BSA CSA: Concealment or Trustworthy, Loyal...?

[johnsch322]

41 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

As I noted above, no one in BSA ever reached out to me. Here’s some more context: it was the late 1990’s (hope that doesn’t get counted as “old timer”!), my abuser was arrested (bc my family and I reported it to the police) so it was publicly known, I was in Scouts from Tiger through 18 yrs old, Eagle/Vigil/youth leadership positions so I knew/interacted with a lot of adults (SE on down). I never heard they did any reimbursement until recently (my broke college self could have used it more than now). 
 

That said, I’ve been considering it for my more recent during-bankruptcy therapy but haven’t… has anyone on here done that? 

Nor did anyone within the BSA advise you to sue. The BSA knew that you could since they had a legal team and insurance coverage in case you did. Of course if you or your parents were aware of that and took that path it would have cost the BSA money (increased insurance and legal costs and possibly less in donations).You could have used that money for counseling, medical issues and other things that arose from your CSA. Also this being the late 90's when you were molested the effects of the  molestation were well known at the time so no one can say it was how things were.

[Mrjeff]

What's happened in the past cant be undone and the BSA has made major changes, some of which seem to be over the top and leave no room for common sense. Ie..a 17 year old girl wants to go on a trip and her best friend wants to go, too.  The best friend will be 18 during the trip.  Well, a situation now exists wherein a youth member is now an adult and can't "buddy up" with her best friend.  5 days prior it was just fine but now its forbidden.  To me, that is overreach and is ridiculous.   Every situation  can not be governed by such a strict set of rules without the use of discretion  and common sense. 

[mrjohns2]

57 minutes ago, Mrjeff said:

Every situation  can not be governed by such a strict set of rules without the use of discretion  and common sense. 

It was clear that in the past, common sense and proper discretion were not in abundance. One has to draw the line somewhere. So, in your friend situation, what if she turns 18 the day before the trip, etc. Making clear cut rules are better than "well, you decide" since people already push the edges of the current rules. 

[ThenNow]

As most in this conversation know, I am not anti-BSA, don’t seek a scorched earth scenario, am grateful to the TCC and Survivor Working Group for pushing to improve YP, and am ‘proud’ of BSA for incorporating those changes into the plan (regardless what it took to get them to that point). That does not negate my position that there was, in fact, a noteworthy elevation of leaders and their moral fiber such that they set themselves up to be held to a higher standard. Because they created for themselves a higher bar, they needed to meet that self-imposed metric in protecting kids over reputation, rosters and revenue. In my mind, all things considered based on the evidence, in many cases (the vast majority?) they chose to conceal, rather than reveal and protect kids. Keeping or trying to keep out abusers was not enough. It was Boy Scouts of America after all. Boys look to be first in the equation, no? For decades, no boys meant no Scouting. Children were and are the most critical ‘asset’. Period. As best I can tell, BSA is now behaving that way or has pledged to do so. It appears it took the force of court mandate. At this stage, I don’t really care what it took. If BSA emerges, youth will be safer and I take some satisfaction knowing our pain may benefit current Scouts and future generations. 

Edited July 9, 2022 by ThenNow

[Mrjeff]

2 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

What's happened in the past cant be undone and the BSA has made major changes, some of which seem to be over the top and leave no room for common sense. Ie..a 17 year old girl wants to go on a trip and her best friend wants to go, too.  The best friend will be 18 during the trip.  Well, a situation now exists wherein a youth member is now an adult and can't "buddy up" with her best friend.  5 days prior it was just fine but now its forbidden.  To me, that is overreach and is ridiculous.   Every situation  can not be governed by such a strict set of rules without the use of discretion  and common sense. 

 

[Mrjeff]

If there MUST be strict rules in place then do away with any overlapping and confusing mandates.  If 18 is considered an adult, then make the age of 18 be the benchmark.  If 21 is the magic age, then make the rule 21. Quit messing around and make the decision.  No more "Venture Scouts, Explorers, Sea Scouts and OA members are considered youth until age 21 and are considered to be an adult for everything else.  That is just nonsense.  That's just like being almost pregnant,  you either are or you are not.  The whole concept that is in place now is too restrictive and over reaching in my opinion and still requires common sense and judgment on the part of the organizers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ThenNow]

Perhaps I’m not a good choice to initiate or in any way facilitate this conversation. I am clearly biased, having been physically abused in my home and variously sexually abused by non-family men in authority positions. I can see the faces of each of them. Only one, my dad, ever showed any remorse. All had complicit actors. (Sorry, mom.)

My SM abuser stood in camp, in the presence of another ‘adult’ (20 or 21 years old), and told his Scouts to “line up for a soft hands contest.” The winner, yours truly, being directed to his tent. No sneaking around or secreting me off to a hidden location. No concealment on his part. It’s probably hard for me to fathom that no one knew or, if they did, felt the standards of the day dictated a response of, “Shhh. You know we don’t talk about children being raped. What were you thinking?”

I suppose I read that IVF from across town and unfairly assumed someone would’ve had the forethought and decency to come tell parents at a Troop 2 miles away to ask their boys if they were being given pornography or booze or other such. Maybe I am asking too much as I look at the Fb pages of my SM abuser, see his life set beside photos of me when I was 14, and wonder how he was allowed to have what he has and why so many boys were left with the dregs of his dark not so secret secrets. Dunno. I think too much.

Edited July 10, 2022 by ThenNow

[clbkbx]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

It’s probably hard for me to fathom that no one knew

I hear you on this. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, thank you for sharing some of your story. Every victim’s experience is difficult to read. 
 

If it’s not too burdensome to facilitate this conversation, I find your perspective is very valuable. 

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, clbkbx said:

If it’s not too burdensome to facilitate this conversation, I find your perspective is very valuable.

Thanks. Not at all. I was sorta being self-deprecating to reinforce my point.

[ThenNow]

22 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

If there MUST be strict rules in place then do away with any overlapping and confusing mandates.  If 18 is considered an adult, then make the age of 18 be the benchmark.  If 21 is the magic age, then make the rule 21. Quit messing around and make the decision.  No more "Venture Scouts, Explorers, Sea Scouts and OA members are considered youth until age 21 and are considered to be an adult for everything else.  That is just nonsense.  That's just like being almost pregnant,  you either are or you are not.  The whole concept that is in place now is too restrictive and over reaching in my opinion and still requires common sense and judgment on the part of the organizers.

I'm not sure if you have been on the thread about the new YP terms in the plan (Non-Monetary Commitments). Apologies for not looking through it to check. It might be a topic addressed there or would be a good place to raise this issue. I know it has been raised a few times in various places. Just FYI.

 

[fred8033]

On 7/9/2022 at 6:29 PM, ThenNow said:

... That does not negate my position that there was, in fact, a noteworthy elevation of leaders and their moral fiber such that they set themselves up to be held to a higher standard. Because they created for themselves a higher bar, they needed to meet that self-imposed metric in protecting kids over reputation, rosters and revenue. In my mind, all things considered based on the evidence, in many cases (the vast majority?) they chose to conceal, rather than reveal and protect kids. Keeping or trying to keep out abusers was not enough. It was Boy Scouts of America after all. Boys look to be first in the equation, no? For decades, no boys meant no Scouting. Children were and are the most critical ‘asset’. Period. As best I can tell, BSA is now behaving that way or has pledged to do so. It appears it took the force of court mandate. At this stage, I don’t really care what it took. If BSA emerges, youth will be safer and I take some satisfaction knowing our pain may benefit current Scouts and future generations. 

@ThenNow ... As always, I respect what you say and appreciate your writing it clear and well.

I agree BSA has improved over the years.  Some on it's own.  Some by court.  

I don't accept BSA had a higher standard.  I saw your earlier post quoting the BSA handbook.  It was the same post-war marketing rhetoric we often saw talking about people in position. 

I often think about the TV show MASH episode that mocked the rhetoric when the episode was about making a pre-movie war news reel.  Hawkeye and Trapper John entered the tent with narration about sainted doctors in surgical garb.  ...   That was the time.  Same with Disney school documentaries or the Mr. Science hour or many other different videos.  

That does not automatically create a higher expectation.  I think about about groups that clearly failed that explicitly did have higher standards.  Police.  Courts.  Schools.  etc.  

I also don't accept the conceal statement.  But, we've been thru this many times.  

I guess this discussion is who-posts last. 

Edited July 11, 2022 by fred8033

[fred8033]

On 7/10/2022 at 8:52 AM, ThenNow said:

Perhaps I’m not a good choice to initiate or in any way facilitate this conversation. I am clearly biased, having been physically abused in my home and variously sexually abused by non-family men in authority positions. I can see the faces of each of them. Only one, my dad, ever showed any remorse. All had complicit actors. (Sorry, mom.)

My SM abuser stood in camp, in the presence of another ‘adult’ (20 or 21 years old), and told his Scouts to “line up for a soft hands contest.” The winner, yours truly, being directed to his tent. No sneaking around or secreting me off to a hidden location. No concealment on his part. It’s probably hard for me to fathom that no one knew or, if they did, felt the standards of the day dictated a response of, “Shhh. You know we don’t talk about children being raped. What were you thinking?”

I suppose I read that IVF from across town and unfairly assumed someone would’ve had the forethought and decency to come tell parents at a Troop 2 miles away to ask their boys if they were being given pornography or booze or other such. Maybe I am asking too much as I look at the Fb pages of my SM abuser, see his life set beside photos of me when I was 14, and wonder how he was allowed to have what he has and why so many boys were left with the dregs of his dark not so secret secrets. Dunno. I think too much.

I just can't imagine.  What a hell of a caricatured childhood to grow up in.  

Dumb question - I fear even asking.  What was a soft hands contest?  That makes no sense.  

[ThenNow]

4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I don't accept BSA had a higher standard.  I saw your earlier post quoting the BSA handbook.  It was the same post-war marketing rhetoric we often saw talking about people in position. 

Which war is that? WWII? These books and marketing campaigns were late 60's and early 70's, as in during and after the, "Don't believe your government" and "Question Authority!" eras.

[ThenNow]

4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

What was a soft hands contest?  That makes no sense.  

Think about it for a minute or two. You'll figure it out. Remember, it was a statement from a pedophile and the contest had a winner who got a special "prize."

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

I don't accept BSA had a higher standard.  I saw your earlier post quoting the BSA handbook.  It was the same post-war marketing rhetoric we often saw talking about people in position. 

####

That does not automatically create a higher expectation.  I think about about groups that clearly failed that explicitly did have higher standards.  Police.  Courts.  Schools.  etc.  

Do you have any marketing materials, parent manuals or materials for children from another NGO YSO that mirror the BSA excerpts I posted? I am truly interested in seeing them.