Post a response:
|
oBserver, Recalling my training in Kierkegaard, "to not decide is to decide", God forbid anyone wonder aloud here at bC how many more kids Sandusky could have helped while not even ostensibly harming any of them had he just kept his dick in his pants. It's hardly mysterious to me why all these fanciful bC "what-if" scenarios never constitue that horny old histrionic goat keeping his nose and heart for the plight of underprivileged and at-risk children to the grindstone. No, he had to have it all. What he wanted and the hell with what anyone else wanted, might have wanted, or can no longer determine they could have or even had a chance to want. Anyone calling themselves a bL trying to hedge the benefit he did those boys as a viably quantifiable offset for having used them sexually rather neatly calls into question just what the hell the made-up-by-us term "bL" actually means to even us, not to mention what the rest of the world is to make of it. Thus far, according to our our own internal bC barometer, to be a bL ranges from a celibate man who befriends boys to help them develop into good men to sexually prolific serial rapists who use charitable organizations as a way to augment their own sexual abuse of boys. Wow, what progress we've made in narrowing the definition of bL here at bC in the last 15 years or so! UGH! lvoe, tj |