That is not why he was convicted.Common sense also says grown men do not give hugs to boys in the shower.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That is not why he was convicted.Common sense also says grown men do not give hugs to boys in the shower.
not the best one. None of this is really relevant.How did you like episode 15 hippo? How did you like the interview with Aaron Fisher’s soon to be ex-wife Mallory?
"It offers one possibilty"Well, it doesn’t really explain why there were more showers with boys. It offers one possibility why there were more showers with boys. It was inexcusable to do to begin with, incomprehensible to engage in again after being investigated by police for it whether there were charges brought or not. Another possible reason to continue the showering practice? Pedophelia.
Is Sandusky a trusted source on this though? Of course he is going to say he did not agree to not shower with all boys (again, comprehend that sentence and acknowledge the absurdity of it) but only with that specific boy. Who the hell in their right mind needs to be told that? Honestly, who? Who is investigated by the police for inappropriate showering practices and thinks, “Well damn, I can’t shower with that boy anymore. Luckily, I can still go on showering with other boys!” I think you could spend weeks crossing the country and asking grown men and you wouldn’t find one who would need to be told that.
Sometimes a shower is just a shower.Well, it doesn’t really explain why there were more showers with boys. It offers one possibility why there were more showers with boys. It was inexcusable to do to begin with, incomprehensible to engage in again after being investigated by police for it whether there were charges brought or not. Another possible reason to continue the showering practice? Pedophelia.
Is Sandusky a trusted source on this though? Of course he is going to say he did not agree to not shower with all boys (again, comprehend that sentence and acknowledge the absurdity of it) but only with that specific boy. Who the hell in their right mind needs to be told that? Honestly, who? Who is investigated by the police for inappropriate showering practices and thinks, “Well damn, I can’t shower with that boy anymore. Luckily, I can still go on showering with other boys!” I think you could spend weeks crossing the country and asking grown men and you wouldn’t find one who would need to be told that.
Sandusky’s state of mind when he is showering with boys, holding them up to the shower head so that their behinds are in his face of hugging them in the shower so that his genitals are making contact with the boys? I cannot know for a fact whether it was sexual or not, that is true. I can reasonably surmise that it was most likely sexual because anybody that was not there for sexual gratification or to be sexually titillated by it would absolutely never find themselves in that situation."It offers one possibilty"
Yes it does. Just as your explanation offers one possibility. You seem to content (other overtly or through implication) that your explanation (sexual intent) is the ONLY explanation with any merit. Clearly, it is not. I believe that given everything else we know, your explanation is not very likely, but you are certainly allowed to believe otherwise.
"Is Sandusky a trusted source?"
Are the police a trusted source? We have irrefutable evidence that the police and OAG lied, broke laws and were unethical during this entire process. We don't actually have any concrete proof that Sandusky lied about anything (perhaps he has, but we don't have any confirmation of that).
WRT your last paragraph, you are looking at this entirely through a lens of your own experience and opinion. I understand that in the same way I cannot understand thinking showering with a boy is acceptable. But you have no idea what Sandusky's state of mind/reasoning was. I have explained how one might arrive at his conclusion (miscommunication with police/true belief he did nothing wrong). You cannot know if his intent was sexual or not.
A shower stops being just a shower when there is genital contact involved. Your response in disingenuous.Sometimes a shower is just a shower.
Are you intentionally trying to steer the discussion away from what actually matters?
Is there any evidence that JS became aroused in these shower incidents?Sandusky’s state of mind when he is showering with boys, holding them up to the shower head so that their behinds are in his face of hugging them in the shower so that his genitals are making contact with the boys? I cannot know for a fact whether it was sexual or not, that is true. I can reasonably surmise that it was most likely sexual because anybody that was there for sexual gratification or to be sexually titillated by it would absolutely never find themselves in that situation.
Go on a search across the nation and ask every single man you see if they would ever take a shower with a boy, hug him while doing so or hold him up to the shower head so that the boy’s behind was in his face. Then, take count of how many say “yes”. Outside of pedophiles, I feel confident that the answers will be 100% “no”. There is no reasonable explanation for it, no matter how many times people want to say they were just washing up, provide definitions of horseplay that don’t explain what he was doing, whatever.
I look at this through the lens of my experience because I have an idea about this stuff. 100% of pedophiles that predate upon boys would put themselves in the exact situation Jerry put himself in with these boys in the shower. And from my experience, 100% of men who are not pedophiles would never even consider putting themselves in the situations Jerry put himself in with the boys in the shower. That goes beyond trainings received or anything like that because grown men know they should not be hugging boys in the shower. It doesn’t take a psychology degree, a social work degree, a certification of any sort, or a background in behavioral sciences. A grown man and a boy alone in a group shower together have absolutely no reason to have any physical contact whatsoever. None.
"100% of men who are not pedophiles would never even consider putting themselves in the situations Jerry put himself in with the boys in the shower."Sandusky’s state of mind when he is showering with boys, holding them up to the shower head so that their behinds are in his face of hugging them in the shower so that his genitals are making contact with the boys? I cannot know for a fact whether it was sexual or not, that is true. I can reasonably surmise that it was most likely sexual because anybody that was there for sexual gratification or to be sexually titillated by it would absolutely never find themselves in that situation.
Go on a search across the nation and ask every single man you see if they would ever take a shower with a boy, hug him while doing so or hold him up to the shower head so that the boy’s behind was in his face. Then, take count of how many say “yes”. Outside of pedophiles, I feel confident that the answers will be 100% “no”. There is no reasonable explanation for it, no matter how many times people want to say they were just washing up, provide definitions of horseplay that don’t explain what he was doing, whatever.
I look at this through the lens of my experience because I have an idea about this stuff. 100% of pedophiles that predate upon boys would put themselves in the exact situation Jerry put himself in with these boys in the shower. And from my experience, 100% of men who are not pedophiles would never even consider putting themselves in the situations Jerry put himself in with the boys in the shower. That goes beyond trainings received or anything like that because grown men know they should not be hugging boys in the shower. It doesn’t take a psychology degree, a social work degree, a certification of any sort, or a background in behavioral sciences. A grown man and a boy alone in a group shower together have absolutely no reason to have any physical contact whatsoever. None.
If someone's genitals get grabbed during a water polo match (it happens all the time, sometimes accidentally, sometimes as gamesmanship), does it cease to become a water polo match?A shower stops being just a shower when there is genital contact involved. Your response in disingenuous.
Find another non-pedophile that would do what Jerry did."100% of men who are not pedophiles would never even consider putting themselves in the situations Jerry put himself in with the boys in the shower."
It is impossible to know this. This is a supposition on your part.
Let me ask this another way: if you ask the question 20 years ago this way "would you (EveryMan) every engage in horseplay in a group shower with your son", I suspect the number is above zero. Sandusky viewed these kids as his sons (not saying that was OK, which goes back to my earlier boundary issue comments, which you somehow tried to make about doctor/patient relationships).
And again, in a vacuum (if this was the only evidence we had) I would agree with you. But it isn't in a vacuum. We have lots of other information at our disposal that suggests this isn't likely the case.
You’re calling out weak logic and using water polo as some kind of a correlation to naked shower hugging? Are they playing water polo one on one, naked between one grown man and one boy in a pool with nobody else around? Then I would say probably yes, the man probably manipulated the situation to be playing naked water polo with the boy with an opportunity to grab his genitals and say it was just part of the game but with other intentions entirely.If someone's genitals get grabbed during a water polo match (it happens all the time, sometimes accidentally, sometimes as gamesmanship), does it cease to become a water polo match?
Your logic is weak. Horseplay is horseplay. Sex is sex. Without sexual intent, horseplay isn't sex.
Is there any evidence that JS became aroused in these shower incidents? Is a show of affection necessarily sexual? Your fixation on this is borderline creepy. At the least, I believe your intent is to distract this discussion away from what this is really all about.Find another non-pedophile that would do what Jerry did.
Hugging is not horseplay. Hugging is a show of affection. I believe you have said you are married (my apologies if I have that wrong). Have you ever been naked with your wife in the shower, embrace her so that your genitals were making contact with her and said, “Now, this some fun horseplay! Let me scrub your hair up and dry off!” I’m going to guess not and that if you were in the shower with your wife and embracing her it was not horseplay. Your were there for a purpose and because you enjoyed being in that situation.
How many shows of affection have you taken part in while naked that weren’t sexual? Just use some common sense. I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that any time you have taken part in shows of affection while naked you were there purposefully and excited to be taking part.Is there any evidence that JS became aroused in these shower incidents? Is a show of affection necessarily sexual? Your fixation on this is borderline creepy. At the least, I believe your intent is to distract this discussion away from what this is really all about.
Your problem is that you are expecting reasonable arguments from people that have abandoned reasonable thought processes. They have resorted to totally ridiculous rationalizations to claim Jerry's behavior is absolutely acceptable. Invalidate one and they will move to another. None of them can provide an excusable explanation for naked one-on-one contact.You’re calling out weak logic and using water polo as some kind of a correlation to naked shower hugging? Are they playing water polo one on one, naked between one grown man and one boy in a pool with nobody else around? Then I would say probably yes, the man probably manipulated the situation to be playing naked water polo with the boy with an opportunity to grab his genitals and say it was just part of the game but with other intentions entirely.
I am not married but have been with my girlfriend/life partner for 13 years.Find another non-pedophile that would do what Jerry did.
Hugging is not horseplay. Hugging is a show of affection. I believe you have said you are married (my apologies if I have that wrong). Have you ever been naked with your wife in the shower, embrace her so that your genitals were making contact with her and said, “Now, this some fun horseplay! Let me scrub your hair up and dry off!” I’m going to guess not and that if you were in the shower with your wife and embracing her it was not horseplay. Your were there for a purpose and because you enjoyed being in that situation.
I've never said Jerry's behavior was acceptable.Your problem is that you are expecting reasonable arguments from people that have abandoned reasonable thought processes. They have resorted to totally ridiculous rationalizations to claim Jerry's behavior is absolutely acceptable. Invalidate one and they will move to another. None of them can provide an excusable explanation for naked one-on-one contact.
Are all the Jackass guys of legal age? Is there a power imbalance amongst them? Are they all of age to consensually engage in their activities?I am not married but have been with my girlfriend/life partner for 13 years.
I've never said those words. But we have certainly showered together when it hasn't resulted in sex.
Have you ever seen any of the Jackass movies or tv show? When they are doing all of their naked hijinks (aka horseplay) you allege that this is all sexual, correct? That they are all attracted to each other? And that it isn't guy being (really, exceptionally stupid) guys? Just checking.
You haven’t said it’s acceptable but you are fighting like crazy to defend and excuse it.I've never said Jerry's behavior was acceptable.
But unacceptable and illegal are two different things.
For anyone who is interested, John Ziegler will be interviewed this morning at 10am - 11am cst or 11am - 12 noon est by Christopher Calvin Reid on 92.5 FM Birmingham. Live streeam info is in the tweet.
Your logic is: this shower behavior is unacceptable and therefore Jerry is a pedophile and is guilty.You haven’t said it’s acceptable but you are fighting like crazy to defend and excuse it.
My partners and I are of age too. My example was playing off of your example, which has nothing to do with age (you asked if genital contact ever occurred without sex and during horseplay, and I gave you a well known example)Are all the Jackass guys of legal age? Is there a power imbalance amongst them? Are they all of age to consensually engage in their activities?
Here’s a question I honestly don’t know the answer to that I’ve meant to ask for a long time. I know others have said they saw Jerry Sandusky showering with boys in the locker room. Didn’t Dick Anderson testify to this at trial? Did any of them say that they saw Jerry physically contacting the boys while doing so?
You are making up things that you think I think. I have never said what you state my logic is. I have never said i know Jerry is guilty. Ever.Your logic is: this shower behavior is unacceptable and therefore Jerry is a pedophile and is guilty.
I argue that equally acceptable logic is:
Jerry's shower behavior is unacceptable, but that alone does not make him a pedophile, nor does it (alone) make him guilty of anything.
I'm not sure why the second statement causes you so much distress. It is logically much more consistent with the known facts and a statement that allows for multiple outcomes (i.e my statement allows for the possibility that he is guilty) is always more likely to be true than one of absolutes.
If that is the way you think, it does not come across that way in 99% of your posts on this topic.You are making up things that you think I think. I have never said what you state my logic is. I have never said i know Jerry is guilty. Ever.
What I have said is that Jerry Sandusky engaged in situations that a non-pedophilic man would never place himself in. Likewise, he placed himself in a situations that a pedophilic man would love to be in. Does that make him a pedophile? Not necessarily but it certainly does need a hell of a lot more of an explanation than cleaning off after a workout, horseplay, boundary issues, etc…..
Nope, not hypersexualized or prudish at all. Another disingenuous argument. You don’t have to be hypersexualized or prudish to believe that a grown man working (or running, I suppose) a charity for disadvantaged youth who engages in one-on-one showers including hugging and holding up to the shower head the boys with whom he is working is not doing so with pure intentions.My partners and I are of age too. My example was playing off of your example, which has nothing to do with age (you asked if genital contact ever occurred without sex and during horseplay, and I gave you a well known example)
I don't know if you are hypersexualized (all nudity = sex) or prudish (all nudity = bad) or just don't want to admit that it is possible you are wrong (I will admit; it is possible that I am wrong. But I believe the facts suggest I am correct) but you being so hung up on the 1998 shower incident (which didn't result in charges at the time and is really a MINOR component in all of this) is puzzling to me.
So you think non-pedophilic men (particularly ones working in charities focused on at-risk youths but doesn’t even have to be them exclusively) would shower one-on-one with unrelated children they are working with and hug them? You think pedophiles would love to have that kind of opportunity and access to children that Jerry did? Im not sure what to say about that.If that is the way you think, it does not come across that way in 99% of your posts on this topic.
Regarding the second part of your statement, I strongly disagree and have repeatedly explained why.
This is a disingenuous comparison.Nope, not hypersexualized or prudish at all. Another disingenuous argument. You don’t have to be hypersexualized or prudish to believe that a grown man working (or running, I suppose) a charity for disadvantaged youth who engages in one-on-one showers including hugging and holding up to the shower head the boys with whom he is working is not doing so with pure intentions.
Let me put it to you this way: Your come home from work and you son tells you that you good friend and neighbor Mr. Anderson from next was at the YMCA when he was there. When your son went in to take a shower, it was just he and Mr. Anderson in there. Mr. Anderson then came over to him, gave him a big hug and said he was going to squeeze his guts out (wasn’t that a line from Jerry?) then lifted him up to the shower head to rinse his hair out and while doing so Mr. Anderson’s face was in his behind. What are you going to do? Muss his hair and say, “Golly, that Mr. Anderson sure is a swell fellow! He sure loves some horseplay!”?
I'm pretty confident I've already explained this at length above. If you have new/relevant questions, I'd be happy to answer them.So you think non-pedophilic men (particularly ones working in charities focused on at-risk youths but doesn’t even have to be them exclusively) would shower one-on-one with unrelated children they are working with and hug them? You think pedophiles would love to have that kind of opportunity and access to children that Jerry did? Im not sure what to say about that.
Sure, Mr. Anderson takes your son out and does things with him. Coaches his little league team, takes him out for ice cream.This is a disingenuous comparison.
Did Mr. Anderson already have a close/father-like relationship with my fictional son? Was there relationship in the context of an established charity in which boys were mentored by adults?
If the answer to those question in your hypothetical is "yes" than I will further answer your questions. Otherwise, you are just making shite up to futilely fortify this weird and unimportant hill you've decided to die on.
I read what you wrote. You wrote that you disagreed with my post about showering activities of pedophilic and non-pedophilic men.I'm pretty confident I've already explained this at length above. If you have new/relevant questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
If you didn't read anything I wrote above there is the TL/DR summary:
The 1998 shower incident does not make Sandusky a pedophile (it does not preclude it either).
The 1998 shower incident is relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of the case when you consider all of the other information we have.
Correct, I disagree.I read what you wrote. You wrote that you disagreed with my post about showering activities of pedophilic and non-pedophilic men.
I asked you before. Is there any evidence that JS was aroused during these activities?How many shows of affection have you taken part in while naked that weren’t sexual? Just use some common sense. I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that any time you have taken part in shows of affection while naked you were there purposefully and excited to be taking part.
How the first part of the post you quoted? Have you ever encountered another non-pedophilic, grown man that would ever engage in that behavior?
So your answer is no, you’ve never shown affection while you were naked that wasn’t sexual? That makes sense.I asked you before. Is there any evidence that JS was aroused during these activities?
AM went on the record....with no money on the line....to say that MM lied about what he saw. He said he was horsing around. His subsequent relationship with JS and family, including Jerry's mother, is well documented.
V6 told authorities that nothing sexual was involved in 1998, and years following his shower incident, texted JS on Father's Day to tell him how blessed he was to have him in his life. He got less money than all the other accusers because he never said JS actually abused him sexually.
As I said, this is minutia and can't even be corroborated by the presence of child porn. It's a waste of time to continue this train of thought.
What does matter is why Tom Corbett manipulated this entire hose job and to what end. He accepted over $500,000 in campaign contributions from individuals and entities with close ties to TSM from, I believe, 2003 until his election as governor. He slow played the Aaron Fisher accusation while he was AG. As soon as he was elected governor and while JS was under indictment, he tried to sneak through a $3 million state grant to TSM. How could he have believed in Sandusky's guilt and still have done this?
Everyone from Corbett on down knew that C/S/S didn't do anything wrong, and yet these three men have now spent time in prison for a crime they didn't commit and for breaking a law that didn't exist at the time. The prosecution knew. The judges knew. The BOT knew. Louis Freeh knew. The minute all of them became aware that Tim went to JR with what had happened, PSU should have been out of the discussion.
PSU shelled out roughly $100 million on claims and has had its reputation destroyed over this. The claims were basically rubber stamped. Why didn't PSU put up a fight?
It's not scary, unless you are scared by logic.That’s scary.
Have a great afternoon.
Gotta remember what MM was saying -Is there any evidence that JS became aroused in these shower incidents? Is a show of affection necessarily sexual? Your fixation on this is borderline creepy. At the least, I believe your intent is to distract this discussion away from what this is really all about.
So your logic says a grown man hugging boys with his genitals on them in a shower or holding them up to shower head with his face in their behinds is just everyday horseplay and hijinx? Yes, that is scary and certainly opens up the possibility for children in your care to be predated upon. I would rethink that very seriously if you are being serious. It’s also a little scary that you couldn’t think of an answer to my scenario earlier of your neighbor re-enacting the Sandusky behaviors with your own son.It's not scary, unless you are scared by logic.
In the same way that not every pedophile has behaved inappropriately in a shower, not everyone who has behaved inappropriately in a shower is a pedophile.
That's pretty basic.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
I did respond to your ridiculous scenario. Please re-read.So your logic says a grown man hugging boys with his genitals on them in a shower or holding them up to shower head with his face in their behinds is just everyday horseplay and hijinx? Yes, that is scary and certainly opens up the possibility for children in your care to be predated upon. I would rethink that very seriously if you are being serious. It’s also a little scary that you couldn’t think of an answer to my scenario earlier of your neighbor re-enacting the Sandusky behaviors with your own son.
Nope, just looking at it logically and with common sense.I did respond to your ridiculous scenario. Please re-read.
It isn't scary at all. You are using emotion rather than logic.