"http://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/americorps/segal-americorps-education-award"
Founder of Scouts Gay?
So the discussion about the Boy Scouts of America and their policy excluding gays and atheists got me curious about the subject so I started googling. In particular, I wanted to see if Lord Baden-Powell, the founder of Scouts had anything to say about homosexuality. I remembered that he was big on sexual abstinence and decried the evils of "self-pollution," ie whacking off.
Well, was I surprised that my search results came up that Baden-Powell may have been a repressed homsexual himself and maybe even a pedophile. Two biographers have come to that conclusion, at least. Again, it's their interpretation and it's highly debated.
Some of the evidence they look to:
-Powell recorded his dreams in a diary and most of them were about young boys (this could be because he worked with boys all day, not because he was gay)
-Powell enjoyed watching naked boys swim and got upset when swimming naked was banned. He disdained female nudity.
when Powell was staying overnight at the school with his old friend A. H. Tod, who had been in the Rifle Corps and in the football 1st XI with him. In November 1919 Tod was over the retirement age but still teaching because it was wartime and all the younger staff had joined up. 'Stayed with Tod,' Stephe wrote in his diary. 'Tod's photos of naked boys and trees etc. Excellent.'. That a bachelor housemaster should have taken large numbers of nude photographs of his boys evidently did not strike Baden-Powell as undesirable. A few days later he wrote to Tod about starting a Scout troop at the school and added that he would soon be visiting Charterhouse again, 'which will give me the opportunity of seeing the football; and possibly I might get a further look at those wonderful photographs of yours!'
- He didn't marry until he was 55 years old. When he did, he married a 23 year old and had her change her looks so she looked more like a boy. She flattened her breasts, hid her cleavage with a neckerchief, cut her hair, and wore outfits that looked like boy scout uniforms. They had three kids, but descriptions of the Powell's relationship with his wife make it seem like there wasn't much romance there.
-Like alleged pedophile Michael Jackson, Baden-Powell loved Peter Pan. I don't think the love of Peter Pan makes a man a pedophile, but he definitely had some Peter Pan syndrom going on in that he seemed to relate better with boys rather than men his age. Which is sort of creepy when you're 55 years old.
Again, this is pretty speculative and historians will never be able to truly determine Baden-Powell's sexuality because most of his private correspondence were destroyed. Even if was gay or even a pedophile, there's no evidence that Baden-Powell acted out on his feelings. The man was obsessed with stifling sexual feelings and even counseled young men to go stick their wiener in cold water if they had the urge to masturbate. But again, we'll never know.
I don't really have a point with this. I just thought it was interesting.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Brett McKay on -
"I think perhaps what you are hinting at was the fact that platonic love was often much more expressive and intimate for our ancestors than it is for us today."
Yes, that, but it was also more fluid. If you think of the Ancient Greeks, it was perfectly acceptable to swing between loving a woman and loving a young man.
-
Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on -
Yes, that, but it was also more fluid. If you think of the Ancient Greeks, it was perfectly acceptable to swing between loving a woman and loving a young man.
Yes, that is true, too. But are you talking about platonic love or sex?
I guess I was fixating on B-P's time frame, in which it (sexuality) was not as fluid or open. Compared to that era, I'd say we're much more open and fluid today. I guess it depends on what era and culture you consider.
As far as platonic love, what I meant is that 100 years or so ago, it was common for intimate male friends to sign a letter with "love," etc., which is quite uncommon today.
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher Dart on -
...which is complicated by the fact that Plato himself wasn't exactly "Platonic" haha
-
Permalink Reply by Devin Ulibarri on -
My 2 cents on the wife thing. The man was a career army officer. Maybe he just felt more comfortable around men than women being in the military for so long. And in Victorian times, gender rolls were much more defined and maybe he just didnt feel comfortable around "girlie girls". Read what you will into it, but I dont think it means he was gay.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Airmet on -
My personal opinion is that when we look back at historical figures, we have a tendency to view them through our current culture's lens. How I see it, our currently culture tends to hypersexualize men. We tend to put a sexual context on any action taken by a man. I've heard the allegations before that Lincoln was homosexual. Who's to say that he was simply close to the other man? I've heard it was common in Lincoln's time for men to refer to each other affectionately and were also far more affectionate when it came to touching. After the feminist movement and the gay rights movement, things have really changed in that department, at least in the United States.
-
Permalink Reply by Chuck Neal on -
Long time lurker, but this one finally pushed me into signing up and participating. Let me start by saying none of this is directed at the original poster, but is more my commentary on the overall problem of dissecting historical figures after they are no long around to defend themselves.
Why does every historical hack feel the need to try to go back through history, distort anything they can find and then try to tarnish the character of ever person of notoriety they find? I am not sure the source as none were cited in the post, but there is a definite agenda/angle on each of these, evident in they way each is phrased.
- Views on masturbation - very common for the time among doctors, ministers, etc.
- Boys skinny dipping - not out of the ordinary at all. It is in the past couple of generations that we have started making practices like that taboo. In the early 1900s this would not raise an eyebrow.
- The Peter Pan comment also seems a bit far fetched. Peter Pan is a good story and shows the fun and excitement of being a boy. Liking a famous book character does not make a man a pedophile any more than it makes you a world famous pop star.
Any true student of history knows that rule #1 is that you have to know the context and culture of the people before you can start overlaying your interpretation of their actions. Personally, I think rule #2 is that you don't know what goes on in another man's head.
So in the end we have some carefully phrased conjecture and a speculation that a decorated war veteran and founder of one of the most influential organizations for young men, might have secretly been harboring thoughts/feelings of what ever the words can be twisted to support. Impossible to ever prove/disprove but I bet you can sell a lot of books with a perceived scandal.
Not saying the man was perfect, but there is no real substance to the points given. As men I think we need to stand up for those that have worked to do good in this world, not try to demonize them and tear down each one and all they fought to build.
Just my 2 cents.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Zankle on -
Who cares about the entendres???
The guy gets rep points from me for being a secret agent:
-
Permalink Reply by Eric The Red on
-
Like Chuck I am also a long time reader but first time poster. I agree with his points 100%.
The post piqued my interest as I am involved in the Scouting movement, as a Cub Scout leader and echo the comments about Peter Pan being a good story - no need to read into the notion that liking this story has any deep sexual meaning. Current Cub Scouts use Rudyard Kiplings Jungle Book as a basis, ie. Leaders take names from the characters and use Jungle Book stories as themes for activities. At this age group fantasy and make believe play a role in having good clean honest fun.
Scouting leaders also pass on the knowledge of how Scouting began and tell the story about BP. I don't think his legacy should be besmirched by taking circumstances from his life and interpreting them in a modern way. I think most people would agree that historical figures lived in different times with different conventions, so why make baseless insinuations about their sexuality.I think in these modern times the value of a persons worth is measured by the mark they leave on the world - not aspects of their private life taken out of context.
-
Permalink Reply by Vytautas on -
I don't think his legacy should be besmirched by taking circumstances from his life and interpreting them in a modern way.
Typical excuse not to look into truth. Don't be afraid of incriminating information just because it will sully your organization (which does a good enough job of that without any help from its founder).
-
Permalink Reply by Chuck Neal on
-
I find your twist on "truth" interesting. We have a post that references an unnamed source who's interpretation insinuates something sinister by reviewing the past by today's standards. You seem to want this all to be true.
The BSA is currently struggling with a balance between current popular views of homosexuality, and keeping to values that are prevalent in its members, but this thread was about an insinuation that Powell was gay then insinuated he was a pedophile. (2 completely unrelated things)
So again, I ask why it is so important for us to go back and try to soil the character of people who are no longer around to defend themselves? You should hope that history does not judge you so harshly by future standards.
-
Permalink Reply by LShieldes on
-
How would being gay "besmirch" everything non sexual that he did? You know like all the growing up, responsibility, earning things, and so on?
If he was gay, the only thing it would prove was that the current leadership are hyprocritical assholes blathering on about some stupid policy that would prove that their founder couldn't have done what history tells us he actually did.
Latest Activity
Slacker replied to Slacker's discussion Taking credit for community projects? in the group Freemasonry
Vytautas replied to Vytautas's discussion Favorite Author in the group Latin"Ah but it's a damn good poem! But no wonder it was never translated until the late 1900s. Nearly 20 centuries of censorship!
But despite some prudishness, it's very important for discussing the relationship between poet, persona, and…"
"Nowhere in the Bible does it say we are to tell someone we love them. Words can be said, but the intent of one's heart may not line up with them. And that can be deliberate or unintentional.
One's actions normally…"
Harbinger of Naughtforge commented on Leif Gunnar Selberg's blog post should I help younger brother become smoker?"It is never too late to destroy yourself yet if you wish to build yourself you ought to refrain from useless and negative activities. Does he want to have a badly functioning body?"
Dallas the Phallus replied to Dallas the Phallus's discussion Tamar Gendler: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Politics and Economics in the group Autodidacts"I thought it was a good lecture, too. Though this was my first introduction to Rawls and Nozick (I knew of Hobbs). I have no education in any economic theories, nor have I read any of the classics of economics, though I have read a little about…"
Nick H replied to Larry's discussion Do you love your Christian brothers? in the group Christian Men
© 2013 Created by Brett McKay.
Powered by
