He doesn’t just think it happens sometimes, or could. He’s now claiming that he’s “proven” that intentional rape did not take place here for certain and that everyone should thus be “happy for the kid” that in his fact-free universe the kid was “only” nearly-buggered by a creepy old naked man.
Which, when you think about it, might in some ways be worse for the kid… if there was a definite rape (and if anyone had had the sense to actually investigate at the time) there would be some pretty obvious physical evidence; blood, tissue tearing, semen, etc. The fact that an attempt to rape may have been interrupted before it could occur means the child was still violated, only he has a lot less evidence to prove it. As horrific as rape is, there might be empowerment to be had through physical evidence and prosecution. This kid might have been burdened with all of the trauma, and none of the little power the situation might have left him with.
And no adult cared enough to help him - McQueary just walked away - can you imagine the trust issues after that? It makes me weep.
Actually I believe McQueary has stated that he stopped the assault. The one that SA is arguing didn’t happen.
“In the email, dated Nov. 8, McQueary said, “I did stop it, not physically, but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room,” The Morning Call reported.”
Yes, you were raised in the same time that Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky were, with the same “proper values”. We already know that. Then the social liberals started to object to child rape - “unfortunately” as you put it, and that is a bad thing? And it’s *everyone else *who’s “insane”, not you? And you’re even quoting Rush Limbaugh as a source of moral authority to support your perversion?
Get help.
Yeah, a fat, loud-mouthed drug addict with what, three ex-wives?
Sandusky probably just used his penis to catch him because he couldn’t move his hands down quick enough - fortunately for both of them he was able to stabilize the boy and avoid a nasty fall.