Skip to main content

Sandusky

I don't watch TV, so sometimes I'm a bit behind on my current events.  I just heard about Jerry Sandusky, formerly assistant coach at Penn State.  As I understand it, the man was found guilty of sexually abusing 8 boys over a period of 15 years.  Apparently, since it has been discovered that the head coach (Joe Paterno) knew about this but did not report anything to the authorities, he has also been fired.  I find this whole story to be rather tragic.

Should the head coach have been fired?  I really don't know.  But, what I do know is that knowing about someone who abuses someone else and not doing anything about it is a dishonorable thing to do.  Sexual abuse is a serious thing, and I think that all too often we take it lightly in our society.  If he had it in his power to stop Sandusky from ruining more boys' lives, he should have done it.  Not snitching on your friend when you find out they smoke pot and not reporting someone who you know is sexually abusing children are two completely different things.  In the latter case, innocent people are being hurt by your apathy.  So, I say shame on Paterno, and anyone else that knew something and said/did nothing.

There are those who are trying to use this tragedy to continue to push the propaganda that homosexuals are evil, that gay people make bad role models/parents for children, etc.  To me, this says exactly the opposite.  To me, this shows the necessity of allowing gay people to be recognized as equal with straight people and giving us equal status in society.  Why?  Think about it.  Obviously, Sandusky is a gay man (or perhaps bisexual).  He has a wife.  The society he lives in does not like homosexuals, so he marries a woman to blend in and to avoid the disapproval of his society.  But, he really wants to be with guys because he's gay.  So, what does he do?  He engages in sexual conduct with boys.  Think how it would be different if he grew up in a society that treated him equal with others--where he would be allowed to marry the man of his dreams and not have to keep secret the fact that he's attracted to people of the same sex.

Don't mistake me.  I don't mean to set up Sandusky as a victim.  He is not a victim in any way at all.  He is the perpetrator.  He chose his own actions and needs to be responsible for them.  What he did was completely inexcusable.  No one should ever be forced or coerced into sexual conduct with any other person--this is something that should only be done between consenting persons.  Being sexually abused is a serious thing, and it can be extremely difficult for the victim of a sexual abuse/assault to recover from the psychological and emotional damage that is caused by such an event.  The life of these 8 boys may never be the same simply because of the despicable actions on the part of Sandusky.  Shame on Sandusky for not being in control of his own emotions and for taking advantage of those who are younger and more impressionable.  I believe in a zero-tolerance policy for sexual abuse/assault.  It is never okay, and it is never the victim's fault.

I also don't mean to say that sexual urges are impossible to control, or that they shouldn't be controlled.  I think that they can and should be controlled.  All too often people say that the urges are too strong to control.  I disagree.  I think there's danger in ignoring those feelings or trying to suppress them altogether, but I think that it's quite possible to have sexual relations only with people who consent to such.  What I'm saying is that everyone should feel free to have a positive outlet for their sexual feelings (that is, be able to be in a relationship with a person they're attracted to) and not be ashamed to let the public know about their relationships.

All I mean to say is that if our society were more accepting of people who wanted to marry someone of the same sex, there would be fewer stories like this.  People would be better able to release their sexual energy in positive, uplifting ways--with a partner that they love and commit themselves to--rather than in secretive, coercive ways such as abusing a child.  I mean, just think how high rape rates would soar if everyone in society felt like straight sex was immoral (so, the only way for reproducing would be artificial insemination).  People who had no other outlet for releasing their sexual energy would just find some unsuspecting teen somewhere and assault them.  They'd have to do it in privacy and secrecy because if they did so openly they'd be shunned by society.  So, I think anyone who is interested in stopping sexual abuse, allowing gays to be treated equally is one step in the right direction.  No, it won't solve the problem altogether, but I think it will help.

Also, if gay people feel comfortable being open about who they are, then we can have more gay role models step up to the plate.  There are wonderful gay men and women out there who are excellent role models, but are closeted.  They are afraid to come out, for whatever reason, but are great people and contribute well to society.  They make wonderful role models to the youth.  And, if they were out and allowed to be themselves, then they would become good role models of what a great gay person can be.  They could show gay youth how to be a good gay.  Think how Sandusky's life may have been different if he had positive gay role models to look up to when he was young and learned from them how to be good.  Perhaps then he wouldn't have grown up to be the kind of guy that would sexually abuse boys.  Again, I'm not setting up Sandusky as a victim, I'm merely trying to point out ways in which our future might be brighter if we achieve a greater level of acceptance for gay people and a greater level of encouragement for us all to be more respectful of others and their feelings.

Comments

  1. What is your source that Sandusky is gay? Or bi? Without that information, your argument fails.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The sentence where I state that it is obvious that he's gay, I'm implying that this follows from the fact that he engaged in sexual activity with 8 boys. You might contend that this logic is invalid, but if you want to demand a source you should have asked for a source verifying that he actually did commit all of those crimes.

    But, even if he isn't gay--I'm not sure what other orientation you'd propose other than bi, which I also proposed--my argument doesn't fail. Perhaps you misunderstood it. The argument is that when people are treated equally with others, it is easier for them to contribute to society and when they are oppressed by society, as gay people currently are, it is more difficult to be (or be conceived as being) a good citizen. If you are forced to keep yourself secret, it's difficult to let your light shine. So, my argument is not based on the fact that this man is gay, it's merely using him as an example to illustrate the point. So, if in fact he is not gay, then all that means is that I lack a proper example, but I still stand by the argument itself.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Anyone is allowed to comment on this blog. As you can tell from reading my blog, I am very opinionated and I'm not afraid to share my opinion. You're welcome to disagree with me as mildly or vehemently as you like, but be aware that I will reply with my own opinions, very strongly. If you don't want that kind of open discussion, or you think it will hurt your feelings, then please avoid posting. I do try to be respectful, but my verbology often comes across as brusque.

Popular posts from this blog

Hitchens v god

I'm rather ashamed to admit that I just recently discovered Christopher Hitchens. And, while I normally add my own thoughts and commentary to videos when I post them here, in nearly every Hitchens video that I've encountered, I have not a single word to add. He is so articulate and does such a good job of presenting his case that I couldn't possibly add anything to it.  I would definitely be interested if any of my readers have any comments to make in regards to what Hitches says in this video. Enjoy.  

Do you really believe?

This is Richard Dawkin's talk from yesterday's Reason Rally in Washington DC.  He makes several good points, but the one that stuck out to me the most was when he told people that they should challenge someone when they say they're religious.  The example he gave is when someone says they're Catholic, ask them if they really  believe that when a priest blesses a wafer that it actually turns into the body of Christ, or that the wine actually turns into his blood.  So, this post will be dedicated to me asking any of my reader base who are religious, do you really  believe what your religions teach? For those who are Christian (any denomination thereof), Do you really believe every word of the Bible to be the word of god?  If so, read every word of the Bible and then come back and answer the question again. Do you really believe that a snake tricked Eve into eating fruit that made her suddenly unfit to live in the paradisiacal garden god had just made for her? Do y

Co-efficiently Co-related

 I'm a fairly reserved person. I don't open up easily to people. I tend to hold my hand close to my chest, hesitant to lay cards on the table. However there have been a few times in my life where I have had a heart-to-heart talk with someone and I find them to be very rewarding. I've been seeing a therapist for over a year now. One thing that I have decided over all the chats I've had with him is that the people I want to spend the most time with are the ones that I feel the closest to. I have many friends (I use the term "friends" more loosely than some, since to me the term "acquaintance" feels very odd) who are fun to interact with, but our interactions are sparse or superficial. I think it's perfectly fine to have these kinds of friendships--in fact, I think they can be very beneficial. But I have decided that for my own well-being, I will not be putting any measurable amount of emotional effort into such a friendship. I want to reserve that