Say it ain't so, Joe

And, sponsors are dropping out.

 

Before I say anything, let me just point out that I'm not condoning anything.

To everyone saying the variations of, "I can't believe that all these people are so upset about JoePa being fired, they're complete idiots"... really? You can't fathom why people close to Penn State, players, fans, students, would maybe not immediately jump on with the rest of the country in the KILL EVERYONE INVOLVED IMMEDIATELY, DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT $200 EXCEPT TO CHOKE AND DIE ON IT brigade?

The guy didn't fuck kids. Did he fuck up? Yes, by not going to the police. Does anybody have any idea what reasons he would have had for not doing so at this point? Nope. Any idea what the conversation was between Paterno and his immediate superior when he reported it? Not a clue. Would maybe you defend what is essentially your school's face to the nation, instead of spewing vitriol about a situation you had nothing to do with? Maybe.

I just fucking hate the "innocent until proven guilty, except when the media covers it (and then I rage)" reaction that everyone with earholes gets whenever the media reports something. Not talking about Sandusky in the previous sentence, before the "SDKL:JSLKFJ:SLDF:LJSDF" sets in. Fuck.

 

Obviously Dcc and Suapyg should correct me if I'm wrong, but what I thought they were both implying was not that the same person would get more outraged at a boy being raped than a girl being raped, but that as a whole the general reaction has more supportive outrage than with similar cases involving girls. It's kind of difficult to compare, since the boys didn't come forward with the accusations themselves, but the guy was witnessed firsthand. But in cases where it's the victims coming forward, boys are generally believed right away and action is taken more assertively in condemning the abuser (with the big exception of the double standard of female teachers and male students) since there is such a stigma against both homosexuality and males being raped that they couldn't fathom anyone pretending it would happen for attention/money/whatever or that they could have ever possibly "asked for it." Whenever a case like this blows up in the news involving girls or women, there's always that section of people of various sizes doubting that it ever happened, or questioning whether the girl deserved it or was asking for it, implicitly or explicitly, by examining what she was wearing, her sexual history, her reputation, etc. Again, it's hard to compare, since I can't think of an example that perfectly mirrors this one, but there have been a few cases of teenage girls being raped by their peers in the past year or so that were handled really poorly by the media this way and had those types of reactions from the public.

Anyway, the uproar surrounding this case has made me fully understand just how far removed I am from sports culture and its loyalty. I just do not get it.

 

I went to lunch with coworkers today and one guy, well I wasn't really sure, but it sounded a lot like he was defending Sandusky. I am desperately trying to figure out how to interpret a comment like:

"This wouldn't be an issue if Puritanical religions weren't obsessed with sex being dirty. It's not that way in other parts of the world."

in a way that doesn't make me want to take a Silkwood shower.

 

Besides the obvious douchebaggery, those of you cognitive enough to have an actual conversation might be missing something I'm trying to say.

Of course, if presented with both boys and girls being molested, you're going to be equally outraged. What kind of monster wouldn't, with both right in front of them?

My point is how rarely we even hear about the girls in this kind of context. I'm assuming no one in this place is fool enough to dispute that it MUST be happening to girls at some hugely larger rate than it is to boys, and yet the scandals are local or relegated to the 2nd or 3rd page if they're reported at all. And please don't tell me that it's because of the fame of Joe Paterno, you know as well as I do that people much more famous than that asshole have done worse.
This is some sick shit that Sandusky did, and for all the ways in which I think Ballsack is completely devoid of redeeming qualities I agree with him that it seems like we're likely to hear even sicker shit before this is over. The same was and is true of the Catholic Church. Stories like that of Lizzie Seeburg are FAR more common, though they're not talked about nationwide in every newspaper and on every channel.

I'm not saying you're outraged over little girls less than you are for little boys, I'm saying that you're not outraged over little girls because you're unaware that they're being assaulted when they are, most of the time.

 

And for this, he should be ostracized. Without question.

Can you think of a good reason anyone might have? Ever? Go ahead, give it a shot. Please.

It didn't result in police action, so tell me why it matters what they said.

Yeah, if I were a complete piece of shit with no concept of moral priority, I just might do that. Maybe.

 

Bullshit, this was is what you said

"Gender. It's only when boys are assaulted that the public is unanimous or that the media picks it up and runs with it, or that the DA's and Prosecutors and the Police get all fired up because they know it's a case they can pursue and likely win. It's only cover ups over young boys that create such anger and vitriol across the board. Never young girls. Never

Warren Jeffs was on the FBI most wanted list for sexual crimes involving minor female persons.

Really, never young girls?

 

You're missing my point. I'm not defending anything, I'm saying that I don't think it's crazy that people who hold Penn State near and dear aren't as quick as everyone else to respond as we've seen.

People have said, "read the grand jury report!" which conclusively proves that Sandusky is a piece of shit. What it doesn't do is say anything conclusive about Paterno and the decisions made by his superiors. The "graduate assistant" claims he told them explicitly of sex, Schulz and Curley say that the "graduate assistant" never mentioned anything sexual. Paterno's only confirmed involvement SO FAR is that he was told of "something sexual" by the "graduate assistant" (ITS MCQUEARY WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST USE HIS NAME), what was said was not confirmed by Paterno, and apparently doesn't line up with Schulz and Curley's views.

Who's correct? NOBODY KNOWS YET. It seems the explicit sex kept downgrading as the story goes on and on. Imagine if Paterno wasn't told something as completely blatant as that. Bit of a story change if "I saw Sandusky having sex with a kid" became something completely different as more of the story emerges.

Point is, if anyone thinks they can name the exact facts of this case regarding the who-should-have-done-what, they're wrong at this point. Sure, Phil, maybe what you're saying turns out to be true and proven in court, I'm not denying that. But until then no assumptions of any sort can be made.

 

Wow. You're so eager to jump on Suapyg that you're actually not reading what he's saying. I know this is an internet messageboard, but I'm still shocked.

You keep throwing Warren Jeffs around this thread like it's a magical talisman against all of the valid points SoupyG's been bringing up. It's not, dude. The fact that you're mentioning one dude who molested girls on a widespread scale and only got prosecuted for it because it was within the context of polygamy...well, it means jack shit, really. Polygamy is a media shitstorm. People don't understand it, people are fascinated with it, and there are many other creepy and abusive facets to the FLDS community that draw universal public ire (Lost Boys, funneling money to compounds in South America, redistribution of assets and wives, etc.). The fact that Jeffs raped preteens was only the icing on the cake. Law enforcement had been looking to nail that guy for years.

Also, the fact that you're only able to come up with one such name off the top of your head indicates that this issue doesn't really ping your mental radar long enough to leave a lasting impression. But I'll bet you can come up with several instances of false rape allegations, can't you? And even more names/perpetrators of little-boy rape?

This is an empathy problem, plain and simple. This particular instance enrages so, so many people...why? What is it about this particular situation that makes grown men want to throttle everyone involved? Is it because they have a negative visceral reaction when imagining themselves as the victim? This makes sense, and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, more people should try to empathize with victims of all ages, race, and socioeconomic status. But Soupy (and others) are merely pointing out that public rage generally only happens when a group of men get sick thinking of littler versions of themselves being brutally violated. The same level of physical illness just doesn't happen when it's the opposite gender. Sure, you'll get a few instances of watered-down rage when it's a particularly little girl or an especially horrifying rape. But if that little girl grows up...all bets are off. She's looking for a check, she was asking for it, she didn't take safety precautions, and she's a liar.

The outrage disparity is blatantly obvious.



EDIT: I feel I must add something to the focus, so here it goes: I live in Pennsylvania. I happen to live in an area with a few local schools who consider Penn State a rival, so I haven't been privy to those disgusting pro-Paterno protests. I don't know that my stomach could handle it if I had to see or hear such a thing. I'm "luckily" in the midst of hundreds of thousands of football fans who are calling for Joe Pa's head on a platter...but hey, they'll all be wearing their Roethlisberger jerseys this weekend. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

But I will say this: I'm not sure what my dream job looks like yet. I'm still figuring that out. But even if it looked like being on the sidelines of the Penn State football team in some sort of coaching capacity...that job is not worth having if I am required to live with the knowledge that I walked in on a small boy being anally raped by my superior/coworker and I had to choose against immediately intervening because of some misguided loyalty to the chain of command mandated by my dream job.

Fuck that noise. I'll work at a gas station.

 

Nah, tried to edit twice and it timed out. I'd originally typed "ages, races, and ages" and it let me edit once. Boo TiB. But hey, uncharitable assumptions make the world go round!

I don't believe anyone is playing chicken-and-egg. I don't really care which came from where, or who was first, or any variation thereof. But if you're not examining the origins of the sheer rage you're feeling towards everyone involved in this horrific coverup, then this is just a vaccum chamber for our collective revenge fantasies. While cathartic, it's not really producing intellectual discourse. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is what Suapyg was attempting to promote.

 

I'm not buying this nobody knows what Joe Pa knew thing, because Joe Pa's testimony was recounted in the grand jury report.

Yeah except for the whole, Joe Pa's testimony of that conversation was summarized in the grand jury report.

If Joe Paterno were being charged with something I might agree with you. However, he didn't break sexual abuse reporting laws as far as anyone knows at this time , but that is because, Pennsylvania laws aren't as stringent as most other states in regards to the reporting of sexual abuse.

But let's take Joe Pa's testimony from the grand jury. I'm not a fucking lawyer and I hope one on here chimes in, but I assume that this testimony is given under oath and that as he is in the hot-seat he is probably trying to cover his own ass a bit and would understate things as much as possible.

So it apprears Joe Pa knew something horrible happened. And even if your game of telephone theory holds up and it was so watered down that all McQueary told Joe Pa was boy, Sandusky, shower it should still have been enough. Especially when Joe Paterno should have known (I mean is there anyway that he didn't? I guess it's possible in a weird fucked up world) about the 1998 investigation where Sandusky was caught in the shower with a boy.

In a different state Paterno would have been legally obligated to inform the police as soon as he heard about it from McQueary (as McQueary would have been form the get go I believe).

But at this point in time we have enough facts to make a moral judgment.

Do you trust a person who hears something like this and doesn't go to the police? Especially as an educator?

Sure, the alleged child-rapist may be innocent. Different facts may come in. And the accused deserves his day in court. But you sure as shit make sure there is an investigation. And you follow up. He did neither.

*edit forgot a word

 

I absolutely did not marginalize or "write-off" (sidenote: what the fuck?) the many, many raped FLDS girls. It isn't an assumption that people are fascinated with polygamy- that's a fact. The law enforcement and media spotlights on Jeffs had everything to do with polygamy and less to do with the age of the multiple females he was bedding/marrying. That's also fact. And that was my point. If Warren Jeffs wasn't the face of FLDS polygamy, it's very likely that the rapes/coerced breeding would've gone on for decades. Hell, in compounds that keep a lid on their polygamous marriages, child brides are still being raped to this day. But it was Jeff's prominence as a public polygamist that eventually led to his imprisonment.

Which is ironic, considering that local law enforcement in State College used Joe Pa and Sandusky's prominence as heralded coaches to cover up this particular instance of abuse.

 

This is reprehensible: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footba...ug=pf-forde_why_mcqueary_still_coaching111011

 

The thing that gets me about pedophiles is that most of them look like you or me. Sure, there's the creepy homeless-looking guy who cruises around elementary schools with his van, but most of the perpetrators look and act normal. People wouldn't trust them around their kids if they weren't.

I had a staff sergeant instructor in MOS school. Great guy, always willing to give advice and mentor people. A month after I graduated, he got busted trying to have sex with a 14-year-old. Dude was married, had two kids, and was getting selected for gunnery sergeant. No creepy vibe at all. And yet, he's going around trying to bang little girls. Everyone went "What the FUCK" when it happened. Staff Sergeant ___? I KNOW that guy! Apparently not.

Where does that shit go wrong? I see a 14-year-old girl, and my mind immediately says, "Nope. Too young." I'd always assumed that everyone thought that way before I started reading on the statistics of sexual abuse. Is it some predatory instinct gone wrong? None of these guys are genuinely attracted to having a relationship with kids. They're exploiting innocence, trust, and fear for self-gratification. And I'm honestly bewildered as to where that impulse comes from. The only answer I can possibly think up is that some people are just fucking evil.

 

Part of it is evil. Part of it is a cycle. Part of it is a sick broken brain.
Castration won't help, because it's a psychological attraction. They can have sex with a grownup and it wouldn't be difficult to do...they're actively seeking the innocence of a child.
They can't be rehabilitated, they can't be changed, they can't be 'broken of the habit'. It's truly a psychological thing, and the best thing society can do to protect the young is put a bullet in the pedo's head and be done with it. Don't study them. Don't try to understand them. Just fucking kill them.

 

I referenced Warren Jeffs three times, because a comment was made that public ire is never raised when under aged females are involved, the word NEVER was used, and then used once again for good measure. To disprove never I only need one example and a perfect example is Jeffs because it is recent and people are pissed, maybe not in your geographic location but in mine where there is a big LDS community they are pissed.
They are not pissed about polgamy they are pissed that 45 year old dudes are fucking 14 year old girls that are given to them by Jeffs, and they should be, it is wrong.

 

The Lizzie Seeburg thing was tragic. I'm as big of a ND hater as there is and I think everyone involved with their handling of that situation should lose their job. That said, she was an adult college student who was raped by another college student and subsequently took her own life. Not the same thing as the repeated rape of dozens of 10-12 year olds by a guy in his 50s over a period of around 15 years.

Again, I really can't think of any recent examples of a high-profile child molestation case involving female victims (other than Polanski, and that's a stretch to count as "recent"). Warren Jeffs actually helps to prove my point, as that case got a lot of publicity despite the fact that no one had ever heard of him before he was arrested.

 

Dude, you and I are probably never going to get it. It's sort of pointless to even try, because these people are mentally ill and we are not. Or at least not in that fashion.

With crimes like theft, murder, etc., sure, I'm never going to kill someone (I hope). But I can sort of mentally put myself in a place where part of me is tempted. Pedophilia isn't like that, because it involves adopting the mental stance of someone who isn't right in the head. It's like trying to imagine being bipolar; beyond a certain point, most neurotypical people can't do it.

Sidenote: it should be pedophilia isn't quite the same as actual child abuse. Highly correlated, yes, but they aren't quite identical.