Youth Protection, 18-20 year olds, women leaders

[skeptic]

It occurs to me that we might want to consider either shutting this down, or finding a way to avoid emotional overloads for some victims or others.  Obvioously, the thread has a detrimental effect on a few, and they seem wont to take it out on other posters, often making unfair attacks on those that are fortunate to not have suffered the specific taumas that trigger some.  

As I have suggested before, we all have things in our lives that are bad memories and possibly serious pychological and maybe even physical traumas.  How they affect us differs, and some of us prefer to not talk much of these things, and perhaps are fortunate to not be "triggered".  That is not a reason to accuse us of ignoring other forum posters' pain.  

Few of us are qualified to measure the damages inferred on here, nor do we intentionally intend comments to hurt others.  

If the moderators have some idea how to deal, it may be time to do so.  Just my personal view, and I hope I will not be once again be accused of not caring and other worse things.  Thanks for the time.

[yknot]

53 minutes ago, elitts said:

First of all, the person you responded to here specifically said we shouldn't be screening out people with alcohol problems as potential sexual abuse risks.

Second, alcohol dependence and abuse issues come in many shapes and sizes.  If you are thinking about the kind of alcoholic that needs alcohol in their system non-stop or they get the DTs, then yes, they shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of children.  But that type of alcoholic tends to be the obvious minority of people with an alcohol problem.  The far more common alcohol abusers are the binge drinkers or the people who come to depend on alcohol to moderate their mood.  These are the folks that may be totally sober 6 days out of 7, but whenever they do start drinking they drink to excess; or it might be the working mom that needs a glass or two of wine to wind down from work every weekday. 

Most folks like this, often called "functional alcoholics" are completely capable of going for periods of time without drinking when the situation calls for it.  Particularly if they are removed from their typical emotional triggers (work, family drama, relationship problems).  The original commentor's point was that it's not fair to screen these folks out as "unsuitable for membership" if they can comply with the BSA's rules banning alcohol from Scout functions.  Not that they should be allowed to drink secretly while camping or something else like that.

You're not making sense. My biggest problem in scouting has been with the functional alcoholics. The others are obvious -- no way you'd let them near a kid. It's the people who you don't suspect and who are able to hide a problem most of the time -- child abuse, drinking, drugs -- who are the issue. You trust them because you don't know they have an issue. They are part of why scouts has such an abuse issue and why it is in bankruptcy.

[MattR]

19 hours ago, skeptic said:

It occurs to me that we might want to consider either shutting this down, or finding a way to avoid emotional overloads for some victims or others.  Obvioously, the thread has a detrimental effect on a few, and they seem wont to take it out on other posters, often making unfair attacks on those that are fortunate to not have suffered the specific taumas that trigger some.  

As I have suggested before, we all have things in our lives that are bad memories and possibly serious pychological and maybe even physical traumas.  How they affect us differs, and some of us prefer to not talk much of these things, and perhaps are fortunate to not be "triggered".  That is not a reason to accuse us of ignoring other forum posters' pain.  

Few of us are qualified to measure the damages inferred on here, nor do we intentionally intend comments to hurt others.  

If the moderators have some idea how to deal, it may be time to do so.  Just my personal view, and I hope I will not be once again be accused of not caring and other worse things.  Thanks for the time.

How to deal with it may just involve reviewing the scout oath and law. I once had some scouts telling jokes that others found really offensive. I didn't think the jokes were that bad but, and this is what I told the tellers of the joke, that comedy has a very fine line between funny and pain. The hard part about humor is guessing how people will hear your jokes. You never know. The right thing to do when someone says your joke went too far is to be courteous, apologize and move on.

As you said, many here have their own traumas to deal with and don't want to share the details. And that's okay.

It's all about being kind, courteous and helpful.

[elitts]

On 1/3/2022 at 9:40 PM, yknot said:

You're not making sense. My biggest problem in scouting has been with the functional alcoholics. The others are obvious -- no way you'd let them near a kid. It's the people who you don't suspect and who are able to hide a problem most of the time -- child abuse, drinking, drugs -- who are the issue. You trust them because you don't know they have an issue. They are part of why scouts has such an abuse issue and why it is in bankruptcy.

Well, trying to establish child abuse and private drinking or drug use as in any way similar is just plain BS, but regardless of that, what you are talking about is attempting to create criteria for membership based upon your personal biases as opposed to genuine differences in the nature of chemical use.  Alcohol, marijuana, amphetamines, opiates, barbiturates, caffeine, hallucinogens, anti-depressants, they are all chemicals that impact the functioning of the body and brain in ways that people find useful in a variety of circumstances.  The ONLY thing that differentiates alcohol from any of those other chemicals is the fact that it's available without any sort of prescription and some religious groups have decided it is bad.

Most of the people who are "functioning alcoholics" aren't drinking consistently for fun, they're doing it for same reasons other people might go get Xanex, Prozac, or a muscle relaxer.  Hell, my grandfather actually had doctors instructions to drink a small shot of alcohol before large family meals because it got his hand tremors under control enough that he could eat without shaking all the food off his fork.

But if you really want to ban everyone that has a "hidden problem" because it might surprise us if something happens, we'd also have to ban: Diabetics (who can become hostile and irrational when their blood sugar is high), People suffering from on-going mental illnesses (who knows what can happen if there's a disruption in their medicines), narcoleptics (never know if they're going to fall asleep when they are supposed to be supervising), people taking opiates for chronic pain, etc...

[yknot]

21 minutes ago, elitts said:

Well, trying to establish child abuse and private drinking or drug use as in any way similar is just plain BS, but regardless of that, what you are talking about is attempting to create criteria for membership based upon your personal biases as opposed to genuine differences in the nature of chemical use.  Alcohol, marijuana, amphetamines, opiates, barbiturates, caffeine, hallucinogens, anti-depressants, they are all chemicals that impact the functioning of the body and brain in ways that people find useful in a variety of circumstances.  The ONLY thing that differentiates alcohol from any of those other chemicals is the fact that it's available without any sort of prescription and some religious groups have decided it is bad.

Most of the people who are "functioning alcoholics" aren't drinking consistently for fun, they're doing it for same reasons other people might go get Xanex, Prozac, or a muscle relaxer.  Hell, my grandfather actually had doctors instructions to drink a small shot of alcohol before large family meals because it got his hand tremors under control enough that he could eat without shaking all the food off his fork.

But if you really want to ban everyone that has a "hidden problem" because it might surprise us if something happens, we'd also have to ban: Diabetics (who can become hostile and irrational when their blood sugar is high), People suffering from on-going mental illnesses (who knows what can happen if there's a disruption in their medicines), narcoleptics (never know if they're going to fall asleep when they are supposed to be supervising), people taking opiates for chronic pain, etc...

Again, you're not making any sense. That's an enabler's litany if I've ever heard one. I mean really, you are using this logic to propose having a narcoleptic drive kids to summer camp? 

[elitts]

3 hours ago, yknot said:

Again, you're not making any sense. That's an enabler's litany if I've ever heard one. I mean really, you are using this logic to propose having a narcoleptic drive kids to summer camp? 

Did I discuss narcoleptics driving to summer camp?  No.  You invented that as a strawman argument. 

Let me sum it up.  You argue anyone with an alcohol use disorder (which is regularly having 7 drinks in a week for women or 14 for men) should be screened out of Scouts, regardless of whether or not they follow the "No alcohol at scouts" rule; because you are worried that (something might happen) if their disorder suddenly hits a crisis point and you've trusted them with kids.

So if that situation is what you are afraid of, and you think the risk is sufficiently dire that they should be banned, then your reasoning should also require banning every other adult who is susceptible to a sudden emotional or physical crisis for a hidden condition that is being controlled by chemicals.

If you DON'T think everyone who fits that category should be banned, then it's clear that your reasoning isn't based upon a general concern over potential behaviors or circumstances, but instead, you just don't trust people who drink and you are creating reasons to get rid of them.

[yknot]

10 hours ago, elitts said:

Did I discuss narcoleptics driving to summer camp?  No.  You invented that as a strawman argument. 

Let me sum it up.  You argue anyone with an alcohol use disorder (which is regularly having 7 drinks in a week for women or 14 for men) should be screened out of Scouts, regardless of whether or not they follow the "No alcohol at scouts" rule; because you are worried that (something might happen) if their disorder suddenly hits a crisis point and you've trusted them with kids.

So if that situation is what you are afraid of, and you think the risk is sufficiently dire that they should be banned, then your reasoning should also require banning every other adult who is susceptible to a sudden emotional or physical crisis for a hidden condition that is being controlled by chemicals.

If you DON'T think everyone who fits that category should be banned, then it's clear that your reasoning isn't based upon a general concern over potential behaviors or circumstances, but instead, you just don't trust people who drink and you are creating reasons to get rid of them.

If so then that's a straw man of your making since he was based on your example lol.

Bottom line is that I don't think we should trust people who are hiding problems that can impair their judgement or execution of their responsiiblities around kids. This should always be the case anywhere but given all that has happened in scouting it seems to be more critical than ever.  You seem to be arguing that we should not be so vigilant. I flat out don't agree with that. I don't have any problem with people who like adult beverages at the proper time or place. I certainly enjoy when appropriate. But there seems to be this tacit acceptance of  a certain level of subterranean alcohol abuse in some areas of scouting that is concerning. 

[InquisitiveScouter]

8 hours ago, yknot said:

 You seem to be arguing that we should not be so vigilant. I flat out don't agree with that. I don't have any problem with people who like adult beverages at the proper time or place. I certainly enjoy when appropriate. But there seems to be this tacit acceptance of  a certain level of subterranean alcohol abuse in some areas of scouting that is concerning. 

No one said anything of the sort...

You read too much into what people write.  Take their words at face value.  If you think they are implying something, or being vague, ask a direct question to get a direct answer.  Your method is combative and attributes words and ideas to people that they simply did not state.  It does not win friends, nor influence people 😜

 

[yknot]

56 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

No one said anything of the sort...

You read too much into what people write.  Take their words at face value.  If you think they are implying something, or being vague, ask a direct question to get a direct answer.  Your method is combative and attributes words and ideas to people that they simply did not state.  It does not win friends, nor influence people 😜

 

I have said nothing combative, simply pointed out when people are not making any sense or when I disagree. For example, I can direct you to the post on the bottom of pg. 6 where the commentor clearly states that we should not screen out functional alcoholics. Wow. I have directly stated a couple times that I don't agree with that. You may not like my opinion, but that's what it is. 

[Oldscout448]

On 12/30/2021 at 11:33 PM, qwazse said:

I’m saying that screening for predators starting with adults who are dependent on alcohol is likely to miss its mark.

The link cannot possibly be causal to any high degree. Alcohol use disorders far outstrip rates of known sexual predation. This means that the preponderance of people who feel it’s their right to have a drink while taking care of youth will likely not be predators.

That is not to say they should be given a pass. 

In the interest of accuracy, here is the statement to which I believe you refer.   @yknot I'm just not seeing what you seem to see.  If anything It's the opposite.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Oldscout448

[yknot]

15 hours ago, Oldscout448 said:

In the interest of accuracy, here is the statement to which I believe you refer.   @yknot I'm just not seeing what you seem to see.  If anything It's the opposite.

That's not the one I was referring to. It's one by elitts that was posted on Monday starting with "First..."  If I could figure out how to cut and paste it here, I would do so for you. 

Although I disagree with the comment you selected as well. Alcohol use disorders are clearly linked to abuse.  I've worked in juvenile diversion. It is a pretty common denominator that cuts across social class and standing among other things.

 

 

[elitts]

12 hours ago, yknot said:

That's not the one I was referring to. It's one by elitts that was posted on Monday starting with "First..."  If I could figure out how to cut and paste it here, I would do so for you. 

Although I disagree with the comment you selected as well. Alcohol use disorders are clearly linked to abuse.  I've worked in juvenile diversion. It is a pretty common denominator that cuts across social class and standing among other things.

Sure, but that's a correlation, not a causal relationship.  That would be like saying older, beat up cars are linked with car accidents.  There is a link, but not because older cars actually cause accidents, it's because young new drivers are prone to accidents so parents buy them older beat up cars.

I'd wager money that the reason there's a link between alcohol and abusers is that the abusers are attempting to self-medicate rather than seeking professional help for their fixations.

[qwazse]

1 hour ago, elitts said:

Sure, but that's a correlation, not a causal relationship.  That would be like saying older, beat up cars are linked with car accidents.  There is a link, but not because older cars actually cause accidents, it's because young new drivers are prone to accidents so parents buy them older beat up cars.

I'd wager money that the reason there's a link between alcohol and abusers is that the abusers are attempting to self-medicate rather than seeking professional help for their fixations.

I’m going to be my own opposition’s advocate a bit in this reply, but in the service of understanding what befalls our youth and young adults …

• Some US studies showed that parents who abuse alcohol (severe substance use disorder) are twice as likely to commit child sexual abuse as those who do not. However, the causal chain is uncertain, substance abuse doesn’t capture a spectrum of users, it’s hard to generalize from parents to youth leaders, and our health system doesn’t  track people very well.  A recent study of Swedish men found other factors (age of parents, low education, prior convictions) to be significant in predicting child sexual exploitation while — after accounting for these primary factors —substance use was not (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6225987/ note that compared to Americans, the rate of substance use disorder was quite low.)
• Many young Americans have severe substance use problems, and there is concern that they don’t realize it and allow it to persist well into adulthood. This means that a Cub unit is likely to have one or two parents on the severe end of the spectrum. It’s not sufficient to not register that parent who always has alcohol on his/her breath when bringing their kid to a meeting. We need to convey to that parent that somethings not normal, and for the sake of their kid, they need to change. We are likely to fail, but doing nothing ensures things will stay the same or worsen, with dire consequences for that youth — one of which may be physical/sexual abuse.
• Many more young Americans have mild substance use problems. If they have mature parents, made it through college, and steered clear of the law — they won’t think they have a problem. And in terms of child sexual abuse, they might not pose any additional risk to anybody’s kid. Be they raised by shot-and-beer-after-work steel mongers or wine-before-whiskey-after-dinner professional, they will find an alcohol free culture to be foreign. We ask them to step into a new culture, and they find it strange and silly. Hopefully we bring it up in training and they’ll reply (maybe with a snicker) … sometimes it’s not until after the fact.

Given that a lot of the folks with mild alcohol abuse eventually will make good committee members, scoutmasters, counselors, we suck in our breath, repeat in our heads “friendly, courteous, kind …”,  and tell them something has gotta give and it’s not going to be the camp-out free of booze. If they say “no way”, I say “okay, we’ll leave you at the trail head.” And I have left otherwise very good parents and young ASM’s at home for that reason. I haven’t blacklisted them. or asked the police to do a second check for child abuse.

[skeptic]

59 minutes ago, qwazse said:

I’m going to be my own opposition’s advocate a bit in this reply, but in the service of understanding what befalls our youth and young adults …

• Some US studies showed that parents who abuse alcohol (severe substance use disorder) are twice as likely to commit child sexual abuse as those who do not. However, the causal chain is uncertain, substance abuse doesn’t capture a spectrum of users, it’s hard to generalize from parents to youth leaders, and our health system doesn’t  track people very well.  A recent study of Swedish men found other factors (age of parents, low education, prior convictions) to be significant in predicting child sexual exploitation while — after accounting for these primary factors —substance use was not (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6225987/ note that compared to Americans, the rate of substance use disorder was quite low.)
• Many young Americans have severe substance use problems, and there is concern that they don’t realize it and allow it to persist well into adulthood. This means that a Cub unit is likely to have one or two parents on the severe end of the spectrum. It’s not sufficient to not register that parent who always has alcohol on his/her breath when bringing their kid to a meeting. We need to convey to that parent that somethings not normal, and for the sake of their kid, they need to change. We are likely to fail, but doing nothing ensures things will stay the same or worsen, with dire consequences for that youth — one of which may be physical/sexual abuse.
• Many more young Americans have mild substance use problems. If they have mature parents, made it through college, and steered clear of the law — they won’t think they have a problem. And in terms of child sexual abuse, they might not pose any additional risk to anybody’s kid. Be they raised by shot-and-beer-after-work steel mongers or wine-before-whiskey-after-dinner professional, they will find an alcohol free culture to be foreign. We ask them to step into a new culture, and they find it strange and silly. Hopefully we bring it up in training and they’ll reply (maybe with a snicker) … sometimes it’s not until after the fact.

Given that a lot of the folks with mild alcohol abuse eventually will make good committee members, scoutmasters, counselors, we suck in our breath, repeat in our heads “friendly, courteous, kind …”,  and tell them something has gotta give and it’s not going to be the camp-out free of booze. If they say “no way”, I say “okay, we’ll leave you at the trail head.” And I have left otherwise very good parents and young ASM’s at home for that reason. I haven’t blacklisted them. or asked the police to do a second check for child abuse.

This jogged a thought.  Our youth, the peers of scout that is living in such a situation, often become the protectors in some form.  But they also have been known to point out an issue.  Over more than 40 years, I have seen it.  The group becomes a safe place for the youth, even extending to them a temporary escape, quietly taking them in to their homes when one is needed.  These are the things too often we do not see, and I admit that much of my experience is past tense, discovered in visiting with past youth over decades.  A few of those mistreated youth, now adults, have directly told me their story, years later, being thankful for the haven we and some members offered.

[InquisitiveScouter]

52 minutes ago, skeptic said:

This jogged a thought.  Our youth, the peers of scout that is living in such a situation, often become the protectors in some form.  But they also have been known to point out an issue.  Over more than 40 years, I have seen it.  The group becomes a safe place for the youth, even extending to them a temporary escape, quietly taking them in to their homes when one is needed.  These are the things too often we do not see, and I admit that much of my experience is past tense, discovered in visiting with past youth over decades.  A few of those mistreated youth, now adults, have directly told me their story, years later, being thankful for the haven we and some members offered.

This was me as a youth...  Scouting was my haven.  I am deeply grateful for it and all those who helped me survive, youth and adult.