# "Now I've Got You You Son of A Bitch" Eric Berne, MD



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

"Why hasn't the (sexual) abuse scandal brought MSU and USA Gymnastics into the cross hairs, like Jerry Sandusky did Penn State".... was the headline of an article authored by Eric Adelson and carried on the Yahoo News feed early yesterday. Adelson opened with:

"It was one of the most abhorrent scandals in American sports history, with more than 100 victims and one doctor (Dr. Larry Nasseur) sentenced to 60 years in prison for child pornography charges and pleading guilty on 10 counts of first degree criminal sexual conduct."

Adelson goes into a fairly extended discussion about MSU and USA Gymnastics not having yet reached final conclusions with their respective investigations and states the NCAA has not yet (improperly) involved themselves in this more recent scandal, as was done in the Penn State scenario. While all this may be true, I think it to be a lot simpler than that. Eric Berne, MD, wrote a book years ago entitled "I'm OK, You're OK" and more recently a book entitled "The Games People Play," in which he introduces us to a mind game people play that he (Berne) calls "Now I've Got You, You Son of A Bitch!"

Herein lies the the concise, yet complete answer to the question posed in the article written by Eric Adelson. We, the masses, just cannot stand to have an icon of virtue, be it an institution, sports figure, academic or other celebrity that or who represents a standard of excellence that we cannot claim to match, continue to stand. Once we discover any small crack in their armor that provides the excuse for bringing it or them down, we do so.. Mediocrity must rule. There should be nothing or no one that we strive to live up to. This is as good as it gets...accept it or get over it! Pretty sad reality, I think?


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

It's the need for pure, virtuous heroes that does it. The thought that someone could be both famous and human is incomprehensible.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Funny, I was thinking about this the other day.

I'm working through the Greek myths with my daughter (she's 5), and at times she will stop me and say something like "is Athena good?" or "is Zeus bad?", because their behavior in one tale may be quite different from their behavior in another (Athena is pretty awful in the story of Arachne, for example, while appearing helpful and wise in other stories). So I have to explain that in the Greek myths, the gods are like people: at once good AND bad. That, and the worst sin, to the ancient Greeks, was pride.

So contrast that with the American view of heroes. We have two things going on, I think: we have a species of Puritanism in our culture which posits that heroes must be flawless, AND we have the notion that heroic status is attainable (whether that be in sports, in wealth, and so on), and indeed, a just reward for moral character.

So when a hero (I use the word, but someone famous in a field we believe should involve character, like sports) exhibits failings, we at once scathingly criticize them AND enjoy the vacuum is creates... the better for the next person to occupy a spot. Building pedestals and knocking them down.

(And this is an old trait: correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe even de Tocqueville remarked on it.)

DH


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Nobody is perfect. But when are they so bad they need to be knocked down?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Finding myself in general agreement with conclusions expressed in each of the postings above, I am left wondering...as we acknowledge and address the all too human frailties of our "hero's," must we also discount entire bodies of good works achieved throughout their (our hero's) lives and/or the institutions they represent? This approach seems decidedly vindictive and unnecessarily destructive...yes, no? And why does it apply to some, but not others? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Finding myself in general agreement with conclusions expressed in each of the postings above, I am left wondering...as we acknowledge and address the all too human frailties of our "hero's," must we also discount entire bodies of good works achieved throughout their (our hero's) lives and/or the institutions they represent? This approach seems decidedly vindictive and unnecessarily destructive...yes, no? And why does it apply to some, but not others? :icon_scratch:


It's not just vindictive, it's dangerous. It conflates the value of a man's works with his moral character, which is a species of fundamentalism: it's easily as dangerous as religious extremism. Worse, it provides moral justification for censorship and other modes of information control (Mr. Frisky isn't worthy, so let him and all his works be cast out!)

The Left, to me, smacks of fundamentalism ("are you one of the anointed? do you agree with the holy writ in full, no questions asked?"), especially in their willingness to simply make assertions with no basis ("gender is a social construct") and then demand total devotion to them ("silence = violence"). Indeed, making baseless assertions and then demanding their unquestioned acceptance is the hallmark of totalitarian language control ("Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia").

Today's busting up stars on the Walk of Fame can be a harbinger of tomorrow's thought policing.

DH


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^"Harbingers of tomorrow's thought policing..."
Hoping not to mislead anyone into thinking that I harbor any positive feelings at all for the 'white supremacist' elements in our society, as the left wingers marched through the South over the past 18 months, building enthusiasm for and in fact greatly cleansing the area of any monuments/reminders of it's involvement in the Civil War, I found myself pondering "is this what America and it's values have come to?" Wouldn't it have made more sense to initiate actions to equally commemorate the historic actions of heroic black Americans of that period (or to document "the rest of the story," if you prefer), rather than smashing and trashing the monuments commemorating the other side of the argument and effectively rewriting history, rather than balancing the recording of it"


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Eagle, I would have more sympathy for your point if most of these monuments have been erected at the time the events happened, or shortly afterwards. As it stands, many were built at the height of Jim Crow to make a political stand that blacks should continue to be seen as inferior people and that the South should still be managed by their superiors. They were not erected to commemorate US history, but to make a political point to the "lower races". I am absolutely in favor of taking these pieces into museums, where proper context can be given, instead of their current places in public spaces.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

bernoulli said:


> Eagle, I would have more sympathy for your point if most of these monuments have been erected at the time the events happened, or shortly afterwards. As it stands, many were built at the height of Jim Crow to make a political stand that blacks should continue to be seen as inferior people and that the South should still be managed by their superiors. They were not erected to commemorate US history, but to make a political point to the "lower races". I am absolutely in favor of taking these pieces into museums, where proper context can be given, instead of their current places in public spaces.


Then perhaps you should move there and then perhaps your opinion on the matter may actually carry some weight. Until then, it's really none of your concern.

What happens with such monuments is a matter to be decided locally. Not by far off intelligentsia.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Then perhaps you should move there and then perhaps your opinion on the matter may actually carry some weight. Until then, it's really none of your concern.
> 
> What happens with such monuments is a matter to be decided locally. Not by far off intelligentsia.


Nicely put. Brazil, and South America in general, have enough problems that their citizens should be worried about their own local issues. I hardly care what leftist Americans complain about -- a leftist foreigner's opinion? Give me a break.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I realize that the point of this thread is an attack on people with liberal political views, but if we look at the details I don't think I can share your view that the insouciance displayed by MSU (my undergraduate alma mater) and USA Gymnastics constitute "any small crack in their armor".


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Good morning and a Happy New Year to you too, Jack. LOL. Referring back to the wording of my OP, I fail to see anything that could be viewed as a call for an attack on people with liberal political views or intimates that there are any cracks in MSU's or the USA Gymnastics respective suits of armor. However, I do clearly suggest that we/the masses seem to be troubled by and greatly resent the presence of those among us who clearly stand taller than the rest, are more sterling in character or more courageous in action, or for whatever reason are held up as examples of what we should all be striving to achieve and we take the first opportunity that comes along to fell those icons of excellence. The problem is not with any presumed cracks in their armor but that MSU and YSA Gymnastics have simply not reached high enough or been held in sufficient awe to find themselves "in the cross hairs of" or to incur the rage of the masses against them. Not wishing to stir up sleeping animosities or resurrect any old battles, but (my undergraduate alma mater) Penn State and the late Joe Paterno had and, regardless of the similarities in the Sandusky debacle and this present case involving the MSU/USA Gymnastics doctor, they clearly found themselves in those cross hairs and have endured the continuing rage of the masses.

We should all be held accountable for our shortcomings, but a single misstep/mistake/shortcoming should not incur the loss of credit for an entire lifetimes body of work/achievements.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

So, I make a polite message disagreeing honestly with eagle, whom I respect tremendously, and get attacked from being a Brazilian (???) or not living in the South (??)? By these absurd standards, I hope you completely refrain from ever spouting an anti-abortion stance (you are not a woman, so you cannot ever comment on their bodies), or on world events in general (since you live in the US). Also, never ever comment on African Americans marching against police brutality (unless you are a cop or African American), gay marriage (I assume you are not gay, open or closeted, but may be wrong) or on any subject that does not take place in your state or do not involve your existence as privileged males. Agreed? I am fine with that and the level of discourse in the Interchange will be much improved by you shutting the hell up about anything else that does not concern you directly. I will promise to do the same and comment solely on events that directly concern me (given I live a peripatetic life, I will still enjoy quite a lot of freedom). A small price to pay to stop seeing your opinions written in the forum.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

bernoulli said:


> So, I make a polite message disagreeing honestly with eagle, whom I respect tremendously, and get attacked from being a Brazilian (???) or not living in the South (??)? By these absurd standards, I hope you completely refrain from ever spouting an anti-abortion stance (you are not a woman, so you cannot ever comment on their bodies), or on world events in general (since you live in the US). Also, never ever comment on African Americans marching against police brutality (unless you are a cop or African American), gay marriage (I assume you are not gay, open or closeted, but may be wrong) or on any subject that does not take place in your state or do not involve your existence as privileged males. Agreed? I am fine with that and the level of discourse in the Interchange will be much improved by you shutting the hell up about anything else that does not concern you directly. I will promise to do the same and comment solely on events that directly concern me (given I live a peripatetic life, I will still enjoy quite a lot of freedom). A small price to pay to stop seeing your opinions written in the forum.


Resorting to straw man arguments does not redeem you in the least bit. Not to mention that you're engaging in a line of argument and reasoning that at best can be called a non sequitor. At worst, a drunken tirade.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

bernoulli said:


> Eagle, I would have more sympathy for your point if most of these monuments have been erected at the time the events happened, or shortly afterwards. As it stands, many were built at the height of Jim Crow to make a political stand that blacks should continue to be seen as inferior people and that the South should still be managed by their superiors. They were not erected to commemorate US history, but to make a political point to the "lower races". I am absolutely in favor of taking these pieces into museums, where proper context can be given, instead of their current places in public spaces.


My friend, you make a very valid point. Indeed, the context in which many of those monuments came into being should not be ignored. As the peoples of every nation progress through history, unfortunately we/they make choices and act in ways that should perhaps shame us all. Ideally, we learn from and correct such mistakes, but alas, in far too many instances we have proven ourselves to be extremely slow learners. Thank you for your thoughts.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> *I realize that the point of this thread is an attack on people with liberal political views*, but if we look at the details I don't think I can share your view that the insouciance displayed by MSU (my undergraduate alma mater) and USA Gymnastics constitute "any small crack in their armor".


I could not disagree more.

If you have realized that the whole point of* this* thread was to attack people with liberal points of view then I am afraid there is no common ground for further discussion.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

bernoulli said:


> Eagle, I would have more sympathy for your point if most of these monuments have been erected at the time the events happened, or shortly afterwards. As it stands, many were built at the height of Jim Crow to make a political stand that blacks should continue to be seen as inferior people and that the South should still be managed by their superiors. They were not erected to commemorate US history, but to make a political point to the "lower races". I am absolutely in favor of taking these pieces into museums, where proper context can be given, instead of their current places in public spaces.


There was no way that the statues could have been erected right after the war as the Southern states were occupied until the mid 1870s. And while it is a loud, if inaccurate, refrain that the statues were erected as protests to racial equality, it is more accepted that they were the result of

The south emerging from its financial devastation of the war

The dissatisfaction with the way that they were treated during Reconstruction

The appalling way that the confederate veterans were treated by the federal government

The economic pillaging of the South by the North

The general gloating and attitude of assumed superiority by the North.

There is a school of thought - and I happen to agree with it - that the south did not recover from the Civil War until the 1950s. There was no Marshall Plan undertaken for the South.

And, like it or not, that led to some pretty bitter feelings from southerners and was a major cause of the birth of the Lost Cause movement (which I don't accept) and that was the more likely inpetus for the statues.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

vpkozel said:


> There was no way that the statues could have been erected right after the war as the Southern states were occupied until the mid 1870s. And while it is a loud, if inaccurate, refrain that the statues were erected as protests to racial equality, it is more accepted that they were the result of
> 
> The south emerging from its financial devastation of the war
> 
> ...


But look how they treated black people. Why would I feel sorry for the whites of the south when they treated black people far far worse?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

bernoulli said:


> So, I make a polite message disagreeing honestly with eagle, whom I respect tremendously, and get attacked from being a Brazilian (???) or not living in the South (??)? By these absurd standards, I hope you completely refrain from ever spouting an anti-abortion stance (you are not a woman, so you cannot ever comment on their bodies), or on world events in general (since you live in the US). Also, never ever comment on African Americans marching against police brutality (unless you are a cop or African American), gay marriage (I assume you are not gay, open or closeted, but may be wrong) or on any subject that does not take place in your state or do not involve your existence as privileged males. Agreed? I am fine with that and the level of discourse in the Interchange will be much improved by you shutting the hell up about anything else that does not concern you directly. I will promise to do the same and comment solely on events that directly concern me (given I live a peripatetic life, I will still enjoy quite a lot of freedom). A small price to pay to stop seeing your opinions written in the forum.


This is completely wrong. The Baby inside the mother is not the mothers body. Therefore, it is murder to abort it. 
Marriage. What is marriage? Did humans invent it? If not, can we change it? Just because some people want it and some people want to follow that crowd still does not make it possible if it is not possible. Throwing people in jail and even killing them who disagree isn't making it possible either. Indeed there is something that happens to a man and women in marriage that happens in no other way. Stealing a word does not make it so. This subject is far more complicated than what so many people want it to be. There is no way marriage is made by us humans. Nor can it be changed by us. Following the crowd does not change the facts.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

WA said:


> But look how they treated black people. Why would I feel sorry for the whites of the south when they treated black people far far worse?


My response was specifically to refute a point that the monuments were erected as part of some sort of protest against black equality.

And I guess I could give a simple two wrongs <> right response but that would treat it as a simple issue, and it is far from simple.

First off, let's dispense with the notion that the North was some sort of utopia for blacks prior to or after the war. This is simply untrue.

And while slavery was of course a central issue of the war, the war was about preserving the Union, not freeing the slaves.

Then of course, there is scientific understanding of genetics, anthropology, etc. of the time period.

None of this means that I want us to go back to those thoughts. But to criticize people for knowing only what was knowable in their time period is nonsensical.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Thanks for your reply. 

About science. It really is almost entirely a bunch of theories and hypothesis which have ways of changing. None of them should ever be taken to seriously, now, then or ever. Evidence is fact. The reasoning of those facts is only around until someone else replaces the reasoning with a new reasoning. New tools and new facts means new reasoning, but rarely any real answer. Lots of blather as though they have new answers. But it is just new reasoning that will be replaced.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

WA said:


> Thanks for your reply.
> 
> About science. It really is almost entirely a bunch of theories and hypothesis which have ways of changing. None of them should ever be taken to seriously, now, then or ever. Evidence is fact. The reasoning of those facts is only around until someone else replaces the reasoning with a new reasoning. New tools and new facts means new reasoning, but rarely any real answer. Lots of blather as though they have new answers. But it is just new reasoning that will be replaced.


Yes, boiled down to it, science is our best adaptation of things as we know them. And since we learn new things all the time, we should adjust our thinking.

But specifically on this topic, no one in their right mind would consider blacks as less human than any other race and the science certainly does not support it. That claim cannot be made of people in the ante or immediate post bellum phase in the US. North or South.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> There was no way that the statues could have been erected right after the war as the Southern states were occupied until the mid 1870s. And while it is a loud, if inaccurate, refrain that the statues were erected as protests to racial equality, it is more accepted that they were the result of
> 
> The south emerging from its financial devastation of the war
> 
> ...


Exactly. The south was ruined in the war and stayed that way for a long time. Unfortunately such historical facts are unknown by today's pig-ignorant student revolutionaries -- and others. There's also the general trend in democracies not to erect monuments to one's own generation but to wait a bit before erecting them for one's father's or grandfather's -- that kind of thing. Thus, a 1868 statue for fallen confederate soldiers seem rather silly compared to one from 1938.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

WA said:


> Thanks for your reply.
> 
> About science. It really is almost entirely a bunch of theories and hypothesis which have ways of changing. None of them should ever be taken to seriously, now, then or ever. Evidence is fact. The reasoning of those facts is only around until someone else replaces the reasoning with a new reasoning. New tools and new facts means new reasoning, but rarely any real answer. Lots of blather as though they have new answers. But it is just new reasoning that will be replaced.


Ah, but don't you know that global warming is settled science? Only flat-earth troglodytes would dare question anthropogenic climate change. Cold is the new hot!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Yeah. Well. The earth has cooled and heated many times according to scientists, but they don't know why. This latest heating could be from one of those earlier reasons and coincidence that it happened at man's industry age. The earth could have been warmer a thousand years ago than it is today. The best speculation proves nothing with science. Some people get to spend more $. The ozone hole is getting smaller last I heard. The earth should start to get cooler now. Or, have the fat bucks scientist kicked that out because they don't want slimmer pockets? Maybe all that dirty pollution that China has been putting out has helped close the ozone. Man's ability to measure time is also very questionable. Carbon dating is just a bunch of numbers and who knows how many variables. Counting tree rings has problems. Ice layers are not reliable either. These methods have been manipulated to deceive people to believe what some people want people to believe. (Withholding truth is a handy tool for deceiving people. Its been done for centuries.) Is it really possible for mankind to cause global warming? Maybe.

settled science There are only a few scientists that have say about global warming. Of those few some don't think mankind has anything to do with global warming. It isn't the masses of scientists who are not qualified to listen to. Plus, some scientists cave into peer pressure,so now we have walked away from intelligent thinking about the subject. If you are one of the qualified that disagree with global warming from mankind you have to be very tough to stand up to your mockers, scoffers who have tried to push theory into fact. The fact is those who believe otherwise have scientific reasons for their beliefs. If you have never read or listened to what they say how can you say they are wrong?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Referring going back to the OP of this thread and updating same,
I read in the Yahoo news feed this AM of the more than 100 young female Olympic athletes who have reported Dr. Larry Nassar, many testifying at his trial and sentencing hearings and also claiming to have notified 14 to 20+ MSU officials over a period of more than 20 years. It seems the sole response of said MSU officials was to caution other (female) MSU employees working directly with Dr. Nassar to be careful, that Dr. Nassar was known to get a little frisky. No other recorded actions seem to have been taken and the doctor continued (uninterrupted) his employment at MSU! Where is the public outrage and widespread condemnation? :icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> Referring going back to the OP of this thread and updating same,
> I read in the Yahoo news feed this AM of the more than 100 young female Olympic athletes who have reported Dr. Larry Nassar, many testifying at his trial and sentencing hearings and also claiming to have notified 14 to 20+ MSU officials over a period of more than 20 years. It seems the sole response of said MSU officials was to caution other (female) MSU employees working directly with Dr. Nassar to be careful, that Dr. Nassar was known to get a little frisky. No other recorded actions seem to have been taken and the doctor continued (uninterrupted) his employment at MSU! Where is the public outrage and widespread condemnation? :icon_scratch:


Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing that occurs within large bureaucracies. Individual thought and initiative are sacrificed for the sake of following routine and order. As long as the forms are signed and everything is in order then it's business as usual.

When something is amiss and noticed by someone, there's no incentive to do something about it; "that's no my department" or "that's not part of our collective bargaining agreement."

What happened here is what often happens in large organizations. Things go unnoticed because individual initiative is abrogated for the sake of the machine.

What these poor girls had to endure at the hands of this pig, I cannot imagine. At least he's gone now and perhaps there will be more oversight this time. Personally I refuse to see minors in my practice unless a parent or a guardian is present during the examination. A policy like this will go a long way in tamping down some of the fears of this sort of thing happening again.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Tell that to Joe Paterno's family, former PSU President Graham Spanier, former Athletic PSU Athletic Director Tim Curley, and former PSU Vice President for Finance Gary Shultz; the first having a college sports Icon's legacy destroyed and taken from them, and the remaining three first removed from their university positions and then facing criminal charges and eventual convictions resulting from their alleged failure to sufficiently act on Sandusky's similarly egregious actions, with Dr. Nassar's offenses. PSU continues to endure the public outrage, but where is such (even initial) outrage against MSU and it's questionable response to this present equally or perhaps even more extremely sordid affair? Indeed, we do seem to have a double standard of expected behavior in play here!

PS: As the victim statements continue at Dr. Nassar's sentencing hearing and victim after victim has voiced concerns regarding the virtual total lack of corrective action on MSU's part, the calls for the University President's removal seem to be gaining some traction. Hmmm?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Looks like Las Vegas casino owners are the next men who must be held to a higher standard of behavior.

Who would ever think that a casino owner might be sleazy?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dozens...duct-by-las-vegas-mogul-steve-wynn-1516985953

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I saw this chap, Larry Nassar, on the news. Some blubbing girl trotting out cliches requested that he apologised.

And he did.

What is wrong with people nowadays? When asked to apologise for having done something one enjoyed, no matter how naughty it may have been, there really should be just one response.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Looks like Las Vegas casino owners are the next men who must be held to a higher standard of behavior.
> 
> Who would ever think that a casino owner might be sleazy?
> 
> ...


We have had a hilarious non story in England this week. Prostitutes - sorry 'hostesses' - paid to dress like tarts at a men only booze up in the Dorchester have been moaning that they were subjected to sexist behaviour.

Lap dancers and strippers are expected to express similar claims anon.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Shaver said:


> We have had a hilarious non story in England this week. Prostitutes - sorry 'hostesses' - paid to dress like tarts at a men only booze up in the Dorchester have been moaning that they were subjected to sexist behaviour.
> 
> Lap dancers and strippers are expected to express similar claims anon.


I have been following the Financial Times story. One of the best critiques I read stated that the author and her undercover accomplice knew exactly the reputation of the event and their expression of shock and tears afterward were patently dishonest.

Absolutely ridiculous. I can't wait to read a follow on article written by a male stripper made to feel like a piece of meat by the birds at a hen party.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

One of the prostitutes - sorry 'hostesses' - was interviewed on the news. I am ever willing to judge a book by its cover and the phrase 'clapped out whore' sprang readily to my mind.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> I saw this chap, Larry Nassar, on the news. Some blubbing girl trotting out cliches requested that he apologised.
> 
> And he did.
> 
> What is wrong with people nowadays? When asked to apologise for having done something one enjoyed, no matter how naughty it may have been, there really should be just one response.


He was a doctor who molested hundreds of little girls. Probably not the best person to use as yiur test case....


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> He was a doctor who molested hundreds of little girls. Probably not the best person to use as yiur test case....


I know who he is. The point remains - these apologies are as worthless as they are latterly de rigueur.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> I know who he is. The point remains - these apologies are as worthless as they are latterly de rigueur.


I caught sight of another former US female gymnast the other night being interviewed. She denies having been sexually assaulted by this person, but does go on to say that her training in the Karolyi system was abusive. She was subjected to being called chubby and told to compete through pain.

A young lady who has written a book and no doubt has traded well off the fact that she is a gold medal Olympian.

This is getting out of control. I'm beginning to think that Bridget Bardot and Catherine Deneuve are the only ones thinking clearly.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Deneuve was also obliged to apologise.

Greer too.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Deneuve was also obliged to apologise.


If that's the case, it's really too bad.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> I know who he is. The point remains - these apologies are as worthless as they are latterly de rigueur.


What 2 consenting adults do is fine. But child molestation is most definitely something that is not OK.

Just curiously, is there anything you feel requires an apology?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> What 2 consenting adults do is fine. But child molestation is most definitely something that is not OK.
> 
> Just curiously, is there anything you feel requires an apology?


My apologies, it would seem that I am not making myself clear.

An apology may be offered not demanded.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> My apologies, it would seem that I am not making myself clear.
> 
> An apology may be offered not demanded.


Ahhhh, then I am mostly in agreeance.


----------



## Dcr5468 (Jul 11, 2015)

A quick segue - I’m confused as to why there is no outrage against women sexually assaulting young boys. Meaning teens and preteens. As a father of 28 yr old and 21 old sons I have watched young girls become ever more aggressive sexually -but never a word in the media. Only women and teenage girls as victims on college campuses, etc. they are reforming the definition of “consent”.

However, there has been an explosion of women teachers having sex with students as young as 12 in the US that does not get much traction in the news, I suppose because it does not fit the narrative of who constitutes a victim today.

If your 17 or 18 and in high school that’s one thing but middle school and junior high? Sexually predators are not only men though many would like you to believe so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

There have been a few women teachers who went to jail for doing that. The last one, local, never heard of the end (sound like she was never even prosecuted. She sxcked and the boy, 12/13, got a disease.

The worst case I've ever heard, and at that, in this city, 3 boys and a thirteen year old girl babysitter. When the parents were half way across the living room, just getting home, they realized something was wrong. Those boys never lived with their parents again. The oldest had, you could say, gone insane. The medical world didn't even know that boys that age (8 or 10 could have erections the paper said, from several sources) the poor child had no preparation of what to even think. It began maybe 20 minutes after the parents left. If remember correctly he needed to be in the presence of shrinks 24 hours a day for who knows how long. When he was 17 we worked at some job sites. It didn't take long to figure he was a bit different. He was still sorting stuff out that had happened to him. A few years later he was married. My personal thoughts, some rules, that are considered right to teach children, caused him and his brothers some of the damage. Those children should have been taught, It's OK to be naked when you seriously need help. In other words, if you need to run to the neighbors naked to get help. Do it! Get out of the house and get help! Children taught to freak out about about nakedness is bizarre. The youngest boy lived in another home. He didn't get to even see or hear his brothers until they became of legal age and went to visit him. Life has many chances. And this one didn't work out well for them. The middle boy was far better off than his older brother. She didn't do much with the younger two. Some of the rules taught in America about nudity are just plain wrong. The stricter the rules the more insane.
Whatever happened to the gal? Hopefully she got straighten out. The newspaper article was shocking.


----------

