A New York Times Editorial claims "at-risk youth" need mentors. It's idealistic. Reality is another animal. As someone who mentors "at-risk" youth, I can tell you for a fact that not too many men want to put themselves in a vulnerable position where their sexuality will be questioned, their sense of morality will be questioned, their manhood will be questioned, and their humanity will become stretched tight as a motorcycle tie-down day one. You will be pushed up against a wall a dozen times a day and called a faggot every time you turn around, and you will ask yourself: why am I here. You will note that the other mentors around you -- your peers -- are there because they were one of these "at-risk youth" one time, too. Chances are, you are in the same tenuous boat. No man stays in any of these jobs too long. Not if you want to feed your family, and not if your own sons are in any way tempted to experiment with being the kind of kid Daddy spends most of his time with. Your motives will be questioned by every single person who looks at you juxtaposed against the scene the "at-risk youth" lives in; particularly if that "at-risk" mentor is male. Gender is an explosive issue. I would have to be out of my mind to be alone in a room engaged in any kind of communication with a female where simply keeping a door open is not enough. You want a reliable witness who was there who can verify nothing exploitive happened. Any male who works in a situation with "at-risk youth" where they find themselves in a locker room or any other setting involving nudity has to have his head examined. The New York Times editorial goes, as it should go, to funding issues. But funding issues are ephemeral. You won't find too many programs where mentors are offered retirement because no one stays that long. Two years is considered an eternity. One is more the norm. If you are mentoring a kid who is fourteen, and you leave him when he's fifteen, you simply become part of the problem especially when this is going to be a child with gr...