rashatwar presenting a particularly alarming analysis of Cosby’s crimes:
There are a few problems here. The first being that Cosby likely could have found poor women desperate enough to allow themselves to be drugged and raped, given the widespread availability of prostitution, even in jurisdictions where it is criminalised. Cosby didn’t do so, which suggests that he didn’t want to. An “idyllically sex-positive world” of this kind would not have sated him.
But then Rashatwar’s politics put her in a tricky spot. She is trying to hold to the idea that there is nothing wrong per se with a fetish for sex with unconscious people, because sex-positive feminism is not comfortable with describing any kind of sexual desire as per se bad. But she is also trying to maintain the notion that consent is all-important. So she comes up with the idea of Cosby utilising a hypothetically ‘consenting’ woman to achieve sexual fulfilment.
Another interviewee makes a similar error, though in a less extreme fashion: “if it’s not a yes from the woman, then it’s a no.” See, consent is simple! Acquire it, and you’re good to go.
Except that consent isn’t really that simple at all. One of the most striking lessons from We Need to Talk about Cosby is how trivially easy it was for Cosby to get away with sexually assaulting women for decades by playing on the agreeableness of his victims. A huge number of the victims describe feeling embarrassed in the aftermath of their assaults, because they felt that they had somehow been silly or gauche in front of a famous man. Many of them took the drugs he offered them without question, and they all kept quiet for many years afterwards out of a combination of awkwardness and niceness: they didn’t want to make trouble.
In perhaps the most upsetting interview of the series, Victoria Valentino — a former Playboy Bunny — describes being raped by Cosby after he’d taken advantage of her grief-stricken emotional state following the death of her six-year-old son. After the attack, she speaks of Cosby leaving the room and telling her to use his telephone to call a cab. “And the horrible thing is,” she says, “I said ‘thank you.’” She is not the only Cosby victim to describe being achingly polite in the most awful of circumstances — it is a very common response to sexual assault of all kinds.
This is a point that Sonaelee Rashatwar and other sex-positive feminists don’t seem to get when they put their faith in the idol of ‘consent’: it is incredibly easy to get women to acquiesce to unwanted sex, and not only through the economic coercion of prostitution. What Cosby did was unambiguously illegal. But there are many more instances of sexual misbehaviour that are to be found somewhere in the large grey zone between ‘legal’ and ‘virtuous’. And, about this, sex-positive feminism has nothing to say.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“somewhere in the large grey zone between ‘legal’ and ‘virtuous’”
Once upon a time it was a mark of a civilised society that ‘Gentlemanly’ behaviour was seen as fitting and aspirational. Then women ‘wanted’ equality, and it seems part of that deal was to deride and belittle the notion of gentlemanly manners and treating women with respect, you know, like not hitting them or taking advantage because men’s size and strength allowed it. While the past was very far from perfect, it was aspirational and didn’t need a law or written codified rules, just consideration and respect.
Are you seriously suggesting that men with Gentlemanly manners never engaged in sexual misconduct, exploitation or harassment? Child prostitution in UK was at its highest in Victorian times. And talk about victim blaming! Our fault for daring to expect equality
As I said, it wasn’t perfect, indeed far from it, but that didn’t mean it wasn’t something worth aspiring too or promoting. Women should expect equality, it just seems unfortunate that it appears to have come with ‘baggage’, one small part of which seems to be the castigating of gentlemenanly behavor
Where did he blame anyone ? I can’t see that in what he wrote.
What is clear is that the law can only go so far in regulating relations between people and that you cannot rely on the law alone – society also needs behavioural rules (as well as legal ones). I think that is the real point he was making.
If you just rely on law here, you’ll frequently end up with a he said/she said (or in some cases the reverse) scenario where it’s impossible to know beyond reasonable doubt (which is the law) who is telling the truth.
That’s precisely why I cannot take seriously the frequently bandied around statistics about the “huge number/percentage of rapes that don’t result in convictions”. When what is really being measured is much closer to the number of rape allegations that don’t result in convictions.
I sympathise with Tom here. Let the law do what it can. Societal norms and constraints and individual responsibility also have a role here. But don’t try to stretch the law beyond that and destroy the basic and proven cornerstones of justice (proof beyond reasonable doubt, innocence until proof of guilt). Not for any “special” category of crime. Ever.
Well said.
Its tiresome to have to be a moral policeman but until the 1960s most sensible woman played that role in order to get the man they wanted in a way that was legally and societally beneficial to them. ie they insisted on marriage. Most of them didn’t think of it in those terms,though more did than we think,it’s like in the musical Oaklahoma all those young ladies have to signal subtly to their cowboy beau’s that they’re hot stuff and up for it,so itll be worth marriage but they have to also maintain a decorum even among each other and a distaste for the obvious and vulgar sort of behaviour of the one girl who caint say No,for very good,logical and sensible reasons well put in her song. Aged 17 I was that girl. Actually there was only one boy and I was with him for over six months and he did give me every impression it was a long term relationship and it was 1972 and it was the modern permissive world where that sort of thing wasnt a big deal….well ya live and learn. I’m in UK and it’s still noticeably true that the women men marry have to behave with a certain strict decorum even if the 4 kids around them tell you they’ve actually done a lot of mattress waltzing.
I think the point is that sexual misconduct, exploitation, harassment, and most certainly child prostitution are NOT gentlemanly pursuits, and men who do such are de facto not gentlemen.
Good Lord no M’dear…Perish the thought…. Carstairs will take your clothes and underwear, fold them neatly, and has warmed the bed for us, and put a gallon tub of baby oil, and a rubber sheet up there for our delectation….
As I said, it wasn’t perfect, indeed far from it, but that didn’t mean it wasn’t something worth aspiring too or promoting. Women should expect equality, it just seems unfortunate that it appears to have come with ‘baggage’, one small part of which seems to be the castigating of gentlemenanly behavor
Where did he blame anyone ? I can’t see that in what he wrote.
What is clear is that the law can only go so far in regulating relations between people and that you cannot rely on the law alone – society also needs behavioural rules (as well as legal ones). I think that is the real point he was making.
If you just rely on law here, you’ll frequently end up with a he said/she said (or in some cases the reverse) scenario where it’s impossible to know beyond reasonable doubt (which is the law) who is telling the truth.
That’s precisely why I cannot take seriously the frequently bandied around statistics about the “huge number/percentage of rapes that don’t result in convictions”. When what is really being measured is much closer to the number of rape allegations that don’t result in convictions.
I sympathise with Tom here. Let the law do what it can. Societal norms and constraints and individual responsibility also have a role here. But don’t try to stretch the law beyond that and destroy the basic and proven cornerstones of justice (proof beyond reasonable doubt, innocence until proof of guilt). Not for any “special” category of crime. Ever.
Well said.
Its tiresome to have to be a moral policeman but until the 1960s most sensible woman played that role in order to get the man they wanted in a way that was legally and societally beneficial to them. ie they insisted on marriage. Most of them didn’t think of it in those terms,though more did than we think,it’s like in the musical Oaklahoma all those young ladies have to signal subtly to their cowboy beau’s that they’re hot stuff and up for it,so itll be worth marriage but they have to also maintain a decorum even among each other and a distaste for the obvious and vulgar sort of behaviour of the one girl who caint say No,for very good,logical and sensible reasons well put in her song. Aged 17 I was that girl. Actually there was only one boy and I was with him for over six months and he did give me every impression it was a long term relationship and it was 1972 and it was the modern permissive world where that sort of thing wasnt a big deal….well ya live and learn. I’m in UK and it’s still noticeably true that the women men marry have to behave with a certain strict decorum even if the 4 kids around them tell you they’ve actually done a lot of mattress waltzing.
I think the point is that sexual misconduct, exploitation, harassment, and most certainly child prostitution are NOT gentlemanly pursuits, and men who do such are de facto not gentlemen.
Good Lord no M’dear…Perish the thought…. Carstairs will take your clothes and underwear, fold them neatly, and has warmed the bed for us, and put a gallon tub of baby oil, and a rubber sheet up there for our delectation….
Well, ”gentlemanly behaviour” is also a bit easier when women are seen as the weaker sex and were expected to behave mainly as passive beings.
“Gentlemanly behavior,” i.e., chivalry, was the perk women were supposed to enjoy for agreeing to be weak and passive and not get to do anything.
What with period pain,endometriosis,preggernancy,pre,then post menopausal syndrome,getting groped on the bus,needing the car park spaces by the lights for fear of the rapists in the bushes,getting a hard time off their old man and then losing their mind along with the crumbling bones post menopause that I’m told can start when yer barely 30,us strong,fit,capable girlies seem to be once again becoming the ‘weaker sex ” (because we are) as those sensible Victorians put it,but still of course TOTALLY EQUAL
What with period pain,endometriosis,preggernancy,pre,then post menopausal syndrome,getting groped on the bus,needing the car park spaces by the lights for fear of the rapists in the bushes,getting a hard time off their old man and then losing their mind along with the crumbling bones post menopause that I’m told can start when yer barely 30,us strong,fit,capable girlies seem to be once again becoming the ‘weaker sex ” (because we are) as those sensible Victorians put it,but still of course TOTALLY EQUAL
Are you seriously suggesting that men with Gentlemanly manners never engaged in sexual misconduct, exploitation or harassment? Child prostitution in UK was at its highest in Victorian times. And talk about victim blaming! Our fault for daring to expect equality
Well, ”gentlemanly behaviour” is also a bit easier when women are seen as the weaker sex and were expected to behave mainly as passive beings.
“Gentlemanly behavior,” i.e., chivalry, was the perk women were supposed to enjoy for agreeing to be weak and passive and not get to do anything.
“somewhere in the large grey zone between ‘legal’ and ‘virtuous’”
Once upon a time it was a mark of a civilised society that ‘Gentlemanly’ behaviour was seen as fitting and aspirational. Then women ‘wanted’ equality, and it seems part of that deal was to deride and belittle the notion of gentlemanly manners and treating women with respect, you know, like not hitting them or taking advantage because men’s size and strength allowed it. While the past was very far from perfect, it was aspirational and didn’t need a law or written codified rules, just consideration and respect.
All true enough. But where are we supposed to take this? If unconsenting sex is wrong, and consenting sex is also wrong except in some nebulous and undefined circumstances, where does this leave some male who is interested in sex and would like to do something active to achieve it? If we have to assume that women are not capable of taking a decision, and/or of saying no to something they do not want, but at the same time are free and encouraged to go out clubbing, get drunk, and have one-night-stands, the whole enterprise becomes impossible. For a man the choice would be between celibacy, a total lack of initiative, or accepting that being a rapist is just an unavoidable risk for anyone having an active sex life. For a woman, the choice might be either learn to say ‘no’ to things she does not want, even when it is embarrassing – or to realise that being unable to say ‘no’ she must avoid ever being where a man might ask the question. Or, we could demand a written contract between couples before they had sex – like a marriage contract – and criminalise sex without it?
Some kind of realistic guidelines would be a useful adjoint to this piece.
All true enough. But where are we supposed to take this? If unconsenting sex is wrong, and consenting sex is also wrong except in some nebulous and undefined circumstances, where does this leave some male who is interested in sex and would like to do something active to achieve it? If we have to assume that women are not capable of taking a decision, and/or of saying no to something they do not want, but at the same time are free and encouraged to go out clubbing, get drunk, and have one-night-stands, the whole enterprise becomes impossible. For a man the choice would be between celibacy, a total lack of initiative, or accepting that being a rapist is just an unavoidable risk for anyone having an active sex life. For a woman, the choice might be either learn to say ‘no’ to things she does not want, even when it is embarrassing – or to realise that being unable to say ‘no’ she must avoid ever being where a man might ask the question. Or, we could demand a written contract between couples before they had sex – like a marriage contract – and criminalise sex without it?
Some kind of realistic guidelines would be a useful adjoint to this piece.
More and more, it’s clear that the “do whatever you want as long as everyone consents” is extremely beneficial for the intelligent, educated, and generally upper middle class, but incredibly hard for everyone else.
And I’m not just talking about sex, although that’s part of it. Economists have known for a long time that giving people an nearly endless array of choices actually makes choosing harder. Most people need guardrails on life. We can argue about where those rails ought to be, but “do what thou wilt” is a abandonment of guardrails completely. And it’s not working.
“Most people need guardrails on life.”
The problem is of course what these “guardrails” cost those who do better without them. This question goes to the heart of what it means to be a free adult in a fairly important sense.
I agree, but sometimes the 10% who benefit from “no guardrails” need to accept some for the benefit of the 90% who fair very poorly without them. If only for their own self-preservation.
Also, a society who’s only commandment is “everyone gets to do whatever he or she or xir wants to” isn’t a society in any meaningful sense of the word.
For most of human history societies knew how harmful and dangerous sexual activity is for women and put a lot of protection in place that women rejected at their peril,and a lot came to grief. Much of this protection was repressive but that’s life. The “sexual freedom” of the 1960s in London that didn’t get to places like my locality until the late 1970s to early 1980s.did nothing for women but was great for randy young men,and old ones too actually.
I agree, but sometimes the 10% who benefit from “no guardrails” need to accept some for the benefit of the 90% who fair very poorly without them. If only for their own self-preservation.
Also, a society who’s only commandment is “everyone gets to do whatever he or she or xir wants to” isn’t a society in any meaningful sense of the word.
For most of human history societies knew how harmful and dangerous sexual activity is for women and put a lot of protection in place that women rejected at their peril,and a lot came to grief. Much of this protection was repressive but that’s life. The “sexual freedom” of the 1960s in London that didn’t get to places like my locality until the late 1970s to early 1980s.did nothing for women but was great for randy young men,and old ones too actually.
With “do what thou wilt” I presume you are alluding to the Wiccan code of ethics, in which case though you should include the second part of the sentence: “an’ it harm none.” That’s not a bad guardrail actually. I think most people would know that drugging someone, raping them, intimidating them, taking advantage of their psychological and social constraints to render them less able to defend themselves, all amounts to harming them.
True: the Wiccan code was traduced by Aleister Crowley, who reduced it to “this be the whole of the law: so as thou will”.
Social responsibility is the issue; trying to reduce it to a rigid codex evidently isn’t working. Sadly I don’t have ready answers and can’t make any suggestion beyond the rather obvious “don’t be an a*sh*le”.
Which is why you don’t get yourself in that vulnerable place,in the first place. You don’t agree to meet that guy ‘in my hotel room”. Not that I’ve ever had such an invite but the women who do usually have ambitions to pursue and having grown up in this age when for decades tv,radio,books all media influences,NO ONE can be ignorant and unknowing about sex so I don’t buy that they were shocked and surprised like I dont accept that Mrs Giraffe was “under the age of consent “.
True: the Wiccan code was traduced by Aleister Crowley, who reduced it to “this be the whole of the law: so as thou will”.
Social responsibility is the issue; trying to reduce it to a rigid codex evidently isn’t working. Sadly I don’t have ready answers and can’t make any suggestion beyond the rather obvious “don’t be an a*sh*le”.
Which is why you don’t get yourself in that vulnerable place,in the first place. You don’t agree to meet that guy ‘in my hotel room”. Not that I’ve ever had such an invite but the women who do usually have ambitions to pursue and having grown up in this age when for decades tv,radio,books all media influences,NO ONE can be ignorant and unknowing about sex so I don’t buy that they were shocked and surprised like I dont accept that Mrs Giraffe was “under the age of consent “.
“Most people need guardrails on life.”
The problem is of course what these “guardrails” cost those who do better without them. This question goes to the heart of what it means to be a free adult in a fairly important sense.
With “do what thou wilt” I presume you are alluding to the Wiccan code of ethics, in which case though you should include the second part of the sentence: “an’ it harm none.” That’s not a bad guardrail actually. I think most people would know that drugging someone, raping them, intimidating them, taking advantage of their psychological and social constraints to render them less able to defend themselves, all amounts to harming them.
More and more, it’s clear that the “do whatever you want as long as everyone consents” is extremely beneficial for the intelligent, educated, and generally upper middle class, but incredibly hard for everyone else.
And I’m not just talking about sex, although that’s part of it. Economists have known for a long time that giving people an nearly endless array of choices actually makes choosing harder. Most people need guardrails on life. We can argue about where those rails ought to be, but “do what thou wilt” is a abandonment of guardrails completely. And it’s not working.
I was astonished by what Sonalee Rashatwar said and found it quite scary that they work as a sex therapist with so little understanding of sex and violence. What Cosby was doing was precisely about lack of consent. If he’d wanted consent he would have sought it, he didn’t, the kick for him was having sex with women who were in no fit state to consent because he had drugged them. Sure, he could have probably found prostitutes who would have played an “I’m drugging and raping you” game for money but that wouldn’t have been good enough. He didn’t want to play at it, he wanted to physically do it. He wanted control and power. Asking for it would take that away and then where would the “fun” be? Rashatwar seems to have no understanding at all of what rape is. If, and it’s a big if, what Cosby was doing was indulging in a kink then that kink was unacceptable and no amount of sex positivity would change that.
I was astonished by what Sonalee Rashatwar said and found it quite scary that they work as a sex therapist with so little understanding of sex and violence. What Cosby was doing was precisely about lack of consent. If he’d wanted consent he would have sought it, he didn’t, the kick for him was having sex with women who were in no fit state to consent because he had drugged them. Sure, he could have probably found prostitutes who would have played an “I’m drugging and raping you” game for money but that wouldn’t have been good enough. He didn’t want to play at it, he wanted to physically do it. He wanted control and power. Asking for it would take that away and then where would the “fun” be? Rashatwar seems to have no understanding at all of what rape is. If, and it’s a big if, what Cosby was doing was indulging in a kink then that kink was unacceptable and no amount of sex positivity would change that.
“There are a few problems here. The first being that Cosby likely could have found poor women desperate enough to allow themselves to be drugged and raped, given the widespread availability of prostitution, even in jurisdictions where it is criminalised. Cosby didn’t do so, which suggests that he didn’t want to. An “idyllically sex-positive world” of this kind would not have sated him.”
Actually I disagree with this conclusion. What Cosby was doing wasn’t acting out a fantasy, he was making a fantasy real. He wasn’t indulging in a pretend-rape fantasy, he was simply really raping people.
What Rashatwar is arguing for here is that such fantasies can be legally at-least partly gratified and that given this is so, nobody ought to have a problem expecting men like Cosby to adopt such a route, instead of what he actually did. So it’s not as satisfying as the real thing; so what? The real thing is illegal, get used to it!
This doesn’t muddy the concept of adult consent at all: it merely places logical boundaries around it while maintaining the liberty of the individual as well as can be maintained under the circumstances.
However it’s not surprising that the author missed this point if she also believes this: “…it is incredibly easy to get women to acquiesce to unwanted sex, and not only through the economic coercion of prostitution….”
Prostitution is sex for money in which consent is explicitly given. If you think a person is coerced by their own need for money, then no wonder you are confused on other aspects of what adult consent is. Almost all adults make the choice to dedicate much of their waking hours to something they would not do if they were not paid money for it: by the author’s logic, this makes them slaves. Clearly though, that would be a nonsensical claim, and the same applies to the special case of prostitution.
The author wanted to have a go at feminists, the arguments for doing so are just an afterthought.
The author wanted to have a go at feminists, the arguments for doing so are just an afterthought.
“There are a few problems here. The first being that Cosby likely could have found poor women desperate enough to allow themselves to be drugged and raped, given the widespread availability of prostitution, even in jurisdictions where it is criminalised. Cosby didn’t do so, which suggests that he didn’t want to. An “idyllically sex-positive world” of this kind would not have sated him.”
Actually I disagree with this conclusion. What Cosby was doing wasn’t acting out a fantasy, he was making a fantasy real. He wasn’t indulging in a pretend-rape fantasy, he was simply really raping people.
What Rashatwar is arguing for here is that such fantasies can be legally at-least partly gratified and that given this is so, nobody ought to have a problem expecting men like Cosby to adopt such a route, instead of what he actually did. So it’s not as satisfying as the real thing; so what? The real thing is illegal, get used to it!
This doesn’t muddy the concept of adult consent at all: it merely places logical boundaries around it while maintaining the liberty of the individual as well as can be maintained under the circumstances.
However it’s not surprising that the author missed this point if she also believes this: “…it is incredibly easy to get women to acquiesce to unwanted sex, and not only through the economic coercion of prostitution….”
Prostitution is sex for money in which consent is explicitly given. If you think a person is coerced by their own need for money, then no wonder you are confused on other aspects of what adult consent is. Almost all adults make the choice to dedicate much of their waking hours to something they would not do if they were not paid money for it: by the author’s logic, this makes them slaves. Clearly though, that would be a nonsensical claim, and the same applies to the special case of prostitution.
At age 17 thus over the legal age of consent but not legally an adult (ie not 18) (how strange when I think about it),it was just how it was 50 years ago,working and paying bills,in a (I thought) long term relationship (they lie),and with every media influence telling me it was ok,it was no big deal,everyone one else was aflame with raging hormones,if you weren’t you must be weird and bad. I said “yes” only to discover the horrific truth that what I had said yes to,was not what he had in mind so lucky I had the youth and strength to fight it off. Not so romantic eh. So the horror didn’t happen but it taught me a lesson. Maybe before women say yes they need to get a contract drawn up so their persuader can set down in writing what body parts he wants to put where. The shirt word “sex” covers so many permutations of activity that saying yes is just not enough.
Many SadoMasiochists do something like that (and it can still go wrong). But then they are doing so many weird and wonderful things way beyond what most people would accept that it gets kind of mandatory. Can you really, realistically, get most people to do this kind of checklist, as opposed to staying alert to what the other party does/does not want while the game goes on?
Yes – a limits list can be very useful when negotiating a BDSM scene or even a relationship. Of course things can still go wrong, we are human after all and thus fallible, but the lists do help people see where their interests align and where they do not.
I was kind of “joking” or using “irony” a very dangerous strategy as not everybody recognises irony. I was just pointing out that just saying yes is still quite dangerous for the female if the person you’re saying it to has got something else in mind.
I know that “making love”,”having sex” or whatever term one uses is supposed to be utterly straightforward and natural and it’s all loves young dream and flowery meadows and butterflies but that’s never really been true and in many “relationships” there is a lot more going on,power struggles,money concerns, emotional entrapments.
Yes – a limits list can be very useful when negotiating a BDSM scene or even a relationship. Of course things can still go wrong, we are human after all and thus fallible, but the lists do help people see where their interests align and where they do not.
I was kind of “joking” or using “irony” a very dangerous strategy as not everybody recognises irony. I was just pointing out that just saying yes is still quite dangerous for the female if the person you’re saying it to has got something else in mind.
I know that “making love”,”having sex” or whatever term one uses is supposed to be utterly straightforward and natural and it’s all loves young dream and flowery meadows and butterflies but that’s never really been true and in many “relationships” there is a lot more going on,power struggles,money concerns, emotional entrapments.
Many SadoMasiochists do something like that (and it can still go wrong). But then they are doing so many weird and wonderful things way beyond what most people would accept that it gets kind of mandatory. Can you really, realistically, get most people to do this kind of checklist, as opposed to staying alert to what the other party does/does not want while the game goes on?
At age 17 thus over the legal age of consent but not legally an adult (ie not 18) (how strange when I think about it),it was just how it was 50 years ago,working and paying bills,in a (I thought) long term relationship (they lie),and with every media influence telling me it was ok,it was no big deal,everyone one else was aflame with raging hormones,if you weren’t you must be weird and bad. I said “yes” only to discover the horrific truth that what I had said yes to,was not what he had in mind so lucky I had the youth and strength to fight it off. Not so romantic eh. So the horror didn’t happen but it taught me a lesson. Maybe before women say yes they need to get a contract drawn up so their persuader can set down in writing what body parts he wants to put where. The shirt word “sex” covers so many permutations of activity that saying yes is just not enough.
Good observations, Ms. Perry. I checked your book out of the library yesterday.
Good observations, Ms. Perry. I checked your book out of the library yesterday.
I will never forget the endless vitriol directed at the women who came forward about being assaulted by Cosby, and the implication that this was racially motivated because most of the victims were white women. I will not forgive those who did this.
I will never forget the endless vitriol directed at the women who came forward about being assaulted by Cosby, and the implication that this was racially motivated because most of the victims were white women. I will not forgive those who did this.
“it is incredibly easy to get women to acquiesce to unwanted sex,”
and a man