?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Chard

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
2007-05-24 05:42: Those naughty scoutmasters

I'm posting this because I think it should be on the web somewhere where it might be found and used.

"A man who is homosexual is no more at risk of abusing a boy than a man who is heterosexual is at risk of abusing a girl."

"Part of the stigma is the sense that they must be more risk to children. There simply isn't any scientific evidence to support that."

"There's no credible evidence that a homosexual man is more likely to abuse a child than a heterosexual man."

Fred S. Berlin, M.D., Ph.D., founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic, specializing in the evaluation and treatment of patients with sexual disorders, such as pedophilia, voyeurism, and exhibitionism. Quoted from Penn & Teller's Bullshit: Boy Scouts.

Incidentally, this particular programme is about how the Boy Scouts of America has been taken over by the conservative Christian Right, and now actively excludes atheists and homosexuals. The Supreme Court of the USA upheld this right because the BSA is a private organization, but in fact it receives a lot of public funds and has a special connection with the US military. The Scouting for All campaign exists in opposition.

I'm pleased to say that the Scout Association of the UK say "It's OK to be gay and a Scout!" and have many clearly and sensible policies on the matter on their site.

Although, given the second line and seventh article of the Promise and Law the Scouts may simply be fundamentally flawed.



Comments

[User Picture]
From:gerald_duck
Date:2007-05-24 14:07 (UTC)
(Link)
But is it really true that men are more likely to sexually abuse children than women are? If so, by what factor, and why?
[User Picture]
From:chard
Date:2007-05-24 14:54 (UTC)
(Link)
You could write to Dr Berlin and ask, I guess. Actually, I might do this, but my question will be about where he thinks one should go to find reliable statistical information about such topics. It would be really good to be able to find some truth around here.
[User Picture]
From:nickbarnes
Date:2007-05-24 21:49 (UTC)
(Link)
You neglect to debunk the idea that children who have social contact with gay adults are more likely to be gay as adults. That's a significant part of the rationale of movements to exclude gay adults from contact with children (e.g. as teachers, scout/guide leaders, priests). There are various ideas, each as pernicious as the next, about mechanisms for this effect. E.g. "indoctrination".
[User Picture]
From:chard
Date:2007-05-24 23:04 (UTC)
(Link)
I'd love to debunk it, but I don't have an authoritative source.
[User Picture]
From:nickbarnes
Date:2007-05-24 21:50 (UTC)
(Link)
fundamentally flawed
Well, duh. The paramilitary uniforms and organisation don't give it away?
[User Picture]
From:chard
Date:2007-05-24 23:04 (UTC)
(Link)
No, they don't, in my opinion.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:2009-12-27 01:33 (UTC)
(Link)
"the Scout Association of the UK ...have many clearly and sensible policies on the matter..." What is a clearly policy? By the way, what is a "sexual disorder"? Paedophilia apparently is included, but presumably not homosexuality. Why? As far as I can see, the only criterion is being a practise/orientation disapproved of by our peculiar society. Which is fine, except surely those things should be labelled "sexual deviancies", or something more relative. The word "disorder" implies a definite impairment, recognisable by any human convention; not simply those sexual activities/preferences of which our idiosyncratic society disapproves. (And it IS idiosyncratic.) Oh, this is Bink btw. Don't know how I got here...
Powered by LiveJournal.com