The evolving story of the alleged victims of former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky has struck an enormous nerve with me.
In reading the Sandusky indictment, it appears that Mike McQueary walked in on Sandusky raping a boy he approximated to be 10 years old. The indictment says that McQueary saw what was happening, and that both the boy and Sandusky saw McQueary observing them.
The indictment does not indicate whether McQueary intervened or stopped this. It states that McQueary was distraught and left the scene. The indictment gives no indication that he was disturbed enough to stop the activity right then and there.
McQueary reported what he saw to Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley. Curley later denied that McQueary mentioned anything about witnessing sexual intercourse between Sandusky and the boy and categorized the behavior as "horsing around".
"Horsing around." That phrase rang out at me like an alarm.
I read the indictment three days before Sandusky's interview with Bob Costas on NBC's Rock Center. In that interview, Sandusky also referred to his behavior as "horsing around."
The alarm bell went off again.
As a gay man, over the years I have met men with varying degrees of comfort with their sexuality. The most repressed men were insistent that they were 100 percent heterosexual, and that any same-sex activity they would engage in was "just horsing around."
I heard the phrase "just horsing around" so often I determined it was a code phrase. It allows for deniability and its use implies that any same-sex activity is "nothing to be taken seriously." It's a "way out" and rationalization of the shame and the guilt so-called "straight" men feel for having same-sex attractions or experiences.
Because of the connotation I have where certain types of men equate "horsing around" with same-sexual activity they are ashamed of, I am convinced that the sexual abuse Jerry Sandusky is accused of occurred. He may have used the phrase to try to deny the allegations of pedophilia during the Costas interview, but to me, he only gave himself away.
But what about men like Tim Curley? Why are they writing off what happened as "horsing around"? If it's true that McQueary left the locker room scene without intervening in the actual rape, why did he (beyond psychiatric experts saying that his brain couldn't handle the shock of what he saw)?
I think it's this.
Most ignorant people, especially sexually repressed or deeply homophobic men, believe that "gay" and "pedophile" are the same thing. Therefore, any sexual behavior that occurs between adult men and young boys is written off as "gay." The boys involved become viewed as willing participants instead of victims.
I believe it's the unspoken reason why many people who witnessed the behavior of Sandusky at Penn State stayed silent, said nothing, or didn't do enough. The idea of "horsing around" or "horseplay" is incorrectly viewed as natural sexual experimentation for boys and men. More men who identify as "straight" have had these types of experiences than would care to admit, whether it occurred as abuse or otherwise.
Additionally, my experience is that hard core "sporto types" of adult men expect boys to behave as if they are also adult men, even when they're ten years old.
So, even if you're a ten-year-old boy, you are not supposed to allow these things to happen to you. You're supposed to be tough and stand up for yourself; fight back or call for help. You're not supposed to let any man touch you, certainly not rape or have sex with you. If you do, then it means you're gay.
It's the equivalent of people saying a woman who dresses provocatively and then gets raped, 'asked for it.' If a boy allowed this to happen to him, then he must be gay and probably wanted it. So the adults who witnessed it say nothing; again, because they confuse "gay" and "pedophile."
That is the only way I can even come close to coming up with an explanation why so many men, according to the indictment, witnessed what Jerry Sandusky was doing with these boys and consistently turned the other way and protected Sandusky by staying silent.
Now, I certainly cannot claim to put myself inside Mike McQueary's head or know what his life experiences are. However, I suspect that if he had walked in on Sandusky sexually assaulting a ten year old girl in 2002, we would have heard about this story almost immediately and Sandusky would have long been behind bars.
Parents and observant adults, know this. There is no reason for a naked adult man to be "horsing around" or engaging in "horseplay" with a naked young boy in a shower unless there is sexual intent. Never.
Kelly Moore: What Should the NCAA Do About the Penn State Sex Scandal?
Steven Petrow: Queeries: What to Do If the Penn State Scandal Comes to Thanksgiving
Ian I. Mitroff: Colleges and Universities Are Ill-Prepared for Crises
Penn State Scandal: Bullying of Alleged Sandusky Victim Prompts ...
The Penn State Scandal - CBS News
The Penn State Child Abuse Scandal: A Guide And Timeline : NPR
This blog is a personal viewpoint of why I believe he committed the actions he is accused of. It's the court according to Paul Katz, not a U.S. court of law. : )
In google.books.com, use the search terms: 1920s+ horseplay sexual
which finds the link Love, sex, and marriage: a historical thesaurus - Page 70
where a definition states that horseplay is one of the euphemisms for "the act of giving sexual caresses."
In google.books.com, use the search terms: Cassells "horse around"
which finds the link Cassell's dictionary of slang - Page 741 where the second definition of "horse around" is "2 [1920s+] (US) to make sexual advances to, to indulge in sexual horseplay."
In google.books.com, use the search terms: 1920s+ horseplay "dry rub"
which finds the link Cassell's dictionary of slang - Page 455 where the definition of "dry rub" is " v. 1 [late 19C] to beat severely. 2 [1950s+] (US gay) to wrestle or engage in similar 'horseplay' with strong homosexual overtones.
In 2 out of 4 of the possibilities, the pedophilia is homosexual (gay).
In 2 out of 4 of the possibilities, the pedophilia is heterosexual (straight).
So pedophila can be gay or straight.
All heterosexuals are not pedophiles.
All homosexuals are not pedophiles.
Statistically (I don't have time to look it up right now) you will find that most of the sexual abuse of children by an adult is not only straight, but by a family member.
Any other claim is just prejudice as nearly as I can tell.
Clarify please. If Sandusky sexually prefers the male of our species, how is he not gay? Frankly, given the opportunity, men (most), will indulge in all kinds of acts of debauchery. Point in case is the guy that just wrote the book on he’s sexual relationship with a dolphin or the UCLA study that posed the question, if given complete anonymity, would you commit rape. 32% said yes and that was in 1992.
(It's much more acceptable to adults than saying that sex
can be about sex.) The reality is rather more complex than you think.
Case in point : adult males who groom young teens boys to be the active
partner in man-boy 'love' relationships. (I have personal experience in this
regard). Do you really think that is not about sex ? (And the adult males
in question were also in adult relationships with both males and females,
so the argument that they were only attracted to youth does not apply.)
Indeed, these days it is easier to be an ACUTAL gay man than a heterosexual male living under the constant fear that he will be perceived as gay. It seems to consume their every waking minute. Is this car gay, is this dog gay, is my sweater gay, are my shoes gay, is my hair gay, blah, blah, blah.
It's really rather comical, as they have done this to themselves, and continue to do so.
The case at Penn State, however, is a stark lesson in just where the heterosexual male's homophobia can lead. It can lead to looking the other way when a serious crime has occurred. It can destroy lives.
Straight guys should really wake up to themselves and start dealing with sexuality like men instead of little boys.
Or suffer the repeated consequences.
Gay people have to come out. We don't just walk into it. We have to pick up our sexuality, look at it, confront it, accept it. And we have to make a conscious decision about what we want to do iwth it.
Straight people never have to come out in that sense. Their sexuality is a given, and assumed, and supported. They never have to confront their sexuality, see who they are, make decisions to undertsand it.
I have met so many straight men who are ashamed and confused, who live in denial about they feel and think. As as we know from basic psychiatry, what you resist, persists. I know several allegedly thoroughly heterosexual men who, a number of my gay friends agree, always seem to be coming on to other men.
It seems that these big burly guys so identify and subscribe to the macho man stereotype that they perpetuate, if they were to be "soft and caring" to either a woman or a little boy - and intervened to rescue them, that they somehow would be accused of being gay as well.
It shocks me that McQueary and Paterno never were concerned enough to care about who or how the boy was doing after being sodomized. How could you not be concerned? He was ten years old.
I do agree with your point that these men seem to think that the victim has a choice, and if someone is being raped, that in some fashion, they want it.
How sad for all of us.
Here we have McQueary, a big guy over 6'3" and he leaves the scene to go talk to his Dad. Poor guy was "distraught" and once again, no concern/follow-up for the boy. He then recently sends an email and attempts to do damage control among his peer group (other football guys) since he is more concerned about his image with them. "I made sure I stopped it, not physically though" Again, no real concern for that little boy. The largest of men and the largest of cowards.
Maybe he didnt tell them about what he saw or, maybe this time around it was a bit more embellished? Because, Sandusky, contrary to belief, was not really wanted around the football program. After the 1998 issue, they really had no use for him. Paterno was not that close to him anymore. M!Q family (DAD) was very good friends with Sandusky family though. I imagine Paterno was glad Sandusky retired. Joe worked too hard for anyone to bring down his program, and it served no purpose what so ever to continue to have Sandusly around...but because Sandusky had not been convicted of a crime, he was still entitled to all his retirement benefits and that is why he had access to the facilities, had he been convicted in 1998, he would have been in jeopardy of losing his retirement benefits...as a state employee. So either MCQ is fibbing or Curley and Schultz are fibbing. The GJ says they beleive MCQ, but in the absence of a report (which could have been destroyed) and MCQ subtly changing his story, I am a little concerned that the 2002 incident may not have value to the prosecution case like it was originally thought.