Yeah, I think you're about 2 drinks away from sleeping with a local 14 year old. You can tell the cops she totally wanted it, because you did when you were her age. But your best defense may be that you are on the same cognitive level as her. Show them your posts in this thread.
There was a girl in high school who once stood up in the middle of class and yelled "I want to fuck Mr Lester!" It was awkward.
Before I respond I just want to clarify what I meant. I absolutely did not imply that the female teachers in question are somehow less culpable than male teachers who have committed the same crimes. However when it comes to the affect of such "relationships" have on the girls and boys who were involved in them you can't simply pretend the enormous cultural legacy of male vs. female sexuality doesn't have an impact. That's what shouldn't be automatically treated the same, not the crime itself.
Jerry Sandusky and his lawyer did an interview on NBC tonight. Also an interesting article about Mike McQueary in USA Today. http://content.usatoday.com/communi...mail-teammate-stopped-attack-jerry-sandusky/1
It's just way less believable. It's pretty easy not to get a boner if you don't want to have sex with a girl, so whenever a guy gets taken advantage of or whatever there's always the "well you got it up, you had to be into it" attack/defense.
If that's Sandusky's definition of "horseplay", he's going to have a lot of fun where he's headed with an all-you-can-eat buffet.
I watched that Costas interview and I was fucking disgusted by every word. In my mind, there was no fucking way he didn't fuck those kids. When he asked what motivation someone would have to make up a bunch of shit like that, he only responded with "you'd have to ask them". Nobody in their right mind would make up crap like that to the detriment of an entire school's sports program.
I didn't watch the interview, but I did glance at the transcripts. Here is the overall vibe I got: Costas: "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?" Sandusky: "Hmm...define 'sexually attracted'" It's the same bullshit they used with Michael Jackson when he fucked little boys. "He's just a big kid" "The horseplay got carried away". Howard Stern put it best when the Michael Jackson story first broke: If he was just a 'big kid' and "goofing around", how come it was always little boys?
While he didn't exactly say that: If I am accused of these things, and I'm asked that question, I will not parse words. The FIRST thing I'm going to say is, "No. Absolutely not. I am not sexually attracted to young boys." That whole interview gives off a weird vibe, to me. Like, not wierd creepy, but weird like he's playing with a different set of standards than the rest of us. I imagine that psychologists or whomever will tell you that pedophiles believe they aren't doing anything wrong. But, you're right - Michael Jackson had that same tone in his interviews. Like, being with children is a beautiful and innocent thing, so don't project your dirty mind into my pure intentions or something. From the Daily News article: According to New York defense attorney Tom Harvey, who joined a chorus of criminal defense lawyers who found it hard to understand why Sandusky's lawyer, Joseph Amendola, allowed his client to appear on national television, Sandusky's admissions will be costly. “My colleagues are absolutely baffled as to why any licensed attorney would allow Sandusky to go on national TV and admit that he was naked in the shower with little boys on at least two occasions, and that he touched little boys all the time,” Harvey said. “He's just given up his Fifth Amendment rights not to incriminate himself. All of that can and will be used against him." Added Harvey: “The lawyer seems more focused on getting himself on as many national news shows as he can, rather than protecting his client. The only person in the United Sates legally obligated to vigilantly defend Sandusky has taken it upon himself to encourage his client to waive the most basic constitutional right every criminal defendant in the country has — the right to remain silent.” here If he actually wants to be found not guilty of the crimes, I don't think this is a dumb move. If there is plenty of evidence that he was naked and showering with boys, but no evidence or unclear evidence that he was raping or otherwise sexually assaulting them, I wouldn't think it would hurt to get out in front by admitting that part. Even Paterno apparently wasn't clear on the criminal part, right? So reasonable doubt, and all that. I'm no attorney, though. This whole thing is bizarre.
No, rub their past out friend's anus raw. FOCUS: Here's the shortest TV interview ever with Mike McQueary. What is that smirk about? Also, it appears Sandusky, who claims he's innocent of all charges, may have already admitted to a sex crime.