addressing PDA by scouters in uniform ?

[NJCubScouter]

Except this (#6). And yes, I will argue that PDA falls in to the category of "sexual conduct" because, for some 11-17 year olds, holding hands leads to other stuff. Seeing a Scouter, in uniform, at an event doing that can be construed a such IMO.

I suppose you are correct that an 11-to-17-year-old boy, seeing a married couple holding hands, might conclude that it is likely that, when the couple is in an appropriate setting (i.e, in private, and not in a tent at a Boy Scout camping trip), there might be "other stuff." And you don't have to be 11-to-17. I myself would conclude (if I gave the matter any thought) that the married couple is probably up to "other stuff" at the appropriate time and place. For that matter, people in my troop know that I have three children, so even if they never actually met any other members of my family, they probably would conclude that there was some "other stuff" involved somewhere, sometime.

 

The key word here is "married".

Edited April 17, 2017 by NJCubScouter

[Back Pack]

So it's okay for married people but not unmarried people? What about gay couples that may not be allowed to get married? What about married gay couples?

 

I don't want my kid seeing anyone holding hands. It's got nothing to do with the aims or methods of Scouting. Keep it in your pocket and wait until you get home for God's sake. You can't allow it for married people and bar others...escpcially after all the moral changes we've made in the last four years. Can't close that box, Pandora.

[Eagledad]

Barry, I don't know who you are quoting there, but it isn't me. I never would have said the part about no hand holding by married leaders. I don't remember anyone saying it, but if they did, it wasn't me.

I wasn't thinking of anyone specificity, the forum had a lot of intense discussions back then and it was several years ago. Your post just reminded me of that argument.

 

Barry

[qwazse]

... And yes, I will argue that PDA falls in to the category of "sexual conduct" because, for some 11-17 year olds, holding hands leads to other stuff. ...

Like doing more dishes, and paying for cable to enable someone's HGTV addiction?

Maybe you should also have scouters remove their wedding rings, because I made it quite clear to my Jr. high kids that the vows and blessings behind them were the sole thing that rightly leads to "other stuff."

 

Affection is not sexual conduct nor vice versa.

 

...

I don't want my kid seeing anyone holding hands. It's got nothing to do with the aims or methods of Scouting. Keep it in your pocket and wait until you get home for God's sake. You can't allow it for married people and bar others...escpcially after all the moral changes we've made in the last four years. Can't close that box, Pandora.

The Mediterranean in me is patently insulted that you'd think such vile things of me and my buddies.

 

Your troop, your rules. But don't expect some half-baked policy from wonks in Irving to convince me and my unit leaders to join your crusade of paranoia.

[Hedgehog]

Here's one link. I will find the others.

 

Edit: There was a video that discussed no relationships or PDA between crew members or especially over 18 members and under 18 members. Same for adults and ANY crew member. I will see if I can find that video.

 

That is not an official BSA publication and based on reading it, it seems to be VERY outdated.

 

 

Except this (#6). And yes, I will argue that PDA falls in to the category of "sexual conduct" because, for some 11-17 year olds, holding hands leads to other stuff. Seeing a Scouter, in uniform, at an event doing that can be construed a such IMO.

 

Wow.  I guess even talking to the opposite sex should be banned because you can't get to holding hands without talking.  As @@qwazse said, there is a difference between affection and sexual conduct.

 

 

I suppose you are correct that an 11-to-17-year-old boy, seeing a married couple holding hands, might conclude that it is likely that, when the couple is in an appropriate setting (i.e, in private, and not in a tent at a Boy Scout camping trip), there might be "other stuff." And you don't have to be 11-to-17. I myself would conclude (if I gave the matter any thought) that the married couple is probably up to "other stuff" at the appropriate time and place. For that matter, people in my troop know that I have three children, so even if they never actually met any other members of my family, they probably would conclude that there was some "other stuff" involved somewhere, sometime.

 

The key word here is "married".

 

You could conclude that even if they weren't holding hands.

 

And, if they are drawing that inference, it is a lot better for them to infer sexual relations as part of a consecrated, legally-sanctioned, committed, loving and monogomous relationship which includes affection and respect rather than the way sex is portraited on television as a carnal, one-night stand without any love or committment.  

Edited April 18, 2017 by Hedgehog

[Back Pack]

Fine. Then when ANY couple starts holding hands or showing "affection" I don't want to hear you lot oppressing them for a marriage license.

 

If it's okay for married people it's okay for ANYONE. Or does your indignation stop at a license? Double standard?

[Ankylus]

What about gay couples that may not be allowed to get married?

 

This is a red herring in the U.S. In case you missed it, SCOTUS ruled a couple of years ago that homosexuals have a constitutional right to get married.

 

So, there's no excuses now. Gays can be married or not, according to their desires, just like heterosexual people.

 

And so the rules apply to gays just like heteros...if hetero couple can do it, a gay couple can do it and vice versa. If marital status is determinative for the hetero sexual couple, then it is also for gay couples.

 

The whole "but we're not allowed to marry" excuse is now void and invalid.

[qwazse]

Fine. Then when ANY couple starts holding hands or showing "affection" I don't want to hear you lot oppressing them for a marriage license.

 

If it's okay for married people it's okay for ANYONE. Or does your indignation stop at a license? Double standard?

Well, license is, by definition, a grant to exercise certain discretion not generally allowable to all,

But, If we are talking about BSA regulations:

• For tenting arrangements, the bias against unwed opposite-sex tent-mates remains in the G2SS (a document to which Scouter Code of Conduct explicitly refers in #3); however,
• SCC statement #6 seems unbounded as to time and location. But, the license given indirectly in statement #3 (i.e., by virtue of being allowed to share a tent according to YPT, one would be allowed to stroll to one's spouse to one's tent -- with or without holding hands), seems intended to address gross indiscretions, not PDA; moreover,
• generalizing from the right of venturing youth to set their unit's boundaries for acceptable PDA, which by majority, applies to non-married social relationships. If my crew had a restrictive PDA policy but also had venturers who were married couples, I would ask the officers to consider if it would be better or worse for moral to carve out exceptions for holy estates.

This leads us to conclude this PDA is not the purview of national, and that policies are allowed to vary by unit -- maybe with some guidance from their CO for reasons that may be entirely parochial.

 

Any scouters having a tough time with this, are welcome to come camping with any unit I'm involved with, I'll hold your hand through the entire process.

[Chadamus]

Any scouters having a tough time with this, are welcome to come camping with any unit I'm involved with, I'll hold your hand through the entire process.

Well done, sir.☺

Edited April 18, 2017 by Chadamus

[Col. Flagg]

Folks, if PDA is a wonderful, positive thing it shouldn't matter whether someone is married or not. Also, how does MY troop know if you and your Mrs are married or not. They just see folks holding hands and cheek-pecking.

 

You can quote as much BSA policy as you want, but your position is not helped when you limit PDA to married people. Either PDA is a positive thing or not. Even if non-married people cannot tent together, you YOU going to forbid them from holding hands if it is such a positive thing?

 

It's other the one or the other. Can't limit PDA to only those folks you want.

[NJCubScouter]

Folks, if PDA is a wonderful, positive thing it shouldn't matter whether someone is married or not. Also, how does MY troop know if you and your Mrs are married or not. They just see folks holding hands and cheek-pecking.

 

I personally don't view it as either positive or negative.  The question for me is whether it is prohibited or not.  And maybe I missed it, but I don't see where "PDA" (short of "sexual activity") is actually prohibited (by National) for either married or unmarried Scouters.  (Leaving aside that kind of odd (and discriminatory) document on Guidelines for Female Conduct, which is really geared toward camp staff, who are employees rather than volunteers.)  

 

It is really more a matter of unit/CO rules, based on common sense as to how people should behave in public, and about what their "PDA" might suggest about what is going on between them elsewhere.  As for the latter point, there is a difference between married and unmarried persons.  And whether you like it or not, the BSA does treat married couples differently than unmarried persons, specifically in the tenting rules, but I think this also carries over into what is generally "okay" and what isn't "okay".  How about two adults of the opposite sex, on a camping trip, sitting next to each other and speaking softly and laughing to each other so nobody else can hear what they are saying?  They aren't even touching each other, but it might still be a show of affection.  I think this is going to be viewed one way if John and Mary are married to each other, and another way if they are each married to other people.   In the first instance an onlooker might think "Aw, isn't that nice" and in the second case it might be "Hey, what's going on?"

 

As for what someone from another troop might think, it's actually none of your business, but if you feel a need to think about it at all, it would probably be best if you just assumed the people are married to each other.

Edited April 18, 2017 by NJCubScouter

[Col. Flagg]

I don't think any PDA belongs in Scouting. We're asked to abstain from drinking, smoking and other things, so why not PDA? That's rhetorical since we've already come full circle on this argument. 

[NJCubScouter]

That's rhetorical since we've already come full circle on this argument. 

 

More than once, it's beginning to look like the Olympic rings.

[frankpalazzi]

Is that the good ship Mayflower I see moored a-yonder?

[NJCubScouter]

Is that the good ship Mayflower I see moored a-yonder?

 

If that's a joke, it's so clever and sophisticated that I don't get it.