Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > The General Reaction to Child Abuse Is Grounded in Show Morality

The General Reaction to Child Abuse Is Grounded in Show Morality

You might be aware of the recent guilty verdict against Jerry Sandusky on multiple counts of sexual abusing young boys. Even before this verdict, the intertubes were full of people calling for a public lynching or torture of that guy. I, however, find the public reaction to his crimes rather odd and full of show morality.

Before I go any further, let us be clear about one thing. From the very beginning of this trial, it was obvious that Sandusky had a series of rather odd relationships with adolescent boys for many decades. This brings up two questions that most people don’t like to discuss in any worthwhile detail.

1. How could a guy with such an obviously problematic behavioral profile stay out of trouble for so long? I mean.. look at the guy, hear him talk or read his books. He was almost daring people to come and get him.

Yet prior to these charges, he was a highly respected member of society. So how could a person like Sandusky keep on doing what he did for decades and with dozens of boys? Surely, he could not have concealed such an obvious behavioral peculiarity from all the people around him for years. So why did the people around him not care? What about his wife? What about the people who worked with him for years? What about the relatives of all those boys he abused. If people really cared about preventing child sexual abuse, they would have exposed and tried him decades ago. However their behavior during all those years suggests that they prefer the very American worship of money and fame, over doing anything to support their publicly stated beliefs.

The outbursts of outrage and moral posturing at his trial and conviction are therefore merely an unconscious reaction of the public upon being exposed as negligent hypocrites.

and this brings us to the next question.

2. How is sexual abuse of children any worse than schools systems that ignore bullying, parents who relentlessly push their kids into show-business or sports, or Asian parents who push their kids to excel in schools and universities?

What is the basis for saying that one action is more criminal than another action? Is sexual abuse by a middle-aged guy in return for monetary and other help really more damaging to a child than white parents who push their reluctant kids into careers in show-business and sports? Are mothers who continuously push their pre-teen daughters in beauty and dance competitions really damaging to their kids than a boy being forced to give a few blowjobs to Sandusky? Are the parents who relentlessly push their kids into professional sports careers not as abusive and damaging to their children’s future than a few ‘bubble fights’ with Sandusky? Are Asian parents who continuously berate, blackmail, threaten and abuse their kids for academic success any less exploitative or damaging than Sandusky playing ‘hide the sausage’ with his foster kids?

So why do people express so much outrage at what Sandusky did? How did he screw up the boys he sexually abused any more that parents who berate, blackmail, threaten and abuse their kids for their own personal gains or status? I don’t see people lining up to express outrage at dance moms, beauty pageant moms, sport nut fathers or Asian parents? If we were to use future psychological and emotional damage as the main criteria for deciding whether a particular adult-child interaction is criminal or not, shouldn’t a lot parents and teachers be in jail? If we are not using psychological and emotional damage as a criteria for something being right or wrong, what other rational criteria are we using?

What do you think? Comments?

  1. The Quest For 50
    June 23, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    You raise some valid points. I think it is harder to quantify damage done by some of those other examples you gave; but when the crime is physical, it can be more strictly defined by the law.

    Ultimately good and bad parenting is subjective, but it is part of the freedom people have in the U.S. to have some say in the way their kids are brought up (obviously society tries to homogenize the kids as much as possible, though). Once it crosses over into physical or sexual abuse, it can be clearly proven within the confines of our legal system, and therefore punished.

  2. InT
    June 23, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    I think the main problem is that the culture is hyper-competitive due to the zero-sum, neoliberal way the economic system is set up. When your kid has to fight for limited scholarships to avoid graduating college with an onerous debt burden, it encourages extremely stressful, high-pressure, borderline abusive childhood treatment.

    The real problem is that no one is questioning this setup. They just go along with it, largely ignorant of the fact that nothing bad would happen if it was made to be more cooperative.

    The wikipedia artcile even mentions how zero-sum thinking has affected black American culture, as demonstrated by the change in rap lyrics. This whole system is descending into a hellish situation where a lucky few make out like bandits and the remainder suffer miserably.

  3. Nestor
    June 24, 2012 at 2:03 am

    The consistency of symbolism here is very striking:
    http://www.whale.to/b/all_seeing_eye_hand.html
    Notice the photos of Obama and Romney.

    Also, clear proofs that Ron Paul is a Mason:
    http://secretsun.blogspot.com/2012/01/ron-paul-race-ritual-and-scottish-rite.html
    The photos of the handshake are a clear evidence. Notice the reasons why he chose to declare his running as presidential candidate on Friday 13 May, the day of the alignment of Mercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter and the beginning of the age of aquarius according to them. These people must be psychos.

  4. webe
    June 24, 2012 at 5:42 am

    Psychological damage is hard to estimate, since damage is related to healthy behaviour and personality, and nobody agrees on what that is. So it’s a completely empty term. One of the only things that is publicly agreed on is that sexual “abuse” is very very damaging. But that is not scientific either: by all accounts the reaction to victims of sexual abuse and the stimga attaching to it is far more traumatizing than the sexual actions themselves. And then there’s the problem that all sexual activity is rated on the same binary zero/one scale, whereas it is obvious that light petting is not the same as being subject to violence and gang-raped. One cannot publicly state such things, since it woulde be tantamount to some sort of “apologetic” for light sexual activity as less damaging, at least, in the “mind” of public opinion.

  5. Jim
    June 24, 2012 at 6:30 am

    What’s even more eyeopening is how acceptable female teacher abuse is upon boys and societal acceptance depending on attractiveness. I lurk at one forum that will gladly call for the gallows when articles about male teachers comes about but when the one’s about women arise, the guys there show the double standards to a tee. If the teacher is hot, they say not guilty. If she’s ugly, guilty.

    And keep in mind that if a religious organization is involved, the whole system is vilified. Yet schools and teacher are treated completely the opposite.

  6. jackal
    June 24, 2012 at 6:32 am

    Had Sandusky been a skirt-chaser, his wife would’ve perceived her own cushy lifestyle as threatened. Scorned, she would’ve made his life pure hell, to the degree that he would’ve never been able to have been a focused, successful coach. However, as a pedophile, Sandusky could operate under his wife’s nose, undisturbed. Sure, she knew all along he was a pedophile, but children didn’t threaten her lifestyle in the same way mistresses would’ve. And because her raisin-sized ovaries stopped functioning decades ago, as happens to most women whose interest in food highjacks interest in sex, pedophilia meant that she could fall asleep each night to snacks — not Sandusky’s sausage. In this way she was a passive pedophile, no less guilty than Sandusky, himself. If we are sending church officials to prison for not having reported priest pedophilia, why should Sandusky’s wife get a free pass?

    • Jim
      June 24, 2012 at 6:40 am

      Because she’s perceived as a victim instead of a willing partner in it.

  7. Nestor
    June 24, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    John F. Kennedy Secret Society Speech:

  8. Nestor
    June 24, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    From Wikileaks:
    Grand Lodge, F.A.A.M of the District of Columbia, Masonic Cipher, 1994
    http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Grand_Lodge,_F.A.A.M_of_the_District_of_Columbia,_Masonic_Cipher,_1994
    Scottish Freemason Officers List, 2007
    http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Scottish_Freemason_Officers_List,_2007
    Newfoundland Masonic Lodge Annual Report, 2006-2007
    http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Newfoundland_Masonic_Lodge_Annual_Report,_2006-2007
    Secret Ritual of Sigma Phi Epsilon 1984
    http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Secret_Ritual_of_Sigma_Phi_Epsilon_1984
    The secret Ritual of Kappa Sigma (1995)
    http://wikileaks.org/wiki/The_secret_Ritual_of_Kappa_Sigma_%281995%29
    —-

    People like to imagine that they have real power. For example- priests do that by pretending to understand “divine” communication, bureaucrats do it by creating more committees and sub-committees. The rich do it by trying to convince others that they have control over reality.

    In the end, they are just pissing in the rain.

    • Nestor
      June 24, 2012 at 10:29 pm

      True, but you should never underestimate their destructive effect. Don’t forget that feminism, multiculturalism, social engineering and other destructive laws were created by them obviously. Their basic principle is “Ordo ab Chao”; in other term, they destroy and build.

      Maybe you don’t directly see their destructive effect where you live, but where I live, I live through their destructive effect, I don’t just see it.

      And how can you call brainwashing whole populations through the media and the music industry “pissing in the rain”?

      The rise of the internet has created barriers to them as Jay Rockefeller explicitly stated:

      But we still need more to reveal them, what’s on the internet now is still insufficient and downplaying their destructive effect won’t help either.

    • June 25, 2012 at 8:59 am

      “People like to imagine that they have real power.”

      PUA’s do it with game….

      • Nestor
        June 25, 2012 at 9:41 am

        Control is something, and damage and influence are something else. For example, victims of mind control can be influenced and damaged but they can’t be controlled for a long period of time. PUAs can influence women, which they think is control, but they can’t control them.

  9. March 15, 2014 at 8:12 pm

    That Tiger Mom woman is a nutcase. Deep fucking article, but as someone mentioned before, physical harm is more noticeable, provable and therefore punishable than psychological harm. Otherwise, motherfuckers like Joe Jackson (Michael Jackson’s father), Gary Coleman’s parents, single moms seeking spousification of their sons and the likes would be rotting in prison to date.

    • P Ray
      May 20, 2016 at 12:09 am

      The Tiger mom woman is also ignorant of the fact that she probably got her job because of diversity requirements, and is assuming the life of her girls is going to be the same.
      I wonder how she will process girl on girl bullying – because such people are also very quick to fall back to the old “it’s t3h patriarkee” and “only men are violent” schtick.

      • May 20, 2016 at 12:09 pm

        Right. I’ve said in my blog topic about her that she is nothing more than white supremacy’s Geisha Massage Bitch.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: