Sandusky says he only 'horsed around' with boys.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Wow, really? There is no problem with children showering with adults they don't know? Wow. Really. This just simply astounds me. Wow. I really don't know how to respond to this. Wow.

Not really, maybe for prude US people it is. When I was a boy and went to sauna or pool, it was common to shower with unknown adults.

Remember, nudity and sex are different things.

Would you be in that sauna or pool without either of your parents? Sure, people practice nudity in all parts of the world...but now let me ask you this, would it be appropriate for a 12 year-old girl to be nude in the sauna with a 40 year-old man? If it is all innocent, and I will say this to you now, no matter how much you would like to pass it off as innocent, you know as well as I do that in Slovakia, where you are from, sex abuse occurs.

lib.ohchr.org/.../Session5/...2009_SexualRightsInitiativ.pdf

According to your own government study

Almost universally ignored are topics like homosexuality, paraphilias, and sexual assaults (exhibitionism, rape, incest, and sexually motivated murder)

And if that is not enough to consider

Sexual Abuse, Incest, and Rape 13. The statistics on criminal sexual delinquencies are low when compared with most west European countries: according to a 2003 survey, six percent of adult Slovak reported an experience with rape and approximately 8 percent of women stated that they had been the object of sexual abuse as a child. But these low numbers might be linked to the nature of the legal procedures currently implemented in Slovakia that will be detailed in the next paragraph, as women or girls who have suffered sexual abuse might be afraid to inform the authorities and have to go through all those procedures. 14. A woman who reports a rape is subjected to a very careful and long investigation by the police. Hearings and questioning of the woman can last up to five hours or more. Once a charge is made, the woman cannot withdraw it. Nor can she discuss the accusation with anyone other than the police. If she does, she can be prosecuted for false accusation. At the court hearing, the woman has to answer questions from the court, the defense attorney, and the accused male, in what can be a very traumatizing experience. Similar procedures are followed in cases of child abuse. 15. At present, there are no special centers for counseling and support of the victims of rape and sexual abuse, although establishment of such centers is being considered. 16. Recommendations: • To review the procedures in rape court hearings so it would be the less traumatic as possible for the victims (i.e. shortening the time of the raping trials and decreasing the time of the investigation for the victim as she is already suffering from the physiological impact of this severe experience). In turn, this will help increasing the number of reported incidents and preventing impunity for sexual violence. • Establish special centers for counseling and support for victims of rape and sexual abuse – including some that offer emergency shelter to victims and their children as well- and make sensitization about these crimes one of the priority areas of work for the centers. • Work together with civil society organizations to develop and implement an awareness-raising campaign aimed at women to encourage them to report cases of abuse, and to develop and implement sensitivity and awareness training for health and justice system staff involved in dealing with victims of sexual violence so they would deal with these cases in a more appropriate way. • Enforcing the penalties for the sexual assault crimes.

Do you think maybe perhaps some of these assaults can occur while in the sauna or pool, nude? Do you think us Americans are being prude, or maybe perhaps Slovakia is not prude enough because it seems Slovakia has a problem with sex abuse of children.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Wow, really? There is no problem with children showering with adults they don't know? Wow. Really. This just simply astounds me. Wow. I really don't know how to respond to this. Wow.

As I said: all relative. However, you are STILL assuming that showering = sex, when the two are very different things.

Hey, let's take a poll, ok. Ask every parent on here if they would allow their children to take showers with adults.

I don't think you really have a clue how sex abuse begins. I don't think you even have a clue what sex abuse is.

Poll or no poll, I don't care what people THINK. I care about the reality of a situation. Reality is this: showering =/= sex or sexual abuse. Period. To link the two is using logical fallacy. It is basically saying that since someone sexually abuses someone in the shower, that means all people sexual abuse others in the shower. The thinking is illogical and ridiculous.

As far as "knowing" what sex abuse is:

sex - (n) - coitus, otherwise known as sexual intercourse, sometimes referred to via sexual acts such as fellatio.

abuse - (n) - wrong or improper use

sex abuse - wrong or improper use of sexual intercourse or sexual acts

showering - a bath in which water is sprayed upon the body, usually by an overhead perforated nozzle. Used to cleans one's body.


Wow. Dramatic. Showering and sexual abuse have literally NOTHING to do with each other.

It's all innocent, huh? Tell Jaycee Dugard there is nothing wrong about adults and children showering together.

OK Jaycee Dugard, there is nothing wrong with adults and children showering together. I will tell you the same thing - there is NOTHING wrong with children and adults showering together.

Alcohol is one of the leading cause of motor vehicle accidents, that must mean that everyone in an accident is under the influence. Or on the contrary, that everyone who drinks alcohol goes out and wrecks a vehicle.

Therefore, using your beautiful logic, alcohol should be banned because SOME people abuse it. Same logic used for gun control and hundreds of other things. My guess is that you are not a libertarian, because if you were, you would understand the false bottom in your logic that seems to link completely unrelated things.

Recognize that for every kid that is abused in a shower, there are 10 kids who come out with clean bodies and nothing more.

Would you be in that sauna or pool without either of your parents? Sure, people practice nudity in all parts of the world...but now let me ask you this, would it be appropriate for a 12 year-old girl to be nude in the sauna with a 40 year-old man? If it is all innocent, and I will say this to you now, no matter how much you would like to pass it off as innocent, you know as well as I do that in Slovakia, where you are from, sex abuse occurs.

I know this wasn't directed towards me, but it is just another example of you stereotyping a situation under a blanket to fit your skewed view. Please explain to me exactly what is wrong with a 40 year-old-man and a 12 year-old girl showering together, if there is no sexual activities involved? Can you? You avoided it the last time I asked what was so wrong about showering together, quite simply because the usual answer is "It just is!"

Do you think us Americans are being prude, or maybe perhaps Slovakia is not prude enough because it seems Slovakia has a problem with sex abuse of children.

You seem to think that child abuse wouldn't exist without the threat of co-op showers. I highly doubt a random, normal individual who showers with someone one day will turn immediately into a pedophile after witnessing their young naked bodies. In fact, I'm pretty sure that in most cases, there is a looong history of pedophilia in individuals, and most times it stems from abuse themselves.

So tell me, are the showers to blame, or is it society and the fact that society has created the monsters it calls "pedophiles"? Honestly, I think you are looking for anything to blame beside that.

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

So tell me, are the showers to blame, or is it society and the fact that society has created the monsters it calls "pedophiles"? Honestly, I think you are looking for anything to blame beside that.

At what point does it BECOME inappropriate for people to shower together? I mean in the same shower stall, under the same shower head. Is it ever inappropriate for a teen boy and a teen girl to shower together? Is it ever appropriate for people who are married to other people to shower together? If it ever becomes inappropriate, then perhaps there is something to showering together, in the same shower stall.

Would you now feel comfortable going outside your house where children are playing and ask any of their parents to let their children shower with you, and tell them it is innocent and just a shower. Could you at this moment do that? Would you do that and then call them stupid when they call the police on you?

Really, could you just go out now to where children are and ask their parents? Is it unreasonable of them to say no? But really, why don't you prove your theory it is all innocent, go to the mall, put up a sign and ask for people to consider letting their children shower with you because it is all innocent. If it is all innocent, you should have no problem.

Sure, you might take a shower with your own children, but at what point does it become inappropriate? And yes, a 12 year-old girl and her 40 year-old father....yes, inappropriate.

But you are defining your own views, and seem to feel your views are appropriate, so please just prove me wrong, go ask parents if it is ok if you shower with their children.

Gotta love this comment

"If this is what jocks do, we really need to rethink the whole group shower thing."

reply to post by WarminIndy

At what point does it BECOME inappropriate for people to shower together? I mean in the same shower stall, under the same shower head. Is it ever inappropriate for a teen boy and a teen girl to shower together? Is it ever appropriate for people who are married to other people to shower together? If it ever becomes inappropriate, then perhaps there is something to showering together, in the same shower stall.

As I said before that you aren't grasping, what is "appropriate" is relative to each and every person. The only way it is NOT appropriate is under a few conditions, and these conditions are made perfectly clear:

1. One of the parties is in the situation against their will and is unable to leave or ask the other to leave.
2. One party makes an unwanted physical contact with the other.

That's it. And you can't assume that all such things are happening in every group shower.

Would you now feel comfortable going outside your house where children are playing and ask any of their parents to let their children shower with you, and tell them it is innocent and just a shower. Could you at this moment do that? Would you do that and then call them stupid when they call the police on you?

Really, could you just go out now to where children are and ask their parents? Is it unreasonable of them to say no? But really, why don't you prove your theory it is all innocent, go to the mall, put up a sign and ask for people to consider letting their children shower with you because it is all innocent. If it is all innocent, you should have no problem.

Your scenarios are ridiculous and don't coincide with this trial whatsoever. Sandusky didn't ASK people to shower with their children.

Why would I ASK a child to shower with me? You are talking about a completely unrealistic circumstances. Obviously there would be an underlying reason for someone to ASK to shower with a child.

Now under the completely ludicrous circumstance that there is a child in a public gym shower, and I am short on time, I have absolutely no problem "showering" with that child. I have no intention of interaction with that child, I have every intention of bathing. If someone sees something wrong with that then they are idiots. There is NOTHING wrong with that. I'm not doing anything wrong.

In the end, feel free to call the police. Considering nothing was done to the child, I will have my day in court, beat the accusations, and be freed as a misunderstanding. However, I'll be wise to know that people here on ATS will still believe me to be a child molester regardless of what actually happened, so I guess my life would be ruined either way.

Sure, you might take a shower with your own children, but at what point does it become inappropriate? And yes, a 12 year-old girl and her 40 year-old father....yes, inappropriate.

You still can't tell me WHY it is inappropriate. It is the same cock-and-bull "BECAUSE IT JUST IS" over and over again.

But you are defining your own views, and seem to feel your views are appropriate, so please just prove me wrong, go ask parents if it is ok if you shower with their children.

I've already explained that this was ridiculous. I have no want or need to shower with children, but in the circumstance that there were children in a public, group shower, no, I wouldn't have any problem going in, getting a shower, and leaving. Yourself, and the majority of society see something morally wrong with that yet I have not been able to find and answer as to WHY it is inappropriate.

My guess is that the answer is "You MIGHT have molested those children." In which case I say, grow a brain. By all means, if there is some kind of legitimate real answer that you can provide, go for it. I'll gladly be waiting for you to back up your follow-the-leader logic with no basis on reality.

reply to post by DoNotForgetMe


Thank you for your words. Actually I'm not stressed by gwydionblack's comments at all. I typed up a little reply about how Occams razor was a horrid example for him to use, among other things. I unfortunately have a bad habit getting sidetracked when I'm posting. I'll move on to something else so I'll copy my text with the intent of coming back and pasting/continuing my comments. This time I copied, but ended up forgetting to come back and paste, and Iost my post. It wasn't worth it to me to retype it.

I've learned that there are some people that you just cannot carry on a debate with who will take on any and every opposing viewpoint no matter how outlandish. Dissenting opinions are good, and debate is excellent and needed, but you also have to be able to recognize when it's not debate, it's just arguing for arguings sake, it isn't offering any fresh or new information, just beating a dead horse. Time to walk away.

As for Sandusky content, the information and details of this case are so overwhelming as to almost seem surreal. Sandusky lives next to a school for second grade and under children. I won't get into Sandusky's 6 adopted kids and 18 foster kids....

Today at second mile, investigators discovered that many of the files involving Sandusky are missing. The board members of second mile have all resigned and do not wish to comment. Nobody seems to know where the files are.

Also today, a woman who has known Sandusky for 30 years, says she believes that Sandusky started second mile so that he would have better access to boys. Her information stems from her knowledge of Sandusky's involvement with an organisation called "The Fresh Air Fund". Before Sandusky started his own charity, Sandusky "helped" boys from Fresh Air Fund. As it turns out, apparently there is at least one boy from the 1970's who had contact with Sandusky through Fresh Air, that says he was abused. She'll be speaking to investigators soon.

In the speculation department....

Ray Gricar,was the elected DA who was involved in the Sandusky case, and who went missing suddenly.......Gricar had taken statements directly from Sandusky stating that he "might have touched young boys". Gricar chose not to prosecute, however the next DA in line wanted to prosecute.

Gricar was months away from retiring. In retiring, he would have to turn in his in his state owned computer. Before Gricar went missing, he had done searches on his home computer on how to destroy a hard drive. He had also purchased a "wipe drive"

Gricar's car was found, locked, sitting in a parking lot near a river. He was gone. His laptop was found in the river, without the hard drive. The hard drive was later found, destroyed, under a bridge near the parking lot where his car was found.

Gricars brother committed suicide. How? He drowned himself in a river. As a result the police searched the river that Gricar left his car by. They searched it with a fine tooth comb.

If Gricar found himself in a position of needing to lose his laptop and hard drive and needing to "disappear"....what better way than to leave your car next to a river?

Gricar has oddly been "spotted" all over the US and Mexico. There are PHOTOS of these sightings and they look just like him....

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Sandusky didn't ASK people to shower with their children.

You still can't tell me WHY it is inappropriate. It is the same cock-and-bull "BECAUSE IT JUST IS" over and over again.

So Sandusky, without parental permission, decided on his own to take a shower, in an empty locker room, with no other adults around, with a child, which he later admitted was wrong to do. So you agree that it was wrong for him to do that?

And it is inappropriate the same as watching nude films with children, playing games the children do not understand, and it has the intimate connotation that is sexual. Would you think it is appropriate to watch porn with children because they have to learn about it?

We are not talking about a communal shower when it comes to Sandusky, we are talking about showers that led to touching the boys and the boys touching Sandusky. We are talking about exposing oneself to children without their parents present. It is highly inappropriate to expose children in that manner, no matter how many ways people talk about how innocent it is.

You aren't going to ask because you know it is wrong. No matter the spin, it is wrong. So please, just do us all a favor and go to the school and ask them to allow you to teach on the subject of exposing yourself to children under the guise of innocent showering and how nudity is beautiful and all children should experience the beauty of adult nudity. Care to try that one?

Little boys all know they have a "wee wee", they don't need another adult to expose their "wee wee" to them. You are another example of moral relativism that hurts children. And you know, the more you defend the rights of adults to shower with children, the more perverted you look. You might call us prude and old-fashioned, but it is far better than children being exposed to the perversions of adults who don't mind what parents feel when it comes to their children.

It is inappropriate because of the sexual nature involved, there is no more innocence when adults expose themselves to children. Please, spare us the arguments of "nudity is beautiful" because the rest of us know the more one exposes themselves to children, the less respectful they are and parents do not want people like you to expose yourself to children.

Indecent exposure is the deliberate exposure in public or in view of the general public by a person of a portion or portions of his or her body, in circumstances where the exposure is contrary to local moral or other standards of appropriate behavior. Indecent exposure laws vary in different countries.

You live in a country where this is considered indecent exposure. To broadly display yourself in the presence of children is a crime. Well, you say, "What about those women in those countries that don't wear anything to cover their breasts", you will find those women and men still cover the other parts of their bodies. Why? Because of sexual connotation. You might think there is nothing wrong, because it may be that you like to do it, but did you ever consider that the children you might be showering with may have a limited understanding of what sex is, and don't really want to see it? But exposure to other people's children is defined as indecent, and you know this.

It would be difficult to comment on the varioius subjects that have sprung up from this thread.........but the only thing I can think of is the due process of law must take place.............

But I'm worried that so many people are connected to this case and univesity that a due process of law may be very difficult to obtain.

Just the bail bond situation reeks of vested interest.

Sandusky's interview was distrubing to say the least........so much so that I almost think he had to be drugged up to respond like that...............and his choice of an attorney with the history of a young girl is just bizarre.

I really think that the eye witness of the rape by McQueary is the key to the case.........whatever his actions or inactions resulted in that fact remains he is the only adult capable of explaining the explicate actions he saw. There would be no way for the defense to discredit him if he stands firm and acurate on what he saw.

But MeQuery's recent emailing stating actions different than his grand jury testimony will be picked up by the defense and use as a way to discredit him.

Just an awful situation has developed here........

But for the life of me, I can't imagine that Sandusky would go through all the trouble of starting a non profit organizaiton to assist with underpriviledged children for just his own pleasure seeking.........he had many easier and more convenient ways to do thiss.............ie the grand school next to this house for example.

What I'm getting at here is I just wonder if others where tied into this whole deal in a child sex ring with second mile as the clearing house...........I hate to think that but so many of these higher profile pediphile cases are just that. Add to the fact that a lot of money flowed around that place.........and..............

God help us..........

reply to post by Anthropormorphic


I've been providing information as devil's advocate for the last three pages. It is you who decides not to listen to a damn thing I'm saying.

I'm arguing my beliefs and from rationality's sake. I don't let emotions or societal standards get in the way of logic and my ability to think for myself. If you can't handle that, then by all means step down, cede defeat to this "debate", because that at least shows that you are capable of rational thought for once in this topic.

Also today, a woman who has known Sandusky for 30 years, says she believes that Sandusky started second mile so that he would have better access to boys.

In court this is known as heresay and is thrown out immediately. Rational thinking does not care what this woman "believes" about Sandusky's actions.

Before Gricar went missing, he had done searches on his home computer on how to destroy a hard drive. He had also purchased a "wipe drive"

I own a computer tech business. I have people come in on a week to week basis asking how to wipe hard drives and asking if I could do the same. Does this mean they are hiding criminal evidence? No. In fact, on the contrary, there is a lost of personal information stored on a computer hard drive, and if I had to turn my PC over to someone, I would wipe the drive too. Guess I'm a criminal.

And once again, this will go the same way as the "chloroform search" in the Casey Anthony trial.




You are so arrogant behind your belief that this guy is automatically guilty, that you fail continuously to see the point of my posts, or if you do see the point, you choose to disregard it. I'm not defending an alleged child rapist not am I calling victims liars, both of which I have been accused of doing. I am trying to point out that you, and many other people, despite not having any access to the evidence that is in the case, will continuously try to throw in your "expert opinion" on guilt, as if it even matters. You are so proud of yourself that you can't even admit that there is a possibility that your prejudgemental attitude is 100%, veritably WRONG! Instead you will continue to ignore my words and preach on as if you are the judge, jury, and prosecutor, when in reality you, and everyone else, is nothing more than a bystander, hearing a whole hell of a lot of media bias, having your views skewed by society and hearsay, and pretending like you are a novel figure in this case.

reply to post by WarminIndy

So Sandusky, without parental permission, decided on his own to take a shower, in an empty locker room, with no other adults around, with a child, which he later admitted was wrong to do. So you agree that it was wrong for him to do that?

Yeah. I do agree that it was wrong to do that. But as I have clearly stated, showering =/= child rape or molestation. Unmoral, unethical, and inappropriate in some eyes - sure... but a crime? Not necessarily.

And it is inappropriate the same as watching nude films with children, playing games the children do not understand, and it has the intimate connotation that is sexual. Would you think it is appropriate to watch porn with children because they have to learn about it?

If a parent wants to watch porn with their child, so be it. I'm not in any position to question their choices. I believe porn can be used as an educational tool in the right hands, but once again - it isn't something that a stranger of any sort should be in the position to worry about.

We are not talking about a communal shower when it comes to Sandusky, we are talking about showers that led to touching the boys and the boys touching Sandusky. We are talking about exposing oneself to children without their parents present. It is highly inappropriate to expose children in that manner, no matter how many ways people talk about how innocent it is.

Allegedly.

You just aren't understanding that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, are you?

You aren't going to ask because you know it is wrong. No matter the spin, it is wrong. So please, just do us all a favor and go to the school and ask them to allow you to teach on the subject of exposing yourself to children under the guise of innocent showering and how nudity is beautiful and all children should experience the beauty of adult nudity. Care to try that one?

You keep asking me to "try" these things completely out of context and to complete strangers. I'm not a teacher and the ridiculous subject of "exposing yourself to children under the guise of innocent showering", is such codswallop that I can't even believe you mentioned it. As I pointed out, I have no reason to shower with children unless they are my own. I'll let parents deal accordingly with their own kin.

Little boys all know they have a "wee wee", they don't need another adult to expose their "wee wee" to them.

I could write volumes on what we don't NEED in this world, but when it comes to seeing male OR FEMALE genitalia, you or anyone else is not going to be able to pinpoint some kind of harm that such a vision will cause.

And you know, the more you defend the rights of adults to shower with children, the more perverted you look.

I don't care how I look to you. You can make all the prejudgements myself. I have already been practically called a pedophile because I find some of these things acceptable, but I honestly don't care. I know truth and I know not to judge before knowing something. That makes me something that you are not.

It is inappropriate because of the sexual nature involved, there is no more innocence when adults expose themselves to children.

There is no sexual nature involved. None. Zero. Zilch. Not in a shower. Not in nudity. You can be nude and not have sex, just as well as you can have sex while not being nude.

Please, spare us the arguments of "nudity is beautiful" because the rest of us know the more one exposes themselves to children, the less respectful they are and parents do not want people like you to expose yourself to children.

You speak for a vast margin when you say "the rest of us". You fall into a large group of people who tend to have some innate fear of the human body. If you were logical in nature, you would realize that such a belief is ridiculous and uncalled for. I can only assume that you are Christian, and feel as if we are supposed to feel this unending shame due to the incidents in the Garden of Eden. Too bad... not everyone agrees with that philosophy.

You live in a country where this is considered indecent exposure.

Perhaps. However, last I looked, indecent exposure is a far less serious crime than molestation and rape. It seems many with correlate the two by default.

This thread is getting nasty. Simply due to the subject matter and the anonymous internet your gonna draw in all the perverts. Maybe it's time to close this and take away their nasty little soapbox.

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by Anthropormorphic

 

I'm arguing my beliefs and from rationality's sake. I don't let emotions or societal standards get in the way of logic and my ability to think for myself. If you can't handle that, then by all means step down, cede defeat to this "debate", because that at least shows that you are capable of rational thought for once in this topic.

Also today, a woman who has known Sandusky for 30 years, says she believes that Sandusky started second mile so that he would have better access to boys.

In court this is known as heresay and is thrown out immediately. Rational thinking does not care what this woman "believes" about Sandusky's actions.

Before Gricar went missing, he had done searches on his home computer on how to destroy a hard drive. He had also purchased a "wipe drive"

I own a computer tech business. I have people come in on a week to week basis asking how to wipe hard drives and asking if I could do the same. Does this mean they are hiding criminal evidence? No. In fact, on the contrary, there is a lost of personal information stored on a computer hard drive, and if I had to turn my PC over to someone, I would wipe the drive too. Guess I'm a criminal.

And once again, this will go the same way as the "chloroform search" in the Casey Anthony trial.




You are so arrogant behind your belief that this guy is automatically guilty, that you fail continuously to see the point of my posts, or if you do see the point, you choose to disregard it. I'm not defending an alleged child rapist not am I calling victims liars, both of which I have been accused of doing. I am trying to point out that you, and many other people, despite not having any access to the evidence that is in the case, will continuously try to throw in your "expert opinion" on guilt, as if it even matters. You are so proud of yourself that you can't even admit that there is a possibility that your prejudgemental attitude is 100%, veritably WRONG! Instead you will continue to ignore my words and preach on as if you are the judge, jury, and prosecutor, when in reality you, and everyone else, is nothing more than a bystander, hearing a whole hell of a lot of media bias, having your views skewed by society and hearsay, and pretending like you are a novel figure in this case.

Part of me wants to lay out each of your hateful (and incorrect) characterizations of my comments above and respond to each individually, but I will not. I will say that as far as I'm concerned your vitriol aimed at me has gone too far. Attacking me and then trying to bait me by saying if I don't respond I am "ceding" to your rational intelligent thinking, is laughable and will not work. I'll let you continue to foam at the mouth. .

Originally posted by Anthropormorphic

Originally posted by gwydionblack

Part of me wants to lay out each of your hateful (and incorrect) characterizations of my comments above and respond to each individually, but I will not. I will say that as far as I'm concerned your vitriol aimed at me has gone too far. Attacking me and then trying to bait me by saying if I don't respond I am "ceding" to your rational intelligent thinking, is laughable and will not work. I'll let you continue to foam at the mouth. .

I think someday we will hear about someone with that username on To Catch a Predator. Does that person even know how they sound by continually saying they follow reason and logic? They have made quite a lot of assumptions about us and then claiming logical fallacy, sounds like they learned that in speech class and love to use it now because it sounds so intelligent in their "debates". Sex abuse is nothing to debate about.

Anthro, stars for you.

This case, and ones like it (Casey Anthony, I'm looking at you), are precisely why the US needs a gag order/injunction system. As soon as the media get their fangs into a story, this happens. You get people accusing left, right and center, with no way of controlling it. You know what happens in Canada when a sex abuse case like this comes up? The press are given a gag order, making it criminal for them to release any names or details regarding the case. Not only to protect those involved, but to prevent what's clearly jury tampering by the media.

I know you Americans believe in "freedom of the press" and all that, but how would you feel if the editor of the New York Times decided to run a front-page story claiming the Holocaust was fake? You'd be angry, wouldn't you? Well, that's exactly what's happening here. The media have decided Sandusky is guilty, due process or none, and nothing will change that short of a direct order from the DoJ sealing the matter until the trial is over.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Would you be in that sauna or pool without either of your parents?

Sometimes, yes.

Sure, people practice nudity in all parts of the world...but now let me ask you this, would it be appropriate for a 12 year-old girl to be nude in the sauna with a 40 year-old man?

We were gender-segregated. There are plenty of nudist communities where this is not true, tough.

If it is all innocent, and I will say this to you now, no matter how much you would like to pass it off as innocent, you know as well as I do that in Slovakia, where you are from, sex abuse occurs.

And it occurs all over the world. Your point?

Stop equating nudity with sex.

And it is inappropriate the same as watching nude films with children, playing games the children do not understand, and it has the intimate connotation that is sexual. Would you think it is appropriate to watch porn with children because they have to learn about it?

Again, nudity is not necessarily sexual. There is really nothing wrong with watching films with some non-sexual nudity with children, that is not porn.

I admit that I dont know the details of this case, but simple showering with nude children is not a crime, nor should it be. It may point to the accused being a pedophile if done excessively, tough.

reply to post by Anthropormorphic

Part of me wants to lay out each of your hateful (and incorrect) characterizations of my comments above and respond to each individually, but I will not.

I would prefer you did. Promotes healthy debate. If you somehow are able to answer my questions that I have been asking about exactly why these things are considered "wrong", then by golly I would walk away and admit that I have been bested in this argument. However, I am still awaiting those answers.

I will say that as far as I'm concerned your vitriol aimed at me has gone too far.

Don't delude yourself. You were the one who replied with angst towards my original comment on here. I would aim my debate at anyone who chooses to stand against what I am saying so vehemently that they can't look past their own prejudgements. Someone like you and WarminIndy.




reply to post by WarminIndy

I think someday we will hear about someone with that username on To Catch a Predator.

Even more of your fetid thinking. Yep. I believe that showering and nudity amongst people is find, so that means I'm going to end up on "To Catch a Predator" one day. No, don't worry - you make perfect sense. Just keep believing the froth between those two ears.

Does that person even know how they sound by continually saying they follow reason and logic?

I asked a simple logical question that the two "debaters" on your side have failed to answer. Allow me to ask it again in a bit more detail:

What is the harm caused by adults and children showering together, so long as the adult is a responsible adult?
Why is this wrong to you?

They have made quite a lot of assumptions about us and then claiming logical fallacy, sounds like they learned that in speech class and love to use it now because it sounds so intelligent in their "debates". Sex abuse is nothing to debate about.

I believe I've made one assumption - the possibility that you are hardcore Christians. The rest of my "assumptions" come from your words and your skewed reasoning that you believe to be holier than anyone elses. You can't even accept my beliefs without pinning me as a child molester myself, when in fact, I am nowhere close. However, I can surmise that based on your strong held judgment that, without a shadow of a doubt Sandusky is a child molester, then by all means I doubt I will change your opinion on myself.

And your belief that "sex abuse is nothing to debate about", well guess what? There was a time when sex abuse wasn't even a crime. Was it "nothing to debate about" then? Are we just supposed to accept the rules society makes for us without question? That seems to be the idea you are going with. It is like the Holocaust, that ground is TOO sacred to even debate about and apparently sex abuse is as well.

But... you have been debating about it for quite awhile. It seems now that you are making no headway, and failing to answer my simple questions, you would much rather state that it is "nothing to debate about" and walk away with your head held high.

ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTIONS.

What is the harm caused by adults and children showering together, so long as the adult is a responsible adult?

Why is this wrong to you?

How does showering with children = sexual abuse?

reply to post by gwydionblack


You asked what is wrong with a child and an adult showering together as long as it is a responsible adult. My answer is this, a responsible adult would never shower with a child.

You can blame societal standards, but apparently societal standards are different where your supporter Maslo is from, Slovakia and yet Slovakia has problems with sex abuse. Societal standards are different than individual standards, and when a person has individual lax moral standards, they justify whatever they want to suit their own needs.

Responsible adults recognize the fact that teachings of nudity and sex fall to the parents. They ask the same from other adults. Now you have said that you want the respect to raise children the way you see fit, and then you implied through your answers that you would have no problem in subverting other parents views to justify what you feel is proper. The problem is, other parents feel it is improper, so how are you more special that you can do what you ask others not to do?

Responsible adults do not shower with children because they recognize there is a point in a child's life when sexuality is learned and beginning to be understood, they are told there are areas of the body-those covered by bathing suits- are where adults are not supposed to touch them. For an adult to feel the need to go nude in front of children is inappropriate because it teaches children there is nothing off-limits anymore. For an adult to go nude in front of children has crossed a line that other parents have asked and expected them not to, because as you believe and have said, parent are responsible for teaching their children. If you have asked for respect, you have accept that you must respect others as well.

The off-limits line always, always suggests something sexual in nature. Children should not be exposed to sexual activity because they are not old enough to understand it, they are just learning. But it also devalues sex itself into nothing more than animalistic activities. Sex should be part of a loving, romantic and intimate relationship based in mutual understanding and intellectual level. And adults who abuse children will not just say to them "hey, you want to have sex?" no, they condition them and too many times the conditioning begins at the most innocent level for the children.

Showering with children is conditioning them into a moral view that nothing is off-limits. Body parts that have a function that is sexual in nature should not be considered something to be displayed with abandon, because children need to learn about sex from a responsible, mature parent. They don't need it to be displayed from other adults who think their own individualistic views are more important because generally, that adult who crosses lines does it for their own sadistic desires, no matter how innocuous they claim to be.

There are things that should remain off-limits, and that is the bodies of children and their minds that need so much time to process information about how the world around them works. The world that works around them must protect their innocence until they have reached an age they can process information about sex. Just to say there is nothing wrong with nudity, small children already think that. But when they begin to understand their body parts have a special function, they should be taught to respect others body parts as well. And that means preserving their innocence, because children do not need to know about sex.

reply to post by WarminIndy

You asked what is wrong with a child and an adult showering together as long as it is a responsible adult. My answer is this, a responsible adult would never shower with a child.

HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO BEAT AROUND THE QUESTION UNTIL YOU ADMIT THAT YOU JUST DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER.

This is absolutely ridiculous. I asked you for and answer to the question, not an excuse to get out of answering.

HOW IS NUDITY SEXUAL?

IT IS NOT. Period. Done. End of discussion. You know what is sexual? Intercourse. Groping of genitalia. Unwanted touching of genitalia. Sexual comments towards somebody. THAT IS SEXUAL - NUDITY IS NOT.

NUDITY IS NOT SEXUAL ACTIVITY.

I don't care how you swing it, I don't care what you or the rest of people believe - this is just simple, straight up FACT. PERIOD. Do yourself a favor and look up a definition or two before you continue to make your stupid links from one thing to another.

How more clear do I have to make this for you?

SHOWERING DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SEX.

SHOWERING DOES NOT TEACH ANYTHING ABOUT SEX.

EXPOSING BODY PARTS DOES NOT TEACH ANYTHING ABOUT SEXUAL FUNCTIONS.



You are absolutely, 100% wrong if you think otherwise, and until you answer my question in a logic way, you can expect me to ignore the remaining diatribe that extends from your posts.

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by WarminIndy

I explained it and yet you dismiss it because it goes against your diatribe. You would like justification for your own lax moral views about sex and no one on here is going to justify it for you.

Your dismissal of my answers is not because I am wrong, but that I just don't agree with you. But you can't seem to accept that there are off-limits when it comes to children and perhaps you enjoy being a nudist. Fine for you being a nudist, be a nudist around other nudists.

Would you agree with this..

There is an ugly history that many family nudist camps seem to intentionally ignore. Many children have reported being molested, raped, and seduced by other camp members, and this problem is not isolated to a few associations. It seems that anywhere there is a lack of accountability, a pedophile or child pornographer is hiding behind naturism. It is surprising how many family nudist camps are found to harbor convicted child molesters. When they are caught, they often brag openly about how easy it was to exploit the children there, noting the apathy of the camp sponsors and organizations and the gullibility of parents introducing their child into the nudist lifestyle. One such pedophile was Wayne Silsbee, who ran a newsgroup online advocating family nudity. He was so bold as to openly state his crimes against children were a natural part of naturism. He is currently wanted by the FBI for child pornography and sexual abuse. Silsbee found solace in several family nudist camps where he was never questioned about background or intention.

Hmmm, he seems to agree with you.
www.associatedcontent.com...
www.thestar.com...
www.wfaa.com...
www.wistv.com...

Shall I go on with the sources? You are telling us there is nothing wrong with nudity around children. Yet, these men said the same thing you did. Shall I post more?

blogs.houstonpress.com...
www.nostatusquo.com...
www.nostatusquo.com...

Aww, seems to me there are perverts saying the same thing you are. They find nothing wrong with it, and yet sexually assault children. I suppose then there is a connection with nudity and sex after all. So go ahead, tell us where these naturists/nudists went wrong.

reply to post by butcherguy