David CO

31 minutes ago, GiraffeCamp said:

He did not believe he had an option to shower in his swim trunks or to change under a towel, behind a curtain or towel held by a friend, or in a private corner, for example.

I'm sure he didn't.  I never gave the boys any options.  Showering was not optional.  Just do it.

On 3/27/2021 at 2:18 PM, skeptic said:

What is the trauma of having your school peers make jokes about you or others and the level of changes in your physical development?  

This was the problem.  It is totally unacceptable and un-scout-like.  If I was their teacher/coach/scoutmaster, I would have come down on them like a ton of bricks. 

38 minutes ago, GiraffeCamp said:

I completely agree. It isn't the presence of showers, it is the coercion and shaming that is the problem in Skeptic's experience.

I don't recall him saying he was coerced or shamed into taking showers.  He said it was required.  

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.

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. 

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.  

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.  

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.

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.

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.

27 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I see that some Councils, even in closed states, are stating a "moral obligation to contribute" as they see the number of claims filed against them. 

Funny how they didn't see a "moral obligation" before now.

1 hour ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Is that gonna be on TV?

Naw.  The producers of these shows want the audience to be rooting for at least one of the contestants to survive.

22 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Yep National would throw a coniption fit if some of the things Scouts used to do back in the day were done today. One of the SM's told me about his Sea Scout days where his ship spent a month, month and a half travelling from Little Creek VA to Maine and back to pick up their new vessel: a decommissioned WWII PT boat.  They traveled by train to Maine, repaired the PT boat to make pass USCG inspection, then steamed her down the east coast with stops along the way. And they spent the 4-6 weeks and time on the ocean without any adults.

Even I have to admit that practicing their marksmanship skills with live torpedoes might have been slightly over-the-top.  

2 hours ago, BlueandSilverBear said:

I have to assume the inclusion in the Master-at-Arms badge came from that same school of thought.

At one time, scouting was so popular they had to beat boys away with a stick.  Obviously, that badge is no longer needed.  

3 hours ago, qwazse said:

Not really. The standard is "Who is going to contribute the most to den life?"

• A mom with a negative experience (in her mind), but willing to give a different pack a try, or.
• A "might-join" adult with district credentials, but not much else going for him.

Sorry, but I think that is a terrible answer.  It should be about right and wrong, not about who is most valuable to the unit or council.  In many cases, this is how BSA got in so much trouble, siding with the people who contribute the most.

1 hour ago, elitts said:

But can you pull a sword out from down-under at the drop of a hat?

That's not my sword.

2 hours ago, MattR said:

It's not school sports but more club sports. School sports are much more balanced.

I agree.  But school budgets are limited and not all sports are offered.  I very much doubt that we will ever offer hockey or figure skating.  Ice time is prohibitively expensive.  So kids need to go to club sports if that is their area of interest.

I have always felt that there is little point in putting down other programs.  Sports and scouting are like apples and oranges.  You can like one.  You can like both.  You can like neither.  Your choice.  

11 hours ago, MattR said:

Just about the time sports gets overly competitive

You might be a little biased against sports.  Many people, including kids, would disagree that middle school sports are overly competitive.  Boys often thrive on competition.  Not all boys.  Just like with scouting, competitive sports don't appeal to everyone.

6 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

I agree; the idea of fully co-ed Scouting is, in my eyes and in my opinion, the worst possible thing that could happen to the BSA

Except for kilts.  Uniform kilts would be an even worst idea.   

58 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Would I call them out if any of them made any of our scouts’ moms the least bit uncomfortable?

Is that the standard now?  The least bit uncomfortable.  

The women in the teacher's lounge make me cringe sometimes.  Their conversations can get down-right raunchy.  I just quietly get up and leave.  Consequently, I spend very little time in the teacher's lounge.  They sometimes comment about how I avoid the teacher's lounge because of their conversations.  They think it's hilarious, and make a big joke of it.  Nobody has suggested that they should clean up their conversations so I don't feel the least bit uncomfortable at work.

On 3/18/2021 at 9:08 PM, Armymutt said:

One of the parents said she was done with Scouting because an adult leader was sexually harassing her and other mothers.  

First, it needs to be established that it was actually sexual harassment.  I had a baseball mother lodge a complaint of sexual harassment because someone asked her out on a date.  She didn't want to be asked out on a date at baseball game.  She thought it was inappropriate.

Guys and gals have to be able to approach each other socially.  Not a good idea to do it at work.  People at work are there to work.  Best to leave the socializing for social occasions.

Is scouting a social occasion?  I would say yes.  As long as the approach is appropriate and decent, I have no problem with it.  If someone won't take no for an answer, we have a problem.

3 hours ago, MattR said:

Let's try and get this back on topic: the new territories plan and tangentially how to staff it.

OK.  My concern has always been that councils do not have enough independence from national.  Councils are supposed to be separate entities.  But they're not.  They are totally controlled by national.  The new territory plan is just more of the same. Read the target goals.  Why is the territory setting council targets?  If councils are independent entities, shouldn't they be setting their own targets based on local needs?

If the bankruptcy court needs proof that BSA actually runs the councils, it has to go no further than the new territories plan.

22 minutes ago, RichardB said:

And yet when offered an opportunity to engage within the Service Territory structure (national) and be part of the solution moving forward look at the responses that followed.

Yes.  Look at the responses that followed.  Look at them very closely.  

The problem is that BSA ignores customer response.  It is a foolish way of doing business, and BSA is now paying the price for its arrogance.

On 3/18/2021 at 8:58 AM, RichardB said:

 Not the one you wanted but an answer all the same.   

BSA enrollment is dropping like a rock.  I guess BSA has gotten an answer.  Not the one it wanted, but an answer all the same.

34 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

I won't post who posted it, but statements bordering on threats are popping up on FB,

 

"If you are not part of the process and on regular calls with the Ad Hoc Committee on this, PLEASE do not keep posting the "what ifs" on this site!!"

I agree.  Post them here.