Larry Kart

Sonnymax and others -- Since my posts yesterday here, I've talked to a professional in the field of human psychology, and he convincingly explained that your position is essentially correct and mine is essentially wrong. That is, pedophilia and homosexuality are fundamentally different kinds of behavior/states of being. Apologizing (see above).

The standard answer is that most abusers were abused - makes sense to me. But this is a complex subject and not one on which I feel I can speculate. It's a very difficult thing - almost like trying to put oneself inside the mind of an abuser, and I definitely don't want to go there. I find it hard enough to deal with the news about Sandusky et. al. as is. Well, I do want to put myself inside the abuser's mind insofar as that's possible because I think that is necessary; one needs to grasp (or try to grasp) what's going on there before reaching for a solution that better than "Put the heads of those aliens on pikes." Not that putting heads on pikes might not be what one wants or needs to do, but again IMO not alien heads; rather, all-too-human heads.

Seeline -- OK, Sandusky preyed on boys of that age. Does that invalidate the rest of what I said on my post? In particular: "...that if the both the gender and the age of a pedophile's victims remains consistent, then a male-on-male pedophile is saying something about his fantasies about his own male self in relation to maleness, and a male-on-female pedophile is saying something about his fantasies about his own male self in relation to femaleness." To this, I would add (should have said the first time) "...something about his own young male self in relation to" etc. I'm not say BTW that it doesn't invalidate what I said. I'm asking a honest question. Also, I didn't say anywhere that this isn't about pedophilia; rather, it's that I think (perhaps mistakenly) that pedophilia arises from grave distortions in the process of human development and thus is not utterly unrelated to the normal processes of human development, that these are not acts of alien-to-the-human-condition evil but acts of all-too-human evil.

Well, we can disagree about how much/in what ways/how often, etc., but not any? It's almost as though you've proved my implicit point, that we human beings have an understandably powerful need not to see what is/has been/can be there. I'm trying not to overreact to Larry's seeming comparison of homosexuality and pedophilia. I hope I'm wrong in my interpretation of his post, because this position is an erroneous and harmful misconception that continues to be espoused by many people within certain religious and political communities. If we follow this illogic, then what is sexual assault by an adult male on a female child, heterosexuality? Sandusky is a sexual predator, a serial rapist, and quite possibly a sociopath as well. The fact that his victims were male (at least the ones we know of so far) does not make him a homosexual. Even hinting at such a connection is dangerous, as it promotes ignorance, intolerance, and often violence. SonnyMax -- Sorry, but I don't see the illogic, not entirely. Yes, pedophiles clearly belong to/in a special category, but are you saying that pedophiles who are adult males and who chose as their prey adolescent boys (that seemed to be Sandusky's pattern) are utterly unmoved/unshaped by anomalies (for want of a better term) in their own childhood and adolescent sexual development, anomalies that were not unconnected with erotic feelings toward their own sex? Yes, those feelings were no doubt powerfully blended with issues (again for want of a better term) of power, but still.... As for your "If we follow this illogic, then what is sexual assault by an adult male on a female child, heterosexuality?" I would ask, "Is this behavior utterly without some shaping experiences behind it that have something to do with graves flaw in the pedophile's own sexual development, in this case something that has to do with his feeling about his own sexual identity vis-a-vis that of girls. Is the behavior, then, an example of heterosexuality per se? No. Does it bear some relation to feelings/fantasies about heterosexual behavior? I would say, yes. Or are you saying that pedophiles are only or essentially shaped by having been themselves of victims of sexual abuse, and that, if so, even the gender of those who abused them has no bearing on what they then go on to do? Tell me why I'm wrong, but I think that if the both the gender and the age of a pedophile's victims remains consistent, then a male-on-male pedophile is saying something about his fantasies about his own male self in relation to maleness, and a male-on-female pedophile is saying something about his fantasies about his own male self in relation to femaleness.

Dan -- The problem for me here is to establish the category "sickos" or the like in such a way as to imply that the line between them (and/or their needs/desires/impulses) and the rest of humanity were at once crystal clear and as broad as the Grand Canyon. No, we don't behave that way, thanks be, but we are IMO not of another race/wholly different order of being; we just managed to grow up more or less in one piece and not in significantly f---ed-up fragments.

Well, we can disagree about how much/in what ways/how often, etc., but not any? It's almost as though you've proved my implicit point, that we human beings have an understandably powerful need not to see what is/has been/can be there.

JETman and others: Anyone who's been around an athletic team setting, academic or not, and at just about any age level, ought to be aware that there's some (for want of a better term) potential homoerotic component in the air. Worst case or cases -- we know that that is/they are. OTOH -- and I certainly don't know how to handle these shadings (if "shadings" is the right term) -- but I think that a good deal of this is unavoidably part of all that's in play in boys becoming men/shaping their identities (and in girls becoming women, for that matter). And of course, among the adult mentors/coaches/hangers-on, there have been and probably always will be a certain number of people whose "issues"/desires/what have you significantly reside in that somewhat homoeroticized atmosphere. People like Sandusky who put their fantasies into action, and mobilize the resources of coercion and charm in order to do so, are, I would say, both a significantly different crew and not that different. For one, are not coercion and charm the twin poles of behavior that most significant leaders of teams effectively put to use? (In that, I'm reminded that in addition to everything else, Sandusky seems to have been a highly gifted football coach who taught several generations of celebrated Penn State linebackers their craft.) What I'm trying to say here, is that the world of organized sport, male and female, cannot be walled off from homoeroticized thinking and at times behavior -- it's on the table there because it's on the table in terms of general human development, especially when one is in the hands of (sorry about that) mentors, because that's the nature of situation and also because one sometimes needs/desires some mentoring. My point, I guess, is that to think in the face of the Sandusky-Penn State disaster that this is essentially a matter of "quarantine the alien vileness" and/or "hang the alien bastards high" or "purge the Augean stables" is to ignore the fact (at least I think it's a fact) that to some degree we live and/or lived in those stables, too, and for a reason, even of necessity.

Larry, The "substantial developments" came today in the form of the 8 month old commission report headed by the former head of the FBI being released, your two cents and voice of reason post , this is NOT going down the same road; rather new developments based upon information carefully collected with persons clearly pointed out who conspired individually and collectively that allowed 14 additional years of attacks on children to continue. This serves to substantially move information forward which may have been the source for argument among rabid former Paterno supporters, put to rest for all with reasonable minds. I said "subsequent substantial developments," i.e. developments subsequent to the release of th Freeh report and what it contains. For example, if Graham Spanier blew his brains out next week and left a detailed "I fess up" suicide note, that would be a subsequent development.

Hey, everybody. Just my two cents at this point, but now that we've got the Freeh report, and barring any further subsequent substantial developments in this sad and ugly matter, do we really want to again go down the same road we went down before -- i.e. one where most of us on the one hand express our indignation at how bad what went down at Penn State was and is and how heinous an act/crime child sexual abuse is, while on the other hand Goodspeak parses Joe Paterno's role in this situation in as narrow a manner as possible (though one that makes sense to him), whereupon a good many of us express anger or sarcasm at him in attempt to ... what? Nothing, it would seem, is going to move anything or anyone here ("here" being this thread), unless again there are further substantial developments to ponder and discuss. I'm remind of my favorite line from Audie Murphy's WWII memoir "To Hell and Back," grunted out numerous times by a weary veteran in Murphy's platoon as they slog there way through France and Germany: "Save yo' breat."

Yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Cole

Perfect!

This may not be quite on your point, but I don't recall the last time a male musician posed in the equivalent of the kind of garb Krall is wearing. Please no one post the naked Herbie Mann cover. Oh, right.

Agree about those wrong-headed remarks about Bunk Johnson, but they probably are pure "Bixing" because they're almost certainly borrowed from another person's semi-ancient formulation -- can't recall whose it is, but it's not Shaw's; fifty years ago I read something dismissive about Johnson that was very close to those phrases. Hey, it could even have been Leonard Feather.

This may not be quite on your point, but I don't recall the last time a male musician posed in the equivalent of the kind of garb Krall is wearing.

I'm there with you.

Wow, Jim! What a great book!

Mike Schwartz -- Your post was deleted because it was an entire column of copyrighted material. That's against forum rules. Please quote a little bit and post a link to the rest.

She doesn't look real happy to me in that lingerie, though I suppose she could have been told to took "pensive."

Agree completely about that DVD.

Guy Viveros Bubba Brooks Anyone (or almost anyone, in case there's a dud I'm forgetting) with the title "Sir" Also, isn't Earl Swope a great name for a trombonist? Especially one who played like Earl Swope

Damn

Jason Adasiewicz (that's pronounced "Featherstonehaugh").

Speaking of kings, even though he's not a jazz man, Roger King Mozian is a hell of a name for a trumpet player.

Yes I do have some reservations, but no, I don't feel like elaborating right now. Maybe some other time. Nothing dire, though, just that basically I didn't get the feel that Kelley fully grasped the continuing musical power and specialness of Monk's music at its roots. Rather, I felt that Kelley was writing the biography of a Great Black Jazz Artist, so to speak, which is certainly worth doing, but .., well, my ideal biography of, say, Beethoven or Bach would have to build outwards from the still-stunning and seemingly inexhaustible musical implications of their music. BTW, that last thought is in my head because the other night I heard Midori play in concert some of the Bach sonata and partitas for solo violin. It was a reminder that Bach remains, one might say, astonishingly hip. Monk likewise.

Edmund Gregory