Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
69RoadRunner

Condom Distribution at World Jamboree

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Pale Horse said:

I'm not entirely sure how well this tin-foil hat plan meshes with those that say BSA leadership has terrible vision and planning ability, but if there's one thing I've learned over the years it is that conspiracy theories don't necessarily need a whole lot of logic to be believed. 

By now we should all realize that BSA National leadership is too inept to carry out any kind of long game conspiracy. That would require a level of competency that is clearly absent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, gblotter said:

One more log on the fire is a better analogy.

Rather than blame the messenger (media outlets), why not blame (and change) the WOSM policy that makes Scouting a vulnerable target for criticism? And some blame should be appropriately focused on BSA for acting as if they have no leverage over WOSM on the issue.

I blame the media outlets for slighting the WOSM for forestalling death over the past 28 years. (I'll grant that may view may be a hazard of my profession - and Mrs. Q's which now has her on to tertiary care of folks who balked at restrictive sexual ethics yet failed or never attempted prophylaxis. Short story: it ain't pretty.)

I also blame the media outlets for burying the lead over the beer tent. The G2SS never took a stance on prophylaxis, but lots of scouters resented being read the riot act about alcohol and tobacco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

The difficulty is that the US BSA doesn't have to host an event that goes against it's own laws and policies.

The problem is that BSA is over a financial barrel because of Summit debts. BSA absolutely needs to host events like WSJ in an effort to pay the bills. Once again, principles are subjugated to expediency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

There's a difference in a Scout and his/her parents making an informed decision about an event and its rules vs. the BSA endorsing a set of rules in contravention of its own policies.

The G2SS very clearly says, No Alcohol, No Sexual Activity allowed at scout events.  There's no asterisk.   "WOSM made me do it" is weak tea.

 

I haven't been a leader for very long, but I've already observed more than once that saying, "Don't do that, you might get hurt," frequently doesn't prevent the activity from taking place anyway. I wish that were different, but realistically I know that I carry a first aid kit everywhere because things happen, even seemingly preventable things, and occasionally some things that happen in the course of a violation of G2SS despite every effort to avoid it. If a Scout who is too young to use a saw still manages to get his/her hands on a saw and gets hurt, it doesn't do me much good at that point to say, "Well, G2SS says you shouldn't have had that saw." 

We can tell Scouts, "Don't have sex at Jambo," and certainly hope for the best. But I, like a lot of folks here, was a teenage boy once, and I did stupid things even though adults warned me against them. I'd rather Scouts have an opportunity to be less stupid and reckless while being stupid and reckless. 

It's not ideal. It's not G2SS compliant. But it's a preventative health measure for a problem that is going to exist no matter how much we try to prevent it from happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FireStone said:

It's not ideal. It's not G2SS compliant. But it's a preventative health measure for a problem that is going to exist no matter how much we try to prevent it from happening.

In summer 2019, girl troops and boy troops will start attending BSA summer camps at the same time. Following your logic, should condoms be made available to Scouts by camp staff (regardless of what G2SS says)? Or should G2SS be changed to permit sexual activity at Scouting events?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

The G2SS very clearly says, No Alcohol, No Sexual Activity allowed at scout events.  There's no asterisk.   "WOSM made me do it" is weak tea.

Making items available to deal with a situation that you know is going to occur, does not amount to endorsing, condoning or allowing sexual activity at Scouting events.  Maybe the condoms they hand out should have wrappers that say, "Don't use this until you get home, and (assuming you are of the proper age) get married, and even then, only if the precepts of your religion permit."  Then everybody's conscience can be clear.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, gblotter said:

The problem is that BSA is over a financial barrel because of Summit debts. BSA absolutely needs to host events like WSJ in an effort to pay the bills. Once again, principles are subjugated to expediency.

Not knocking the perspective, but I see it very differently.

This is the World Scout Jamboree.  This is a big deal.  Having it here on our turf will allow so many more Scouts to attend.  If my son hadn't bailed on scouting, I'd have signed him up in a heartbeat.  

I can accept that the BSA made an exception and is following the guidelines of the WOSM.  It's like a host country making an exception for the Olympics.

If the BSA refused to host it because of this, I would be very disappointed.  I can deal with these exceptions so that our scouts get the opportunity to attend the WSJ.

Beyond that, I see this as the BSA showing some humility.  The USA is but one of many national Scouting organizations.  That the USA isn't trying to impose our will on other countries I find very noble.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

Making items available to deal with a situation that you know is going to occur, does not amount to endorsing, condoning or allowing sexual activity at Scouting events.  Maybe the condoms they hand out should have wrappers that say, "Don't use this until you get home, and (assuming you are of the proper age) get married, and even then, only if the precepts of your religion permit."  Then everybody's conscience can be clear.

that loophole you just drafted is big enough to drive a semi through.  Giving your scouts a 20' extension ladder at a troop meeting isn't condoning, endorsing or allowing them to climb over 6' high at scouting events.  handing a cub scout a power drill isn't endorsing, condoning or allowing power tools to be used at a cub scout activity.  You're a lawyer NJC, so you know it, but there's a spirit to a law and the letter of the law... handing out condoms torches the spirit of the law to the ground. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ParkMan said:

Not knocking the perspective, but I see it very differently.

This is the World Scout Jamboree.  This is a big deal.  Having it here on our turf will allow so many more Scouts to attend.  If my son hadn't bailed on scouting, I'd have signed him up in a heartbeat.  

I can accept that the BSA made an exception and is following the guidelines of the WOSM.  It's like a host country making an exception for the Olympics.

If the BSA refused to host it because of this, I would be very disappointed.  I can deal with these exceptions so that our scouts get the opportunity to attend the WSJ.

Beyond that, I see this as the BSA showing some humility.  The USA is but one of many national Scouting organizations.  That the USA isn't trying to impose our will on other countries I find very noble.

to each their own, but I see it as the world organizations imposing their will on the host nation and not being humble or respectful of the host's wishes, not very scoutlike.  I see it as putting aside principles in favor of short term gains... (kind of like a certain STUMP, with a BUMP, that tends to CLUMP as a LUMP to look like a FRUMP). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, FireStone said:

I haven't been a leader for very long, but I've already observed more than once that saying, "Don't do that, you might get hurt," frequently doesn't prevent the activity from taking place anyway. I wish that were different, but realistically I know that I carry a first aid kit everywhere because things happen, even seemingly preventable things, and occasionally some things that happen in the course of a violation of G2SS despite every effort to avoid it. If a Scout who is too young to use a saw still manages to get his/her hands on a saw and gets hurt, it doesn't do me much good at that point to say, "Well, G2SS says you shouldn't have had that saw." 

We can tell Scouts, "Don't have sex at Jambo," and certainly hope for the best. But I, like a lot of folks here, was a teenage boy once, and I did stupid things even though adults warned me against them. I'd rather Scouts have an opportunity to be less stupid and reckless while being stupid and reckless. 

It's not ideal. It's not G2SS compliant. But it's a preventative health measure for a problem that is going to exist no matter how much we try to prevent it from happening.

You're right of course, and I generally agree, particularly outside of scouting.  But, that's not what the BSA has been selling for the last many years.  They've been selling No Alcohol, No Sexual Activity.  The Scouter Code of Conduct specifically states:

Quote

6. I will not discuss or engage in any form of sexual conduct while engaged in Scouting activities. I will refer Scouts with questions regarding these topics to talk to their parents or spiritual advisor.

And the G2SS threatens expulsion for drugs, alcohol or sexual activity.  

The problem here isn't really condoms or alcohol or girls in scouting.  The problem is mealy-mouthed leadership in Irving trying to have it both ways.  They give imperative directions when it suits them to keep the base inline, but ignore those directives when it's convenient so they can be one of the cool kids.  Changes come in half-measure, I hope nobody notices, let's have a conversation, secret committees, invite only meetings, and secret videos.  It's the antithesis of brave leadership based on principle.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gwaihir said:

to each their own, but I see it as the world organizations imposing their will on the host nation and not being humble or respectful of the host's wishes, not very scoutlike.  I see it as putting aside principles in favor of short term gains... (kind of like a certain STUMP, with a BUMP, that tends to CLUMP as a LUMP to look like a FRUMP). 

They are the authorizing body. BSA doesn't get a WSJ without WOSM. We want the game, we play by their rules. 

Is that really a difficult concept?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

Making items available to deal with a situation that you know is going to occur, does not amount to endorsing, condoning or allowing sexual activity at Scouting events.  Maybe the condoms they hand out should have wrappers that say, "Don't use this until you get home, and (assuming you are of the proper age) get married, and even then, only if the precepts of your religion permit."  Then everybody's conscience can be clear.

So why not apply the same principles to alcohol and tobacco and vaping and laser tag and ..... We know those things are going to occur so lets just help the scouts and leaders do it safely.

Edited by walk in the woods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, John-in-KC said:

They are the authorizing body. BSA doesn't get a WSJ without WOSM. We want the game, we play by their rules. 

Is that really a difficult concept?

So to be clear ... G2SS rules do not apply at WSJ and sexual activity between Scouts at that event does not need to be reported?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, John-in-KC said:

They are the authorizing body. BSA doesn't get a WSJ without WOSM. We want the game, we play by their rules. 

Is that really a difficult concept?

no. again, not a difficult concept.  I have repeatedly stated that what's being called into question is why we want a game that is opposite our rules in the first place.  I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×