Scandal at Penn State is about 'rape' ... not 'sex'

Let’s say a series of rapes occurred in a small town. The victims were all women who were students at a large university. Then the cops bust a man for the crimes. He is a professor at the same school.

Should the headline be Sex Scandal at the University?

No, because a sex scandal is when a prominent person gets caught having a fleshy relationship with the wrong adult. Rape is a crime!

OK, then why are the media calling what crimes Jerry Sandusky is being accused of a Sex Scandal at Penn State?  Yes, I'm wondering why more people aren't pissed off about blurring the distinction between what society calls “rape” and what it calls “sex.”

Sex might imply all sorts of things, some legal, some not. Sex a vague word, but most of the time its use implies that we’re talking about a consensual act. Rape is always a crime. In this case, we're talking about the raping of several children.

Therefore, it doesn’t matter if Sandusky, or anybody else, says it was a consensual act.

But as disgusting as it might sound, to fend off the charges, it seems Sandusky might be saying the acts were expressions of his affection, rather than his lust. If you read between the lines of his bizarre statements to the press, perhaps that’s one way this guy has been able to rationalize his crimes. Maybe Sandusky thinks what he was doing was OK, because he was helping those needy boys so much.

Still, that doesn’t explain away why so many in the media are mislabeling charges of “statutory rape,” as “sex.” Are the editors unwittingly buying into the idea that if the victims didn't resist -- maybe even liked -- what went on, then it somehow mitigates Sandusky's behavior?

Infuriating bottom line: Over the years, hasn’t that been the most common defense offered by serial rapists? Violent, soulless monsters who wink at us and then say the sexy victim actually liked it?