I haven't written much about the trial of Jerry Sandusky, the Penn State football team's former defensive coordinator accused of sexually assaulting 10 boys over 15 years, because there isn't a whole lot I have to say about the case I didn't say when it was first reported, or that I haven't said, literally, dozens of times before.
I have been reading coverage of the trial. It is not good. There is rape apologia all over it, in every minimizing euphemism and every bit of oblique victim-blaming and the reminders that, hey, those boys could be lying, even though there is no answer to the obvious question why, given the overwhelming disincentives against publicly identifying as a survivor of sexual violence, no less pointing your finger at your rapist, no less when he is famous, beloved, worshiped.
This CNN story is one of the better articles, and still contains this:
A 25-year-old man testified Wednesday that as a boy, he was abused by Jerry Sandusky and that Sandusky threatened him and then later apologized, telling the child that he loved him and that he didn't mean the threat."Engaging in oral sex" connotes consent. A child cannot consent. The man testified that Sandusky orally raped him.
...He testified the school's longtime assistant football coach sexually abused him on at least five different occasions in the basement of his central Pennsylvania home, pinning him down and engaging in oral sex.
Supposedly, we "all" agree that rape is terrible, in which case we should all be invested in dismantling the rape culture, a key part of which is not misrepresenting rape as consensual sex acts via gross euphemisms. But here we are. Again.