The Sandusky Scandal & Moral/Ethical Dilemmas of Witnesses.

[tampa24]

Hey Everyone,

Since the forum has been pretty dead for a couple days I figured I would try to stir up some conversation that doesn't involve models or porn. Most of us have at least the basics of the Sandusky scandal. People will be free to correct on any details of the story that I don't have right or that are in some dispute. For instance it's no surprise to me that the assistant coach is now changing his story to say that he went to the police and they didn't follow up.

Anyway... As I understand it there were at least 2 instances in which there was a witness to what Sandusky did. One was by a janitor and the other was by the assistant coach. As I understand it, and I could be wrong...the janitor walked in and saw a rape in progress. He did not stop it personally. I imagine that it stopped when Sandusky saw another adult in the shower area. The exact details don't matter as much for the direction I am taking this.

I had this conversation at a dinner party with some much older gay friends last week. I thought I would share some of the conclusions of our conversation. What galls me the most about the behavior of the 2 witnesses to 2 different crime scenes...was that both men waited 24 hours at least before they reported it to anyone in some kind of authority. The janitor saw it, went home, thought about it overnight, maybe talked to his father, and then told his boss later the next day.

As reported in the news the assistant coach saw it, and "supposedly" stopped the crime in progress. Then he dutifully went home, called his father, thought about it overnight, and then went and told coach Paterno. Now he says that he went to the police. But I'm very skeptical of that.

Long story short I'm sure that that would be such a shock to walk in on, that any sane person would be at a momentary loss. One would think, "What the hell am I supposed to do about this?" I know the answer now is that you put all that fear and revulsion aside and you dial 911. Plain and simple. Whether you're straight, gay, bi, tri or whatever...the answer is that you immediately involve the police and law enforcement. You don't go home and leave that child traumatized with no grownup to stand up for his rights. You don't go to your dad. You don't go to your priest or pastor. (Until later maybe) You don't go to your boss the next day... You call 911.

I admit that I would have fears about being sucked into a scandal with my name in the papers as a witness. And the thought of having to testify in criminal court is not a pleasant one for most law abiding people. But the course of action of immediately involving the police is the right thing to do. Having an ethical quandary like the one on display in this instance is illuminating. I want to be angry at these 2 men who didn't report this. And I am. Because it was stupid not to. It was criminal not to.

On the other hand I must admit to myself that the only reason I know for certain that calling the police is what I would do if this ever happened to me...is because I have had the opportunity to be the Monday morning quarterback and think the whole thing through. These 2 guys did not have that luxury.

Any thoughts?

 

[tim114]

Tampa,

I am with you on thinking this through. I think we have to wait for more facts to come out before we can make a judgment. Currently, too many talking heads.

 

[angelone]

Children should be protected from all forms of abuse not just sexual exploitation. Protecting the vulnerable, the helpless and the destitute from all sorts of predators is an ideal for any humane society. But this ideal has never been given the attention it needed to be fully implemented until recently - lets say in the past 30 years. What has impeded this ideal has been the misplaced loyalty to institution such as the church, the government, the job or whatever social grouping that holds sway in people's lives. It is like a family treasuring their physical home instead of their individual selves. It's this kind of mentality, this kind of thinking that makes "mices" of people when it comes to reporting sexual abuse of children to the authorities. The immediate concern isn't the abused child but rather it is on the preservation of the institutional environment one is affliated with. Questions like, how can we deal with this crime without jeopardizing our well-being, or how can we minimize the damage or fallout from this crime, are some of the questions that people process through when faced with this crime. It's a game of survival which doesn't take into consideration the abused child or victim but only of the institution. I learned this mentality when I was in the Church and even in the military. I would also add that any business or social group has its own way of dealing with crisises which emphasize group preservation rather than on societal responsibility. So if you want people to be more responsive to child safety then a good way to start is to change the way institutions like churches, government and other community grouping think about societal responsibility. That is, people are the most important component in society and anything which harms them is a reportable offense and must be reported immediately to lawful authorities.

 

[cumrag27]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely!

Children should be protected from all forms of abuse not just sexual exploitation. Protecting the vulnerable, the helpless and the destitute from all sorts of predators is an ideal for any humane society. But this ideal has never been given the attention it needed to be fully implemented until recently - lets say in the past 30 years. What has impeded this ideal has been the misplaced loyalty to institution such as the church, the government, the job or whatever social grouping that holds sway in people's lives. It is like a family treasuring their physical home instead of their individual selves. It's this kind of mentality, this kind of thinking that makes "mices" of people when it comes to reporting sexual abuse of children to the authorities. The immediate concern isn't the abused child but rather it is on the preservation of the institutional environment one is affliated with. Questions like, how can we deal with this crime without jeopardizing our well-being, or how can we minimize the damage or fallout from this crime, are some of the questions that people process through when faced with this crime. It's a game of survival which doesn't take into consideration the abused child or victim but only of the institution. I learned this mentality when I was in the Church and even in the military. I would also add that any business or social group has its own way of dealing with crisises which emphasize group preservation rather than on societal responsibility. So if you want people to be more responsive to child safety then a good way to start is to change the way institutions like churches, government and other community grouping think about societal responsibility. That is, people are the most important component in society and anything which harms them is a reportable offense and must be reported immediately to lawful authorities.

Dear Angelone,

As a Catholic, I have been ashamed of the lethargic and less than vigorous response by the Catholic Church in all cases of sexual abuse commited by priests and then buried deep in denial and silence by its leaders, especially by our Pope. I cannot see anything remotely "Christ-like" about their approach for dealing in a compassionate way with the victims created from these acts of violence and disrespect.

When I hear of Penn State having the state legislature passing a law waiving them from having any responsibility and accountability from reporting all incidents of child abuse from law enforcement and other state agencies or releasing records when requested from the "Freedom of Information Act", then I have to view Penn State as operating in "perpetual cover-up mode" from an "Above the Law" perspective and setting up the perfect climate for Sandusky and others with his insatiable tastes for little boys, to officially disregard all forms of personal decency and ethics.

When I hear of the ages of his many victims, it simply makes me cringe in disbelief. More importantly, we don't need to allow ourselves to get distracted by other Penn State officials as they had to know what had been going on in all of Sandusky's sexual dealings with "underprivileged YOUTH"! What a bastard he is! The only ones I have sympathy for are the actual VICTIMS and all the needless personal agony they had to deal with all these many years all alone with their sorrows.

One basic rule of life applies here, namely "Absolute power corrupts absolutely!"


Sincerely saddened by the unfolding prospects of much more abuse,


Stimpy

 

[lesit78]

Hey Everyone,

Since the forum has been pretty dead for a couple days I figured I would try to stir up some conversation that doesn't involve models or porn. Most of us have at least the basics of the Sandusky scandal. People will be free to correct on any details of the story that I don't have right or that are in some dispute. For instance it's no surprise to me that the assistant coach is now changing his story to say that he went to the police and they didn't follow up.

Anyway... As I understand it there were at least 2 instances in which there was a witness to what Sandusky did. One was by a janitor and the other was by the assistant coach. As I understand it, and I could be wrong...the janitor walked in and saw a rape in progress. He did not stop it personally. I imagine that it stopped when Sandusky saw another adult in the shower area. The exact details don't matter as much for the direction I am taking this.

I had this conversation at a dinner party with some much older gay friends last week. I thought I would share some of the conclusions of our conversation. What galls me the most about the behavior of the 2 witnesses to 2 different crime scenes...was that both men waited 24 hours at least before they reported it to anyone in some kind of authority. The janitor saw it, went home, thought about it overnight, maybe talked to his father, and then told his boss later the next day.

As reported in the news the assistant coach saw it, and "supposedly" stopped the crime in progress. Then he dutifully went home, called his father, thought about it overnight, and then went and told coach Paterno. Now he says that he went to the police. But I'm very skeptical of that.

Long story short I'm sure that that would be such a shock to walk in on, that any sane person would be at a momentary loss. One would think, "What the hell am I supposed to do about this?" I know the answer now is that you put all that fear and revulsion aside and you dial 911. Plain and simple. Whether you're straight, gay, bi, tri or whatever...the answer is that you immediately involve the police and law enforcement. You don't go home and leave that child traumatized with no grownup to stand up for his rights. You don't go to your dad. You don't go to your priest or pastor. (Until later maybe) You don't go to your boss the next day... You call 911.

I admit that I would have fears about being sucked into a scandal with my name in the papers as a witness. And the thought of having to testify in criminal court is not a pleasant one for most law abiding people. But the course of action of immediately involving the police is the right thing to do. Having an ethical quandary like the one on display in this instance is illuminating. I want to be angry at these 2 men who didn't report this. And I am. Because it was stupid not to. It was criminal not to.

On the other hand I must admit to myself that the only reason I know for certain that calling the police is what I would do if this ever happened to me...is because I have had the opportunity to be the Monday morning quarterback and think the whole thing through. These 2 guys did not have that luxury.

Any thoughts?

I don't get it either Tampa, I mean it would be no different than if a coach was beating the crap out of a teenager the logical thing to do would be to call 911. The poor kid was being raped, someone walked in, and then did nothing about it. To me that's no different than happening upon a terrible accident where there are injuries and people needing help, and no one even bothers to call 911 they just drive away.

The janitor, and the assistant coach both should have charges pressed again them for endangering the well being of a child. They both appear to have witnessed on two separate occasions, a boy being raped and literally did nothing about it other than think about it for 24 hours.

I don't know how they could live with themselves or sleep at night knowing they could have stopped these crimes in progress and did nothing about it at a time they could have stopped it in its tracks.

 

[larkster]

Having been raped when I was six, you can be sure where my sympathies lie. However, having read the grand jury report, I think I can explain at least the janitor's reaction. The janitor was an immigrant worker from another culture. He was "shell shocked" by what he witnessed and didn't have the social skills to handle it. He may have been an illegal or green card and had fear of deportation. He reported what he thought he saw to his superior as soon as he figured out. The asst coach had been part of Penn St. since he was a player. He had been taught discipline by the coaches, and was taught to respect authority. Sandusky was an authority figure. He was obviously "shell shocked" as well by what he witnessed. He might have doubted his own perception. The child apparently didn't cry out for help when he saw McGuaery. I have no way of knowing what he realized at that moment and what he put together later. He did report it to Paterno, as the janitor reported it to his superior. I think the real blame is with higher ups. In both cases I can see where they would doubt their own perceptions and need to put things together. Remember, these were not recent events. Such behavior wasn't in the news much back then.

 

[Markymark]

I have yet to see where anyone has mentioned the comments made by the mother of the first alleged victim. "...and I asked him why he did not resist the coach, and he looked at me and said, 'Mom, you never say no to the coach...' ". Penn State has a powerful grip on the community around it. Boys dream of attending, many hoping to become part of the legend of football greatness. Sadly, too many people in authority there have fallen under the spell. The moral fabric of this campus has been rent into shreds by the forces of power, fame, money and corruption. That even young men and boys are swayed to the idea of "not telling" or "keeping the secret", says how far they have gone from the good. This cancer must be excised completely, and a long rehab will be necessary before Penn State can again be proud of itself!

 

[KRU1996]

1) Sandusky like all pedophiles is attracted to children of any sex for the purpose of sexual gratification.
2) No one has accused Sandusky of being in the NAMBL nor of being a homosexual.
3) Sandusky had had some sort of restraining agreement sttaing that he would no longer shower with young boys back in 1997, before he retired.
4) Given the close knit nature of the football community at PSU and the length of time these coaches coached, how could Paterno and others with significant longevity have not in any way have know Sandusky had this 1997 restraining order and then how could Paterno have permitted Sandusky to have meeting space for his foundation or not have had a shadow with Sandusky all the time? Here is the failure of anticipation of future behavior and leadership.

 

[RayJ3MD]

I would have known to call a cop at 12. That is when no one even knew about pedophilia. I am sure it existed as a matter of fact I know that it existed but don't want to go into that now. Bottom line. This man if guilty, has been abused himself and has a compulsion that no amount of castration drugs prison or anything else at this point in time can fix. May the victims find the ability to forgive themselves for something that they had no control over.

 

[slimvintage]

Tampa thanks for opening a thread on the Penn abuse scandal. I had already thought about what I would have done if I'd been a witness to the perpetration of an abuse on one of those kids. Way before calling 911 I would have intervened, the second I saw what was happening.

As far as what I'd have said to the two people engaged in the activity, it would have been aimed at keeping the kid from further trauma by being as natural as possible, and couched in terms of something neutral, like esthetics, as in hey you guys this probably isn't the right place to be doing that stuff, right? I'd have said to the kid that it's OK with guys his own age but as the coach will tell you, there's a bunch of legal concerns if one guy is a lot older. You'd probably better get toweled down and dressed and the coach and I need to talk and make some calls.

Part of the damage done to a kid in cases like this is the shame and ignominy of getting caught. In the news reports there is some very peripheral and virtually unspoken wonder at why the boys were putting up with it, as in the case of the mom's questioning of her son. Gay lore is full of crushes on the coach and some of these kids (maybe gay from birth) might have been to some degree complicit in what was going on. But I think I'd have stopped it then and there nonetheless, rather than getting on the phone:

1) for the reasons above, as un-hysterical first responder to keep the kid from being even more traumatized by the guilt element.
2) to have a stronger case as witness.
3) to get the sex act stopped as soon as possible in case the boy was hating it and actually being forced.

 

[cumrag27]

Avoiding inappropriate behaviors before the compulsion takes over.

I would have known to call a cop at 12. That is when no one even knew about pedophilia. I am sure it existed as a matter of fact I know that it existed but don't want to go into that now. Bottom line. This man if guilty, has been abused himself and has a compulsion that no amount of castration drugs prison or anything else at this point in time can fix. May the victims find the ability to forgive themselves for something that they had no control over.

Dear Dr. RayJ3MD,

Not all pedophiles had to have suffered sexual abuse earlier on in their life. Furthermore, although sexual abuse seems to perpetuate itself, some victims of sexual abuse actually are capable of refusing to pass along this sickness to younger generations just like alcholics or alcoholic-prone people are capable to breaking the cycle! Noone should automatically assume, as an abused child, you are automatically preprogrammed to prey on future generations. Certainly, prior abuse makes anyone's probability greater to abuse sexually, but that is only a probability and not a certainty.

Having had a mother that was abused as a child, I cannot tell you how many times she was offended by others arbitrary pre-suppositions assumed for her or others like her. It shouldn't be a lifetime sentence of future sexual abuse, just because one was an innocent victim. Most sex abuse victims leave the situation with enough personal guilt, justifiable or not, having trusted someone so completely, they innocently assumed to be trustworthy! Their ability to trust others usually is what results from sexual abuse, especially if they have chosen not to offend others.

We just need to be vigilant and responsible and treat others as we would have them treat ourself, namely with respect. Once someone has shown a tendency for pedophilia, they always should rely on another trusted person to cautiously monitor their behavior as long as they can walk about and potentially harm others! If not, they need to be institutionalized for the safety of others.

Someone blaming their offences on the fact they had been abused as a child, are not taking responsibility for their life, just like an alcoholic getting behind the wheel when they are too drunk themself. Before compulsions take over, there are triggers that can be avoided to keep from offending. Those triggers need to be treated, as someone who suffers from severe allergic reactions, to avoid inappropriate behaviors before the compulsion takes over.


Sincerely,


Stimpy

 

[lesit78]

Tampa thanks for opening a thread on the Penn abuse scandal. I had already thought about what I would have done if I'd been a witness to the perpetration of an abuse on one of those kids. Way before calling 911 I would have intervened, the second I saw what was happening.

As far as what I'd have said to the two people engaged in the activity, it would have been aimed at keeping the kid from further trauma by being as natural as possible, and couched in terms of something neutral, like esthetics, as in hey you guys this probably isn't the right place to be doing that stuff, right? I'd have said to the kid that it's OK with guys his own age but as the coach will tell you, there's a bunch of legal concerns if one guy is a lot older. You'd probably better get toweled down and dressed and the coach and I need to talk and make some calls.

Part of the damage done to a kid in cases like this is the shame and ignominy of getting caught. In the news reports there is some very peripheral and virtually unspoken wonder at why the boys were putting up with it, as in the case of the mom's questioning of her son. Gay lore is full of crushes on the coach and some of these kids (maybe gay from birth) might have been to some degree complicit in what was going on. But I think I'd have stopped it then and there nonetheless, rather than getting on the phone:

1) for the reasons above, as un-hysterical first responder to keep the kid from being even more traumatized by the guilt element.
2) to have a stronger case as witness.
3) to get the sex act stopped as soon as possible in case the boy was hating it and actually being forced.

That is EXCELLENT Slimmie, that would have been the perfect way to handle it. That way the poor kids wouldn't have felt as if they did anything wrong, because they most certainly didn't! Plus of course it would have stopped the crime in progress in its tracks, and at the same time the incident could have been reported to the proper authorities.

I don't care if any of the victims may or may not have been gay from birth, that is not even remotely part of the issue. It is highly unlikely that any of them, at 10 years old, would be even slightly attracted to a man in his 60's performing anal sex on them in a public shower.

That had to be scary, terrifying, painful, not to mention traumatized them for life.

 

[juanjo]

A good friend of mine who is a rabbi gave a talk on this issue last week and I think it is illustrative. [You have to forgive me but I am more familiar with the Hebrew scriptures than the Christian ones]

He spoke using Leviticus 19 as the basis of his talk.

In this passage it tells the people that they should always deal justly with others and to love their neighbor as them self. Likewise they should not be partial to those who are rich or powerful [or poor for that matter] but instead deal justly with them. Likewise one should not pervert justice or allow anyone to be endangered in life or body.

In real life we live by secular law and there is a good reasons for that. The secular law says that one does not have the legal duty to report a crime except in very specific situations typically where one has a duty of some sort towards the victim. There is nothing here to indicate that either of the two individual had any legal duty towards the victims in this situation. None of us know the specifics of their statements to the police other than what has been reported in the media and I am well aware that the media does not always get it right and even when they do, they are only reporting what the witnesses may have said or what the authorities are claiming the witnesses have said.

But clearly there was a moral duty here. The witnesses had one and the higher ups had one. There appears to be no dispute that the witnesses reported what they saw to the higher ups and yet the higher ups did not go to the proper authorities and they had a legal and moral duty to do so. There was a crime committed or at least a credible report of a crime committed in the facilities over which they had control and over which they gave both the perpetrator and the victims permission to use. So Paterno and the other higher ups had both a moral and a legal duty to take action and yet simply barred this man from using the facilities in the future.

I have never been the victim of a rape and I have no idea of what effect that would have on me. I have in the course of my mentoring work dealt with youth, male and female, who were sexually assaulted by family or friends of family at a young age. I have seen the destruction wreaked upon those youth in their personal lives. I have read studies of the impact of sexual molestation on youth in similar circumstances. There is for example a study which indicates that roughly 40% of heroin users in this country report sexual abuse within a year prior of the time they first used. That is a staggering correlation. Much of the acting out and behavioral issues reported in youth stem from such actions and the relative helplessness of the youth struggling to deal with a situation in which they are violently abused in this fashion.

Please note I am not speaking of consensual sexual activity here which does happen but rather forced sexual contact. Nor am I saying that all youth victimized in this fashion go on to lead lives involved with criminal activity, drug abuse or alcohol abuse. But where events such as this take pace there is a much higher risk of such activity and ruination of the lives of these youth as they attempt to come to terms with the acts performed upon them.

I once heard a person say that the youth should have reported the acts. But imagine the consequences of doing so. All too often the victim is put in a situation where his or her motives are questioned or at least carefully examined and there is a valid reason for looking at this because false accusations are made. A young heterosexually oriented male is sometimes tormented by his peers who accuse him of being a punk or a fag. He is sometimes laced in a position where he questions his own masculinity because of the act. The psychological damage is terrible regardless of gender.

Mr. Sandusky deserves his day in court to defend himself on these charges. But if he is found guilty he deserves a harsh punishment for what he has done. Likewise the victims of this crime deserve our compassion.

 

[cumrag27]

A good friend of mine who is a rabbi gave a talk on this issue last week and I think it is illustrative. [You have to forgive me but I am more familiar with the Hebrew scriptures than the Christian ones]

He spoke using Leviticus 19 as the basis of his talk.

In this passage it tells the people that they should always deal justly with others and to love their neighbor as them self. Likewise they should not be partial to those who are rich or powerful [or poor for that matter] but instead deal justly with them. Likewise one should not pervert justice or allow anyone to be endangered in life or body.

In real life we live by secular law and there is a good reasons for that. The secular law says that one does not have the legal duty to report a crime except in very specific situations typically where one has a duty of some sort towards the victim. There is nothing here to indicate that either of the two individual had any legal duty towards the victims in this situation. None of us know the specifics of their statements to the police other than what has been reported in the media and I am well aware that the media does not always get it right and even when they do, they are only reporting what the witnesses may have said or what the authorities are claiming the witnesses have said.

But clearly there was a moral duty here. The witnesses had one and the higher ups had one. There appears to be no dispute that the witnesses reported what they saw to the higher ups and yet the higher ups did not go to the proper authorities and they had a legal and moral duty to do so. There was a crime committed or at least a credible report of a crime committed in the facilities over which they had control and over which they gave both the perpetrator and the victims permission to use. So Paterno and the other higher ups had both a moral and a legal duty to take action and yet simply barred this man from using the facilities in the future.

I have never been the victim of a rape and I have no idea of what effect that would have on me. I have in the course of my mentoring work dealt with youth, male and female, who were sexually assaulted by family or friends of family at a young age. I have seen the destruction wreaked upon those youth in their personal lives. I have read studies of the impact of sexual molestation on youth in similar circumstances. There is for example a study which indicates that roughly 40% of heroin users in this country report sexual abuse within a year prior of the time they first used. That is a staggering correlation. Much of the acting out and behavioral issues reported in youth stem from such actions and the relative helplessness of the youth struggling to deal with a situation in which they are violently abused in this fashion.

Please note I am not speaking of consensual sexual activity here which does happen but rather forced sexual contact. Nor am I saying that all youth victimized in this fashion go on to lead lives involved with criminal activity, drug abuse or alcohol abuse. But where events such as this take pace there is a much higher risk of such activity and ruination of the lives of these youth as they attempt to come to terms with the acts performed upon them.

I once heard a person say that the youth should have reported the acts. But imagine the consequences of doing so. All too often the victim is put in a situation where his or her motives are questioned or at least carefully examined and there is a valid reason for looking at this because false accusations are made. A young heterosexually oriented male is sometimes tormented by his peers who accuse him of being a punk or a fag. He is sometimes laced in a position where he questions his own masculinity because of the act. The psychological damage is terrible regardless of gender.

Mr. Sandusky deserves his day in court to defend himself on these charges. But if he is found guilty he deserves a harsh punishment for what he has done. Likewise the victims of this crime deserve our compassion.

Dear Juanjo,

Beautifully stated! I agree completely! Nothing more needs to be added.


Siincerely,


Stimpy

 

[KRU1996]

Now there are the 1000 years international, multicultural multiracial sexual abuse of women that continues to thsi day and includes femal genital mutilation as well as undersgae marriage and abuse by the husband's parents as well as her own due to a low brideprice/dowry. After that there is the international mutlicultural mutiracial sex scandal about the sexual abuse of boys in the Roman Catholic Church - all one need be reminded of are the millionsof "castrati" and the fact that the Papal palace had at one time been partially turned into a sacred brothel housing both male and female acolytes who sexually serviced the clergy. Then there is the understudied international multicultural and multiracial abuse done i the name of keeping the enslaved in their proper social place lest they become uppity. Millions of Africans, Asians, Europeans were subjected to sexual mutilation and abuse as they were considered socially dead anyway.
These new scadals are not surprising. The difference now is that with 24/7 news and easily available cyber-links these abuses can and are brought to light and given a degree of hype depending on the geography, the race, the gender, the nationality, the wealth of the people being alleged victimized and the status of the alleged abuser.

 

[slimvintage]

That is EXCELLENT Slimmie, that would have been the perfect way to handle it. That way the poor kids wouldn't have felt as if they did anything wrong, because they most certainly didn't! Plus of course it would have stopped the crime in progress in its tracks, and at the same time the incident could have been reported to the proper authorities.

I don't care if any of the victims may or may not have been gay from birth, that is not even remotely part of the issue. It is highly unlikely that any of them, at 10 years old, would be even slightly attracted to a man in his 60's performing anal sex on them in a public shower.

That had to be scary, terrifying, painful, not to mention traumatized them for life.

This sort of thing is lose-lose whether the kid was complicit or whether he was coerced, but it might be easier for a straight kid to rid himself of demons by denouncing his abuser than it is for a kid who kept the secret because the abuse represented sex with the gender for whom he felt a propensity.

An underage boy's complicity in man-boy sex poses the thorniest conundrum of all for authorities trying to do their best for abuse victims. And gay mythology (this forum no exception) is full of stories told by men who started having sex with other males at 10 and 11, and younger. We now know pretty certainly that attraction to our own sex isn't something we learn as we approach the age of consent, that it's with us from the beginning. It therefore stands to reason that there are cases of (even ongoing) consensual sex between individuals the ages of the protagonists in this case. To assume that every time the law is broken by someone like Sandusky it's a case of brutally overcoming the resistance of a kicking, screaming child in order to violate him, isn't reasonable.

And that Sandusky wasn't astute in identifying the kids who responded to him, who were more likely to go for his ploy, is also unlikely.

That's what my post was about. The possibility that the boys Sandusky legally abused weren't strictly speaking being physically raped if certainly legally so, and that one of the most crucial undertakings of whoever has the sad job of helping the kids after the fact is to keep them from feeling guilty because of, or much more importantly ashamed of, what happened to them. I can imagine ham-fisted homophobes among police personnel (and even among ill informed social workers) doing as much damage to a kid's psyche, sexuality and self esteem as the rapist. I'm no expert (as this post will prove to many of you guys) but I think the ignominy of being outed to a judgemental anti-gay society as a complicit pre-teen must be the worse of the two.

What is pretty unimaginable, but possible, is that one of the 8 or 9 young adults identified as victims testify that he remembers Sandusky with affection and gratitude for helping him find himself early on. In legal terms there is no question that abuse cases like this cannot hinge on the sexual proclivities of underage victims. In human term however it is surely vital that first responders take possible complicity into account. I think approaching sexuality from a legalistic, legislative point of view must be one of the most difficult things lawmakers have to do.