MSNBC Sez; 61 yrs. old High Ranking BSA Official Guilty of Having Male Child Porn
 

MSNBC TV just reported that (link to be added when available) a long time
Boy Scouts of America official, age 61, will plead guilty tomorrow to possession of male child pornography, facing a minimum five year jail sentence after he pleads. Is your reaction to this is that he must be homosexual ?

If not, what else could explain this man's admission of possessing male child pornagraphy?

WTF?
Of all the things to pull out of this( sentence), why the hell is the homosexuality of this guy the focus of your questions?

Because Host doesn't like the Boy Scouts, they don't let homosexuals join in the reindeer games.

No.

My response is that he is a pedophile that preys on boys, which many of them do.

It is an interesting observation which many on the right tend to ignore.

the boy scouts again. sheesh.

i'll wait to see the link for further information on this.

but my immediate reactions are questions:

how did this guy's porn collection become a public matter?

does the possession of this type of porn necessarily mean that the guy is an active pedophile?
if he is, then why was he not charged with that?
if there is no charge of pedophile activity, what makes you think he is one necessarily?
what linkage do you think there is between possession of pornography and actual sexual behaviours?
do you think that, for example, everyone who cruises about the titty board here actually carries out in 3-d life the scenarios that might arouse in photos?
there are many porn scenarios that look to me like rape: does the fact that folk might, for whatever reason, find this type of thing to be titillating mean that each of them is a rapist?
would not the assumption that there is sich a link pose problems for this board itself?
if there is no such link, insofar as the assumptions that underpin this board are concerned, then why would there necessarily be one in the case of this guy, about whom no-one here appears to know anything?

i am just curious about how the thinking works in some of the responses above.

as for the bsa itself, i do not really care at this point whether the organization collapses or not. i enjoyed my time in the bsa as a kid--but from the point where it invoked its private status to rationalize bigotry (based on the ridiculous association between people who are gay and pedophilia, the kind of idiotic bullshit that comes straight out of christian coalition videos), i lost any remaining respect that i might have had for it.

Pedophilia is an entirely different sexual orientation outside of the normal continuum of gay/bi/straight. Pedophilia and homosexuality are completely unrelated. Therefore the likelihood is that he is just a pedophile, not a homosexual. While he may prefer young BOYS, that preference makes him a pedophile, not a homosexual.

If you have any more questions about the distinctions made in the study of sexuality, feel free to ask.

Or maybe many on the right take it into proper context, that this is one guy, one pederass, rather then using it to discredit and entire group of people.

But yeah, I would for sure consider this man gay (but as pointed out it's a definition thing of pedophilia, he may technically not be), and my reaction is it's sick, they should throw the book at him and then put him in with the violent felons, maybe he has some other sick fantasies they can help him live out.

Ok since I think I know the direction this thread s supposed to take, I will ask these questions.
1. How would you (whoever responds) react if he had female child porn? Is he more, less, or just as horrible and disgusting?


2. If he had both male and female child porn, what is he then?


Personally, I tend to agree with onesnowyowl. Why? Do little kids really look like their adult counter-parts? It's kind of like a 3rd (and 4th?) sex to be arroused by.

And for the record, my belief is if you have child porn get ready for a long stay in prison. The only type of crimes there is NO justification for are sex crimes. Having them against children is exponentially worse to me.

1. just as horrible and disgusting.
2. bi-sexual pederass

Folks, the term is pederast, not pederass.

I like pederass.

Here is a story on it:
Boy Scout director charged with having child porn

I don't care what this guy does for a living, he needs to fry. Any crime against a child is the worst in my opinion.

What impact does his being homo- vs. heterosexual have anyway? The guy is a pervert one way or another, he likes porn about little kids, who cares if he is or considers himself to be homosexual?

Before this gets too off base, lets keep the fact this man was a high-ranking official of the BSA out of this.

I have 27 years experience in the Boy Scouts and find it to be a very worthwhile organization. I admit, it is another black eye we didn't need, but this could have happend anywhere.

Not all pedophiles are gay and not all scout leaders are gay or pedophiles.



/rant

Sorry, it tends to be a sore spot sometimes. Too often Boy Scouts = gay in online forums.

Boy Scouts do not = gay.

However, they have opened themselves up for attack by not allowing gays into Scouts. It is ironic that someone who is apparently "high ranking" in the organization has turned out to be a paedophile.

The linkage between paedophilia and gays was made by the Scouts themselves. By banning homosexuals they are implying that gay men would prey on boys.

I don't really see what importance BSA has to this story other than sensationalism. If this person ranks higher than a local scoutmaster it means he spent little or no time in actual contact with boys. Above scoutmaster you're talking about an office job.

Point well taken Charlatan. And actually I agree with you.

I don't actually agree with National's standards on a lot of things, but they make the rules and therefore I have to abide by them. As a Committee Chairman, I have to review all adult applications. Thankfully, I have never had the situation come up where an openly gay male has applied. My ideals would have to take a back seat to BSA's.

Hello, new signature.

As for this guy, whatever. Perverts everywhere, especially in situations where they deal with the subject of their perversion. Does that mean everyone involved with the Boy or Girl Scouts is a pedophile? What about elementary school teachers? Obviously not. Fire him, then charge him with a crime, convict him, punish him. Moving on.

One thing I would like to know that can't be answered here is:
1. Does the BSA consider it worse that he had male porn?

Given his profession and all of the other controversy the BSA has had recently regarding their stance on gays, probably.

It probably could have been swept under the rug and buried on page 3 of most newspapers had it been regular porn. A 61 year old male caught with porn on his computer...yawn, next.

A 61 year old Boy Scout official with child porn involving boys... HEADLINES!!!!

This is from that article linked above:

He's right. This particular newsbreak is about finding pedophilia (and not homophobia) in the ranks of the Boy Scout officials. Besides:

The fact that he was looking at the boyporn (despite the fact that the people who actually make it should be flayed and cooked on a spit) isn't evidence that he personally has ever committed any sexual crimes directly against children. As long as he pleads guilty and does his time, that's the end of the story in my book.

ACLU = Bad -- BSA policy of exclusion of homosexual scoutmasters = Good

So many posts on this thread avoid the obvious hypocrisy of pornographer Smith, The BSA policy makers, ACLU bashers who use the ACLU v. BSA as a
hot button issue, the Christian Evangelicals who have politicized this, and of the posters here who try to persuade us of "what this isn't about" ( TFP members who volunteer their time to lead the praiseworthy boys who participate in the BSA, are explicity excluded from my focus here !).
Is it a coincidence, or more BSA Executive level hypocrisy that pornagrapher Smith's "letter to the editor" on the bsalegal.org website, displays as a search result on Google, but is not available at the web address. Luckily, Smith's "ACLU as scapegoat" letter is available on Google's cache....

host - I didn't know about all that other stuff he was in the news for; I only read the MSN article, which didn't mention all the other stuff you emphasized in the NY Times article. I see the hypocrisy now.