How far do the legal vultures go? A couple of, to me today, foolish over-reaches.

[skeptic]

So, I am 77 years old.  In the early fifties, my brother and I were members of a local YMCA, along with our dad.  Learned to swim there, and had wonderful summer activities, such as Disneyland the year it opened, and visits to car plants and tuna packing and museums in L.A. area.  But, I had some hormonal issues early on that effected my development.  It was dealt with with two years of special shots, but at the time, I was not on track with my peers physically, and was embarrassed by things easily.  BUT, in order to swim at the Y, we had to use the male locker room, which included all ages and open showers.  I remember being a bit intimidated by that, especially when it was crowded with full grown adults.  Later, I also was forced to take open stall showers in HS after P.E.  It was not an option; and the coach or sometimes an appointed older student would monitor us.  Intimidating, and embarrassing?  Yep, but we learned to cope.  Society did not think anything odd about this, nor would they likely have entertained lawsuits for psychological trauma of a minor.  

So, with our new outlook on things today, do I have grounds to sue the YMCA and my old HS school district?  After all; I still remember these things and how I felt once in while standing next to an old man in the Y shower with his nakedness right in front of my eyes, and him talking to me.  

I am not serious about doing this of course.  My point is that where do we mark the lines of demarcation?  What is psychological trauma to an 8 year old in with a bunch of older males in a shower?  What is the trauma of having your school peers make jokes about you or others and the level of changes in your physical development?  Am I really stretching things with the viewpoints we are currently seeing?  Comments, or admins decide it is not a valid subject.  

[mashmaster]

I don't know the time periods of things.

Well, I think the difference would be if a Y camp councilor who your care was in charge of molested you.   You were embarrassed but not molested.  Sadly, this isn't because lawyers are acting out of order.  It is because BSA leaders did horrible things.  I have an adult friend who was molested as a scout by his Scoutmaster.  I don't know if he is part of the suit, but it isn't something that should have ever happened and has long lasting effects.

I don't know what the rules were for the BSA in the 70's.  But I distinctly remember as a teenager being asked to change in my swimming merit badge councilors living room with him there.  Alone.  I never thought twice about it, but hopefully something that doesn't happen today.

[MattR]

The question seems to be where was the line?

Rather than specific actions it might be better to think about the impact on the child. A child is embarrassed vs a child is traumatized resulting in PTSD and lifelong scars (or somewhere inbetween).

Rape is clearly over any line and it's always been there. So would enslavement. Being asked to change in front of an adult in the privacy of their living room is also clearly wrong but some kids might be traumatized and some would just go along and never mention it again no matter how weird it seemed. When I was a scout and another told me that an adult wanted him to sleep in the tent with the adult we all said no and we never saw that adult again. As far as I know none of the scouts told anyone. As wrong as it was it wasn't traumatic.

[skeptic]

I guess what I really wonder is how many "claims" are along the lines of what I describe?  At the time, few thought anything was wrong with it; we were all males, and so that was all that was important.  I do remember sort of hiding behind my father and brother a bit much of the time, and my dad never let us go into the shower alone.  As I have collected old photos from very early scout outings, it is pretty obvious that skinny-dipping was not discouraged.   Again though, that was common then.  Boys and girls both did it, though not together, as that would have been frowned upon.  The real issue seems the contradictive nature of measuring that period in time against today.  It is not a balanced comparison.  Time will tell I guess.  Meanwhile, back to working within the parameters of the modern age.

 

[David CO]

4 hours ago, skeptic said:

Am I really stretching things with the viewpoints we are currently seeing?  Comments, or admins decide it is not a valid subject.  

Yes you are.  I think it is a valid topic of conversation.  I just don't see any tie-in with the lawsuits or the bankruptcy.  In the one case, boys were doing what they were told to do.  Group showers and nude swimming were commonplace at that time.  Schools and YMCA's often required it.  It wasn't a secret.  Parents knew their boys were showering and swimming nude.  And, as you said, a father might shower at the YMCA with his boys.  It was accepted practice at the time.

In the other case, nobody at BSA, schools, YMCA, or anyplace I know of, told boys to have sex with adults.  That was not an accepted practice.  It was not done openly.  It was not done with the approval of the parents.  It was not legal. 

I don't think there is any comparison.

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by David CO

[David CO]

27 minutes ago, skeptic said:

At the time, few thought anything was wrong with it; we were all males, and so that was all that was important. 

I still agree with that viewpoint.  I also agree with you, though.  The world has moved on, and there is little point in debating it.

[Sentinel947]

On 3/27/2021 at 7:41 PM, skeptic said:

I guess what I really wonder is how many "claims" are along the lines of what I describe?  At the time, few thought anything was wrong with it; we were all males, and so that was all that was important.  I do remember sort of hiding behind my father and brother a bit much of the time, and my dad never let us go into the shower alone.  As I have collected old photos from very early scout outings, it is pretty obvious that skinny-dipping was not discouraged.   Again though, that was common then.  Boys and girls both did it, though not together, as that would have been frowned upon.  The real issue seems the contradictive nature of measuring that period in time against today.  It is not a balanced comparison.  Time will tell I guess.  Meanwhile, back to working within the parameters of the modern age.

 

I imagine very few. Sexual predators tend to have multiple victims. It starts to add up quickly in such a large organization. 

[David CO]

On 3/27/2021 at 6:41 PM, skeptic said:

I guess what I really wonder is how many "claims" are along the lines of what I describe? 

 

1 hour ago, Sentinel947 said:

I imagine very few. 

I wouldn't expect there to be many abuse claims based entirely on group showers or nude swimming.  But the more I think about it, I suppose it could be suggested that such casual nudity in scouting made some scouts more susceptible to abuse by reducing their inhibitions.  I doubt it is true.  But the claim might be made.

My oldest brother was 16 when I was born.  As far back as I can remember, I always knew what adult male bodies looked like.  I wasn't traumatized by it.  It was just the way things were.  Boys grow up into men.  No big deal.  

I think being exposed to such facts at an early age makes a boy's own physical development much easier to accept.  I saw three of my brothers go through puberty.  It was no shock when it later happened to me.  No trauma.  No embarrassment about group showers or nude swimming.  I just accepted it as normal.

 

 

 

[GiraffeCamp]

I cannot help but think of an account I read of abuse swept under the rug in the context of communal nudity and showering. The newspaper article details a system of abuse with examples of grooming, sexual abuse, rape, and suicide. I will quote a small mostly benign-in-context example about communal showering.

A Brave Never Tells: Strange and Erotic Stories from Inside the Boy Scouts' Most Secret Society

 

Quote

 

The "ISH," or Indian Shower House, is a small, secluded facility located up a service road, across from camp. Only those who have completed all five years of Pipestone may enter. Each Friday night in the summer, 100 to 200 men and boys -- some as young as 15 -- visit the ISH to get dressed for the night's ceremonies. They are the volunteers who will scare the [----] out of about 2,500 Boy Scouts over the course of the season.

Until at least the late '90s, Friday night at the ISH would begin with a spaghetti feast. Men would strip naked and sit outside the building eating pasta. Then they would cover their bodies with masonry paint, helping each other out with those hard-to-reach places, before donning loincloths. When women began earning pipestone, this changed a bit. Now, there is a partition, so that you can't see into the shower. A secret is better kept behind high walls.

"I was approached by someone in the shower," says a pipestone holder and ex-staff member of Algonkin, who does not want to be identified. It happened at the end of the night, at about 2 a.m., when everyone was rinsing off paint. "All this red crap was falling off their bodies. It's hard to tell who's who. He used an innuendo. He said, 'Do you need help getting some of the paint out of your ass?' I quickly said no. I was 17." He reported the incident to a staff member, who then alerted Buckeye Council, but no charges were leveled. "The thing is, I can't identify him. I don't want to ruin someone's life."

"Sexual abuse could easily, easily happen, and there's no way to stop that from happening in some situations," says Bleakney, also recalling the practices at the ISH.

"Are we technically in violation of national policy? I can't argue that," concedes Johnson, referring to the shower arrangement. He maintains that there's no cause for alarm, though. "There is never a time when there's a boy alone with one adult."

Asked about the 17-year-old who complained of being propositioned, Johnson says, "I am absolutely, unequivocally unaware of that. There is nothing we take more seriously than youth protection."

If that were true, the Pipestone sweatlodge would never have been built. 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by GiraffeCamp

[David CO]

3 hours ago, GiraffeCamp said:

I cannot help but think of an account I read of abuse swept under the rug in the context of communal nudity and showering.

I would have put this into the context of secret societies, weird rituals, and totally inadequate supervision.  This is not an account of legal vultures or foolish over-reach.  

 

[GiraffeCamp]

57 minutes ago, David CO said:

I would have put this into the context of secret societies, weird rituals, and totally inadequate supervision.  This is not an account of legal vultures or foolish over-reach.  

It seems more like the normative and widespread summer camp experience for a region. I agree that it is definitely not legal vultures or foolish over-reach to condemn it. I believe the same can be said to the original topic: what seems to be overreach can on investigation be clear abuse.

I think that minimizing and normalizing the possibility of abuse from communal showers because of their commonality turns a blind eye, in part, to the rampant abuse some, like those in this article, endured under exactly those conditions and other common and seemingly benign occasions. I see no reason to suspect over-reach because some great percentage of people participated in nude activities. Examples here express those activities made them personally uncomfortable and pressured to conform, which they did with the minimal participation possible, sometimes intensely so to the point of seeking security behind father and brother and a father unwilling to allow his sons to ever face it alone.

He wants to know if this was abusive and I think we would answer yes, even for the time, it was. It consistently violated the central tenants of privacy and autonomy typical to the participants and their cultures and overrode those natural protective instincts through shame, coercion, isolation, and fear. It isn't the nudity but the systemic and coercive shame. So he wonders if he should also sue. And that is an entirely different question because to sue one must have legal standing--has the statute of limitations run out on that offense? it obviously is of a lower rank than rape and special provisions had to be allowed for the latter at this date--and then one must show damages like seeking to recoup lost employment or counseling fees. Sometimes people do come together to sue in such situations not for money but in order to force policy changes which might be legitimate reason and need.

That he would be highly unlikely to have legal standing, and that he would not find much support for pursuing it, does not mean it wasn't harmful or abusive, it just means that the courts are not typically the place that particular offense would be handled at this point. We would instead expect to see institutional changes, like the Hornaday Award's restructuring and renaming. To suggest that our new outlook that seeks to eliminate such toxic coercion is instead somehow overreach is quite sad, particularly in light of this: the Pipestone program continues to run with accolade and honor and no mention of YPT, instead imploring attendees to use the terminology that the activities are not considered initiation or hazing but an honor. 

[David CO]

52 minutes ago, GiraffeCamp said:

He wants to know if this was abusive and I think we would answer yes, even for the time, it was. It consistently violated the central tenants of privacy and autonomy typical to the participants and their cultures and overrode those natural protective instincts through shame, coercion, isolation, and fear. It isn't the nudity but the systemic and coercive shame.

This is yet another example of cancel culture.  

[David CO]

1 hour ago, GiraffeCamp said:

I think that minimizing and normalizing the possibility of abuse from communal showers because of their commonality turns a blind eye, in part, to the rampant abuse some, like those in this article, endured under exactly those conditions and other common and seemingly benign occasions.

I would be cautious in using that argument.  Some would say exactly the same thing about Boy Scout camping.  Though it is common and seemingly benign, rampant abuse has occurred on scout camping trips.  It is inherently dangerous to allow boys to go camping. 

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by David CO

[GiraffeCamp]

6 hours ago, David CO said:

I would be cautious in using that argument.  Some would say exactly the same thing about Boy Scout camping.  Though it is common and seemingly benign, rampant abuse has occurred on scout camping trips.  It is inherently dangerous to allow boys to go camping. 

But my argument is not that a place or occasion has had abuse so should be avoided.

My argument is that his experience of feeling coerced and shamed into exposing his nude body against his will was wrong, no matter the date or context, and that we should not be using coercion and shame to get a child to violate his own healthy values. It doesn't become OK because the context was a shower and a period in time where a lot of people were similarly coerced, and that similarly doesn't make every occasion of nudity abuse, that doesn't mean that all such occasions are equal to sexual abuse, and not being of the same level of violation doesn't mean they aren't unhealthy and abusive procedures just the same. 

For example, we no longer have a child sing in front of everyone to get back a lost item, embarrassing kids into keeping up with their stuff. We no longer lob corners off the whittling or totin' chip, shaming them into acting correctly out of fear. 

That doesn't mean we stop teaching them to keep up with their own stuff, stop maintaining safety with tools, stop using tools at all... the absence of shame and coercion is not sheltering [edit: or cancel culture], it is the freedom of natural consequences. If a kid is able to handle a tool but needs direction, we give safety direction. If a kid seriously cannot safely manage a tool, we take it away from that kid. Not out of shame, out of safety. And we can be sad with that kid and work with that kid to do what is needed to get to a place where the tool can be handled safely while doing what we have to do for safety. 

So if a particular camp has a history of sexual abuse baked in to its processes, I would expect us to work with it to openly address and eliminate the culture and opportunities. And if they could not let the culture go, I would expect us to shut it down. That doesn't mean we're shutting down every camp, that means we're shutting down those that cannot provide a baseline of safety despite education and support. Not safety from risk, safety from identified institutionalized abuse, no matter where that is, whether that is low-level and mundane like shaming kids with executive functioning difficulties, or mid-level like the kinds of coercion in autonomy that have a 77-year-old man relieving the violations of his values, or high-level like the article I linked--it isn't the location or level of abuse but the correction of it that I argue for. And if it honestly cannot be held in a way that is institutionally free of coercion, violation of bodily autonomy, and shame then I would say the natural consequence is no camp until the institution can get its act together. That would be sad but important for safety's sake. Do you believe the BSA or parts of it are currently in that state?

Edited March 30, 2021 by GiraffeCamp

[David CO]

1 hour ago, GiraffeCamp said:

My argument is that his experience of feeling coerced and shamed into exposing his nude body against his will was wrong, no matter the date or context, and that we should not be using coercion and shame to get a child to violate his own healthy values.

Swimmers were required to shower as a condition to using the YMCA pool.  Students showered as a requirement of the physical education class.  Setting conditions and requirements is not the same as coercing and shaming.