Before the rape allegations for Cosby came out in full force this time around to the public he had a really bad reputation in the black gossip sites. Mainly that he would openly sexually harass women and he was a giant turd to anyone that he viewed as inferior (service people for example). I read a lot of personal stories back then. From guys who cleaned his car, to production assistants who got felt up, to girls who went to colleges he spoke at.

Plus the gossip sites always talked about his targets-- white women and yellow bones.

At the time people couldn't fully agree on the rape allegations that have always plagued him (why were women accepting random pills from him?) but certainly everyone said to stay the fuck away and that he loved paying women off.

rapists can be stunningly clueless, somehow unaware that they have committed a crime or even a faux pas.

Easy enough to do when all sex is classified as rape one way or another

New to me (as a descriptive term only): "Yellow bones."

Somewhere on the Internet I recently read about a project assigned to students of a Women's Studies course in a college. Each student had to interview several different guys, and have someone videotape the interviews.

The assignment was then to analyse the videos and identify the sexists behaviors demonstrated by the guy. Note: it wasn't to determine whether there were any sexist behaviors - that was an unspoken assumption.

It's much the same with the current "rape culture" crap. Of course all men are wannabe rapists, of course anything men do is sexual assault. What I find disturbing are the men that play along, and actually date (and, presumably, have sex with) women who believe this stuff. I mean, they are just asking for a retroactive rape charge at then end of the relationship.

Were the men notified that there was a study going on and that they'd be videotaped? If not, it's a violation of their privacy.

And right on about all the men who actually ask women out, etc.

As far as I can tell, "yellow bone" is a light skinned mixed race woman with yellowish (gold?) complexion. A red bone would have a more cinnamon complexion.

I guess I'd know a yellow bone if I saw her, but I couldn't name names off the top of my head.

Were the men notified that there was a study going on and that they'd be videotaped?

If it was an actual study, that would have to approved by a "human subjects" committee before hand, and require the subjects to sign an agreement before being allowed to participate.

Now, if it were part of a class project, they were probably aware, but without the niceties of a signed agreement and oversight by "human subjects" processes.

For instance, I volunteered for a 3-d laser scan of my head, and I had to sign an agreement before being scanned.

The larger problem is a culture that enables rape. The larger problem is us.

Too often boys are socialized to see women and girls as baubles, as playthings. The upshot is that rapists can be stunningly clueless, somehow unaware that they have committed a crime or even a faux pas.

This isn't about preventing (or punishing) sexual violence. It's about reprogramming society (mostly men) to think and act the way the programmers want them to - using language and law. It's about wresting control from the individual many and handing it to the collective few.

There is a prissy element in human society that hates chaos and loves conformity. And individual freedom = chaos.

Mariah Carey=yellow bone aka high yellow. Probably more antiquated terms are quadroon and mulatta.

Beyonce=red bone
"Red bone" was the slang term for the descendants of freed coloured people who mixed with Native Americans. It was considered derogatory at one point but has re-entered black American lexicon and spawned the term yellow bone.

Cosby was known to like the former, not the latter. He had very specific taste when it came to black women.

I'm honestly not sure what to make of the flood of Cosby accusations. It could be "no smoke without fire", or it could be "jump on the gravy train" hoping to force a settlement out of him.

Some claims sound pretty believable. Others are just weird. Essentially all of them allegedly happened a long time ago - the most extreme is the one from 1969, forty eight years ago. Where have these people been in the meantime? Why now?

So, is Cosby as a rich guy to take advantage of, or Cosby a rich guy who figured money was a license to do whatever he wanted?

The settlement explanation doesn't make sense to me.

Only 1 woman settled, it's the reason the majority of women came out 10 years ago. They wanted to testify on her behalf. If they wanted money, why didnt they do it then? All seem to want to ruin his reputation, for whatever reason, including a criminal prosecutor who said he believed years ago he did it but didnt have sufficient evidence to bring up criminal charges.

At this point if he settles it would be an admission of guilt to the public anyways.

I don't understand why the UVa woman let that guy say one fucking word to her. I would have broken his nose so fast. I think she was naive, a bit stupid and a fairly easy target, but after that night in the frat house--why did she not muscle up? that's the part I don't understand. She could have hired townies to mess him up, she could have gone to the police, she could have screamed her head off every time she saw him.
I think Cosby's a slime-ball rapist--I've heard these stories for around 15 years in show biz from black and white people, and I think he's despicable.

Sometime, Seekers, there's this thing, where something is so obvious that nobody bothers to say it, and then we worry that youths and other newcomers will fail to recognize a fundamental principle of the enterprise under discussion. An enterprise, like, say, Western Civ.

And I haven't read every word about Cosby's crisis, so maybe this is already out there.

But just in case it isn't:

POISONING PEOPLE IS EXTREMELY AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR.

…And doing it with lesser inebriants for sexual access is almost unspeakably violent.

But even in general, FEEDING BAD THINGS TO PEOPLE is TREMENDOUSLY hostile… About as criminal and antisocial as a man can be.

Cosby seems to be taking an accelerating and righteous amount of heat for mean, clumsy, hurtful sex. But for the poisoning?

I mean, if you accused me of poisoning a woman for sex, I'd be more disturbed by the accusation of poisoning than by the accusation of rape.

All men —even little-old-men like me, chubby & pink & squeaky-voiced— are at risk for sexually inappropriate behavior... If we feel any attractions at all. (And sometimes when we don't.)

But POISONING someone?

And "redbone" means only the main-verse bass line here. 1974 was a great year for chasing tail of every color, even if you didn't catch much.

POISONING PEOPLE IS EXTREMELY AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR.

It's also very dangerous. There's a reason why anesthesiology is a medical specialty.

People react differently to levels and types of medication. What knocks one person out barely affects another and kills the third.

In the movies, knockout drops always work perfectly with no harmful side affects. In real life, not so much.

The entire idea of "rape culture" is an extension of an almost indescribable stupidity: the idea that a COLLECTIVE is responsible for any individual's safety is idiocy. It's an appeal by the clueless, a special pleading for protection by unnamed others.
It's a corollary to the denial of and displacement of blame.

In other news, the public wants unlimited voluntary sex without consequences of any kind, and no responsibilities at all.

On the Cosby thing:

If you could picture the most unintimidating person in the world…short of a midget, it would be Bill Cosby.

If you could picture a tactic more likely to go wrong than drugging lots of people, it it would be stupid enough to go in a lifetime movie.

Stories, no matter how plentiful, are not evidence, they are neither smoke nor fire, at most, their kindling that is lit only in the minds of people who wish to see both of the former.

The man is in his 70s, and we're only hearing about this now? No, I don't buy it.

A single settlement does not really mean guilt either, it could just as easily mean avoiding bad publicity.

Some of us are old enough to remember the 80s, the ludicrous stories that were bought hook, line, and sinker, by people who believed the accusations of rape, torture, sexual sadism, devil worship, and even the mass executions of children around the country, that left untold numbers jailed only to be subsequently released when sanity was restored to the nation after what amounted to modern day witch hunts.

Where are the myriad of friends and social workers and family members of these so called legions of victims and why did none of them ever pursue a case, civil or criminal?

A rational mind cannot accept this with a carte blanche for truth.

Are we supposed to believe that the pudding dude is to intimidating?

My 11 year old daughter could snap that man in two.

-------------------

On the subject of rape culture…oh for fucks sake. Look some people, most notably women for whatever reason, have a fixation, even obsession, with rape.

They look for it everywhere, and when you are of a mind to look for it everywhere, I promise you'll find that evidence 'everywhere', much the way a racist finds 'proof' to support their racism.

When everything is evidence of rape culture, up to and including teaching women to defend themselves (kind of the opposite of a culture that encourages rape) then to such people all sex becomes rape.

It makes one wonder what they think about when they do have sex. Do they picture themselves in the victim role? Do they think of themselves of overcoming the victim role by controling the encounter? And if one small thing (such as whether or not he calls the next day) slips beyond their control, or some twinge of regret comes to mind, are those then evidence that they have been abused or assaulted? (Frankly that would account for much)

Indeed it begs the question of men that have sex with such women…why the hell would you risk your dick in that? No THANKS.

Quite frankly, such constant worry over fear and power balance seems both exhausting and counterproductive.

Never listen to those women.
Never fuck those women.
Never reproduce with those women.
Never let them near your son or your daughter.

They mentioned on the radio that parents of young male freshmen, when interviewed, only seemed concerned about the possibility that their sons might be falsely accused; they never wanted to consider that their sons might be the perpetrators - or what they should do about it beforehand. Like, maybe, at least ASK a boy what he plans to do if he sees a woman being attacked? If he doesn't say, at least, "I'd call security," a parent really needs to go into a much longer talk. As many columnists have pointed out, too many modern parents refuse to believe THEIR precious kids would do so much as steal a penny, regardless of their ages. Well, tons of kids steal - just for fun.

While it's clearly very hard to prevent kids from becoming cold-blooded predators, especially if you weren't an abusive parent (in that case, society's only hope is often the teachers and the police) it has to be done as much as possible. In the Craigslist Killer case, it seems that no adult saw anything wrong with Markoff as a kid or as a highschooler, but a few of his classmates did - both in elementary school and in college. Of course, Markoff was smart enough not to flaunt his serious lack of empathy for those he considered beneath him - around adults, that is.

From the book "Seven Days of Rage":

"The idea that he would meet these girls and go to great lengths to do it when he could just rob someone at a cash machine shows that this crime is multifaceted."

And, the same doctor points out here that -

http://books.google.com/books?id=y8rWfwKR1SQC&pg=PA197&dq=%22seven+days+of+rage%22+%22phil+the+thrill%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qyB6VPexBKrlsASox4GgCQ&ved=0CB8QuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=%22seven%20days%20of%20rage%22%20%22phil%20the%20thrill%22&f=false

- in all likelihood, Markoff wasn't a psychopath, despite his incredibly reckless, abnormal behavior AFTER he'd killed one of the three women. (You have to read the two pages that follow the chapter title.)

So my point is, while absolute power may corrupt people long after they reach adulthood, as it may have with Bill Cosby, there may well be cases of young people who very much need PSYCHIATRIC care - and it takes a lot of work to ID them, but it has to be done. It's nothing more than parents' and teachers' moral duty.

As I posted in the other thread:

Even if we could prove that ALL rapes committed by men over 18 are committed by predators who know exactly what they're doing and don't care (and there's plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise), how in the world is that an excuse for parents not to live up to their duty of making sure they're not turning loose a violent, Jekyll-Hyde type criminal on the world - male or female? Why assume that your kid knows - especially as a TEEN - that wishful thinking and anger don't make a crime not a crime?

Something I posted elsewhere:

Personally, I believe that women would really rather be warned than not warned as to how and when a man tends to rape - it's all in how you say it. Since parents understandably are afraid of making their daughters angry and defensive, often all they say is "stay away from drinking parties" without saying exactly why, which is why you don't often hear girls complaining of not being warned about such parties.

I would suggest a different approach for parents and teachers alike: Simply hold an all-female class (including the teacher - and do NOT call it a rape prevention class, just say it's about rape), hand out two pieces of paper (one on acquaintance rape and one on stranger rape) with the statistics on the left-hand side of each paper. Then tell them to write their conclusions on the right-hand side of each sheet and keep a copy for themselves (plus maybe give a copy back to the teacher). Then tell them that if they want, you can provide them with some extra advice,
but only if they want it and not if they don't.

Of course, they are free to compare notes after class. That way, they at least have a sense of whom to avoid dating or partying with - and when to avoid it.

(Personally, I've never seen the point of getting drunk even at SINGLE-sex gatherings, because at best, you could end up blurting very embarrassing, private information - and that info could find its way back to the worst person possible. Who wants to risk that?)

And there have to be at least two different approaches when it comes to stopping boys from BECOMING rapists. That is, IIRC, cold-blooded
serial rapists are often narcissists and/or from abusive families, so it's clearly going to be a very complicated and slippery business for other adults to teach them the empathy lessons that their parents likely never taught them. At the same time, though, it's likely a sad fact that with every new generation of teen boys, there's a sizable number who have to be taught that: 1. No, you can't force a girl into sex just because she wasn't a virgin when you met. 2. No, you can't force her just because you don't believe that unwanted sex exists and you two have been dating for two months and you're sick of waiting for her to be ready. 3. No, you can't force her because you've paid for three restaurant meals in a row and you're angry about it. 4. No, you can't force her just because you two had consensual sex on a previous occasion. 5. Yes, unwanted sex exists, just as you wouldn't want a man to attack you and ignore your screams of "no." Just because a young man doesn't belong to the cold-blooded rapist category doesn't mean he truly understands that unwanted sex really exists - or that a woman's body belongs to her and not to him - or to the public, for that matter. Which is why all boys need those lessons.

And, I would add, of course it's painful for a parent even to ask a 10-year-old the following:

"What would you do if you spotted a friend of yours about to shoplift something?"

That is, even if the parent is simply trying to plant a seed of ethics in the kid's brain (for those times when the kid is not being supervised), chances are the parent will be squeamish about asking that, since the parent knows chances are the kid's first, defensive thoughts will likely be:

"I don't know; I don't care; why should I HAVE to do anything when I'm not a cop, and surely you're not suggesting that I break off any friendship unless I'M the one being robbed - or my classmates are!"

(But I'd guess most kids wouldn't be bold enough to express that last sentiment.)

If you say: "Well, of course you have to do something - how would you like it if no one stood up for YOUR right not to be robbed? How about something face-saving like 'hey, I think you forgot to put that in the cart,' or 'hey, if you steal that, I'll never be able to trust you again,' " then you just might be able to keep your own kid on the right track - and be able to talk about grimmer subjects later. Such as fraternity "initiations."

As any psychologist will tell you, it's our actions that mold our attitudes, not the other way around, which is why parents have to do as much as possible to mold their kids' actions when the parents are not around - and not assume they don't need that instruction.

Just in case anyone didn't realize where I was going with the last post:

Of course most parents are too squeamish to even consider their sweet little kids might steal when unsupervised - or that their charming teens might do worse.

Which is why it's so important to break the ice by approaching it indirectly. With the parental questions I gave above, the kid knows, deep down, that the parent is REALLY saying: "I know you might be tempted to steal someday because, say, you're angry about never having enough money for something. Don't even think about it, since I won't even tolerate your being a passive bystander. I expect you to set a good standard for your peers."

To build on something I said before:

Parents nowadays are pretty much automatically expected to talk to their teens about not drinking and driving - and to watch closely for signs that the teens are not listening, for whatever sick reason - and then DO something about it, even if it means drugging them with psychiatric medicine. Because, ya know, innocent strangers' lives are at stake.

What's the difference?

To build on some things WE said before:

• Why the Hell should parents let you tell them how to raise their kids?
• What makes you think that teenage boys would respond deeply and reflexively to verbal instruction about human identity when presented in a single encounter with parents?
• Isn't it far more likely that those parents have shown the boys —through a ten thousand interactions with the boys themselves and with others— that the comfort of others is not something to worry about?
• Isn't your whole theme just the expression of your fantasies that 'Golly, mabye nobody's TOLD them yet?'…? As if there were some twinkling house of magic on the corner of Simple Street and Forgotten Avenue at which you, in your girly daydreams, save the day by instantly transforming the most complex & entrenched system in the known Universe, human character?

Whoa golly hay, you made a bunch of comments, so I'm going after those too.

> a parent really needs to go into a
> much longer talk.

You're stuck on this. Individual "talks," whatever their duration, don't transmit decency to children. An example throughout childhood transmits decency to children. You seem pornographically attracted to the single-shot scenario of a Gentle Adult speaking quietly to a Receptive Child to build character. That ain't how it goes.

> Like, maybe, at least ASK a boy
> what he plans to do if he sees
> a woman being attacked?

First, your sarcasm tells us nothing about the behavior of others, only about the urgency of your own detachment from the intimacies of those around you.

Second, you AGAIN imagine that a single conversation will be what changes a child's response to half the human race. 'Just ask,' you say.

Actually, you said "ASK," all caps, because you'd rather speak loudly than risk complexity. You can't imagine that a teenage boy —theretofore unconcerned about the well-being of others— might have a response for a parent presenting this 'question.' We therefore conclude you don't have much experience with teenagers.

Or, you're perhaps a single mother or in that cohort, trying to imagine a conversation with a fatherless son which would absolve the mother of responsibility when the kid turned out to be a reckless monster. 'But officer, I've ASKED the boy to be nice...!'

Your last three comments are unreadable... Plodding and sparkless. I can't plow through. I'll make it up to you some day.


For today, please understand that we think you're wrong about this.

Just in case you're not the ONLY one who doesn't get it…
_____________________________________

Why the Hell should parents let you tell them how to raise their kids?
____________________________________

I'm hardly the only one. It wasn't so long ago that parents, the law, and society in general didn't believe in doing much of anything to stop drunken drivers from existing or even to punish them - whether as reckless teens or as amoral adults who say things like "I'd probably have to kill four or five more people before I stopped driving drunk." (That was almost exactly what Clarence Busch said to his wife after he killed Candy Lightner's daughter in 1980; Lightner went on to create MADD.) Why? People somehow didn't see it as a crime. Nowadays, thankfully, no parent seriously complains about being expected to talk to teens, over and over (not just ONCE, the way you seem to think - I never said "just once") about the importance of making sure they don't commit a crime, even by "accident." Or about the importance of remembering that "friends don't let friends drive drunk" - because drunk drivers are more likely to hurt someone else rather than themselves.

So, again, what's the difference? Why doesn't anyone want to answer that? I'm not saying it's easy to have those parental talks - just that it's better to find out, one way or another, just what your teen's ethics are before it's too late to mold them.
______________________________________________

What makes you think that teenage boys would respond deeply and reflexively to verbal instruction about human identity when presented in a single encounter with parents?
______________________________________

Again, I'M not talking about just one talk. See above.
_________________________________________

Isn't it far more likely that those parents have shown the boys —through a ten thousand interactions with the boys themselves and with others— that the comfort of others is not something to worry about?
_______________________________________

Maybe, maybe not. If it's true that most(?) serial predators come from abusive families, that's obviously a very complex problem. However, there's no shortage of well-off, non-abusive families - like Philip Markoff's, I assume - who fail to notice when their kids are developing a serious entitlement/narcissism problem, maybe because they only gave them lessons in basic manners but didn't realize it was ALSO necessary to give them regular, gentle lessons in humility and putting other people first in general. (There's plenty in the news that suggests that modern parents would rather have a straight-A teen than a kind teen - because many parents are short-sighted.)
___________________________________

Isn't your whole theme just the expression of your fantasies that 'Golly, mabye nobody's TOLD them yet?'

Posted by: Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 1, 2014 10:09 AM
________________________________________

You don't read too well, do you?

As I implied, obviously that's not the case with regard to adult males - or Markoff. However, there's no shortage of boys 14 and under who, in fact, do have a pretty hard time grasping that unwanted sex actually exists, which is why it's illegal, like burglary, and so they clearly need to have that explained to them in ways they can grasp - and if they have anger management problems, parents need to help them with that too, as in the dating examples I gave. E.g., boys have every right to know that they can refuse to pay for more than one dinner date in a row, if paying for two dinners in a row makes them angry. Otherwise, it's easy to imagine that that juvenile mindset will snowball into something much worse.

What exactly is so barbaric about demanding that either parents or society (when the parents are abusive/neglectful) focus on just what is causing serial predators to exist in the first place - and how we can nip that in the bud, just as we do with drunken drivers? If drunken drivers aren't just something we have to accept and try to avoid, like tornadoes, why should we just accept serial predators either?
_____________________________________

An example throughout childhood transmits decency to children.
____________________________________

Which is what I said, above.
_____________________________________

Or, you're perhaps a single mother
____________________________________

I would never want to be a parent. There are too many reasons not to, no matter where one lives. However, one doesn't have to be a parent to have a certain amount of common sense - which, unfortunately, we as a society really didn't have regarding driving and the law - before MADD.

which, unfortunately, we as a society really didn't have regarding driving and the law - before MADD.

Posted by: lenona at December 1, 2014 6:25 PM

You think there was no drunk driving enforcement before MADD?

Guess again.

In fact, the rabid activism of MADD has contorted the drunk driving laws into just another one of those revenue generation measures to fund the police department.

The standards have become so insanely low, that it seves to give a large percentage of the under thirty population a record that will damage their employment prospects for life.

You think there was no drunk driving enforcement before MADD?
________________________________

No, just that the slap on the wrist that Clarence Busch got in 1980 for killing Cari Lightner was apparently pretty typical, back then. Candy Lightner didn't start MADD for nothing.