Lynn Jennings story about coach's sexual abuse in Boston Globe

Hi HRE -- I don't want to go too far down this path, but I don't think we are talking about "date rape" here. I'm sure perceptions of rape have evolved since the 1970s, and maybe it would have been swept under the rug back then (actually it was at Wellesley), but I don't think the meaning of rape has changed since the 1970s (although further back in time and history, consensual relations between a black man and white woman was considered rape). Unless you were Mormon, this kind of "relation" between 30-year old coaches and 15 and 17 year old athletes surely wasn't acceptable -- was there another term? Here's a couple of Wikipedia quotes I found about what constitutes rape (today?) and some evolution since the 1970s:

"Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without their consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority, or against a person who is incapable of giving valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, has an intellectual disability, or is below the legal age of consent. The term rape is sometimes used interchangeably with the term sexual assault."

"Since the 1970s, many changes have occurred in the perception of sexual assault due in large part to the feminist movement and its public characterization of rape as a crime of power and control rather than purely of sex. In some countries the women's liberation movement of the 1970s created the first rape crisis centers. This movement was led by the National Organization for Women. One of the first two rape crisis centers, the D.C. Rape Crisis Center, opened in 1972. It was created to promote sensitivity and understanding of rape and its effects on the victim."

"In the 1980s, date or acquaintance rape first gained acknowledgment. Rape crisis centers were created to serve survivors of all forms of sexual violence during any phase of their healing process. Rape crisis centers and other community-based service providers continue to grow and serve their communities by providing direct services and prevention programming."

I also do not want to go down this road much further but think your quote here is consistent with what I'm saying, i.e. while the definition of rape has remained the same, the circumstances under which it's understood to have happened have changed quite a bit since the 70s and 80s. Remember that it was once impossible for a husband to have raped his wife. Some people here wonder why Wellesley only suspended Babington rather than fire him and I believe the answer is because at the time it was seen as something that required a disciplinary response but not termination. Today it's hard to see anyone doing what Babington did then not being fired immediately.

Someone else responded to me saying that historically it's been the male perception that has been used in defining rape and how to respond. That's my point. By standards in place at the time, which were nearly all from a man's perspective, what Babington did was never seen as admirable but not as despicable as it's looked at now.

That's it?

He took the underage girls he coached to his apartment?

He gave an underage girl booze?

Those are presumably the worst things he did as they made the article.

Please tell me that's not it.

How do these even qualify as sexual abuse?

If anyone had the information you keep on (weirdly, inappropriately and creepily) are asking for, sharing it would be such a massive privacy violation. You also only seem to want this information to create uncertainty around the allegation.

Not sure why you feel the incessant need to do that but it's messed up.

What struck me is, no matter what time period, that both Lynn Jennings and Darlene Beckford Pearson are still suffering 40 years later.

I've already told you twice, that that's not it.

Did you not also see "rape of a child" and "second-degree sexual abuse"? I gave definitions and links to definitions earlier of what these things really mean under the respective laws.

No dude, it would have been viewed as despicable then. Are you looking to exonerate the skeletons in your own closet here? I know of a coach at a prominent program in the ‘70s/‘80s who lost his job for far less than trying to get his underage athlete intoxicated in private and fondling her. (No, you don’t deserve to know the story so don’t even ask.) What parents would be okay with a coach pulling that on their daughter at any point between the ‘70s and now? The only reasonable reason I can come up with for Babington not getting canned by Wellsley is good ol’ boys network protection and a victim and possibly her parents not being willing to escalate it further. It wasn’t just a semester off and then all back to normal for that victim.

I’m not surprised that LRC attracts creeps and clods and that even requiring registration for a thread won’t ensure responsible discussion. This is the climate that turns off any and all coaches and athletes to this site and those who run it.

We added this editor's note below your post above.

Editor's note: The poster clearly didn't read the article. It repeatedly talks about "molestation". Clearly, sexual contact was made between Babington and teens.

Moreover, the article includes this paragraph.

SafeSport found by a preponderance of the evidence that Babington, had the statutes of limitations not expired, could have been liable under Massachusetts law for rape of a child and under Oregon law for second-degree sexual abuse..

Here we go. Someone has a different view of a topic than you do so they must have skeletons of their own they're trying to exonerate or in some way be evil or at least inferior to you in some way. I don't really care what coach you're talking about but now you know of one coach who lost his job for something sexually related and one who didn't. Maybe there's an old boys network at a woman's college that protected Babington but it seems an idea worth questioning.

Agree. Maybe I've gone as far with this as I should other than responding to the guy who thinks I've got skeletons in the closet.

Then, if nothing else, you've not explained your basis of interest in this or your "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" tone well at all. You come across as wanting to paint Babington types as "gosh, she didn't say no" guileless fumbler and just a short step away from asking, "what was the age of consent in those days, anyway?" That's reinforced with dismissing the idea that there could have ever been a white, male power structure influence on the administration and athletics department at a woman's college. In short, you come off as feeling really close kinship to Babington types. Show better sense than to side with Newname.

He's been an openly pro-nazi poster on letsrun for years under multiple handles, so coming out as pro-chomo isn't all that surprising.

I'm not going to discuss something with someone who insults me only because he disagrees with something I said and who attributes his own ideas to me. YOU think I've sided with Newname. I have not done so. If you wanted to have a civil discussion about this I probably would respond to some of your points and maybe I'd still consider it if you apologize and adopt a civil tone but at this point probably not because I've said all I want to about this topic and have no interest in dealing with someone like you.

Who they hell are you? An anonymous yet pompous message board denizen. You’re dismissed.

You’re a disgusting troll. Stop.

Gentlemen Savage didn’t insult you. He called you out with accurate, specific points.

Suggesting that I wrote what I did because I might have skeletons in my closet is not an accurate, specific point. It's an insult. You might want to work on your reading comprehension.