UK: Scouts get prepared for more gay recruits

[gregharewood]

Barry,

 

I shouldn't have stated 1 in 10 as fact, though I had thought it was most accurate. When I was kid, people quoted 1 in 30 as fact. Are you saying 1 in 3 with some gay experience or tendency? Seems a little high, though I agree that many more than 1 in 10 have a moment, or experiment.

 

Tolerance. Ahha. Yes, I can see your point, when you relate the word to "tolerate", meaning shut up and deal with it without liking it. But I put it to you that progression to using "acceptance" is not a done deal, and language can follow a different path in different places. Sometimes words need replacing when they get used negatively. The N word is much more offensive in the US than it is here - but it is only Latin for black, and stigma came from the attitude of those using the word. Back to tolerance - we both agree that we should be using a word that implies not judging, accepting of differences recognition of common ground, and tolerance of the differences that are difficult for us. I put it to you that "acceptance" isn't actually that much better a word. It can agreeing to something without really wanting to. Have you ever signed the Fedex guy's pad for a damaged package, or accepted fault for an auto accident just because it was cheaper to do so? The word "acceptance" doesn't necessarily mean a good attitude! In any case, the word "tolerance" as used in the UK has no negative aspects. We might see a campaign soon - hard to tell. Meh, it's language, It differs! These are US forums, I'm so guest, so I'll try to translate!

 

Demographics: We simply never differed from the law. Homosexuality was legalized in the late 60's I think, and we accepted gay Scout leaders from that point, as far as I am aware. In any case, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation has been illegal for a long time (80's maybe), including (I think) for private clubs like ours. So Scouts changing would have been a non-issue as it coincided with society at large changing. And that would also have made it hard to measure, because any similar alternatives would have changed at the same time.

 

I think Europe IS a different culture. I think it's a real shame that the BSA couldn't move on this 10 years ago before it started getting bad press and losing properties and low rental deals on federal properties and so on.

 

 

Moosetracker,

 

If you can separate out the gay child without it being conspicuous and without the child having any sense that they were being discriminated against, then there is no down side to it. Having RULES about it would in itself be divisive, but subtle action on an individual basis by a Scout Leader who knows his or her kids can be positive.

[Cambridgeskip]

Barry

 

At the risk of going down a bit of a different road to the original topic it's worth remembering that until 2005 scouting in the UK was also losing members (I don't know about the rest of Europe). I can't really comment on whether youth organisatons losing members in North America is anything to do with them admiting homosexuals but I think in the UK we were losing kids because we had failed to move with the times on a number of issues. In around 2004 there was a whole sale shake up of scouting here from the uniforms, to the age ranges, to the award scheme and importantly HQ starting a proper PR department. All those aspects turned things around but none of them did it on their own.

[NJCubScouter]

These discussions always seem to wind around to the issue of tenting arrangements at some point.

 

I think that if a particular troop had a Scout(s) who was openly gay, people in the troop could decide who is going to sleep where. Maybe everybody would be more comfortable if the gay kid had his own tent. If that's what works, so what? We don't need legislation from National about it, and it doesn't have to be resolved in this forum. I think we can trust people at the unit level to do what works for them. Now, on the other hand, I do favor separate tenting arrangements for males and females, and I don't think that's inconsistent. We KNOW that there are going to be heterosexuals in units. Depending on whose figures are correct, 90 to 98 percent of people are heterosexual. (My guess is in the 96-98 percent range.) We're such an overwhelmingly large proportion of the population, you can't get away from us, really. So it makes sense to have a specific national policy that deals with us. If there is a stray gay Scout or Venturer here or there, don't worry, it will all be worked out.

[vol_scouter]

The demographics of the USA are clearly considerably different than the UK. The CDC has published several times that the long term incidence of homosexuality in the USA is 1.9%. So here, it is more like 2 boys out of 100 will become long homosexual adults. The percentage having homosexual experiences is larger as would be expected. Late teens and young adults often experiment with drugs and sex but not all will continue in those lifestyles.

 

Next, pedophiles by definition have sex with prepubertal children (most often heterosexual). If the child has developed secondary sex characteristics, then they are ephebophiles. If the adult prefers a same sex post-pubescent child as a sexual partner (to discriminate from crimes of power), then they are homosexual.

[Lisabob]

For me, I think the expectations for everyone, of every age, gender, and orientation, should be that people just refrain from sexual activity at scouting events. Whatever they do at home, with consenting partners of legal age, is their business. But don't bring it on a camp out.

 

For this reason, if those expectations are clear, I'm not too worried about who is in which tents.

 

 

[Scoutfish]

"For me, I think the expectations for everyone, of every age, gender, and orientation, should be that people just refrain from sexual activity at scouting events. Whatever they do at home, with consenting partners of legal age, is their business. But don't bring it on a camp out.

 

For this reason, if those expectations are clear, I'm not too worried about who is in which tents."

 

I AGREE ABSOLUTELY!

 

 

And there is another side that nobody seems to be thinking about. Having a cousin who is gay, having s few friends who are also gay and having worked at a company with a gay plumber ( start your jokes here... ) I have heard somethimng that most people don't consider.

 

EGO'S! Yeah. WE just asume that since a person is gay, they are just going to instantly and suddenly make a move on us. They are just going to styart hitting on us and making sexual advances.

 

But the question is: Why do you assume they are atractted to you? Why do youi think they would have those feelings for you8? And even if they did, wich is highly unlikely, why do you think they would suddenly and uncontrolably act on it?

 

Look at it this way: Right now in your life, does every person of the opposite sex just constantly hit on you or make passes at you? Do thoser same people just constantly try to get into bed with you?

 

And yourself...do you go around constantly hitting on all the members of the opposite sex? Do you think EVERBODY of the opposite sex is just soooo freaking hot and attractive that you cannot control yourself from making a pass at them?

 

Look asround at coed camps ansd any coed situation. Is there just a huge crows of heterosexual sexual contact and activity going on?

 

Of course not. Maybe that one or two couples who are oblivious of the rest of the world, but not an epidemic of sex freaks.

 

 

 

Thing is, even among the two different lifestyles, it's not like you are gong to go to the camp and see people running aroundn naked and having orgies.

People do have a sense ( well, most of us anyways) of what is the right thing for the right time and place. Hetero p-eople don't just hit on any and every woman at a camp setting, so why think a gay person would to?

 

And then also consider, the gay person might be in a relationship with somebody and not willing to cheat on their "signifigant other" .

 

Or, they are just like the majority of all heterosexual scouts:

 

 

They are single and just not really seriously looking or pursueing anybody..they are just looking to do some SCOUTING stuff.

 

I mean seriously, if you want to get your groove on, don't you think you can pick a better place and time that a scout function to do it?

 

 

[moosetracker]

I agree the 99% of the homosexual is not some out of control freak, similar to 99% of the heterosexuals..

 

But, still with this fact we do not put male & female in the same tent together and just say "I trust you, to behave"..

 

My only point is to treat everyone equally and fairly.. The way I see it is if we separate the male & female due to sexual orientation, then similar fair consideration and treatment should be made for the openly gay..

 

When we put male & female in the same tent and just say "I trust you, to behave".. Then equal and fair treatment should be made for the openly homosexual person..

 

In no way is my opinon based on the feeling that homosexuals are more untrustworthy.. It is more a belief they should be treated equally, when we do not separate due to sexual orientation, then we do not.. When we do, we do..

 

If we want to go the way of the huge tents and place all members together regardless of sex or sexual orientation.. Then marvalous, I will support that.

 

But until then, I do not agree to some odd double standard, that we should not trust the sexual urges of the male/female, but homosexuals are not a problem.. Either drop the policy across the board, or live with it and treat everyone equally..

 

Sorry I feel I must treat Homosexuals equally while you feel they should get special considerations and be treated differently.

[Scoutfish]

I agree, treat all the same across the board. What works for one works for all.

 

I am just saying that we shouldn't be scared and assume me that homosexuals are all a bunch of sex craved people just waiting for the oppertunity to jump on us.

 

No more than I'd expect any woman to sudenly make a move4 on me at any camp.

 

Segregate? Absolutely. Goose, gander and all that stuff!

[vol_scouter]

Scoutfish,

 

The problem then becomes how do you know who is what to do the separations? Seems like one man tents are the only solution unless one plans to ask questions about very personal matter and for this age group ask potentially confused teens about their current sexual orientation. Seems to be a problem.

 

Councils have far too frequent assaults and batteries of a sexual nature, usually of the same sex. So there are risks. These are thorny issues without simple solutions.

[moosetracker]

vol_scouter - the application would then only apply to those who are openly homosexual.. No, drilling & asking personal questions are needed.. Until then you assume them to be male or female and straight and treat them as such.. As we do now.. Only currently we do not allow them to be openly gay, so we just treat them only as male or female..

 

edited to add: maybe straight is not the right term, in all cases.. Is the term used asexual to define when they have yet to define themselves?? which is probably what is more correct for the younger scouts.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[Lisabob]

My son's patrol is camping this weekend. They have a patrol tent that sleeps 6. I'm pretty sure, if one of them decided to accost one of the others, it would cause a stir. I'm really not worried about it.

 

"Gay" does not rub off. I'm just not bothered by the idea of a gay boy and a straight boy tenting together. I seriously doubt it will lead to sexual assault or the previously-straight boy suddenly "becoming" gay.

 

 

 

 

[moosetracker]

Lisabob - as stated in a 6 person tent, neither would I be, but in a 6 person tent I would not care if a few females were sprinkled in either.. Are you?

 

How comfortable are you putting a male & female in the same 2 man tent? You know boys have cooties.. Or is it girls that have the cooties?

 

Let's put it another way.. Currently BSA does interfaith worship.. We all worship together Catholic, Protestent, Jewish, Muslim etc.

 

But what if we had everyone group be faith and do their own special ceremonies.. Normally you would have a group of Catholic and a group of Protestant (and I can see a group of I believe but have no defined faith)..

 

So one day a scout decides to convert to muslim.. Well you don't know what to do with them, because they are the only one of their faith, so you have them stay with the original group they were in..

 

Then a Jewish boy transfers in.. Well he would be a group by himself, so lets just roll him into the "undefined faith" group..

 

Now you may see it differently, but to me if we seperate by sexual orientation we do it for all, and if we don't then we don't.. I don't really care how we do it, but if we seperate then everyone should be seperated out..

[vol_scouter]

Scoutfish,

 

Youth can certainly be sexually active without being openly homosexual or heterosexual. If you place a male and a female together and one of the two is attracted to the other, there is the possibility of sexual activity. The same thing can happen with homosexuals. Your idea is naive and not workable in a time where councils have problems with sexual abuse. Children who have not expressed their sexually are not asexual. Statistically, they are heterosexual since less than 2% will become homosexual. The current policies seem to offer the best protection for the youth that is served and should remain in place. The UK or anywhere else can do what they wish, it should make no difference to the USA scouting movement.

[Scoutfish]

How comfortable are you putting a male & female in the same 2 man tent? You know boys have cooties.. Or is it girls that have the cooties?

 

 

I cannot understand this line of thinking! EVERYBODY KNOWS that it's the girls who have cooties!

 

But I do agree with the general statement. A tent full of boys ang girls is not the problem. But at some point after they are asleep, it's that one boy and girl who are braver and more bold that "could" be a problem. Or it could be that one boy who likes to go out of his way to sneak a peek.....and by peek, he's the one to pull back the covers of a sleeping girl if he can and try to see something else.... that is the problem.

 

I think for the most part though, it would never be an issue. Same with gays. It's not likely something would happen in that tent either. Nobody is suddenly going to turn gay because it rubbed off on them.

 

Truth be told, if any of the scouts really wants to get active, I imagine they would run off and hide during the day or some other free time activity ..or better yet, do something while not out on a scouting activity on scouting time. They could sand would do whatever they feel like doing after school, during the weekend, while mom and dad are not home, ect..why wait til a group of people are assembled to do something?

 

Truth be told...at least in my camping experiences, it';s the adults "who know better" who do stuff because they forget tents are no better than air when it comes to sound absorbtion.

 

But for the general comfort of people changing clothes - even if all undergarments are still in polace - I'd still segregate tents and sleeping quarters.

 

 

[moosetracker]

Rah! Rah! Scoutfish! I agree.. The comfort of changing clothes, is probably the real reason..

 

But everyone knows it is the boys with cooties, because girls are much cleaner and would allow a cootie to touch them..

 

And Vol_scouter, you are right because statistically it is more likely that without facts most likely they are heterosexual that is how you treat it.. And right now the current policies work due to the fact we will not tolerate anyone stating they are anything but heterosexual, so if we are blind to homosexuality being in our units, and no one is allowed to be openly gay, we need no policy to address it..