You are ignoring my only question: What am I in denial about? What do I need to accept?
___________________________________________
Much ado about nothing. This is a non-issue.
Classic denial
You are right, I'm disagreeing that his actions are automatically considered sexual assault. I mean, how does he get the guys belt off before the accuser says "what are you doing?"
Here is some nice "blame the victim" denial.
As for underage drinking, who cares?
Maybe Barry Alvarez, Sean Frazier, and the unnamed Athletic Department employee who knew of the party, knew that University funds were used to purchase alcohol, and knew from prior parties that they served booze to underage kids. Maybe those guys should have cared.
Can't fault the whole athletic administration for that.
I'm already starting to run out of ways to describe your denial.
I see guys put their hands on girls all the time, try and kiss them, dance with them...but I would hardly be willing to say they are committing a crime
How about if they removed someone's belt without the permission and shoved their hand down their pants?
And FWIW both of Chadima's victims decided not to press charges.
No foul, no harm? That's not how it works. Many victims feel that "justice" rarely serves the victim. Just talk to some people who have been on the other side of that before you pontificate about how this is no big deal.
As for Chadima, he grabbed a guys junk after he had already got the belt undone...but it's not like Chadima walked up to the guy and immediately grabbed his junk...that would be sexual assault, just like grabbing some random girl's breast would be as well. That's not what happened. There was a sequence of events that lead them to that point.
Yeah...there was a sequence of events. Like a grown @ss man holding a drinking party for a bunch of kids, then asking one of them to hang out after everyone else leaves to have a couple of drinks. He asks him to make the drinks, and after making sure he is properly "primed" he asks if he's gay - 'cause...you know, some of the other kids here were saying that he might be - I'm just watching out for your best interests. At that point, you can't seem to get your head around the fact that he removed his belt without consent, put his hand down his pants, and you are still (incredibly) of the mind that this is not sexual assault.
...but this situation is not a big time scandal
Nope...no denial to see at all...move along folks.
I was more merely pointing out that pretty much everyone could have been accused, correctly, of sexual assault at some point in their life, unless they have been completely celibate.
Sure...Chadima was just being a guy, we all do it. It's like Chris Rock describing the White Tiger that attacked Siegfried (or Roy) "the tiger didn't go crazy, the tiger went tiger". You can't blame the tiger, just as you can't blame Chadima, right?
Huh? I don't want to hijack this thread, but I'm not defending Chadima.
But you'll defend his actions of getting a belt off a kid and jamming his hand down his pants merely as something that's not really a big deal.
...the only way this becomes an NCAA matter is if something far bigger is going on. There doesn't seem to be any indication of that.
Except an investigation to find out whether or not BA or any other administrator had prior knowledge of a previous incident(s). Which would mean an institutional cover up, which was the original comparison to PSU. Not the actual crime, but whether or not the administration had knowledge that could have prevented further actions by the same person.
With sexual assault? Absolutely, most people could have been charged with sexual assault at some point in their lives. Chadima is a POS for using his power to try and keep the staffer from talking. The guy let him get his belt completely undone before Chadima grabbed his junk. That's pretty incredible. Like I said in the other thread, if I got a girl's bra off, I would be pretty confused if she accused me of sexual assault for subsequently touching her boob. However, if she decided, she could have me charged with sexual assault for touching her boob in that situation, or at least that's what I've gathered from the Chadima situation.
It's not like Chadima walked up to the guy and quickly grabbed his dick. They were alone drinking, he moved close to the guy, undid his belt and THEN grabbed his junk. I don't know about you, but I know it never would have gotten that far if I were the staffer. It's not like we are talking about children here who are being robbed of their innocence or being taken advantage of. We are talking about a closet homosexual who makes a move on a straight guy, gets turned down, is embarrassed, and subsequently tries to use his power to keep the straight guy from outing his sexuality.
Well, I have to give you credit. This entire post is free of any denial.
There are a bunch of other posts I could comb through, but I've got work to do before tomorrow morning. Maybe I'll look through some of those threads later to see if I can discover whether or not you are in denial.
I do hope you realize that by ignoring all this, and being sure in your own mind that you clearly stand in the right is denial, by it's very definition. Just in case...here you go:
"Denial (also called abnegation) is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.[1] The subject may use:
simple denial: deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether
minimization: admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalization)
projection: admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility." Courtesy of Wikipedia. But feel free to deny this definition and find a different one that suits your needs more aptly.
