<p>
</p>
<p>Sara Ganim’s articles are on pennlive.com: [A</a> Patriot-News Special Report: Who knew what about Jerry Sandusky? There were many missed chances to investigate as early as 1995 | PennLive.com](<a href=“http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/who_knew_what_about_jerry_sand.html]A”>A Patriot-News Special Report: Who knew what about Jerry Sandusky? There were many missed chances to investigate as early as 1995 - pennlive.com)</p>
<p>Jym,
I think it is two separate issues. Unfortunately, children are exposed to all sorts of things in the news, media, internet, etc…and even on that school bus that we would prefer that they not have to see and hear. </p>
<p>To me, it is important that facts be stated as facts and not be polished up to make them more palatable to the public. It is this culture of shame and avoidance that has, IMO, helped to keep pedophilia in those dark corners that are so easy to ignore. When we don’t describe events as they took place, we risk that rape will be interpreted as horseplay.</p>
<p>I don’t think that by using the word rape, we risk identifying victims who prefer to remain unidentified.</p>
<p>I also think that by glossing over the facts or using vague terms to describe concrete events we send the message to those survivors that they are right to feel shame. After all, if we can’t say the word out loud it must be a very shameful thing, indeed. There is always the option of leaving the tv and radio off when the kids are within hearing distance. And, when they do hear something and question a trusted adult, it is an opportunity to talk about boundaries and personal safety.</p>
<p>EPTR,
In the course of my professional life I have worked with many abuse survivors. They have talked about many things, but parsing vocabulary to describe their experiences is rarely an issue in their healing process. To the contrary, they come to understand that abuse is abuse, and as is addressed in one well known book on the topic of abuse (this one happens to be about female abuse), [Amazon.com:</a> The Courage to Heal - Third Edition - Revised and Expanded: A Guide for Women Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse (9780060950668): Ellen Bass, Laura Davis: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Courage-Heal-Revised-Expanded-Survivors/dp/0060950668]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Courage-Heal-Revised-Expanded-Survivors/dp/0060950668) that the severity of abuse/violation is not defined by penetration, and the most damaging aspects of abuse are not always physical. So apologies, but the specific vocabulary is not the major issue here to dealing with the issue or facilitating the healing process (see p 25 of this book). To say that they were sexually abused is enough.</p>
<p>Bogney, the fact that McQueary made eye contact with both the perpetrator and the victim is relevant IMO. The eyes are the window to the soul. Once you make eye contact, you can’t pretend to yourself that the other person doesn’t know you’re there. Sandusky looked into McQueary’s eyes and knew that he was caught. The boy looked into McQueary’s eyes and hoped that he was saved, and imagine what it was like for that boy when McQueary ran away. McQueary looked into both of their eyes and, in the end, did nothing except follow procedure.</p>
<p>The wording in the indictment says “The graduate assistant… noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him”. Until more facts come out, its best to stick with what we know, rather than what we envision may have happened. I think that was Bogney’s point.</p>
<p>@jym626,</p>
<p>Strong language is necessary because there are people who wish to believe that Joe Paterno and the PSU administration did nothing wrong, or that Sandusky’s crimes weren’t horrifying and life-ruining so the negative focus on PSU is unjustified, or that the victims were to some degree responsible for the things that happened to them–yes, there are people who think these things any time a high-profile rape case is discussed in the media. And sadly, if Sandusky had targeted female children, their experiences would have been even more marginalized, and some people would have probably claimed they “were asking for it” (which is what happened when a 13-year-old girl was gang-raped last year). Hell, even now, look at people’s reaction to the suggestion that PSU should get the death penalty: But that would be unfair to the players, who did nothing wrong! etc. etc. etc. Nobody would be using this argument as an objection to NCAA suspending a program for recruiting violations, for example.</p>
<p>There is a constant push in society to make light of rape, to play it down and forget about it, and if children hearing the phrase “anally penetrated” for the first time is what it takes to shake people out of their complacency and force them to confront the truth, which is that young children were raped repeatedly and no one did anything to stop it, then so be it.</p>
<p>MommaJ had her facts right in #1875. Sandusky retired in 1999 under strange circumstances. It was shortly after the 1998 investigation was closed (by Penn State police). Sandusky was 55, an age when big-time college coaches are entering the height of their careers. Sandusky had long been thought to be the heir apparent, and suddenly he was gone. Even stranger, he should have been a major catch for any football program – the right-hand man of the biggest name in college football – and yet no one has ever wanted him. His proclivity seems to have been no secret in coaching circles. It’s inconceivable that Paterno didn’t know.</p>
<p>By Andy Ostroy, Huffungton Post:</p>
<p>For the past several days now I’ve been literally sickened by the Penn State sexual abuse scandal and all the horrific images that get conjured up as a result. Nothing short of criminal charges and jail time would be a just punishment for those involved.</p>
<p>Ghostt,
For those who feel PSU administration did nothing wrong, the choice of language is not going to matter.</p>
<p>And to try to argue what people might do or think if the victims had been female, well, its pure conjecture and, frankly, meaningless.</p>
<p>Curious, how does one give an entire university the death penalty? If you mean some sort of huge cosequence on the football program or even the entire athletic department, I agree with you. I would have also supported a decision to cancel last Saturday’s game if they had chosen to do that, but they did not.</p>
<p>goingmyway - ^^^ Totally agree with the Andy Ostroy piece - my thoughts EXACTLY!!</p>
<p>probably the need to call “rape” by it’s name, in this particular case, becomes subconsciously important to all of us who recognize, in the GJury testimony, the way The young boy being raped in the shower was subtly turned into “horseplay.” So, at least in this case, it becomes clear to us all that it is important to be specific with what was done.</p>
<p>Not that I will ever understand how Schulz, with a straight face, could relate to the GJ that “nothing of a serious nature” had happened to the boy in the shower in 02, just some fondling. :eek: Seriously? JUST? YIkes.</p>
<p>Agree, poetgrl, that minimizing with expressions like “horseplay” or "nothing of a serious matter happened "is insulting to the survivors and purposely diminishes the seriousness of what occurred.</p>
<p>Jerry Sandusky is a predator who has raped many children. That’s what it is. Call a spade a spade.</p>
<p>I also work with young girls and it is shocking to hear all sorts of horrible actions being covered by the term “bullying”. </p>
<p>This was probably quoted earlier in these 131 pages, but I just heard excerpts from a 1987 interview with Sandusky talking about what motivates him “Everybody wants someone to care about them. Sometimes they don’t want it. Sometimes they just don’t know”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. In this case and in every case, in my opinion. Again, there is a strong component of shame that prevents the use of factual, descriptive vocabulary and introduces enough ambiguity to make people (and even the victim) doubt the facts and try to minimize the consequences.</p>
<p>Yes he has. And he has fondled and touched and caressed and heavens knows what else-- and it all falls under the more global category of sexual abuse. [Definition</a> of Sexual Abuse](<a href=“http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/definition-of-sexual-abuse.html]Definition”>Definition of Sexual Abuse)</p>
<p>Another question for the attorney’s out there. Does the “accidental” release of the GJ report jeopordize the ability of this case to be prosecuted?</p>
<p>For those of you who are so quick to quote the grand jury report please do quote it correctly. McQueary went to Paterno “where he reported what he had seen.”<br>
It does not say EXACTLY what he had seen. This is a gray area and part of everyones questions.</p>
<p>I have read nothing that states that McQueary and the victim and Sandusky looked onto each others eyes…</p>
<p>In addition at the time of the grand jury report no one has stated in fact that Paterno knew about the 1998 investigation. Paternos son apparently came out last week and said his father was not informed. See below article
[Daily</a> Kos: Penn State Lawyers: Paterno Never Informed About 1998 Incident](<a href=“http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/13/1036007/-Penn-State-Lawyers:-Paterno-Never-Informed-About-1998-Incident]Daily”>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/13/1036007/-Penn-State-Lawyers:-Paterno-Never-Informed-About-1998-Incident)</p>
<p>I also find it bothersome that somehow people that have not jumped on the JoePaterno is EVIL bandwagon have been labeled “apologists.” WHat the heck is that all about?</p>
<p>Gov Corbit wants to change the rules for reporting sex abuse.
Why wasn’t Sanduskys name in the news the minute the mother reported her son being abused that led to the investigation? Can someone help me out with that?</p>
<p>Was the release of the Grand Jury report “accidental”?</p>
<p>The Grand Jury report says both Sandusky and the victim looked at McQueary in the eyes. McQueary’s testimony. Ohiomom3000</p>
<p>“Edit: And the preceding post is untrue. The grand jury report indicates that he believe both Sandusky and the boy saw him, if I recall correctly. Pleas refrain from rewriting the only official account so that it fits your arguments. Its careless, and its vile” dadx</p>
<p>The graduate student was shocked but noticed that both victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. Grand Jury report page 7.</p>
<p>Now how do you know if someone sees you unless your eyes meet, dadx? I find it offensive that you characterized my post as careless and vile.</p>
<p>
Easy–they react to your presence. This is the problem with this grand jury report–it doesn’t quote testimony, it summarizes and paraphrases it. It eliminates any ambiguities or uncertainties that might have been in the actual testimony.</p>