A Scouter pervert in the news

[GaHillBilly]

"I am pretty sure that parents in my son's troop would have a hissy fit about it."

 

Lisa, I may not agree with you on other things, but I agree on this. Parents generally don't want to talk about sex with their kids . . . and don't want anyone else to do so, either.

 

What has really surprised me is that it's not a liberal or conservative thing. Apparently, it's true just as much of liberal pro-gay pro-premarital sex parents as it is of very conservative parents. Most parents, as a class, seem to prefer putting their head in the sand, trying to pretend that most of the false or distorted view of sex their kids get from classmates, TV and porn won't hurt them, and hope for the best.

 

I'll mention, just because many here may not realize this, but not all conservatives are conservative about TALKING about sex. Recently, the daughter of one of my first cousins married. Her father is a VERY conservative minister, and she was almost certainly a virgin, but they've always been very open about sexual issues. At the wedding my sister asked her, in her parents' presence, what she and her new husband were planning to do on their honeymoon (she was thinking of trip details, and didn't phrase things like she meant to do), this very hot young lady looked over at her mom, grinned really big, and said "Have sex! A lot! I'm TIRED of waiting!".

 

By contrast, a rather liberal set of parents in our last troop didn't want their 17 year old son present when there was ANY discussion of sex. The word, "masturbation" sent them into a tizzy, which is rather ironic given that it's a topic of discussion in my copy of the 1937 BSA Handbook!

 

GaHillBilly

[HICO_Eagle]

I for one would be reluctant to conduct such training myself. What I WOULD do -- may in fact raise in committee this month -- is offer the materials to parents. I find these incidents rather upsetting because of the long term damage to the program. Perverts like this are WHY we have YPT and YP guidelines.

 

To answer Gern's question, I don't think the ban on gays is complete protection (after all, this guy flew under the radar by being married and having kids but his conduct was homosexual by definition) but it helps lower the risk. Life is a stochastic process so I don't think the risk will ever be zero but that shouldn't keep us from doing what we can.

[GernBlansten]

So here I thought the ban on gays was to stop this exact situation from happening. I have been told (on this forum) that all homosexuals are pedophiles and if we allow them, this type of thing will be common place.

 

However, in this case, it seems the man was married with children. That indicates heterosexual. So the ban didn't protect our children. Nor has it for any case I've seen in the press when adults prey on scouts. Seems we are banning the wrong guys/gals, eh?

 

Or could it be that pedophiles aren't homosexual or heterosexuals, they are just pedophiles. That makes much more sense to me. And a ban on pedophiles makes much more sense too. Yes, I would support that.

 

 

[GaHillBilly]

Gern, you're talking nonsense.

 

OF COURSE, a ban on homosexual (or bisexual) pedophiles doesn't work when they are successful at concealing what they are.

 

We ban murderers. But, we still have murders. Just not as many as if we didn't ban them!

 

GaHillBilly

[vol_scouter]

Once again, pedophiles have sex with pre-pubertal children and are most commonly heterosexual in nature. Homosexuals and bisexuals have same sex relationships with pubertal and post pubertal children. Heterosexuals who have sex with children do so out of dominance and it is often violent. So for most of the boys in the boy scout age range and virtually all venturers, same sex relationships relationships are homosexual or bisexual. A few of those are heterosexual dominance interactions. It is not correct to call people having sex relationships with pubertal and post pubertal children pedophiles.

 

The actual question is still: "Would changing the policy lead to a statistically significant increase in the molestation?" I do not know the answer and I do not believe that anyone on this forum does either. HiLo has said that no records have been kept (or at least made available) so his experience is not even truly anecdotal but rather speculative.

[HICO_Eagle]

I don't know who said all homosexuals are pedophiles on this board, I've never seen it here. I doubt that's a commonly held view, but it's a common strawman thrown out by the homosexual lobby to get around having to argue the simple math that increasing the number of male with an attraction to males is going to increase incidents. That's a warrantless risk being pushed by a politically powerful group that seeks not tolerance but embrace as mainstream.

 

Either way, this guy should be sent away for a very long time if he's guilty.

[HiLo]

vol_scouter had a bit of a go at me with.... "HiLo has said that no records have been kept (or at least made available) so his experience is not even truly anecdotal but rather speculative." (He's talking about the Australian experience.)

 

Let me just swing that emphasis back where I believe it belongs. Homosexuality is simply not seen as an issue for Australian Scouting. So we don't ask people if they are gay, or heterosexual, or anything else. So we don't officially know. Obviously there are times when an adult makes their sexual inclinations apparent. I know of two great lesbian Cub Leaders. But that didn't have to declare that on any form.

 

There are tough youth protection policies. A homosexual act between an adult and a youth would be an obvious breach of those rules. So would a heterosexual act. THAT is where the legislative emphasis lies. Not on the hetero- or homo- aspect of the problem, if and when it occurs. These rules have been in place for around ten years now and I'm personally unaware of any incidents. I suspect there have been some, but they didn't make the news. The rules must be seen as OK because I've heard of no plans to change them.

 

So, the emphasis is - "no sex with kids" - not, "no gay sex". The fact that we have girls and boys at all levels of Scouting probably assists in that being the way it is.(This message has been edited by hilo)

[evmori]

Yup. No sex with kids.

 

I don't think discussing this is up to the unit leaders. That's the parents job whether they want to do it or not. It really amazes me how parents want to blame everything that happens to their kid on someone else!

[vol_scouter]

HiLo,

 

Obviously, I have no knowledge of the incidence of sexual molestation in Australia. I do no know that it happens here more often than most would believe and that it is kept out of the media as much as possible. Fortunately, most cases are groping and the adult is quietly dismissed. Since there are no restrictions in Australia on membership, then the policy of no sex is clearly the correct one. The BSA has the same policy. The issue here is that homosexuals are not allowed in the organization at present (yes, I am aware that there are here but not officially). So the question remains, If the policy is changed, would the incidence of sexual molestation increase in a statistically significant manner.

[HiLo]

I doubt if you're ever going to find the double blind scientific study anywhere that will effectivley answer that question in advance. It does end up coming down to beliefs.

 

 

[skeptic]

HiLo;

 

What I think you are saying is that "no asks", so it is not an issue. That is the way it is supposed to be here. The problem in the U.S. is that we have a loud political wing of Gay individuals who want to be "out" and included. The BSA ban is on these individuals who feel it is necessary to "make it an issue". Those in the group who have chosen to continue on, what seems the Australian way from what I read, are still involved and not a problem.

 

If someone in Australia were to make their lifestyle a focus, rather than simply "play the game", would they be asked to leave?

[acco40]

Scouts don't need to learn to protect themselves from a defensive point of view (that is putting an unfair burden on them in my view) but they should be taught that if any adult (including their parents, teachers, Scout leaders, aunts, uncles, neighbors, police officers, religious leaders, etc.) do anything that make them feel uncomfortable (no need to go through a litiny of sexual acts) they should tell another adult that they trust.

 

Why would any parent object to the above?

[John-in-KC]

Thoughts:

 

1) This person used his positions of authority to do kids. Period. It's not just that he's a leader in BSA. He's pond scum, and he finally got found.

 

2) The Greater Saint Louis Area Council ... Sigh. I hope Vicki finds this thread, that's her Council. She might be able to give us some input on the ground. I certainly hope that Professionals and Commissioner service are engaging to give the Chartered Partner some support.

 

3) How do we monitor leaders? Darn if I know... This just demonstrates that we must all be accountable for who, when, and how we interact with the youth.

 

BTW, here is a link to the local newspaper article, bylined:

http://www.dailyjournalonline.com/articles/2010/01/07/news/doc4b45e061774ac376180591.txt

[HiLo]

Skeptic - as I understand it, BSA does have rules about gay people, at least in adult rules. Scouts Australia doesn't.

 

So, while it may be normal to not ask in BSA, it's still against the rules, so if someone makes a fuss about their gay preferences it's understandable that BSA has to take a stand.

 

In Australia, we don't just not ask. It's not against the rules. So there is no trigger within Scouting for gay people to want to make a fuss. I've never heard of a gay person using Scouting as a platform to argue gay rights. There would be no point.

 

We are strongly discouraged from getting involved in political issues while obviously representing Scouting, such as being in Scout uniform. If someone attended a gay rights rally in Scout uniform, firstly it would be rather weird, but secondly I suspect that someone at District level may have a quiet word in that person's ear. No automatic censure though.(This message has been edited by hilo)

[NJCubScouter]

Acco is correct, and in fact this is the message given to youth members by the BSA on a regular basis. It's in the pamphlet at the beginning of each Cub Scout handbook and the Boy Scout handbook; it's part of the Second Class requirements (to know the 3 R's, recognize, resist and report); and it's in the videos that the BSA makes available to all units to show to the youth and their parents as part of the youth protection program. Unfortunately, most units (including mine) never quite get around to showing the videos, and I think that's due to a feeling of discomfort in dealing with the subject. But there is no way of getting around the pamphlets or the Second Class requirement. So the BSA does "talk" to the kids about this. It's part of the program.

 

(I just noticed what WAKWIB said about this earlier in the thread. Should it be made mandatory for each unit to show the video on a regular, say annual, basis? I don't think it would be a bad idea. I also think the video should be shown to the parents first so they can excuse their child if they wish. I also don't think it's going to become mandatory. And how about this: Mandatory YP training (the adult course) for all parents? Not going to happen either, but something to think about.)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)