![[header4.jpg]](http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/2263/banner20questionstuesda.png)
I was in a conversation the other day with someone, and they were wondering why the Boy Scouts historically had so many pedophiles within its organizational structure. The conversation was in regards to the director of programming for the BSA that was nabbed from a German kiddy porn sting.
The answer is quite simple, actually. It has nothing to do with how good or bad the BSA is, it has nothing to do with homosexuality (as the BSA would like you to believe), but it has everything to do with the predator/prey relationship. If one is a predator, one tries to spend most of one's time near one's prey. For a pedophile, that proximity means being around kids. Pedophiles find positions that involve them being around kids, serial rapist tend to hover around college campuses, cheetahs stay near the impalas. A sandwich just isn't a sandwich without the tangy zip of Miracle Whip, much like a predator is just not a predator without prey.
Pedophiles seem to be draw to teaching jobs, Boy Scouts, day care workers, priests, etc... all positions where there is some power differential between predator and prey. The predator is in a position of authority and the prey is, well, his prey. Pedophilia is typically perpetrated by middle aged white men who identify themselves as heterosexual, and typically it is not about finding young boys and girls attractive, but about power and control through the subjugation of young boys and girls. This subjugation usually takes to for ot the most intimate of subjugations... sex or sexual acts. That is why the Boy Scouts of America and the Catholic Church have consistently been in the news for pedophiles. Adults with positions of power and little supervision with kids. This, of course, is a complete over-simplification of the concept of sexual predation on minors, but as my own rule of thumb it works.
I am an Eagle Scout. I spent many years of my life going through the BSA's rigmarole, and I have my ideas about the adults in my troop alone, whom I think might have been not so good for the character for the Boy Scouts. At the time, I just thought that I didn't particularly like them as leaders in my troop, but looking back, I think that some of them might have had some "special" relationships with kids in the troop. That was just my troop. I would have testified in court about some of the adults in my district being predatory, but the suits haven't ever come up.... yet. Oddly enough though, the "rampant" pedophilia in Scouts is not why I no longer associate with that organization, but that is a topic for another time.
I am sure I will have something lighter to post about tomorrow; this has just been eating at me for some time now. Something to do with how funny looking penguins are. Something like that.
The answer is quite simple, actually. It has nothing to do with how good or bad the BSA is, it has nothing to do with homosexuality (as the BSA would like you to believe), but it has everything to do with the predator/prey relationship. If one is a predator, one tries to spend most of one's time near one's prey. For a pedophile, that proximity means being around kids. Pedophiles find positions that involve them being around kids, serial rapist tend to hover around college campuses, cheetahs stay near the impalas. A sandwich just isn't a sandwich without the tangy zip of Miracle Whip, much like a predator is just not a predator without prey.
Pedophiles seem to be draw to teaching jobs, Boy Scouts, day care workers, priests, etc... all positions where there is some power differential between predator and prey. The predator is in a position of authority and the prey is, well, his prey. Pedophilia is typically perpetrated by middle aged white men who identify themselves as heterosexual, and typically it is not about finding young boys and girls attractive, but about power and control through the subjugation of young boys and girls. This subjugation usually takes to for ot the most intimate of subjugations... sex or sexual acts. That is why the Boy Scouts of America and the Catholic Church have consistently been in the news for pedophiles. Adults with positions of power and little supervision with kids. This, of course, is a complete over-simplification of the concept of sexual predation on minors, but as my own rule of thumb it works.
I am an Eagle Scout. I spent many years of my life going through the BSA's rigmarole, and I have my ideas about the adults in my troop alone, whom I think might have been not so good for the character for the Boy Scouts. At the time, I just thought that I didn't particularly like them as leaders in my troop, but looking back, I think that some of them might have had some "special" relationships with kids in the troop. That was just my troop. I would have testified in court about some of the adults in my district being predatory, but the suits haven't ever come up.... yet. Oddly enough though, the "rampant" pedophilia in Scouts is not why I no longer associate with that organization, but that is a topic for another time.
I am sure I will have something lighter to post about tomorrow; this has just been eating at me for some time now. Something to do with how funny looking penguins are. Something like that.
6 Comments:
Have to say I totally agree with your assesment of the Predator/Prey thing. Unfortunately, that can often lead to an organization being hammered for the twisted behavior of a handful of psychos. I happen to be a Scoutmaster myself these days and it worries me that a lot of folks are taking some very negative views of the BSA because of these idiots. The BSA works very hard to protect the boys from exactly this type of individual. We have tons of safety features in place to help prevent this from happening and I'm sure there will be more forethcoming after this latest issue. As you say, the problem is not the organization but the fact that so many assembled boys are nothing more than a herd of wildebeast for the lions out there.
Just as an aside: regarding your statement that the BSA equates homosexuality with pedohilia. Not sure I agree with you there. Remember that all the boys are not young children, many are 16-17 year olds. While I totally agree that homosexual men have no more interest in children than hetero men do, I always want to ask people if they'd be wiling to send their 16 year old daughter out in the woods for a weekend with a few hetero men, unattended?
I am personally a supporter of equal rights (including marriage) for gays but I think there's also a common sense issue here that has to be looked at. People (of either persuasion) are sexually attracted to physically mature specimens of their preference. Many young people hit that maturity as early as 14-15 and I don't think it's a good idea to put them in a position where they could possibly be seen as sexual entities. It doesn't matter if it's with boys or girls, I just don't think it's wise. We have enough trouble protecting kids from the pedophiles: let's not complicate things any more.
Anyway, just my $0.02
Later!
j.a.c.,
I actually knew that you would respond to this post due to your affiliation with the BSA. I honestly feel that I should let you know, I was not trolling for you to comment, and this was not bait for a comment fest.
That being said, The 16 yr old in the woods argument against gay men does not hold water for me since the BSA allows hetero women to be active adult leaders in troops (at least this was the case as much as 5 years ago). The same issue has to be raised about women camping with boys. If it is okay for for women who are straight to go out camping with 16 yr old boys, then why is it not okay for gay men to go? Would it be okay if a lesbian were an adult associated with a troop? They are female and not interested in males sexually, one would think that they would be perfect, but the ban is on homosexuals, not just gay men. The 16 year old in the woods with an adult argument does not hold water for me, since it is not evenly applied.
I agree that the issue that the BSA has with homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia, it has to do with homophobia. The BSA wanted those "sexual deviants" out of their organization because they did not want to "condone that lifestyle." Because they felt that homosexuals would "attempt to recruit boys to their deviant lifestyles." I read "attempt to recruit" is a nice way of saying, "have sex with the boys in the woods."
I know we will just have to disagree about this.
Good points all. I don't know that we really have a disagreement. I have my own reservations about the BSA stance towards homosexuality and I think you're right in that the justifications are not being applied fairly. There is definitely a double standard here: in general society isn't too concerned about female sexuality getting out of control, just the male. You see the same stance when students and teachers have relationships. When it's a 30 year old man with a 14 year old girl people are screaming for his head but if you reverse the sexes everyone just winks and says: "Well, it's not like he didn't want it. . ."
It's a strange mindset. To balance my earlier point, I personally (and you're absolutely right, the BSA does not!) would ban the women leaders as well. You make a good point that it is homophobia more than safety that is prodding the arguments, else the ban would be played evenly.
It's a tough situation from any angle. I support the BSA program 100%, I think we're teaching these kids some remarkable things and giving them opportunities they would never have otherwise but there are definitely cultural issues that are causing problems. There is still a strong streak of homophobia in this nation (as evidenced by our last presidential election) and if the BSA lets gay leaders in many folks will pull their boys from the program, depriving them of some valuable life skills. The question becomes which is more important: to serve the children the organization was created for or to take a moral stance and lose a large percentage of those youth?
That's a tough question. I know it's not a popular opinion, but the BSA opted to place the children above the moral question. Is that right? Does it fit with the ethics we're trying to teach these boys? I don't know. It's a question of pragmatism over idealism. The writer in me wants to come down on the side of ideals while the parent is more concerned with the pragmatics of keeping a solid program running for my son and the other children I work with.
See? No fighting. :-)
Later!
While I agree that Boy Scouts and the scouting programs in general can teach a boatload of wonderful skills to kids, I feel that the program suffers greatly by not being inclusive.
I have learned many invaluable things from scouting. Everything from tying a veritable plethora of knots, making fire from 2 sticks, cooking on a campfire, even blowing shit up (to all of you out there… all scouts do this, if you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself. Scouts blow stuff up, and they like it. Period.), and many others. It could be such an amazing program if it were not discriminatory. It is a shame that my boy will not be a part of the organization.
In fact, I think he will probably be the first male on my side of the family that will not get his Eagle Scout award in 3 generations. My dad is an Eagle, My Brother is an Eagle, and I imagine that my nephews will also become Eagle Scouts. My brother is MUCH more conservative than I am.
I will have to teach him, on my own, the woodlore and naturecraft when we go camping as a family. He will never, as long as the BSA is a discriminatory organization, be a part of that kind of fraternal unit. I am saddened by this fact. It really is a loss for me, and potentially for my son.
I don't envy you; that's a tough call to make. It's a shame this issue is so divisive, when in a saner world it wouldn't be an issue at all.
As it stands the Scouts are in a no-win situation. Either they admit homosexual leaders and lose a lot of good people in the program who come from conservative backgrounds, or they don't and we lose good folks like you who could add a lot to the program. You're an Eagle and that means a lot. A lot of folks out there may not understand the effort, dedication, and skill that goes into that rank, but I do and I hate to see the BSA lose one. I'd rather see you work as part of the program and try to change things from within but you need to hold true to your own ideals. That's what being an Eagle is all about after all. :)
In the end, whichever way it goes, it's the kids like your son who pay the price. They miss out on a life shaping program that can offer them a lot. Hopefully things will change and you'll reconsider.
Later!
Hey,
It's my blog, I get the last comment.
Post a Comment
<< Home