Post a response:
|
But thanks for admitting that your position is based upon this imaginary scenario in your head. I prefer to go by facts. One fact we know is that it was not 10 out of 10 victims who came forward, or were convinced to do so. The one supposedly engaged in anal intercourse in the shower and was witnessed by McQueary did not come forth. But perhaps more significantly, how many more boys might have been involved with Sandusky who never even came to the attention of the prosecution? For all we know, it might be 10 out of a hundred or more. Of the "victims" who testified, did they all suddenly snap or were they gradually convinced over time and with incentives? There are may of the latter, and we have seen many cases of youth formerly willingly involved with adults reformulate their experience from something positive at the time to a negative view as abuse. Susan Clancy talks about this in The Trauma Myth. Former willing partners learn that adopting the victim role allows them an explanation or scapegoat for all their current and past life's failings. It buys sympathy from those around them as well. Throw in financial rewards and it becomes difficult not to succumb. Apparently Sandusky never prepared his young friends to face the discovery and interrogation scenario, something which has been referred to as "warrior training." Indeed, it takes the extraordinary person like in the book you describe (which I have not read but have placed it on my list) to be able to withstand the pressures to "disclose." Regardless of all the incentives to disclose, we have seen many such cases in the past: the teacher, scoutmaster, coach, choirmaster, psychologist, doctor beloved by all for decades suddenly are transformed into the most horrible of creatures, a "predator." All the good deeds they did over the years now were all just pure manipulation and grooming. "We can't believe it. We had no idea. He was such a nice guy" those who knew him tend to say. How does the Sandusky case not fit this scenario? Many aspects of the case are simply not credible. I do agree with you that these days, all underage sex is seen as exploitation, and this is even generally known by people around the age as those with whom Sandusky was involved. That just makes it more incredible that if they had been unwilling participants they would have allowed it to go on so long before speaking up. In particular, one guy claims to have been anally raped on a weekly basis for over a year, screaming in Sandusky's basement but not heard by his wife upstairs, even to the point of making the kid bleed! Yet the kid went back week after week. For a year, no less! Sorry, just not buying it. This is the first I have heard that boys were "told at a certain age that now they'd have to find new partners." Do you have a source for that, or is that just your own idea? You see this case as Jerry vs. the boys. I see it as the prosecution vs. Jerry and the boys. I think you underestimate the pressures upon one to "disclose." If there are so many Kirk Reads out there, how come we don't see any? I have often wondered where are all the hordes of loyal, socially incorruptible, and selfless former loved boys (now men) who will step up and say, "I was loved as a boy and am a better person today for it"? It would take an extraordinary amount of courage for one take such a step, not least because it now opens him up the the charge that he got the cooties and is now a pedophile himself. Until the witch hunt dies down, it is just not going to happen. Your scapegoating of Sandusky is wrong. It is the current system that fails to allow him or the boys to play anything other than their prescribed roles. My own personal ethics are more in line with Ethics and intimacy in intergenerational relationships and A Boylove Code of Ethics. [@nonymouse] [Guardster] [Proxify] [Anonymisierungsdienst] |