# It's time to officially Pit Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 7, 2011, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167 "2011-11-07T14:23:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 82
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1621 "2011-12-19T18:31:23Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > If Paterno felt that what McQueary saw was most likely inappropriate but not illegal behavior, then obviously he would not have been of the belief that a law had been broken, and therefore had even less impetus to call the police. If ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ were candy and nuts, oh what a wonderful world this would be. If Paterno is indeed this paragon of virtue and integriety then the very least that he should need before calling the cops is a suspicion of something innapropriate. Fuck legality, he’s not a lawyer or a cop. McQueary should have called the cops too. The only mitigation I give him is being young and stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1622 "2011-12-19T18:36:34Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Yes, I am. And unless you or someone else can point the law making it illegal, I will continue to wonder. There is a big difference between inappropriate behavior that is questionable and most likely should be put an end to, and behavior which is illegal by statute. If Paterno felt that what McQueary saw was most likely inappropriate but not illegal behavior, then obviously he would not have been of the belief that a law had been broken, and therefore had even less impetus to call the police. (a) Why in the world would Paterno, who is not a lawyer, think it was his job to assess whether “fondling or sexual contact” with a minor were “inappropriate but not illegal behavior” (I cannot believe you continue to imply that there is some form of legal fondling or sexual contact with a minor, but you can run all day and not get away from Paterno’s testimony to this effect)? (b) Let’s say Paterno did decide to play boy lawyer. (Stupid, but we’ll go there). A quick look at the Pennsylvania statute would tell him that “sexual contact with a minor” might well be illegal under: > [@](#): > > 1. Indecent assault. > (a) Offense defined.–A person is guilty of indecent assault > if the person has **indecent contact with the complainant, causes > the complainant to have indecent contact with the person** or > intentionally causes the complainant to come into contact with > seminal fluid, urine or feces for the purpose of arousing sexual > desire in the person or the complainant and: > (1) the person does so without the complainant’s > consent; > (2) the person does so by forcible compulsion; > (3) the person does so by threat of forcible compulsion > that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable > resolution; > [snip] > (7) the complainant is less than 13 years of age; or > (8) the complainant is less than 16 years of age and the > person is four or more years older than the complainant and > the complainant and the person are not married to each other. Oh hey next provision: > [@](#): > > § 3127. Indecent exposure. > (a) Offense defined.–A person commits indecent exposure if > that person exposes his or her genitals in any public place or > in any place where there are present other persons under > circumstances in which he or she knows or should know that this > conduct is likely to offend, affront or alarm. > (b) Grading.–If the person knows or should have known that > any of the persons present are less than 16 years of age, > indecent exposure under subsection (a) is a misdemeanor of the > first degree. Otherwise, indecent exposure under subsection (a) > is a misdemeanor of the second degree. Well, the conduct sure offended, affronted, and alarmed McQueary, and likely the kid. Okay, then there’s this: > [@](#): > > § 4304. Endangering welfare of children. > (a) Offense defined.– > (1) A parent, guardian or other person supervising the > welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that > employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he > knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a > duty of care, protection or support. > (2) A person commits an offense if the person, in an > official capacity, prevents or interferes with the making of > a report of suspected child abuse under 23 Pa.C.S. Ch. 63 > (relating to child protective services). > (3) As used in this subsection, the term “person > supervising the welfare of a child” means a person other than > a parent or guardian that provides care, education, training > or control of a child. But wait you say – Joe didn’t know whether “horseply” (again, horseplay involving “fondling or sexual contact”) was “indecent contact” (because he’s a moron, in your hypothetical)? Needed to consult the case-law? Wrong! That’s why he needed to go to the police and prosecutors (or child protective services – note that the statute does not say “the Athletic Director,” because they **do** know what forms of “fondling and sexual contact” with minors are not illegal (i.e., NONE!). Will you admit that there is NO form of “fondling or sexual contact” (Paterno’s own self-serving words, so you’re stuck with them) with a minor that is not illegal? It’s a simple question. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1623 "2011-12-19T18:44:13Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > You are correct. They thought McQueary was misinterpreting what he saw probably for the reasons you stated. But that is the moral failing I am talking about. They are morally deficient to think like that. You are explaining why they think like that. I agree with your reasoning. I would also add they didn’t want the bad publicity it would bring to their football program. The difference is that I think that makes them morally deficient. > > If Paterno was also a witness to the crime and could explain it as horseplay, I could almost understand. But from what McQueary testified he saw, I can’t conceive of how anyone could misinterpret that as horseplay. Sandusky moving back and forth against a child’s backside is not harmless horseplay in any possible scenario. I’m going to have to leave again for a while but I wanted to reach back to address this post because I wanted to thank you for the honest way you replied to what I said. With regard to Paterno’s so-call moral deficiency in this regard, I disagree with you completely. When it comes to accusations of pedophilia I think it’s a good thing not to fly off the handle, assume the worst, and then take action as though those assumptions were incontrovertible fact. Plus we also have to take into account the fact that Paterno was not told about any back and forth movement against the child’s backside, nor had the incident described as anal rape at all. I think the fact that McQueary regarded Paterno as someone whose morals and level of innocence on something like this were such that he couldn’t even broach the subject speaks to how little Paterno would likely have envisioned anal rape or any other genuinely sexual behavior being what McQueary actually saw. And in closing a shout out to **jtgain**. Thanks for your post. It hit lots of nails right on the head. And now I’m out for the time being as a guy has to eat and tend to daily life at some point in the day. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1624 "2011-12-19T18:47:51Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > it would be very difficult to hold a kid off the floor and rape him anally while also bending over at the waist and holding him up with one arm. I’m not an expert on raping kids, but I don’t see why he would need to do all these things. Lift the kid up with both arms around his waist and get it on. > [@](#): > > Also, McQueary’s description of what he saw doesn’t say anything about Sandusky holding the kid off the floor. There’s probably a lot of detail that he left out. Or didn’t notice altogether. > [@](#): > > So if these scenarios sound unlikely to me, I imagine they’d never even occur to someone of Joe Paterno’s age and life experience. If JP thought about it at that level of detail and rejected it based on these objections, then he knew more than he claims to have known. As I’ve indicated, I personally think it’s more likely than not that the kid was not raped - based primarily on the similarities to the other incidencts in which the kids were (apparently) not raped. But I don’t see the height mismatch as a serious objection. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1625 "2011-12-19T18:52:59Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I simply don’t agree with automatically making the top guy take the fall, especially when you consider that hugely negative impact it has on the good he may be accomplishing, which will almost certainly be brought to a halt and maybe even reversed. The situation with Paterno is a perfect example. He brought in a tremendous amount of prestige and income to Penn State University. That prestige and income allowed Penn State to grow and offer greater educational opportunies to a greater number of students, and everyone involved with the university benefitted. If you don’t hold the top person to account when something goes wrong, why do you single out Paterno for so much sole credit for things that have gone right? Everyone involved with the university, as you say, benefited from the work of just this one man? Surely it took thousands of people, administrators, professors, students, to make Penn State what it is, not just a football coach. Conversely, if Joe Paterno is so wise and capable as to have single-handedly made Penn State into a great school, then he was capable enough to have done something about Sandusky. And didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1626 "2011-12-19T18:54:40Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > (Will you admit that there is NO form of “fondling or sexual contact” (Paterno’s own self-serving words, so you’re stuck with them) with a minor that is not illegal? It’s a simple question. I believe there is fondling with a minor that may or not be sexual in nature and subject to interpretation by a witness which may not be accurate. Also, bear in mind that when Paterno said “fondling and sexual contact” he was not speaking of what he knew as fact but only what McQueary had said to him. This is seems to be a key sticking point with you. Can you honestly not make the distinction between relaying what you were told vs. knowing it yourself? And now I am out for a while. ---
**Author:** ![Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ian_D.Bergkamp)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1627 "2011-12-19T18:55:58Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > You are dishonestly characterizing what that article says. What it does say is that neither Paterno nor Curley believed a crime was actually going on. In other words, they thought McQueary was misinterpreting what he saw. You are wrong, at least with regard to Paterno. Here’s what the article says about Paterno’s conversation with McQueary: > [@](#): > > “He (McQueary) had seen a person, an older person, fondling a young boy,” Paterno testified. “I don’t know what you would call it, but it was of a sexual nature. I didn’t push Mike to describe it because he was already upset, but it was something inappropriate to a youngster.” > > “I didn’t want to interfere with their weekends, (so) either Saturday or Monday, I talked to my boss, Tim Curley, by phone, saying, ‘Hey we got a problem’ and I explained the problem to him,” Paterno said. It never says that Paterno, as you put it, “thought McQueary was misinterpreting what he saw” or that Paterno did not believe a crime was actually going on. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1628 "2011-12-19T19:02:38Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I would say it might and it might not, depending on the details and circumstances. I’ve said this much earlier in the thread, but there’s been nothing said since then to change this. I was curious about this same situation, so details are the same, I would say the report was “person you know showering with unknown boy and suspicious activity, possibly sexual”. So given this same situation, knowing there was an example of the same thing in the past, now does it require more attention, either calling police or following up later to verify that it was investigated? It’s true that there is a point of being too suspicious, but of the ones I’ve read about, these types of predators do a lot of damage to a lot of people and typically there are situations that had popped up in the past that were suspicious but people just didn’t put 2 and 2 together. Given how unusual a report of showering together and possible sexual activity is, I don’t think it’s being overly suspicious to either call police or at the very least, do a follow up to make sure it was investigated. Note: I think it says a lot that **Fotheringay-Phipps** is willing to answer a question like this and have a discussion about it, whereas **Starving Artist** tends to call names (e.g. Nancy Grace almost from the start of this thread) and clearly just enjoys arguing (e.g. what are the cops going to do, question Sandusky?). ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1629 "2011-12-19T19:20:56Z")
> [@I'm Not Dennis Bergkamp](#): > > It never says that Paterno, as you put it, “thought McQueary was misinterpreting what he saw” or that Paterno did not believe a crime was actually going on. No one other than **SA** and (for whatever reason) **filmore** has said that Paterno thought McQueary was mistaken or misrepresenting anything (and that was obviously, then, just pure speculation by two posters on a message board). McQueary testified the other day that he had seen something that "“I described it was extremely sexual and that some kind of intercourse was going on . . .There’s no question in my mind that I conveyed to them that I saw Jerry in the showers, and that it was severe sexual acts, and that it was wrong and over the line.” The only thing McQueary’s testified, at any point, about being uncertain on, is whether there was actual penetration going on, which no one seems to get was a cheap so-what cross examination tossoff – everything else he saw was consistent with and highly suggestive of penetration, and it doesn’t matter because having your genitals in any position in which anal intercourse is a reasonable inference is certainly criminally culpable, penetration or no. There was further sworn testimony that Paterno consoled McQ. for “having to see something like that,” which he would not have done if he did not believe McQ. had in fact seen something graphically disgusting. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1630 "2011-12-19T19:22:39Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I believe there is fondling with a minor that may or not be sexual in nature That’s really all I was looking for. And it’s telling, and it’s revolting. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1631 "2011-12-19T19:49:52Z")
I already know what the response is going to be. Something along the lines of: \*If someone rubbed a child’s shoulder, that would be fondling but not sexual. \* Of course that does nothing to describe the fondling of a child’s shoulder while naked and alone with him in a shower, but I’ll leave it up to \*\*Starving \*\*to come up with another rationalization for that. I’m sure it will have something to do with Paterno’s naif-like ignorance of dirty old men. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1632 "2011-12-19T20:02:00Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I already know what the response is going to be. Something along the lines of: > > \*If someone rubbed a child’s shoulder, that would be fondling but not sexual. \* > > Of course that does nothing to describe the fondling of a child’s shoulder while naked and alone with him in a shower, but I’ll leave it up to \*\*Starving \*\*to come up with another rationalization for that. I’m sure it will have something to do with Paterno’s naif-like ignorance of dirty old men. Have you or any native English speaker ever used the word “fondling” (even outside a fact pattern involving a naked man and a naked boy) to mean anything other than sexual fondling of the genitals or other “sensitive area” as I think the TSA calls is? I know I haven’t, and I know a lot of native English speakers. Besides, Paterno went on to clarify that it “was of a sexual nature.” ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1633 "2011-12-19T20:05:51Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Have you or any native English speaker ever used the word “fondling” (even outside a fact pattern involving a naked man and a naked boy) to mean anything other than sexual fondling of the genitals or other “sensitive area” as I think the TSA calls is? Me? No, I don’t think so, as that’s pretty much what I understand ‘fondling’ to be. But I’m sure it will be argued. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1634 "2011-12-19T20:19:12Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I was curious about this same situation, so details are the same, I would say the report was “person you know showering with unknown boy and suspicious activity, possibly sexual”. > > So given this same situation, knowing there was an example of the same thing in the past, now does it require more attention, either calling police or following up later to verify that it was investigated? Of course it needs to be reported. The question is about the followup. I would think it depends on how much confidence you have in the people that you did report it to to do a good job in dealing with it. Again, suppose you did report it to the “real” police and still nothing happens. Do you need more followup? Police have been known to engage in coverups as well (or to generally be incompetant). When does it end? Maybe you should have gone to the DA. Written letters to the editor. Walked around with a sandwich board. So it’s a balance of how much confidence you have in the people you reported it to versus how much evidence there is that they’ve not done their jobs. In this case, if JP thought Curley & Schultz were dishonest or incompetant, then reporting to them should not have sufficed. If he knew that a real rape had taken place, then no matter how much confidence he had in Curley & Schultz, the fact that Sandusky was still up and about was evidence that they had not done their jobs. But if there was some ambiguity as to what had taken place, and he had confidence in those two, then it wasn’t his job to follow up. He had given it to those whose job it was to deal with such matters and he had no reason to believe they had not dealt with it appropriately. So McQueary was all shocked and horrified and thought it was innapropriate, and yet Sandusky is still around? Must be it turned out to not be as bad as McQueary thought and/or wasn’t criminal and appropriate safeguards were put in place going forward. [ISTR that we’ve discussed this upthread.] > [@](#): > > It’s true that there is a point of being too suspicious, but of the ones I’ve read about, these types of predators do a lot of damage to a lot of people and typically there are situations that had popped up in the past that were suspicious but people just didn’t put 2 and 2 together. Absolutely true. I think this is true of a lot of crimes. When people look back in hindsight there are always missed clues that take on great significance in retrospect. That doesn’t mean that people should always assume the worst about every situation. > [@](#): > > Given how unusual a report of showering together and possible sexual activity is, I don’t think it’s being overly suspicious to either call police or at the very least, do a follow up to make sure it was investigated. We’re at an impasse here. As noted previously, when these laws were written they specifically allowed for reporting to supervisor as an option. I am aware that we are talking about moral issues here and not about technical legal requirements. But my point is that the people who write these laws are not a bunch of perverts or pedophile enablers, and they probably had input from other people who had expertise in the field. And obviously these seemed like reasonable steps to the people who wrote the laws, or they would have written them differently. Anytime a set of procedures breaks down and a different set of procedures would have worked, there’s a natural tendency to look at things with hindsight and see the procedures followed as inadequate and the alternatives as the only proper course to follow. But that’s hindsight. It’s not necessarily the case. Too little reporting of suspected pedophile activity is obviously not a good thing. But I don’t think it’s a good thing if there’s too much reporting either. Wherever you draw the line there will inevitably be victims on one side or the other or both. That’s life, in this issue as with many many others. > [@](#): > > Note: I think it says a lot that **Fotheringay-Phipps** is willing to answer a question like this and have a discussion about it, whereas **Starving Artist** tends to call names (e.g. Nancy Grace almost from the start of this thread) and clearly just enjoys arguing (e.g. what are the cops going to do, question Sandusky?). I don’t know if that’s a fair comparison. ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1635 "2011-12-19T21:06:01Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > No one other than **SA** and (for whatever reason) **filmore** has said that Paterno thought McQueary was mistaken or misrepresenting anything I didn’t make it clear in my post, but I think Paterno made himself think that McQueary was mistaken about what he saw even though the facts did not support it. When people are confronted with uncomfortable situations, they often mold the facts to fit their belief system. Like when a mother believes her son did nothing wrong even though he’s a Mafia hitman responsible for 100 deaths. She can’t or won’t handle the truth, so she concocts some false scenario that allows her to continue to live by her previous belief system. She’s not pretending to believe he’s innocent, she truly believes he is innocent. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1636 "2011-12-19T21:09:01Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Well, FWIW, I’ve never bought into the notion that the top guy is always responsible for everything that goes on in the company or organization he’s the head of. People can’t be everywhere at once, nor should they expect to be. Society has simply accepted for whatever reason that in instances where an offence is particularly onerous, the top guy’s head should roll, but that doesn’t make it right. But if the primary focus of the thread had simply been that Paterno, as the head of Penn State’s football program, should fall on his sword and bow out as a symbolic gesture expected by society, He’s not being held responsible for anyone’s actions but his own. He testified that McQueary reported that a little boy had been sexually molested in his own team’s locker room. His personal response was to kick the problem to someone else. It’s HIS locker room. The allegation involved a man who was an integral part of his staff for 30 years, and still welcome on campus, and a man who was subsequently hired to be a coach. In what universe can a head coach allow this situation to remain ambiguous? Little boys come on campus for charity events, HIS campus, HIS facilities. Presumably the parents assume they will be safe on campus, and you’ll let a man accused of molestation to be involved without getting any more details than “I guess it was OK, they never called back…” Or… McQueary accused a trusted associate with a hideous crime, without any justification, and you go ahead and hire him anyway. It’s a question of followup, he’s the BMOC, it’s his locker room, his ex-assistant coach, his future assistant coach, and little boys getting molested. You. Follow. Up. ---
**Author:** ![Catamount](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/catamount/32/2840_2.png) [@Catamount](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Catamount)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1637 "2011-12-19T21:12:04Z")
> [@Enola\_Gay](#): > > The human body is equipped with some fascinating and useful features called joints. The [knee joint](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knee) is particularly advantageous in cases where a 6 foot tall person wants to fuck a 5 foot tall person in the shower. Thanks to the knee joint, the 6 foot tall man does not need to upper-back fuck the 5 foot tall person, but instead can bend his knees to adjust his height in order to access the proper orifice. The human body is truly remarkable! Every now and then I ask myself, “Why am I still subscribed to this trainwreck of a thread?” Then I read a post like this. Well played, **Enola Gay** , well played. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1638 "2011-12-19T21:30:06Z")
**Starving Artist** may not be a pedophile – but he sure comes off as an appologist and an enabler. “I wouldn’t have gone to the police, Sandusky would have denied it.” Or, “McQueary probably just saw horseplay”, or “It was only wrestling, vague sexual contact”, etc. Basically, if he had been in McQueary’s position, he would not have gone to the cops. Even if he had been an eye-witness to goddamned child molestation. This has gone beyond, “JoePa wouldn’t do that!” to saying that McQueary didn’t need to go to the cops, and to out and out defending Sandusky himself. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1639 "2011-12-19T21:42:26Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > **Starving Artist** may not be a pedophile – but he sure comes off as an appologist and an enabler. I don’t think he is a pedophile apologist at all. I think he’s Paterno apologist el-supremo. It doesn’t seem that the man could do anything short of murdering someone on video that that wouldn’t be met with \*\*Starv \*\*coming up with some sort of rationalized apology/defense. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1640 "2011-12-19T21:44:11Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > and to out and out defending Sandusky himself. That’s more or less what I thought, when all of a sudden the resident anatomists started claiming McQueary’s claim was implausible because it would have been physically impossible for Sandusky to rape a ten year old due to height differences, etc. Nothing to see here then! Oh, and then we’ve got the one guy insistent that, in effect, only actual anal penetration matters as far as sexual abuse, anything else is in some vague, impossible-to-categorize, gray area that might just very well be “mere non-sexual fondling and sexual contact.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167.md?page=81) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167.md?page=83)