George Rebane
OK Martha, take the children upstairs, we’re gonna talk about sex and the male urge, or whatever you call it when men start thinking below the belt.
I’ve been a lifelong fan of Bill Cosby way back from the ‘I Spy’ days when he co-starred with Robert Culp. We have followed his career on to the stage, TV series and specials, and even driven to other towns to see his solo performances. His message to blacks, especially those on dole and drugs in the ghettos, has been particularly resonant. And then the country was told that national icon Dr William Henry Cosby Jr is really a scumbag who had drugged young women in order to make them more compliant to his sexual advances. We were devastated and asked ourselves one more time, ‘Is there nothing sacrosanct anymore?’
What causes otherwise upstanding males to risk reputation, career, family, friends, … just to get into someone’s pants on the sly? Is it the fact that our culture pays lip service to monogamous relationships? What would happen if our culture recognized the need for (some, many?) heterosexual males to openly enjoy the company of females for sex the same way they could enjoy such company for, say, a game of tennis singles or playing an instrumental duet?
Such a sexual need has been recognized for centuries by many cultures, some of which continue the accepted and open practice of male dalliance to this day. Jews could marry multiple wives in biblical times, and polygamy is still permitted in Islam and several other religious traditions. Some cultures like the Hmong people on the Indochina peninsula even condone gang raping young girls, which is admittedly beyond the pale for us in the west.
In recent years we in the west have become more open sexually. We have allowed the homosexuals to leave their closets and marry and raise children. We fully accept and even endorse couples ‘living in sin’ together before or instead of getting married. Now our European brethren are revisiting ‘incest is best’; at first between siblings, but once this taboo falls, parent/child sex will not be far behind. So our society has already embarked on that slippery slope away from puritanical mores, and our slide is picking up speed.
So why not institutionalize what we once approximated with ‘open marriage’, and allow both sexes in an otherwise monogamous and loving relationship (family, home, children, inheritance, …) to openly seek diversity, stimulation, and relief(?) outside such an anchoring and avowedly permanent marriage. Why not remove the last vestiges of moral misgivings from wanting to have occasional sex with partners other than your dearly beloved?
One wonders whether all those stories of kidnappings, rape, and murder would not be drastically reduced were we to take this next step toward removing ‘licentiousness’ and ‘adultery’ from our vocabulary. If two or more partners are willing to enjoy themselves, who is some third party to say that they shouldn’t because it is against an existing (outdated?) law or some ancient morē? We even have social media standing by and ready to facilitate such legitimate liaisons for fun and profit. Think about it, why does it have to be surreptitious? Why couldn’t Bill Cosby have talked it over with his then presumably copasetic wife before going out on the town for the evening? He wouldn’t have had to use drugs or even stay out overnight.
From what I've read, Cosby is a sick man. His usual MO was to drug women into unconsciousness before he had sex with them. That's right next door to necrophilia.
He was very open about his father being an alcoholic - it could have been a turbulent and chaotic home environment that led him to have some sort of weird need for total control in his sex life. That's a matter that's above my pay grade in psychology.
Anyway, it wasn't consensual and believing that relaxing societal norms regarding the family unit will lead to less rape and sexual assault are nonsense.
Posted by: Account Deleted | 22 July 2015 at 12:36 PM
What he is alleged to have done is down right ugly. So is the manner in which the "evidence" was obtained. The statements he made were under seal, and some judge "felt" they should be unsealed. No rule of law was used to unseal that court records.
Cosby supposedly "paid off" some of these people. If they did take the money, that have no room to bitch about it years after the fact. (looking for more?)
The time to speak up was then. Not now.
Posted by: Walt | 22 July 2015 at 12:47 PM
Many men think with the wrong head. No matter how intelligence, no matter what part of society, some men are prone to this kind of thuggish behavior. The only thing missing here is Cosby's democrat registration information.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 22 July 2015 at 01:01 PM
In the words of Robin Williams:
"God gave men a penis and a brain, but unfortunately not enough blood supply to run both at the same time."
Posted by: George Boardman | 22 July 2015 at 05:04 PM
While the details of the deposition are disgusting what is really disturbing is the marked similarity between the cosby MO and the reports about the Playboy mansion from one of the young girls that almost married heff in her recent book. Hefner called the depressants 'leg spreaders'. It seems that the depravity went far beyond what our imaginations had envisioned happening willingly at the Playboy mansion. So it seems that cosby was a man of his time in Hollywood where the elites felt no constraints on their behavior.
Posted by: Don Bessee | 22 July 2015 at 07:13 PM
" ‘incest is best’; at first between siblings, but once this taboo falls, parent/child sex will not be far behind. So our society has already embarked on that slippery slope away from puritanical mores, and our slide is picking up speed."
speaking of slippery slopes, this statement is a classic example--
" The only thing missing here is Cosby's democrat registration information." Once again, Todd blows it out his rear. According to Todd's pals at Heartland, he is more of a conservative than a liberal.
https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/bill-cosby-conservative-black
No mention, of course, of homosexual airport bathroom solicitations that are the specialty of republican "anti-gay" congressmen. I suppose, Todd, that if a dog takes a dump on your lawn it is the fault of democrats.
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 23 July 2015 at 09:27 AM
ScottO 1236pm - You seem to be the only one who got the point of the post, everyone else wants to talk about Cosby. Hope that you'll expand on "...and believing that relaxing societal norms regarding the family unit will lead to less rape and sexual assault are nonsense." And since we have markedly relaxed societal norms regarding the family unit with regard to what constitutes a family, do we know how these have affected rape and sexual assault stats. I realize the question is difficult because in the same interval we have expanded the definitions of rape and sexual assault.
While not endorsing the legitimization of such liaisons, the fact that they are a classical and often destructive feature of our society does call into question as to whether their propriety should also be reviewed in this age where all such things seem to be up in the air.
Posted by: George Rebane | 23 July 2015 at 09:55 AM
Joe Koyote | 23 July 2015 at 09:27 AM
Joe Smith our resident far lefty here is just apoplectic that all his favorite people with weird sexual peccadilloes are mostly democrats. He is correct that I enjoy pointing out his heros are so perved.
The best Joe the lefty can some up in response is some fellow apparently accuses of a "wide stance" at the urinal in an airport.
Jeeze liberals are so easy to rile and make a fool of.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 23 July 2015 at 11:35 AM
Oh and the link Joe Smith supplied trying to tell us Cosby may be a conservative says this in the first line in his link.
"Bill Cosby has never publicly described himself as a conservative."
This is the smartest Joe can come up with? Amazing!
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 23 July 2015 at 11:37 AM
So JoeK,, Just where is that first "quote" from? Who said that?
Google says YOU did. Talk about one sick puppy...
Posted by: Walt | 23 July 2015 at 12:20 PM
This country is still dealing with Puritanical values. Sex is a natural urge and pretending that it is reserved for child bearing between a hetersexual married couple has caused all kinds of problems. I believe that prositution should be legal and regulated so that the women (or men) are checked daily
for a clean bill of health. When people have a way to satisfy these urges, I think George maybe right that sexual crimes would go down.
Posted by: Patricia Smith | 23 July 2015 at 01:59 PM
Well, it didn't take Todd, Walt and the boys to turn this into a partisan political issue.
Sorry to disillusion you boys, but this transcends party lines. Take, for example, the recent Republican House leadership.
Newt, who cheated on his first two wives, was to be replaced as speaker by Bob Livingston, who resigned after he was forced to admit to adultery. The speakership then went to Dennis Hastert, who apparently likes to wrestle with boys. Meanwhile, I hear Boehner is into plastics.
As for the claim that expanding the traditional definition of marriage will reduce rape and other sexual offenses, that's a new one on me. Of course, traditional marriage hasn't set a shining example in this area.
Posted by: George Boardman | 23 July 2015 at 02:14 PM
Patricia, I actually agree that prostitution should be legal and regulated. I have looked to Reno for stats on the per 100,000 rapes but can't find them. I would like to see if having brothels diminishes those crimes.
Boardman, you make it partisan. All of your examples (none of which were crimes) by a Republican and none of your party. You proved my point.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 23 July 2015 at 02:23 PM
What are you smoke'n Boardman? I didn't bring any politics into this.
What rule of law did the judge use to unseal the records?
Just what in hell is "partisan" about that?
Yup, legalize prostitution. An Uncle had a string of "houses". Restarting a family business
looks pretty good these days.
The divorce lawyers will be more than happy to support the legalization.
Posted by: Walt | 23 July 2015 at 03:12 PM
Walt is correct. I meant to type Don.
As for Todd, once again he misses the point. I used the Republican examples to make the point that this is a bipartisan issue and that you can find bad actors on both sides of the political divide.
Todd says what Gingrich and Livingston did isn't illegal (Hastert was saved by the statute of limitations), but the CONS are always claiming the high moral ground when it comes to social issues. All of those values voters must be really frustrated with the Republican finger wavers.
Posted by: George Boardman | 23 July 2015 at 04:47 PM
It is but merely an unsubstantiated observation of mine, but I have noticed men of power are usually Alpha Males and have a strong sex drive. Seems to come with the terrority.
Legal prostitution is a win-win for the horny guy who can't find a date and for the working lady as well. My only opposition to prostitution is that one rents the woman for a specified time or buys the cow. I personally believe in why rent or own the cow when this land is flowing with free milk and honey.
With that said, this Crosby thing simply does not hold my interest. Sexual predators are one thing, legal prostitution is another. Legal or illegal throwing of tricks must be mutual, whether it be for cash or as I n the dawn of mankind, prostitution was on the barter system. I will give you this is you give me that.
To each his/her own as long as it is done in a kind gentle consenting way with no abuse, be it mental, physical, or emotionally....in a perfect world far far away.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 23 July 2015 at 06:35 PM
OK,, your off the hook Mr. B,, I have even done the same.
With that said,, WTF!!!??? Lefties can do and say as they please because they lack morales?
( or no claim to any?) What a piss poor excuse.
So let me get this straight, and put it into context. A Conservative Father takes his kid to the grave yard to pay his respects to ( insert interred name here) and his little Son needs to go wee. Dad takes him to the far corner of the grave yard and finds the fence post. Job done.
Now a LIB Father under the same circumstances says, " It's OK, Son no one is looking, and those plastic flowers look like they need water."
How am I do'n Boardman? Sound about right?
Posted by: Walt | 23 July 2015 at 06:49 PM
Boardman 4:47 PM.
The left always does the things they say others do and they do it in overwhelming numbers. Then when they are caught, Spitzer, Weiner etal, all the way down to the democrat dog catcher, they try and divert the issue to "well, those repubs do it too. Wah wah wah. There might be a handful of R's but there is bushels of democrats. That pit of crap gained another adherent in Boardman. So when I point out this disparity, you fall again into the pit of crapola by listing only the few R's. No fellow lefties. Thereby proving you are actually partisan about. My point these men on the right he listed did not break a law fostered his finger pointing at Hastert (who I don't care for either) even though he was not charged. Another example of biased "press". Thanks for proving all these points.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 23 July 2015 at 07:02 PM
Todd, you really are thick. I think you inhaled too much saw dust for your own good.
Walt, I don't think either party can claim the moral high ground, but the CONS sure try to because they need to keep the evangelical Christians engaged and enthusiastic. When you've alienated everybody else, you can't afford to waste any white votes.
Posted by: George Boardman | 24 July 2015 at 10:04 AM
George Boardman 10:04 AM. Actually I am just fine, you libs snorted too much printers ink and usually make no sense. Since you don't answer anyone's questions from the right, it shows your lib hubris is once again in charge. How old are you? 12?
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 24 July 2015 at 10:29 AM
Sawdust, printer's ink??!! Gentlemen, I think you're too focused on each other and not the issue at hand. Try harder.
Posted by: George Rebane | 24 July 2015 at 11:20 AM
Sorry but I have the Trump syndrome today. Stupid questions from the press and libs are not allowed to stand without return fire. I'll try to do better.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 24 July 2015 at 12:24 PM
In view of recent events, this post's title "Cosby's Crash Reconsidered", perhaps should be updated to a more appropriate title such as "Cosby's Cash Resonsidered".
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 26 July 2015 at 03:34 PM