I don't doubt this at all. Actually I think this is highly likely. I think someone, possibly Jay, has even hinted that this is the case.
John Doe took the Ira Lubert approved settlement but is "too fragile" to testify
- Thread starter eloracv
- Start date
I don't doubt this at all. Actually I think this is highly likely. I think someone, possibly Jay, has even hinted that this is the case.
puhlez.. the guy coached football players for umpteen years. no doubt there were training and educational sessions involving homosexuality which he attended in those decades. to believe he never even heard of male to male sex is pure fantasy.
I think you are potentially taking a snippet of the OP's principal point out of context - one specific statement where the poster was being too "literal" relative to the principal point they were really making, but your taking it "out of context" makes it sound more absolute than it really was. I don't believe the OP was attempting to say that Paterno did not understand what types of sex acts male, adult, mutual-consenting homosexuals engage in together (e.g., anal or oral penetration) or that such males don't exist. What the poster was attempting to say IMHO is that JVP would have been completely ignorant and "naive" to the "concept" that an adult male merely "fondling" or touching the back & shoulders of a minor male (or "whatever you might call it"), especially one in which he is not only involved in a "quasi foster-parent/mentor", but also a substantive custody, relationship with in regards to the child and his family, would be considered to be likely homosexualy motivated. IOW, I don't think the poster is attempting to say that Joe would have been ignorant as to what type of "sexual acts" male homosexuality would imply, but rather that an adult male intentionally touching a child with his hands (e.g., "fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be"), a child who was in their custody and care in an established quasi foster parenting/mentor relationship, would be considered a sexual act of male homosexuality. Sandusky claimed the child was a TSM Child participating in the "Friends Fitness Program" and showering in a communal shower with Sandusky after completing the "Friends Fitness Program" workout -- adults and children, especially adults who know the child well and are engaged in a custody relationship with the child, showering together in communal locker room showers (such as the Y or a high school facility for instance) would not have been unusual in Paterno's generation (heck, it wasn't even unusual in my generation, the "baby boomer generation" which were the son's and daughter's of Paterno's generation - e.g., the next generation to Paterno's).
That is what the poster you "selectively quoted" was trying to say imho, not that Paterno had no idea what male homosexuality or sexual acts would be between consenting homosexual adults.
Last edited:
See my last post - this assertion is "selectively quoting" and taking the OP's statement completely "out of context" and it is not what he meant OR what he was referring to. The poster being selectively quoted was trying to say that Sandusky simply touching a child, with his hands on the back & shoulders, involved in a "custody and care relationship" with him would not constitute "homosexual sex" -- there's a good reason why JVP would be completely naive and ignorant that touching the child's back and shoulder's was not a "homosexual act" AND THAT's BECAUSE IT IS NOT A DE FACTO "SEX ACT" and can only potentially be considered as a "sexual assault" if the VICTIM files a criminal complaint that this is how the non-explicit sex act touching was received, WHICH DID NOT HAPPEN IN THE 2001 INCIDENT (there was no "victim" ever identified let alone willing to make the criminal complaint that this is how the ""fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be" was received!).
Last edited:
