Generally sexual predation of minors does not take place in an instant. Predators don't just abuse an individual at random there and then without any build up. They don't just walk up to a boy in front of the group and start abusing them. Sexual predators pick out the weak and the vulnerable. The loners, the ones with troubled backgrounds who don't fit in with the rest of the troop etc. Over time they befriend these individuals (grooming) so they become trusted and then they gradually escalate their behaviour over time. You didn't see it because from a distance it would look innocuous. It would be a friendly scoutmaster helping that boy who seemed a bit odd to you. A hug here and there. A bit of one to one help with something that individual was struggling with etc. As a scout you would have been drilled to trust your scoutmaster. It wouldn't have entered your head that he was selecting and grooming his prey. At that age you would not have noticed it and you were trained to trust your Scout Leader. You wouldn't have given it a second thought.huckelberry wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:27 amI asked about the practical procedure problem because I cannot see how a comp experience would leave a scout vulnerable. The leader is completely outnumbered and only has partial contruol of any of the event. I would expect that isolation from the group would be necessary for sexual predation.
I would not say that I do not believe that problem could happen, clearly there is evidence that it did though your comment about because there were lots of lds scout groups then the lds scout groups must of been involved does not hold logically. A more careful comment would be some lds groups may have been involved.
For protection of youth it is important to look at that question of how these things were done when they were done. Organizations need to have a clear understanding of where danger points lie. Youth need to have clear understanding of where danger points lie.
I could note that my training as a youth did not include much in the way of tactical warnings.It was more general and focused upon taking individual responsibility, respecting yourself and others. I actually think those basic instructions have served me in a positive way. They are part(along with scouting) of the limited package of things from my Mormon upbringing that I hold in a positive light. But Lem you presented a bit of a puzzle for me. I am a bit older and little factories and licked cupcakes played not memorable role in the teaching I received. From the references to these ways of teaching I have heard I do wonder if they do a much inferior job of teaching making wise moral decisions with your own responsibility and free agency.
I don't think it's the responsibility of the young people to stop it. That seems close to victim blaming. It's also simply untenable - how do you train scouts to not trust their scoutmasters? And if you succeeded, where would that leave things? The problem is systemic and it needs to start with proper vetting (something the LDS Church refuses to do for some reason) and proper protocols about the ratio of leaders to children in any given circumstance. Especially on trips and activities away from parents. I'd suggest for any away trip involving scoutmasters to also require a number of parent supervisors on the trip. Leaders need to be trained to spot predatory behaviour. Parents need that training. It sounds extreme, but predators seek out organisations where they can most easily get access to their victims. They proactively target positions in Scouting and Churches because they get easy and unsupervised access to their potential victims and passing the vetting process for such positions is comparatively easy.