Sexual molestation?

[Seth]

They need to have guns in their vaginas.

No they need to have teeth...

No, in this case a gun would be better.
Plenty of rapists have forced the victim to give oral sex as well. If it's someone twice your size, who could kill you with one punch if he wanted, most victims choose to live.

Well, the benefit of vagina dentata is that it can't be taken away from you, and also, tactically speaking, you let (or even encourage) him to go in, then chop it off, at which point he's probably distracted by the pain, so you're in a better position to escape.

I perused some patents a while back referencing anti-rape devices.

One of the really cruel ones was a vaginally inserted tube worn at all times that has a barbed needle coaxially centered, so that when the perp sticks it in, he's impaled by the barbed needle and the whole device comes out with his penis inside, making it difficult to impossible to remove, even surgically.

The original was metal, but I imagine today a comfortable silicone version could be produced that would actually be wearable for long periods.

Add a pressurized injector that injects a quick-acting neurotoxin when triggered and the problem is solved permanently.

[piscator]

Meanwhile, in Australia, giant Huntsman's spiders run amok in downtown Perth, routinely mugging hapless office workers for their lunches...

[JimC]

Spawn of Shelob!

[Hermit]

Our secular, democratic societies are much better than those theocratic dictatorships of the Muslim world, are they not? In the latter it takes the statements of only two or four women to get a man into court. Men are much safer from such lying bitches here. Statements from 25 women is not enough. Go, us.

[Seth]

Our secular, democratic societies are much better than those theocratic dictatorships of the Muslim world, are they not? In the latter it takes the statements of only two or four women to get a man into court. Men are much safer from such lying bitches here. Statements from 25 women is not enough. Go, us.

Well, not 40 years after the fact against a wealthy celebrity anyway. Still, the presumption of innocence applies, so until they come up with some forensic evidence the women are getting just what they have coming for being dilatory.

[Hermit]

Yeah, I heard you blokes the first time. And the second. And the third. And the...

I am not saying that the likes of Cosby are guilty. but you, bg and mm are making blanket judgements about the women being either lying goldminers, have feeble memory capabilities or what's the point of seeking justice after x number of years. Perhaps some are, but how are you to know if so, and how many? Well done, men. You make me proud to be one too.

[Seth]

Yeah, I heard you blokes the first time. And the second. And the third. And the...

I am not saying that the likes of Cosby are guilty. but you, bg and mm are making blanket judgements about the women being either lying goldminers, have feeble memory capabilities or what's the point of seeking justice after x number of years. Perhaps some are, but how are you to know if so, and how many? Well done, men. You make me proud to be one too.

It doesn't matter to me whether they are actual victims or gold diggers. Rational public policy and jurisprudence demands that the victims of crimes report those crimes immediately, so they can be properly investigated and prosecuted if required. There is a moral component to encouraging people not to report crimes right away that involves the risks to the public of allowing a criminal to continue to victimize people because a victim is too afraid to report the first, or the thirty-second crime.

More importantly, as the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court beyond all reasonable doubt, alleging crimes long after the fact violates the defendants right to a fair trial because it becomes he said/she said which, as we see here, tarnishes and impugns the reputation of the accused whether he (or she) is guilty or not. Cosby will never recover from this, even if he's never proven guilty. It's slander and libel, pure and simple.

Since the truth can no longer be proven, even by a preponderance of the evidence, the accusers are, or should be, legally liable for damages to the accused's reputation.

When you are victimized by a criminal, you have a right to make a complaint and seek justice...right away. Use it or lose it. If you choose not to use it, then get some counseling and get over it and move on with your life. Don't wait decades and then decide you're entitled to justice, because the accused is entitled to justice too, which you deny by delaying your complaint.

[JimC]

Yeah, I heard you blokes the first time. And the second. And the third. And the...

I am not saying that the likes of Cosby are guilty. but you, bg and mm are making blanket judgements about the women being either lying goldminers, have feeble memory capabilities or what's the point of seeking justice after x number of years. Perhaps some are, but how are you to know if so, and how many? Well done, men. You make me proud to be one too.

It doesn't matter to me whether they are actual victims or gold diggers. Rational public policy and jurisprudence demands that the victims of crimes report those crimes immediately, so they can be properly investigated and prosecuted if required. There is a moral component to encouraging people not to report crimes right away that involves the risks to the public of allowing a criminal to continue to victimize people because a victim is too afraid to report the first, or the thirty-second crime.

More importantly, as the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court beyond all reasonable doubt, alleging crimes long after the fact violates the defendants right to a fair trial because it becomes he said/she said which, as we see here, tarnishes and impugns the reputation of the accused whether he (or she) is guilty or not. Cosby will never recover from this, even if he's never proven guilty. It's slander and libel, pure and simple.

Since the truth can no longer be proven, even by a preponderance of the evidence, the accusers are, or should be, legally liable for damages to the accused's reputation.

When you are victimized by a criminal, you have a right to make a complaint and seek justice...right away. Use it or lose it. If you choose not to use it, then get some counseling and get over it and move on with your life. Don't wait decades and then decide you're entitled to justice, because the accused is entitled to justice too, which you deny by delaying your complaint.

I agree with you in theory, but there have been circumstances in the past where the victim of a powerful offender has not been believed or even listened to, and others have simply not made an attempt, perhaps out of fear.

[Seth]

Yeah, I heard you blokes the first time. And the second. And the third. And the...

I am not saying that the likes of Cosby are guilty. but you, bg and mm are making blanket judgements about the women being either lying goldminers, have feeble memory capabilities or what's the point of seeking justice after x number of years. Perhaps some are, but how are you to know if so, and how many? Well done, men. You make me proud to be one too.

It doesn't matter to me whether they are actual victims or gold diggers. Rational public policy and jurisprudence demands that the victims of crimes report those crimes immediately, so they can be properly investigated and prosecuted if required. There is a moral component to encouraging people not to report crimes right away that involves the risks to the public of allowing a criminal to continue to victimize people because a victim is too afraid to report the first, or the thirty-second crime.

More importantly, as the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court beyond all reasonable doubt, alleging crimes long after the fact violates the defendants right to a fair trial because it becomes he said/she said which, as we see here, tarnishes and impugns the reputation of the accused whether he (or she) is guilty or not. Cosby will never recover from this, even if he's never proven guilty. It's slander and libel, pure and simple.

Since the truth can no longer be proven, even by a preponderance of the evidence, the accusers are, or should be, legally liable for damages to the accused's reputation.

When you are victimized by a criminal, you have a right to make a complaint and seek justice...right away. Use it or lose it. If you choose not to use it, then get some counseling and get over it and move on with your life. Don't wait decades and then decide you're entitled to justice, because the accused is entitled to justice too, which you deny by delaying your complaint.

I agree with you in theory, but there have been circumstances in the past where the victim of a powerful offender has not been believed or even listened to, and others have simply not made an attempt, perhaps out of fear.

Yes, I agree. There is injustice and evil everywhere. But we cannot operate a civil society on the principle that the accused is guilty just because he or she has been accused, and this means that we accept the fact that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than that one innocent man be wrongfully convicted.

And the Innocence Project has been freeing primarily black men wrongfully convicted of varying crimes, including rape and murder, using DNA forensic evidence not previously available. Which is a good reason why evidence in serious crimes should never be destroyed.

[Blind groper]

To Hermit

I have not suggested the women accusing celebrities are gold diggers. My suggestion has always been that they are sincerely in error. That error coming from the fact that the human memory is malleable, and changes according to what we want to believe.

I see that Prince Andrew is also in the gun, with a woman saying she had sex with him when she was 'only' 17. Well, that is an artifact of the idiotic law in the USA that makes sex before 18 illegal. The law makers must be especially dim witted. Randy young teenage guys and gals told to wait till they are 18! Yeah, they really are likely to obey that law.

Here in NZ, the age of consent is 16, and I often wonder if even that is too long to ask people to wait. Certainly, enough guys and gals are banging away at a seriously younger age than that! In some countries, a girl can be married as soon as she goes through her first menstruation, and often is a mother a year later.

The idea of an age of consent is a bit silly, because people will do what people do regardless.

I see that the gal who made the complaint against Prince Andrew was bonking him at least three times in 3 different places. Obviously rape!