Marigold
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 571
- Reaction score
- 1
Gitana1 said:
"Don't you hate how Paterno describes it? "Sex between a man and a boy". Really? I have heard variations on the theme so many times in various cases. "We saw a man having sex with a child in a car." "The child was involved in a sexual relationship with the man."
Little kids can't have sexual relationship with adults. They are not having sex with adults. They are being molested, victimized, raped.
I know Paterno has passed away but were he alive I would tell him that there is no such thing as "sex" between a man and a boy. That's called child rape, buddy.
Funny how we never use those descriptors when it is a woman getting raped. I never hear anyone say, "I turned the corner and saw a man having sex with a woman." It's always, "I saw a man raping a woman."
So why are kids different? Why are kids deemed capable of having a "relationship" or "sexual intercourse" with their attacker/abuser?
Drives me crazy. Sorry for the rant.
__________________
It was such a great rant that I've bumped it up to this thread!
Kudos to gitana for an excellent rant. I have one of my own to post:
It really bothers me when I read statements like "Sandusky displayed inappropriate behavior" or "Sandusky inappropriately touched the boys". Imo, inappropriate actions are things like wearing black socks with brown shoes, slurping soup out of a bowl, or singing Christmas carols at a Fourth of July picnic.
"Malicious"
"Criminal"
"Depraved"
"Evil"
Those are just a few of the words I find that are better suited to describe Sandusky's behavior. I think that when people and the media use the term "inappropriate", they make Sandusky's crimes sound like nothing more than a mere faux pas. His victims deserve more respect than that, imo.