Boy Scouts - A training ground for 'Rescuers'?

[How to communicate after a contentious divorce...]

    Lately I've been giving a bit of thought to why I seem to be a co-dependent, people-pleaser type. I had a happy childhood, with no abuse or neglect issues. I had good friends, did okay at school, rode horses and motorcycles from an early age, had loads of fun. My parents divorced when I was 12 and Dad moved back to his home city, about 600km away, but he stayed in regular phone contact and we (my 3 brothers & I) always spent our school holidays with him. He'd been an interstate truck driver for several years, so we were accustomed to not seeing as much of him as we'd have liked anyway. I still have a good relationship with both of my parents and with my step-mother - Dads' second marriage has lasted more than twice as long as his marriage to Mum and is still going strong.

   I spent many years in the Scout movement - I started attending Cubs well before I was old enough to officially join and stayed with it right through to Rovers in my early 20s. I got to do all kinds of things that I wouldn't have had the opportunity to do otherwise - parasailing, deep-sea fishing, caving, abseiling (I qualified as an Instructor), 'air activities' weekends in light planes and gliders, all kinds of stuff. I got to travel across Australia and even half-way around the planet, to Canada for a World Jamboree when I was 16. Climbed a glacier. Spent two days white-water rafting on the Red Deer River. Had a week in LA and a week in Hawaii on the way home. So as you can see, I loved being a Scout.

   What has me thinking that maybe my time in the Scouts has at least contributed to me being a 'Rescuer', is the moral code that is at the heart of the movement - the Law and Promise. These are learned very early in the piece - you have to be able to recite them unaided before your 'Investiture' (acceptance as a member) - and they are reinforced all the way through. I'm in no way criticising the movement here. The moral code embodied in the Law and Promise is a good one - if everyone lived by it, the world would be a better place - but I can't help but wonder whether I may have been less of a people-pleaser if I hadn't grown up with it being so often spoken, heard and read.

   The Australian Scout Law (as it was when I was a kid - it's been slightly modified since.)

  A Scout is to be trustworthy

  A Scout is loyal

  A Scout is friendly and considerate

  A Scout is a brother to all Scouts

  A Scout is cheerful

  A Scout shows courage in all difficulties

  A Scout has respect for himself and for others

  A Scout makes good use of time, possessions and property

  A Scout takes care of natural resources

   The Law is of course backed up by the Promise - a promise to keep the law.

   The Australian Scout Promise

  On my honour, I promise that I will do my best

  to do my duty to God and to the Queen,

  to help other people

  and to keep the Scout Law

  So I'm thinking, is that like a recipe for making rescuers, or what? As a bit of a side bar in relation to the last line of the Law, I tend to be a bit OCD when it comes to my housemate putting recyclable waste in the garbage and vice-versa, too!   

  So, people, any thoughts? Curious as to how many former Scouts (or Girl Guides) we have on board here.

[free-n-clear]

    Lately I've been giving a bit of thought to why I seem to be a co-dependent, people-pleaser type. I had a happy childhood, with no abuse or neglect issues. I had good friends, did okay at school, rode horses and motorcycles from an early age, had loads of fun. My parents divorced when I was 12 and Dad moved back to his home city, about 600km away, but he stayed in regular phone contact and we (my 3 brothers & I) always spent our school holidays with him. He'd been an interstate truck driver for several years, so we were accustomed to not seeing as much of him as we'd have liked anyway. I still have a good relationship with both of my parents and with my step-mother - Dads' second marriage has lasted more than twice as long as his marriage to Mum and is still going strong.

   I spent many years in the Scout movement - I started attending Cubs well before I was old enough to officially join and stayed with it right through to Rovers in my early 20s. I got to do all kinds of things that I wouldn't have had the opportunity to do otherwise - parasailing, deep-sea fishing, caving, abseiling (I qualified as an Instructor), 'air activities' weekends in light planes and gliders, all kinds of stuff. I got to travel across Australia and even half-way around the planet, to Canada for a World Jamboree when I was 16. Climbed a glacier. Spent two days white-water rafting on the Red Deer River. Had a week in LA and a week in Hawaii on the way home. So as you can see, I loved being a Scout.

   What has me thinking that maybe my time in the Scouts has at least contributed to me being a 'Rescuer', is the moral code that is at the heart of the movement - the Law and Promise. These are learned very early in the piece - you have to be able to recite them unaided before your 'Investiture' (acceptance as a member) - and they are reinforced all the way through. I'm in no way criticising the movement here. The moral code embodied in the Law and Promise is a good one - if everyone lived by it, the world would be a better place - but I can't help but wonder whether I may have been less of a people-pleaser if I hadn't grown up with it being so often spoken, heard and read.

   The Australian Scout Law (as it was when I was a kid - it's been slightly modified since.)

  A Scout is to be trustworthy

  A Scout is loyal

  A Scout is friendly and considerate

  A Scout is a brother to all Scouts

  A Scout is cheerful

  A Scout shows courage in all difficulties

  A Scout has respect for himself and for others

  A Scout makes good use of time, possessions and property

  A Scout takes care of natural resources

   The Law is of course backed up by the Promise - a promise to keep the law.

   The Australian Scout Promise

  On my honour, I promise that I will do my best

  to do my duty to God and to the Queen,

  to help other people

  and to keep the Scout Law

  So I'm thinking, is that like a recipe for making rescuers, or what? As a bit of a side bar in relation to the last line of the Law, I tend to be a bit OCD when it comes to my housemate putting recyclable waste in the garbage and vice-versa, too!   

  So, people, any thoughts? Curious as to how many former Scouts (or Girl Guides) we have on board here.

[Turkish]

I'm not a scout, so take this from an outsider perspective.

Isn't this summed up in service to others? There's nothing wrong with serving. Good leaders also learn the value of service.

My T admitted that he was a Rescuer, identified me as being one, especially based upon my non BPD stories. He said, "Turkish, there's nothing wrong with being a rescuer." He also reminded me again and again to not pathologize everything. Be wiser, make better choices, sure! He said most therapists.have rescuer traits.

You scout service sounds exciting, btw!  I should look into it for my son.

[Vatz]

A scout makes good use of time. Your time counts too.

A scout protects natural resources. Your health counts as one.

My spin on it. I've never been in the scouts.

[free-n-clear]

Isn't this summed up in service to others? There's nothing wrong with serving. Good leaders also learn the value of service.

You're right, Turkish - there's nothing at all wrong with serving.

I'm in no way criticising the movement here. The moral code embodied in the Law and Promise is a good one - if everyone lived by it, the world would be a better place

  My point isn't so much what's in the Law and Promise as the way it's drummed in - especially for long-term members such as I was. We all form our moral values and - to a degree - our personality as a result of many inputs and Scouts was obviously a big input for me. (And yes, I reckon your young bloke would love it.)

A scout makes good use of time. Your time counts too. A scout protects natural resources. Your health counts as one.

  Both very good points, Vatz.

[goldylamont]

interesting story free'n'clear, i can identify with your background--meaning that while my parents were separated i have positive memories of a supportive/loving childhood in general. reading FOO issues many others here experience has really opened my eyes and made me appreciate my family (which still has issues just like any). my mother in particular for raising me as best she could without a father figure. my mom would use her brothers (my uncles) as proxy male role models though. and she also always encouraged my "manhood"--stuff like telling me i should always have at least $10 in my wallet because every man needs to have some money on him. or that i should always have a pocket knife in case i needed to cut, tinker or work on something--this is something that men do. it never felt oppressive, just that she was filling in as best she could to make a man out of a boy. something i always appreciated.

i will say though, that as a young man i was pretty clueless when it came to expressing my sexual desires and talking to women. i don't have bad memories about this, but let's just say i had pretty much no "game" until my mid-late twenties :-D and it wasn't until i started reading up on attraction, using trial and error, etc. that i began to get in the groove of being able to approach the women i really liked (trust, this is *still a work in progress  ). and i think part of this is due to the fact that i didn't have a positive male role model to really show me the way. i ended up learning on my own, it just happened a little later for me since i was pretty clueless as a teen.

give you an example. i have a friend, in his early 20's, a bit younger than me, really cool guy. he's pretty well adjusted and confident approaching women. but he tells me stories of how his father, father's friends and his uncles would push and encourage him as a young man to approach women. they would be at a dance and they'd say "hey, go talk to that girl over there and ask her to dance!" and when he'd be too scared they'd say "ok, fine then, watch me... .". then they would go talk to the girl, pull her onto the dance floor and have fun, then look at him and wink--"see, *this* is how you do it". so, he had some good role models and support which gives him power to express his sexuality and desires around women. women find this very attractive.

i often wonder if pw co-dependent/people pleaser traits may lack some of this instruction in youth as i did. and thus may leave some to be a bit naive at times. more likely to put women on a pedestal without really knowing them. or perhaps too trusting, too giving, without getting their own needs met.

below is an article posted by a former co-dependent that i feel sheds harsh light on this subject in a very succinct way. would love to know what your take on it is.

also, Turkish, being a board adviser i realize that the title of the article has the B-word in it--however i've read a lot of articles by this guy to know that he's very fair and not misogynistic in his views. what is said in this article (as the author notes) could easily be reversed for a woman co-dependent in a r/s with an abusive man. just wanted to clear the air.

Why Is Every Woman You Date A Crazy B---?

Well, the short answer is: it’s you.

If all of the women you end up emotionally involved with are psychos and find a way to make your life hell, the only thing they all have in common is you. So start by looking at yourself.

We see this pattern quite often — the quiet, reserved, “Nice Guy,” continually meets and attracts the emotionally explosive, manipulative, and sometimes hyper-sexual woman. Why does this happen? And why does it seem to happen to the same men over and over?

It happens when you are uncomfortable with intimacy and expressing your emotions openly and honestly. This inability for an emotionally healthy intimacy will inadvertently narrow down your dating options only to the women who are equally screwed up in their ability to maintain a healthy intimacy. Here are a few reasons why:

(Public Service Announcement: This article is written from the perspective of a hetero male for other hetero males. But pretty much all of it is applicable for all intimate relationships, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.)

1. Her boldness counterbalances your inhibitions. Generally speaking, it’s not considered socially acceptable for women to initiate sexual interest. Men are expected to. But if you are a man who is uncomfortable initiating interest sexually, then you are limited to the few women who are bold enough to act out first. These women must be willing to go against social norms and be less concerned with the opinion of others. While there are definitely some legitimately confident women who are willing to do this, all of the crazy ones are.

2. Their emotional instability stimulates your suppressed emotions. Men who are uncomfortable with their emotions suppress them in a few different ways. They numb themselves completely and feel indifferent towards others, or they rationalize reasons to avoid engaging others emotionally. In some circumstances, men will over-compensate by completely objectifying their relationships and sex life (I refer to these men as the fake alpha males).

When men suppress their emotions and shun intimacy, the only women whose emotions are intense enough to break through are women who are emotionally unstable. These men, by suppressing themselves, unknowingly self-select women who over-express themselves. These men tend to get particularly hooked on these over-emotional women because it allows them to experience their own emotions vicariously through the drama of the woman they’re with.

3. Her addiction to drama makes you feel important. But what really gets emotionally suppressed men hooked on these women is the drama. These women are always in a state of crisis. They’re always the victim of something. And they always need to be saved from somebody or something. This makes the man feel important and needed — two things he’s rarely felt so acutely before — because he’s gone through his life suppressing intimacy and keeping his relationships as superficial as possible.

Inevitably, the emotionally unstable woman will find a way to turn on him. Any peace and equanimity he works for, she will find a way to sabotage it. Because the sick truth is that always being in a state of emotional crisis makes her feel important as well. Her fear is the same as his: that she’s unimportant. But she achieves it through an equal and opposite strategy: drama. And so the over-emotional woman and the under-emotional man (or vice-versa) enter into a toxic unconscious dance of victim and savior, oscillating between giddy euphoria and abject misery.

These women almost always end up leaving these men, as you may have found out the hard way, like I did. As time goes on, the man is willing to sacrifice more and more of his own identity to fix her emotional problems, to the point where he loses any ability to think or choose for himself whatsoever. This destroys her attraction for him, as people who have no self-worth are the epitome of unattractive. At this point, with her man 100% pliant to her whims, the only way to keep the crises flowing is by seeking out another man to complicate things.

These women are naturally drawn to love triangles especially, with themselves being the point between two men (or two women, or a man and a woman, or whatever). Love triangles provide endless fuel for their need for drama. And it also provides endless fuel for the suppressed man’s need to “rescue” or “win over” the woman.

As you can tell, although these women are responsible for their own behavior, if you are consistently bringing them into your life by your emotional suppression, then it’s your own fault.

Tomorrow, I’ll write on how to find emotionally stable, amazing women and bring them into your life naturally.

UPDATE: Read it here.

from:  www.markmanson.net/

Can any of you identify with any of the three traits listed here?

[charred]

I was a cub scout and boy scout... had nothing to do with it... the bad stuff that leads you to be "right" for a BPD r/s... happens early... like before you are a cub scout even.

There are four styles of parenting (look it up)... only one really works well, its call authoritative parenting... and has to do with setting firm boundaries, listening and empathizing with the child, and interacting with them... as a person. Any of the other styles can lead to problems... and simply treating a child as an object ... can lead to large problems. A lot of disordered women/bad mothers... treat kids as objects. They have an idea that having a kid is something they want to do... .but the actual kid (not the idea)... is demanding and hard work and they react as though they have a little monster... .rather than a little person with feelings. Took me a long time to figure out my mother was BPD (waif)... but figuring out she was terrible with little kids is blatently  obvious. The effect on a kid is to make them anxious... worried about everything, insecure. When a person didn't have the unconditionally loving parent they needed, they have some core trauma. They also tend to detach a bit, keep people at a distance, hold their emotions in, and that numbs them to both good and bad feelings. If they do it enough they become schizoid (present an image to others that doesn't match their real self... like being a perfect kid... to get along with the role of perfect mother... that the not very good at all mother prefers to actually being a real mother.)

Around 12-13 is when kids that grew up with a parent like I described start really having a tough time... they think like little adults (from having to anticipate parents and parentification)... they often are shamed and feel like something is wrong with them, and they don't seem to fit in with most the normal kids. So many detach further from their bodies and live more in their heads... intellectualizing, day dreaming, living in a fantasy world.  All of that... is ideal for being a rescuer... and is probably much closer to what can draw a pwBPD to you.

My mother was present, paid attention to me... but lost her mother when she was 5 years old, and was left by her father with her grandparents... till she was 13... and it is traumatic for her to be around young kids... tenseness, ill ease and objectification  was the result... older kids didn't bother her... so it was really hard to figure out how the attachment was off... but it was. Happens... best thing is accept where you are, and find out what you need to be right... and fix those issues. Nearly everyone has some kind of FOO issues... and if you are on here and been through the mill with a pwBPD... you can help yourself by talking to professionals.

[free-n-clear]

I often wonder if pw co-dependent/people pleaser traits may lack some of this instruction in youth as i did, and thus may leave some to be a bit naive at times. More likely to put women on a pedestal without really knowing them, or perhaps too trusting, too giving, without getting their own needs met.

   goldy, I wouldn't say I lacked instruction, Dad was much like your friends' father in that regard - but the "lessons" obviously weren't as frequent as they might have been. I do tend to be trusting and giving, but of the three really serious relationships I've had, only the most recent - the one that brought me here - was with a PD'd partner. (I use the term 'partner' in the loosest possible way, in regard to her.) Having said that, I know I definitely have 'people-pleaser' traits. I couldn't count how often I've left myself short of money by lending to a friend, for example. If a stranger at a pub asks if they can bum a cigarette, unless I only have a few left, I'll usually give 'em one.

   The article you quote makes perfectly good sense in light of what I've learned here about BPD relationships, but having only had one such relationship myself, and two other serious relationships - both of which lasted longer and didn't involve a 'Crazy B____', I wouldn't say I identify with any of the 3 traits. More like a case of "nice guy makes the mistake of getting involved with an emotionally explosive, manipulative, hyper-sexual woman". Having known her as a friend for a long time first may have brought out the Rescuer in me, perhaps.

the bad stuff that leads you to be "right" for a BPD r/s... happens early... like before you are a cub scout even... .There are four styles of parenting... .only one really works well... .Any of the other styles can lead to problems... .Around 12-13 is when kids that grew up with a parent like I described start really having a tough time... .

   charred, My parents were both loving, supportive, good listeners, etc. Reasonably authoritative, but rarely needed to be punitive - my brothers and I were all reasonably well behaved (all Boy Scouts, of course. ) Neither of them have any PD that I can discern - unless Mums' ability to talk underwater with a loaf of bread in her mouth counts. My paternal grandfather died when Dad was 10, and his two siblings were both much older than him, so he was a bit of a wild child in his adolescence - I inherited my love of motorcycles from him - but he settled down once he married Mum. (He had to - I was on my way!). I didn't have a "tough time" through my teens, I was too busy having a ball. Yes, it would've been better had my parents not divorced, or if, having divorced, Dad stayed in the local area, but it was still a very happy, adventure-filled time. So parenting doesn't explain it. Maybe I just have a mild case of people-pleaser traits. All these things exist on a spectrum, right?

[Skip]

More like a case of "nice guy makes the mistake of getting involved with an emotionally explosive, manipulative, hyper-sexual woman". Having known her as a friend for a long time first may have brought out the Rescuer in me, perhaps.

I'm not sure that blogger is saying it's a nice guy mistake.  He's saying there was a payoff - a reason - and over time it went horribly bad.

When an older wealthy man takes on a 25 year old hottie - is he rescuing her?  Or is he exploiting her?  

When an alcoholic man takes on a, 25 year his senior, nurse - is he rescuing her?  Or is his self esteem broken and this is only way he can find companionship?

I'm not suggesting that either of these apply to you. But maybe if you take the skills you would use to answer these two questions and apply them to yourself, you may see something that you're not seeing.

That's what the blogger did for himself and that is what he is writing about.

[free-n-clear]

I'm not sure that blogger is saying it's a nice guy mistake. He's saying there was a payoff - a reason - and over time it went horribly bad.

  I realise the blogger didn't say it was a mistake - hence the italics, to differentiate that part of the sentence.

If all of the women you end up emotionally involved with are psychos and find a way to make your life hell, the only thing they all have in common is you.

We see this pattern quite often — the quiet, reserved, “Nice Guy,” continually meets and attracts the emotionally explosive, manipulative, and sometimes hyper-sexual woman. Why does this happen? And why does it seem to happen to the same men over and over?


1. Her boldness counterbalances your inhibitions. Generally speaking, it’s not considered socially acceptable for women to initiate sexual interest. Men are expected to. But if you are a man who is uncomfortable initiating interest sexually, then you are limited to the few women who are bold enough to act out first. These women must be willing to go against social norms and be less concerned with the opinion of others. While there are definitely some legitimately confident women who are willing to do this, all of the crazy ones are.

2. Their emotional instability stimulates your suppressed emotions. Men who are uncomfortable with their emotions suppress them in a few different ways. They numb themselves completely and feel indifferent towards others, or they rationalize reasons to avoid engaging others emotionally. In some circumstances, men will over-compensate by completely objectifying their relationships and sex life (I refer to these men as the fake alpha males).

3. Her addiction to drama makes you feel important. But what really gets emotionally suppressed men hooked on these women is the drama. These women are always in a state of crisis. They’re always the victim of something. And they always need to be saved from somebody or something. This makes the man feel important and needed — two things he’s rarely felt so acutely before — because he’s gone through his life suppressing intimacy and keeping his relationships as superficial as possible.

  None of the bold parts of the above quote reflect my experience or relationship history... .

... .having only had one such relationship myself. Two other serious relationships - both of which lasted longer... .didn't involve a 'Crazy B____',

  The 'Rescuer' in me has fought a 2.5 year custody battle - and won; raised a daughter; saved a horses' life; and been more generous than I can afford at times, but only once became romantically involved with a pwBPD.

[Skip]

None of the bold parts of the above quote reflect my experience or relationship history... .

Mine either. It's just a blogger extrapolating his owe experience a bit too far... .

I think the real value here is not what he concluded, but how he was able to look at himself.

[pessim-optimist]

Hm, interesting discussion... .

I was just reminded of something the other day reading: the book said that anxiety that is present in relationships is usually managed by pursuing (pleasing), or withdrawal (avoidance), or vacillating between those two. Neither of these is healthy.

In a healthy situation, the problem is realized and dealt with directly - staying emotionally connected, while problem-solving, maintaining appropriate boundaries. Ideally, the separate "I"s are in balance with the common "we".

The "rescuer" problem arises in my opinion when the sense of separateness, and togetherness is out of balance and boundaries are also shifted out of balance.

As someone stated earlier - these are developmental issues that arise very early on. Furthermore - they can be easily warped in a divorce situation (even a "happy" one).

[free-n-clear]

   Thanks Skip and pessim-optimist.

   

When an older wealthy man takes on a 25 year old hottie - is he rescuing her? Or is he exploiting her?

  He may well be exploiting her as a 'trophy', but it's equally possible that she is exploiting him for his money. Anyone remember the late Anna-Nicole Smith? There's a wealthy, not particularly handsome older Australian man who used to own a professional football team (Aussie Rules, not the real football which is of course Rugby League!) and he has famously married a few much younger "hotties". I don't think he thought he was rescuing them.

In a healthy situation, the problem is realized and dealt with directly - staying emotionally connected, while problem-solving, maintaining appropriate boundaries. Ideally, the separate "I"s are in balance with the common "we". The "rescuer" problem arises in my opinion when the sense of separateness, and togetherness is out of balance and boundaries are also shifted out of balance.

As someone stated earlier - these are developmental issues that arise very early on. Furthermore - they can be easily warped in a divorce situation (even a "happy" one).

   I know I definitely could have used the skills re boundaries that I've learned here, I basically didn't have any with xgf. And the early developmental issues are something that a T might be able to help me identify, because I don't have any recollection of any traumatic experience. My parents didn't argue or fight in our presence, there was no alcoholism or drug use, my family didn't seem much different to any other family that I knew. Dad being away so much when he was working and then moving away after the divorce is the most significant thing I can think of, which is what got me thinking about what other factors may have played a part.

... .maybe my time in the Scouts has at least contributed to me being a 'Rescuer'... .I tend to be a bit OCD when it comes to my housemate putting recyclable waste in the garbage and vice-versa, too!

Having known her as a friend for a long time first may have brought out the Rescuer in me, perhaps... .All these things exist on a spectrum, right?

[pessim-optimist]

And the early developmental issues are something that a T might be able to help me identify, because I don't have any recollection of any traumatic experience.

... .my family didn't seem much different to any other family that I knew.

When we talk about issues, we often think about major traumatic events that may have caused them. However, some of our issues may be simply caused by lack of skills on our part - skills that our parents may not have, and therefore could not pas onto us.

[charred]

And the early developmental issues are something that a T might be able to help me identify, because I don't have any recollection of any traumatic experience.

... .my family didn't seem much different to any other family that I knew.

When we talk about issues, we often think about major traumatic events that may have caused them. However, some of our issues may be simply caused by lack of skills on our part - skills that our parents may not have, and therefore could not pas onto us.

True... I was hurt when I was a little kid... fairly badly, scaring my folks... so instead of being encouraged to get up and move around... they wanted me close by... discouraged me and since I would try to run off, was on a leash and gated and ignored a fair amount... very likely that along with my mother being distant and detached herself a bit... was all it took to get some real personality issues. Not a terrible mom... just one that wasn't quite good enough at what mattered. They can do lots of stuff for you that doesn't matter... my grandmother was nicest person I have ever known... she was all positive on my dad... he could do no wrong... she indulged him and he became a spoiled, ego-centric NPD ass. The question was always how could someone as nice as her have a son so shallow and uncaring. Fact is it happens a lot.

[free-n-clear]

since I would try to run off, was on a leash

   You and me both, charred. I can't remember the event, but my parents assure me that when I was a toddler, I wandered off from a family lakeside picnic, and it apparently took them over half an hour to find me. They were terrified that I'd fallen into the lake and drowned. I do remember (and have old home-movie footage of me) wearing a leather 'harness' with a leash attached thereafter, whenever I was out of the stroller.

   I take your & pessim-optimists broader point, though - a traumatic experience, dysfunctional family environment or disordered parent isn't required - just the lack of (or inability to effectively model and communicate) certain skills is enough. Having said that, I still find it a little difficult to believe that I'd have exactly the same character and personality if I hadn't spent 15 of my most formative years repeatedly promising - on my honour - to (amongst other things) help other people.   

[Turkish]

since I would try to run off, was on a leash

   You and me both, charred. I can't remember the event, but my parents assure me that when I was a toddler, I wandered off from a family lakeside picnic, and it apparently took them over half an hour to find me. They were terrified that I'd fallen into the lake and drowned. I do remember (and have old home-movie footage of me) wearing a leather 'harness' with a leash attached thereafter, whenever I was out of the stroller.

   I take your & pessim-optimists broader point, though - a traumatic experience, dysfunctional family environment or disordered parent isn't required - just the lack of (or inability to effectively model and communicate) certain skills is enough. Having said that, I still find it a little difficult to believe that I'd have exactly the same character and personality if I hadn't spent 15 of my most formative years repeatedly promising - on my honour - to (amongst other things) help other people.   

How much of your scouting was what you wanted to do, as opposed to what your parents expected you to do? How involved were they in your early years?

[free-n-clear]

How much of your scouting was what you wanted to do, as opposed to what your parents expected you to do? How involved were they in your early years?

  There was no expectation; I think that when Mum first took me to Cubs (the Scout Hall was just a few doors down on our street) it was as much about giving her a bit of respite as anything else. I'm the eldest of four boys, so at that time (when I was about 7 and-a-half) she also had a six-year-old and a four-year-old to deal with and was pregnant with my youngest brother. Once I was there, I loved it right from the start and didn't need any encouragement to continue with it. Mum and Dad were both very involved with us; we did lots of family activities together - Mum taught us to ride horses, Dad taught us to ride a motorbike (I could ride a motorbike before I owned a bicycle!). We went camping, four-wheel-driving in the bush and on the beach, had lots of contact with extended family as well. Dad was an 'owner-driver' - he had an old F-Model Mack and hauled a semi-trailer on a contract with a small trucking company. I'd often go on trips with him during school holidays and help him service the truck on weekends.

  When I got to the age that I had to leave Scouts, there wasn't a Venturer (Senior Scout) Unit in the area, so some of us who were around the same age and left Scouts at the same time set about establishing one. There also was no senior Girl Guide unit (Girl Scouts in the U.S.?) so some of the girls who were too old to continue in Guides joined us. (At that time, Venturers and Rovers were co-ed, while Cubs and Scouts was boys only - nowadays it's all co-ed). However, to have female members in the Venturer Unit, we had to have a female adult Leader, so Mum undertook all the training and became an Assistant Venturer Leader. So, yes, I'd say that overall, my parents were involved and supportive.