Penn State Child Molestation Scandal

I vote for completely nuts AND a great comic act.

I'll have to go find the statistics somewhere but I read recently that husbands cheat on their wives less now that their wives are out and about and capable of doing the same. In fact, I think the same statistics show that working wives are more likely to cheat than their husbands now. Women in the workplace have leveled the playing field in more ways than one and taken ownership in this particular category.

What goes around comes around, I guess.

 

Exactly. The roles of men and women in American society have completely reversed. You have these weak, emotional, pussified men that would totally fall apart if their wives walked out on them and then you have these strong, assertive, domineering women who are about as sexy and sultry as a piece of sandpaper.

So yeah, it's the women steppin' out now and the men who are balling their eyes out when it happens. So pathetic.

 

Why do I hear knuckles dragging on the ground? Weird.

 

All in a day's work.

 

Well, yes during the day it's all work. But after work you have "domineering women who are about as sexy and sultry as a piece of sandpaper" out having affairs. Since these women lack any and all sex appeal I can only imagine the men they're having said affairs with. Not a pretty picture.

​

 

Real men don't have to worry about such things. Real men know how to keep a woman from straying. There are still plenty of real men around, Eddie and none of them need to pound their chests or puke out this misogynistic pablum. You're nothing but a mimic - the product of watching too many Ronald Reagan and John Wayne movies. You're a creation of Hollywood.

 

I disagree.
I think it is trolling and further I think you guys enjoy it and sometimes encourage it and by doing so reward and perpetuate the cycle. I've seen several really good 'serious' threads get FUBAR by trolling.
This would be one of them.
This is not the [insert name of troll] thread but gosh if if doesn't feel like it sometimes.

 

Anyway, to get back to the OP..... I heard a good joke about it the other day.

Did you hear they plan on closing Cedar Point this Summer?

They don't want any kids near Sandusky (it's the city in Ohio that is Cedar Point's hometown).

 

Well he does get people talking and thus, like it or not, creates content to the forum. Something the forum needs to survive.

 

To go back to the OP.
Regarding if anyone knew of the abuse but didn't tell/help I read an intriguing article this week in Newsweek (12.12.11), 'Complicit Wives.'

They spoke specifically of Dottie Sandusky (this was before her '1st public statement' the other day) and wives of convicted pedophiles.
The question was:
Does it take a certain kind of woman to sleep with a guy each night for years and not know he is a prolific pedophile? To not suspect anything--ever?

'Yes', seems to be the general consensus with the Most Common Personality Traits of the Wife of a Pedophile as a measure:

1. Low self-esteem* (tops list)
2. Highly religious (this and the rest, in any order)
3. Submissive
4. Shy
5. Emotionally unstable

* I would tend to say that 'low-self esteem' can be a sort of entrance-way for the other traits to manifest.

This stuff seems logical to me but I'm into thinking about how people think.

I'm not speaking of a specific individual necessarily. Trolling and feeding trolls at length is to which I allude. When you are at a point where people who wish to discuss the topic get discouraged and 'walk away' because digging through all the comedy gets taxing? That's what I'm seeing and feeling sometimes.

If 'we the community' wish to build our community using trolls, I'm sort of unsure about the type of community we are trying to build.

 

If it makes you feel better you're not alone.

 

I totally agree. What has this world come to? I say we find these trolls and exterminate them.

 

This is what is looks like to me: a circle jerk.
--- merged: Dec 11, 2011 3:44 AM ---

Ditto above message.

 

Topics stall - even interesting ones. Troll scat, as obnoxious and smelly as it is, can sometimes jump start a dying thread. I don't know that I've seen many threads here where trolling held the conversation hostage for too very long (too very long being relative to the anxiety of those wishing to move on vs those involved ). Eventually, it comes back around. In thinking about it though, the coming back around often requires the proverbial slap in the face by such as yourself, Fangirl.

It's not really all that difficult to paint a picture of Dottie Sandusky in all this.

1) Sandusky brings a young boy from Second Mile home to dinner.
2) Dottie wonders if this is a child he is grooming but says nothing, hoping in her denial that this time, nothing will come of it.
3) Sandusky brings the child around several more times.
4) Maybe Dottie confronts Sandusky about the attention he is giving the boy, not voicing her concern in explicit terms for fear of having to fully acknowledge what her husband is doing with them. This is a women who knows her husband is doing something horrendous but she is mentally unprepared to wholly accept it. She chooses to apply a coat of denial around it rather than face the shame by confronting it head on. It's possible that, when she first became aware of her husband's proclivities, she did speak up, maybe threatened to leave him or expose him. Sandusky, being the manipulator he his, would have made short and easy work of his wife. I don't propose to know what he might have said to convince her to do otherwise but it probably included something like "It was a mistake, I'd had too much to drink, you know me, I would never intentionally hurt a child. I swear, it'll never happen again." When it did happen again, I imagine he would have moved to threatening her if she either left or spoke out. This is only supposition but it would fit the pattern of a husband who is abusive and manipulative towards a submissive wife.
5) So a few weeks later he brings the same boy back. Dottie knows he's in the basement bedroom with Sandusky. Maybe she hears the boy cry out. Maybe she wants to go and save him. Maybe she's afraid of her husband and what he will do to both of them if she does. She blocks it out, which she has a lot of practice doing. She justifies it all by reminding herself of her husband's decent side and his status in the community which reflects on her as well. She tells herself that for every boy he's abused, he's helped dozens more. She worries too, not for the first time, what would happen to her and her lifestyle if anyone found out. For all intents and purposes she's become an accomplice and she knows it. It's too late now for her to say or do anything. She knows him well. Knows his nature and knows he can't be stopped. Yet she waits, hoping one day it will all go away on its own.

This scenario does not excuse Dottie Sandusky, I only propose it as way to try to understand her. Some of her justification could easily apply to everyone who knew what he was doing.

 

'It' being...trolling?

 

OK. Thanks for the clarification.
This thread was born over a month ago and is 16 pages long. I'm not sure that it needs or needed reviving just for the sake of it.
Borla who opened the topic, is feeling that it's off-track so it's not just me, I guess.

IMO, trolling is trolling--no matter how you frame it, as is baiting and feeding trolls.

Smart discussion boards don't need to engage in this practice and when it happens because it does everywhere the trolls do not get fed. Ever.
(Or in reality, only by newbs.)

If people have to get their trolling yaya's on (out?) why not in the pointless announcement thread?

 

I thought we were trying to get back to the OP here? You introduced a very interesting aspect in Dottie Sandusky and I'd prefer to see more discussion on this. I hope we can move on now.

I found this from CBS interesting:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/12/09/accuser-grand-jury-reports-raise-questions-about-dottie-sandusky/

Would she testify against him if she was promised legal immunity? If this might have already happened, as the article suggests, I would imagine she'd have brought a lawyer with her before agreeing to such a deal and nothing points to her having hired an attorney.
I could really only see the prosecution offering her such a deal and calling her to the stand to testify against him, if they felt their case was in jeopardy and I'm not sure she'd take it anyway. I think this woman is fully entrenched in her position. To make any admission, with or without the promise of legal immunity, would require exposing herself as being somewhat complicit in his crimes.