Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'membership policy'.
Found 2 results
Well, the potential CO, who I said was a little cagey, tabled discussion of starting a pack until the spring. Enough parents and their boys had asked for it. There are no other units of any kind in the vicinity. I think we could grow rapidly. But the CO is a bit of a "crater church" -- families who join while students migrate to 'burbs.. So maybe another night of commuting was not gonna be worth it just to keep this cadre of boys together. The potential of engaging international families was there, but some internationals might be looking for a coed program as is available in their own country. The church staff was overwhelmed with the notion of one more program. The vote was split along the lines of folks whose sons (and one daughter) had been in BSA. But the tipping point seems like the membership policy ... this church being a group who just left a mainline denominations because of abandoning decorum to accommodate the perennial activism of those with permissive sexual ethics. The "we stand behind our sponsors right to select their volunteers" mantra just did not wash with them. Missed opportunity? I'm honestly not sure. I'd rather have an intentional CO (I think) than one who just says "sure, just turn the lights out when you leave."
What is Pedophilia Pedophile is a specific condition with a specific definition. It is the exxclusive sexual attraction of a person to "children," that is to say, biological children who have not yet reached puberty. The DSM, which governs the definition of pedophilia, sets that age to 13. The physical reality is that girls have been entering puberty at an increasigly younger age for decades, and boys have now been observed to be following suit. A "minor" is a child in the vernacular and legal sense, but once a person enters puberty, they are not biologically a child. A person who has entered puberty is of no sexual interest whatever to a pedophile. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children precisely because they have no smell, no hair, no fluids. A pedophile is no more attracted to an adolescent person than you and I are to a pig. Once puberty begins, a person is sexually mature, whether they are 18 (or the local age of majority) or not. If you see a wispy mustache on a boy's lip, you may presume he is already producing semen and sperm. I know 5th graders with that benchmark. What is a Homosexual A homosexual is a person whose primary sexual attraction is to sexually mature members of the same sex. A pedophile is not a homosexual, a homosexual is not a pedophile. Confusion (and outright intellectual dishonoesty among partisans) often occurs in discussions about sexuality when we talk about sex acts between people of the same sex. If a female pedophile engages in sex with a male boy, the act was heterosexual, the woman is a pedophile, not a heterosexual. A man whose sexual attraction is to males that are pubescent (13+) and/or post-pubescent is not a pedophile, he is simply a gay man. Some want to create a new classification, ephebophiles or hebephiles. This is contested and highly controversial precisely because it is the ironic opposite of de-classifying homosexuality as a disorder. Sexual attraction to sexually mature people is not biologically disordered, it is socially unacceptable, and the move to carve it out as a new diagnosis is cultural rather than scientific. Pederasty is sex with a young man, not a pre-pubescent child. The etymology is shared and confusing, but a pederast is not a pedophile. It's just one more word for a certain type of a homosexual sex act. Opportunism Sexuality is irrelevant to opportunism. Some people just want to get offâ€”I'm sorry there's no scoutlike way to phrase it. A heterosexual man might take advantage of any opportunity for sex. His sex acts might be homosexual, but his sexuality is still heterosexual. He might couple with a 16-yr-old young man, he's still heterosexual. He might couple with a 10-yr-old boy, he's still a heterosexual. Some people are sadistic and just want to hurt people, and sex is one way to do that. A heterosexual psycho could engage in homosexual sex acts without any sexual attraction to men. If the male victim is sexually mature, the psycho isn't gay, he's a psycho. If the male victim is a child, he's not a pedophile, he's a psycho. What is a "Boy" You see the difficulties of language that surround this issue. In the 1910 sense of the word, a boy was what we call a young man or teenager: a young male entering puberty and thus manhood in the age before a concept of adolescence with confusing striations and intersections of biological, legal, and cultural defintions of child, minor, adult, etc. As I go on, I will choose the word that makes what I'm saying most clear, which might be anachronistic forwards or backwards. Now break it down to BSA stratification: Cub Scouts: 1stâ€“5th grade. An abuser is either a pedophile or an opportunist (of any sexuality) because virtually all of the potential victims are pre-pubescent. The few early bloomers will hold no interest to a pedophile, but would be targets of opportunity to opportunists. I say "abuser" here because sex is illegal with all people of Cub Scout age in all situations. Boy Scouts: 10/11â€“17years old. Virtually every member of a Boy Scout troop is sexually mature; pedophiles are not sexually attracted to males who are Boy Scout age. The leader is either a homosexual, an opportunist, or a pedophile targeting only the youngest boys and late bloomers. I say "leader" here rather than abuser because in some states, sex between an adult (18+) and someone as young as 15 might be perfectly legal. Venturing/Sea Scouts: 14â€“21 pending age change to 14â€“18. In the case of male youth, the leader is either gay/bisexual, or an opportunist. In the case of female youth, the leader is a lesbian/bisexual, a heterosexual man, or an opportunist. Why You're Confused There was no largescale organized political movement for homosexuals until after the Stonewall Riots in 1969. But there were cultural movements. In the late 1800s in England, homosexuals began to push at the boundaries of social attitudes through artistic and intellectual movements. In England, they were called "Uranians" and included many famous writers like Oscar Wilde and his lover Alfred Douglas, who penned the famous line "the love that dare not speak its name" to describe their love for young men, or the painter Henry Tuke. Others took to the British schools where they could enact their Plato-inspired ideas of mentorship coupled with sex in an environment where opportunistic sex between isolated schoolboys was already rampant. In Germany, a sort-of forerunner of Scouting was formed, the WandervÃ¶gel (migrating birds), a outdoors and character club in which sex between men and older boys, then older boys and younger boys played a large role. The poor Mediterranean towns along North Africa, Greece, and Southern Italy became hotbeds of sexual tourism, going well into the 1970s in Italy. In Germany, homosexuals made great strides unti lthe Nazis came to power. The idea was to change ideas about masculinity and the role of men in the lives of younger men as mentors through love. That ideal ran headlong into the cultures it sought to change and made little headway, continuing underground even until today. It was exactly what the naysayers must defend gay rights against even if no one brings it up first: A social campaign to make homosexuality acceptable by having sex with young menâ€”by inculcating boys into sex with men. Not children, not pedophilia, but homosexuality. It was as improbable as it sounds, but we're talking about hopeless romantics. After Stonewall, homosexuals who sought change took to politics rather than poetry. The idea of running a successful political campaign to make homsexuality tolerated, much less accepted, by the mainstream based on sex with their sons was obviously out of the question. Still, the decision by groups to dissociate from pederasts was extremely controversial within the gay community. The founder of the first modern, political gay rights organization, Harry Hay, marched with the banner "NAMBLA walks with me" in the 1986 LA Pride parade. He was not a fringer, he was a founding father and elder statesman of the gay rights movement. The writer Allen Ginsberg, another giant of American culture, and a homosexual commented that "Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witch hunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignoranceâ€¦Iâ€™m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too â€“ everybody does, who has a little humanity." But when a movement becomes political, idealism/ideology must always be sacrificed to the goal. In his book Gay Man's Worst Friend, gay writer Karl Andersson chronicles the deliberate shrinking of gay identity in order to gain political acceptance via his own excommunication from the gay community when he left the mainstream gay press to publish his own magazien about young men (the Kindle version is cheap). Gay activists excised their boy-loving ancestors to pursue the approach that has given them the poltiical gains we see today: "We're just like you." Love is love. It worked, it doesn not erase reality. But popular memory doesn't just disappear, and boy-lovers have never quite gone quietly. Everyone knows the affinity homosexuals have for the young, who are the most virile in a "community" that stresses eroticism above all else, and anyone who knows the history of gay activism knows its roots and where it will eventually end up again. Are all homosexuals pederasts? No. But all pederasts are homosexuals. And the Boy Scouts has always been and will always be a fertile hunting ground for them. When experts say that Scouting is a target for pedophiles, they are speaking in an erroneous vernacular sense of the word out of ignorance or political correctness: a 14-yr-old is not the object of desire for pedophiles. The BSA is a fertile hunting ground for gay men of particular tastes, and even for gay men who might mean no harm, because, as David Bowie so eloquently put it "love is careless in its choosing." How many of you have fallen head-over-heels without ever having set out deliberately to do so? With very few, obvious exceptions, everything I have said here is simple fact. It is the stuff of dictionaries and diagnostic manuals, and a matter of historical fact. So why are you confused? Because you want to be. It is a matter of good will that in a way can be commendable, but it is misguided. It is a childish gullibility that allows a perfectly intelligent person to say something perfectly moronic like: when given a list of men who had sex with sexually mature young men, not children. It is because of this willful ignorance that I hold those who would force homosexuals onto the BSA in particular disdain. Because they put at very real risk the lives of millions of young men, burning them on the alter of politics in defiance of reality. I do not hate gay people. I am at this very moment sat 10 feet away from a gay man, he is my little brother and I love him, always will, will never tell him he is a pervert or any such, and hope he lives the happiest life anyone can have. I do not believe that gay people should be persecuted. I have never been a macho man, I have been bullied as hard as any gay kid because as far as the bullies were concerned I was a gay kid. I am a bachelor today and as far as many of my scouts and fellow leaders are concerned I am gay because I fit too many of their stereotypes about what a gay man is. Homosexuals deserve the same privacy that anyone else deserves. But their desire for acceptance does not entitle them to infringe upon the liberties of others. I am a classic liberal and conservative. The freedom of association is fundamental to all freedoms and to the dignity of individuals. Gay activism works in direct contravention of that priniciple and that is why I find it outrageous, equally or moreso than the argument for safety. I simply understand that like the boarding school, the barracks, the ancient Greek gymnasium, the BSA is a pressure cooker, and like all of those places, gay men have already and will again use it for sexâ€”and that has nothing to do with nature or nurture. It is not responsible to open the doors to gay men.