Please stop homosexual activists and atheists

[NJCubScouter]

Bbng and Trevorum:

 

While the relevant handbooks do leave the door open for some limited discussion of sex and sexuality when initiated by a Scout, I don't think Trevorum's statement was really off-base in the context of what is being discussed here. What is permitted is for a Scout to come to a Scouter and discuss issues of concern to him, even if they involve sex and sexuality, and for the Scouter to respond within his/her ability to do so in a responsible manner -- which will usually mean referring the Scout to someone more qualified and/or appropriate to discuss the specifics. But the key point is, such discussions would never (at least as far as I can imagine) involve the sexuality of the Scouter. Or, sex in general, for that matter. The discussion should focus on the particular problem or concern of the Scout, and where to go for assistance, counseling, whatever. Conversely, the issue involved in the "gay policy" is the sexuality of the Scouter. That subject has no place for discussion in a Scouting setting, and at the same time, information about the Scouter that may be known from another setting should not be used to exclude the Scouter from the organization. (Unless the CO wants to.)

[Trevorum]

Thank you NJ, that is where I was going with my ammendment. A Scouter's personal politics as well as his/her sexuality should be invisible within a Scouting setting. But youth are naturally curious about these adult issues, and discussions will inevitably arise. We should be able to answer their questions about these subjects without bringing our personal redness or blueness into play.

 

I've never asked, but I suspect that some of my very best buddies in the troop are red (not that there's anything wrong with that...)

 

 

[bbng]

I agree NJ; you said it much better. A Scouter absolutely should not discuss his/her sexuality, and particularly with a youth. I guess our primary role is to be caring and responsible adults who are willing to listen and to be honest in how we respond (ie if we don't know, are uncomfortable discussing something, or think it's better that someone else do so--we should say so). I think we agree on this way of approaching this issue?

[NJCubScouter]

I just re-read my last post in this thread and decided I should make clear that while most of my post relected my understanding of what BSA policy is, the very end:

 

and at the same time, information about the Scouter that may be known from another setting should not be used to exclude the Scouter from the organization. (Unless the CO wants to.)

 

does not reflect current BSA policy, since the "information" in question would be that the Scouter is openly gay. What I said is what I believe BSA policy should be and what I think is consistent with the Scout Oath, Law and Declaration of Religious Principles... but it is not what current BSA policy is. I think most people probably figured that out but I did not want anyone to think I was referring to what the policy actually is.

[Hunt]

I'm pretty tired of the main topic, but I am interested in what it means to call somebody a "piece of work." I've heard this all my life, and it's not at all the same as calling somebody a piece of something else. I would say that it rather means that the person is somehow extreme. It probably usually has a pejorative sense, but not a really strong negative. Its closest synonym is probably, "You really take the cake." A common exchange might be:

"Can you believe that guy?"

"Yeah, he's a real piece of work."

This would be said after an outrageous act or statement by the person.

This is what you say about a person who makes you shake your head when you hear about what they're up to now--for example, Bill Clinton is definitely a piece of work--even if you like him. Newt Gingrich is a piece of work. But neither Dennis Hastert nor Al Gore would be referred to as a piece of work.

It might be said about somebody who always has some kind of wild scheme cooking, or who is always in trouble with the ladies. It's like saying somebody is a "character," only stronger.

How negative it is meant depends on the tone, and on the body language (mournful shaking of the head v. grin v. sneer), and you can't really tell that in print.

[packsaddle]

Hunt, I agree. Short of very carefully crafted prose (not often encountered here), the only way to communicate intent is to use one of those smiley-face things (it took me a while to figure out how to do it). And my repertoire there is rather limited as I am sure most of you would acknowledge.

 

To get a little more serious, I do recall a troop situation that offered an opening to discuss some of these issues. It involved some behavior by a group of scouts, instigated by one or two of them, in which unsavory and impolite (to say the least) remarks were made regarding women. (I'm trying to dance around the actual remarks but they had to do with anatomy, sex, and disrespect)

Anyway, we needed to address this immediately so we did. And then reported what was said to the parents of those boys (explicitly) and to the parents in general (not so explicitly) so they could follow up at home. After these boys get older and more mature (???) I look back on some of these incidents and smile.

But such incidents must be addressed and when the boys display such behavior we need to address it factually and explicitly, if necessary. Even if it involves discussion of sexual behaviors.

I think the key point is to try to dispel myths and confirm facts while trying (at the same time) not to give them too much new knowledge. Best to let the parents do that.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hunt,

 

You bring up a good point about the written expression, "He is a piece of work". I have heard it used on TV and a few times by people I know but not often. I have seen it written in this Forum as a way to express frustration with another individual's responses. It did not appear to be outright anger or a muted expletive but more exasperation with the tone or tenor one used in expressing their opinion.

 

The phrase has enough shading to it that it has meaning only to the one using it rather than the one receiving it. It is possible to understand it positively or negatively. Body language and the effective use of one's mouth give it a twist with a definitive meaning but even then, the receiver might take it as a way to express a shared joke about one's manner.

 

If one were to use the phrase here and then go on to explain how the writer feels in detail, then it would get to the point. I believe that since it is not clearly understood, the writer is most likely is trying to avoid confrontation by allowing the reader to take it as a positive or a gentle nudge but is hoping that other readers will understand the underlying message. It then becomes a subtle joke.

 

This has nothing to do with this column but I don't have the energy to spin-off right now.

 

 

FB

[OldGreyEagle]

Piece of Work = Paul Tuttle Sr

[NJCubScouter]

Hunt, my reference to "piece of work" as a possible euphemism was partly serious but I suppose included some exaggeration for comedic effect. As I and others have often found in this forum and elsewhere, what a writer believes is funny (or at least mildly amusing) often fails to have the desired effect on reader.

 

It is fairly clear from the context, however, that Rooster was not seeking to pay me a compliment. My guess is that on the "scale" of criticism ranging from zero (neutral) to 10 (what Pat Buchanan thinks of Mark Felt), Rooster's intention was to fling about a 3 or 4 in my direction. What I actually envision Rooster thinking about me as he typed was in the tradition of a certain former president, and I am sure Rooster will welcome the comparison, shaking his head slightly at his debating opponent and saying, "Well... there you go again."