OT? Larry Nassar...

Submitted by Robbie Moore on January 17th, 2018 at 5:02 PM

I've been debating with myself about whether to post my thoughts on this. But what the hell. I need to get this off my chest.

If possible, this is worse than Sandusky. We are talking about molestation of hundreds of women...some just children. We are talking about 20 years of smoke that was swept aside by an army of enablers. We have a coach (female, no less) who answers claims of molestation by saying..."you do not understand the treatment." and then continues to send her athletes for "treatment." We have a national track program turning a blind eye. For 20 years! And continuing to employ the man as team trainer. And yet, even with all the recent disclosures and Nassar's guilt in a court of law, this doesn't come close to the Sandusky level of notoriety. Is it somehow less egregious because female children were victims? Or less egregious because it was heterosexual and not homosexual? Or because it is track instead of football?

We have had half hearted investigations held by university counsel. Investigations which did not produce a report! For which there can be no FOIA requests because of attorney client privilege. One of the responsibilities of leadership is to actually take responsibility. This has happened on the watch of Luanna Simon and Mark Hollis. It doesn't matter if they think they can hide behind plausible deniability and somehow maintain their high six figure salaries. Graham Spanier at Penn State was fired and was convicted of a felony. At the bare minimum Simon and Hollis need to resign and if they refuse to be fired with cause. Perhaps they should consider Hari Kari for the sake of their honor but they have no honor.

I am not so naive or blind to assume this could not happen in Ann Arbor. It can happen anywhere. I hope that Mark Schlissel, Warde Manual and the rest of the people with responsibility for the safety of their community are shining light in every dark corner and have the courage to address whatever they might find. I hope.

 

Comments

B-Nut-GoBlue

January 17th, 2018 at 5:09 PM ^

Gymnastics*

 

You may get some negative feedback about equating pedophilia with homosexuality but I also do wonder if there is something to the notion of this being hetero-pedophilia versus the homosexual pedophilia that occured at Penn St..

victoriaed90

January 17th, 2018 at 5:51 PM ^

This is absolutely a thing in my opinion. The revulsion many in society have for gay men means much swifter and harsher punishments for men who abuse boys as compared with men who abuse girls (or women who abuse boys for that matter.)

You can see a similar dynamic in the way Kevin Spacey was treated as compared to other well known figures who've had similar accusations but from women.

StephenRKass

January 17th, 2018 at 6:59 PM ^

You're partially right about the culture being particularly revulsed by homosexual men. This undoubtedly contributed to the condemnation of Sandusky. We're still waiting to see what will ultimately happen with Nassar.

There is one significant difference, however, between Sandusky and Nassar. This is somewhat delicate, and to some, distasteful.

I have listened to some of the victims of Nassar's sexual abuse, and they are appalling accounts of wrong actions. In one of the articles at ESPN, there were comments about Nassar's digital penetration of victims with his hand. If Nassar had digitally penetrated the female gymnasts in exactly the same way that Sandusky did, I'm going to bet there would have been much more severe and immediate condemnation. To be more specific, if Nassar had digitally penetrated female athletes not with his hand but with another part of his body, and if he had digitally penetrated another orifice, well, the outcry would be more severe. In Nassar's case, such actions would not have been homosexual, but would have been dreadfully wrong.

I want to be very clear in saying that I am NOT approving in any way, shape, or form for either Nassar or Sandusky, and their actions. Both were totally reprehensible. I would say that I would be more disapproving of Sandusky's form of digital penetration, regardless of the gender of the victim. Sandusky's form of digital penetration is a very clear and horrific violation. Further, what Sandusky did was much more physically damaging than Nassar's abuse. If you really want to know, here is a link:

https://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns#1

TL,DR. Main point:  what Sandusky did was much more of a violation and much more physically damaging. This doesn't excuse Nassar in the least.

B-Nut-GoBlue

January 17th, 2018 at 7:08 PM ^

That is a point that has crossed my mind as well.

Somewhat related, I wrote this yesterday in a thread:

I learned from reading the article that APPARENTLY...there are legit massage and/or musculoskeletal corrective techniques utilized that are done trans-rectally or trans-vaginally.  What the fuck.  When and how did that become a thing??!  And 4 of the doctors stuck up for Nassar referencing these techniques (which of course had no parent present nor did the fucking creep use gloves).

StephenRKass

January 17th, 2018 at 8:56 PM ^

"I want to be very clear in saying that I am NOT approving in any way, shape, or form for either Nassar or Sandusky, and their actions. Both were totally reprehensible."

Regarding violation, I'm only going with what doctor's have stated clearly in many and various ways. Read the link if you want, or don't. Physical violation is different then moral or ethical violation. Morally and ethically, I am not distinguishing between Sandusky and Nassar in the least.

And the original question was why Sandusky was punished more severely, or seen as doing something more wrong in the eyes of the public. I was speculating on why the population in general may have found Sandusky more heinous. I was not at all suggesting that what Nassar was doing was "less wrong." As regards speculation, that's what the internet is about, but I certainly don't have any information on the mind of the public.

go16blue

January 17th, 2018 at 7:50 PM ^

Digitally = with one's digits, i.e. fingers, so you mean something different. I understand the difference between that and him using his genitals but I am not sure it's a difference that most people who hear about this case are even aware of... I think the relative lack of outcry is more to do with something else. Maybe it is the homosexual aspect as others have noted. I'd also say that gymnasts are already sexualized, so it may seem less repulsive to some because of that.

StephenRKass

January 17th, 2018 at 8:37 PM ^

On this I misspoke. I classed genitals with fingers in terms of penetration. The point was that genital penetration of the anus, whether of a male or female child, is equally reprehensible. (so as to make this something the public would judge as particularly bad.) And as I said in the OP, both Sandusky and Nassar are completely in the wrong. I don't see any ethical or moral difference. I favor neither.

fatman_do

January 17th, 2018 at 8:03 PM ^

 "Further, what Sandusky did was much more physically damaging than Nassar's abuse. If you really want to know, here is a link:"

 

Do not equate mildly differing forms of physical abuse with the psycologial aspect on all victims. Order of magnitude is less important? This equivciation is disgusting. I expected better out of you.

 

B-Nut-GoBlue

January 17th, 2018 at 8:34 PM ^

No need for the holier than thou shit, at least in this instance. It's a forum to discuss and when using keyboards sometimes not all thoughts get conveyed, they don't come across right, or things are left out....100% the way we want. You should know SRK a good poster and give the benefit of the doubt here for not saying 100% exactly what you wanted to hear/see.

He laid out some points and opinions on a very unfortunate topic in a well mannered way.

ijohnb

January 18th, 2018 at 10:42 AM ^

he is a good poster but that entire post was unnecessary (and inaccurate, in my opinion).  Regardless of whether he says he is not comparing the two in terms of seriousness, that is really what he seems to be doing.

The Nassar thing is not being reported to the degree that the Sandusky case was because the "villians" are not as "interesting" for the media and the sport involved is not part of the American mainstream.  In the Penn State case, you had college football, Joe Paterno-beloved coach, Mike McQueery-former star quarterback, and it was in-season.  There were questions involving whether Penn State was going to finish the season and who would coach.  You had eye witness accounts, phone calls that were discussed in the public eye, etc. etc.

Both of the stories are absolutely horrific, but the reason this is not getting the media coverage and scrutiny that the Penn State situation did is one simple reason and it has nothing to do with the "kind of penetration."  It simply does not sell as well and the media covers what moves the needle for ratings.  In the day and age of Trump, nothing sells as well as he does and there is simply no motivation to give this the coverage it deserves.  Sad but true.

(This is not a Trump issue at all, I know that.  But the mass media has a golden goose right now for ratings and if they are not reporting on him, most news watchers are simply going to change the channel or the website until they find somebody that is). 

fatman_do

January 17th, 2018 at 8:52 PM ^

I am sorry. I don't idol worship the number under the name. I do respect and appreciate the contributions over the years by this poster. The point of my expectation of a better post should indicate that. Deride me all you want. My post is just as valid as yours. Perhaps you should respect him enough to reply on his own behalf?

StephenRKass

January 17th, 2018 at 8:59 PM ^

I am not at all suggesting that what Nassar did is less bad than what Sandusky did. From my OP:

I want to be very clear in saying that I am NOT approving in any way, shape, or form for either Nassar or Sandusky, and their actions. Both were totally reprehensible.

The original question (prior to my post) was positing that Sandusky was judged more severely because this was homosexual. In my response I suggested this was part of it, but not all. Had Nassar, presumably heterosexual in oridentation, genitally penetrated the anus of female gymnasts, I suspect the public would have judgeed him equally as severely as Sandusky. My speculation was only on the public perception of both Sandusky and Nassar.

Obviously, it is very difficult to gauge the psychological trauma caused by Nassar. I wouldn't speculate on that at all. It is different for everyone. There is no way to quantify the anguish felt by the victims of Sandusky and Nassar. And it is absolutely pointless to speculate on "who is worse." I mean, at some point, it is like saying, "Who is worse? Hitler or Stalin? Pol Pot or Ghenghis Khan?" It all is bad.

My OP was responding to the suggestion that Sandusky was judged more severely than Nassar because it was homosexual. I stated that this is probably part of it for some, but not all of it. I clearly failed to adequately convey NEITHER is better than the other. I'm sorry, and I apologize for giving offense.

fatman_do

January 17th, 2018 at 9:04 PM ^

I can agree with sentiment that the response may have started off as being well meaning. The execution went off the rails when equivlancies are introduced. Comparisons on how bad X is as opposed to Y, when Y is the topic at hand, are never a strong argument to make. Given that both are equal on a baseline of "This is bad!"

As I have replied above, I respect your contributions. This was just a muddled attempt in my opinion. Which, at the end of the day, is all that I can contribute.

His Dudeness

January 18th, 2018 at 10:41 AM ^

Agreed.

The way it was written by Kass was "One of these is more damaging than the other."

That's not true at all and who the fuck is he to say one way or the other anyhow?

It's ok to fuck up but just admit it and move on. No need to try to justify your reasoning for the fuck up. Get over yourself. Nobody gives a shit about why Kass thinks there are levels of awfulness to different methods of rape. He's wrong. No explanation needed.

Don

January 17th, 2018 at 11:55 PM ^

I strongly disagree on this, but you've already responded to others making the same comment. 

I think the primary reason that Nassar was able to continue his assaults was due to his status as a medical doctor and the accompanying justification that his penetrations of the girls was a legitimate medical procedure.

If he had been a training room flunky or simply a coach with no status as a medical professional, what he was doing is highly unlikely to have been excused by the people at MSU and USA Gymnastics as something legitimate—it would have been regarded as a straightforward practice of molestation without the sheen of medicine covering its true nature.

I am not in any way excusing the incompetence and moral failings of those who refused to take action, but simply saying that Nassar understood that his position as a medical professional essentially gave him a kind of authority to do what he wanted to do, and he used that "authority" for two decades while the adults around him willingly lied to themselves about what he was actually doing because of their perverted devotion to winning gymnastics.

Don

January 18th, 2018 at 10:56 AM ^

Speaking of human anatomy, have you ever heard of something called the hymen? Nassar was abusing girls under the age of ten. JFC.

Look, I'm not trying to minimize the physical trauma of anal rape, but there's a weird dismissal of basic female physiology in saying it's a clear-cut proven fact that one is worse than the other. It's all goddamn horrible. And the psychological damage is frequently longer-lasting than the physical damage.

ST3

January 18th, 2018 at 12:13 PM ^

But I like to deal in facts. Since you persist in arguing this, here's what the link says:

There are a number of health risks with anal sex, and anal intercourse is the riskiest form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following:

The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure.

And it continues from there.

His Dudeness

January 18th, 2018 at 1:44 PM ^

What I think is bullshit is the below

"TL,DR. Main point: what Sandusky did was much more of a violation and much more physically damaging. This doesn't excuse Nassar in the least"

That part about "more of a violation" is complete bullshit, wrong and disgusting. I'm done with it. If Kass doesn't want to admit that what he typed is horseshit then fuck him.

evenyoubrutus

January 17th, 2018 at 5:58 PM ^

That's not at all what he said. He was suggesting that as a society we don't treat heterosexual perverts with the same disgust as homosexual perverts.

Personally, I disagree. I think where the difference in how society treats perverts is when you compare male molesters to female molesters. Males are much more derided.

badandboujee

January 17th, 2018 at 7:33 PM ^

I don't see a difference in how the two were treated by society. Both are seen as terrible people

It's a difference in media coverage

I think Sandusky got more media coverage because it directly involved JoePa and administrators at one of the largest football schools in the country. There are many factors that play into it

Double-D

January 17th, 2018 at 6:29 PM ^

http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/22046031/michigan-state-univers…

She destroyed evidence and manipulated the findings.  She basically told little girls they were crazy.

From ESPN:

Among the four was Dr. Brooke Lemmen, a fellow physician who was viewed by colleagues as a close friend and "protégé" of Nassar's. She told the Title IX investigators in the spring of 2014 there was nothing sexual about the treatment Nassar administered. The other three experts agreed with her opinion and decided that the complainant didn't understand the "nuanced difference" between the medical procedure and assault.

Lemmen resigned under pressure last January. She faced allegations that she had failed to tell her bosses that Nassar had told her -- in 2015 -- he was being investigated by USA Gymnastics for suspected abuse, according to her personnel file first obtained by the Lansing State Journal. She also was accused of removing some of Nassar's patient files from the sports clinic after he was fired by MSU in 2016. In a letter sent by Strampel to Lemmen before she resigned, Strampel told her that had the school known about the 2015 USAG allegations, it could have taken steps to review Nassar's conduct earlier.

Geddert should go to jail as well.

 

 

MGoBrewMom

January 17th, 2018 at 9:10 PM ^

...it keeps getting said, and while Sandusky abused boys, and Nassar abused girls, I don't see Sandusky as a "homosexual", I see him as a predator.

I get that people may not see it that way, and I'm not trying to be a jerk or split hairs--but Sandusky lived a Heterosexual life (as far as I understand), outide of his pedophilia. So this is not a homosexual vs heterosexual thing.

BUT--I do think society views abuse of the little boys in the institution of football, somehow more bad--or so it seems to me. I agree with the OP, in that the outrage seems different with Nassar. It certainly is there-and I figure most engaging on this board agree; however, public awareness and outrage with Nassar is not on par with the Sandusky outrage...and that is a bit perplexing to me.

ChiBlueBoy

January 18th, 2018 at 9:38 AM ^

I think you're completely right--has nothing to do with heterosexual vs. homosexual. It's about two men who are aroused by doing violence to children. 

And I think that the level of outrage comes from how we view men vs. women. Our culture has made it okay to objectify women (you can argue it's changing, but slowly at best). You can find plenty of advertising and images in daily life that sexualize young women. Hell--the average age when female models begin is likely between 13 and 15, and most of the advertising spreads with young, alluring women have minors who are made up to look like adults (thus making it "okay" to sexualize them). On the other hand, find me a "sexy" model spread of a 14 or 15 year old boy.

We are taught that men are not to be objectified and are to have agency over their own bodies. There is no history of all men (white men included) being considered chattle property in this country as women were. So when we see men and boys being abused, there's greater outrage.