|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Boy Scouts and Homosexuality
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
My local Council of the Boy Scouts is taking a stance against "changing the rules from don't ask, don't tell to openly allowing homosexual scouts.
A long time scout and leader is so pissed off by this stance that he is quitting scouting.
I think Mr. Moser has a point. When I joined scouts as a kid no one ever mentioned any ban on homosexuals. As an adult leader of many years no one ever mentioned a ban on homosexuals and I was happy to have gay scouts and gay scout leaders in my unit. From my point of view, if someone wants to be a scout or a leader more power to them.
Before anyone jumps on a bandwagon about sexual predators let me make a few points.
First, there a number of scouting programs with youth of both genders. Under the reasoning that gay men should not be leaders in Boy Scouts, heterosexual men and women adults should not be able to be leaders in Venture, Sea Scouts, or Explorer Scouts.
Second, yes we have a sad history of sexual predators. Now though we have mandatory training in youth protection; with extra training in multi gender units. Adult volunteers must all take youth protection training at least every two years and pass a test to remain volunteers.
Third, part of that youth protection is that no adult may be alone with any youth - ever. (Except their own kid.) If there is a Venture outing with males and females, a male and a female trained adult must be on the outing.
While the new emphasis on youth protection is not going to prevent 100% of problems it goes a long way towards it. Especially by training adults what signs to watch for so situations can be detected and stopped.
Apparently the whole thing came about in the 80's. The cant I have heard by our decidedly homophobic executive and our equally homophobic Council Committee Chair is that the morally straight part of the oath prohibits homosexuality.
(Cough) Bullshit (Cough)
The oath was written before the terms gay and straight came into vogue.
For me the ban should be on any adult who is using their position of authority to take advantage of youth. This includes sexual advantage for sure. It also includes pushing the adult's own agenda on the youth. So, for instance, a scoutmaster who regularly lectures youths on the evils of Democrats should be removed from scouting as quickly as an adult who touches a youth inappropriately. For that matter, adults who push homophobia on youth ought to be removed as well.
I have been thinking about it and think that morally straight ought to include the deadly sin of lust as well. That will solve the entire problem because there will be no 16 or 17 year old scout youth eligible to be in scouting; probably sooner than that in most cases. That way we can trash the entire program and quit having to worry about it.
What do you shippies think?
Not trying to start a deceased equine here. If it ends up in Dead Horses, it does, but I would appreciate people discussing just the topic of the OP, not homosexuality in general.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
I think that issues of youth protection have got nothing to do with Scouting's anti-gay discrimination.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
Has it ever been about protecting boys from male sexual predators? I always thought it was about not letting boys have role models who are gay, in case they realise that being gay is acceptable and doesn't make you a terrible person.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Has it ever been about protecting boys from male sexual predators? I always thought it was about not letting boys have role models who are gay, in case they realise that being gay is acceptable and doesn't make you a terrible person.
Give them homophobic bigots for role models instead. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Has it ever been about protecting boys from male sexual predators? I always thought it was about not letting boys have role models who are gay, in case they realise that being gay is acceptable and doesn't make you a terrible person.
That is a cynical view. ISTM, it is the combination of the religious element and the moulding of character issue.
I think Mr. Moser is spot on. But then, the element opposing has a history of ignoring the spirit of one's professed guidelines....
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I was a scout leader in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The requirements as I recall for any outings is that we had to register the camping or canoe trip (this was what all outings were for us) with Scout Headquarters, names of leaders had to be provided, and the leader getting the permit (this is what they called them) had to list the numbers of leaders and boys, and had to agree that boys slept in one tent (or more) and leaders slept in leader-only tents. Obviously there was an awareness of 'something', but what it was was never explained.
[tangent]
There were additional regulations about fires and other safety issues, and leaders had to have requisite skills in certain areas to do certain things, though wearing life jackets while canoeing was not one of them - we wore them shooting rapids only, which is what I still normally do.
[/tangent]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
My Mama decided that none of us should belong to any paramilitary organisation - we sang in choirs and got paid instead ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
What do you shippies think?
When I was in scouts the topic of how one likes to obtain an orgasm was never discussed except for one time at scout camp. Someone had talked about "beating his meat". Some other kid overheard it, filled a canteen with water, and whacked himself between the legs as hard as he could. He figured such an activity was not for him.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Under the "any aspect" guideline for Dead Horses, I've asked the DH Hosts if they reckon this thread belongs with them. Pending a decision, feel free to discuss here.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
In the US the Boy Scouts have a large number of Mormons in the national organization and provide substantial participation in the West. So they were part of the initial opposition to gay scouts as well as gay leaders.
As I posted on the dead horse thread, the proposal to allow gays has morphed into only gay scouts.
The people who say "don't ask, don't tell" is the solution are requiring the gay boys to lie by omission. That's an odd definition of morally straight.
Haven't heard much about atheist boys being excluded in the US. There is that case in Britain where an atheist 12 year old was excluded.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Not trying to start a deceased equine here. If it ends up in Dead Horses, it does, but I would appreciate people discussing just the topic of the OP, not homosexuality in general.
Hi Tortuf, that is the old rule - it's been superseded for years now. Threads on 'any aspect' of the Dead Horse subjects should be started in Dead Horses and we have an open thread on the scouting situation. I'll ask the Purg hosts to move this thread and then try and decide what to do as we now have two threads on the same subject. Would others please hold off till the thread is moved and I decide which thread to keep open or whether there is enough difference to keep both threads.
thanks,
Louise
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
There we go, that was quick! I've closed the old thread which Palimpsest mentioned and discussion can continue here.
Please remember when you want to mention a Dead Horse subject in your OP that the post belongs here and not in Purgatory, and you should check to see if there is an open thread already, remembering to set 'show threads' to 'show all threads' as we don't get as much activity as Purg and the thread you want may not be on the front page.
thanks!
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Both as a scout and a scout leader, I experienced what must be an anachronism. We were taught by word and example that we should (1) be ever cheerful even in the face of difficulties, (2) we should show restraint in our behaviour and discourse, (3) we should consider others before ourselves. I was naive enough to believe it, and naive enough today to think these things are still worth pursuing. Thus, we would have never discussed any form of sexuality at all (I don't think the word gay was common usage then), and we certainly would have never had someone "beating their meat". Swearing was something not done in anger even. Both would have resulted in reports to parents I'm certain. I remember the phrase "respect for the dignity of all persons", and also "a scout does not give in to himself [in the sense of personal desires]".
[ 10. May 2013, 19:05: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
What do you shippies think?
I think you're spot on pretty well throughout your post.
Especially the stuff about adults potentially abusing positions of trust. There is something incredibly discriminatory about assuming that homosexual men are more likely to do so, especially when Scouting has long since ceased to be a male-only organisation.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It's the age-old equation of homosexuality with pedophilia or pederasty.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
What I have found about scouting here is that involved adults tend to be in three categories: It's all about the youth and camping, canoeing, hiking, climbing, etc.; helicopter parents who hover over their kids (smothering them) and are willing to make sure their kid gets what they want even if it dilutes or messes up the experience for other youth, and; adults who are all about the bling. When you get the second two categories together life gets hard for everyone.
The executive of the Middle Tennessee Council and the Chair of the Middle Tennessee Council are bling types.
I get where the homophobia comes from. Scout troops tend to be attached to churches. A lot of churches teach that homosexuality is a sin and so you spark homophobia.
I am sure many more eloquent voices than I have ranted and railed here on the subject. It is just that Boy Scouts should never have been tainted with this idiocy.
Some of you may be aware that Boy Scouts of America is looking at allowing homosexual youth and having a don't ask, don't tell policy about adults. I want them to keep the hell out of asking, caring, whatever about homosexuality. If an adult is all about helping the youth they should be able to do so and should be thanked for doing it. If an adult is all about their agenda, including helicopter parents, they should get the hell out of scouting.
Why has the subject come up? First, corporations are not happy to be affiliated with a homophobic organization so donations are down. Second, lots of parents of children of an age to begin scouting as Tiger Cubs have grown up with openly homosexual friends and realize homosexual is not the bogey man they had been led to believe. They are not enrolling their kids is what is perceived to be a homophobic organization in droves.
Which brings me back to my original point. The whole no homosexual thing is not about the youth. It is about an adult agenda that has no relevance to the point of scouting in the first place. It is harming scouting and is therefore a cancer that needs to be cut out and thrown away.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I agree with you 100% - but have to ask tangentally.
Tiger cubs? Whatever happened to Wolf cubs?
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I agree with you 100% - but have to ask tangentally.
Tiger cubs? Whatever happened to Wolf cubs?
A slightly younger level for US cubs (I assume they aren't told about Shere Khan)
(Bobcat)
Tiger (started 1982)
Wolf
Bear
Webelos (1967, replaced the old Lion)
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Organizations sponsoring individual troops should be permitted to discriminate against gays. As reprehensible as doing so would be, scouting runs on volunteers, and nobody volunteers for work with people they dislike or distrust.
These decisions ought to be made at the troop level, however, not the council level. Those who disagree with one troop's policy should be easily able to affiliate with a nearby troop. It's about freedom of association, right? So they say.
If families are given a local choice, I'd predict that in most places in the country, the homophobic troops would wither away for lack of interest: the best possible denouement.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Organizations sponsoring individual troops should be permitted to discriminate against gays. As reprehensible as doing so would be, scouting runs on volunteers, and nobody volunteers for work with people they dislike or distrust.
These decisions ought to be made at the troop level, however, not the council level. Those who disagree with one troop's policy should be easily able to affiliate with a nearby troop. It's about freedom of association, right? So they say.
Allowing gay/lesbian scouters would lead to this situation since I understand the sponsoring organization has always had the right to choose the adult leaders for its units (e.g., a Catholic church can insist all adult leaders have to be active Catholics in good standing) though the BSA can veto their choice by forbidding the leader membership (e.g., gay, lesbian, atheist or too noisy in supporting change). This is assuming that the sponsoring organization is allowed to discriminate which would be true for all religious groups.
However there is still the question of gay/lesbian youth in the BSA (girls can join Venturing so it is not just boys). In some areas Boy Scout Troops are a bit scarce on the ground (it is one reason some Mormon troops have non-Mormon members) and Venturing units with a particular focus are also more scattered (how many nearby Sea Scout units?). So should units be allowed to discriminate against youth and on what grounds?
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Organizations sponsoring individual troops should be permitted to discriminate against gays. As reprehensible as doing so would be, scouting runs on volunteers, and nobody volunteers for work with people they dislike or distrust.
These decisions ought to be made at the troop level, however, not the council level. Those who disagree with one troop's policy should be easily able to affiliate with a nearby troop. It's about freedom of association, right? So they say.
Allowing gay/lesbian scouters would lead to this situation since I understand the sponsoring organization has always had the right to choose the adult leaders for its units (e.g., a Catholic church can insist all adult leaders have to be active Catholics in good standing) though the BSA can veto their choice by forbidding the leader membership (e.g., gay, lesbian, atheist or too noisy in supporting change). This is assuming that the sponsoring organization is allowed to discriminate which would be true for all religious groups.
However there is still the question of gay/lesbian youth in the BSA (girls can join Venturing so it is not just boys). In some areas Boy Scout Troops are a bit scarce on the ground (it is one reason some Mormon troops have non-Mormon members) and Venturing units with a particular focus are also more scattered (how many nearby Sea Scout units?). So should units be allowed to discriminate against youth and on what grounds?
In Seattle, while the United Way tried to wend a torturous way through claiming they didn't support organizations that discriminate but did support the Boy Scouts, there was a case mentioned where a Webelo was not allowed to join because his mother was a Lesbian. As one of the defenders of the "but it's traditional to support the Boy Scouts" explained, this is because Webelos involve mother/son participation.
Don't know if they try to enforce the no atheists rule in Seattle. That would take out a growing number of candidates.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Assuming this is correct, there is another reason the BSA is wanting to change the gay ban. The BSA has lost a quarter of its membership since the supreme court case about the gay ban.
Interesting point about leadership being mostly old farts. I guess there is a correlation, but I am an old fart and I don't see a problem with homosexuals in scouting.
Well they have a few facts wrong. It is closer to a 22% drop (though 30% for cubs) and some of the drop is due to councils being caught inflating member numbers (ghost troops) early in the decade. However there has been a considerable drop over the last few decades. This has also happened to other youth organizations but not at such a high rate.
One thing is the people voting aren't representatives of actual troops (youth or leaders) but of the sponsoring organizations (e.g., the LDS and the Catholic Church). I feel that the more progressive sponsoring organizations are not that organized when it comes to wielding clout at the BSA national and council meetings.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The BSA voted today to lift the ban on gay youth being scouts at their annual meeting. The ban on adult gay scout leaders remains.
The vote passed with 60 percent in favor.
This leaves many unhappy that the ban on adult gay participation continues and a number of conservative churches, including the Southern Baptists, unhappy that the ban on gay youth participating is being lifted.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Are you unhappy the Southern Baptists are unhappy?
Because I can tell you I am not unhappy that the Southern Baptists are unhappy.
It is a start. It is not enough, but it is a start.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
So the BSA is back to the situation they were in in 2004. They announced in that year that gay youth were allowed but they couldn't hold youth leadership positions (things like patrol leaders or doing an Eagle Scout project). That was apparently the policy until Ryan Andresen was kicked out for being gay (or allegedly atheist) in 2012 just before his 18th birthday. No mention, at least this time, that gay youth can't be patrol leaders so maybe that is a step forward. And of course they are out as soon as they turn 18 still.
Atheists are still banned both as youth and adults.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Watching this and the same sex marriage, I do wonder how much the conservative Christian anti-gay churches are making themselves a record they will be ashamed of in future years.
It is interesting that the Mormons did say they could live with the compromise. That's what probably allowed it to happen. I wonder if they plan to try and "cure" any out gay scouts in their troops.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Why are the Scouts affiliated with/run by churches in the first place?
My understanding was that the Scouts were an independent organization.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Why are the Scouts affiliated with/run by churches in the first place?
My understanding was that the Scouts were an independent organization.
The Boy Scouts of America uses a chartering system. Individual units (troops/packs) are chartered by an organization (a church, a school, a community organization, etc.). The chartering organization owns the unit and all its assets and liabilities and is responsible for recruiting adult leaders. The BSA can veto leaders (and has some requirements such as background checks and training) and even youth by withholding or yanking membership. The BSA councils own camps and other facilities that troops can use and are themselves separate legal entities; they (or National) also provide insurance for troop activities (something which some chartering organizations would have difficulty getting on their own). National provides some camps (notably Philmont) and has the monopoly on the Scouting program.
The Girl Scouts of the USA have a different system. Their troops are owned by the council not a sponsoring organization if any.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Why are the Scouts affiliated with/run by churches in the first place?
My understanding was that the Scouts were an independent organization.
The Boy Scouts of America uses a chartering system. Individual units (troops/packs) are chartered by an organization (a church, a school, a community organization, etc.). The chartering organization owns the unit and all its assets and liabilities and is responsible for recruiting adult leaders.
I think that the reason would be largely practical, since schools and churches have the kind of facilities that Scout Troops are likely to need. Otherwise Scout organizers would have to rent or buy their own facilities.
I'm curious as to what will happen, since many sponsoring churches are likely to disagree with this BSA decision.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
I'm curious as to what will happen, since many sponsoring churches are likely to disagree with this BSA decision.
Well the Mormons, the single largest sponsor, is ok with the policy change. The United Methodists, the next largest, is not likely to do anything (it after all works with the Girl Scouts and Campfire whose policies are far more progressive); though individual churches may cut ties. The big question is the Roman Catholic church. For most of the rest, it will be the individual churches making decisions not the denomination.
The American Heritage Girls, a conservative Christian youth group that splintered from Girl Scouts over god and gays (it claims about 20,000 members), had an agreement with the BSA over the use of the Venturing program (the one part of the BSA youth program open to young women). They cut the agreement the day after the change in policy. My guess is this will hurt the AHG more than the BSA (though they or their allies may try setting up an alternative program for [suitably Christian] boys).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The Mormons have a history of associating with, and profiting from, things of which they do not approve of for themselves. But I wager there'll be no pink scarves within Mormon packs. Same likely for Catholic packs. And/or their will be an unspoken continuation of "don't ask, don't tell."
After all, sexuality is not a course of study within that organisation, yes?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It is interesting that the Mormons did say they could live with the compromise. That's what probably allowed it to happen. I wonder if they plan to try and "cure" any out gay scouts in their troops.
I'm sure they're wondering if, twenty years from now, being the last scout troop to expel a gay member will have the same kind of cachet as being the last scout troop to racially integrate has today.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
One thing that made the ban in gay scouts (and the current ban on gay leaders) particularly awful is that it is based on merely identifying as gay, and not on being Ina gay relationship or having gay sex. So it basically is based on a belief either that homosexuality is a choice or that if it is not a choice it must be kept private - both beliefs that tend to make gays live lives of fear and shame, in my opinion even if they choose to remain celibate. And boy scouts aren't allowed to have straight sex (or any sex) anyway!
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Where did I learn to masturbate? In scouts, taught by older scouts. We were on a campout when the older scouts took us newbies on a hike to a cave. There they told us to drop our drawers, then they asked us if we have ever been in a circle jerk. They challenged us all to jerk off as a group. The last one to come won the circle jerk.
A variation of this is to take the newbies and challenge them to a circle jerk but say the lights will be off. The older scouts would then make sounds as if they were jerking off while the newbies actually were doing it. Then all of the sudden the lights would be flipped on. The intent was to embarrass the newbies.
Was this homosexual activity? Not really. It was same sex experimentation, though. Things like this happen all the time when adult leaders are not around. It will continue to happen, no doubt.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Tortuf: Third, part of that youth protection is that no adult may be alone with any youth - ever.
I always hated this one. I have worked and volunteered a lot with children (not in Scouting) and I have broken this rule at least 5 times per day.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Nowadays it is considered sexual abuse / sexually inappropriate behaviour if you are over the age of 10. On the other hand I don't think you can be charged with an offence where you're are also simultaneously a victim.
[Cross post in reply to Gramps]
[ 25. May 2013, 20:28: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
That was over fifty years ago. No doubt was inappropriate then as is now. Point is boys will do this. I imagine it is still often done now and is still rarely reported. Big difference between then and now is back then we would probably had gotten "a talking to," but now it would be handled as a crime, true.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
And boy scouts aren't allowed to have straight sex (or any sex) anyway!
Since the average age for scouts is ten the issue doesn't come up that often, even today.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Ten is not the average, it is the lowest. Scouting age ranges.
Slightly different in the Boy Scouts of America. In any case most places sponsor both Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, and the average age, where there is the greatest participation, is ten. After that they tend to drop off, but many keep going until they become Eagle Scouts at age 17 or 18. We had seven make it that far this year.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
The average age isn't relevant; it is the range of ages and the upper age for youth members is 17. Venturing is for those 14 (or 13 and finished eighth grade) to 20 inclusive (though the new rule seems to indicate that those who are gay and lesbian [Venturing has both young women and young men] will be kicked out at 18); there are about 220,000 Venturers according to the BSA; I suspect most are in high school and therefore 14-18. This number does not include regular scouts who are teenagers but not Venturers.
I note btw that The Scouting Association in the UK has sex ed advice which doesn't seem to imply kick any scout out who has sex. There is also an optional program, "My Body, My Choices: Promoting Good Sexual Health within Scouting" for use with the older Scouts program. It is not abstinence only though abstinence is listed as one of two choices (the other being condoms) that prevent sexually transmitted diseases.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Growing up gay in an area where the only available boy scout troop is at a Mormon church can't be fun.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Growing up gay in an area where the only available boy scout troop is at a Mormon church can't be fun.
Being a non-Mormon boy and wanting to be a scout in an area with only Mormon troops can't be fun. Another problem is that Mormon scout leaders are 'called' to that position by the church hierarchy and might not actually want to be scout leaders (and those that do might be 'called' to something else after only a year or so as scout leader).
The group this rule is most going to help are gay boys in troops that are already accepting because they will no longer have to worry about some busybody elsewhere forcing them out or denying them a rank they've earned. Atheist boys will still face that problem.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Well, this is interesting:
Boy Scouts exclude obese members from annual jamboree
This comes shortly after obesity being officially declared a disease in the USA, which will help many more people get proper medical help when trying to lose weight. Depending on who you ask, obesity is a disease, a disability, a personal choice, a moral failing ... or a liability risk.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Well, this is interesting:
Boy Scouts exclude obese members from annual jamboree
This comes shortly after obesity being officially declared a disease in the USA, which will help many more people get proper medical help when trying to lose weight. Depending on who you ask, obesity is a disease, a disability, a personal choice, a moral failing ... or a liability risk.
Or, from my point of view, none of the above - obesity is simply another body shape, not a choice 9 times out of 10 but whether it's a choice or not doesn't matter when it comes to treating all people with dignity and respect. Obese Boy Scouts are not lesser scouts because of their body shape.
As for obesity being labelled a disease, my body is not a disease, nor is diseased. Unless hayfever is suddenly related to obesity.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Or, from my point of view, none of the above - obesity is simply another body shape, not a choice 9 times out of 10 but whether it's a choice or not doesn't matter when it comes to treating all people with dignity and respect. Obese Boy Scouts are not lesser scouts because of their body shape.
It seems as though the boy scouts are using obesity as a proxy for physical fitness - at this camp, you will be hiking several miles up and down hills on a daily basis, and it's not reasonable for scouts who don't have a decent level of physical fitness to attend, as they will hold everyone else back.
They should probably require a minimum score on the bleep test and a cardiovascular endurance test instead, though.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Or, from my point of view, none of the above - obesity is simply another body shape, not a choice 9 times out of 10 but whether it's a choice or not doesn't matter when it comes to treating all people with dignity and respect. Obese Boy Scouts are not lesser scouts because of their body shape.
It seems as though the boy scouts are using obesity as a proxy for physical fitness - at this camp, you will be hiking several miles up and down hills on a daily basis, and it's not reasonable for scouts who don't have a decent level of physical fitness to attend, as they will hold everyone else back.
They should probably require a minimum score on the bleep test and a cardiovascular endurance test instead, though.
Particularly for tall children, obesity according to BMI (assuming this is what they're using) is not an indicator of health. Obesity according to BMI is not an indicator of health for anyone, since it goes by mass alone and not body fat percentages. It is incorrect to assume that obese equals unfit. Of course there are many unfit obese people, but there are also unfit people of all weights. I agree with you that the bleep test and a cardiovascular endurance test would be a much better idea.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
According to reports, the BMI limit used was 40 -- not just obese but morbidly obese. That's twice or three times the BMI of a normal healthy person. And it applied to leaders as well as participants.
The limit was made known to potential participants over a year ago, according to these same reports.
The sports proposed apparently include mountain and cliff climbing. I wouldn't want to be the leader on one of those treks or climbs having to hold back a bunch of boys scouts eager to move on ahead while someone 100 pounds or more overweight tried to catch up safely.
Much as I generally disbelieve what the BSA tell the world, this is a camp about physical activity this time round. Those who don't qualify shouldn't complain when they don't get to go.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
