Jump to content

BSA CSA: Concealment or Trustworthy, Loyal...?


Recommended Posts

Quote
On 7/13/2022 at 1:31 PM, elitts said:

1:  NGOs like RAINN.  Usually it's people or organizations attempting to drive home the severity of their issue by creating a false equivalency.  Some examples include:  "asking for sex repeatedly = coercion = rape", "sex with someone who has been drinking = rape".

So, are you saying neither of these are actually sexual assault or abuse? I know we're talking about concealment and fraudulent concealment by extension, but I think understanding how you define the terms is important, at least to me.

Actually, the breakdown for me is on the "asking repeatedly for sex" = coercion aspect of the equation, not on whether or not coercing someone into sex is assault.  Using threats or force to persuade someone into sex is definitely sexual assault.  But asking your partner multiple times in a night or crying about how you'll have "blue-balls" or pouting when your partner says no is not coercion.  It makes you a shitty person who should get thrown to the curb, but calling that sexual assault is disingenuous.  Here is a link to an article showing the kind of arguments I'm talking about.  They subtly alter and  twist definitions in order to make their arguments hang together.

(I'd make an exception to this when you start talking about someone who engaged in an systematic effort to destroy someone's emotional or mental well-being in the attempt to manipulate them into relationship or sexual compliance.)

As far as sex with someone who has been drinking, my issue there is that the argument is regularly made that "if your judgement has been affected by drugs or alcohol you can't consent".  If we are talking about situations where someone has had enough to drink that they are passed out or nearly unconscious or obviously only marginally functioning, I'd have no objection to that idea.  But the way some folks like to put that concept forward is to say that "any impact on your mental functioning makes you incapable of consent".  Given the fact that your brain function is impacted almost immediately (even if you don't notice), this standard effectively means that anyone who has had anything to drink is incapable of consent.  More importantly, establishing standards for when behavior is acceptable that depend upon the internal (and thus unobservable) condition of another person is just a horrible idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Shame on  you.   Eventually every discussion ends with bringing Hitler in.  I'd argue against devaluing other people by associating them with trump or evil or racism or genocide.  It's just not scout

I am going to try to keep this response as scout like as possible...but I just might cross that line so my apologies to moderators if I do. @skeptic you are wrong on so many levels. The trauma of

Now please do not destroy the negative bubbles mrjohns2.  So, as this thread continues, some resourceful or more determined are finding indicators from the awful files that support the idea that at th

Posted Images

On 7/13/2022 at 3:32 PM, ThenNow said:

And, this means only discernible, external injury or damage is physical injury, discounting the effects of child sexual (and other) abuse trauma on the brain? I have discernible injuries and physical symptomalogy from both the acts and allostatic load, but I also have neurological impacts, also known as injuries. Again, this is not the topic of the thread, but knowing what you mean will help me. My parents wanted to send me to counseling when I was 15, but I refused. They saw evidence of injury/trauma, just not the source. 

I think you may have missed the original post where I started discussing this issue and just keyed in on a secondary comment thinking that I was putting forward my own opinion.

The discussion was centering around bewilderment over the fact that there are file records showing parents "just want Mr. Abuser to get help" rather than wanting them forcibly castrated and fed to only mildly peckish tigers.  ALL I was pointing out is that prior to the 1980s "They" (meaning society at large) tended not to recognize any significant "harm" done by non-violent child sexual assault outside of those cases where physical injury was suffered.  There wasn't any kind of widespread understanding of the mental and emotional damage caused by sexual trauma and so parents may not have really recognized the true significance of what had been inflicted on their child.  So in other words, if Mr. Abuser talked or cajoled a 13 year old into participating in some level of sexual activity that didn't result in obvious physical harm, pre-1980s parents and society (not me) tended to view it a deeply unpleasant, immoral and possibly shameful occurrence that their child would probably just "outgrow".

I was NOT arguing that only physical injuries matter or discounting the lifelong mental and emotional impact sexual assault can have on a victim and I was certainly not arguing that abusers that cajoled and persuaded children into sexual behaviors should be considered in any way less abhorrent than one that simply forces themself on someone brutally.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, elitts said:

ALL I was pointing out is that prior to the 1980s "They" (meaning society at large) tended not to recognize any significant "harm" done by non-violent child sexual assault outside of those cases where physical injury was suffered.

I think if you check out Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America by Philip Jenkins and some information from Stephen Robertson (Crimes Against Children is the book but some of that research is incorporated here if you have a library card: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40663407) you will see that there was a period, defined by Jenkins as the "Liberal Era" from 1958-1976, when what you are describing was the norm. It has changed over time more than you might expect including how it was prosecuted/charged (even as it's been a crime right since the founding of the various US states). 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2022 at 10:32 PM, clbkbx said:

I think if you check out Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America by Philip Jenkins and some information from Stephen Robertson (Crimes Against Children is the book but some of that research is incorporated here if you have a library card: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40663407) you will see that there was a period, defined by Jenkins as the "Liberal Era" from 1958-1976, when what you are describing was the norm. It has changed over time more than you might expect including how it was prosecuted/charged (even as it's been a crime right since the founding of the various US states). 

 

... hoping to avoid sides too much ...

"Liberal era from 1958-1976" ... The 1960s "liberal" sexuality front-person was Allan Ginsburg, the poet of the beat generation.

          https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/01/04/08/specials/ginsberg-obit.html

Famous and popular his whole life and at his death in 1997.  An early vocal advocate for LGBT+ lifestyles. 

Also, a pedophile and a vocal advocate for pedophilia, including publishing poems about it and joining a national organization.

Times have changed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

With full respect to the gymnast victims of Nassar, in addition to their quite substantial settlements already received, the Federal Government plans to settle with them, again. 

I have learned that around the time of my abuse, the Federal Government was a significant financial supporter of BSA (per "Leave No Trace").  So couldn't the Fed have some liability (SOL's be damned)?

https://www.erienewsnow.com/story/46983869/doj-offers-to-begin-settlement-discussions-with-sexual-assault-victims-of-disgraced-usa-gymnastics-doctor-nassar

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

With full respect to the gymnast victims of Nassar, in addition to their quite substantial settlements already received, the Federal Government plans to settle with them, again. 

I have learned that around the time of my abuse, the Federal Government was a significant financial supporter of BSA (per "Leave No Trace").  So couldn't the Fed have some liability (SOL's be damned)?

https://www.erienewsnow.com/story/46983869/doj-offers-to-begin-settlement-discussions-with-sexual-assault-victims-of-disgraced-usa-gymnastics-doctor-nassar

Unlikely. The Federal Government is settling because complaints were made to the FBI about Nassar and they bungled the investigation. If the Federal government or one if its agencies knew about your abuse, then you'd have a claim.

If the Feds providing money to the BSA alone was enough to make them liable, extrapolating that principle would mean all of the folks/ orgs who were donors to the BSA during the time period of your abuse would be also liable. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:

If the Feds providing money to the BSA alone was enough to make them liable, extrapolating that principle would mean all of the folks/ orgs who were donors to the BSA during the time period of your abuse would be also liable. 

More than just donations, the Feds promoted the program with enthusiasm.  I certainly get your point, and agree with it.  Just wondering if the actual lobbying for BSA changes the picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Government recognized the benefits of the BSA in the first up until around the sixties when so much began to change.  That may well have been connected to disallusionment brought on by JFK and Civil Rights.  Certainly for me, that was a huge pivot point for me.  And I now see my generation as mostly jaded or just tired and having abandoned all the positive energy of the Kennedy enthusiam.  Interactions with BSA were shared and often cooperative endeavors to improve society, not only with the military interactions where we could camp on bases and work with them at times, but also shared resources, such as happened with A.P:. Hill's jambo use.  That was a screaming point for some of the radicals against anything positive with BSA at the time.  They did not care about the symbiotic benefits of the connection.  The Army's AP Hill assistance allowed them to train with large groups for many possibilities with large group gatherings, and also practicing skills only really viable with large groups.  Meanwhile the BSA paid considerable for much of the materials and so on, even though the nay sayers tried to suggest it was all given to them.  Narrow mindedness and bias.  Today, we no longer can interact well with military bases, and visits are so restrictive that they are like looking through a glass case.  Our unit used to camp on base at Edwards next to the old rocket sled track, and we had tours, used the dining halls, the pool and so on.  Air shows were special and huge.  At Vandenburg, we saw dog traiining, looked into silos, and saw the then being constructed launch structures, as well as the site of the huge naval disaster along the coarst near there.  While security is important, I cannot help but wonder how much is lost with this blindered approach to public interactions.  

     Of course, many of us have heard the stories of veterans that note their Scouting training as helping them survive, even up to the modern day, but especially in WWII, Korea, and Nam.  Joe Price told me that it was his assignment to find as many scout handbooks and manuals as possible for military training that got him into collecting.  They used them for training of the troops, as they felt they were some of the best resources at the time.

    And, being a Skeptic, I find myself feeling that the idea that somehow the Government can be dragged into the lawsuit and bankruptcy, due to perceived deep pockets I fear, is just that; an effort to find more money at the expense of others, the tax payers.  JMHO of course.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, skeptic said:

    And, being a Skeptic, I find myself feeling that the idea that somehow the Government can be dragged into the lawsuit and bankruptcy, due to perceived deep pockets I fear, is just that; an effort to find more money at the expense of others, the tax payers.  JMHO of course.  

Just a couple of things:  One, I have been a very generous contributor to Uncle Sam for over 50 years, so no worries there.  Second, my abuse was in a time-barred state-no less, on the border of a state that is open.  So, absolutely I am looking for deep pockets, or any pockets for that matter.  So, the one correction I will make is that I'm not looking for more money.  I'm looking for some money.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I find myself feeling that the idea that somehow the Government can be dragged into the lawsuit and bankruptcy, due to perceived deep pockets I fear, is just that; an effort to find more money at the expense of others, the tax payers.

I've been watching from my aisle seat and have eaten about all the popcorn and Sno-Caps my belly can handle for a while, so I suppose I'll chime in. Let's loop back to concealment with this sub-thread as a segue.

As I've come to understand more about the Scouting world that is not seen by much of the outside world, I've discovered many things. Some are related to people - volunteers and professionals - who are truly heartbroken about the abuse many of us suffered. I'm sorry if some don't buy that, but I'm not selling. Just stating a fact. Others go to how Scouting works and sorely doesn't. Many of those lessons have been learned here and offline with Scouters I've gotten to know. And still more are studying how the gears really work, who is at the tiller, who provides the dough, and who is tapping the till. Here is one observation on the gears.

I had no specific knowledge of the number of political and 'public servant' leaders who are sprinkled all across the upper echelons of Scouting's volunteer leadership matrix. I was quite astonished, though previously was away of some of the notables over time. I came to discover this is at the LC and National levels. Some of these government officials knew about and participated in things I would call downright morally and legally wrong. I am not alone in that assessment. A former high level National Scouter feels even more strongly about that than I do, if it's possible and I believe it is because I've witnessed it. Can city, county, state and federal official's complicity and/or active involvement in such behavior be imputed on the entities they populate? Dunno. Is it clear to me that officials at all levels were and are involved in the inner sanctum of Scouting? 110%. Did some know what was afoot with the historical child sexual abuse in Scouting? Honestly, I have a hard time thinking some did not, especially given what I know firsthand about the other things I mentioned. Does that participation go to active concealment by our tiers of government as a result? Again, dunno. I do know I could make a very good argument that it is so. I just need more research to build the case.

Okay. Maybe I can pound some Sugar Babies or Junior Mints now. I've burned off a few calories getting that down on visual paper.

Carry on.

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

At Vandenburg, we saw dog traiining, looked into silos, and saw the then being constructed launch structures, as well as the site of the huge naval disaster along the coarst near there.

At Vandenburg I also saw the silos and yes that was kind of cool. But I was also raped there by two airmen (BSA Volunteers) on base property.  Guess which situation had the most impact on my life?

 

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

And, being a Skeptic, I find myself feeling that the idea that somehow the Government can be dragged into the lawsuit and bankruptcy, due to perceived deep pockets I fear, is just that; an effort to find more money at the expense of others, the tax payers.  JMHO of course.  

Why is it that you feel that fully compensating CSA survivors for their abuse however it can be done is a bad thing? Just asking of course.

  • Sad 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, skeptic said:

... Of course, many of us have heard the stories of veterans that note their Scouting training as helping them survive, even up to the modern day, but especially in WWII, Korea, and Nam.  ...

My son often related his scouting experience to his military assignments.  ... During field exercises were not that bad to him while others found it hard / scary / creepy to be out in the weather all the time; sleep under the stars and/or in the rain and weather.  ...  Funniest was talking about Marine boot camp.  ...  The camp ranger that was his high school boss was very much like a drill instructor sergeant.  He had less stress in boot camp than others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

I'm an old Marine and I say that I learned how to be comfortable outdoors in the Boy Scouts, not the  Marines! Semper Fi!

My son said the same.  Sleeping and living in the field was always more of a challenge for the other Marines.  ... The part my son added was that the drill instructors reminded him of the camp ranger, his boss for three summers.

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
×
×
  • Create New...