This story is multi-faceted with so many different angles, causes and repercussions, I wanted to put some them together to try to find some context.

First, let’s call these alleged crimes at Penn State what they are writes Tommy Christopher at Mediaite:

The nomenclature surrounding “sex crimes” is already hopelessly sterile, and the media routinely refers to cases of rape and sexual assault as “sex scandals,” but that makes it no less important to call them out every time they do it.

Sandusky is not accused of “having sex” with little boys, he is accused of raping them. In our civilization, “sex” with a child is not possible, since a child cannot consent to sex. As I half-listened to the news all day today, then, and I heard repeated references to “the Penn State sex scandal,” it pissed me off. It made my blood steam a little bit, like a hot cup of coffee.

(I would apply this criticism to the Dominique Strauss-Kahn alleged sexual assault which was often referred to as a “sex scandal.”)

Many have made the connection between the cover-up at Penn State and the Catholic Church’s cover-up of child molestation. Maureen Dowd made it in her Tuesday column in the New York Times:

Like the Roman Catholic Church, Penn State is an arrogant institution hiding behind its mystique. And sports, as my former fellow sports columnist at The Washington Star, David Israel, says, is “an insular world that protects its own, and operates outside of societal norms as long as victories and cash continue to flow bountifully.” Penn State rakes in $70 million a year from its football program.

Lawrence O’Donnell also discussed the failure of institutions and the people within them with with filmmaker Michael Moore on The Last Word.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There was a lot of reaction on Twitter last night as protesters and rioters took to the streets at Penn State in support of Paterno.

@shayera tweeted:

Why don’t more abuse victims come forward? Just look at the scene at Penn State and I think you have an answer.

@ultraverified wrote:

I remember when college students protested against violations of civil rights, not to defend child molesters and their enablers.

LeVar Burton (yes, that LeVar Burton) tweeted:

Now might be an appropriate time for us to re-evaluate the importance we place on both collegiate and pro sports in this culture!

On this topic of college sports, Buzz Bissinger concluded in The Daily Beast that not only should the entire Penn State coaching staff go..

And so, frankly, should major college football and basketball as it exists now, rotten beyond repair, as has been pointed out a thousand times. Totally disconnected from the academic experience, they are insulated kingdoms with their own rules and reigns of terror because of the money they make, trading in illegal recruiting and illegal gifts and illegal favors, and now, thanks to Penn State, alleged sexual abuse of children by a former coach who must have assumed he would always be protected. Just like a Mafia soldier.

Except that the even the Mafia has higher moral standards.

In the DailyKos, Kevin Powell links the Penn State story to another big story of the week – the Herman Cain sexual harassment (sexual assault?) allegations. He laments, “what a disaster manhood is when it is unapologetically invested in power, privilege, patriarchy, sexism, and a reckless disregard for the safety and sanity of others, especially women and children.”

Every single year, it seems, some well-known man somewhere gets into trouble because of sex, money, drugs, or violence, or some combination thereof (and God only knows how many unknown males do likewise). It is always the same themes, just with a new cast of characters. Yesterday it was priests of the Catholic Church. Today it is the male leadership of Penn State. Yesterday it was Anthony Weiner and Charlie Sheen. Today it is Herman Cain.

He concludes:

If any good can come of the Cain and Penn State disasters it is my sincere hope that spaces and movements are created, finally, where we men can really begin to rethink what manhood can be, what manhood might be. Manhood that is not about power, privilege, and the almighty penis, but instead rooted in a sense of humanity, in peace, in love, in nonviolence, in honesty and transparency, in constant self-criticism and self-reflection, and in respect and honor of women and girls, again, as our equals; in spaces and movements where men and boys who might not be hyper-macho and sports fanatics like some us are not treated as outcasts, as freaks, as less than men or boys. A manhood where if we see something bad happening, we say something, and not simply stick our heads in the sand and pretend that something did not happen. Or worse, yet, do something wrong ourselves, and when confronted with that wrongness, rather than confess, acknowledge, grow, heal, evolve, we instead dig in our heels and imagine ourselves in an all-out war, proclaiming our innocence to any who will listen, even as truth grows, like tall and daunting trees in a distant and darkened woods, about us.

Layers and perspectives will surely develop as the more details emerge from the story. What I think these views show is not just a breakdown in the system at Penn State, but a breakdown of institutions having any consideration for individuals as human beings. When the culture at a university or a church (a church!) prioritizes the perpetuation of itself instead of children, then something is deeply wrong with the people who run the institution.

There’s something to the O’Donnell/Moore interview about how this breakdown happens over and over again. Institutions, corporations, and business are made up of many people. The cultures at those entities are made by the people within them. So, why is it that so many men (it’s often men) can turn a blind eye to repeated and flagrant misdeeds? Part of it is greed, but where did breakdown with these men occur that allowed greed and the need to be right to make them turn away from helping their fellow human being?

Powell suggested “creating spaces and movements” to address this. We must crawl before we can walk, but spaces won’t suffice. If this culture of masculinity is embedded in so many men from childhood, change on this front will require movements. To create a culture where it doesn’t contribute to tragedies like these, masculinity will have to redefined and recreated from the ground up.

It probably would be.

If the genders were reversed, would it still be offensive?

Check out TubeCrush.net to find out. It’s a UK site in which pictures are taken of men – without their knowledge - on the London Underground. The photos are submitted to the site and then the folks at TubeCrush write captions like this:

Let’s play a game shall we? It’s similar to Simon Says, but this one is called Jack Will. Basically you stay stuff that you think he should do, and he’ll do it. I’ll go first…

Jack will…make my jaw hit the floor because he’s so hot.

Next up…

Jack will…take his top off….(well, we can dream can’t we?)

Kind of cute? Kind of cheesy? Yes. Offensive? Not to me. None of the pictures I’ve seen go down shirts or up shorts. They don’t show anything explicit.

The viewing and consuming a male body by a woman is different than a man looking at a woman’s body. The nature of what makes a man physically attractive is easier to talk about in polite conversation. “Take off his top” from the caption above, is a lot different than “Take off her top.” Men are generally more sexually aggressive and perceived as more sexually threatening than women. And a man gawking at a woman – especially without her knowledge or consent – can be threatening.

We’ve reached the point where if you’re in public, anything you do is up for grabs by a camera. (So, be aware what you’re doing.) When non-consensual photographs are taken for sexual titillation, though, and regardless of the shooter, viewer or subject, the whole endeavor still gives off a whiff of creepiness.

But it matters who the shooters, viewers and subjects are, I wouldn’t say there’s a double-standard when it comes to TubeCrush. A website with pictures of women for a male audience wouldn’t be the same situation.

What do you think?

H/t: Salon. See also: Good Men Project

Follow me on Twitter and let’s connect on Facebook.

In just a few minutes on Google I found two “Facebook killers” (here and here), a “Facebook shooting,” a “MySpace murder trial” and a “Twitter murder.” Then, of course, there is the “Craigslist Killer.”

Now, it’s Match.com’s turn to be associated with a crime.

The dating site will now screen its members against the National Sex Offender Registry. This is after a California woman, Carole Markin, alleges she was sexually assaulted by a man she met on the dating site. Here are some of the facts of the case from CNN/HLN:

Markin claims she met a man named Alan Wurtzel, who according to the lawsuit has a record of “six separate convictions for sexual battery” in Los Angeles County alone.

She told HLN that Wurtzel forced her to perform sexual acts on him, at her residence, while they were on their second date.

Markin said afterward, “I looked up his name (on the computer) and I saw that he had a bad past.”

An attorney for Wurtzel, in a statement sent to HLN, said her client and Markin engaged in consensual, romantic contact together and then, “Eight days later she inexplicably called police.”

The civil class action lawsuit against Match says the dating site failed, “to undertake a basic screening process that disqualifies from membership anyone who has a documented history of sexual assault.”

First, let me say that this woman is not to be blamed at all for what allegedly happened. Her attacker is to blame.

But I don’t think Match is to blame either.

In an interview on “Good Morning America,” titled “Match.com Assault Victim Speaks Out,” Markin said, “I just didn’t expect that there would be somebody with a criminal background on the service… When you’ve met nice successful men previously on the same site, you just don’t assume the worst.”

A stranger is a stranger no matter where you meet them. And you can’t blame the website or bar or library where you meet someone if they say one thing, but turn out to be something else.

I was on Match for six months before I met my wife Holly there. It was a good experience, but as I perused profiles, I knew I couldn’t completely know a prospective date from what I learned about them on Match. As much “winking,” emailing or talking on the phone transpired, those first dates were blind dates in many ways. I was still meeting a stranger.

What’s bothering me about this story is that it portrays the Internet as a uniquely scary place. It’s the implication that this alleged crime happened because of its connection to an Internet dating site.

Match.com president Mandy Ginsberg said “Match.com is a fantastic service, having changed the lives of millions of people through the relationships and marriages it has given rise to, but people have to exercise common sense and prudence with people they have just met, whether through an online dating service or any other means [emphasis added].” Exactly.

I once read somewhere that the Internet is like life. Many good things happen every day, but bad things can happen too. Steps can be taken to reduce the risk of some of those bad things from happening, but the Internet itself isn’t to blame.

The Internet is still relatively new and it’s human nature for someone to fear what they don’t know. The news media uses well-known companies and crime to create headlines that try to exploit that fear for ratings or (ironically) pageviews. These crimes are actually about the people who allegedly committed them and their victims. The crimes themselves shouldn’t be an indictment of the way in which they met.

The numbers are staggering. Ellison writes: “Last year nearly 50,000 male veterans screened positive for “military sexual trauma” at the Department of Veterans Affairs, up from just over 30,000 in 2003.”

But in addition to stories of male victims and the military’s attempts to address the problem, the Ellison’s piece also addresses the idea of how the military at-large and individual soldiers view themselves.

We don’t like to think that our men can be victims,” says Kathleen Chard, chief of the posttraumatic-stress unit at the Cincinnati [Department of Veterans Affairs]. “We don’t want to think that it could happen to us. If a man standing in front of me who is my size, my skill level, who has been raped—what does that mean about me? I can be raped, too.

Ellison also quotes Aaron Belkin from the Palm Center, a research group that studies gays in the military:

The military doesn’t want to talk about it because, as embarrassing as male-female rape is, [from their perspective] this is even worse. The very fact that there’s male-on-male rape in the military means that there are warriors who aren’t strong enough to fight back.

We like to think of the women and (especially) men who serve in the military as heroes, not “victims” as Chard said. By fighting our wars and protecting our freedom, members of the military are the embodiment of American strength and power. When these male soldiers become victims of rape, there isn’t a way to comprehend male victimhood and the violation of American strength and masculinity.

Ellison writes:

For most of military history, there was neither a system nor language in place to deal with incidents of soldier-on-soldier sexual assault. It wasn’t until 1992 that the Defense Department even acknowledged such incidents as an offense, and initially only female victims were recognized. But last year more than 110 men made confidential reports of sexual assault by other men, nearly three times as many as in 2007. The real number of victims is surely much higher.

Read the entire piece at The Daily Beast.

Photo credit: The U.S. Army / Flickr

Let’s connect on Twitter and Facebook.

That’s what they’re trying to figure out in Cleveland, Texas where this horrible event allegedly occurred.

So, how do we raise boys to fight sexism and sexual violence and prevent tragedies like this from happening?

In discussing black masculinity and rape culture – all 18 suspects are black – Akiba Solomon of ColorLines contacted sociology professor Dr. R. L’Heureux Lewis and asked for some thoughts. Lewis, who writes about black masculinity, responded with his reaction to the assault and what parents can do to raise black boys to reject and fight sexism and rape.

The focus of Solomon’s post is on black men and boys, though sexism and rape is certainly not just a black male problem. In fact, a lot of the advice is applicable to all men.

Here are some of Lewis’s points:

Whenever a tragedy like this happens, we have to start by acknowledging the value of human life.

Some of these boys and men taped the [assault] and showed it to other people. This tells me that they lack boundaries around the safety of sex…We also need to ask why other people saw a video depicting sexual violence against a girl and said OK, why only one person came forward and said ‘This is wrong.’

We need to examine how we define masculinity as well. We’ve latched on to the most superpowered image of white masculinity, what sociologist Michael Kimmel calls the Marketplace Man. The Marketplace Man is a successful businessman, he has power over his home and power over women. But since black men [don’t have] power equal to white men’s, we’ve created a perverted way to [compensate] for it. Women become our currency. If you have no money but you have five women, you’ll be all right.

One easy exercise you can try with boys or even among your friends: Ask them to describe a ‘real man.’ You’ll likely get a laundry list like, ‘A real man is strong! A real man has all the money! A real man has the power!’ Next, ask, ‘Of all of those things, which do you have?’ In answering this question, boys realize how unreal it is to be a baller-slash-star-athlete-slash-rocket scientist. They begin to see how anybody can question their manhood because they don’t have all of these qualities. Finally, ask, ‘Of the men you know in your community, name the ones you respect and what you respect about them.’ This exercise helps boys create an alternate view of masculinity. That’s the first step in forming a model for healthy black male sexuality.

Read the entire post at ColorLines. Also read Solomon’s summary and analysis of the alleged assault, the victim-blaming and the racial dynamics of the case.

See also:
The Man Box

Follow me on Twitter and connect with me on Facebook.

Ever lied to get laid? You could do time for it in Israel. An Arab man told a woman he was didn’t tell a woman he’s not Jewish, and she had consensual sex with him. The truth came out, and he was sentenced to 18 months in jail for “rape by deception.” [The Daily Beast via Haaretz]

“Three penises are worth one womb.” Disposable Males. [All Men Are Liars]

A team of scientists examined differences in athletic ability among blacks and whites through evolution and heredity, not through race. [Slate]