At Public Discourse this week, Anthony Esolen, in the name of fatherless boys, takes bitter aim at the Philadelphia City Council, taxes, the War on Poverty, the modern YMCA, trade union bosses, crummy public schools, feminism, contemporary music, vice, parasitism, anti-religious bigotry, sexual innovations, and, in general and most vehemently, the “Left.” Let’s just say, the man has a world view. Some parts of it I find convincing; the world view itself I find brittle, angry, and deeply unattractive.
Esolen’s point of departure is the Boy Scouts — an organization that I’ve known, studied, and admired for years. Esolen strongly endorses the Boy Scouts policy — now being re-examined by the organization — of excluding gays. He gives his reason:
The Boy Scouts retain the commonsense notion that it is not wise to bring boys into close quarters with men who are sexually attracted to boys, regardless of whether they act on those attractions.
That proposition caught my eye: It is unwise for society to allow men with same-sex attractions to be in close proximity to boys, regardless of how the men act. That is certainly food for thought. Leaving the Scouts aside for a moment, let us begin to reckon some of the ways that our world would be different, if that policy were a general policy.
For starters, a good number of male teachers would have to quit their profession, or never consider entering it in the first place – including, as I look back, several quite good teachers that I had as a young person in the South in the 1960s and early 1970s. A small price to pay, Esolen might say, when the issue at stake is fatherless boys.
To take another example, I suspect that the impact on the Christian clergy would be significant — including, as I look back, on some of the wonderful Catholic priests that I knew and admired as a teenager and young adult (including in Esolen’s town of Philadelphia). I don’t know how many Catholic priests there are in the world, and of that total, how many have same-sex attractions but do not act on them, but I would guess that the number is non-trivial, and that therefore the impact of Esolen’s proposed policy on his own Church would, if implemented, end up as somewhere between important and cataclysmic.
One more example, this one less potentially world-historical, but meaningful to me. I have a close friend who for many years was a famous dancer at a famous ballet company. Now he teaches young dancers. He’s very good at it. I guess he too would have to find another way to make a living, were Esolen’s proposed policy to be, or become, a general policy.
Now, for Esolen, this policy is self-evidently wise – why? Because he cares about fatherless boys in inner city Philadelphia whose lives are being wiped out by trade union bosses, taxes, the modern YMCA, working mothers, and the entire “Left,” up to and including gay people doing things that put them into contact with children. As I say, the man has a world view.
Categories: Fatherhood
I have an absolutely beautiful amazing family member who had same sex attraction to boys. He has changed his ways but society called him out and won’t ever forgive or allow him move on. I understand where he is coming from but is society ready to embrace it?
This isn’t even the Boy Scouts’ actual justification for their policy. They claim that homosexuality is incompatible with the “morally straight” principle. That’s why they exclude lesbian pack leaders too.
Of course, Anthony Esolen also believes that gay people being out about our sexual orientation is akin to a person proclaiming a desire to shoot up a bus. I don’t think he’s a person very inclined to be fair-minded about this issue.
And they hopefully also exclude of pro-gay straight “allies” who introduce the kids to the idea that some of them are gay and it’s OK to have sex with each other, too.
gay men, by definition, are attracted to men, not boys.
Unless they are referring to sexual attraction
Sexual attraction of adults to children is not strictly gender based and is unrelated to the persons sexual behavior with adults
( It is unwise for society to allow men with same-sex attractions to be in close proximity to boys, regardless of how the men act. )
It would have even more impact if he was even a little bit logical. If it is unwise to trust men with same sex attractions it must be equally unwise to trust men with opposite sex attractions. So basically no man would be able to work or interact with anyone under 18 that was not their own child.
With ‘friends’ like Esolen, cultural conservatives don’t need enemies. He does a great job discrediting traditionalist ideals all by himself.
Manny,
Are you the same ‘John Howard’ who was banned from Rod Dreher’s blog for banging on about artificial reproduction?
I hate this argument.
“The Boy Scouts retain the commonsense notion that it is not wise to bring boys into close quarters with men who are sexually attracted to boys, regardless of whether they act on those attractions.”
So when are we going to exclude men from teaching girls?
But, more to the point – boys are not men. Boys and girls lack secondary sex characteristics. It’s ridiculous to equate a pedophile with men with same sex attraction or men attracted to women.
Great post, David, but I wish you had made the distinction others have pointed out between “attracted to boys” and “attracted to men.”
Hector, I am almost sure the two are one in the same.
If we make that judgment as a society, why stop at men?
Why does Esolen presume that gay men are attracted to boys without making the same assumption about straight women? The gay male as a predator is today’s version of black men obsessed with white women. It is mythology that is perpetuated to achieve the very conclusions that Esolen arrived at. …and Esolen is an educated man.
I think it’s important to note that the Boy Scouts don’t exclude all gay men, only OPENLY gay men: men who publicly acknowledge they are gay and/or, possibly, men with effeminate characteristics that imply a gay sexual orientation.
If the policy is based on fear of sexual interaction between adult males and boys, it doesn’t make much sense to accept closeted gay members or leaders, if you believe (falsely, as it were) that adult gay men want to have sex with underage males. “out of sight, out of mind” isn’t a very sound policy if you want to protect children from sexual abuse.
A better policy might be to have adults associated with the scouts sign an agreement forbidding any sexual contact with scouts, with grave consequences for violation, and to hold an orientation for new scouts that explains what physical behaviors are appropriate and inappropriate.
It seems to me that, these days, most parents at some point have a talk with their children about inappropriate “touching” or physical contact with another person.
It’s troubling that so many people support the Boy Scouts’ position on gay and lesbian people. I think that they do so not because they particularly care about what the Boy Scouts do or don’t do, but rather because the Scouts’ irrational policy supports the cherished smear that gay men are sexual predators, and/or are attracted to children.
Chris says:
Great post, David, but I wish you had made the distinction others have pointed out between “attracted to boys” and “attracted to men.”
Point taken. But I did think about it, and the reason I didn’t say anything in my post, is because I don’t think that distinction is what Esolen is focusing on, at all. I think the persons Esolen has in mind are what you and I would likely call “gays” or “homosexuals” and what he (since in his world view there are no such persons as gays or homosexuals) would call persons with same-sex attractions. If I am wrong about that assumption, I’d be happy to be corrected, by him or by someone who knows his writings better than I do; but I think he just means that gay men should not be around children, period.
Re: Why does Esolen presume that gay men are attracted to boys without making the same assumption about straight women?
To be fair, I’d say a large proportion of straight men are probably at least mildly attracted to mid-to-late teenage girls (16-17). That doesn’t mean that straight men shouldn’t be allowed to be teachers, youth leaders, coaches, etc. for teenage girls, it just means they need to be more careful about resisting temptation. I’d say exactly the same for gay men with respect to teenage boys.
With younger children I’m given to understand you’re correct and the normal categories of sexual orientation don’t apply.
Kevin is right, a man with same-sex attraction is welcome to be a scout leader as long as he keeps that well under control and faithfully teaches the scouts to be morally straight and doesn’t mess up their minds by saying he’s gay or some of them are gay and it’s OK to be gay. They surely also kick out straight scout leaders who tell their troops it’s OK to be gay. The idea that they exclude gays is complete propaganda, a false portrayal of their their policy. They are trying to raise boys into morally straight people who respect and care for women, and that’s probably why lots of parents send their kids.
I can’t recall ever seeing so many non sequiturs in one piece of work. Surely this is one for the record books. (I expected a rant against feminism, LGBT people, labor unions and anything else that gives working people dignity rather than having to beg for charity…..but, the YMCA, of all things? WOW. This guy is what we call around here, “all ate up.”)
(Really, the “Y”? That’s like having something against puppies, kittens and days filled with sunshine.)
As others have noted, pedophilia and homosexuality are independent of one another. The Boy Scouts will be doing the right thing if they allow openly gay members—those members have contributed a lot to the organization over the years, and it is shameful that they have been and are being treated the way they currently are by the organization.
Kevin,
I do think Esolen is unfortunately relying on the Gay Male Predator trope, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if he’d also be opposed to straight men being in close quarters with girls as well.
And, it would be interesting to hear him articulate in greater detail the underlying assumptions his argument is relying on. (Unfortunately, people who believe that their opinions are “common sense” don’t always articulate their arguments in great detail).
I bet that Esolen’s contention, if articulated, would evidence a worldview of men that suggests that, to him, it’s “common sense” that men are basically animals who cannot be trusted to control their sexual desires.
And they say feminists take a shoddy view of men.
David, presumably Esolen shares the view of many cultural conservatives that women simply aren’t much interested in sex, and if they do feel lust it’s either because they’re extremely aberrant or some man has led them astray.
Chris:
Let me put it differently. Let’s imagine that Esolen’s propostion is: It’s OK for gays to be in the Scouts, but what’s not OK is men in the Scouts who want to have sex with children, but who aren’t actually doing that (yet). Well, if that’s what he’s saying, I agree with him!
But, how would you or I or the Scouts or anyone know that a man wants to have sex with children, unless and until the man took some action (i.e., molesting a child) to reveal this fact about his identity? But then, once he did that, we would be basing our decision to keep him out of the Scouts on behavior, not feelings. So Esolen’s whole argument, if that were indeed his argument, is so circular as to be without any practical meaning.
But I don’t think that’s even remotely what Esolen is saying. That’s not his argument. To him, as far as I can tell, there is no such thing as a gay man. There are only regular men with sick or disordered (i.e. same-sex) attractions, which for Esolen is a perfectly adequate proxy for “wants to have sex with boys.” And therefore, no Scouting for you! Again, I would be pleased to be corected, by him or others; but I am fairly certain that this is precisely his argument.
Remember that his article is centered on the Scouts’ actual policy. And the Scouts’ policy (at least for now) is, no gays in the Scouts. That’s the already existing policy that Esolen is defending — not some complicated theoretical policy that involves feelings but not behavior. It’s Esolen’s reasoning in support of the current policy that struck me as interesting and worth examining.
Manny’s interpretation is belied by Esolen’s phrasing:
“The Boy Scouts retain the commonsense notion that it is not wise to bring boys into close quarters with men who are sexually attracted to boys”
It is not hard at all to see what it is being insinuated there. I have no doubt that Esolen also buys into the “role model” argument (which is also offensively homophobic, as if realizing that gay men can be responsible people and good leaders somehow contaminates children), but he is talking about more than that.
“And the Scouts’ policy (at least for now) is, no gays in the Scouts.”
and,
“The Boy Scouts retain the commonsense notion that it is not wise to bring boys into close quarters with men who are sexually attracted to boys”
Not to split hairs but neither of these statements is accurate. The scouts do not permit OPENLY gay men into leadership positions in the scouts, as general policy. They very likely permit closeted gay men into the scouts, who do not disclose their sexual orientation. I am unaware of any sexual orientation test given to test for sexual orientation, apart from a person’s self-diagnosis or revelation, that keeps gay adults out of the scouts.
If the second statement is meant to imply that the scouts screen for pedophilia, I don’t believe that’s the case. They rely on self-diagnosis and public pronouncement, rather than any external evaluation of one’s propensity for pedophilia.
Like the recently discarded US military policy, it was never that gay people can’t be in the military, it’s that the military can’t know about it.
The notion that gay people cease to be gay if they are not publicly gay is a contrived source of comfort for otherwise uncomfortable straight people I think. And if you think gay men are a danger to children, it isn’t a “commonsense” policy to encourage them to wear a disguise, is it?
What happens in Vegas may stay in Vegas, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen!
Manny, you could be on to something; that there are people within the Boy Scouts organization that think that if they affirm gay Scouts as members, there will be a “run on homosexuality” like it’s Black Friday or somethin’….just….that is not at all how sexual orientation works.
It’s probably clear from what I posted earlier, but in case it’s not, I want it to be, and find a different way to express what I mean.
The Boy Scout policy of excluding openly gay men is lunacy, and a theoretical danger to children. From what I know, their hiring policy is that you must present yourself as a straight, non-pedophilic man, even if you are gay, or a pedophile. I would think most pedophiles are straight, and would not find that to be especially burdensome to do. But even if it’s true that pedophiles are, or can be, also gay, they, too, can put on the straight man disguise. Unlike race, gay men have some latitude in who knows if they are gay.
It’s like looking for an animal to guard the hen house, and putting in the job application, “foxes need not apply; but if you are a fox, please put on a golden retriever outfit if you are selected for an interview….”
Yet if you think a gay man is a threat to children, why would ask him to wear a straight disguise? Does that turn him straight or something? Does that lesson or increase the danger to children?
I completely reject the notion that gay men are a danger to children, on any level. I completely accept the notion that a person with sexual desires towards children should not be placed unnecessarily in a position of authority and proximity to children. I can distinguish between a gay man and a pedophilia, something the boy scouts seem incapable of, to the detriment of children.
“Manny’s interpretation is belied by Esolen’s phrasing:” Sorry, no it isn’t. That’s not his whole statement, that’s just what you want his whole statement to be, so you can discredit him as someone who thinks gay men are pedophiles.
Kevin might be right that an openly gay leader would be more likely to remember their boundaries because the whole reason they are scout masters is to prove gays are not pedophiles or bad people and be cool role models, whereas disordered men or pedophiles are not down with that program. But that self-selection bias might not last very many years.
Manny, my point is, an openly gay scout or scout leader, is less of a threat, if you have decided that gay people are a threat to children: they are more visible, and others can be wary of them. True, they may feel some pressure to model best behaviors of all kinds, because gay people are scrutinized more than straight people; straight people are waiting for gay people to fail, so they can claim their bigoted instincts were correct.
If the goal is to avoid sexual behavior between adults and children, it seems to me to be overly inclusive and under inclusive to exclude openly gay adults or children from the scouts.
Overly inclusive, in that many gay boys and gay men are not sexually active, and/or (if adult) not interested in sex with minors. Under inclusive in that many straight men ARE interested in sex with minors, and are willing to act on it.
To assume that gay men who are closeted and are also pedophiles are also unwilling to have sex with minors seems to me to be a very odd assumption. The reality is, if you are willing to hide your sexual orientation, you might also be willing to hide your pedophilia, yet act on your pedophilia if an opportunity arises.
I realize that the scouts also have a moral stand against homosexuality, which is fine, but their current policy also means they support lying, in this case, about one’s sexual orientation. They support inauthenticity; form over substance; fantasy over reality. I think that’s a poor trade-off.
They do not support lying, they support living up to high morally straight standards. Their goal is to form boys into honest morally straight men who make good fathers and faithful husbands (of female wives) and in turn raise morally straight children. Learning how to tie knots and put up tents is just the raw material with which they achieve those goals.
I’m not sure how allowing gay leaders would stop pedophiles, or prevent anyone from acting if an opportunity arises.
“Their goal is to form boys into honest morally straight men…..”
Therein lies the problem: you don’t “form” straight men, it just happens. You can get gay men to act straight, but that’s inauthentic and dishonest. And has been known to cause a lot of problems and collateral damage.
And tent making and rope manipulation have no effect on human sexual orientation, I’m quite sure.
“I’m not sure how allowing gay leaders would stop pedophiles, or prevent anyone from acting if an opportunity arises.”
I didn’t say it would. I said excluding gay men is a poor proxy for excluding pedophiles willing to pursue a child for sex. I don’t know the full extent of what the Boy Scouts do, to prevent sex between adult and child and I’m sure they wouldn’t reveal publicly what they do, or the extent of the adult-child sex problem, if one exists.
As a thinking parent, I am not comforted by the exclusion of gay men as the solution to the problem. It’s not. I would prefer to see pedophiles, not gay men, excluded.
They don’t exclude gay men to exclude pedophiles, sexual abuse is not the problem they are solving. The problem they are solving is the selfish immoral society that produces men who lack moral strength and courage, and learning how to put up a tent right and tie a knot right is part of learning how to be man right and be a good father and husband.
There may be people who cannot be “formed” to be straight, but there may be quite a few people who, given the right moral instruction, emerge straight moral loving husbands instead of, with immoral influences, unable to be straight moral loving husbands, for whatever reason. I’m not even sure there are any people that cannot be straight given proper nurturing. Certainly everyone has a right to be straight and be respected for their moral honesty and authenticity as straight men being straight, without anyone disrespecting them.
Manny stated:
“I’m not even sure there are any people that cannot be straight given proper nurturing.”
Manny, this statement of yours belongs to the ‘ex-gay’ world of yesterday. Not even Exodus, the primo ex-gay ministry for years, can support this contention, any longer. The studies abound that blow your “not even sure” sentence right out of the water.
Manny again:
“… but there may be quite a few people who, given the right moral instruction, emerge straight moral loving husbands instead of, with immoral influences, unable to be straight moral loving husbands, for whatever reason.
Ah, now I see where the fault lies. You, Manny, labor under a misapprehension of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with moral instruction. It is a characteristic like brown eyes or blond hair. Joining the Boy Scouts will not “make your brown eyes, blue”. Neither will it make a straight boy, gay.
La Lubu nailed it in a previous comment of hers:
“… that there are people within the Boy Scouts organization that think that if they affirm gay Scouts as members, there will be a “run on homosexuality” like it’s Black Friday or somethin’….just….that is not at all how sexual orientation works.”
I think you may be one of those people, Manny.
I don’t usually agree with you, Teresa, but your last comment is 100% right. I’d also add that “morally straight” is a term I’ve never heard anyone use before, but Manny typically makes arguments that I’ve never heard anyone else make before, so this is not that surprising.
I wasn’t talking about ex-gay conversion therapy. I believe that it is very difficult if not impossible for a gay person to become straight, which is one of the main reasons to protect boys from making such a life-long irreversible action. I was talking about children, boys, in the boy scouts. Sorry but every single boy in the boy scouts has a right to be straight and isn’t yet old enough to be gay.
Chris,
Perhaps, we disagree on same sex marriage; but, I am always happy to read what you, Kevin, fannie, et. al., have to say. I continue to be stretched and enlightened in my thinking by what you all have to say.
I readily admit, I stand on the shoulders of giants: all the gay men and women who have fought the good fight, against intimidating and fearful odds, that have made my life better as a gay woman. Daily, I’m immensely grateful for all the blood, sweat and tears that went into that making: loss of reputation, honor, family, friends, vocations and occupations.
Manny stated:
“… which is one of the main reasons to protect boys from making such a life-long irreversible action.”
Manny, I’m trying very hard to be civil here … but, do you really have any idea what sexual orientation is?
Manny, again:
“Sorry but every single boy in the boy scouts has a right to be straight and isn’t yet old enough to be gay.”
You’re kidding here, Manny, right?
I would appreciate it if the moderators would rule on whether Manny’s comments about gay people in this discussion qualify as “a well-mannered use of language and argumentation which consistently demonstrates decency, sincerity, and mutual respect.”
As you’ve consistently shown, Manny, you have a bizarre idea of what “rights” entail. Of course everyone has the right to their sexual orientation. But being in the proximity of people of another sexual orientation does not challenge or jeopardize that right in any way. You don’t have any “right” to not be exposed to gay people.
Manny
I’m wondering if you might not be confusing gay people with pedophiles. Because of course these are children and they should not be pressured into having sex by adults because that is an abuse of authority and power and that takes advantage of a child’s small stature and dependent nature…all bad yes very bad and very illegal. Gay adults are like straight adults that are aware of the law and restrain themselves from acting out the whole school girl thing in real life with little kids. So of course teachers and scout leaders and coaches and priests of either persuasion are in a position to abuse their authority and those that do so don’t do it because they are straight or because they are gay they do it because they are pedophiles. I’m not sure that gayness or straightness is an indicator of a proclivity toward acting out sexual impulses on the undeveloped bodies of children.
Was that what you were talking about like actual sex between the scout leader and a scout or like just being around someone who happens to be gay? I don’t think that there are like badges for sexual escapades in the scouts i think they stick to lanyard making and starting fires with flint and walking old women across busy streets. Its pretty tame subject matter so I don’t think a gay scout leader would ever be teaching a course in broadway musicals or how to accessorize they go camping and catch fishes with spears. I bet its just fine. But I’m from San Francisco everything is just fine here.
Oh gosh Manny I just read your up top post. Forget what I said. You think gay is bad and being around respectable gay people will make kids want to become gay because its ok.
my goodness. well no more than being around respectable straight people will make people want to be straight. Its a mind bender alright.
On “morally straight”:
I think a possible source of misunderstanding in this thread is the use by some of the term “morally straight.” Some people, in commenting, seem to be viewing that term as a way of saying “heterosexual.” But in fact, the term comes from the Boy Scout Law. A Scout pleges, among other things, to be “morally straight” — which means, a person of good morals.
Elusis:
A comment not deleted by one of the moderators means, in principle, that the comment does not violate our civility policy. (I say “in principle” because sometimes moderators miss things or make mistakes.) I am a person who has moderation privileges at the site, and my view is, while I know that Manny’s views of homosexuality as stated here are hurtful to some and may seem provocative in this context, and while I personally largely do not agree with him, I also believe that views similar to his are held by many persons of good will and rational capacity, and that therefore he and others are welcome to state them in our conversations on this site, provided that they are expressed with some degree of carefulness regarding the feelings of others and without personal attacks, etc. If other moderators disagree with me in this particular case — I realize this is very difficult, and an important topic to many — please let me know offline, and we can discuss.
Does anyone here really not see the problem with having men who are attracted to other men take young men out into the woods on camping excursions?
Would you trust a heterosexual man to take teenage girls, who aren’t part of his family, on camping trips into the woods?
Do you all really believe that camping trips are the exact same thing as being a teacher in a classroom?
Bridget: Would you trust a heterosexual man to take teenage girls, who aren’t part of his family, on camping trips into the woods?
I would if I knew the man, and if he is the Scout leader, and I am active in my child’s life, I’m pretty sure I would know the man.
What is the difference of a hetrosexual woman taking teenage boys on camping trips into the woods?
For reference, I was a Girl Scout well into my teens, and we had a couple of lesbian Troop Leaders. That posed no problem. They didn’t molest us, they taught us to be good Scouts.
I found this a very moving article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-did-i-challenge-the-boy-scouts-anti-gay-policy-because-i-am-a-loyal-scout/2013/02/08/346ebab2-7159-11e2-a050-b83a7b35c4b5_story.html
For me, one of the big issues with the Scouting ban is the harm it does to the young men who grow up with Scouting and then discover that they are gay and are kicked out.
@Rob – because of the dilemma you describe, I would be okay with the Scouts allowing troops to decide their policy for troop leaders. The Scouts do a lot of good for many boys and I would hate to see that get lost.
However, I think they need to get rid of the policy against gay boy scouts everywhere. It is too harmful to children.
Rob: You comment suggesting that other commenters on this site are trolls, bigots, and/or ignorant was deleted because — well, I don’t think I need to explain. Please read our civility policy. If you do this again you’ll be banned from commenting. Otherwise, please feel free to participate.
So the dilemma I was referring to is that if the Scouts keep their ban, they will lose people who see it as discriminatory. However, if they get rid of their ban, they will lose other groups.
David – I am struggling to see how the comments about “penises in bums” demonstrates either being “well-mannered” or having “mutual respect.” In my experience, well-mannered people refrain from explicit and scatological commentary on the private lives of others, and those with mutual respect for others don’t rhetorically reduce them to a single sex act which they obviously find repulsive and seem to want others to dwell on as repulsive or shocking.
I’m pretty sure Esolen would be against men living in tents on camp grounds with girl scouts. Most moms would be too, regardless of the fact that most men with daughters would never dream of doing any sexual thing with any 13 year old girl, much less a 20 year old.
Pedophilia may be separate from homosexuality, but most normal men-gay or straight–are sexually atracted to physically mature teenagers, however much their moral values prevent them from acting on it. Physical maturity and legal adulthood are now (thankfully not criticizing) two different standards.
I think the Boy Scouts have two choices: to get serious about what they mean by “morally straight” or to admit gay scouts and scoutmaster.
They are now falling between two stools.
Maggie – you seem to have a very low opinion of adult men. The idea that men can’t be trusted to behave in a safe and appropriate fashion around anyone they’re attracted to seems to work against the goal of valuing men and fathers. If adult men are really such poor sexual decison-makers, it would seem that we should be working to separate them from children and teens of any gender, so as to not teach the next generation such incredibly poor skills of self-control and respect for others.
And yet, we allow adult men to be alone with and take leadership roles with girls all the time – the girls’ swim coach who spends their time with thinly-clothed young women, the girls’ gymnastics coach who sees more of them than their own families do, the girls’ speech team coach who travels all over the state and perhaps country with his team for competitions (as mine did). Heterosexual families take their daughters and their daughters’ friends on camping trips or to Six Flags for the weekend. Heterosexual families have their daughters’ friends over for sleepovers.
Why is there so much more agita over boys’ safety than girls’?
Because the girl scouts don’t have men living in tents with 13 year olds.
that’s your answer.
I do not have a low opinion of men generally. But if I were the mother of a daugher, I would vehemently, nonethless, oppose adult men in tents with my daughter.
Can you understand why?
Maggie,
“I think the Boy Scouts have two choices: to get serious about what they mean by “morally straight” or to admit gay scouts and scoutmaster.”
Now, that I’ve read a bit more on the Boy Scouts, and what their mission/purpose is; I think it’s pretty clear what they mean by being “morally straight”. They’ve been about being fostering “morally straight” boys into men for decades.
Is it the Boy Scouts that have the dilemma, or is it us?
Elusis: I missed the comment you refer to; if I find it, and it’s as you say, I will delete it, as a violation of our policy. In general, let me also say, it’s not our policy to debate or discuss our civility policy and its enforcement in comment threads. I responded to your earlier inquiry; but in general this isn’t a topic for open discussion …
bridget and Maggie G. have both asked this question, somewhat rhetorically I think, but I’m going to answer it anyway. As ab adolescent I participated in a wide range of backwoods trips in mixed-gender company, many of which were through my church youth group and some of which were run by a private youth camp organization. Leaders were male and female, and while leaders and campers generally self-segregated by status and/or gender (campers in some tents, leaders in others; girls together/boys together), that was not always the case due to a variety of circumstances. Somehow, we managed to give everyone privacy for changing clothes, etc.!
I think there is a lot of really insulting blurring of categories in this thread as others have pointed out: human beings are capable of distinguishing between desire and action, between adults and children, between appropriate and inappropriate actions. Straight den mothers aren’t hitting on their charges and the culture isn’t generally fearful they will. To disproportionately fear, with no data to support the assertion, that men who are attracted to other men cannot behave ethically around boys they are mentoring, while we assume the majority of women (queer and straight alike) and straight men can keep it in their pants when interacting with those of the gender(s) they’re attracted to, is to rehearse anti-gay stereotypes with long and damaging histories.