without knowing what he is accused of? the man himself admitted to being guilty of "sexually abusing"a 15 year old and a 17 year old. that tells us everything we need to know. we dont need sordid details about what he did to them. get your jollies somewhere else.
It is rather creepy that you feel the need to know details.
It's more creepy that everyone condemns someone without knowing what he is accused of doing.
We don't need graphic details of any of the incidents.
We do need to know if he made inappropriate comments or inappropriate hugging and touching or out and out assault.
Using the term sexual abuse is quite vague
He was accused of "sexual abuse" and admitted "that he sexually abused Jennings, beginning when she was 15, and Pearson, when she was 17".
I don't need to know more than a 30-something year coach found and admitting sexual abusing high school girls in his charge to condemn his behavior.
The article further says "under Massachusetts law for rape of a child and under Oregon law for second-degree sexual abuse". "Rape of a child" seems pretty clear, and here is a link that describes what 2nd degree sexual abuse is in Oregon:
It is rather creepy that you feel the need to know details.
It's more creepy that everyone condemns someone without knowing what he is accused of doing.
We don't need graphic details of any of the incidents.
We do need to know if he made inappropriate comments or inappropriate hugging and touching or out and out assault.
Using the term sexual abuse is quite vague
Your inquiry is not so subtly borne out of voyeurism. It’s gross in the context that the perp denies none of the charges. I hope the mods delete all of your disingenuous shìtposts.
The article claimed sexual abuse. What does that mean? Rape? Statutory rape? Inappropriate massages? Inappropriate remarks? What?
Not clear at all.
Does anyone actually have any details?
It is rather creepy that you feel the need to know details.
Yeah, it could be a creepy or voyeuristic thing to wonder about. But I can see it as a relevant question too. The kinds of things that we now consider rape or sexual abuse has expanded quite a lot from what it was when these things were going on. In no way am I defending Babington but it's possible the reaction to these stories would have been less severe if they'd come out at the time than it is today.
You can Google John Babington. There are other articles including RW reporting on this. Too bad SOL has passed. This guy should be locked up until his death.
Men coaching girls. I used to see a male coach at a local university track coaching little girls. It's one of those fast kids club kind of thing. The way he was massaging the girls gave me very creepy vibes. I could be wrong but it just hit me right away as something that shouldn't be done. You really have to wonder about grown men not of retirement age taking ample amount of their time out of their life to do this for free.
Men coaching girls. I used to see a male coach at a local university track coaching little girls. It's one of those fast kids club kind of thing. The way he was massaging the girls gave me very creepy vibes. I could be wrong but it just hit me right away as something that shouldn't be done. You really have to wonder about grown men not of retirement age taking ample amount of their time out of their life to do this for free.
USATF now has extensive rules about massaging minors in their SafeSport Handbook.
It is rather creepy that you feel the need to know details.
Yeah, it could be a creepy or voyeuristic thing to wonder about. But I can see it as a relevant question too. The kinds of things that we now consider rape or sexual abuse has expanded quite a lot from what it was when these things were going on. In no way am I defending Babington but it's possible the reaction to these stories would have been less severe if they'd come out at the time than it is today.
It's a delicate question, given the psychological trauma for the victims, and the general policy to hide such details to protect the victim. The situation is made worse by the coach-athlete power relation, that an athlete can't freely walk away from, without potentially walking away from athletics altogether.
But the question was partly answered in the first linked article with SafeSport saying, if not for statute of limitations, "under Massachusetts law for rape of a child and under Oregon law for second-degree sexual abuse".
To your point, has what we consider rape or sexual abuse really expanded? What did "rape of a child" mean back then, compared to today? I don't think it has evolved that much.
Click again on the Oregon link above -- I don't think we are talking about excessive pats on the butt after a good race. These events happened in the coaches apartment. These girls were still traumatized 40 years later, for what happened to them, back then at the time.
without knowing what he is accused of? the man himself admitted to being guilty of "sexually abusing"a 15 year old and a 17 year old. that tells us everything we need to know. we dont need sordid details about what he did to them. get your jollies somewhere else.
What is sexual abuse?
Inappropriate words? Rape?
Quite a range of possibilities with some obviously far worse than others.
George Carlin used to do a bit about a guy he grew up with who scored with girls on dates by telling them "You might as well do it with me because if you don't I'm gonna tell everyone you did." That's blackmail and today would be considered rape, probably "date rape." But that was a concept that didn't exist or was just beginning to when Carlin did that bit. Now we seem to consider a sexual encounter in which there's coercion or a power differential involved as rape and that was not true decades ago. Rape at the time was understood to involve things like jumping out of the bushes and grabbing someone, putting knives at throats, threatening death, etc. I'm not saying it was better that way and I agree that the sport is better without Babington.
But again, had this come out shortly after it happened I doubt Babington would have been banned from the sport. He may well have been fired but probably could have found another job. I'm not saying he should have been able to but it just shows how things have changed. I know people find it creepy that a guy in his thirties was having sex with girls in their mid teens but this too is something that has changed greatly over time. Even a century or so ago this sort of thing was not uncommon. There were medieval European monarchs in their thirties and forties who married twelve and thirteen year old girls. Edgar Allen Poe was in his thirties when he married his thirteen year old first cousin. That was not seen as problematic at the time.
Once more, I am glad Babington is out of the sport and I have no particular interest in the actual details of what specifically happened. But if you've followed how the definition of rape has evolved in the past thirty years, and as someone who worked in the mental health field, I have, I do wonder how the reaction to this story today compares with what it would have been forty or so years ago.
George Carlin used to do a bit about a guy he grew up with who scored with girls on dates by telling them "You might as well do it with me because if you don't I'm gonna tell everyone you did." That's blackmail and today would be considered rape, probably "date rape." But that was a concept that didn't exist or was just beginning to when Carlin did that bit. Now we seem to consider a sexual encounter in which there's coercion or a power differential involved as rape and that was not true decades ago. Rape at the time was understood to involve things like jumping out of the bushes and grabbing someone, putting knives at throats, threatening death, etc. I'm not saying it was better that way and I agree that the sport is better without Babington.
But again, had this come out shortly after it happened I doubt Babington would have been banned from the sport. He may well have been fired but probably could have found another job. I'm not saying he should have been able to but it just shows how things have changed. I know people find it creepy that a guy in his thirties was having sex with girls in their mid teens but this too is something that has changed greatly over time. Even a century or so ago this sort of thing was not uncommon. There were medieval European monarchs in their thirties and forties who married twelve and thirteen year old girls. Edgar Allen Poe was in his thirties when he married his thirteen year old first cousin. That was not seen as problematic at the time.
Once more, I am glad Babington is out of the sport and I have no particular interest in the actual details of what specifically happened. But if you've followed how the definition of rape has evolved in the past thirty years, and as someone who worked in the mental health field, I have, I do wonder how the reaction to this story today compares with what it would have been forty or so years ago.
Yeah, so all these weird questions about "what constitutes abuse" and how it's changed or viewed over time are from the male gaze.
The victims in this case SAY "when this happened to me 30 plus years ago, I knew it was wrong, it was devastating, and it harmed me."
Guys: just bc a male dominated society said something was good FOR MEN doesn't mean it was good for the people THEY DID IT TO. It means the people they did it to DIDNT HAVE A VOICE.