Sexual assault among high school teammates

[jerseydevil]

The last couple of weeks the news has been covering two sexual abuse cases that occurred between high school teammates. The first one - is being called a "hazing" incident - but really it's sexual abuse.

A high school football team from Long Island was at a summer camp in Pennsylvania. While there some of the varsity players sodomized some of the younger players with a broom stick, golf ball and a pine cone. The younger players are 13 and 14 and the varsity players ranged in age from 15 - 17. Other players watched.

No one said anything about the incident until one boy's bleeding wouldn't stop for 3 days - he finally told his parents. The entire football season is cancelled - some parents are outraged by this. You can read more about the incident here...

Hazing Scandal Rocks School on Long Island
High School's Hazing Investigation Casts Pall Over New School Year
Three Varsity Football Players On LI Suspended For Hazing Incident
Students Protest Football Season Cancellation in Hazing Ritual
Pennsylvania DA Says School District is Stonewalling Hazing Investigation
Pennsylvania DA Vows Justice In Probe Of LI School Hazing Scandal
Brutal Hazing Charges Nothing New at Mepham High
Mepham Coach Denies Any Responsibility in Hazing; Says Players Kept Secrets
D.A. Seeks to Charge Teens as Adults in Hazing Scandal
Will Teens in Mepham Hazing Scandal be Charged as Adults? Decision Expected Today

Complete Search Results

Here is an episode that occurred in a high school locker room -

Officials Investigating Charges Of Abuse In Baldwin High School Locker Room
Baldwin Teenagers Charged With Sexually Assaulting Classmate

The most recent incident occurred to a 14 year old soccer player by a 17 year old. Supposedly soemthing happened on the field and then in the locker room the 17 year old and two other players held the 14 year old down while the 17 year old sexually assualted him. They don't say how he was sexually assualted. This is the only thing I could find right now on the web - but we have had this in our news for about the past week,

Arrests made in connection to teen sex abuse
October 14, 2003
An arrest has been made in the shocking abuse against a 14-year-old boy from the town of Friendship.

Police say a 17-year-old is behind bars, charged with sexual abuse.

Bail has been set at $5,000.

Police say he was involved in last week's incident involving the Friendship boys soccer team.

There is a report of a similar situation from Cattaraugus County this morning.

A 17-year-old from the Southern Tier has been charged with sexually abusing a 14- year-old boy, at the Randolph Children's Home.

The suspect is also charged with harassment and is being held on $5,000 bail at the Cattaraugus County Jail.

He's due back in court in November.

WKBW-TV Buffalo

So why are teammates resorting to sexual assault against fellow players like this? This I think it really disturbing. Some of the parents in the Long Island case asked "where were the chaperones during all this". As it turns out - because of the fear of sexual abuse by adults - adults are not allowed to stay in the same cabins as the students. Therefore the students are completely on their own - this also goes for Boy Scouts, etc. Now the parents are wondering if they traded in the fear of one abuser - for another (their children's own teammates).

I was just wondering about other people's thoughts on this.

What also seems strange is that this happens in front of many of the other players. I would think they would look at it as something "gay" - but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

[gimli7410]

eeeeew man thats disturbing. he was bleeding *shudders* oh my god what sick people. that is nuts.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Some of the parents in the Long Island case asked "where were the chaperones during all this"

Funny. Maybe a better question would be: Where the hell were the parents when they should have been teaching their adolesent children the difference between right and wrong?

--Dave

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I was just wondering about other people's thoughts on this.

What also seems strange is that this happens in front of many of the other players. I would think they would look at it as something "gay" - but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Classic locker room, or should I say pack animal behaviour, taken to an extreme. There's nothing sexual about its motives; it's all about power. I think we've all experienced this in one form or another.

Picking out the weakest ones in a group and humiliating them is, paradoxically, the best way of ensuring that they sign up to the group's behaviour. Individuals would much rather go along with the group than be the one picked on.

Truly disgusting, these people should be exposed in public, go to jail and have their careers ruined (in that order). Using terms like "hazing" seems like a way of downgrading the seriousness of it.

[Millane]

yeah well this sort of thing totally cements my feelings towards the 'Jocks'... i seriously dont see a lot of good things to come out of sporting organisations. sure i did the soccer, footy and cricket thing when i was in primary school but i outgrew it and i'm far the better for it, i think what is much better is having a group of good mates that you can go kick the footy with, without having a bunch of sick ****s with issues abusing you, id say at 17 and in those circumstances a scapegoat isnt always needed maybe they just have issues with their sexuality which i think is more likely to be the case...
an incident like this happened in one of Sydneys best private schools where a group of male borders continually abused younger borders with dildo's they had made in their woodwork class...
maybe a solution to these problems would be cracking down on sexual abuse in all its forms, whether it be the confused youths in the schoolyard or the sick bastard that gives the sermon in church.

[Sween]

The way we haze in new members to a team is each member of the team has to buy the new lad a drink and the new lad has to drink it. Sound pretty nice doesnt it? well not if there 20+ people in the team

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

maybe a solution to these problems would be cracking down on sexual abuse in all its forms, whether it be the confused youths in the schoolyard or the sick bastard that gives the sermon in church.

The majority of child abusers and molesters are the parents of the abused children, not jocks or preachers.

There is no connection between being an athlete and being an abuser, and there is nothing wrong with being a competitive person. These kids don’t have issues with their sexuality. That’s an understatement. What they have is an indoctrinated perversion.

[Millane]

hey i agree that the majority of sexual abuse would come from parents and i dont think there is a working solution for that yet, but as you can see the 'jocks and preachers' do get the media coverage, and if its going to be made an issue out of it should be portrayed in the worst light so as their can be no question as to whether you will be punished for sexual abuse...
you may be right but my opinion is that a lot of youths around the 13-18 age group are confused about their sexuality and i cant do this without stereotyping but the 'jocks' IMO would be the ones least able to confront their sexuality... could you please just explain what you mean by them having an 'indoctrinated perversion'

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Indoctrinated perversion? Modern psychology has provided well documented case studies indicating that most abnormal behaviors, including sexual deviancies, are learned behaviors. For example, many child molesters were themselves molested as children. However, there is still a significant portion of child abusers and other sexual deviants that do not fit neatly into this category. Just because a sexual deviant was not molested or abused as a child does not mean that their deviant behaviors were not learned.

It is becoming increasingly clear that changing societal norms, or mores, is the culprit. A social ethic of freedom that posits people have a “right” to do what ever they want to do has taken the place of teaching children an ethic based on virtue. If you define freedom as the right to do whatever you want, to fulfill whatever you desire, it follows that those with socially deviant desires (and to one degree or another we have all had some kind of socially deviant desire) find an ethical system that justifies acting upon these deviant desires.

Now place next to this a mass media that has turned sexual deviancy into a billion dollar business. How can people be surprised when they see such horrendous acts sexual deviancy reported in the evening news, when all they have to do is flip the channel a few times to see sex selling anything from beer to music albums? The advertisers will make little profit by portraying human sexuality as something sacred, and something that by its very purpose requires responsible behavior and accountability. They make much more money by portraying human sexuality as the object of a desire that we all have the right, even the ethical obligation, to fulfill as often as possible with as many swimsuit models or hunks as possible.

This is an oversimplification, of course. The problem revolves around the issue of primary indoctrination, and as such is affected by various and very complex social issues, such as poverty, working parent and one parent family structures, education (both of parents and children), the lack of mutually supportive communities, the depravations of isolated or atomic individualism, moral relativism, social constructs based on subjective philosophical constructs, etc., etc., etc. Keeping this in mind, I think its abundantly clear: modern society isn’t all its cracked up to be, despite the arrogance of our enlightened forefathers.

What makes you think that high school athletes are somehow less equipped to deal with human sexuality? That seems to be a rather prejudicial remark. Do you have any kind of supporting evidence to back up such a claim?

[Ruinel]

Damn!!! That's truely disgusting!!! That's NOT hazing! You are right! That's sexual abuse, if not outright rape. I can't believe that the 13/14 year olds said... "oh, ok... go ahead and stick that broom/golf ball/pine cone up my ass... it's cool."

As for why the other players didn't do anything and why they don't consider it a homosexual act, it's like what happens in prison I guess. I've heard that inmates that rape other inmates don't consider themselves "gay".

Edit: Just curious, I wonder what these guys would be charged with if the victims were girls and not boys. I think that the parents are trying to keep the stain of a homosexual rape charge off their sons' records. "Oh, yes, that is true my son has a criminal record.. what did he do? ... oh, he violently raped another boy with a foreign object so bad that the boy bled for 3 days." Now that's something a parent can be proud of.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
This is an oversimplification, of course.

You said it.

Some problems with this essay are:

1) If moral relativism is part of the problem, how come some of the worst perpetrators are moral absolutists (e.g. priests)?

(Moral relativism is not the same as moral poverty, as you describe the media)

2) I'm not sure it's established that these things happen any more often now than they did in the past. We certainly hear more about them now, but that could well be down to people being more likely to speak up about it, which in turn might be because society is less morally restrictive so they feel they can be more open about it.

Just a thought.

Like the avatar, btw.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
2) I'm not sure it's established that these things happen any more often now than they did in the past. We certainly hear more about them now, but that could well be down to people being more likely to speak up about it, which in turn might be because society is less morally restrictive so they feel they can be more open about it.

Yeah I was just about to make the very same point. A lot of people site these kinds of cases and decry how immoral and sick our society is now and its all because of that. I would hazard a guess that this kind of thing may have been more common in the good ol 50's then it is today in our hyper vigilant legally paranoid atmosphere in which even using certain language with a kid let alone touching them can get you in serious trouble. back then the media didnt even report on this kind of thing so it could go unseen. plus there was no conciousness of sexual abuse like there is now. I just was watching a news bit about the changes in the Air Force (american) Academy which was notorious in years past for being a breeding den for hazers and abusers and sexual predators. Until recently open abuse (called "beating") in the form of hazing was considered normal and a way to increase solidarity between classmates. A survey showed that 26% of the females who attended suffered some form of sexual abuse in their time their. 7% were actually raped. and even rape was considered part of the hazing process albiet kind of extreme (boys will be boys...). Now they have some new leadership in there because of our modern day conciousness of these issues and they have abolished hazing and even witnessing an incident and not saying anything about it can be enough to get you expelled. Not unexpectidly the number of abuse and rape cases has really dropped. So I think this has been a problem for a long time (I dare say as long as humans have been organized in small groups). And cant all be blamed on the godless deviant MTV culture of today.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Yeah I was just about to make the very same point. A lot of people site these kinds of cases and decry how immoral and sick our society is now and its all because of that. I would hazard a guess that this kind of thing may have been more common in the good ol 50's then it is today in our hyper vigilant legally paranoid atmosphere in which even using certain language with a kid let alone touching them can get you in serious trouble. back then the media didnt even report on this kind of thing so it could go unseen. plus there was no conciousness of sexual abuse like there is now. I just was watching a news bit about the changes in the Air Force (american) Academy which was notorious in years past for being a breeding den for hazers and abusers and sexual predators. Until recently open abuse (called "beating") in the form of hazing was considered normal and a way to increase solidarity between classmates. A survey showed that 26% of the females who attended suffered some form of sexual abuse in their time their. 7% were actually raped. and even rape was considered part of the hazing process albiet kind of extreme (boys will be boys...). Now they have some new leadership in there because of our modern day conciousness of these issues and they have abolished hazing and even witnessing an incident and not saying anything about it can be enough to get you expelled.

You can't really claim that the rapes among women at the air force academy is a past problem that ixisted before - becuase only recently have women been in the air force acedemy. This is solely a new situation.

Not unexpectidly the number of abuse and rape cases has really dropped. So I think this has been a problem for a long time (I dare say as long as humans have been organized in small groups). And cant all be blamed on the godless deviant MTV culture of today.

I do agree all these things have been here for a long time. I don't think that yesterday was any better than today. There were school shootings in the early 1900's - it's not a modern thing. It happened then - it's just that the media likes to report them more- even while schoool violence is down.

As for sexual abuse, people didn't acknowledge sex in public or on tv. So many early television shows showed the husband and wife sleeping in seperate beds. We report sexual events now.

What others have said - like the outrageousness of calling this hazing instead of what it is - sexual assault - has been brought up by people in the town.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You can't really claim that the rapes among women at the air force academy is a past problem that ixisted before - becuase only recently have women been in the air force acedemy. This is solely a new situation.

1976? Those girls are in their late 40s now and have daughters who could be in the academy.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
1976? Those girls are in their late 40s now and have daughters who could be in the academy.

You are right - it is 1976, I had thought it was sooner. But I don't consider 1976 as being that long ago. There wasn't the sexual taboo on tv that had previously been the case. I think during 1976 they would have reported sexual assault. I think prior to 1965 - 1970 is when they would not report things they did not deem family appropriate.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Gaffer,

If moral relativism is part of the problem, how come some of the worst perpetrators are moral absolutists (e.g. priests)?

I’m not sure if statistics would support this. Are the majority of sexual predators priests and other moral absolutists? Are sex crimes perpetrated by moral absolutists worse than sex crimes perpetrated by moral relativists? More importantly, does being a moral absolutist make one perfect? As a moral absolutist, I know that smoking is wrong according to the virtues of prudence and temperance… but I still smoke… I’ll work on it, but Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Edit: unfortunately, not all Catholic priests are moral absolutists.

I'm not sure it's established that these things happen any more often now than they did in the past. We certainly hear more about them now, but that could well be down to people being more likely to speak up about it, which in turn might be because society is less morally restrictive so they feel they can be more open about it.

I’m not a romantic who fantasizes about some idyllic past. I’m not sure what you mean by “morally restrictive,” but I’ll venture to guess you are referring to the kind of ethical legalism espoused by American Protestant and Catholic moral theologians in the 19th and early 20th centuries. If I’m wrong, please let me know. In a nutshell, this view held that all one had to do to behave morally was to adhere to a certain set of rules (i.e. the ten commandments, natural law, civil law, whatever). I would definitely not espouse any such morality, nor would the vast majority of other moral absolutists.

[I’m not sure if this really pertinent to our discussion, but since moral relativism and absolutism has been mentioned in conjunction with restrictive morality… The moral absolutist would hinge ethical behavior on achievement, not restriction… the achievement of a real and objective end to human activity. The moral relativist on the other hand rejects the existence of any objective end to human activity, and thus makes all human activity at worst pointless (i.e. the existentialists), and at best dependent on self interest (economic liberalism) or a will-to-power (German romanticism). If there is no end to be achieved, then there is no other measure more logically applicable to human activity than law. You see, it was the moral relativists, not the absolutists, who brought about the restrictive morality of mid-twentieth century America.]

Like the avatar, btw.

Its from the Maciejowski Bible. I’m such a big fan, I bought a helm designed in the same fashion.

Regards,
--Dave

[The Gaffer]

Thanks for replying

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
Are sex crimes perpetrated by moral absolutists worse than sex crimes perpetrated by moral relativists?

Not as such, but there's certainly a different dimension to an act of abuse committed by a person in a position of trust and moral authority, then covered up by the (moral absolutist) organisation he is a member of. So, it may be a different type of act from random act of abuse perpetrated by a pervert-in-the-street on a stranger (which is, by the way, VERY rare: most abusers know their victims)

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal

but I’ll venture to guess you are referring to the kind of ethical legalism espoused by American Protestant and Catholic moral theologians in the 19th and early 20th centuries. If I’m wrong, please let me know.

You're wrong, but in the nicest possible way. I have no idea who these people were or what they said.

The moral relativist stance I would espouse would be one in which purpose and value are human constructs which do not exist outside of our heads and which have different meanings for each of us.

Societal norms derive by some complex social negotiation and interaction, and all are contingent. Even "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is contingent! So, for me, moral relativism is an observed fact, not a stance.

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
If there is no end to be achieved, then there is no other measure more logically applicable to human activity than law. You see, it was the moral relativists, not the absolutists, who brought about the restrictive morality of mid-twentieth century America.]

I think I see what you're saying, but it's not what I mean by moral relativism. I think many proscriptive Victorian era moralists would be horrified to see themselves described as relativists!

My point is that moral relativism, as part of this process of establishing norms, validates alternative experiences, and acknowledges the need for respect for each other. Without that, the process becomes authoritarian or totalitarian.

Because of this, people who have suffered abuse feel less utterly alone, and that they will not be vilified if they come forward.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

I think we are really going off on a thread drift, but maybe this will tie in somehow.

Societal norms derive by some complex social negotiation and interaction, and all are contingent.

True, social mores are significantly dependent upon historical circumstance or contingency. However, social mores are also significantly dependent on human nature. From an absolutist’s perspective, there is a definite and determinable end, in conformity to human nature, to which human activity is ordered. In this regard, I can equal your certainty and say, this is an observable fact, not a stance. While historical contingency does indeed determine the formulation of particular mores (for example, Christian morality is significantly determined by the historical contingency of revelation, particularly the revelation of the historical person, Jesus Christ), particular mores also must conform to final causality because final causality is an observable reality.

My point is that moral relativism, as part of this process of establishing norms, validates alternative experiences, and acknowledges the need for respect for each other.

It is true that moral relativism has played a significant role by upholding one of our modern sacred cows: the virtue of toleration (which isn’t a virtue at all). True, a morally relativistic outlook holds that no one person, society or culture is “wrong” or contains elements that are necessarily false. The problem arises when we realize that a morally relativistic outlook necessarily assumes that no one person, society or culture is “right” or contains elements that are true. If there is nothing about someone else, a different society, or a different culture that contains something true or meaningful, then why bother with other people, societies or cultures? They are no better or worse than me, or my society, or my culture, thus there is nothing about them that could possibly interest me. This, unfortunately, is one of the prevalent attitudes on our college and university campuses. Quite the opposite of respect, relativism causes disinterest, and in our modern world, with its misguided deification of tolerance, has served only to perpetuate racism and bigotry.

Totalitarianism is more likely to arise from relativism than absolutism because relativism logically degenerates into restrictive ethics and legalism.

As an aside, Victorian age moralists, especially English moralists, were for the most part deists. The deist position is extremely subjective, in as much as it held that morality provided a set code of behavior to enable the commodious functioning and evolution of humanity. Morality, particularly Christian morality, was the agent to keep the cogs of western civilization in line...the deists made religion into the opium of the masses, as Karl Marx so poignantly composed.

--Dave

[Percy Weasley]

I agree that this is a disgusting trend, and while I could wax for some time about the reasoning behind it, my purpose in posting in this thread is to clarify the thread starter's comment on Boy Scouts.

I am a Boy Scout Leader and work during the summers at a Summer Camp. No troop is allowed to stay without an adult leader in their campsite. They are not allowed to share tents with the boys, this is true, but there is always an adult within fifty feet of the boys. Boy Scouts do not just set their youths free with no supervision whatsoever, and allow them to do as they will.

The main issue is that no adult may ever be one-on-one with a boy, protecting both the boy and the adult. The Boy Scouts of America stress two-deep leadership, meaning that at least two adults over the age of eighteen must be present during any one-on-one contact with a youth.

Just a clarification.

Peace to all,
~Percy

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Percy Weasley
I am a Boy Scout Leader and work during the summers at a Summer Camp. No troop is allowed to stay without an adult leader in their campsite. They are not allowed to share tents with the boys, this is true, but there is always an adult within fifty feet of the boys. Boy Scouts do not just set their youths free with no supervision whatsoever, and allow them to do as they will.

I didn't say that there was no adult supervision during a campfire night - but there is no adult directly with the boys at night.

...adults are not allowed to stay in the same cabins as the students. Therefore the students are completely on their own - this also goes for Boy Scouts, etc.

There was adult supervision during the football camp thing also. As a matter of fact the adults were in cabins next to the boys'. But when the chaperones are sleeping and the boys are by themselves - anything can be happening. That is what happened in this case. The adults were asleep - in another cabin as law dictates. During this time - there was NO supervision and the older players sexually assaulted the younger players.

Maybe what will happen is that two adults will have to be up all night to make sure the boys themselves aren't doing anything.