Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Penn State


Ok I’m not gonna get all social on this cuz I’m sick of this story and I think someone aughta take a match to the whole fuckin Penn State football program.  But there’s part of this I’m curious about. Ok so Sandusky likes little boys. That’s pretty clear.  But this guy was also a big time assistant coach there for like 20 years or something. So this guys been cruising locker rooms of big time football players for a long time. These are 17-21 yr old kids. And if they play for PSU these aren’t twinkies we’re talking about. So question 1 is – is a pedophile attracted to older kids, or do they lose their allure when they hit a certain age.  Question 2 is, what about the guys who came thru that program – everyone from the bench warmers to the guys who made it to the NFL.  Didn’t any of them notice Coach Sandusky taking a little too long looking at them as they came out of the shower? We’re any of them hit on by him?  Didn’t they notice Coach Sandusky checking out their cocks as they were at their locker?

35 comments:

  1. Sandusky liked PRE-pubescent boys, Scott. By the time they made to a college football program they were too old for his tastes. He also preyed on the most vulnerable kids...troubled backgrounds... no father. Kids with the wherewithal and support to make it as far as the Penn State Football team would have been too old and too risky. He's a sick bastard in SO many ways. Unfortunately, he's not alone when it comes to a taste for children.
    Did people know? According to the Freeh report, they did. But protecting the football program was more important than the lives of those kids.
    D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for explaining, D, that is exactly what went down, very sad, and yes, by protecting the football program for such a long time, many, many more were preyed upon, which if someone had the balls to come forward, many "innocents" could have been saved.

      SJ

      Delete
  2. Just haven't heard in any reports, of how many of therm, today are Gay? Maybe I have missed something somewhere. Priests whom did the same to pre-teen boys seem to be in the same preying attitude, after any one they could get away with. Scott, if you have any boys, how would it feel like to have one of them messed around with?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm getting curious about this preoccupation you seem to have with young boys.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sandusky only search for easy targets, young boys who wouldn't say anything and couldn't defend themselves. The 18 year old plus football player would have puched the shit out of Sandusky. Would Penn State have acted differently if he were seeking out 12 year old girls? At best you have to assume Joe Paterno didn't believe Sandusky was doing that to young boys.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think others have answered your first question directly. It seems that once they start to mature they lose their allure for sick men like him. Secondly, I don't think these other guys noticed being looked at or checked out...but I have a hard time believing that none of them noticed Sandusky's interest in other younger boys. That's an environment for hyper masculinity and hetero-normal behavior...and Sandusky's was anything but... I think there's only one witness who is claiming he walked in on something happening in the showers...but there must be dozens who didn't witness any action but went "huh" when Sandusky was always in the shower with a young kid....

    ReplyDelete
  6. Since you brought this up, my only comment is "WHY THE HELL ARE PEOPLE AS OUTRAGED WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?" This has almost been institutionalized with the walls of the Catholic Church and more people are outraged about a coach and football than 1000's of young children being raped by priest.

    I think anyone who defiles young people in a sexual manner should have their balls removed by an untrained Stage Two Parkinson patient using a rusty knife. The mangled testicles would then be surgically attached to their forehead for all to see.

    We need a better way of being able to talk about stuff like this and reporting it in a way that it gets investigated and snuffed out before it continues on for years.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think that's the problem with surppressing someone's sexuality. Whether its in super macho jock environments or Christian churches when your taught as boy that masturbation, or sexuality is wrong or that being gay is wrong, your being raised in a unhealthy way and you develop unhealthy, sick, mental problems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pedophilia is not a gay or st8 problem. It's an unhealthy, sick desire for children and its more often caused by abuse in the perpetrator, although by NO means always than by represses sexuality. That's a separate issue. The sad fact is that people who are drawn to children are also drawn to occupation and hobbies that bring them in frequent contact with children, hence your teachers, coaches, priests, scout masters etc. Unfortunately, there is no meaningful treatment. They need to be identified and isolated. The damage they do is simply incalculable.
      D

      Delete
  8. I'm with you Scottie. It doesn't add up that this shit was going on for years and years, yet none of these athletes or anyone else said anything about it. UNTIL this big lawsuit hits the fan, and now all these "victims" are coming out of the woodwork to get a piece of the pie. Hey, if Sandusky was hitting on these 17-21 year old men and they didn't like it at the time, then they should have grown some balls and said something about it then. I have no respect for them waiting 15-20 years and then telling the world how "emotionally scarred" they are from it. Bullshit. They just want money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously, you've never been raped or abused. Otherwise you wouldn't be such an insensitive ass hole.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anon at 5:58pm,
      You clearly haven't been paying attention to the story. The "kids" Sandusky abused were 10 to 12 YEARS OLD...NOT 17 to 21. These kids were also recruited from a charity this asshole founded with the express purpose of having access to YOUNG boys, pre-pubescent boys. These were kids from broken homes, poor kids, kids with no fathers, kids with behavioral problems. He selected the MOST vulnerable boys. For these kids attention from such a powerful man was likely the first attention they ever received from any man. He groomed them. That's a psychological concept in case you're not aware. Pedophiles are adept at getting under kids defenses. And you have the nerve to blame THEM???? Insensitive asshole is too kind a term

      And even when he was reported, did anyone believe the kids??? Not a chance. They took this "respected" member of the football community's word over a janitor who SAW him raping a 10 year old, an assistant coach who reported seeing him RAPING a 10 year old. And now his own adopted son admits he also molested him. NOT ONE ADULT protected those kids. As far as I'm concerned they should OWN Penn State.
      D

      Delete
    3. The depth of Anon 5:58pm's ignorance on the subject is astounding.

      Delete
    4. Lucky for annon 5:58 he doesn't sound like he was raped or molested as a kid. The reason people dont say anything is because molesters chose you based on your vulnerability as a less normal kid with less self esteem or Balls as you call it. So this kind of kid just wants to grow up as normal as possible without the added chains and ridicule of victim and scrutiny by society. So your not an insensitive asshole, you just weren't raped enough as a kid. Not your fault really.

      Delete
  9. What happened at Penn State is all too typical. A highly respected individual who has a wonderful reputation for doing good can get away with doing horrible acts on defenseless children because "He's a good guy." That's how it happened with Sandusky and with all those priests, teachers, and all the other pedophiles.

    Even if they're not "good guys" they can still get away with a lot of criminal conduct towards children because they target kids who don't have a lot of supportive adults in their lives, so there's no one to take a look at them and say "Keep away from him."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pedophiles are after pre- and young teenage boys, which Sandusky has been found guilty of - remember all of the victims who came forward and testified were between the ages of 10 and 14 at the time he molested them. So, it's very doubtful any of the players on the PSU teams over the years would have noticed him gawking at them in the locker rooms or showers - - because he wasn't. They were already too old for him to manipulate.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'll pile on here and say that Sandusky's obsession was clearly with vulnerable kids just entering puberty or even younger. I might have a bit of Anon. 5:58's skepticism about the delay in reporting most of the abuse, but these were fatherless kids basically in awe of the great Penn State football machine. They didn't have the resources to know what to do about Sandusky. At least some of them were probably a little conflicted because they were starved for male attention, they got a kick out of their exposure to famous sports figures, and they liked the presents. They just didn't know what to make of Sandusky's hand on their thigh, or higher up.

    If there were only one or two accusers, I could perhaps be persuaded that this may have been mostly in the mind of the alleged victims. However, there are about a DOZEN young men who reported some degree of abuse. If you read the grand jury presentment it's clear that this was a difficult topic for a number of them.... very embarrassing to admit that you were fondled (or more) as a 4th, 5th or 6th grader. In addition, you have the two adult witnesses.

    The only saving grace I can find here is that in most of the cases it appears that the boys were not actually penetrated or anything like that. Sandusky puts his hand on a boy's thigh while he's driving the kid somewhere; that is probably not going to cause a lifetime of trauma. On the other hand, I'm still wondering about Ray Gricar. He was the local DA who was supposed to have done something with the evidence of the abuse, but instead he ended up "disappearing." He's been gone for seven years; declared legally dead. Perhaps the disappearance has nothing to do with the Sandusky case, but it's still just very creepy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Steve, anonymous at 8:15 pm, you had my utmost attention and seemed to know much about the topic.. but dude are you for freaking real, the way you started off you last paragraph?

    "The only saving grace I can find here is that in most of the cases it appears that the boys were not actually penetrated or anything like that. Sandusky puts his hand on a boy's thigh while he's driving the kid somewhere; that is probably not going to cause a lifetime of trauma"

    WTF....

    Maybe I have to read more about this case, but I could be wrong but one of the assistant coaches heard the sounds of bodies "slapping" together coming from the showers. to put it bluntly, fucking the kid up the ass.

    And you think that was the only time, in all those yrs, that he was "satisfied" with just a hand on a kids thigh.. Bull freaking crap..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The prosecutor doesn't get to present evidence to a grand jury in his defense. It's purely a one-sided pitch by the prosecutor in order to get over the threshold to secure an indictment. The old saying is that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

      I appreciate your views. I'm glad that you are passionate about it. I don't condone what Sandusky did.

      At the outset, I, like you, was fully prepared to believe The Worst Possible Set of Facts about Sandusky. I was horrified at the possibility that Sandusky had penetrated any number of 9 to 12 year olds in pursuit of his sick lusts.

      Then I read the grand jury presentment, I think on smokinggun.com.

      Still, the testimony to the grand jury was far more thorough than what you would see in the usual criminal case. From those allegations, I gathered that the situation was bad, nasty, disgusting and sickening -- yet by and large not as bad as I had initially feared. Hand on thigh -- by itself not the end of the world. Penis slapping the kid's behind but not entering it -- horrible but still not as bad as actual entry.

      To summarize:

      Victim 1 - repeated blow jobs by Sandusky on a boy aged about 12-13.
      Victim 2 - By far the most serious allegation. It came from a graduate assistant, who thought he saw anal penetration in the case of this boy. It was from some distance, the graduate assistant was not actually in the shower area, and I suppose it's possible that what he saw might have not been actual penetration. Victim 2 did not testify, so we don't have that confirmation. That's the only case of penetration in the evidence, unless you count the one BJ that Sandusky had victim 1 perform on him.

      Victim 3 - mainly showering & tickling; no penetration
      Victim 4 - a brief attempt at penetration, but the boy resisted and Sandusky gave up
      Victim 5 - touching; no penetration
      Victim 6 - bear hug in shower; no sex or attempt at sex as such
      Victim 7 - Sandusky's hand touched the boy's thigh; no touching of the boy's privates
      Victim 8 - Janitor reportedly saw Sandusky giving a boy oral sex; neither the victim nor the janitor testified, so this one was based no hearsay.
      In short, most of the allegations would have constituted child abuse (which is indisputably vile) but not child rape.

      Delete
    2. Just to finish, even though what I already wrote was long enough, my point was just that this could have been even worse than it was proven to have been based on the known evidence.

      As indicated above, I'm going mainly on the G.J. presentment, but I don't recall from the accounts of the trial any additional proof of intercourse by Sandusky -- though to be clear a single one is way too many. It's my impression that Sandusky's defense team didn't do much to discredit the allegations against him. He didn't testify in his own defense. Legally the jury isn't supposed to consider that, but as a practical matter, in my experience it usually provides a good indication that either the defendant is guilty, or that his counsel is a wuss.

      In that regard, please remember that the original gist of my comments was to defend the motives and credibility of the boys and others who testified against Sandusky. I admire their courage for bringing the light of day to bear on this sordid situation.

      Delete
    3. Steve-oh I to enjoy the occasional fresh boy thigh and occasionally slapping my penis against and boys bare ass but as long as there's no penetration, no harm done! Right?
      We have to have some kind of vid showing penetration. No wonder victims of this kind of powere trip never come forward. No one will really belive them after its been proven then everyone just gives the molester the benefit of the doubt if he holds a position of power. It isn't about the victim so much as the power other oleaster hold over you and others.

      Delete
  13. Anon 8:45pm, in Steve's defense there were several boys that were only touched "inappropriately", certainly, but where forced anal sex and/or oral sex did not happen. It's certain that Sandusky was good at reading his targets and knew who'd resist. He could spot the ones that were easier targets and took full advantage of that. And yes, several of the boys admitted the conflict...between the rapes and giving up the "perks" that went with their association with this man. Can't blame them for that....No matter their conflict, it's never permissible for an adult to treat a child this way.

    But yes 8:45, you can bet your life these are not the only victims. Sandusky didn't start this abuse in his 50's. These are the only boys they could find who were willing to testify. There are likely scores of boys who will carry the scars for a lifetime. Even the "payout", as rich as that will ultimately be, will not be enough to get them to break their silence. It's only one indication of the sheer weight of the guilt and shame they must carry because of what was done to them by this man. It's not about the money.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just read today, their not ruling out the death penalty for Sandusky, ahhh, so I think it was much, much, much, more than some "inappropriately" touching.

      Delete
  14. Obviously, Scott has found another topic to inflame all of you. Most of you are correct in saying that Sandusky was after kids younger than the football team, and that he got away with it for so long because he knew how to pick vulnerable victims. However, Scott has picked up on something very important: other than the few people who tried to report it, almost no one noticed, and to some people that strikes them as suspicious. The reason no one notices is because pedophiles and other criminals are often very good at appearing to be completely normal and running (otherwise) respectable and high profile lives.

    ReplyDelete
  15. There is no death penalty for non murder crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @ Anon 5:45

    I think there was a case in Louisiana where two people got the death penalty for raping a child under the age of 12.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also read the same thing as anonymous On July18 at 10:44 pm, that in this case, the death penalty would be considered, most likely not get, but it was not unheard of.

      So if they were thinking about it there must be some exceptions, like anonymous July19 at 7:07 Pm, just said.

      Delete
    2. Sorry guys but what I think they were talking about (I read the death penalty comment too in the news) was the "death penalty for the football program at Penn State. The NCAA said they have not taken any options off the table in what sanctions to impose on the school meaning they could shut the program down. I don't believe the death penalty was ever considered in is case. And think about it, even if was possible,At his age by the time he exhausted all his appeals, he wouldn't live long enough to be put to death

      Delete
    3. Thanks anonymous at 4:49 am, I am one of those too that misunderstood what they were (the tv reports) referring too.

      The bottom line is that he is will be going away for a long, long time, and if he ever gets out, he will be too old to stick his little boy cock fetish in some innocent.

      I hope (God forgive me) that he meets some "Big boys" in the prison showers, and they do the "humpty hump" on him.

      Delete
  17. Those youngsters could have come forward??? I don't think so: they're male, males aren't supposed to get "molested" and if they did, it must have been their fault. Or worse, they would not have been believed. Especially not from someone in such a position as Sandusky. And certainly not at Penn State. Who's going to believe a kid, especially a poor kid?Some of this trauma occured in the early part of the 2000 decade. Not an easy subject to talk about now, much less then. I can't imagine the courage it took to even come forward, as an adult male and make those accusations, I don't even want to guess how that trauma has affected their lives. How did they "rationalize" their own behaviour at that time? Money was the least of their concerns. Penn State??...maybe it should be renamed Penitentiary State...
    Artful1

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sorry, Scott, but do you really not understand that Sandusky is a pedophile which means when a kid hits puberty, he's done, or nearly. Like as not, he was not interested in the cocks of 17-21 year olds. And if he were, that would make him gay or bi, and does that mean that nobody in football programs is gay or bi (closeted of course)? And as you, I'm sure, well know, straight men check out each other's cocks all the time.

    In fact, you seem to think that gay or bi and pedophile are essentially the same thing; and that Sandusky, as a pedophile, is gay or bi. Not so! It's the old chestnut that gays recruit little kids b/c they don't reproduce; which was a justification for hatred and defining gays as Other. So stop that right now!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Its still difficult to admit this, but I was sexually molested when I was about 12 or 13 years old. A trusted neighbor took a few us neighborhood boys camping one summer. While there, he encouraged us to swim naked and to even walk around the campground nude while he did the same.
    At the time it was mostly innocent, and the guys had fun. But the neighbor took it too far with a few of us. We trusted him as a friend, and he took advantage of that friendship.
    The shame was overwhelming! I know I was WAY too embarrassed to tell anyone about it. I think all the guys knew what happened to each of us, but we never talked about it again.
    I'll never blame a victim of sexual abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I also was molested by an older cousin at the age of 9 r 10, up until now I have never said that outloud, bjt I have a different personality. I understand that it was him n not me, I have wondered if that had something to do with my curiousities. But then I decide that being curious is normal and my belief is there are a lot more curious or bi guys/men out there then we would ever know (Kinsey had it right) I think most of my straight friends have some curiousities....
    Anyway those kids prob blamed themselves, then their mom (or missing father) then society then repressed the thoughts until it all snowballed n they couldnt stand it anymore

    ReplyDelete
  21. What alot of you don't seem to understand is Sandusky just didn't decide one day "Oh I think I'll molest kids" more often than not pedophiles show a life long pattern of molesting children. And yes studies show they themselves generally were molested as children too, not that it absolves them of any blame. So to honestly think there was only 8 or 10 or 12 victims is foolish. The average pedophlile Jerry's age has hundreds of victims. The sad reality is the majority of boys who are molested never come forward and accuse their molester.They languish is hell year after year always feeling less than, always feeling shame, always feeling guilty for what happened. Most people can't understand the tremendous amount of courage it takes for a victim to come forward and tell their story usually because they fear they will face the attitudes that some of you have presented here. And even if they can overcome all the hurdles to report it and go through the hell of a trial no matter what they will have to live with it for the rest of their lives. Thats why its so damaging, thats why it should always carry a heafty prison sentence but sadly most dont get sentenced as much as Jerry did. On average someone who gets arrested for posession of narcotics gets more jail time than one count of child molestation in the US.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hummm I love it !!


    (My blog : http://gaywankers.blogspot.com/)

    ReplyDelete