SA, do you like gladiator films?
It sounds like you said exactly that – that it would be physically impossible for Sandusky to penetrate a child. Here’s the only part of your bilge I can quote without making myself vomit:
(My emphasis) So if you’re not saying that it’s impossible for a 6’3" man to penetrate a 10 year old – as in, it would “never” work – what are you saying??
ETA: And let’s not forget – or rather, let’s not let SA lead us to forgetting – that the “rhythmic slapping sounds” were only what drew McQueary to take a peak into the shower. He actually saw something that he said was “of a sexual nature” (and was found to be “highly credible” as he said so). So the “rhythmic slapping sounds” are a red herring that SA is only too happy to have us focus on.
Man and boy in locker room shower alone. Slapping sounds.
That sounds sooooo wholesome. Yea, happens all the time. But McQeary only knows what he knows from his experiences in the PSU football locker room showers. No big deal. To JoePa it is just another day after practice and what he’s come to expect from trusted ex-subordinate Sandusky who is a little bit funny. Yea, Jerry is “funny” but he means well. He likes kids. So what if he likes some kids more than others and is attracted to them. Jerry still is funny and means well.
Is that your idea of wholesome mentoring?
So SA, tell us, if such an incident was reported to you what exactly would you have done? Put on the shoes and tell us. We want to know what your level of expectation is of yourself. Forget Paterno and PSU. Tell us what you would have done with the reported incident. Forget that you are a football coach, head of a major revenue generating department with a reputation to uphold. Just as a human being, with no real influence or power, what would you have done with such a report?
What I want to know is, how do Paterno’s reporting obligations (morally now, not just legally) change if McQueary had gone to him and said, “Coach, I saw Sandusky raping a child in the locker room shower”. How does that obligation differ from, say, “Coach, I saw Sandusky performing oral sex on a ten year old boy,” or, “I saw Sandusky fondling the genitals of a ten year old boy.”
Because the focus on “rape or not rape” is really not the issue, and Starving knows that.
Okay kiddies, we’ve reached the point now where there’s just too much silly to keep up with. This defense gets applied to that other offense over there and this statement having to do with that other thing is no defense for something else and the whole damn thing has devolved once again into a hysterical nutfest.
So, since I haven’t had dinner yet I’m going to bail and let you all simmer in your hysterical juices and flail about looking for ways to condemn me even though the facts are on my side and you have to hop around like demented bunnies trying to avoid them while still clinging to your fevered but indefensible delusions.
Of course if you’d like to actually offer a rebuttal to disprove the possibility of some of the alternative scenarios I’ve mentioned That consist of something other than I’m an asshole, I’d be happy to consider them.
You have mastered the running away like a bitch instead of admitting you made a mistake maneuver. It’s awe-inspiring to watch a master at the top of his craft.
Tell ya what, now that you’ve swooped in once you thought I was gone to accuse me of running away, how’s about you explain whatever mistake it is you think I’m running away from and what error exists to make it a mistake. So far I’m not getting refutations, only convoluted scattershot protests.
So, spotlight’s on you boy, time to shine. Just where have I made a mistake, and how can you demonstrate that it is?
Quit deflecting and running away with BS excuses (my computer is acting as funny as Sandusky, I have to get dinner, I’m too busy, blah, blah blah).
Just answer the question in my most recent post (#2317). Then we can get an idea of who you really are.
Uh, your moral relativism meltdown, your assertion that someone who’s six three can’t fuck a short person from behind while standing. Are those okay?
I didn’t ask you to simply point to them, I asked you to point to them and prove them wrong.
And to think I didn’t think it could get any better than “lessons in showering”. If this didn’t involve the rape of little boys, your posts would be comedy fucking gold.
It is obvious that you’ve had PLENTY of experience giving “lessons in showering” and “playing keep-a-way with the soap” with prepubescent boys. That’s probably why the guy at the local 711 glared at you when you were trying to interact with his kids and grab their cherries. I’m sure you’re reputation is well known where you live.
No wonder you think Paterno’s morals are saintly as his immorality pales in comparison to your own. As they say, everything is relative.
And regarding this retarded statement that you also made 10 pages ago, I’ll remind you of this.
For the sake of all the young boys you have access to, I sure as hell hope your local police department has 24hr surveillance on you.
The moral relativism one is nonsense on its face. And do you literally want me to send you a porn video featuring a tall man fucking a short woman from behind while standing?
Not to mention he didn’t have to necessarily um, “penetrate him”. He could have been um, “rubbing against him”. vomits
And the other victims have testified that they WERE indeed anally raped by Sandusky in his basement.
Rhythmic slapping sounds between two naked bodies don’t mean sexual intercourse if the heights are too different.
Rhythmic slapping sounds between two naked bodies don’t mean sexual intercourse if the genders are the same.
Rhythmic slapping sounds between two naked bodies don’t mean sexual intercourse if the context is such that nakedness is expected.
Rhythmic slapping sounds between two naked bodies don’t mean sexual intercourse if Starving Artist wants to find a reason to excuse it.
Please understand, Starving Artist, that the world in which you apparently grew up, in which young children were regularly raped under the auspices of “training up men” and “teaching underprivileged youth to shower” and “for the sexual purposes of rich powerful men” and under the guise of “horsing around,” no longer exists. We no longer believe that it’s okay for powerful adult men to rape defenseless young children. I understand that such a change might require a lot of work for you, but you need to understand that if you’re going live in a world in which involuntary sexual activity (which is also known as rape) is no longer seen as okay.
Where does my argument fail, and why?
No point in that as it’s a completely different position involving different mechanics physically. Now if you want to propose a tape of a 6’3" (i.e., not just “tall”) man standing behind a woman the height of a ten year old boy, with his arm around her waist thrusting into her anally as she stands with her hands against the wall (and with no distress or discomfort apparent in her face, I might add), then perhaps we might talk.
Btw, I just finished looking up McQueary’s testimony to the Grand Jury and he stated he heard two or three slaps. Hardly enough for a telltale rhythm. Could have been anything. Plus the Grand Jury report mentions an instance in 1998 when a woman reported Sandusky hugged her son in the shower.
So all things considered I’m more certain than ever that whatever it was that was going on in that shower, it almost certainly was not anal rape, and was more likely something skeevy but not necessarily damaging to the child such as a faux-innocent hug or faux-innocent wrestling or horseplay.
Frankly, I don’t know why you people are so cranked up. I would think that you’d be grateful instead to learn that the evidence indicates that that young boy wasn’t subjected to anal rape after all. I would think that would be a relief! Is your hatred for Sandusky so intense, and your desire to unthinkingly fly off the handle and jump to the worst sort of convlusions so strong, that you would prefer that young boy had been anally raped after all so long as it allows you to indulge your righteous outrage and your hatred for Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno?
Seriously, you people need to re-examine your priorities here.
I for one am relieved to learn that the boy may not have been anally raped and may merely have been involved in some perfectly innocent naked close-contact shenanigans in the shower with an older man.
Yeah, that really sets my mind at ease. I don’t know how I could have pictured that as something bad happening.
I know - I’m so ashamed of mistaking a little innocent naked man on boy shower action for something bad that I’m going to have to take SA off Ignore just so I don’t make any mistake like that ever again.
Huh - we’re presented with two extremes. Paterno kept his mouth shut for years, not discussing the matter, probably choosing not to think about it, even as he must have been aware the behavior was continuing. Starving Artist has written extensively on the matter, micro-analyzing and -parsing it, claiming to have found tenuous distinctions and speculating at length on the motivations of those who disagree.
I can’t say either is particularly flattering.
Does this thread make anyone else feel a tad dirty after reading it?
Screw all the what did\didn’t he see\hear - if you are told that an adult male is alone in a shower with a 10 year old boy who is not their son tell the police. Please, err on the side of caution.
What you’re failing to understand here, martu, is that there is an infinitessimal but non-zero chance that this was all perfectly innocent. Are you really willing to besmirch the reputation of the Penn State football program just because it’s 99.9% likely that child molestation was taking place? We just can’t take that risk - I mean, look at all the football games they’ve won.