I was wondering what some of you thought recently about the Penn State abuse scandal involving Jerry Sandusky. We talk about this case a lot in our public administration because it demonstrates just how the public administrators working at the university completely failed in their jobs and to uphold their ethics as public servants.
But what's getting me lately is as Sandusky's sentencing is getting closer, to this very day he still denies ever having molested a single kid. Really. And now his wife has come out saying how she still loves him (which his fine, who cares) and that he's totally innocent (what, really??).
I really gotta wonder what the defense attorney's main argument is for Sandusky. Please the former head coach continues to insist on his innocence, he's basically saying that over a dozen kids who were molested or sodomized by him are lying. Can you conceive any possible reason a person would lie about having had something like that done to them? And you can't even ask that here because better yet, why would numerous people all be lying about it? What possible conspiracy could they be planning to put an innocent man in jail? Did all the alleged victims just meet one day in a big group and decide to stage being victims just so years later they could sue Penn State for millions of dollars?
So I just wonder about Sandusky himself. Many people when the evidence is overwhelmingly against them and they know they're going to jail will throw themselves on the mercy of the court and hope not to spend their entire lives in jail. But this guy, despite all the detailed and disturbingly similar accounts of all his victims, keeps on insisting he's innocent. And even recently his son has spoken up and agreed to testify against his own father that Sandusky molested him too.
So how does a woman stand by her husband even after that? Could Sandusky have extreme conduct disorder and just believe maybe he never did anything wrong? I think not probably. Because in all his statements he's done nothing to try to rationalize any molesting or sodomizing that did occur, but instead just flat out denying it. He would only acknowledge having done things like showering with boys or wrestling with them.
Who knows even what kind of institutional pressure by Penn State he's under to continue to deny the accusations, but I doubt that's really the case. Everyone's got an eagle eye on Penn State's administration now and they wouldn't dare cover things up by this point.
I just think it's totally offensive that he's still not pleading guilty to all this. I even read the police report they released to the public that details the years long investigation into Sandusky and his victims and it's totally insane. What are your thoughts about all of this?
He's an old man nearing the end of his life. He knows what he did, he's just trying to convince himself that he's innocent, so he's more on the coward end. Facing reality at his age on accusations like this are very hard to do.
What would be crazy if he ended up bring right and all the kids were making it up.
Yeah, well, I know he's not really crazy unless you think conduct disorder makes you so. I just can't imagine what's going in in his brain cause I do think he's struggling with some sort of cognitive dissonance over the whole thing. If you watch interviews with him about it you can just see the strain on his face as he denies it.
He's a regular man who unfortunately recieves sexual gratification through young boys. It's not an illness, its a sexual preference that society deems horrible. Of course, society functions better when old men don't take advantage through younger men but that's who he is. He denies it because he himself does not want to accept since it's easier for him when he doesn't. At his age, the mental stress would kill him. Just look what happened to Paterno.
You raise an interesting point. I mean, whether he's a regular guy or not, that's difficult to ascertain because then we delve into semantics and societal norms and what he consider to be good and bad. Usually in cases like this though, the perps aren't just driven by lust, but also by power. And it is also very arguable whether prepubescent boys or girls have a full understanding of sex to be able to consent to it. I'd say they don't. I think you'd probably agree they don't either, so at what point must we say, well that's just his sexual preference and at what point is he a predator who gets off on manipulation and overpowering someone.
Obviously there are certain sexual preferences that really can't be accommodated by society, and that's largely ones where the participants aren't in total consent with each other. I would argue that a prepubescent boy cannot possibly consent to the fullest because they either do not fully understand, or they are too vulnerable not to be coerced into it.
I mean, yeah it's a sad story for the victims. But otherwise I just get pissed off at the audacity of this man to go on denying it. It's an affront to all his victims that he's basically calling them all liars. And if it was just one person he called a liar, then that deserves a further look into it, but that he could actually state that all of them are liars....it blows me away. I also get angry at the coverup. How these top level administrators didn't call the cops immediately and at some point basically enabled Sandusky the environment to groom his victims.
He's a regular man who unfortunately recieves sexual gratification through young boys. It's not an illness, its a sexual preference that society deems horrible. Of course, society functions better when old men don't take advantage through younger men but that's who he is. He denies it because he himself does not want to accept since it's easier for him when he doesn't. At his age, the mental stress would kill him. Just look what happened to Paterno.
It's a sad story
No, you're wrong. Raping young boys is not classified as a "sexual preference", its classified as "completely fucking vile".
Raping isn't about sex, its about power. He married his wife, who is a woman. His sexual preference is women, not little boys. Don't describe something like this by trying to minimize what it actually is. I hope this guy stays alive so he can be gang raped on a daily basis.
Yeah it will be satisfying once he's sentenced to jail. And it's like 99 percent they'll successfully convict him on all counts. But I also won't be happy until some of those people who covered it up are convicted for some kind of criminal negligence. It's not enough if they are fired.
I'd wager he's reading the Michal Jackson playbook. Deny til you die, demonize any and all witnesses, and stir up as much doubt as humanly possible. Even with the mountain of claims against him, he's still got cards in his hand. He will be convicted and will most certainly go to jail, but the sentence he gets is anyone's guess.
He's a regular man who unfortunately recieves sexual gratification through young boys. It's not an illness, its a sexual preference that society deems horrible. Of course, society functions better when old men don't take advantage through younger men but that's who he is. He denies it because he himself does not want to accept since it's easier for him when he doesn't. At his age, the mental stress would kill him. Just look what happened to Paterno.
It's a sad story
No, you're wrong. Raping young boys is not classified as a "sexual preference", its classified as "completely fucking vile".
Raping isn't about sex, its about power. He married his wife, who is a woman. His sexual preference is women, not little boys. Don't describe something like this by trying to minimize what it actually is. I hope this guy stays alive so he can be gang raped on a daily basis.
No. Male domination is a form a sexual desire, whether it is over males or females. There is a reason why some people are into bondage porn. The idea of being dominant makes them feel the most satisfaction. Sorry for being graphic here, but the man raped younger boys because he felt the most sexual desire from the idea of being completely dominant, and this satisfied him. Historically, most older men had relationships with younger boys in the ancient times, most famously the Spartans. This idea isn't new. This is a normal guy stuck with a very strange need for satisfaction.
You raise an interesting point. I mean, whether he's a regular guy or not, that's difficult to ascertain because then we delve into semantics and societal norms and what he consider to be good and bad. Usually in cases like this though, the perps aren't just driven by lust, but also by power. And it is also very arguable whether prepubescent boys or girls have a full understanding of sex to be able to consent to it. I'd say they don't. I think you'd probably agree they don't either, so at what point must we say, well that's just his sexual preference and at what point is he a predator who gets off on manipulation and overpowering someone.
Obviously there are certain sexual preferences that really can't be accommodated by society, and that's largely ones where the participants aren't in total consent with each other. I would argue that a prepubescent boy cannot possibly consent to the fullest because they either do not fully understand, or they are too vulnerable not to be coerced into it.
I mean, yeah it's a sad story for the victims. But otherwise I just get pissed off at the audacity of this man to go on denying it. It's an affront to all his victims that he's basically calling them all liars. And if it was just one person he called a liar, then that deserves a further look into it, but that he could actually state that all of them are liars....it blows me away. I also get angry at the coverup. How these top level administrators didn't call the cops immediately and at some point basically enabled Sandusky the environment to groom his victims.
If anything I'm very angry about is that he purposely took advantage the little boys and the cover up, so I agree with you there.
However, I feel very bad for Sandusky. Like I said before, his sexual fantasy was the power of the younger age. He probably felt very ashamed of this himself, but he couldn't control himself, as sexual desire is one of the most powerful feelings a human can feel. He isn't a raging lunatic. Much like foot fetishism or other strange fetishes, these are feelings that he can't control.
I'm not agreeing with what he did. I'm just trying to see it from his point of view.
However, I feel very bad for Sandusky. Like I said before, his sexual fantasy was the power of the younger age. He probably felt very ashamed of this himself, but he couldn't control himself, as sexual desire is one of the most powerful feelings a human can feel. He isn't a raging lunatic. Much like foot fetishism or other strange fetishes, these are feelings that he can't control.
I don't know, even if one had such a desire, some morals/ethics should stop you. But I say this while wondering how the riots happened here in Vancouver last year... if I had been there in the crowd, at some point I would be like "hmm this has gone a little bit far maybe we shouldn't break into stores"... yet tons of university students etc were doing it.
However, I feel very bad for Sandusky. Like I said before, his sexual fantasy was the power of the younger age. He probably felt very ashamed of this himself, but he couldn't control himself, as sexual desire is one of the most powerful feelings a human can feel. He isn't a raging lunatic. Much like foot fetishism or other strange fetishes, these are feelings that he can't control.
I don't know, even if one had such a desire, some morals/ethics should stop you. But I say this while wondering how the riots happened here in Vancouver last year... if I had been there in the crowd, at some point I would be like "hmm this has gone a little bit far maybe we shouldn't break into stores"... yet tons of university students etc were doing it.
Probably because they were in a mob and they were really really pissed off after losing in the Stanley Cup Finals. Mob mentalities are one of the scariest things known to man. You say that now as an independent soul, but imagine if you were drunk, pissed off, and all of a sudden everyone is firing shit up and you're in the middle of it. Yeah you can't say that.
Morals? Legally, if you're under 18, you can't have sex at all. Girls who are 15, 16, or 17 mess around with 20+ guys all the time. Humans like to fuck, it's in their genes. Most men who have an obsession with pre-adoloscent boys usually control their urge, but this time, and in many situations, the man went for it.
Sorry for the graphic details here, but imagine if you were a man who was into what Sandusky is into. Imagine how being in the locker room would drive this guy insane. Imagine all these little things that eventually make him finally act on his sexual urge. It sucks, but it's reality.
They're all guilty. Sandusky, Joe Pa. and the rest of the gang. If Joe Pa was still alive he probably would have also been arrested by now. Everyone knew what was going on and it they covered it up to maintain the Penn State football standard. That's why they got hammered in punishments. It may not be fair to punish the current players, but I believe the rest of the punishment was just.
As far as Sandusky he likely has mental health issues. A common defense by pedophiles is that homosexuality used to be recognized by the APA as a mental disorder but now is commonly accepted because well it's not a mental disorder. Sexual relationships with children however is illegal because children are not old enough to understand what is going on. Basically if you're under 16 or 18 depending on the state of residence any sexual relationship with someone over 21 (I think) is illegal. Which makes sense because around 18 is when people start to become able to make decisions and realize they are not the smartest person in the world.
Sorry for the graphic details here, but imagine if you were a man who was into what Sandusky is into. Imagine how being in the locker room would drive this guy insane. Imagine all these little things that eventually make him finally act on his sexual urge. It sucks, but it's reality.
And any person who truly tried to control those urges would likely not put themselves in that situation and would seek help on it. Him failing to act on his own to prevent it makes it his fault. Yes, I can understand how in his world it's extremely difficult to resist those urges, but you can't simply say 'it sucks and that's reality' when he had options to prevent what he did when it's painfully obvious that what he's doing is wrong.
There's a reason we no longer live like the Spartans as you mention, as society has moved on to realize that grown men doing sexual acts with younger men can be easily taken advantage of because of the mental state of young men and children. And while what you say about teenage girls (and boys for that matter) is true, it doesn't mean they're necessarily right in doing so. There is a severe difference in a man taking advantage of young boys compared to a teenager wanting to be with an older person.
Just because something is not the 'norm' in our current times while it was in previous times doesn't make it a valid act. Slavery was the norm no shorter than 100 years ago yet now it's not. Times change and people become intellectually smarter to realize the real situation of things and how young people can be easily taken advantage of by older people and hence why these laws exist.
I'd wager he's reading the Michal Jackson playbook. Deny til you die, demonize any and all witnesses, and stir up as much doubt as humanly possible. Even with the mountain of claims against him, he's still got cards in his hand. He will be convicted and will most certainly go to jail, but the sentence he gets is anyone's guess.
I can assure you he'll get at least a least one if not more consecutive life sentences. There is overwhelming testimony against him from all his victims and the police reports are quite thorough in the documentation of his years of abuse. There is also an institutional quality to his crime which further sensationalizes this case and judge will come down on him pretty hard.
However, I feel very bad for Sandusky. Like I said before, his sexual fantasy was the power of the younger age. He probably felt very ashamed of this himself, but he couldn't control himself, as sexual desire is one of the most powerful feelings a human can feel. He isn't a raging lunatic. Much like foot fetishism or other strange fetishes, these are feelings that he can't control.
I'm not agreeing with what he did. I'm just trying to see it from his point of view.
I think at the very least you're underestimating one's ability to control themselves. To do what he did, required lots of thought along the way, and in each step he could've stopped what he was doing and he knew he should have stopped because he knows its wrong (if not by society's standards then even by his). I don't think he went on doing it because he couldn't stop himself. He just went on doing it because it felt really good and it became like his drug-the power and the lust.
I think one the biggest parts wrong with his brain was the idea that he could ultimately get away with it. And I think he did think that and didn't just keep going out of a compulsion, but because he started thinking there wouldn't be any consequences after all.
Morals? Legally, if you're under 18, you can't have sex at all. Girls who are 15, 16, or 17 mess around with 20+ guys all the time. Humans like to fuck, it's in their genes. Most men who have an obsession with pre-adoloscent boys usually control their urge, but this time, and in many situations, the man went for it.
Sorry for the graphic details here, but imagine if you were a man who was into what Sandusky is into. Imagine how being in the locker room would drive this guy insane. Imagine all these little things that eventually make him finally act on his sexual urge. It sucks, but it's reality.
Obviously statutory rape laws aren't perfect cause of course it can be ridiculous if an 18 year old goes to jail for having sex with a 16 year old. The problem is that government needs to make laws like this for common sense purposes and to protect people. But it's hard to make these laws cause many people around those ages are developing at different rates so they just kind of take a shot in the dark and say that 18 is the legal age of adulthood.
Just because something is not the 'norm' in our current times while it was in previous times doesn't make it a valid act. Slavery was the norm no shorter than 100 years ago yet now it's not. Times change and people become intellectually smarter to realize the real situation of things and how young people can be easily taken advantage of by older people and hence why these laws exist.
Mm hm. I personally think it's okay to say what Sandusky did was simply wrong in every sense of the word. Not just that he had an incompatible sexual preference with the rest of society. I think to see it that way just feels too nihilistic. At some point, in order to build a consensus of laws and morality we need to make judgment calls about people's behavior. It hasn't always been right, such as when blacks were viewed as sub-human and that was the common logic. But the same mode of questioning people's behavior is what allowed society to move forward. Even defining moving forward by some is too subjective but I would argue that its indicated when there is less conflict and more cooperation. That is if you mean to be a society at least. If you want to be an individual anarchist you can certainly try I suppose. But you're going to bump up against those that do live in a society.
And if I may go off topic here and make a broader point about society and government and laws, it really bothers me when people think they should be totally free under their government or shouldn't have to pay taxes into the system, but it's that same system that even allows them the rights and safety to live the way they do. When someone gets really rich in the U.S. and feels they are taxed unfairly and that the government interferes with them, well it's that same government that created the structure and environment that even enabled them to become so rich.
Sorry if that's off topic, but maybe its relevant to this conversation because individual values are one thing, but if they are too incompatible to the rest of society, then you can't be a part of society. If Sandusky really just can't help it because he loves raping underage boys so much, well he can't have it all. If he went and bought an island somewhere and created his own society with its own values and laws, then maybe you could make that argument more. But the truth is, he lives in THIS society. And people want to enjoy all the benefits of THIS society but only have to pick and choose how they pay for it.
Is the system perfect? Should we not strive for reforming things that are seemingly wrong with society? Sure, of course. But it's a gradual process. And obviously Sandusky isn't some reformer who is saying, hey, that's just my sexual preference. Cause he's just denied everything. But he's a part of the society we all live in and this society at least does not approve of his behavior.
I don't pity him either because he acted completely of his own accord. If I thought he was insane and truly couldn't control his actions, then I could maybe pity his defective brain. But it's like Irrational said, he's just a normal guy. Normal though, in the sense that his brain is functioning just fine. And he willingly chose to do something he knew was wrong. He never thought it was not wrong.
For example, a person who I used to look up to a lot, Arthur C. Clarke, was later accused in life of molesting boys. He claimed they had all matured physically by the time he did things with them and he didn't see what the Western culture's fuss over man-boy love was all about. He said it was a Western attitude to be so neurotic about having sex with younger men. He claimed since they had matured physically, he couldn't see what difference their age had to make. So this guy's reaction to the accusations are obviously a lot different than Sandusky's. Clarke was admitting to what he did and insisting he felt there was nothing wrong with it under his circumstances. And he even lived within the Eastern culture in Sri Lanka were maybe that sort of this is less a taboo than it is in Western culture. I personally don't think it should be acceptable in any culture and even though a boy matures physically, he can easily have the mind of a 10 year old even at 12-18 years of age.
So the argument one would have with Clarke is why it is wrong. The argument one would have with Sandusky is whether or not he even did it. And Sandusky would say it's wrong to molest or sodomize children and that's why he'd never do that.
I can assure you he'll get at least a least one if not more consecutive life sentences. There is overwhelming testimony against him from all his victims and the police reports are quite thorough in the documentation of his years of abuse. There is also an institutional quality to his crime which further sensationalizes this case and judge will come down on him pretty hard.
Just google the police report on him sometime. It documents in detail up to like....eight victims I think and the things he did. What's interesting about it though is the way all his victims describe in similar fashion the way Sandusky would set them up for the abuse. And I think that's what's going to convict him so hard. His pattern was consistently described by all the victims who had little to no contact with each other.
You feel bad for Sandusky? You're as sick as he is.
Thank you for the contribution
Well obviously he acted on pure sexual desire and had no rational thought. I'm not underestimating his ability for self-control, I am just pointing out that you can't purely call him insane or a coward. He is just a man with very poor self-control with a very bizarre sexual fantasy. Combine those two and you get disasterous results.
I'm not validating his actions. I think he should honestly rot in prison for damaging those kids. Just because I'm seeing it from his point of view doesn't mean I'm a sick fuck deserving of a Batman villain role.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Respectful is a strong word...
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But what's getting me lately is as Sandusky's sentencing is getting closer, to this very day he still denies ever having molested a single kid. Really. And now his wife has come out saying how she still loves him (which his fine, who cares) and that he's totally innocent (what, really??).
I really gotta wonder what the defense attorney's main argument is for Sandusky. Please the former head coach continues to insist on his innocence, he's basically saying that over a dozen kids who were molested or sodomized by him are lying. Can you conceive any possible reason a person would lie about having had something like that done to them? And you can't even ask that here because better yet, why would numerous people all be lying about it? What possible conspiracy could they be planning to put an innocent man in jail? Did all the alleged victims just meet one day in a big group and decide to stage being victims just so years later they could sue Penn State for millions of dollars?
So I just wonder about Sandusky himself. Many people when the evidence is overwhelmingly against them and they know they're going to jail will throw themselves on the mercy of the court and hope not to spend their entire lives in jail. But this guy, despite all the detailed and disturbingly similar accounts of all his victims, keeps on insisting he's innocent. And even recently his son has spoken up and agreed to testify against his own father that Sandusky molested him too.
So how does a woman stand by her husband even after that? Could Sandusky have extreme conduct disorder and just believe maybe he never did anything wrong? I think not probably. Because in all his statements he's done nothing to try to rationalize any molesting or sodomizing that did occur, but instead just flat out denying it. He would only acknowledge having done things like showering with boys or wrestling with them.
Who knows even what kind of institutional pressure by Penn State he's under to continue to deny the accusations, but I doubt that's really the case. Everyone's got an eagle eye on Penn State's administration now and they wouldn't dare cover things up by this point.
I just think it's totally offensive that he's still not pleading guilty to all this. I even read the police report they released to the public that details the years long investigation into Sandusky and his victims and it's totally insane. What are your thoughts about all of this?
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
What would be crazy if he ended up bring right and all the kids were making it up.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
It's a sad story
Obviously there are certain sexual preferences that really can't be accommodated by society, and that's largely ones where the participants aren't in total consent with each other. I would argue that a prepubescent boy cannot possibly consent to the fullest because they either do not fully understand, or they are too vulnerable not to be coerced into it.
I mean, yeah it's a sad story for the victims. But otherwise I just get pissed off at the audacity of this man to go on denying it. It's an affront to all his victims that he's basically calling them all liars. And if it was just one person he called a liar, then that deserves a further look into it, but that he could actually state that all of them are liars....it blows me away. I also get angry at the coverup. How these top level administrators didn't call the cops immediately and at some point basically enabled Sandusky the environment to groom his victims.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
No, you're wrong. Raping young boys is not classified as a "sexual preference", its classified as "completely fucking vile".
Raping isn't about sex, its about power. He married his wife, who is a woman. His sexual preference is women, not little boys. Don't describe something like this by trying to minimize what it actually is. I hope this guy stays alive so he can be gang raped on a daily basis.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
They could have him on video and he'd say it wasn't him.
No. Male domination is a form a sexual desire, whether it is over males or females. There is a reason why some people are into bondage porn. The idea of being dominant makes them feel the most satisfaction. Sorry for being graphic here, but the man raped younger boys because he felt the most sexual desire from the idea of being completely dominant, and this satisfied him. Historically, most older men had relationships with younger boys in the ancient times, most famously the Spartans. This idea isn't new. This is a normal guy stuck with a very strange need for satisfaction.
If anything I'm very angry about is that he purposely took advantage the little boys and the cover up, so I agree with you there.
However, I feel very bad for Sandusky. Like I said before, his sexual fantasy was the power of the younger age. He probably felt very ashamed of this himself, but he couldn't control himself, as sexual desire is one of the most powerful feelings a human can feel. He isn't a raging lunatic. Much like foot fetishism or other strange fetishes, these are feelings that he can't control.
I'm not agreeing with what he did. I'm just trying to see it from his point of view.
I don't know, even if one had such a desire, some morals/ethics should stop you. But I say this while wondering how the riots happened here in Vancouver last year... if I had been there in the crowd, at some point I would be like "hmm this has gone a little bit far maybe we shouldn't break into stores"... yet tons of university students etc were doing it.
D3 Channel: OnetwoD3
Probably because they were in a mob and they were really really pissed off after losing in the Stanley Cup Finals. Mob mentalities are one of the scariest things known to man. You say that now as an independent soul, but imagine if you were drunk, pissed off, and all of a sudden everyone is firing shit up and you're in the middle of it. Yeah you can't say that.
Morals? Legally, if you're under 18, you can't have sex at all. Girls who are 15, 16, or 17 mess around with 20+ guys all the time. Humans like to fuck, it's in their genes. Most men who have an obsession with pre-adoloscent boys usually control their urge, but this time, and in many situations, the man went for it.
Sorry for the graphic details here, but imagine if you were a man who was into what Sandusky is into. Imagine how being in the locker room would drive this guy insane. Imagine all these little things that eventually make him finally act on his sexual urge. It sucks, but it's reality.
As far as Sandusky he likely has mental health issues. A common defense by pedophiles is that homosexuality used to be recognized by the APA as a mental disorder but now is commonly accepted because well it's not a mental disorder. Sexual relationships with children however is illegal because children are not old enough to understand what is going on. Basically if you're under 16 or 18 depending on the state of residence any sexual relationship with someone over 21 (I think) is illegal. Which makes sense because around 18 is when people start to become able to make decisions and realize they are not the smartest person in the world.
And any person who truly tried to control those urges would likely not put themselves in that situation and would seek help on it. Him failing to act on his own to prevent it makes it his fault. Yes, I can understand how in his world it's extremely difficult to resist those urges, but you can't simply say 'it sucks and that's reality' when he had options to prevent what he did when it's painfully obvious that what he's doing is wrong.
There's a reason we no longer live like the Spartans as you mention, as society has moved on to realize that grown men doing sexual acts with younger men can be easily taken advantage of because of the mental state of young men and children. And while what you say about teenage girls (and boys for that matter) is true, it doesn't mean they're necessarily right in doing so. There is a severe difference in a man taking advantage of young boys compared to a teenager wanting to be with an older person.
Just because something is not the 'norm' in our current times while it was in previous times doesn't make it a valid act. Slavery was the norm no shorter than 100 years ago yet now it's not. Times change and people become intellectually smarter to realize the real situation of things and how young people can be easily taken advantage of by older people and hence why these laws exist.
I think at the very least you're underestimating one's ability to control themselves. To do what he did, required lots of thought along the way, and in each step he could've stopped what he was doing and he knew he should have stopped because he knows its wrong (if not by society's standards then even by his). I don't think he went on doing it because he couldn't stop himself. He just went on doing it because it felt really good and it became like his drug-the power and the lust.
I think one the biggest parts wrong with his brain was the idea that he could ultimately get away with it. And I think he did think that and didn't just keep going out of a compulsion, but because he started thinking there wouldn't be any consequences after all.
Obviously statutory rape laws aren't perfect cause of course it can be ridiculous if an 18 year old goes to jail for having sex with a 16 year old. The problem is that government needs to make laws like this for common sense purposes and to protect people. But it's hard to make these laws cause many people around those ages are developing at different rates so they just kind of take a shot in the dark and say that 18 is the legal age of adulthood.
Mm hm. I personally think it's okay to say what Sandusky did was simply wrong in every sense of the word. Not just that he had an incompatible sexual preference with the rest of society. I think to see it that way just feels too nihilistic. At some point, in order to build a consensus of laws and morality we need to make judgment calls about people's behavior. It hasn't always been right, such as when blacks were viewed as sub-human and that was the common logic. But the same mode of questioning people's behavior is what allowed society to move forward. Even defining moving forward by some is too subjective but I would argue that its indicated when there is less conflict and more cooperation. That is if you mean to be a society at least. If you want to be an individual anarchist you can certainly try I suppose. But you're going to bump up against those that do live in a society.
And if I may go off topic here and make a broader point about society and government and laws, it really bothers me when people think they should be totally free under their government or shouldn't have to pay taxes into the system, but it's that same system that even allows them the rights and safety to live the way they do. When someone gets really rich in the U.S. and feels they are taxed unfairly and that the government interferes with them, well it's that same government that created the structure and environment that even enabled them to become so rich.
Sorry if that's off topic, but maybe its relevant to this conversation because individual values are one thing, but if they are too incompatible to the rest of society, then you can't be a part of society. If Sandusky really just can't help it because he loves raping underage boys so much, well he can't have it all. If he went and bought an island somewhere and created his own society with its own values and laws, then maybe you could make that argument more. But the truth is, he lives in THIS society. And people want to enjoy all the benefits of THIS society but only have to pick and choose how they pay for it.
Is the system perfect? Should we not strive for reforming things that are seemingly wrong with society? Sure, of course. But it's a gradual process. And obviously Sandusky isn't some reformer who is saying, hey, that's just my sexual preference. Cause he's just denied everything. But he's a part of the society we all live in and this society at least does not approve of his behavior.
I don't pity him either because he acted completely of his own accord. If I thought he was insane and truly couldn't control his actions, then I could maybe pity his defective brain. But it's like Irrational said, he's just a normal guy. Normal though, in the sense that his brain is functioning just fine. And he willingly chose to do something he knew was wrong. He never thought it was not wrong.
For example, a person who I used to look up to a lot, Arthur C. Clarke, was later accused in life of molesting boys. He claimed they had all matured physically by the time he did things with them and he didn't see what the Western culture's fuss over man-boy love was all about. He said it was a Western attitude to be so neurotic about having sex with younger men. He claimed since they had matured physically, he couldn't see what difference their age had to make. So this guy's reaction to the accusations are obviously a lot different than Sandusky's. Clarke was admitting to what he did and insisting he felt there was nothing wrong with it under his circumstances. And he even lived within the Eastern culture in Sri Lanka were maybe that sort of this is less a taboo than it is in Western culture. I personally don't think it should be acceptable in any culture and even though a boy matures physically, he can easily have the mind of a 10 year old even at 12-18 years of age.
So the argument one would have with Clarke is why it is wrong. The argument one would have with Sandusky is whether or not he even did it. And Sandusky would say it's wrong to molest or sodomize children and that's why he'd never do that.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
I hope you're right.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
(10-15 months obviously :P)
Thank you for the contribution
Well obviously he acted on pure sexual desire and had no rational thought. I'm not underestimating his ability for self-control, I am just pointing out that you can't purely call him insane or a coward. He is just a man with very poor self-control with a very bizarre sexual fantasy. Combine those two and you get disasterous results.
I'm not validating his actions. I think he should honestly rot in prison for damaging those kids. Just because I'm seeing it from his point of view doesn't mean I'm a sick fuck deserving of a Batman villain role.