July 29, 2015

"Canteen Boy" and the Super Gays

**Bumped .... because .... I can**

Hello people, my name is Rusty Shackleford and I blog here occasionally.

So the Boy Scouts of America has decided that it's okay for gay men to go camping with your supple and lithe 15 year old sons. What could possibly go wrong?

As a long time supporter of the Boy Scouts I'm a bit confused by the reasoning. I think it goes something like: discrimination is bad, mmmkay, and gays should be treated like every one else.

Okay, sure, that's reasonable. Let's treat them like every one else.

But what you are asking is to treat them differently. In fact, you are asking us to believe a lie.

There are many kinds of lies out there. One of those lies is that gay men are more prone to pedophilia then straight men. I know of no statistical or anecdotal evidence for this. It's a disgusting stereotype.

But there is strong evidence that many men, indeed perhaps most men, are attracted to people who may be much younger than them. I'm not talking about pedophilia here, just the normal -- and I do intentionally mean normal -- male attraction to youth.

This is an uncomfortable fact to most us. The fact that many men are attracted to people who are say, 16 or 17 years old, is very uncomfortable to think about. It becomes more uncomfortable for us the younger that gets. As we all know, some 14 year olds are fully developed. This isn't something we like to think about. It is something polite society almost never talks about.

As a father of both teenage girls and boys it makes me uncomfortable. I handle the discomfort with many guns and plenty of ammunition. I don't like to think about it. I don't like to talk about it.

But comfortable or not, these facts remain: that men have always been and will always be attracted to youth.

Which is why if Howie suggested that he take your teenage daughters camping you'd react the same way I would: by showing him your Remington 870 and politely showing him the door.

And it's not just because Howie is a perv. It's because Howie is a man.

Denying Howie his weekend with your daughters isn't an unstated accusation that he is worse than the average man, it is only an admission that he is no better than the average man.

And this is precisely the problem I have with gay Scout leaders.

You are asking me to believe that gay men are better than straight men. That gay men, as a group, have conquered the unfortunate yet natural attraction men have to teenagers. That gay men, as a group, are in fact supernatural. They, and they alone, have overcome male nature.

We do not allow grown men to take our teenage daughters camping even when we add the kinds of safeguards that the Boy Scouts have added in recent years in order to prevent abuse. Safeguards such as men and boys must sleep in separate tents, or that there must be at least two adults present with a Scout, etc, etc.

The fact remains that even with these safeguards it still would make me uncomfortable for an adult male to be camping with my teenage daughters in a supervisory capacity. I simply wouldn't allow it. Because men are fickle creatures. We are tempted. We are weak.

But not gay men, right? Gay men are so much better than the rest of us that they would not be tempted. Or, if tempted, they are not so weak as the rest of mankind. They can resist. They will not look upon your teenage boys with any amount of lust. They, and they alone, have overcome! Hallelujah, thank the Lord, they have overcome!

It's almost as if you believe them to be die Herrenrass, the Master Race.

And if that is the case, perhaps we should put them in charge of ... everything.

Having overcome the human condition, I'm sure they could easily solve all the world's ills. Just think, with these superior beings in charge hunger would be a thing of the past. War something we read about only in books.

Those who believe gay men have overcome the human condition are not asking the rest of us to accept gay Scoutmasters because they believe in equality.

They are asking us to accept gay Scoutmasters for the opposite reason: gays are not equal to straights, they are better than us.

Equality: I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Here's the Canteen Boy sketch. Sure, Canteen Boy is supposed to be "27 years old", but yeah, right, whatever. I actually think it's funny. Tragedy and comedy are kind of two sides to the same coin. And make no mistake, this is exactly what the BSA has voted for. Comedy gold when it's Alec Baldwin coming on to Adam Sandler. Tragic when he's coming on to your 16 year old son.

So long BSA, and thanks for all the fish!

UPDATE: For those of you who may be slow, or maybe you just never thought of the difference because, let's face it, polite society demands (demands!) that we don't think about unpleasant things (let alone two or three unpleasant things), I'm going to clarify a point some of the commenters don't seem to get.

Namely this: that some people use the word "molest" or "molestation" to describe all sorts of actions, but which really cover three separate bad things.

The first, is pedophelic child molestation. You know what that means. This is so unpleasant that even I, your host down this rabbit hole of perfidy, don't really want to describe it.

The second is statutory child molestation. This is when an legal adult makes unwanted advances, touching, etc. of a legal minor (eg, 21 year old perpetrator and 15 year old victim). I use the term statutory here because when the same thing happens to an adult victim we call it sexual assault and/or rape.

The third is statutory rape (or as Nancy Grace calls it, child molestation). This is when the sexual advances of an adult towards a teenager is consented to, even though one of the parties in the relationship is not legally allowed to consent.

All three of these things are morally wrong. But their degree or level of wrongness goes from worst case to very bad to bad in the order listed above.

Also, as I pointed out I think quite clearly, I expressly said that gays are no more likely to be sexual predators or perverts than straights. But, and this is kind of the whole point, they are no less likely either.

So, contemplate those points before you start typing something stupid.

As to the point about "I need statistics" well, I just don't know what to say with that. As a methodology, statistics just can't answer all questions of fact. As an epistemology it can never answer all questions of truth. There are several reasons for this, but first and foremost is simply lack of data.

But as more than a few scientists have won Nobel Prizes for thought experiments (eg, Einstein, Friedman) let me pose the following thought experiment to you:

You have a daughter. She goes to high school. The high school announces that the locker rooms and showers are going to be co-ed. But don't worry, they have a bunch of rules that make it impossible (impossible!) for inappropriate behavior.

School Board, meet my Remington 870.

Or, maybe you have a more enlightened reaction. You pull your kids from school.

Either way, you don't let it happen not only because you know rules cannot always be enforced (even well thought out, good rules). No, what really pisses you off is the notion of all those guys oggling your daughter.

It's. Just. Creepy.

And that might just be a social constructed thing. We learn that nudity is sexual or something. In Sweden they do it all the time. I don't think so, but whatever.

Even if it is something American society fostered upon us, so what? If we want to live in society, there are some social norms that cannot be broken. And there are social, and legal, consequences for violating some of those norms.

Also, some of those legal consequences are there to protect the violator of the norms as much as they are about protecting society.

You see, once the law no longer protects my children then it's up to me to do so.

And I have guns.

Laws protecting certain social norms are there to protect you from me just as much as they are to protect society.

By Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at 02:12 PM | Comments |