Like many expats -- even journalists like myself -- there are certain scandals that erupt in American politics which you choose to ignore, hoping they will go away. After all, there's only so much room in your brain to process political developments on two continents (plus the rest of the world) at once.
And so you kind of quietly take note of them in the back of your head -- thinking "hmmm... I really should find out what all the fuss is about" -- until one day, the news just explodes into your RSS feed and you realize that you can remain ignorant no longer.
So it was for me with the recent Penn State scandal -- which, for non-American readers -- concerns one Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football coach who has been charged with 40 criminal accounts of sexual abuse of minors, which involved eight boys over a period of 15 years. Sandusky has plead not guilty to the charges.
Sandusky's alleged crimes have become non-stop headlines for the past week or so in the U.S. This is not only because of the magnitude of the charges at hand, but also because they brought about the precipitous resignation of America's most famous college football coach -- Joe Paterno -- who stepped down from his post one day before what would have been his last home game of his 46-year career. Paterno was edged out for having looked the other way while Sandusky allegedly molested the boys.
On Monday, Sandusky gave his first interview -- via phone -- with NBC's premier sports journalist, Bob Costas. It's hard to imagine what Sandusky -- or his lawyer -- were thinking in granting such an interview. Were they hoping to repair his public image? As Costas says near the end of their nine-minute long conversation: "You realize that for many people, you aren't just a criminal... you're a monster."
Still, if you can bear it -- and it isn't pleasant -- do have a listen. Most interesting to me was the way Sandusky answers the question put to him around the eight-minute mark, when Costas asks "Are you sexually attracted to boys?" You can almost hear the verbal somersaults in Sandusky's reply.
For the purposes of this blog, however, the question that most intrigued me was when Costas asks Sandusky what he most regrets about the entire affair, to which he responds: "I shouldn't have showered with those kids."
He's right. He shouldn't have.
I don't mean that sarcastically; I mean it sincerely. We can debate whether or not pedophilia is a crime, a disease or some mixture of the two. To my mind, Sandusky's crime wasn't being sexually attracted to young boys. I'm willing to believe that he couldn't change that about himself.
His crime was allowing himself to be in a physical space that allowed him to act upon those urges. It's no different that an alcoholic going to a bar. Or someone who's tempted to cheat on their spouse hanging out on match.com.
Except that the consequences of Sandusky's actions were, of course, vastly more damaging.
Adulthood is about making choices. And accepting the consequences of those choices.
We all make bad decisions from time to time. But if you're lucky, most of the hurt and pain that flows from the bad choices you make redounds to you. That's how you learn.
So, sorry, Mr. Sandusky. You failed the basic grown up test. And sadly, it looks like there weren't too many grown ups around you either.
Follow Delia Lloyd on Twitter: www.twitter.com/realdelia
The most likely explanation is that he was preyed on as a preteen/young teen
by a pedophile, and at that point his ability to mature emotionally was switched off.
And for those who argue, if that was the case why didn't he get help, remember that
he would have been 10 years old in 1954. There was no help to be had. None whatsoever.
This doesn't have anything to do with being a 'grown up' and doing the 'grown up' thing.
I agree that being "grown up" is beyond the point but I also think that your own understanding of addictions is badly flawed.
I applaud you for your sobriety!
I disagree a bit on your statement about "choice" behavior not being a reflection of the "grown up" thing. I believe the consensuses of adults in general, and mental development personnel in particular, would be that children tend to act with far less concern than adults about which direction the dominos fall subsequent to their actions. When adults behave with little regard for obvious negative consequences to others, especially the young and relatively defenseless, it qualifies as childlike choice behavior.
I believe the recognition of the problem and the potential harm to others along with an acknowledgement of the obvious steps needed to reduce temptation are both reasonable and functionally workable approaches for those who are temped yet actually give a damn about others.
I also believe pedophiles are attracted to kids in the same way that I am attracted to handsome adult women. However, as an adult with an understanding of the potentials of the negative side of the cost/benefit equation, I do not place myself in circumstance that would ratchet up the temptation. Not to mention all of the other personal reasons I would not: like respect for wife, kids, family, self, etc…
Another note: rehabilitate means to return to a former capacity. I am not sure either alcoholics or pedophiles can be “returned”, only self-controlled. Something a responsible adult might do, and I believe that was Ms. Lloyd’s point.
Respectfully,
Lawson Meadows
The only point I am making is that when you have a powerful, potentially destructive urge - whether it is destructive towards yourself and/or others - at some point you need to decide not to put yourself in situations that might allow you to act on that impulse. I'm not sure that I agree with T that pedophiles can't control that urge. I believe that they can't control their attraction to boys. That is how they are, perhaps, as nikanj suggests, because they, too, were abused. But I do believe, as Lawson (and I) note, that they can - once aware of those feelings - try to control whether or not they enter the shower (or pub or singles bar etc etc.) That was all I was trying to say. In all other ways, the analogy breaks down.
Thanks to everyone for their thoughtful contributions.
"Adulthood is about making choices." Way to cut through all of his effluvial explanations and present the clear and significant issue relating to his actions.
His inappropriate decisions to shower with children left many people less than clean; that is of course the base problem with the greedy nature of crimes; though the primary victim is most directly affected, the shadow of pain and negative result darkens the lives of others.
I certainly agree that he failed the primary test of adulthood, but would also alter the definition a little: "Adulthood is about making the right choices, and learning from the wrong ones" Whether your definition or mine… he remains a child.
Lawson Meadows