Your Turn Letters to the Editor

Athletic ability not always worthy of admiration

I used to laugh at gender studies textbooks for being outdated, but after reading James Galloway’s article (“Coach stung by sex sting,” Nov. 30) I don’t know if I am going to be able to do that anymore. I felt like I was reading something from the ’60s or ’70s. There were two serious problems with Galloway’s little rant. The first was that he had a naive notion of prostitution, and the other is that he had an immoral and distorted idea of sexual responsibility.

While I am personally opposed to prostitution, it should be an individual choice similar to smoking or drinking. Prostitution should be legalized because it would lower STD infection rates, allow women to set up co-ops to escape pimps, enable taxation and return to people the ownership of their own bodies, etc. But this legalized form of prostitution is something altogether different from the illegal forms of prostitution that actually exist in the United States. Prostitution, as it is, promotes human trafficking and other forms of exploitation and sexual violation. In other words, while it is theoretically possible that a person could get a prostitute without it being morally wrong to do so, it is simply not what happened in this coach’s case.

Regardless though, the morality of prostitution is a minor point. By far, the most disgusting part of Galloway’s article was the complete lack of sexual responsibility given to the coach (and men in general). People often act as though men can’t control themselves regarding sex and that men are therefore not responsible for how they satisfy their sexual desires. But stripping anyone of personal responsibility is convenient (for some people at the cost of others), wrong, and absolutely nothing else. It is convenient because when a woman’s “perfect” boyfriend does something abhorrent she can just tell herself that he couldn’t help it (and continue to think of her boyfriend as a good person rather than the monster he is), and because that boyfriend can do the same thing (not even monsters want to think of themselves as monsters). It is inaccurate because in addition to having impulses, many of which women can inspire, men also have something that is called “impulse control.” While this idea of “impulse control” is apparently profound (at least to a certain sports editor), I promise you that it is nonetheless real – I use it regularly.

In contrast, Galloway claimed that the coach only had four options: rape a child, masturbate, hook up randomly at a single’s bar or get a prostitute. He ruled out masturbation, saying that the coach was “too old” for it to work, and ruled out hooking up at a single’s bar by claiming that the coach had too much class to be able to do this (notice that picking up a prostitute is apparently more classy). This is why, according to Galloway, that the coach should have just been left alone. But what if we added to Galloway’s scenario and said that the coach couldn’t afford regular visits from a prostitute? Again, keep in mind that “Don’t have sex” was supposedly never an option. So, Galloway’s rationale would leave the coach with no choice but to start sexually assaulting children, which is as incorrect as it is vile. Hopefully Galloway didn’t understand what he was saying and will acknowledge that all people are fully responsible and accountable for their actions (regardless of if it’s a female babysitter, or the more stereotypical male coach). I would like to hear Galloway say this and to apologize for reinforcing ignorant ideas of responsibility that only serve to silence victims and the consciences of predators.

Then again, perhaps Galloway is not confused but is rather being convenient. After all, the coach was successful in his job and to imply that a bad person can be successful at sports might just imply that athletic ability alone doesn’t make someone worthy of admiration. I can see how someone who devotes himself to sports would take offense to this and construct the elaborate scenario/rationalization that he did in order to try and make the coach’s actions seem justified.

– Karl N. Dorn

*Editor’s Note: Andrew J. Bria, 56, was charged with one count of patronizing a prostitute. A preliminary hearing is scheduled Feb. 16. If convicted, he faces up to one year of probation or imprisonment.