I would concede on that point. Is anyone interested in discussing where to go from here? Do we move it to another thread? We were involved with a USA Swimming club for nine years. The one-time head coach was accused of sexual assault by an Olympic swimmer. A few years later a local legend was taken down and it turned out that universities and clubs would just fire him, but not explain why and so he would go on and get a new job coaching. How do we change this culture in sports that makes gods of coaches and their staff?

Thanks for the extra information about his sentencing. I didn't know all of that, except that there was a case still pending.

I am probably about where you are. I too really wish she hadn't said it. I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that if I were that judge and had listened to all that she had heard, I could easily have made the same statement and I would have seriously meant it. That is my own character flaw. I have zero patience with rapists and have many imaginative ideas for retribution, but that doesn't make them a good plan for society as a whole. Maybe we could leave Bill's observation and talk about where to go from here? In one of the article's listed upstream, I saw that one of my state's representatives is leading the congressional committee that will be investigating not only US Gymnastics, but also USA Swimming. About darn time!

J, I don't think I have said anywhere that I agreed the judge should lose her job. I also said Bill probably could have stopped much earlier. But, the charges of sexism were unwarranted and I think in part, that is why Bill kept going. I will still stand by the idea that a judge in a sexual assault case, who could propose/speculate, whatever, that sexual assault on the perpetrator would be acceptable, is unprofessional and is in a way promoting the very violence that she finds reprehensible. Was Bill tone deaf? Possibly. Sexist? No. If the judges 0.1% misstep could have in any way caused a miscarriage of justice, that would have been unforgivable. Why run the risk.

When I saw the judge's words, my first thought was, " Oh no! I hope she doesn't cost them for making that statement." If there is any chance that what she said could hurt the outcome, how would you feel about what she said? Bill is saying that as a professional, she should have kept the thought in check and ran absolutely no risk of hurting the case. They were cheap points to be scored and weren't worthy of all that was at stake and everything those young women went through. They do deserve better.

The judge was, in a way, proposing to perpetuate the very behavior that was so reprehensible and caused so much agony to the victims. When we as a society engage at the same level as the perp, it drags us all down. I admire in so many ways how the judge handled this case, but that comment was difficult, again because she seemed to advocate rape as acceptable under certain circumstances. That was a human statement, but also unprofessional.

Bill is saying that rape is wrong - always, under all circumstances, not that it is okay when it suits our sense of vengeance. Many of you seem to be saying that rape is okay if it suits your sense of justice and you see nothing wrong with a judge who is supposed to uphold our country's laws, expressing the same belief.

Katie, if I had never read Bill's comment, I still would have been uncomfortable with what the judge said. It struck me as unprofessional because it did seem to reflect a judge advocating criminal behavior against a criminal and I worried if that could be a problem down the road. Understand, that I will probably entertain all kinds of fantasies about what could happen to Nasser in jail and I am lining up the voodoo dolls for MSU administration and the US Gymnastics folks. I am not a really forgiving type when it comes to sexual assault. I can be irritated at the number of times Bill made his point. In hind sight, it would have been good to talk about the victims first, but I have certainly jumped in on a thread when I have felt passionately about a point. I can fault Bill on that, but I have never, ever, seen Bill disrespect survivors of sexual assault like I have seen several participants on this thread do. I don't think Bill's point is ridiculous. If you say sexual assault is wrong, but then say it's okay in certain circumstances, you weaken the argument and hurt the cause.

So, because of the harassment against women by men, the inequal power balance, I am just justified as a female supervisor in walking up to a male co-worker, grabbing his balls, and saying, "Hey, if you don't, you will lose your job?" I thought the idea is to eliminate injustice, not to wreck vengeance on each other? Isn't that really the point of Bill's original post?

Oh that's right. Bill, didn't you vote for a woman for president instead of a billionaire with his girlfriend chained to his briefcase? Why you sexist pig! I think I will go dig up all the threads where women here implied that other women deserved to be raped because they behaved in an "unladylike fashion." "No one deserves to be raped, but.... -their dress was too short -they were drinking -they went to a party What rapist? What are you talking about? I am just talking about how women should protect themselves. The rapist is inconsequential - kind of like Nasser? Eh? Heard it a lot here.

If Carol in CA or Blue Goat had been the initial poster concerning the judge's comments, we wouldn't be having the discussion, even if it was their first post in the thread. I would have assumed that they jumped in at that point because it was something that bothered them, not that they weren't outraged at Nasser's behavior. But because Bill is a guy... Sexism works both ways.

My youngest received scholarships for all of the schools he applied to. I believe the GPA requirement ranged from none to 3.2 for the school he is attending. The student must be full time, which is typically 15 credit hours, but again it will depend on the individual school's system. Ds's school gave him 31 credits for his AP scores. What this means in terms of his scholarship is that he will graduate in three years, not four. He is guaranteed a particular amount of scholarship each year, not an overall total, which means he'll get scholarships for 3 years if he maintains his GPA, but will have to reapply for scholarships for grad school. Does that make sense? The AP credits have meant that he has a higher priority in registering for classes than his same year peers. Be sure that your student is registered for a full load. We had a bit of sticker shock the first year, first semester, because ds had 3 waitlisted classes on his schedule, so his scholarship and grant money were dropped. We fixed that in a hurry. Good luck!

It doesn't feel right because Bill isn't being sexist. I am pretty darn sure he would be just as vocal if a male judge had said the same thing. It's not the sex of who said it, but that a judge said it. I've seen several women on this board imply that another woman deserved to be raped. Never seen Bill do that. ETA: Oops. i should have kept reading as Bill already said that about a male judge.

My youngest was home from university at Christmas Break. He was talking about the MeToo movement and one of his points was that if we were to make serious headway on sexual assault and the culture around it, then we also need to stop making prison rape jokes. By making prison rape jokes and extending wishes for prison rape, we send the signal that in certain circumstances, rape is justified. He felt that when you started down that road, it as you said, takes us to dark places as a civilization. I think this is part of what your are saying, and that for our legal system to truly be fair and just, the language can't even be a component? I would be interested in your viewpoint on what we can do to change the culture around elite sports or your beloved football, to prevent this from happening.

This is an attitude that we certainly saw in swimming. Participation in a sport can certainly provide positive outcomes. However, the reality is that only a few reach the truly elite level. Swimming, in our experience, leaves a wide swath of broken bodies behind it, as I believe gymnastics does as well. Parents and coaches turn a blind eye and lose their way on the path of reason and balance.

I can't let this go. I had class and I still haven't had the nachos and vodka. We can't give government massive control to our Constitutional rights, to save the children (and adults) because Jim Bob needs his gun/s, but...we can give government massive control to women's Constitutional rights, to save children? The logic continues to escape me.

I am sorry. I didn't mean you personally except to address the use of government to limit rights.

But you are using the government in a way that is also outside the Constitution. You are basically consigning women of child-bearing years to be wards of the state. When I hear that it's okay to kill a woman through medical neglect or to destroy her life by taking away her depression medication or making her lose her job, or destroying her family, I completely do not understand the label of pro-life. Destroying another human being has moral consequences, no matter the age. Do you not think that making women no more than cattle, will not have far reaching consequences. You yourself said that when you give the government tremendous control over your life, it goes too far. Perhaps we will need to sterilize an inferior broodmare with autism. You tell me to ignore the fact that gun control works elsewhere. Will you ignore the fact that abortion bans do not work elsewhere?

I get what you are saying, but isn't this exactly what we are asking for in banning abortion? How do you enforce that without the government? You will take taxpayer dollars to incarcerate pregnant women? You will go through their medical files. Deny them birth control. Leave them with an abusive husband who's furious at their pregnancy? Chose what treatments they can have. Perhaps you will take their children from them? You will institutionalize those that are mentally ill so that they don't harm the fetus. They are already in jail. If they are sexually assaulted or emotionally abused anywhere in there, it's okay. They are criminals. You will use the government to tell a husband that his wife must die in order to satisfy your moral code. Now, when the broodmares are done delivering their product, you'll need a system to take care of those babies. That's where the government again steps in, right? Government nurseries? So, it's okay to use the government to deny women their very existence and to completely upturn and potentially destroy their lives, but not to limit Jim Bob from owning 250 guns? I think I need nachos and vodka.

The quote I read said "scored." Either translation is horrific.

Thank you. I really didn't want there to be anything that could take this victory away from the victims. I also hope there are some bad actors out there that are really freaking out about now. Swim coaches, you know who you are. (My own special voodoo doll.)

With kids too. I think there is a law somewhere.

Is there anyway her remarks could taint the case or in any way cause a problem for the outcome? Obviously, I don't know my law. Could there be an appeal based on her statement?

Never mind. I think I am getting tired and slow-witted.

I believe that was the poster's point in response to another post.