Well, given that he is now officially on record as drugging a woman into a stupor to have sex with her, I'd have to go with rapist.
I withheld judgement when this first came up. Although false violent crime accusations are rare, they can be more common with the wealthy (all types, not just rape). The sheer number was also suspect. I didn't believe he was innocent, and I didn't believe he was guilty. Not enough information.
But now it is known that he drugged women for sex. We call that rape.
So yes, he is a rapist.
How do you get to "drugging a woman into a stupor to have sex with her" from what he said.
When you offered a woman a Quaalude in the 70s she took it. Are you saying he forced these women to take the drugs? I didn't see him admit to that.
He admitted what the purpose was, which was to get her to have sex with him.
That doesn't equate to rape.
Yeah, it does. Drugging someone for sex is rape.
Again, he did not say he forced the woman to take the drugs. The force part is the rape. Without the force, it is a woman that wanted to have sex with a celebrity.
And getting an award of money isn't going to make it any better. This is not a financial crime. By allowing monetary non-compensatory damages you make it an option for the unscrupulous to enter the mix.
:shock:
Is there something you didn't understand?
I'm a little speechless by the reasoning is all.
I'm a little speechless by the reasoning is all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?