In a column that appeared late Thursday night on the New York Post’s website, Post writer Andrea Peyser came to embattled comedian and serial rapist Bill Cosby’s defense by essentially victim-blaming each one of his accusers and stating that rape wasn’t the same thing in the ’60s and ’70s as it is now. In Peyser’s piece, she implied that more than 30 women had it coming from Cosby because, in her opinion, they likely took drugs voluntarily before being taken advantage of by Cosby. Due to this, Cosby can’t be called a rapist. Instead, he just practices “high-pressure seductions.”
At the beginning of her piece, Peyser labels Cosby a bad husband and likely sex addict. However, she also points out that she isn’t willing to accept that he’s a rapist, despite the number of women who have accused him of drugging and sexually assaulting them.
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.
Oy vey! Seriously, what the fuck is “high-pressure seductions” even supposed to mean. I especially like how she put quotes around the word crimes. Peyser continues by claiming that rape has a different definition today than it did in decades past when Cosby committed his acts. Also, that is when she blames the accusers for Cosby’s actions, plainly stating that most of them, if not all, took drugs willingly in Cosby’s presence. (It would seem she is taking Cosby’s words over the dozens of women who have accused him and stated that he drugged them without their knowledge.)
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.
It may not matter. Most of Cosby’s illicit activities would be considered sex crimes, according to today’s feminist-written definition of rape. Off with his head, and other body parts!
But 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.
Back then, before the goddamned feminazis made it so a man couldn’t even look at a women cross without getting called a rapist, men were men and girls were girls. If you didn’t want to get a dick inserted in you without your consent, then you didn’t drink or do drugs, at all. If you did, then you were giving an open invitation to all men. That’s just the way it was. But now in today’s PC culture, well, women get away with everything.
Later on in the column, Peyser takes Cosby’s side by claiming that he’s never been charged with a crime and that he has continued to deny that he did anything wrong. (Ahhh, the Whoopi Goldberg defense.) To help bolster her point that Cosby isn’t a rapist but just a lecherous dude who banged a bunch of chicks back in the day, Peyser uses his wife and some old stripper as defense witnesses.
The former stripper, Sandy Kane, stated that she had a “quickie” with Cosby back in the ’70s and everything was consensual. Kane also pointed out that “everyone took Quaaludes” back then, and she used them on the night she had sex with Cosby. She even took a half of one from him after they were done. Ergo, all the women accusing Cosby knowingly took Quaaludes and had consensual sex with Cosby, because one woman said she did. Also, since his wife of 51 years is standing by his side, then all the other women are inflating their stories or not being honest about their own drug use.