If Sandusky had been caught raping an 11 year old girl in 2000, he'd be in prison.

And "victims 1,2,3,4,5,6,7" wouldn't be victims.

Discuss.

I think it has to do with a football program with a celebrity at helm. Today, I can't think of Joe Paterno as a good human being.

As with Covenant House.

often.

and here on du.

this is bullshit. this is not one gender against the other. it is a type of victim that becomes a victim a second time in coverups, dismissal, agendas, money, pwer.

He'd have called the cops right after calling his fellow janitors to beat Sandusky senseless.

what everyone did in this case. we see it time and again.

i dont know these men you talk about, but i bet there are men that have enough character if they were to walk into a shower and see a man raping a boy they would kick the shit out of him and call the police. too bad none of those men were around for these boys.

"she looked much older than 13"

"she wasn't a virgin"

"her mother was trying to get her in the movies"

Get help.

"He'd have called the cops right after calling his fellow janitors to beat Sandusky senseless..."


Merely supposition.


I see absolutely no reason relevant to this particular scenario to believe that Calhoun would not have done precisely the same thing regardless of the victim's gender.

Child rape is about as bad as it gets regardless of the gender of the victim.

Everyone reponded badly in this case but I doubt the gender of the child had anything to do with it. PEople seemed to think that passing the on info to someone else alleviated any further follow up responsibility.

Do you recall Roman Polanski?

the story isn't about gender, it is about a corrupt system that could bury a problem rather than deal with it. This is about corruption on a massive level, not gender of victims.

sexual abuse is covered up in every walk of life, every neighborhood, every socioeconomic layer. Rich and powerful have NOTHING going on that the poor and weak don't.

He was the one arrested the same day he raped a 13 year old.

In what sense was his crime covered up?

:hi:

I don't take it personally.

big money, big donors, celebrity football, Penn State and its "legend".

This coverup wasn't about whether Sandusky was doing boys or girls, it was about money and power and greed in college football.

People react stronger when girls, not women, are the victims.

The same thing with the priests. It is a worse sin to abuse girls than boys.

BTY, anyone know the religion of the perps?

"BTY, anyone know the religion of the perps?"

Or the victims, for all its equivalent relevancy...?

Would the eyewitnesses have reacted differently if it was a preteen girl in the shower with him?

I think it's dishonest to say no.

"I think it's dishonest to say no..."

Almost as dishonest as focusing on speculative, fictional, hypotheticals over that of an actual occurrence... :shrug:

All four covered up systematic rape of boys on their premises.
http://www.inquisitr.com/155188/boy-scouts-serial-rapist-cover-up/
http://itccs.org/2011/06/21/conspiracy-of-silence-banned-discovery-channel-documentary/

By all means, provide as many non-speculative, non-fictional, non-hypotheticals to counter those as you see fit.

where the authorities turn a blind eye for decades.

Or how about the Dyncorp ssx rings? Decades (here's just one link to that: http://antinewworldorder.blogspot.com/2007/02/dyncorp-sex-slave-rings.html)

I remember the Welsh foster home sex scandals (http://www.nkmr.org/english/lost_in_care_the_waterhouse_report.htm) but please go ahead and try to deny that systemic child abuse DOESN'T go on in foster homes all over the world and that there isn't large scale apathy towards it.

Micheal Jackson comes to mind - both boys and girls for him.

Here's a link to sex trafficking of girls that's been going on for decades but of course this one is biased I'm sure in your mind since it's focused on girls. FWIW, there are literally thousands of google hits on sex trafficking for both boys AND girls if you care to do one bit of searching (http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/canada.htm)

Your faux outrage that only girls get attention when they are sexually abused, and that boys do not is pretty despicable imho. I think it's pretty sick to try to manufacture some kind of societal apathy towards boys being raped vs girls. As someone who is intimately involved in our local rape crisis center for decades now, I'll just say your attitude is extremely detrimental.

Absent counseling, these people grow up to be men who act out in antisocial ways.

That is so patently false even from your own link.

And FWIW, not that you obviously care but ALL victims of sexual abuse - both genders! - absent counseling grow up with heavy emotional issues.

I see you conveniently glossed over my links to the millions of girls being trafficked, prostituted, sold, or "given" as child brides and the determined and deliberate "lack of interest" in stopping the abuse or stepping in to bring the perpetrators to justice - for decades. Point noted.

Was never accused of abusing girls.

He was acquitted of abusing boys.

You're not making your point very well.

...and Cain rakes in millions in new fundraising dollars.

Do you really think his acts would receive the same level of acceptance if he tried to assault a male employee?

She would likely not face as severe of a punishment for it. Especially if she was "too pretty for jail." I can hear the media discussions of it now... "lucky kids..."

Actually I should have asked why men say that, to be in the spirit of the thread.

And the trashing would be done by DUers.

I am still reeling over that sycophantic Mika Bryzinski's doing so with respect to Cain's accusers. :puke:

Do you think all the (church) victims during and preceding this period were male? Such nonsense. Gender has nothing to do with it. It is a travesty of justice plain and simple.

Your argument is thus countered. Female victims date in many countries (e.g., Ireland) back a century or more. In fact, the female nature of more of the victims did not result in earlier exposure of the scandal.

Your attempt to divide pedophilia events as somehow more or less socially acceptable is disgusting. I don't understand your objective here.

Sandusky had eyewitnesses. Catholic priests had eyewitnesses. Their crimes against young boys were covered up.

Sorry, most here are not buying that rape of a male child is any less significant or less repulsive or less criminal and requiring immediate police intervention than that of a female. I see that you remain convinced to the contrary, but I again ask why?

The issue is the corrupting influence of power. Had the coach been raping young girls, it is possible the girls themselves might have come forward sooner given the particular shame that our culture places on young boys, but I certainly can not argue that there would have been any less effort to cover it up.

http://member.preventchildabuse.org/site/DocServer/sexual_abuse_of_boys.pdf?docID=127

Both because the boys themselves are ashamed and because society is incapable of seeing boys as victims; the reactions on this thread being a great case study.

and failure to take appropriate action by a powerful machine bent on protecting Penn State football--just as the clergy failed to take action to protect Catholic hierarchy. Again, you are mixing issues.

As the Sandusky and Catholic Priest incidents illustrate, the under reporting is not simply their own fault; a case of boys being ashamed of it.

http://1in6.org/get-information/the-1-in-6-statistic/



If only 16% of abuse victims believe that they are victims, I don't understand why it is so controversial that eyewitnesses feel the same way about other abuse victims.

From See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil: why do relatively few male victims of childhood sexual abuse receive help for abuse-related issues in adulthood?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9125368

Yes, underreporting by the victims of both genders is a serious problem, but that is not the issue here. Nor have you provided any support for your argument that the cover-up (or at least the attempt to cover-up) would not have been similar had the victims been female.

Unlikely.

Yet you offer no proof whatsoever. Yes, we understand you believe so, but that does not make it so. It does, however diminish focus on what is a very real concurrent problem with pedophilia--regardless of gender and the corrupting influence of power, authority, and money.

What precisely leads you to believe that the reaction would have not been the same?

Girls were molested by Catholic priests as well. Perhaps not as many since girls couldn't be "altar boys" (or priests), but girls were definitely molested and abused.

But as usual those facts will be roundly ignored. The agenda must press on.

Estimated numbers of male:female abuse by priests is about 50/50. *Reported* leans more male than female.

81% of the victims in the John Jay report were boys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report

just saying

When the institution is more important then the victims...the Catholic Church comes to mind!!!

If it had been a girl, it wouldn't have happened in the Penn State locker room and it wouldn't be a fellow jock that saw it.

I can't envision a scenario in which a well-known person could be caught on multiple occasions raping 10 year old girls and the eyewitnesses would help cover it up.

It was reported more than once, by two different eyewitnesses on two different occasions. The second was a janitor who told his supervisor, and his coworkers. They were temporary employees and were terrified they were going to get fired.

That should tell you what kind of environment this took place in.

This was child molestation, and a cover-up by people with power and money. If you read the Grand Jury Report (which is horrific, BTW), it's CLEAR that a LOT of people knew about this, including the people at Second Mile, and the higher ups at Penn State. This went on for YEARS. Sandusky was seen by the graduate student sodomizing one boy, and then a year or two later a janitor caught him orally assaulting a boy.

Both the graduate student and the janitor reported it to higher ups. The graduate student was in at least 5 different meetings with upper level school officials. No, they didn't go to the police, but they reported it up the chain as best they could. Had I been the graduate student, after that many meetings I probably would have assumed something was going to be done, too - hindsight is always 20/20, and at least now he stepped forward. The janitor is in a nursing home with dementia, so he can't speak up now. What happened was that the higher ups quashed it.

They HAD to know. He had WAY too many victims over a period of YEARS for them to not know, and enough reports that they would have to be completely brain-dead to not know what was going on. They covered it up - period. I hold Paterno accountable, the Second Mile director, I hold Schultz accountable, and I hold Curly accountable - along with everyone else, including Spanier that KNEW and just let it go on. How they rationalized that shit away and slept at night is absolutely beyond imagining to me. It didn't matter whether it was girls or boys - I don't think a single thing would have been different.

Because boys aren't victims.

Because they valued the football department and reputations more than they cared about the lives of children. Somewhere in here, there are going to be some payoffs to somebody coming out. Follow the money tends to lead to the real answer of the motivations.

explored. I'd dearly love to know if there were any large unexplained deposits in 1998 when he decided not to prosecute (or withdrawals in 2005 when he "disappeared." (Of course the absence of such a trail would not discount cash payoffs...) Just wondering.... :shrug:

There HAD to be a payoff or possibly several payoffs here.

brought to the university.

A scandal....any scandal....was apparently going to be hidden, in the face of protecting the institution and the megabucks that the scandal would've cost the university.

No one, but no one, thinks that raping a 10 year old girl is criminal, but is okay if it's a 10 year old boy. The sad thing is....all the players KNEW what they were doing. They were letting a monster sexually abuse children, in return for millions of dollars and the reputation of the university and football division.

None did. Did the janitors so much about the football program that they'd protect a retired coach who the eyewitness didn't know by name?

Was the graduate student who witnessed the rape of another student restrained from telling the cops? Was the board of the second mile program only protecting PSU?

There's a different standard of responsibility at work for boys and girls. Or, as a DU'er recently and eloquently put it; "(the victim) decided to open his back door in exchange for a scholarship".

Perhaps no one thinks that the rape of a 10 year old boy is "okay" but many obviously feel that covering it up is the lesser of evils.

Many, many girl sexual abuse rings have been systematically ignored in probably greater numbers than you can imagine. I've posted a few situations upthread in post #82, not that I think you'll care. Too busy with your own agenda....

The rest, although terrible, aren't reflective of attitudes in the US, because they didn't happen here.

abuse isn't happening in the US??

Can you possibly be any more deliberately blind??

But we'd probably know all about what the 11-year-old girl was wearing. x(

Although in all probability we would have never heard about it at all since sexual abuse of girls is so commonplace it rarely makes the news unless it's a *very* young girl or there's some other hook (like cult activity, gang rape, a serial killer, or a really famous guy involved).

1 in 3 girls is molested before age 18- twice as many as the number of boys. Sexual abuse only really hits the news big when it involves boys and when it involves a cover-up by an institution like the Church, Boy Scouts, etc.

Boys being abused *is* considered news because it is comparatively rare and because it is more of a taboo/cultural violation for a man to rape a boy than for a man to rape a girl. Up until the last 200 years, a sixty year old raping an 11 year old was called "the wedding night".

In the 40s Errol Flynn was busted repeatedly with underaged girls and it just fed his reputation as a "lady's man". Jerry Lee Lewis still had a career after marrying a 13 year old. If Flynn had been accused of statutory rape involving underage boys, do you think Bill Buckley would have founded a defense society for him and he would have been acquitted? Would Jerry Lee Lewis still have had a career if he'd wanted to marry a 13 year old boy? How many rock stars have slept with fourteen or fifteen year old groupies and nobody bats an eyelid.

The sad fact is that in the US desiring "barely legal" girls is perfectly normal and understandable for any red-blooded American man, while desiring underage boys makes you a despicable pervert who should be shot in the street.

To answer the OP: yes, it would have been news because it was a 10 year old and a famous person and an institution covered it up. Certainly not because it was a girl and not a boy.

People turn a blind eye to sexual abuse of girls all the time. It's practically a cliche that step-dad diddles step-daughter and she tries to tell mom who either doesn't believe her because she wants to keep the man or blames the daughter because she's jealous and thinks the daughter is trying to steal him.

You said it all.

Your posts on this and other, similar issues do not reflect reality, but your perception of it.

Just a matter of months ago, there was an 11 year old girl who was gang-raped by 20 guys, and the townspeople were more pissed off at her for wrecking those mens' futures than they were about what happened to her.

Sandusky got away with it for a decade and a half.

But like your example, there's plenty of outrage in the Sandusky case, because those kids wrecked their favorite football team.

and bragging about what they'd done.

as is the case with racists who can never stop obsessing about all the ways ethnic minorities have it so easy.

:thumbsup:

Who was kicked off the squad for refusing to cheer for her rapist--who was allowed to remain on the team--by name.

Yeah, female victims have it soooo easy.

I would take the pulse of society elsewhere.

Duplicate post

I've seen other women experience the consequences of being in the 'wrong place at the wrong time' vis a vis sports teams. Right now one of the former local stars has been uncovered as a pimp and not much has come down about it, certainly not the shitstorm he so richly deserves. I HATE the local football players and assorted enablers. I must serve them from time to time as part of my job and they are the most entitled, greedy and frankly dishonest bunch of kids and coaches, etc I've ever met, always trying to get something for nothing, always trying to skate, although I know damn well, their food monies are well-padded by the college who supports their 'stardom'.


Fuck football. It destoroys the humanity of it's participants and by extension it's viewers, who'll think nothing of trashing a city when they fucking WIN!

FIFTEEN OF SIXTEEN RAPISTS NEVER SERVE A DAY IN JAIL.

http://www.rainn.org/statistics?tag=contentMain;contentBody

I hate to break it to you, Sparky, but rape is rape, whether it happened to a male or female.

:mad:

60% of rapes are not even reported...

The vast majority of those rapes were on women, so they're not important, are they?

:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:

and their continuing abuse has been covered up and the rapists have gone free for decades as well. There are more than a few DUer on threads right now talking about how they or people they knew were abused for decades and nobody stepped in, even when authority figures knew. Even when parents or authority figures actually witnessed the abuse. There's a long and troubling history of covering up for authority figures when they molest young children and there are more than a few stories for you to peruse right now on DU if you so desired.

But you've made your agenda perfectly clear and you won't 'see" or hear those people, even first hand accounts.

That's pretty damn sad. I'm sorry I even tried to offer up a neutral response upthread. You never have had any intention of listening to anyone else from the moment you posted your OP. "Discuss"? Yeah right....

Today, a DU'er defended the school because the victim "decided to open his back door to get a scholarship", and the issue is therefore something the poster shouldn't trouble his beautiful mind over.

In his defense (weak though it may be), he didn't realize the victim was 10, but "thought he was like 16".

How's that for a first hand account?

You haven't changed my mind. When someone witnesses the rape of an unrelated child and covers it up, chances are the victim was a boy. Further, I think that often the witnesses (and his accomplices) think they're doing the kid a favor by sparing him the embarrassment of victimhood.

Taking this: "When someone witnesses the rape of an unrelated child and covers it up, chances are the victim was a boy. Further, I think that often the witnesses (and his accomplices) think they're doing the kid a favor by sparing him the embarrassment of victimhood."

And twisting int into everyone is against men and boys agenda. You twist it into no one cares as much about boys.

Evidence for this is abundant, but includes US parents strong preference for girls.

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~lyariv/Papers/Adoption.pdf

You have quite an agenda there.

BTW, you still haven't responded to my post upthread about the fact that 14 of 15 of those who rape women don't spend one day in jail. I'd love to "discuss" that as well.

These are our boys and girls being victimized by sick adults.

Why would anyone play one gender against the other? Strange post.

Second, it clearly observes that males are least likely to report rape, (and obviously even eyewitnesses frequently don't report it even when it involves children).

Third, I reject the idea that it is bad form to object to frequent coverup of the rape of boys.

I didn't respond to it because it is a non-sequitur. It has no bearing on my op.

Is an eyewitness to a child rape more or less likely to report it to police if the victim is a boy? The answer is definitely, demonstrably and obviously less.

The statistic remains the same. Less than one percent of rapists are successfully convicted and serve time behind bars. Sixty percent of rapes are not even reported.

>Third, I reject the idea that it is bad form to object to frequent coverup of the rape of boys.<

What is your point?

>Is an eyewitness to a child rape more or less likely to report it to police if the victim is a boy? The answer is definitely, demonstrably and obviously less.<

Oh, I see. In other words, you believe that what happened at Penn State can be extrapolated to the entire country.

News for you: Rape is rape. SIXTY PERCENT go unreported in this country because of the re-victimization of the victim via the court system. I cited ONE link after a one-minute Google search. I can cite plenty more, but you are too busy pushing your own agenda to acknowledge your bias.

I'd also like to echo other posters on this thread: Get some help.

The adoption study you point to as evidence that we prefer girls to boys is not relevant proof and frankly it's misleading of you to do so. The study even says that birth parents prefer boys--and it discussion at length, all the variables involved in how adoptive parents choose. There are implications regarding race, gender of child/gender of parents (i.e. two lesbians adopting a male child) on the wellbeing of the child. This study has nothing to do with liking one gender more than another. It has to do with the best possible outcome for the child.

victimization down by making these comparisons?

You're flat wrong in your assumptions about girls-as-victims, but why this unwarranted resentment toward females?

These are questions I'm suggesting you explore for yourself; I'm not asking because *I* want the answers.

Further, do you realize that your whole argument is a distraction from the very real problem of adult predation of children (of BOTH sexes)? That's my interest.

Finally, may I suggest, as gently as I can, that you consider therapy or at least a support group?

Your perogative.
However;
a) I'm entitled to my view. It also has the benefit of being consistent with observable reality. Did you hear the segment with Tweety? "Why are we calling it 'molestation'? It was anal sex with a 10 year old." The TV people call it "fondling" or "molestation" or "abuse" because it helps to diminish the victimization. That phenomenon is almost exclusively a boy thing... they can't be victims; that job is already taken. They can't even admit it to themselves.
b) When you try to tell me what I think, you're doing it wrong.
c) My observation that the Catholic Church, Boys Town, The Boy Scouts and now Penn State (among a long list of others) protect those who rape boys, isn't imaginary and shouldn't detract from any other issue. That said, this issue gets comparatively little attention, and is met with near universal hostility, because we can't wrap our heads around the idea that males are worthy of any meaningful degree of social protection.

practices. The local sports radio personality in Seattle was having a tough time finding correct terminology that would not get him in hot water with his boss. Believe it or not, public airwaves are still subject to FCC rules, and discussing anal rape on the average TV or radio station is still considered obscene.

"Diminish the victimization"? Are you on crack? It's more like those controlling our media are afraid of an FCC fine or worse. Those who'd like every detail (complete with graphic language,) are free to read the PA grand jury's report.

>males are worthy of any meaningful degree of social protection<

Oh, certainly not. That's why millions have left the Catholic Church over the past ten years, and demanded prosecution of those who molested hundreds of thousands of young men.

:sarcasm:

:eyes:

seriously than for girls. I have been intimately involved in my local rape crisis center for decades. That is absolutely NOT the case - not for the institute I work with, and certainly not at any of the other institutes I have ever been involved with.

Child sexual exploitation is a societal issue for both genders, period. You wishing it were somehow different for boys is extremely distasteful.

this OP is demented/ there is no bais in reality.

If someone had a moral compass, it wouldn't have mattered WHO THE HELL was molested.

A rape of a child is the rape of a child. Nobody but the sickest F*** is not enraged by this. The gender of the child is irrelevant.

populated by only the sickest f***s?

Or were they outraged but somehow rationally decided to cover up the crimes?

Just as the sick F****s that "marry" off children to men 2,3,4,5 x their age .... just as army's that rape children non-combatants claiming this as the spoils of war (a young girl is a child NEVER a spoil of war)


Rapists and those that are aware of their deviant (putting it far too mildly) behaviors are sick F***** .... those that rape children are the sickest of the sick

and the rest of the rampant polygamous compounds in Utah - all conveniently overlooked for decades by the authorities at every level. Or the Dyncorp scandal, the Mafia and their prostitution and sex slave rings, obviously none of this is making a dent.

This is pathetic. I should have put you on ignore at the beginning of this sick thread instead of the end.

... committed against CHILDREN appears to be being used as a tool to express personal bitterness/ issues.

To me, this is a pretty good example where there are no grey areas .... the rape of a child is always horrific.

I have sons and a daughter ... they are my children ....equally important (and equally vulnerable as children)

But the MEN would have cared if it had been a girl? As we know, MEN always care about female rape victims and will do everything they can to catch and convict rapists of girls. They never, ever blame the female victim. Or say she's lying. Or that the poor rapist's reputation will suffer.

:sarcasm:

You're the one who started the gender BS, seemingly forgetting that everyone involved in this is male. Except for the WOMAN who reported to the police that her son had been molested by Sandusky.

I suspect that if a woman caught Sandusky and "Victim 8" in the shower, he'd most likely have gone straight to jail.

of the witnesses that dictated the response.

I don't necessarily believe that myself. But it's a bit more logical than your original statement. Personally I think it has more to do with hero worship and reluctance to bring that hero down, for multiple reasons.

Neither react as strongly to the victimization of boys, but men barely at all.

Please don't let this one person skew your impression of this site. The thread is an outlier and definitely NOT representative of most DUers.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And other DUers responded. Would you really expect otherwise, regardless of whether the DUer were a man or a woman? How does this prove your point at all?

Compare and contrast with the reactions of multiple eyewitnesses to Mr Sandusky's rape of children.

That's ridiculous.

I also notice you don't address the cases where little girls weren't defended and their cases covered up. That's what I meant by it's ridiculous to compare and contrast. It's meaningless. It was covered up at Penn State because it's reality and they didn't want their football house of cards to come down. Not because we're in fantasty Lumberjack Jeff world where everyone hates little boys, and that's the reason.

And the bystanders who do nothing to jump to their defense. How the women who commit suicide when nothing is done to help them?

Maybe we should "compare and contrast" Megan Wright's case, huh?
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/college-campus-assaults-constant-threat/story?id=11410988&page=2#.TryhhFavPYk

From the article "The Center for Public Integrity concluded in its report that "students found 'responsible' for alleged sexual assaults on campuses often face little or no punishment," and victims who do report these crimes run into "barriers" -- from counselors worried about privacy to universities concerned about their public image."

This is why your little compare and contrast exercise is meaningless. Rape of women and men, girls and boys is too often swept under the rug. Your premise is false. Your exploitation of the Penn State story to further your agenda is revolting.

This was a great example of the milgram experiment.

The double standard regarding boys/girls or men and women when it comes to sexual misconduct/domestic violence/family court issues etc. is the next civil rights movement that is needed in this country.




If the victims were girls, the initial reaction would have been different. And lives would have been saved.


Very sad. But very true.

The school had a deep interest in covering up his crimes and would have no matter what he did or to whom.

The only gender bias I've noticed is that nobody either here or in the media are questioning the truthfulness of the victims, their lives aren't being combed through for anything to attempt to pin on them to make them out to be liars and that for once alleged victims are being treated as alleged victims.

If he was raping girls, there'd be no question about what to do with him.

But since it's boys, the "oppressors" of women, it's ok I guess, according to the sexist elements of this thread and other places.

Isn't the boy vs. girl thing beside the point?

P.S. If you want to see excellent policy about keeping children--and volunteers safe, look at the Girl Scouts. They have some very no-nonsense, respectful policies and they train their volunteers.

It was a mother who had enough guts to take it to the police and even taped phone calls between herself and Sandusky.

It's a fact, so this shouldn't be deleted.

But it will.

but thought it would be more instructive for more DUers to see this shit for themselves. Unbelievable. The purposeful blindness, the non-response to direct contradictions, the hideous and revolting latching on to this tragedy to move a sick and twisted agenda forward at the expense of children. Boggles the mind. Yeah, my post will be deleted too. Fine. Had my say....

a "Deleted subthread" with you, lmao!!!!

Vegan snacks, anyone?

:toast:

When you can't argue a challenging viewpoint, throw some ad-hominem at it to get it locked.

Sorry. Not biting.

The rape of boys is relatively underreported because the adults cover the crimes. If you think this observation is detrimental to your cause, then your cause deserves to be deprecated.

girl is raped, he goes berserk with rage. And here we are only talking players in sports, not relatives. Depending on the circumstances I have no trouble believing a large percentage of the men I have known over the decades would have trouble understanding what happened, much less deciding what to do. Even something as basic as taking the boy to the doctor, unless it was bleeding-ly obvious. Not all, but many men deal with oppression and violence against boys differently than they do girls.. They might fool people in the larger community but this isn't the wider community. It is a small circle of males within.

I have no problem envisioning a father, much less a non-relative not calling the police because he can't quite bring himself to say it, maybe not until a trusted counselor tells him in painful detail. Not all men, certainly, but enough. And I can damn sure see them condoning this against little boys out of self-interest, a better job. I mean, look at Wall Street.

I think most of the men I knew/know in my life were and are either uncomfortable or ignorant of how to care for a boy, short of bringing home a paycheck. (I could be overstating it, but if 50% of marriages end, how could 50% of child care not be negatively affected?).

But especially a boy's sexuality and personality. Men handle that differently, perhaps even worse than they do the girls. It's sort of a fraternity thing, like cops, where the norm is to see the hurt boy in tears and tell him that it will be ok, to be tough, and would he like a football? I have real trouble seeing a coach do that to a hurt little girl. And the boy, especially by 11, would be too ashamed to say anything, maybe admitting to a mythical fight or accident if he had to.

I would bet most fathers would rather have a kid with a cleft palette than one where he perceives a sexual abnormality in his son.

People STILL think rape is about how women dress, and many see pedophilia as about sex. How can they NOT have REAL trouble wen it comes to the boy? He should have worn other jeans? It's the same violence and oppression, and perhaps sickness, but in these little clubs it is not handled the same way.

It's not just churches and football locker rooms btw. It's little military academies, juvenile detention and jails, foster care (In South Dakota they take a lot of tribal children and give them to white folks in the community, (what's up with that, anyway?), I can't imagine there aren't some problems there. Other places...

The experience of a boy is that getting hurt may not mean the same thing when heard from a boy as it does when heard from a girl in one of these, or other, male-dominated places, especially when the discovery is made by one of the men in the circle.

Girls are a separate issue, yet there are just as many places where they are abused and where it is ignored.

Evil can exist in a lot of places, eh?

male dominated program that anyone would have felt bad for an underprivileged 11 yr. old girl. She would have been painted as a fast, beyond her years slut.

A friend from college lives in the area and is still breathing fire over that news report.

The community at large questioned her and felt the boys were being unduly punished. One person in the community outraged doesn't mean this girl wasn't crucified and dragged through the mud.

We have a double standard when it comes to punishing female molesters vs. male molesters, but make no mistake girls of a certain age are questioned in a different way.

The reporter went looking for "the black community" and somebody sent them that way.

like they say live boy or dead girl. A live girl just isn't a big deal.

And long dead by now.

and the rape of male children is under-reported.

You just said exactly the opposite of your previous post

has a 75% chance of doing pornography or prostitution later on in life.

women who have been raped are abused and very suspectible to the sex trade - they were broken when they were children.

so for anyone enjoying jerking off to pornography and laughing at all of us prudish pearl clutchers - think about that young woman in your next watch - she was most likely raped by her uncle, dad, teacher when she was a young girl and her perceptions have been skewed by this assault on her mind and person. No one was there to help her, now men watch her face get splooged by semen and think it's just so cool.

but do enjoy it nonetheless, wouldn't want to spoil your fun.

===
edit: not directed at the OP personally but to some here who knows who they are

The "alleged perpetrator" would have been pulled off the victim instantly and might have been lucky to have survived the night.

People are stupid about the sexual abuse of little boys in different ways than they're stupid about the sexual abuse of little girls.

When I was 12, a flight attendant offered me wine on the plane. (And the age was 21 then)

So I'm not so sure, if a girl looked passive, that the situation would have appeared to be rape.

I'm not sure the gender here would have made the difference.

that's my bitter experience, take it for what it's worth

most female rape victims on college campuses never see any justice, never, not ever, these old creeps go on for decade after decade

actually in this particular case i think the cover-up would be exactly the same, regardless of the gender of the victims but in my personal experience no one gives a damn if a girl is raped nor do they even choose to believe it happens