EmberMike

The big difference between this and the issue of gay kids in scouting is that gay kids don't have another option, while girls do. Exclude a gay kid and that's the end of the road for him in Scouting. Exclude girls and there's still the GSUSA. At a certain age there's also Venturing for girls.

On this Friday before Mother's Day all the talk about scouting in the world community reminds me of something my mother used to say to me. "If all your friends jumped off a bridge would you jump too?" .

 

One of the things not discussed here is differentiation. Yeah, it's an MBA kind of term but applicable none the less. The BSA is in competition for kid's and parent's free-time investment. I suspect we all lose kids to sports. In my neck of the woods I lose kids to 4H and FFA (good programs as well) because those programs more closely match their interests. I've had parents tell me they wouldn't let their kids sign up for scouts unless they gave up something else. I've heard other scoutmasters say they lose kids because they already camp, hike, hunt, fish, boat, canoe, ride ATVs and snowmobiles with their dads. They don't need scouts. The reason I bring it up is I also do some work with my son's youth group at church. The YG is co-ed, basically 7th - 12th graders. We camp, we do service projects, we play laser tag (gasp!), hold lock-ins, go to amusement parks, go on mission trips, etc. If the BSA went co-ed, how would we differentiate ourselves from my son's youth group in the values-based youth program competition for the scarce resource of time? I gotta say I don't see anything in the BSA program that I couldn't also do with the youth group and frankly with a lot fewer rules in the way.

Operationally this will be a nightmare to manage. What happens if the resolution is passed and now a Scout comes out? Do we disclose to the whole troop or keep it a secret? Do we tell the parents of the other Scouts in case they object to having their son sleep in a tent with an openly gay Scout? If we don't disclose to those parents, what liability do the adult leader run into in the event there is an incident?

 

Passing this resolution without clearly guidelines on how to uniformly manage such situations leaves us the leaders open to all sorts of liability and political/social issues we are not equipped to handle. It takes the focus off of why were are there in the first place.

If this issue "takes the focus off of why we are there in the first place" in the BSA, why doesn't it do the same everywhere else?

I stumbled across this organization while reading some articles about alternative Scouting groups and similar organizations. I really know very little about it, and it seems to be a rather small group at the moment (just a handful of units around the country as far as I can tell), but it has a great deal of appeal as an alternative to the BSA. It is remarkably similar to the BSA in many ways, and different in ways that I personally find refreshing, most notably an inclusive, non-discriminatory membership policy.

Anyone know anything about the BPSA? Any experiences with the organization, or knowledge of how it works, how things are going with this fairly new group, etc?

I'm certainly curious. I just ordered a Pathfinder handbook to get a better sense for what that part of the program is about.

I stumbled across this organization while reading some articles about alternative Scouting groups and similar organizations. I really know very little about it, and it seems to be a rather small group at the moment (just a handful of units around the country as far as I can tell), but it has a great deal of appeal as an alternative to the BSA. It is remarkably similar to the BSA in many ways, and different in ways that I personally find refreshing, most notably an inclusive, non-discriminatory membership policy.

Anyone know anything about the BPSA? Any experiences with the organization, or knowledge of how it works, how things are going with this fairly new group, etc?

I'm certainly curious. I just ordered a Pathfinder handbook to get a better sense for what that part of the program is about.

I'm giving serious thought to not pursuing any sort of future for my kids in the BSA if somehow this policy change is voted down. Although I doubt that will happen. But on the off chance it does happen, I think I'll be looking elsewhere to fulfill the aspects of citizenship and the outdoors that I'd like to instill in my kids. I'd even consider starting up a local Baden Powell Service Association unit. Heck, to be honest, I'm considering that regardless of the BSA vote. But I've got some time to think about it, my son is still a few years out from Scouting age, and the vote this month will certainly weigh heavily into any decision I make about which organization I opt to continue my family's Scouting tradition in.

I'm fairly new around here, but I am aware that the forum has undergone a software update recently and there are some associated problems with forum operations since then. But after a few months, I haven't seen much change.

Is this forum still active? Are there plans to fix the problems? Because right now, this place is unfortunately barely usable. I can't even see much of the main discussion areas of the forum.

Seems like this forum has the largest membership of any scouting forum, so if the site if going to be fixed, it's probably worth the wait. But I'd just like to know if there even are any plans to do anything or if this is just a lost cause.

Certainly, DigitalScout. Because we as Americans look to a sport that produced Michael Vick, Adam "Pacman" Jones, Terry Anderson, Chris Henry, and Ben Roethlisberger, Greg Williams, and Sean Payton for models of moral action.

 

Or do you mean that because football players are seen as more "masculine" than non-steroidal. lower-paid Americans, that it will make homosexuality more mainstream? Numerous football players have been arrested for statutory rape, does that mean NFL players will make sex with minors more acceptable?

 

You do realize this is all based on the word of just one attention-seeking ex-player, right?

This site is almost completely unusable at this point.

I'm not seeing it, Mike. You're drwaing a lot of conclusions from anecdotal evidence. Nothing you've posted says anything about the rate of homosexuality in abusers. You're just taking other stats and assuming various other things from them.

Where's the study that says simply that gay men are more likely to abuse kids than straight men? If it's just that simple, surely there is some evidence to support that idea.

I have to add, also, that your assumption that all men who abuse boys are gay is flawed. People who abuse children have obvious mental disorders, regardless of their own gender and sexual preference. Some mental health professionals go so far as to call those kinds of attractions a "third sexual orientation". I don't think I'd agree with that, I think they're just screwed up individuals, but nevertheless there is a flaw in thinking that all abusers can be defined in their sexual preference only by the gender of who they abuse.

And I'll add this question: where's the outrage over straight men in the GSA? We can't even identify most men who would be abusers in the BSA because they self-identify as straight. But straight men in the GSA are pretty easy to identify, and they would readily admit that they're attracted to females, so why aren't you pushing to get them out? Why isn't anyone doing that? They seem like the highest risk category, people who openly admit an attraction to females and are in an organization that is full of girls. One of the studies you posted above even indicates that girls are more likely to be victims of childhood sexual abuse than boys. Why are gays in the BSA perceived as a higher risk than straight men in the GSA, when statistically girls are more likely to be abused?

The issue of abuse in the BSA will not be solved by banning gays. It hasn't helped so far, while the ban has always existed. We'd do more good probably to ban married men than gays, since they're more likely to be abusers. Obviously I'm being facetious here, but the point is that a continued ban on gays doesn't help anyone when it comes to the issue of abuse.

http://www.jimhopper.com/pdfs/Dube_(2005)_Childhood_sexual_abuse_by_gender_of_victim.pdf

 

A 2005 research study in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine (also not a religiously funded study), “Long-Term Consequences of Childhood Sexual Abuse by Gender of Victim†by Shanta R. Dube, MPH, Robert F. Anda, MD, MS, Charles L. Whitfield, MD, David W. Brown, MSPH, MS, Vincent J. Felitti, MD, Maxia Dong, MD, PhD, Wayne H. Giles, MD, MS

 

In a survey of 7970 men and 9,367 women who were members of an HMO, who were asked if they were sexually abused as children (defined as touched in a sexual way or forced to touch an adult in a sexual way, attempted sexual intercourse, or completed sexual intercourse,) 16% of males and 24.7% of females reported childhood sexual abuse.

 

Any form of sexual abuse is wrong, but of those who reported sexual abuse (1,276 of the males and 2,310 of the females), the males were more likely to have been the victims of abuse by sexual intercourse than non-intercourse sexual abuse - 41.8% were the victims of full intercourse (compared to 22.9% of the females).

 

91.9% of the girls were victimized by male(s) (heterosexual), and only 2.1% by another female. (3.6% by both male and female, 2.4% non-specified gender). So, including those who were abused by both genders, 95.5% were abused by men.

 

51% of the boys were abused exclusively by male(s) (homosexual abuse), 20.8% by females, 18.3% by both male and female, and 9.9.% not specified. So, including those who were abused by both genders, at least 69.3% were abused by men (including a much larger “non-specified†gender group that can be presumed to be mostly male. Considering that less than 5% of males are homosexual, the rates of child sexual abuse by homosexuals/bisexuals reflect that homosexuals and bisexuals molest boys at a much higher rate than they are represented in the population by even the most optimistic estimates of the LGBT community.

You take issue with the science behind the studies I reference but I'm seeing nothing scientific in yours either. Just assumptions and generalizations.

http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/bartholomew/faq_files/stanley1.pdf

 

From “Gay and Bisexual Men's Age-Discrepant Childhood Sexual Experiences†by

 

Jessica L. Stanley, Kim Bartholomew, and Doug Oram, Simon Fraser University, published in The Journal of Sex Research Volume 41, Number 4, November 2004: pp. 38t-389

 

“This study examined childhood sexual abuse (CSA) in gay and bisexual men. We compared the conventional definition of CSA based on age difference with a modified definition of CSA based on perception to evaluate which definition best accounted for problems in adjustment. The sample consisted of 192 gay and bisexual men recruited from a randomly selected community sample. Men's descriptions of their CSA experiences were coded from taped interviews. Fifty men (26%) reported sexual experiences before age 17 with someone at least 5 years older, constituting CSA according to the age-based definition.â€

 

"Fifty of the 192 men (26%) reported sexual contact with someone at least 5 years older before the age of 17. On average, the men were 10.10 years of age {SD = ]4.45) at the time of sexual contact with a range of 2 to 16 years. The age of the older person ranged from 11 to 60 years with a mean of 24.61{SD = 8.70). The age difference between the youth and older person averaged 14.25 years {SD = 7.71) and ranged from 5 to 45 years difference. The vast majority of older sexual partners were men (92%) with only 4 (8%) of the 48 men who indicated the sex of the older person reporting that it was a woman. Most commonly, the sexual contact occurred only once {n - 21, 48%), although the duration of sexual contact ranged up to 12 years. Ten of the 45 men (22%) who described the duration of sexual contact reported that the sexual contact lasted for more than 1 year.â€

 

“Forty-five men indicated they had a relationship with the older person (see Table 1). Fifteen men (33%) reported that the older person was a member of their community (e.g., shopkeeper, leader of a youth organization, or babysitter). Family friends {n = 7, 16%) and strangers {n [/i]= 7, 16%) were the next most commonly mentioned relations. Sexual contact with a member of the extended fam- ily (e.g., cousins and uncles) was reported by five men (11%). Another five men (11%) described the relationship as an acquaintanceship. Four men (9%) reported sexual relations with older brothers, and two men reported sexual relations with fathers (4%).â€

 

(As you will see in the studies cited below, the rate of CSA for homosexual males as victims is much higher than for heterosexuals, and 92% of the offenders in the study above were homosexual males.)

How exactly would the BSA policy have kept these men out?

“Homosexual†is defined by Merriam-Webster, as well as most dictionaries, as

 

1.: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

 

2: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.

 

Not adults, simply persons of the same sex. The heterosexual definition uses equivalent terms. Adult males of homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual orientation sometimes have sex with children. It doesn’t matter how someone defines their own orientation, as we are concerned with behavior. To try to redefine the word to benefit your argument, or to try to carve out a third or fourth preference is a logical fallacy known as “moving the goalposts.â€

 

Our concerns are, who represents a greater risk to our potential victim population?

 

Common sense would tell us that heterosexual males do not represent a risk of sexual molestation of juvenile males.

 

Common sense would tell us that heterosexual females do represent a risk of sexual molestation to boys. (Statistically, however, it is a much lower risk.)

 

Common sense would tell us that homosexual males do represent a risk of sexual molestation to boys.

 

Common sense would tell us that bisexual males do represent a risk of sexual molestation to boys.

 

So, since homosexual and bisexual males (by definition) represent the greatest risk factor of those groups to boys, our question then becomes, what is the level of that risk, and do the potential benefits of allowing homosexuals and bisexuals as scouts and scout leaders (increased self-esteem and self-actualization of the homosexuals involved) outweigh the risks of same (potential criminal sexual molestation)?

 

Here are some relevant studies, which were not commissioned by religious institutions, as per EmberMike’s request.

So would you support kicking women out of the BSA as well?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is mandated by Congress to do regular surveys of the rates of all forms of abuse (physical as well as sexual) against children, the National Incidence Study (NIS). The NIS reports are the standard references used by researchers and therapists in the field of child sexual abuse. NIS-4, done in 2010, found that, again, males are the most likely perpetrators of all forms of abuse, as well as sexual abuse in particular:

 

The predominance of males as the perpetrators of abuse holds true for each specific abuse category and is most pronounced for sexual abuse, where 87% of sexually abused children had male perpetrators.

 

Table 6–3 further reveals sex differences across the different perpetrator relationships, for overall abuse and for the specific abuse categories. Among all abused children, those abused by their biological parents were nearly equally likely to have been abused by mothers (51%) as by fathers (54%), but those abused by nonbiological parents or parents’ partners and those abused by other persons were much more commonly abused by males (79% and 74%). This pattern applies for emotionally abused children, where the percentages of children with male perpetrators differ across the relationship categories. However, there are no differences across relationship categories for female perpetrators of emotional abuse. Moreover, the pattern is also different among physically abused children. When biological parents or other persons were perpetrators, males were the abusers for only about one-half of the children (48% and 56%, respectively), whereas when the perpetrator was a nonbiological parent, nearly three-fourths of the children were abused by a male (74%).

 

The mirror image of this pattern is evident in the differences in percentages of children with female perpetrators across the relationship categories. When the perpetrator was a nonbiological parent, then this was a female for less than one-third of the children (29%); when the perpetrator was a biological parent or other person, then it was more likely to be a female perpetrators (for 56% and 43% of the children, respectively).

 

Among sexually abused children, the majority of perpetrators were male, regardless of their relationship to the child. However, they were much more likely to be male when they were the child’s nonbiological parent. Also, the percentage of female perpetrators differs significantly depending on their relationship to the child. Children who are sexually abused by their biological parents have the highest percentage of female perpetrators (22% versus 6% or less in other relationship categories).

 

The study does not break down stats by the victim’s gender, but male offenders were responsible for 87% of all sexual abuse; 80% of sexual abuse by parents; 97% of sexual abuse by non-biological parents or caregivers; and 86% of all sexual abuse by non-parents or caregivers. Again, women are statistically unlikely to sexually abuse boys compared to males; and as we can assume that roughly half of the children in the NIS are boys, the majority have been victimized by homosexuals or bisexuals.

 

I can cite many more research studies if you need them, EmberMike.

 

One could try to argue that, well, these people committing homosexual acts, weren't really "gay," they were actually heterosexuals who were committing homosexual acts. If you feel prone to make this argument, you should first Google the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

The reality is that most of those victims are being abused men who would identify themselves as heterosexual. That's what the studies that I talked about, the ones that actually discuss the rate of homosexuality, refer to. That many of these men self-identify as straight and live their lives as straight men husbands, and fathers.

Banning gays from the BSA would do nothing to stop the vast majority of the men who would abuse boys. It sure wouldn't have kept a guy like Sandusky out, or the many men like him who are married and live as straight men.

If you've got some other evidence that gay men are more likely to be abusers, please post it. The NIS report says nothing about homosexuality. The words "gay" and "homosexual" don't even appear in that report. Simply stating that the majority of abuse perpetrators are men (which I think we all knew already) doesn't lend any credibility to the idea that gay men are more likely to abuse kids.

Regarding the Colorado study, the perpetrators were identified as gay or straight through their own admission or their current relationships. 74% of them were married or in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Many were parents. Only 2 people in the study were self-identified to be gay or determined to be gay based on current or past relationships.

Even if the data is flawed in this or the APA studies, I'd be surprised to find that the numbers skew significantly. Even if they did, look at how much of a skew it would take to make a difference. Instead of 2 identified homosexuals, say there were 20. Or 100. Even at 100, that's still less than half of the group. Straight men would still make up the majority of the study.

The point is that despite these studies being somewhat less than scientific, the anecdotal evidence can't be ignored. It strongly points to supporting the idea that there is not only no greater threat from gay man than straight men, there may be less of a threat from gay men.

For those who say that this is about protecting kids from gay men, I'd like to know if you also support banning straight men from the GSA.

Numerous studies have proven that gay men are no more likely to molest children than straight men. In fact, pedophiles are sometimes classified by mental health professionals as being of a "third sexual orientation."

 

So the issue of the single gay guy who wants to volunteer with the troop is a non-issue. If his enthusiasm is the cause for concern, you should have the same concern over the enthusiastic straight guy as well.

Men are allowed on GSA camping trips. Maybe in your area it's a local restriction, but the GSA has no policy against male leaders, other than that they always be accompanied by female leaders and not be alone with girls, which is prudent "2 deep" leadership no matter what organization we're talking about.

Regarding the myth that gay men are more likely to molest kids...

According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are."

In a 1992 study in Colorado, two physicians reviewed every case of suspected child molestation evaluated at Children's Hospital in Denver over a one-year period. Of the 269 cases determined to involve molestation by an adult, only two of the perpetrators could be identified as gay or lesbian. The researchers concluded that the risk of child sexual abuse by an identifiably gay or lesbian person was between zero and 3.1%, and that the risk of such abuse by the heterosexual partner of a relative was over 100 times greater.

Some estimates put the rate of incident of child molestation at 95% heterosexual perpetrator, 5% gay perpetrators.

I'd be happy to read any study you find that suggests otherwise, provided it's not a study commissioned by a religious group. The overwhelming evidence among psychiatric institutions and medical professionals is that gay men are no more likely to molest kids, and in fact most evidence suggests that they are statistically LESS likely to molest children than straight men.

Numerous studies have proven that gay men are no more likely to molest children than straight men. In fact, pedophiles are sometimes classified by mental health professionals as being of a "third sexual orientation."

So the issue of the single gay guy who wants to volunteer with the troop is a non-issue. If his enthusiasm is the cause for concern, you should have the same concern over the enthusiastic straight guy as well.

The most common arguments I've seen and heard for maintaining the ban are usually based on flawed logic. It's usually something to the effect of gay men are more likely to molest children, so banning gays is protecting kids. Of course this idea ignores the various studies that show that gay men are no more or less likely to molest children than straight men. There was a study done a few years back that looked at 200+ pediphiles and only 2 of them were openly gay.

Then there is the less popular notion that gays want to convert our kids to be gay as well. Seriously, I can't make this stuff up. The belief is that gays shouldn't be in any position of authority over kids because they will use that position to influence the kids into being gay themselves.

Yeah, I know what you're thinking, I'm thinking the same thing.

On the issue of religion, I can sort of understand that one. If we're going to say that there are right and wrong reasons to be on either side of this, I'd say religion is one where you could be right on either side of the argument. Bible purists believe that God disapproves of homosexuality. People like me believe that God created us, gay people are born gay, and God would disapprove of me discriminating against anyone he created based on something they were born with. I'm Catholic, but I don't believe the Bible to be the perfect interpretation of God's will. It's got flaws, and I believe the interpretation of God's disapproval of homosexuality to be one of them.

The religious issue we'll never settle. We've argued theology fo centuries and will argue it for centuries more. But what frustrates me immensly is the incorrect belief that banning gays fro the BSA is an act of protection for youth. I really hope that none of that kind of thinking is being considered in the upcoming decision. But sadly, people who erroneously believe that there is this threat to our children from gay leaders still have a voice in the debate, and will still be heard by the people who will make the call.

You don't have to be correct in your reasoning to still have a say in the debate. And I'm afraid that there are enough people with these incorrect ideas about gay people to sway the decision in their favor.

And that, I believe, might kill the BSA. Reaffirming the ban and doing so with even a slight hint at the idea that this is a measure of protection will make the organization seem further out of touch with reality. I'd hate to see the BSA become known as the organization that has this irrational fear of gay people, and I think that sort of stigma will begin the process of dismantling the organization.

I can't seem to get a Quote to work. Any time I try to quote a previous post, my reply shows the Quote with the code.

Thanks for the replies, everyone. Lots of good info here. I think the point made by several folks about kids at that age not really knowing what something is, and therefore not knowing whether they'd like it, is an important point. I guess if we only let our 5 and 6 year olds do things that they volunteered to do, many of them wouldn't do much.

...The trick is to embrace whatever your KID embraces. The trouble starts when a parent either wants to relive their own glory days or pushes a kid to an activity the parent wants more than the child does (for whatever reason)...

This is exactly what my concern has been. I have no doubt that if my son becomes a scout, I'll want to be a volunteer and have some role in the pack and eventually the troop. Heck, I'd probably be a SM if given the opportunity. So is this more about me than him? I guess that depends on how things go a few years into it. If he hates it and is begging me to let him quit and I refuse because I want to remain active myself, then that's obviously the wrong reason for keeping him in it. But I'd like to think I'll be able to make the right call about that if and when the time comes, not just about Scouting but about anything my kids do.

BTW, assuming your name is Dean based on your username, the boy we're talking about here is named Dean also. Great name.

...I am a bit jealous that some of you guys are former Eagles...

Whoa whoa whoa there, Turtle... Once an Eagle, always an Eagle.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

When I was in high-school I was in the marching band, and one of the perks of being in the band was that for parades in which I'd have previously been marching with the Troop, I'd be with the band instead. Band trumped Scouts, and band was slightly less uncool than Scouting. Band was also 150 kids vs. the Troop's dozen kids, so it was easier to blend in with the band and not bee seen.

It's sad, I know. But that's how it was and probably still is.

I think part of the problem is the image of the boy scout. It's a very dated look. As mush as I respect the traditions of the organization, I think it's long overdue that they drop some of the really old-fashioned looking things from the uniform. I think neckerchiefs have to go. When I was active, my troop allowed us to substitute a bolo for a neckerchief. Bolos are still pretty terrible, but it was better than a neckerchief. And the combination of the shorts with those horrible looking socks. Oh man...

I hate to make it about the superficial stuff, but really I think the opinions of other kids regarding Scouting would be less harsh if scouts didn't look so lame.

Hi folks. New guy here. I'm the father of a 2-year-old, and although I've got a few years before my son is even eligible to join a Pack, Scouting is already on my mind. I'm an Eagle and I regard my days in Scouting as some of the best I had as a youth, and so I have high hopes that my son will get the Scouting bug as well.

Although we live in a "Main Street" kind of town, I'm already trying to instill a bit of an outdoorsy spirit in my son, and it's not hard to do with him. He loves being outside, far more than being inside. I think he gets worse cases of cabin fever than I do. My parents live in Vermont, so he's already had lots of exposure to the outdoors up there, seen lots of animals, etc. Around home we spend lots of time in parks and playgrounds, and in the spring we'll be doing our first family campout in the woods, although in a pretty not-roughing-it sort of campground with showers, toilets, etc.

In the coming years, I'm sure I'll always be hoping to hear him say that he wants to be a Scout, and I won't hesitate to sign him up. But I also know that there's probably an equal chance that he won't ask about it, and I'm wondering if it's the right move to still put him in it.

Anyone have experience with this? I know parents who put their kids in Scouting (both BSA and GSA) just to try it and see if it was something their kids took to. I also know parents who prefer to put their kids in things that the kids request. Which is usually whatever their friends are into. A friend plays soccer, they want to play soccer. But everyone plays soccer, so it's a likely request. Scouts isn't as popular.

Would you (or did you) put your kids in Scouting at their request? Or was it something that you decided for them? Any thoughts on the effects of either choice? Are kids who express an interest more likely to see it through to the end? How much (or little) should my own history with Scouting and my love of the organization weigh into any decisions about whether my son should join?

Looks like the crop function is a little broken. I can add an avatar but can't crop it.