Philly raises scouts rent $199,999/year

[erickelly65]

I dont pretend to know much about the background of anyone here or their history of posts. I do think the safety implications of any change to the requirements for leadership (i.e. allowing women to be Scoutmasters, or allow Homosexuals (male or female)would warrant a discussion of the operational implications (meaning what changes, if any, need to be made to our guidelines to ensure a safe environement for our youth (and adults))

 

To me, bringing those issues up that someone who is attracted to a particular gender may act on it and how do we mitigate that risk isnt irrational. Do I think that risk is managable and can be mitigated with the G2SS but still would have to be considered.

 

Mervyn,

It is my understanding that in Girl Scouts a male can be A leader but not THE leader of a troop. (much like the old BSA program that allowed women leaders but not women Scoutmasters)

 

Also, just as you said, the Girl Scouts have a policy that there must be a female leader present. The boyscouts just have a requirement there be 2 leaders present (no gender requirements)

[DanKroh]

erickelley writes "To me, bringing those issues up that someone who is attracted to a particular gender may act on it and how do we mitigate that risk isnt irrational."

 

And if that's what they were doing, that would be another thing entirely. By asking, for instance, "What is the chance of a homosexual man also being a pedophile/ephebophile? Would G2SS/Youth Protection precautions have to change if we had gay leaders?"

 

That's a discussion starter. What onehouraweekmy did was a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" intimation of "the gays will molest our sons, they can't help themselves, are YOU ready to let that happen?" Not the same thing at all.

 

If I were a Freudian, I would say that all aversions/strong dislikes stem from unconscious fear, which in turn, stems from childhood trauma. Luckily, I'm not a Freudian, so I don't believe that everyone who exhibits disapproval of homosexuality is a homophobe (although some define homophobia to include disapproval). But I've seen a lot of homophobia in my line of work, and how it affects those it is directed against (especially the young people). So when someone makes a truly homophobic comment, they are not interested in discussion, and I'm not interested in calling it anything else but what it is.

[Gold Winger]

"wonder on what basis you think you can speak for the 'average heterosexual man'?"

 

You're right, I cannot. I'm smarter than average. Taller than average. Better looking than average (or so I'm told). Fitter than average. Dress better than average. And have far better taste in cars and motorcycles than average. :-)

 

Actually, I base my comments on my interactions with a wide cross section of people, of all ages and from many walks of life.

 

[erickelly65]

Goldwing...don't forget "more humble"!!!

[Gold Winger]

"Goldwing...don't forget "more humble"!!!"

 

I believe it was Mickey Mantle who said, "it aint braggin' if its true." :-)

[Lisabob]

"We would never think of allowing unrelated women to camp with our boys given all the possibilities for improper contact or even the appearance of improper contact."

 

Lock up your men and children, the women are goin' campin'!

 

Onehouraweekmy... you are aware, right, that the BSA policy does NOT require female Scouters to be related to anybody in the troop, pack, crew, team, or ship?

 

Similarly, you are aware, right, that women can and do hold the full range of scouting positions, regardless of whether they have male relatives in the program?

 

There are a few groups in our society who try to limit contact between men and women who are not related or married to each other on the assumption that even casual or business relations between un-related people of opposite genders could cause some kind of sexual immorality to occur. However, this is not a very common view in mainstream society.

 

So I am supposing that I may have misunderstood your comments. Perhaps you meant that we don't generally allow women to share a tent with male children who are not their sons (which I agree is true, but then this applies to all adults and isn't necessarily a sexual thing)? Or were you, in fact, suggesting that allowing women to attend a scout function is likely to result in some kind of predatory behavior toward the scouts, and therefore, that women without a male relation in the unit should be banned from scouting?

 

 

[packsaddle]

Onehour, heh, heh....beware the gom jabar!

[onehouraweekmy]

Sure, troops can have women leaders along camping. I wouldn't recommend it, since I believe it's flirting with many problems and perceptions to place adults sexually attracted to males in the close contact that (especially backwoods) camping brings them.

 

Nevertheless, the elephant in the living room is that the problem is not at all about Scout moms molesting boys.

 

The problem is that there is a significant portion of the homosexual community that is involved with such molestation. The experience of the Catholic church and other denominations shows that when young boys are molested, it is most frequently done by an adult male and only extremely rarely done by a woman.

 

Not surprisingly, studies have borne this out (see, e.g., http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/674504/posts).

 

We may not like to recognize this uncomfortable fact, because we like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and some of us know homosexual persons who would not dream of molesting anyone.

 

Nevertheless, the policy the BSA has adopted is rational, supported by facts, and also happens to comport with a view of human sexuality and morality that has been endorsed by 6,000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition, if it's not too discriminatory or upsetting to to the delicate to refer to the dominant religious current that undergirds our entire Western culture.

 

I acknowledge that many people on the board want to change this policy or see it as unfair. Fine, go and start your own scouting organization and open it to atheists and homosexuals. (much like AHS arose in response to what those folks disliked in GSUSA). But please, if you're not gonna leave and start your own group, you shouldn't be attacking BSA's long-standing policy. You knew it was there when you signed up, right?

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

onehouraweekmy, you'll have to point out where the "no gays" policy is written that everyone is supposed to know is there when they sign up. James Dale couldn't find it, I still can't find it in the BSA's membership forms.

 

Oh, and fighting molestation by excluding gays is like fighting theft by excluding blacks.

[scoutldr]

Pinch me...this IS the 21st century, right? And people still don't know the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia? There is NO relation. None, nada, zip, zilch.

 

And no offense to anyone here, but I haven't met the female Scouter yet that I am the least bit sexually attracted to. And I'm sure they feel the same about me. When we're in the woods, it's simply not an issue. To imply that the mere presence of the opposite sex will cause me to lose my moral compass is an insult, just as I'm sure it is to most homosexuals.

 

And since Merlyn brought it up, the BSA once did exclude blacks...or at least strictly segregated them into separate units. The "Lone Scout" magazine had a banner that read "The Real Boy's Magazine" and for a few years (1930s I think), it read "The White Boy's Magazine". You can still see them on eBay from time to time. But times change...as I'm sure they will over this issue as well.

[Gold Winger]

" And people still don't know the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia? There is NO relation. None, nada, zip, zilch."

 

For the most part were not talking about pedophilia, we're more concerned about ephebophelia. I'm amazed that this is the 21st century and people still don't know the difference.

 

" To imply that the mere presence of the opposite sex will cause me to lose my moral compass is an insult, just as I'm sure it is to most homosexuals."

 

True but the rules are there to avoid that eventuality. As I've pointed out before, men alone cannot take a co-ed crew on an outing. Why? Because we're evil and might lust after the teenaged women. Following that rationale, homosexuals alone shouldn't be allowed to take Boy Scouts camping.

 

I found this interesting stuff about ephebophilia on the web.

 

"Sexual desire that includes adolescents, as well as older individuals, is common among adults of all sexual orientations;[8] this is not labeled "ephebophilia" because the attraction to adolescents is not exclusive."

 

It wasn't that long ago that 16 year old women would marry men in their 30s, a situation that is now considered strange and unnatural. So if you like watching the cheerleaders at your son's high school football game, you aren't strange. The same goes for for the homosexual who finds the strapping linebacker attractive.

[Beavah]

Yah, it's kinda humorous to me that Scouter.Com posted an add for Champion Sports Bras with an attractive young lady right next to this thread, eh

 

No question that us heterosexual types experience a degree of attraction to post-adolescent teens (who could easily pass for adults). Can't imagine why that wouldn't be true for homosexual types. In fact, there's all kinds of talk of the "recruiting" culture in some parts of the gay male community, eh? Older men "mentoring" young men in that way goes back to Greece and before. Da Catholic scandals have all been with adolescent and post-adolescent teens, not younger children.

 

Still, I've always felt it to be a bit silly that as a man I couldn't lead a Venturing Crew with girls who are old enough to be my granddaughter, but Mrs. Beavah could lead that same crew with young, strappin' male teenagers. Attraction doesn't mean temptation, and certainly doesn't mean action. But I suppose it could mean "misinterpreted signals" in a very informal and physical environment like da woods, and culturally, the chance of "misinterpreted signals" from a gay man I figure would be unacceptably high for him.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Still, I've always felt it to be a bit silly that as a man I couldn't lead a Venturing Crew with girls who are old enough to be my granddaughter, but Mrs. Beavah could lead that same crew with young, strappin' male teenagers.

 

Where is this in BSA's rules? All I can find are the usual 2-deep leadership requirements.

[Beavah]

Yah... hmmmm... leave it to Merlyn to turn a simple question into a teaser

 

There were a bunch of changes in the leader requirements stuff in da last two years. As I'm re-reading the new wordin', I caught somethin' I missed before because I was thinkin' in terms of da way we naturally think about it and what gets taught in Venturing training. So here's the wording:

 

Coed overnight activities require male and female adult leaders, both of whom must be 21 years of age or older.

 

Now that's interestin', eh?

 

We all know that a female SM and a female ASM are OK. So for a while now it's been true that a Boy Scout Troop could go camping with two female leaders.

 

When Venturing got started, da requirements were that if you had female Venturers, you had to have a female leader for trips and outings. I think that's still the way we're supposed to interpret things.

 

But readin' this wording, it suggests that if yeh have an all-female crew (or only the girls from the crew show up for the trip), then it isn't coed, and they can go camping with two male leaders. Just like Boy Scouts can go campin' with two female leaders.

 

Only if yeh bring both boys and girls on da same trip do yeh have to have coed leadership.

 

Dat makes all kinds of sense. Just goes to show yeh this stuff gets written by policy amateurs more than half the time.

 

Beavah

 

[Aquila calva]

At 12:02 today Beavah wrote:

 

Da Catholic scandals have all been with adolescent and post-adolescent teens, not younger children.

 

All? Really?

 

The victims I have read about were (are?) of many ages and different genders.

 

At 3:12 today Beavah wrote:

 

Just goes to show yeh this stuff gets written by policy amateurs more than half the time.

 

Difficult job, no doubt.