Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
69RoadRunner

Condom Distribution at World Jamboree

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, gblotter said:

Me - I'd say no. I would prefer my son experience those things in the setting of a National Jamboree where G2SS rules apply.

 

This is one area of complete agreement. Scouting families should have it spelled out to them in clear language the specific differences in behavior standards between BSA G2SS and WOSM - and it is a great idea to make parents sign a document about such. However, my bet is that BSA avoids all mention of this because they don't want to depress attendance at the event (for their own financial motivations).

Feels to me like we're essentially at the same place.  We just disagree on whether the BSA should participate or not.

Not sure there's really an answer here so much as a choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

I'm still wondering what landmine we triggered in the other topic.

There were some rather cavalier remarks (mostly made as jokes) about Scouts using condoms and having sex during Jamboree and other Scouting events. Even though made in jest, such comments by adult Scouters about randy Scouts would not weather scrutiny if printed in a newspaper article. I chucked at some of those quite clever posts, but I'm glad they were removed.

Edited by gblotter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Feels to me like we're essentially at the same place.  We just disagree on whether the BSA should participate or not.

I disagree that BSA is powerless to influence WOSM on this issue, but Irving won't take a stand because it would draw attention to condoms and sex at Jamboree (doh - too late for that now).

Here's an idea: How about BSA start "acting like a Boy Scout" and just say no to condoms at WSJ and let WOSM deal with it. Such a move might actually attract positive press for a change (something Irving is unequipped to deal with).

Edited by gblotter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawkwin said:

In other words, we are still well within our right to tell our scouts that it is a violation to engage in such behavior even if the WOSM makes condoms available upon request.

Are we really?

BSA prohibits us from talking to our scouts about sex, even if that conversation is done in a manner and context consistent with the policies and moral teachings of our Chartered Organization. The distribution and use of these items is expressly forbidden by our religion. BSA will be offering these items to our scouts. At the same time, BSA will be prohibiting us from explaining to our scouts why they should not ask for, accept, or use these items.

If BSA is going to be handing out these items, it should, in all fairness, lift its ban so that we can help our scouts to better understand these issues in a moral/religious context.

 

Edited by David CO
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I disagree that BSA is powerless to influence WOSM on this issue, but Irving won't take a stand because it would draw attention to condoms and sex at Jamboree (doh - too late for that now).

Here's an idea: How about BSA start "acting like a Boy Scout" just say no to condoms at WSJ and let WOSM deal with it. Such a move might actually attract positive press for a change (something Irving is unequipped to deal with).

BSA can indeed influence but it can't dictate. Numbers wise BSA makes up approx 7% of members. Probably more financially but ultimately has only a certain amount of leverage. In addition the management of the jamboree isn't purely BSA. There are three host nations and WOSM involved. It's not a BSA event that the world is invited to, it's a WOSM event at a BSA site. There are a lot of parallels with hosting the Olympics. The host country only has so much wriggle room. IOC rules sit at the top. I imagine that BSA have signed all kinds of legal contracts with WOSM to host this and simply refusing to play by their rules now will land them in massive legal and financial problems. 

I think it's also worth putting yourself in WOSM's shoes for the moment. They cover scouting in nearly every country, culture and religion on the planet. That will mean a myriad of different beliefs on every subject you can imagine, including sex. Across the world the age of consent varies between 11 in Nigeria and 20 in Korea. Attitudes vary between countries where sex is only legal in marriage to others where sex is pretty casual. You have national scout organisations where it's not permitted to even acknowledge sex exists to those, particularly from Africa which HIV is a massive problem, where sex education is part and parcel of the scout program. Through that massive raft of differences WOSM has to strike a balance and choose a policy. Individual national contingents are welcome to impose their own expectations on their own contingents, but WOSM, when setting central policy, has to get something that everyone can live with and I think that having them available via medical facilities is about right.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, David CO said:

Are we really?

 

Per G2SS, yes.

Adult leaders and youth members share the responsibility for the safety of all participants in the program, including adherence to Youth Protection and health and safety policies. • Adult leaders are responsible for monitoring behavior and intervening when necessary. • Physical violence, sexual activity, emotional abuse, spiritual abuse, unauthorized weapons, hazing, discrimination, harassment, initiation rites, bullying, cyberbullying, theft, verbal insults, drugs, alcohol, and pornography have no place in the Scouting program and may result in revocation of membership.

...

Program Requirements

The buddy system should be used.

The use of smartphones, cameras, mirrors, drones, etc., in places or situations where privacy is expected is prohibited.

All aspects of the Scouting program are open to observation by parents and leaders.

The BSA does not recognize any secret organizations as part of its program.

Hazing and initiations are prohibited and have no part during any Scouting activity.

All forms of bullying and harassment including verbal, physical, and cyberbullying are prohibited.

Inappropriate public displays of affection are prohibited.

Sexual activity is prohibited.

Appropriate attire is required for all activities.

Reporting Requirements

Adult leaders and youth members have a responsibility to recognize, respond to, and report Youth Protection violations and abuse.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cambridgeskip said:

WOSM, when setting central policy, has to get something that everyone can live with and I think that having them available via medical facilities is about right.

How about this for a central policy: If you want condoms for your national contingent attending WSJ, bring them with you and distribute them to your Scouts as you see fit. That seems more adaptable, more flexible, and less oppressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

Adult leaders and youth members have a responsibility to recognize, respond to, and report Youth Protection violations and abuse.

It seems G2SS applies at WSJ only when it does not conflict with WOSM requirements. BSA contingent leaders at WSJ are required by WOSM to notify Jamboree participants about condom availability. But then those same BSA contingent leaders at WSJ should also notify those same Jamboree participants that actually using those condoms could land them in big trouble with G2SS rules. Is that what you are saying?

Share this post


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

I disagree that BSA is powerless to influence WOSM on this issue, but Irving won't take a stand because it would draw attention to condoms and sex at Jamboree (doh - too late for that now).

Here's an idea: How about BSA start "acting like a Boy Scout" and just say no to condoms at WSJ and let WOSM deal with it. Such a move might actually attract positive press for a change (something Irving is unequipped to deal with).

Ok, so here's the current issue list:

1) should the BSA attempt to change WOSM rules such that they match BSA rules?

2) should the BSA attend a WOSM event if there are rules more permissive than BSA rules?

3) should BSA leaders be empowered to instruct youth on the differences between BSA rules and WOSM rules.

 

FWIW - my opinion on the above.

1. Depends, but probably not.  In the case of condom distribution - this is an unsettled social topic with pros and cons on both sides.

2. Yes - the pros of attending a WOSM outweighs the risks taken on by having condoms available.

3. Yes - without doubt.  Leaders should be free to highlight rule differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is going to start the GoFundMe account for bailing out WOSM personnel who violate West Virginia law by giving condoms to underage children?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

Who is going to start the GoFundMe account for bailing out WOSM personnel who violate West Virginia law by giving condoms to underage children?

What law? I don't think such a law exists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, David CO said:

Are we really?

BSA prohibits us from talking to our scouts about sex, even if that conversation is done in a manner and context consistent with the policies and moral teachings of our Chartered Organization. The distribution and use of these items is expressly forbidden by our religion. BSA will be offering these items to our scouts. At the same time, BSA will be prohibiting us from explaining to our scouts why they should not ask for, accept, or use these items.

If BSA is going to be handing out these items, it should, in all fairness, lift its ban so that we can help our scouts to better understand these issues in a moral/religious context.

Can we at least be fair in how we discuss this? the BSA is not "offering these items to our scouts," and not "going to be handing out these items." Condoms are made available, upon request, probably at the health center. 

The way this is talked about here by some folks you would almost think there will be a guy in a condom costume flinging handfuls of rubbers into the crowd. 

As for the religious implications, not all religions prohibit the use of condoms, and some don't prohibit pre-marital sex. So even if you were allowed by the BSA to discuss sex with Scouts, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to discuss the religious implications even under those conditions. 

For the purposes of informing scouts about the risk to their BSA membership by engaging in any sexual activity at a scouting venue, maybe you can find someone in your organization that is not religiously bound to refrain from dropping the hint to scouts that if they find themselves needing to use the condoms available at Jambo that the might also find themselves not in the BSA anymore. They don't have to go into detail, just make it known that there is a policy, and don't break it. 

Edited by FireStone
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

if they find themselves needing to use the condoms available at Jambo that the might also find themselves not in the BSA anymore.

That sounds like a simple enough message to convey. I hope that gets communicated clearly to BSA participants and also their parents, but I have my doubts. Our ideas on this forum really mean nothing - it's not like we are writing the script that will be used in pre-Jambo meetings. Do past WSJ participants on this forum recall if this topic (the differences between WOSM and G2SS) was ever mentioned at all? I'll bet not.

I can only speak about the experience of my son at National Jamboree last year where the adult contingent leaders from our council were extremely hands-off in addressing behavior issues that arose. That is the single biggest reason why we have dismissed the possibility of him attending WSJ.

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  

×