Today in my gay and lesbian history class, we briefly got on to the topic of the terrible stereotype about gays, lesbians, and pedophilia. Most of my students are familiar with the unfounded cultural fear that associates homosexuality with the sexual abuse of children. But talking about it today brought back flashbacks to an old experience I had when I was first working as a youth leader at All Saints Pasadena a number of years ago.
One of the first time I went on retreat with the kids, I was one of four adult leaders headed off to Big Bear for the weekend. There were two male and two female leaders, and about a dozen kids of each sex. The other male youth leader, "Oscar", was an openly gay man and a loved and trusted member of the All Saints community. (He’s no longer with All Saints). The two female youth leaders were straight. As is common on such retreats, the boys shared a communal shower area, and dressed and undressed in front of each other. Boys and girls were not allowed in the other sex’s cabin without adults present. Before I went into the girls’ cabin, I would knock and wait for the all-clear. (Replete with the usual "Everybody decent?" query, followed by mildly profane and silly responses!)
When we got back from the trip, I had a conversation with a parent. (Yes, I know All Saints people read this blog — no, you can’t possibly guess who I’m talking about. This was five or six years ago; don’t try.) This man (I’ll call him "Jim"), the father of one of the boys in my cabin, was irate that Oscar had been on the trip. His angry challenge rocked me. Jim said:
"Hugo, I have a daughter who will be old enough for a retreat in a couple of years. Now, I know you, Hugo, and I like you. But I would not be okay with you sleeping in the girls’ cabin with her and using the girls’ bathroom with her. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to, either! But Hugo, how come I’m supposed to be okay with a gay man sharing space with my son? Why is it okay for Oscar to be in the boys cabin, but not okay for you to be in the girls cabin?
I’ll confess, I was totally unprepared for the question. Jim didn’t want to approach All Saints staff; he was not interested in filing a formal complaint. But he knew me well enough as a friend to express his concern, and he wanted an answer. I told him that I couldn’t think of a good response off the top of my head, and I told him I’d get back to him. He made me promise not to raise the issue with All Saints staff (or with Oscar), and I agreed.
I spent a week running the scenario by everyone I knew who wasn’t associated with the church. Some of my more liberal friends were indignant that the question was even asked: "Screw the father! It doesn’t deserve a response, it’s pure bigotry!" Some of my conservative friends were delighted that I was in this quandary, convinced that I couldn’t come up with a justification for why Oscar belonged with us in the boys cabin. (Several of them pointed out that I had run into one of the reasons why the Scouts still ban openly gay leaders from working with their boys). Most people weren’t much help, frankly.
But I wanted to get back to Jim, and I called him the following week. Here’s more or less what I said:
"Jim, you’ve given me a lot to think about. I thought coming up with a good answer would be easier than it has been. And I want you to know that I believe you’re coming from a place of love and concern, not from bigotry. But I’ve thought about this for a while, and I believe that we can make the case that gay men and lesbian women can be superb youth leaders, and be in the same close proximity to youth of their same gender as straight leaders.
The reason we put the male youth leaders with the boys and female youth leaders with the girls isn’t because of sexuality, at least not mainly. A gay male youth leader is still a man; a lesbian youth leader is still a woman. We divide up the sexes for the comfort and safety of the kids, because when it comes to teenagers, we believe it’s important to have separate space for things like showering and sleeping. Sexual desire isn’t the issue, Jim; it’s really just a matter of biology. Gay men use the men’s restroom, and no one has a problem with that!"
Jim came right back:
You’re dodging, Hugo. When I was in youth group, we changed in front of each other. Do you ever see the boys in their underwear or naked?
"I suppose sometimes, yes."
Do you think, Hugo, if you saw the girls naked or in their underwear, you might be aroused or uncomfortable?
"Jim! No! Totally inappropriate question, and I would never put myself in that situation! EVER!"
Exactly, Hugo! You may not want to go there, buddy, but bear with me: why would you never, ever be in that situation, but you expect Oscar to be? We’re all human beings. Are you so confident that your devotion to ministry would conquer your sexual desires? Do you think it’s possible a gay man might get turned on by being around undressed teenage boys? Yes or no?
I conceded it was possible. "But even so, I know Oscar. He’s got terrific boundaries and a heart for youth ministry. He would never, ever, ever, cross that line."
That’s great, Hugo; I’m glad you stand up for your friends. But not all parents know Oscar the way you do. Should we just take your word for it? Do you know what Oscar really thinks when he sees my son in the shower?
At this point, I began to get flustered and I lost my cool. My eagerness to defend Oscar overtook me, and I said some things in anger. I’m sorry to say that the conversation ended badly. And frankly, I’ve revisited this debate many times. I know from experience that gay men and lesbians can be wonderful and safe youth leaders. But I’ve never found the words to effectively convince concerned parents and others who ask the same sort of questions Jim asked.
In my heart, I’m convinced that the biological sex of the youth leader should be the sole determinant of which cabin he or she sleeps in. I don’t believe that the potential for sexual arousal is the primary reason why straight male youth leaders aren’t put in the girl’s bunkhouses — though I acknowledge that not everyone agrees with me. But I’m not yet doing as good a job as I could be of addressing the concerns of those folks, like Jim, who see a serious problem.
So, readers, open question time:
If you were in my position, and belonged to an affirming church, what would you say to a parent like Jim?
While it’s not necessary for you to support an inclusive and welcoming position on homosexuality in order to comment, please avoid using hurtful or stereotypical language to refer to gays and lesbians. Civility in tone and content is mandatory. Let’s also remember that in youth ministry, trust and accountabilty are everything — so the answers we give to people like Jim need to be couched in loving and respectful language.
“Why would you never, ever be in that situation, but you expect Oscar to be?”
Why is Oscar supposedly comfortable in that situation? Or is he? Either there’s a great lesson to learn from Oscar, which I don’t think will sell with many parents, or modesty should be the general rule of adult leaders of either sex or sexual orientation interacting with youth.
Oh, we are all modest. But you do enough youth work on camping trips, and go to places that have communal bathrooms, there’s only so far modesty will get you.
As a woman, I can imagine that I would be far more comfortable showering in front of a gay man than a lesbian. I don’t think biology comes into it. And what about bisexual people? What we’re really questioning here is whether or not it would just be best to separate out gays, bisexuals and heterosexuals, into their own restrooms, showering facitilites, whatever, and skirt around the issue of self-control. What Jim is saying is that he doesn’t believe Oscar would have a suitable level of self-control, and that he knows that other parents would be worried about this.
Where there’s smoke there’s fire. I suspect Oscar knows he’d have a hard time controlling his own thought routines if he saw naked young women, so he’s making assumptions for others based on his personal weaknesses. And for anyone who says such thought routines are natural, I say they need to take a deep look inside themselves. I’ve frequently encountered very attractive naked men (i.e., two naked men in their early 20s jogged past me on a forest running track the other day), but don’t ever feel any sexual interest. Nudity shouldn’t be such an issue. Also, I’d take the rule of “look but don’t touch” as enough. We cannot control the minds of others, nor should we want to.
Tracy, your first sentence about comfort levels sits in tension with the rest of what you say. Our kids comfort levels matter, their parents’ comfort levels matter, as do the rights of youth workers of any sexual identity.
I think it still boils down to the implicit assumption that queer desire is animal-like (or, at least, not human) and that it resists the boundaries the “normal” heterosexuals are assumed capable of establishing.
It’s like I’ve said to my son’s friends when they say, “I don’t care if someone’s gay, they just better stay away from me!”
Me: “Would you force a girl you found desirable to have sex with you? Do you want someone who doesn’t want you and actually seems repulsed by you?”
Them: “No! Of course not! We’re not animals!”
Me: “Well, why do you think a gay man will try to have sex with someone who doesn’t want him back?”
That’s not going to help you with folks like Jim, not immediately, but I think that worries like those Jim and others have are founded on the stereotype of unrestrained queer sexual desire — a desire that is so powerfully “natural” (or so powerfully “supernatural”) that it cannot be held in check.
True, Bitch — I agree. But would you feel comfortable with me in the same bunk house, and using the same showers, as your daughter and her girlfriends?
From what I’ve read of you? Absolutely!
I think an equivalence is being made that is interesting — and funny that, because today I spent my ‘downtime’ reading about queer’s theorists’ criticisms of feminist theory and the limitations of those criticisms themselves.
By the way, I couldn’t remember your blog’s address. So, I typed it in to Google to learn that some of your students have rated you Hawt Hawt Hawt at ratemyprof.com.
I don’t know whether to be really happy to learn that men get the evaluations that my colleagues and I used to get and consider it progress — or what. :)
Oh, and all that in the previous comment by way of saying: let me put that on the backburned and think through it and maybe I’ll blog on it later. I owe Kactus at SuperbabyMama a post on Lacan first though.
Well, thanks for your trust — but I still wouldn’t put myself in that position.
Yeah, whether the chili pepper on the ratemyprofs site represents progress for men is dubious. Largely, it riffs on an old fantasy.
Speaking as a lesbian who has managed years’ worth of being in locker rooms with other nekkid women, much less children (um, ew?), without particularly feeling the urge to leap over and ravish, much less follow through on such, I really think some people seriously need to get over themselves. What makes you think you’re so attractive, Nervous Straight Person? Much less your spotty, angst-ridden progeny?
And for that matter…oh, I don’t know. This is so orthogonal to how I experience life that I honestly don’t know how to answer it. Just basically: nekkid people, being nekkid around other nekkid people, really not that big a damn deal.
(that was a general “you,” directed mainly at Nervous Straight People of my past acquaintance who annoyed the shite out of me)
nekkid people, being nekkid around other nekkid people, really not that big a damn deal.
Well, that’s swell for some folks. But I don’t know too many parents at even my own liberal congregation who would happily apply that philosophy to their children’s relationship with their youth leaders!
I had this conversation with one of my first friends who came out as lesbian (after she came out). Ironically, it was in a changing room of a department store that we were sharing. She brought it up because of her questioning, because it didn’t make sense to her why she should generally be more comfortable changing with/in front of women than men, but not all the time - specifically, not in front of another woman she knew to be lesbian that she had a crush on, and why I was comfortable changing in front of her.
From what we could hash out:
women are generally more comfortable changing around women for two reasons.
1) the familiarity, everybody’s got the same parts, and we’re all used to seeing our own and each other’s.
Natural or not, good or not, we’re segregated from each other by sex pretty early on, and taught to be shy of each other. A girl goes to the bathroom with her mother, a boy with his father.
2) the lack of judgement/scrutiny and the sense of comfort that creates.
She was nervous about changing in front of her crush because of the sexual tension (that would be there for her, even if the crush was completely unreciprocated). She was worried about being found not good enough, or not attractive enough.
I have no idea whether she found me attractive or not, and I felt comfortable changing in front of her because I knew it wouldn’t be an issue. I realized that a big part of the reason why I’m not comfortable changing in front of men is because I worry that it would be an issue, like he’d have to comment on it, or it would create awkwardness between us, or something, because he’d seen me naked and he wasn’t supposed to! But I also realized that if I were confident that the changing would be taken in stride and treated as normal, and not sexualized, I wouldn’t have any problem changing in front of men, gay or straight.
So I guess I think that it’s the fact that it’s social convention that makes changing in same sex groups comfortable, regardless of the sexuality of the people involved. And social convention can be very important, especially during one’s teens when so many things are changing and your body is changing and you’re not necessarily so comfortable with it and not really sure which social conventions you want to flout, or what the social consequences for it are, or confident in your ability to tell when someone’s being inappropriate, etc.
I guess I would ask that parent how he would draw the line. For example, would he be okay with a straight male counselor seeing his teenage daughter in a bikini? In a one-piece? In a mini-skirt? With a gay male counselor seeing his son in a speedo? In swim trunks? In running shorts? If it’s all about the possibility of lavisciousness, how can you draw the line?
It’s not though, it’s about social conventions that say certain things are respectable and certain things aren’t.
And I think in our culture, it is respectable for same sex people to be naked together but not different sex people.
I hope that makes some sense.
I’d say exactly the opposite of what Tracy said. As a straight woman, I’m much, much more comfortable being seen by women than by men in naked but non-sexual contexts (so I’d prefer a lesbian to a gay male gynecologist - not that I’d seek to know my doctor’s sexual orientation before trusting them! Just as a hypothetical.) I’d feel much more strongly if I were a young teenager. I’d take it as a given that I wouldn’t be sexually appraised by a non-child-molester, so sexual orientation is a complete non-issue. Because it’s not about the adult’s feelings, but the child’s - and if the child is straight (a big assumption) he or she will be more troubled by the presence of an opposite-sex adult, if troubled at all.
I agree with Sophonisba. I’m also generally more comfortable being naked around lesbian women than gay men. I think maybe part of it is that I’m straight myself, so what if I’m attracted to him? Or maybe it’s even the other way around. What if he’s ugly??
For whatever reason, and I realize this might sound kind of bad of me, I’d much rather see naked ugly women than naked ugly men. Maybe it’s the familiarity thing? Or the identification with them thing? I’m not sure.
I guess the question ought to be, is the adult ever alone with a single child out of sight or hearing? That would be my #1 consideration.
I have to say that as an adult, I would prefer not to shower with a bunch of pre-teens or teens staring at me, and I assume that goes both ways. There’s a generational ick that goes both ways and has little to do with orientation - straight women aren’t necessarily thrilled to have a bunch of teen girls giggling over the cellulite, straight men aren’t necessarily thrilled to have boys commenting on size or lack thereof, potbelly, etc. Sleeping - I presume they are all in a common room and have their own bunks, or all in a common outdoor campsite and have their own one-person sleeping bags. Changing clothes - why can’t counsellor just step outside the room for a second while the boys change - or just turn his back and ignore them.
What to say to a Jim? Perhaps that gay guys come in a wide variety, and the great majority prefer either adults within about 10 years age difference, or occasionally May-September pairings of 30 year old and 55 year old. And that the average reaction to the idea of schtupping a 12 year old is EWWW! (to quote a previous post).
FWIW, there are a fair number of out gay and lesbian pediatricians.
It seems to hinge on the reason for the separation of the sexes: If we truly believe we are segregating the sexes based on possible sexual desire in either direction, then we should lean toward Jim’s argument. (And when I add the phrase “in either direction,” it’s because I remember being among 8th grade girls infatuated with the new male science teacher. Regardless of his orientation or restraint, their feelings would have a definite impact.)
If, however, we recognize the fact that orientation toward one’s own gender is completely separate from(though, sadly, not mutually excluse with) pedophilia; and further recognize that some conventions are in place to preserve appearances more than for any other reason — I can see a benefit to continuing to segregate the genders and include homosexual adults in the sleeping quarters of their biological gender.
One: for the same reason you promote men-only groups, where men can share male experiences and be accountable to other men, and yet it doesn’t matter whether the men in those groups are straight, gay, bi, or a mixture. The important thing is that they share a male perspective, can be comfortable speaking candidly with other men, and are less ready to discount other views based on gender (”You wouldn’t understand; you’re a [insert opposite sex here].”)
Building on that is two: the dark of night in shared sleeping quarters can make younger folk (and here again I’m remembering my juvenile days) more comfortable confessing insecurities they wouldn’t voice in the light of day. Many of these have nothing to do with sex, and those young people can benefit from having an adult of the same gender - regardless of orientation - available to respond to that in the security of a single-sex group.
JIC, I really, really like your two reasons. Thank you!
Turn it around on him. “Jim, if you are confident I’d be appropriate and restrained in the girl’s cabin (and I am too), than why do you (and I) think that arrangement would be inappropriate?”
The answer, of course, is the broader social context of gender relations, which have (sadly) sexualized (young) women’s bodies in such a way that extra precautions are the norm, and probably should be until we can change the gender constructions we’ve got.
Furthermore, instead of focusing on the perceptions of the negative, turn it around. What a unique opportunity to teach the lesson that gay men are nothing to fear, sexually or socially. I imagine it’s much less so than in most Middle/High school communities, but I can’t imagine those kids aren’t getting some homophobic messages somehwere. What a powerful way to fight back with a good gay role model of normal, appropriate behavior.
I would never go to a male gynecologist. Gay, straight, bisexual…doesn’t matter. I would have no problem with a lesbian or bisexual female gyn, though. It’s hard to explain. It’s just a gut comfort level. Not a sexual thing at all.
I think whoever mentioned that perhaps this guy was projecting a bit might’ve been on to something. Something about the fact that we can’t or wouldn’t let a male youth leader sleep or use the bathroom in the same space as the girls bugs me. I understand it - no matter how innocent, it just *looks* bad - but it looks bad because our society seems unable to imagine males and females relating to each other in non-sexual ways. To some extent, perhaps the better question is why the straight leaders can’t hang with the opposite sex kids.
I remember being young (third or fourth grade) and wanting a male friend to spend the night. We wanted to stay up and watch movies and the rest. Totally innocent - I didn’t even know what sex was. Anyway, I remember my mother telling me he couldn’t sleep over because only girls could sleep over. It just didn’t make any sense at the time, and I mention it because it illustrates how we’re taught from day one that male-female relations are to some extent always inappropriate, even when they’re obviously not. (I’m thinking now of my female friends who go nuts over the fact that their boyfriends have female friends.) Maybe straight people are just applying their hetero social baggage (for lack of a better phrase) onto gay relationships here.
And, if you do agree that the gay leader should be separated from the same-sex kids - what about the gay kids? Should a young gay woman sleep and use the bathroom with the boys? I mean, after all, you wouldn’t let a boy sleep with the girls, would you?
I guess that’s it right there, though. She’s NOT a boy. Being a lesbian doesn’t make her a boy or even “like” a boy. She’s still a 100% girl.
Anyway, sorry to ramble, just random thoughts.
I am happy to see that this question could come a bit out, more into the open. I am not certain that one position or conclusion is something I would urge or force upon all local church communities.
But I do think several themes might need to be commonly explored and discussed in reaching particular local conclusions or positions.
First off. I agree that nudity should not be such a big deal. A naked human body is not so immediately and especially sexual in only that way, so that everybody who ever sees another person naked simply is and must be overwhelmed to the point of sexual harassment, or goodness knows, rape. As the granny says in the sweet-hearted French film, Adventures of Felix, or Drole de Felix - the sight of an attractive naked man is charming. Presumably naked girls and women are equally charming without any of it having to be about harassment or the sexual abuse of minors or even having sex. Among the people who still feel overly vulnerable to the folk idea that nudity must equal exactly the malevolent sorts of sensuality that led unwisely to sex are many religious people who have never wholesomely hung out for any length of time at a nudist beach or a nudist camp.
(I know a thing or two about sexual assault, having survived it myself in a Bible Belt small farming town - the biblical boys were all nominally straight and going to give the sissy a lesson in the prerogatives of heterosexual manhood according to a skewed spontaneous group reading of Deuteronomy. I’ve also been an advocate and counselor for other assault survivors, both in hospital and in community services settings. This basic folk idea that assault stems from overwhelming sensual or sexual urges just isn’t supported by the empirical facts, no matter how persistent our folk notions are. What gets people assaulted is vigorous notions of other people’s innate inferiority, along with vigorous notions that you have innate privileges to define the other people, and attack them in this or that way under at least certain privileged circumstances. None of that complex of stuff is very logically related to nudity, or even to sex per se. Just because rapists typically fight off any impending sense of weakness or inferiority or vulnerability, by mixing up sex and violence in their own favor, does not mean that the rest of us are doomed to walk like zombies down this awful path.)
Secondly. Common sense suggests that if a teen boy or girl is attractive, other people are going to notice that to some degree, including other adults who may be their own parents, their family friends, their coaches, their teachers, or their leaders. We commonly allow our sense of people’s attractiveness to warm and imbue our social relations with each other, but that does not nearly amount to most of us hanging by the skins of our teeth on the cliffs of impending child abuse with nothing but air beneath our feet as we kick and scream.
Thirdly. Somebody who is more comfortable with his or her own sensuality is much more likely to guide himself or herself appropriately according to contexts and situations. Most gay men or lesbian women who mentor can take a serious crush in stride, whether from a boy or a girl, without foaming at the mouth, without losing their ethical and interpersonal boundaries, and without needing to get the infatuated adolescent into some kind of inappropriate sexual or social situation. What am I suggesting we explore and discuss here? That gay men and lesbians are no more likely to behave in a harassing or assaultive manner than is the average straight priest. We all know of clergy who took sexual advantage of somebody, but don’t try to resolve that tragedy by setting up rules that say clergy should be prohibited from being alone in the same room with somebody else, because we fear what will have to happen, otherwise. I’ve known some married clergy who found occasion to press against me as I stood at the youth ministry office counter when I was a college intern in the local church. I did not conclude that the moment was about me, or about us needing yet more taboos and prohibitions. Legal approaches to unfinished human business that is mainly related to maturity, ethically and of personality, do not go the true distance, most of the time in my experience.
Paul Goodman who wrote Growing Up Absurd once said that of course he was somewhat attracted to the adolescent boys who eventually comprised the raw life data from which he drew his sociology book on boys’ adolescence. So what? Liking somebody whom you also know it is inappropriate to actually date or get sexual with, well that is actually in many instances a positive and good part of life. How deeply charming it is, in fact, not to have to actually get physical with every single possible person that you might ever feel attracted to over a long, modern life.
Fourthly. Some folks are less attractive with their clothes off, than they may look to someone else when they are all covered up. It all depends.
Fifth. Thought policing people’s spontaneous sensual perceptions or passing thoughts or fantasies is typically off limits for a reason.
You can bet that if a crowd of people is watching a high school or college gymnastics meet; or a track and field meet; or a swim meet - at least some of the people sitting in the stands are sensually enjoying the beauty and the athletic grace that is being demonstrated by the athletes. The Dallas Cowboys football team has women who are almost pole dancing cheerleaders for a reason. So what? Any harasser or rapist who tries to blame his or her bad behavior on the Dallas Cowboy’s cheerleaders is not going to get much traction from most of us.
We rightly attend to behavior, to ethical boundaries and values with one another. We rightly refrain from thought policing, except when certain Puritannically inclined or alarmed folks get all caught up with the silly idea that having sensual perceptions of one another automatically leads to harassment and rape. Adopting jaundiced baseline views of the human body, and of our human sensuality, is probably not going to be the fix that Puritans regularly seem to presume it will be, if only we can roll in stinging nettles until we have converted ordinary sensuality into just those types of sadistic-masochistic satisfactions that many traditional believers like to dress in what they call original sin, and orthodox religion. Getting sex negative and body negative in this way may be in itself a much more problematic form of twisted sensuality, than the sensuality that the Puritans have diagnosed as problems in the first place.
Sixth. It could even be a positive developmental learning experience for some boy or some girl to realize that they are perceived as sexually attractive to another teen or adult; while at the same time, learning that the boundaries are clear and strong, regardless. I would go so far as to say that that step is probably happening all over the place in our schools and churches and teen athletics. To the extent that this may be occurring, everybody involved is that much better off for learning this good, welcome human lesson about sensuality and boundaries and so forth.
Seventh. It is not generally the adults or even other teens who need to be protected from - gasp - seeing other naked teens or naked children. Nor is it generally the child or teen who needs to be puritannically protected from ever being nude in front of somebody, anybody who could conceivably find him or her attractive or likeable. Instead, we need to have strong values and boundaries with one another, organized around knowing what sexual harassment is, and how it looks and sounds, and what to do if you experience it.
In my view, the father in this example sounds like he starts out being worried about the protection of his son from an openly gay youth leader. Is that a passing prejudice, connoting old stereotypes that fags in particular cannot be anything but completely out of control when it comes to their sensual and to their sex lives? Are we dealing with a touch of that bitter herb which - like the current Vatican pronouncements - tries to lay child abuse mainly at the feet of gay men especially?
Then the father seems to go the next step, wondering what the openly gay man’s experiences of his son’s nudity might be, and that could get to be an icky fantasy all too quickly. Why go there? The father does, so we might explore how.
If you have indications that some man or woman is a pedophile, in which case you hopefully did a background check, then you can debrief and inquire into the matter further.
This all sounds like a passing case of heightened father concern, momentarily in a prickly fever whose chills might involve more than a touch or two of exactly those heebie-jeebies that straight men are overtly afraid they will get if they ever imagine a gay man is looking at them in the shower room - at the gym? in the military barracks? in their sport locker rooms after winning the Super Bowl?
Okay. Just calm down, fellows. You are not that attractive, even if you are pretty good looking according to modern standards of beauty. Even if your innate heritage of straight male privileges has pumped up your own erotic egos to the point that you presume you - or your son? or your daughter? - must be so irresistible that a passing glance must quickly and surely lead to harassment or sexual assault.
Yeah I know. What the hell am I looking at. Who do I think I am, looking.
Relax, bud. I am not actually looking at you, or your son, or your daughter - in the ways some men might look at some women walking down the street in front of the construction site.
You see, heterosexisms preserve and express and transmit this cultural or religious notion that if you are certain sort of privileged male, then the passing sensual perception of somebody innately confers upon you the right to harass or attack that person - because you can, because you need to, because being the master in charge will feel ever so good. In the Old Testament, I believe, if a man forces himself upon a girl in that way, then he ends up married to her. At least then she is not damaged goods in front of the rest of the clan or tribe.
My very tentative and provisional diagnosis, from afar, then might be: this father is suffering from father concern, malignantly complicated by inadvertently bumping into a hidden little piece of his own religious and cultural superior male privilege. Even if a gay man looks at his son and thinks he is attractive, with clothes on or naked, the son doesn’t get contaminated by nasty queer filth juices because he got looked at. Only a gay man who is living like a heterosexual master male could possibly think that noticing somebody is attractive or likeable innately confers this sort of out-of-control impetus, which is basically traditional male privielge in action. Ditto, for daughters.
There is supposed to be a distance between being perceived as attractive or likeable, and being harassed or assaulted - big enough to drive several semi-truck trailer caravans through without touching either side.
Just as there might be issues for the father to explore, so there might be issues for the son to explore assuming he was conscious of any of this stuff. That son may have passed blithely through showering and getting dressed without batting an eyelash about any of it. There may also be issues of heterosexist superior male privilege for the gay guy so involved, although not necessarily. And, naturally, there may be similar issues for any straight man who is a youth leader.
It is all good grist for the mills in our current pilgrimage away from the lasting and deep legacies of heterosexism, and just that sort of presumption of superior male privilege to shift gear from sensually noticing somebody, to harassing them, or even assaulting them - for all the journeys we are all making in one way or another, away from religious and cultural sources of dominance and playing master to other folks’ slavehoods, traditionally defined.
So far as our group data goes, it is men of this sort of privilege who get to sexualy harass and assault women in the most traditional cultures and the most thoroughly traditional religions. Witness the so-called honor killings of sisters and daughters and wives that is still occuring around our planet. Small wonder that a father who begins to glimpse a hidden piece of this, circling almost just outside of consciousness, will begin to feel uneasy. This stuff is uneasy stuff.
But it is not mainly about queer stuff, now is it?
When I was in youth group, we changed in front of each other.
Well, there’s your problem right there.
I mean, forget the youth leaders for a minute. Do you think that your teenagers all feel 100% comfortable getting naked around each other? How do you think a closeted gay teen feels? Or a heterosexual teen who isn’t developing as fast as her friends? How about a teen who’s a little on the heavy side? Is it really so hard to provide privacy for teens on retreat?
As Paul says, modesty would solve the problem. “Are you decent?” is a measure of respect, not a warning that the adult might see something arousing if they didn’t knock first. Yes, Oscar should be knocking before walking into the boys’ quarters; so should you.
Do you know what Oscar really thinks when he sees my son in the shower?
“Probably the same thing you’d think if you accidentally walked in on Bob’s daughter in the shower, Jim.”
A naked human body is not so immediately and especially sexual in only that way, so that everybody who ever sees another person naked simply is and must be overwhelmed to the point of sexual harassment, or goodness knows, rape.
Sure. But that’s got nothing to do with why most girls would be uncomfortable taking their clothes off in front of adult men, or (I presume) boys in front of adult women, or even boys and girls in front of adults of the same sex. Kids are afraid of bodily judgment, sexual assessment, silent mockery, and humiliation, not - for the most part, and if they have not been previously abused - assault. I think most teenage girls would be afraid of what an adult would see and think, not of what he’d say or do. It may be an irrational insecurity, but certainly an understandable one that merits sympathy and accomodation.
If one showers with large goups of persons of one’s own sex, whether it be at camp or at the gym, PE class or what-have you, it is statistically probable that one has *already, on numerous occasions, shared a shower or changing/locker room with a gay person unawares.
My advice is to get the heck over it and get on with life.
Huh. I’ve thought about this a couple of times myself, as a gay woman who hits the gym five times a week and, yes, sees other women naked. For me, it boils down to this: woman first, lesbian second. That may seem oversimplified but basically the way that society separates the genders out from a very young age, by the time you realise you’re into other women there are tons of scenarios that have been desexualised. Changing rooms are one (and I also echo the people above who’ve talked about the “I’m such a hot hetero that all the gay folk must want me” because *eyeroll*). When I’m changing, that’s what I’m doing. If I see naked bits, I respectfully look away because, hey, I’m just there to get changed and go and work out. I don’t know how to explain it better than that. It’s not sexual; it’s the gym.
One’s gender takes dominance over almost everything in day to day life. I mean, most people are going to be confused as hell if they can’t figure out a person’s gender upon meeting them but their sexuality? Who cares. We walk through the world being divided into male/female (I don’t intend to ignore the transgendered - I disagree with this rigid gender conformity) and everything else is secondary. Jim’s response is a natural one within a system that separates girls and boys from day one and uses sexual dominance as a way of proving masculinity. The fact is, though, that the social situation gay people are raised in is different to that of straight people. By the time sex enters the picture we’re already very used to being aligned with our own gender in completely non-sexual ways.
Helen, your final paragraph is also very helpful. Thank you!
We have a term called “The near occasion of sin” and go from there. I’d draw a hard line at puberty.
Here’s a thought - what do the kids think?
And, no, I’m very uncomfortable changing around openly gay men, and straight women. And I really don’t ask why - it needs no justification, and it is sufficient that I am.
Unless your youth group has somehow managed to reserve the entire camp for your group alone, you cannot control whether other groups are using the communal showers, and therefore you cannot control whether someone else who also uses the showers is gay or lesbian. And it doesn’t really matter. Oriscus’ comment is spot-on–you’ll probably end up sharing the changing room and showers with someone who is attracted to you, and you’ll never know it because they’ll be polite enough not to act on that. Tara also has an excellent point that someone who is attracted to you might actually be less willing to change or shower around you, because they’ll be shy about it. But if people are still concerned about who is watching while they dress (and I think they have the right to want to be modest without being mocked for being “prudes”), then one option is to have ALL the adults leave the room when the kids are showering and changing. Another is to install shower curtains and changing booths to allow everyone to preserve their modesty, which addresses orientation issues as well as body image concerns. There is something there about the generation gap when sharing a locker room. I normally have no issues changing in a locker room with other women, and on an adventure race I’ve even swapped into bike shorts standing out in the open with my male teammates (we were all beat, and focused on the next event, not each other–a more asexual environment owuld be hard to find). However, I felt really odd one day when changing at the Y because a group of young girls was also using the locker room, and watching me change. Maybe they were just watching to see what they would look like someday, but it was the only time I’ve ever wanted a changing booth. So I guess my bottom line is, accept that if you dress/shower in a communal area, you can and will be observed. If that’s not acceptable, make provisions for everyone to have privacy and enforce that privacy out of respect for each other, not because one person in the group is gay or lesbian.
The posters all seem to be ignoring the central issue.
The problem isn’t whether the teens are more or less
uncomfortable, although this is an important
consideration. The issue is whether teens, minors,
children, whoever, should be placed in the charge of
one who might be sexually attracted to them. The
answer of course is no. Jim is right and I would feel
exactly the same way he did.
In the case under discussion, it seems that a gay man
such as Oscar may very well be attracted to some of
his charges. I understand that as a gay man he is
attracted to sexually mature males, not children. But
we’re talking about teens, not children. Putative
discrimination is unobjectional in this case. In fact
I’m suprised Oscar didn’t voluntarily withdraw from
the compromising situations. I know I would.
Several straight posters have said that because they
don’t mind disrobing in the presence of gays — or in
the presence of straights if they’re gay posters –
that they don’t see why anyone else would find it
distressing. This is a tangential objection. I’ve
lived with gay men and straight women (platonically)
and after while I didn’t give a damn about walking
about in dishabille. I fail to see how this has any
bearing on the issue at hand.
I have on the other hand — this is why I wish to
remain anonymous — been placed, while a minor, in the
charge of someone who’s now a convicted sex offender.
I won’t go into details except to say that while it
was not good, others have experienced even worse. I
think of myself as comparatively lucky. His conviction
didn’t result from our association.
He was married and kids and presumably — this was a
Big Brother from Big Brothers/Big Sisters — was
screened. The conclusion I draw from this is that an
unscreened gay man will be even less trustworthy in
the same situation.
So, while I think it possible that Oscar may be
perfectly safe and trustworthy with his charges, I
would be furious if he were placed in charge of my
adolescent son. I believe it to be irresponsible of
your church to place him in this position and
irresponsible to defend his maintaining this position.
Demanding his resignation isn’t “coming from a place
of love.” If I were Jim, I hope that I would
appreciate your acknowledging this, but I know I would
also find it patronizing. Asking for Oscar’s
resignation is wholesome common sense. But don’t take
my word for it. Even my lesbian sister in law admitted
to me she would have a problem with a lesbian being in
charge of her daughter’s teen group.
Just to be clear, anonymous, Oscar is no longer with the church. And we would never ask for his resignation if he still were — but I honor your candor.
The conclusion I draw from this is that an unscreened gay man will be even less trustworthy in the same situation.
Why? Sexual assault is not correlated with homosexuality.
Anonymous,
I am sorry that you were placed into a situation where you met a sexual predator. However, I am concerned that you seem to be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Not all homosexual people are sexual predators (I agree with what evil_fizz has said), nor is there any proof that they have a greater potential to be so than heterosexuals. Why should they, then, dismiss themselves from using their God-given gifts based upon their orientation? It is an error in judgement to conlcude that an “unscreened gay man will be even less trustworthy” based soley upon YOUR EXPERIENCE. Your comment makes it sound like ALL homosexual people have the potential to be a predator, and should, therefore, be forced to stay out of ANY contact with children. This is neither right, nor fair to the countless homosexuals who live upstanding lives and are endeavoring to contribute to the good of society.
Your own personal experience does not provide an answer to Hugo’s question, it merely indicates that you had a bad experience (as have many others).
I think that arguments re. what makes children uncomfortable, etc., miss the point: The issue isn’t the child’s level of comfort, it’s the parent’s concerns, in this case Jim’s. Adult parents are, rightfully so, responsible for their children’s well-being, and IMO Jim was doing his job as a responsible parent. We could argue ’til the cows come home re. whether or not gay men and/or straight women are sexually attracted to adolescent boys, their rates of pedophilia relative to that for heterosexual women and men, etc., but we’d still be missing the point vis-a-vis parental concerns and responsibility. And those concerns don’t have to even be justified from your point of view - all that matters is that the parent’s concerns be reasonable, and IMO Jim’s concerns are reasonable because his concerns are about a person who is potentially sexually attracted to his son and more importantly, is an unknown quantity. IMO it would be different if Jim knew Oscar - heck, assuming that Oscar is upstanding, this probably never would have been an issue if the two knew each other. But the fact is Jim did not know Oscar and IMO was doing what any reasonable parent should do in such situations, err on the side of caution. And frankly, given the scandals in the Catholic church of late, I’m surprised that All Saints didn’t intervene if they knew that Oscar’s presence at youth group overnights was controversial to any parents. It seems to me that All Saints was taking a big risk; the kids might not object to Oscar, but it’s their parents who might file lawsuits, criminal charges, etc., so IMO the concern should be focused on the parent’s level of comfort, not the kid’s.
evil fizz wrote “Why? Sexual assault is not correlated with homosexuality.”
in response to the comment “The conclusion I draw from this is that an unscreened gay man will be even less trustworthy in the same situation.”
evil fizz, how do you know this is true? Do you have good, peer-reviewed citations to research that proves this? I’m not trying to be confrontational nor to bait you, I honestly would like to know. I’ve consistently thought that homosexuals likely have no greater or lesser tendency than straight people to perpetrate sexual assault, but have encountered people who argue otherwise. It would be nice to have some good solid facts under my belt if/when I encounter these sorts of statments.
Mr. Bad, All Saints is a church with such an affirming congregation (we were the first church in the Anglican Communion to do same-sex blessings back in 1991) that openly gay youth staff were never a problem. And in all my years of working with the kids in a volunteer capacity, “Jim” was the only parent to complain.
On the other hand, I had a parent raise questions about my fitness for youth service based on my track record of multiple divorces and a turbulent personal history. (Not, however, ever involving boundary violations with minors!). The church stood by me, and my boundaries with the kids (never alone with ‘em, etc.) are exquisite.
Bottom line, in youth ministry, one’s identity is not enough to make you unfit for working with kids. Sex offenders clearly shouldn’t be around teens or kids, but gay men and lesbians can make outstanding contributions (just like straight folks).
I’m not willing to concede for an instant that it’s inappropriate to have gay men or lesbians on staff in a youth program; I’m asking for ways to respond to Jim. A few comments have been most helpful!
Well, if people are nervous about their children being molested, which in itself is a perfectly reasonable concerned, here is a checklist of red flags. Note that being gay is not among them. Thank you.
http://www.survivors-and-friends.org/articles/Profile.asp
And by the way, can I just say again how squicked out I am by some of the reasoning behind the notion that gay men are likelier to molest boys than “straight” men, as outlined above? I mean, either one truly does believe that “gay” = “pedophile;” or one believes that people excuse me men are so overwhelmed by their lustful urges that they just can’t control themselves. It’s a worldview that I find very alien, personally, and completely at odds with my own experience. As one of the posters said above, this is not about sexual attraction; this is about boundaries.
It’s my belief that in fact if anything, a deeply repressed person is far likelier to be attracted to children, and/or certainly to have boundary issues, than anyone, het or gay, who’s come to terms with her or her adult sexuality. Why? It’s that whole fetishization of innocence thing that tends to go with the territory of heavily anti-sex worldviews. You know, children are good and pure and better *because* they’re supposedly sexless, because sex (and by extension the adults who practice it) are dirty dirty dirty. Adult sexuality becomes dangerous, fraught, disgusting, perhaps reinforced by actual abuse; everything and everyone is suspect and on the make…except The Children. And guess where the erotic impulse ends up? Case in point: Michael Jackson. Or Victorians like Lewis Carroll and John Ruskin; or James Barrie. Never Never land indeed.
Well, if people are nervous about their children being molested, which in itself is a perfectly reasonable concerned, here is a checklist of red flags. Note that being gay is not among them. Thank you.
http://www.survivors-and-friends.org/articles/Profile.asp
And by the way, can I just say again how squicked out I am by some of the reasoning behind the notion that gay men are likelier to molest boys than “straight” men, as outlined above? I mean, either one truly does believe that “gay” = “pedophile;” or one believes that people excuse me men are so overwhelmed by their lustful urges that they just can’t control themselves. It’s a worldview that I find very alien, personally, and completely at odds with my own experience. As one of the posters said above, this is not about sexual attraction; this is about boundaries.
It’s my belief that in fact if anything, a deeply repressed person is far likelier to be attracted to children, and/or certainly to have boundary issues, than anyone, het or gay, who’s come to terms with her or her adult sexuality. Why? It’s that whole fetishization of innocence thing that tends to go with the territory of heavily anti-sex worldviews. You know, children are good and pure and better *because* they’re supposedly sexless, because sex (and by extension the adults who practice it) are dirty dirty dirty. Adult sexuality becomes dangerous, fraught, disgusting, perhaps reinforced by actual abuse; everything and everyone is suspect and on the make…except The Children. And guess where the erotic impulse ends up? Case in point: Michael Jackson. Or Victorians like Lewis Carroll and John Ruskin; or James Barrie. Never Never land indeed.
>I think that arguments re. what makes children uncomfortable, etc., miss the point: The issue isn’t the child’s level of comfort, it’s the parent’s concerns, in this case Jim’s.
See, to me, though, what makes the children uncomfortable is *exactly* the point. Yes, parents have a right and responsibility to be concerned; but if one takes the attitude that the adult’s feelings and thoughts are more important than the kid’s, that right there seems to me more likely to put the kid in a position that makes him vulnerable for abuse. Stay away from the scary gay man; but sure, you can spend the night at the house of (married, pillar of the community) Uncle Bob; Dad thinks the world of him. You feel uncomfortable around him, you say? Don’t be ridiculous. He’s just teasing. He’s your UNCLE. Oh, and: always remember to do as you’re told.
I may be a little late to enter this thread, but I have a viewpoint I haven’t seen exactly represented above. Jim’s concerns hinge on an assumption that comfortableness with nudity has to do with sexual attraction. But what if the main concern isn’t attraction at all, but discomfort with the unfamiliar Other? It seems likely to me that the reason most people are more comfortable disrobing in front of members of their own gender is that they have the same “parts.” If I’m changing around other women and I happen to see an unfamiliar vulva, it’s fine, because I myself have a vulva. Seeing an unfamiliar penis might be less comfortable because it is so noticably Other to my own body. Since you are not sexually attracted to teenage girls, Hugo, I posit that the reason you would feel uncomfortable changing with Jim’s daughter (and her with you) has more to do with Otherness than sexual attraction. And since Oscar has all the same “parts” as the boys in the youth group, his place would therefore be in the boys’ cabin (and the boys’ shower.)
mythago touched on the issue of privacy in general, and I’d like to expand on that.
The line of propriety seems to lay on two aspects — the nudity issue and the sleeping arrangement issue. In our general culture, and especially in the Christian culture (whatever that is), it’s inappropriate for members of the opposite sex to be nude in each other’s presence (barring the contexts in which it is appropriate, e,g. sexual and medical). It is also inappropriate for members of the opposite sex to share sleeping quarters — there are a lot of exceptions to this, obviously. and more in some communities than others, but on youth trips it is a hard and fast rule.
I’d like to comment on the nudity aspect. In this area, I think that comparing a gay woman youth-leading a group of girls is different context than a gay man leading a group of boys. In my experience, young women tend to be far more modest about nudity. Throuhout my life, in both secular and church contexts, girls’ changing rooms have been filled with young women dextrously changing their shirts without revealing their breasts and quickly pulling on underclothes, with the minimum of naked-flesh exposure.
Obviously I have no firsthand experience given that I’m a woman, but my understanding is that boys and men tend to be more uninhibited. (But all I have to go on here are stories. And again, this is all out of my own experience and not based on scientific studies.)
Presumably, as a man, Jim has his own ideas of what goes on in male locker rooms. I do wonder if Hugo would have received such a vigorous complaint from a mother about a gay woman youth leader, for this reason.
For what it’s worth, I do try to avoid being in situations where I will be unclothed with the teen boys I work with when we are on retreats. Depending on the facilities we have, that can’t always be entirely avoided. I certainly always turn away when I’m undressing in a bunk house, with a dozen boys about, but given the haste with which we often have to get dressed (we all tend to sleep as late as possible on retreat), a certain amount of haphazard nudity is inevitable. Are we more uninhibited than the girls? Perhaps a bit. On the other hand, I know full well that many of “my guys” have body issues — worrying about their various perceived imperfections. It’s not just the girls with body image dysmorphia!
Just thought I’d clarify that.
I think Bantam’s point about the unfamiliar Other is a good one too. Keep the discussion going, this is good stuff.
The concept then is that an adult male (or female) should be given the benefit of the doubt with respect to attraction to teens (and technically in many cases the term here would not be “pedophilia” is there was an attraction) and that their orientation and possible sexualization of their gender of interest is thus not an issue?
If so, how many people would support a adult heterosexual male supervising the teenage girls? I strongly suspect that many people who are currently supporting this “attraction neutral” stance would object strongly. No doubt the term “male gaze” would make an appearance.
Homosexual men and women are no more and no less likely to be tempted by such a situation. If it is inapproriate in one case, then it is in the other.
“Homosexual men and women are no more and no less likely to be tempted by such a situation. If it is inapproriate in one case, then it is in the other.”
Is it? Applicably you are saying that gay and lesbian people cannot work with teenagers at all. If it is innapropriate for gay men to minister/work with teenage boys…who can they minister/work with? It sounds as if you wouldn’t want the gay man working with your daughters (and that would work, oh, so well, wouldn’t it :)) Is ministry, in this case, restricted to the heterosexual, and them ONLY!
And another point, there are many homosexuals who are not ‘out’ (or, not willing to entertain the idea in their own mind due to social pressure) - what of them? A homosexual in the closet, is still a homosexual. How is the church to tell in that case? What ‘gayness’ test should the church give? What happens if a former leader ‘comes out’ down the line - mass hysteria! I’ve seen this happen, all of a sudden every parent thinks that leader was after his/her child. There was no impropriety involved, just faithful leadership; however, now, there are whispers, and all the good influence and lessons taught by that faithful leader are lost. Did the church fail to protect the children in that case? If not, why are we applying a double standard?
This dismisses homosexuals as second-class citizens who should be feared. The adoption of this idea would make it impossible for a homosexual to find a job in the church, in a school, in a youth program, etc., as well as keep many who are currently involved in youth leadership firmly entrenched in the closet.
Hugo, I hear you, but I have to wonder how ‘insurmountable’ those obstacles really are. For example, if a retreat location forced you to have co-ed lodgings, I bet you’d reject that location. If dawdling in the morning meant that boys and girls had to share a common shower area because there wasn’t enough time to let people take turns, you adults wouldn’t allow the dawdling. So it seems as though the issue is that everybody is really OK with boys being nude around each other, and it’s not that big a deal of a (presumed) heterosexual adults sees them undressing or dressing; it’s not as though you can’t prevent it.
Just a tiny note on “comfort”… I suspect not everyone can be made “comfortable” at the same time. I’m not offering any solutions, Hugo, but it seems a clear issue that, in order to make some people happy (and have their rights considered), others must suffer in the sense that what they want is not catered to. Consider democracy. I suspect Jim is just going to have to be left unhappy, and you’re going to have a sense of exasperation whenever you can’t adequately (in your opinion) provide counter-arguments. It’s boiling down to subjectivity, a whole muddle of opinions. There’s no right or wrong, and no real middle ground.
Sometimes, “comfort” just has to go hang itself. Just whose comfort, it’s up to the powers that be in any organization to judge. I think that’s why people change church groups (etc.). Jim has his choices to make.
>The concept then is that an adult male (or female) should be given the benefit of the doubt with respect to attraction to teens (and technically in many cases the term here would not be “pedophilia” is there was an attraction) and that their orientation and possible sexualization of their gender of interest is thus not an issue?
If so, how many people would support a adult heterosexual male supervising the teenage girls? I strongly suspect that many people who are currently supporting this “attraction neutral” stance would object strongly. No doubt the term “male gaze” would make an appearance.
Personally I would not automatically bring up the term “male gaze” (sheesh). And I don’t have a problem with an adult het male supervising teenaged girls. As far as questions of comfort and so on, I would ask the girls in question; it’s up to them.
The whole “temptation” thing is really weird to me, I must say.
Back to the original question: I guess it might be useful to ask at this juncture, what’s the goal, with Jim? Is it just to express that you strongly disagree with him, or is it to persuade him to actually change his mind? Because if it’s the latter, I can’t think of a single thing that will necessarily work, especially without knowing the guy. Ultimately, anyway, that’s up to him.
If it’s just that you strongly disagree, then “I strongly disagree, here’s why” should do just fine.
Oh, the goal is to change his mind. I didn’t want to lose his kids from our youth program.
belledame222 said: “See, to me, though, what makes the children uncomfortable is *exactly* the point. Yes, parents have a right and responsibility to be concerned; but if one takes the attitude that the adult’s feelings and thoughts are more important than the kid’s, that right there seems to me more likely to put the kid in a position that makes him vulnerable for abuse. Stay away from the scary gay man; but sure, you can spend the night at the house of (married, pillar of the community) Uncle Bob; Dad thinks the world of him. You feel uncomfortable around him, you say? Don’t be ridiculous. He’s just teasing. He’s your UNCLE. Oh, and: always remember to do as you’re told.”
I’m not so sure that your analogy is comparable to the Jim/Oscar situation. On the one hand, as I tried to point out in my previous point, you have a parent who is concerned about a person who is an unknown quantity, while re. your scenario you have a family member, i.e., Uncle Bob (or just as likely, Aunt Barb). Further, there was no hint of any discomfort on the part of the kids, so IMO the children’s discomfort is irrelevant; primarily this is about parents and their rights and duties to protect and nuture their children. And granted, this parental duty includes taking the kids seriously when they say that Aunt Barb touched them inappropriately, but we’re not talking about reaction we’re discussing prevention, which is inherently predictive - with all the fundamental errors associated with prediction - and thus implies some basic assumptions. What I see here is Hugo trying to find ways the change Jim’s attitudes and assumptions re. gay men, and that’s appropriate, however, once again this involves adults and parents, not kids.
Hugo, I don’t know if it’s possible to change Jim’s beliefs any more than it is to change yours, thus, I think that if you want to keep his kids in your youth ministry you’re going to have to bite the bullet and ensure Jim that no gay men will be sleeping with the boys. And despite the long-standing tradition, etc., of All Saints, IMO they are taking unnecessary risks vis-a-vis their policy on homosexuals sleeping with kids on overnight retreats. Reputation means jack and shit once you get slapped with a sexual assault charge and/or lawsuit. Just ask the Catholic Church.
However, one thing that I note here is that it seems that there’s a gender-based double standard at work. I believe that Oscar would not have had as many problems if he were a lesbian. For whatever (IMO illogical and unsupportable) reason, we seem to trust women more than men when it comes to sexual assault and abuse, whether those women are hetero or homosexual.
I believe that Oscar would not have had as many problems if he were a lesbian.
Possibly, but I will say that I’ve had some experiences that lead me to believe it’s a general problem. My siblings attended a church retreat which was directed by a lesbian priest. A handful of parents were deeply uncomfortable with this because of the changing situation. (Some others were also uncomfortable with her being a lesbian priest and leading a youth group, but that’s an entirely different issue.)
I think the underlying problem here is that you effectively cut out gays and lesbians from certain kinds of youth ministry if you say that the issue is based solely on sexual attraction. (Also, I cannot imagine you’d get less of an outcry if you sent the gay men to the girls’ dorms and the lesbians to the boys’ dorms.) It’s clearly not just about sexual attraction, but also about a vaguer sense of comfort with the same sex. I suspect part of that is the “other”, but we’re also conditioned from a very early age to be comfortable with single sex changing rooms, bathrooms, etc.
Unless someone can show some statistical evidence that homosexual youth leaders are more likely to get it on with their wards, I see no reason for very much concern on this issue.
evil fizz said: “I think the underlying problem here is that you effectively cut out gays and lesbians from certain kinds of youth ministry if you say that the issue is based solely on sexual attraction. (Also, I cannot imagine you’d get less of an outcry if you sent the gay men to the girls’ dorms and the lesbians to the boys’ dorms.) It’s clearly not just about sexual attraction, but also about a vaguer sense of comfort with the same sex. I suspect part of that is the “other”, but we’re also conditioned from a very early age to be comfortable with single sex changing rooms, bathrooms, etc.”
We effectively cut out hetero folks from certain kinds of activities working with youth anyway, especially hetero men, based on these types of issues. For example, hetero (and presumably gay) men may not be leaders in the Girl Scouts (although women may be leaders in the Boy Scouts) based on the negative stereotype that straight men can’t be trusted around young girls, and I’m not sure that straight men can work with the Girl Scouts at all. To me this is no different than the negative stereotype re. gay men around young boys, and on this point re. double-standards I wholeheartedly agree with Jim when he asks why should it be Ok for Oscar to sleep with young boys if it isn’t Ok for Hugo to sleep with young girls? Are gay men more trustworthy than straight men?
When it comes to the safety of our children, many parents don’t always behave in rational ways but still, they’re their kids and they have the responsibility and right to protect them as they see fit.
>you have a parent who is concerned about a person who is an unknown quantity,
See, it seems to me that that ought to be a parent’s *first* concern, is making sure whoever it is (regardless of gender) is as known as possible. I mean, it doesn’t make much sense to me to go, “you’re going off into the wilderness with an adult I’ve never met and no one can vouch for? Is the adult the same gender as you? Oh, okay then, off you go.”
Hugo: I guess in that case my first question would be, does Jim actually know any gay people? I mean, well? That he considers friends? What’s his general attitude about homosexuality; can you suss out any other assumptions he holds…
I can’t speak to the particular policies of the Boy/Girl Scouts (god, did I ever have a miserable time in my one brief week as a child at Girl Scout camp! never ever ever again, I swore–but i digress), but it seems to me that logically, the reason women lead Girl Scouts and men the boys is because, well, uhh, the “Boy” and “Girl” would tend to suggest that it’s important that the boys and girls be with their respective gender, alone; therefore it doesn’t make sense to have a leader of the other one. Safety doesn’t really factor, or at any rate no more than it usually should (see: above re: going off into the wildnerness with strangers)
Jim knew plenty of gay people at All Saints. He just didn’t want a gay man sleeping in the same room and using the same shower facilities as his son.
The Boy Scouts have used this argument several times in defending their “no gay men” policy. To be clear, the Girl Scouts are a separate organization with a much more open minded view.
Oh, the goal is to change his mind. I didn’t want to lose his kids from our youth program.
And cutting through the rhetoric, there is your problem - if I’m Jim, and your program involves Straight adults being the supervisors for opposite sex, or gay ones supervisors of same sex - my kids are going on no more retreats. And if you argue with me, and fail to respect my wishes, I’m probably looking for a new church where they do respect my opinions and thoughts on the matter.
Hugo said: “Jim knew plenty of gay people at All Saints. He just didn’t want a gay man sleeping in the same room and using the same shower facilities as his son.”
Which IMO is a reasonable concern for a parent to have, even if it is one that I personally don’t have. It’s similar to not allowing an adult heterosexual man to sleep in the same room with girls; it’s very likely that nothing will happen, however, simply the possibility that something might happen makes the liability to great. Obviously comparing an adult man showering with adolescent girls with a gay man showering with adolescent boys is a less clear-cut comparison; I suppose it would depend on whether or not the kids knew the man was gay, and how well they understood what being gay meant vis-a-vis sexual attraction.
Continuing: “The Boy Scouts have used this argument several times in defending their “no gay men” policy. To be clear, the Girl Scouts are a separate organization with a much more open minded view.”
Not true. The Girl Scouts may be more open-minded about lesbians (and gays?), however, the Boy Scouts allow women to be leaders in their organization (almost all Cub Scout leaders are women, and I believe that same is true for Weblos (sp?)) while the Girl Scouts don’t allow men leadership roles at any level. This IMO that makes the Boy Scouts the more inclusive and open-minded and the Girl Scouts more narrow-minded, exclusive and frankly, sexist. As for the Boy Scouts and gays, I believe their policy is that gays may participate as members, they simply can’t be Scout Leaders.
Why can’t the adults just have their own shower and changing facilities? Seems to me it makes sense for them to keep their own quarters anyway.
As per the Gonzman’s comment: and for my part I’d pull out of any organization that decided to change a situation that was perfectly workable and had been problem-free in the past (i.e. a beloved gay person acting as Scout leader, or whatnot), and some other person (who probably would’ve happily continued on oblivious had they gay person only continued to remain in the closet) threw a fit, shaming the gay person in the process.
I’m sure it’s not a fun position for someone like Hugo to be in.
…and/or, you know what: I’d say Jim is free to voice his feelings, but he’s gonna need to do it to the gay person in question directly. Why should Hugo have to triangulate? If Jim feels comfortable that what he’s saying is perfectly reasonable and not bigotry, he should be just fine voicing his concerns to the person’s face.
Belledame — you haven’t gone camping with kids on a retreat before. Separate facilities are not always available in the mountains at fairly simple camps.
And Jim and I were friends — he wanted to approach me to express his concern, rather than going after Oscar (with whom he had only a nodding acquaintance.)
I agree with belledame222.
According to Matthew 18, Jim had no right to involve Hugo in the conversation in the first place. Hugo cannot ease Jim’s fears, only an understanding and trust of Oscar could ease Jim’s fears. Anger and frustration without attacking the issue and problem and the person directly only leads to more misunderstanding. So, to answer the original post’s question: Hugo can not and should not say anything to Jim, he should have refered Jim to Oscar and the clergy. Besides, isn’t it considered gossip (Gossip? In the Church? Never!) to discuss anything that concerns another member of the body without their presence? To many times, the church sanctions gossip in an effort to keep peace.
If Jim truly had a problem that he wanted to solve, he would have gone to his ‘brother in Christ’ and discussed his concern, or he would have gone to the clergy and they would have facilitated the conversation with Oscar.
As evidenced by the volume of posts above, anything we can say to an individual like Jim will be met with an opposing argument. We allow people to continue in their prejudice if we allow them to discuss the theory apart from the individual.
It seems like people are assumming that sexual impropriety will result from staff and campers in the same bunk.
If a person is not ethical and is willing to pursue a sexual relationship with a minor in their care (or worse, molest them), having them sleep in a different bunk won’t make a difference. I honestly don’t believe and haven’t seen any evidence that sharing a bunk makes inappropriate behavior any more likely.
We don’t insist on single sex camps. We don’t insist on separate sex swimming with same gender (non homosexual) life-guards. It seems (though I wouldn’t make any assumptions with this crowd) that we don’t insist on exclusively separate sex counselors in a day-camp setting. So it’s not about inappropriate behavior and it’s not about supervision. It seems like it’s about the fear of laviscious looks and bigotry to me. So yeah, the *male* fear and discomfort with the male gaze.
“Is it? Applicably you are saying that gay and lesbian people cannot work with teenagers at all.”
Actually, no. Applicably I am saying that either we trust adults to act like adults across the board or we assume that the possability of sexual attraction is inherantly disqualifying. The “either” there is crucial.
I, personally, am fine with the decision to treat adults like adults. I have no problem with allowing homosexuals to work with young folks of either sex - and I am fine with allowing heterosexuas to do the same. The problem as is generally the case comes in the prejorative multi-standards.
A Heterosexual male needs to be extremely careful in this society how and when he interacts with young people - especially young females. There is an assumption that they are dangerous by their nature. As an exmaple in the martial arts Dojo’s I am familiar with the practices of (about 15) the rules are clear - adult men simply are not to ever be along with children. Adult women have no such restriction. This is a rule that is dictated by the comfort level of the parents and their perception of danger.
If the argument is supposed to be that homosexuals can be trusted to act as responsible adults then great - let’s trea adults as adults. IF we are goign to assuem that there is an ulterior motive if a heterosexual male woudl be workign with teen girls then that prejorative is somethign we need to apply across the board.
Unless of course we are buying into the idea that there is somethign unique to heterosexual males that makes them especially evil. If that is an assumption that is held in these parts then of course the whole discussion is moot and the conclusion will be that everyone but white middle class heterosexual men are good, and that such men are evil.
“If it is innapropriate for gay men to minister/work with teenage boys…who can they minister/work with?”
Well, if we are going to buy into the idea that adults aren’t to be trusted with teens of their attraction sex then logic would say gay men are safest with young girls. Of course, since I don’t buy into that and I never stated I did then my personal answer is “they can minister to anyone they want”.
“It sounds as if you wouldn’t want the gay man working with your daughters (and that would work, oh, so well, wouldn’t it :)) Is ministry, in this case, restricted to the heterosexual, and them ONLY!”
If the “you” in that case is meant as me, personally, then the answer is that “I” don’t mind homosexuals working with either sex. I also don’t mind heterosexual men working with teen girls. Now imagine if that position had been advocated and the uproar around the blogosphere.
As an FYI, Scouting For All’s FAQ certainly seems to say that the BSA will kick out any scout, leader or scout, who is brought to their attention as gay.
This is most assuredly not true of the Girl Scouts. As my cousin, a heterosexual who earned her Gold Award (roughly equivalent to an Eagle in the BSA) has noted, if they kicked all the lesbians out of the Girl Scouts, there wouldn’t be enough of a structure to hold scouting together.
As for Cub Scout leaders being women, I’d suggest that might be due to the same reason that PTAs were primarily run by women as well as Campfire groups, etc. The women were around and deeply involved int heir children’s lives. The only organization I was aware of when growing up where men really ran children’s groups was the YMCA’s Young Indian Princesses, which was a specifically father-daughter organization, and its counterpart, Young Indian Braves, a father-son organization. Of course, this last is all anectdotal; please do ignore it.
It is very ancedotal; I lived in several council districts up to becoming a Life Scout, and it was always a predominately father/son organization; “Den Mother” is pretty much unique to the Cub Scouts, and is a position of conveinence - one of my Cub Scout dens met on Saturdays with our “Den Dad.” (Army Brat - I moved a lot)
Hugo, you have a dilemma; I can only tell you as a business owner that it’s the truth when they say for every customer who complains, you have ten whose business you have already lost for good, and twenty who are thinking about it. And pleasing everyone is not an option. If I complained about something concerning my child - well, you and I both know that parents voicing a “concern” about things vis-a-vis their child are being polite, but are 9 falls out of 10 NOT making a suggestion, but a demand.
Fail to please me, you lose my kids - please me, you lose Belledame’s. (Not picking on you, you’re the handy example). Sleeping arrangements, shower arrangements, sleeping bag requirements - whatever it is.
Ugly as it sounds, it still boils down to an ugly choice - Whose kids do you want to keep more? And whether of not that is how you want that choice to be seen, that is how those parents are going to see it.
If Gonz was Jim, believe it or not, you would not have a fight. I’d be saying “Hugo - you wouldn’t put straight men in a young women’s cabin, would you? Do you think it’s smart having gay men in with young men, then?” Then I’d see. And then if Jim/gonz Jr came home from the next retreat and said “Ozzie was our Cabin Captain!” well - the next time - darn, we have a family obligation. The next - darn! we have plans. The next - Darn! Junior has to wax the cat this weekend…
And next thing you know, you wouldn’t worry - I’d be at another church, it’s closer, I have neighbors there, hey, we’ll do lunch sometime, I miss a lot of you all… I really don’t seek conflict (Unless you got in my face calling me a nasty republican or something), but I would not argue with you - I’d figure, “Well, that’s the way it is here, not what I want” and I’d be moving along down the road.
But you’d need to march me in at gunpoint to get me back.
I’m one of the ten whose business you’d have lost. How you treat Jim, though, is going to impact how those other twenty feel.
Thing is - you have the same thing on the other side with Belledame.
It’s the price of leadership - you’re responsible; whether or not it is your fault, or if there is anything you can do - besides the point. Nobody says it’s your fault. Heck, if you wanted to hire or fire Oscar, I bet it’s beyond your power either way. But, they are blaming you, youth leader in this case is the lightning rod.
And it’s one of the reasons I have never accepted a leadership position which did not include sole discretionary power over those things of which I would be accountable for. I don’t mind being a sonofabitch, but I do min