"His original sweetheart deal with the prosecution" involved compelled testimony. They pushed him into that corner, because there was absolutely NO verifiable evidence. "The accusations go back decades" is another way of saying this all happened a very long time ago, and the women waited 30 or 40 years to come forward. How is that credible at all? There was hearsay from the 70s, and a few women willing to testify against a celebrity. They put out all of this nonsense to ruin him in the court of public opinion because they knew it would never hold up in a real courtroom for very long. And it didn't. That's why he's free now.
He's free because of the old original deal he made, where he admitted to drugging women before having sex with an unconscious victim. You know, rape. If there was no evidence, then why admit to rape? And when you rape an unknown # of women for over 40 years? Yeah, rapes would have happened a long time ago. Have you ever seen a woman on ludes? Sex with someone in that condition is rape. You notice he wasn't on ludes, just his victims.
... and go somewhere else to defend rape. I'm done with you.
He didn't slip them the drugs. They took them of their own volition. If he'd been spiking their drinks, you'd have a point. But a woman who goes off to a celebrity's hotel room and takes drugs with him has to know that sex is on the table. This whole verbal consent is the only legitimate form of consent thing that's cropped up in recent years is absurd. He didn't overpower them. He didn't force them to take the drugs. It's crazy that we treat women like children, incapable of making rational decisions.
"His original sweetheart deal with the prosecution" involved compelled testimony. They pushed him into that corner, because there was absolutely NO verifiable evidence. "The accusations go back decades" is another way of saying this all happened a very long time ago, and the women waited 30 or 40 years to come forward. How is that credible at all? There was hearsay from the 70s, and a few women willing to testify against a celebrity. They put out all of this nonsense to ruin him in the court of public opinion because they knew it would never hold up in a real courtroom for very long. And it didn't. That's why he's free now.
He's free because of the old original deal he made, where he admitted to drugging women before having sex with an unconscious victim. You know, rape. If there was no evidence, then why admit to rape? And when you rape an unknown # of women for over 40 years? Yeah, rapes would have happened a long time ago. Have you ever seen a woman on ludes? Sex with someone in that condition is rape. You notice he wasn't on ludes, just his victims.
... and go somewhere else to defend rape. I'm done with you.
He didn't slip them the drugs. They took them of their own volition. If he'd been spiking their drinks, you'd have a point. But a woman who goes off to a celebrity's hotel room and takes drugs with him has to know that sex is on the table. This whole verbal consent is the only legitimate form of consent thing that's cropped up in recent years is absurd. He didn't overpower them. He didn't force them to take the drugs. It's crazy that we treat women like children, incapable of making rational decisions.
Regret isn't rape.
So a passed out woman on ludes who get fucked by a celebrity is at fault. I hope you don't raise any sons.