# Ann Coulter is at it again **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 21, 2002, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386 "2002-03-21T19:38:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2002, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/81 "2002-03-23T18:06:32Z")
**hudley** : Paraphrasing you, "First you (Shayna) said, “The fact that [I’d] apparantly have a problem with [male scout leaders for my daughter] speaks volumes.” Then you (Shayna) said you had “made no accusations either stated or implied that [\*\*\*\*I] had a propensity to molest children.” It sounds like your buddy’s accusation that my “post gives a subtle implication that I would feel attracted to a young girl[s].” It _does_? Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, is it? What does the fact that I draw conclusions about your character based on your unwillingness to allow gay men around your daughter have to do with **someone else’s** observation that **they** saw an implication in your post(s) that you’d be attracted to young girls? Really. I’m totally stumped here. I’m just going to ignore the rest of your blather. **RTFirefly** : You are correct that **polycarp** and **Esprix** (and now **wring** ), as well as yourself, have expressed their understanding that a person’s sexual orientation does not determine the sex of their child victims. My assumption that little girls who are molested are more likely molested by heterosexual men and vice versa, came from my interpretation of the raw numbers of little girls being molested in far greater numbers than little boys. In spite of the fact that **Esprix** ’s posted quote from [encyclopedia.com](http://encyclopedia.com) supporting his (and your) position doesn’t reference how that conclusion was arrived at, I’ll concede that point and say I was wrong. However… it still doesn’t really _matter_ within the scope of this discussion. In other words, whether a male who is heterosexual in his adult sexual contact chooses little boy victims over little girl victims, and vice versa, doesn’t in any way prove that homosexual men are a greater risk to children. That was the point I was trying to make when I said that there simply is no correlation between sexual orientation and whether or not one will be a child molester, with which you agreed. I did not mean to imply that “straight males were more likely to be molesters than gay males” _because_ of their sexual orientation. It’s strictly a numbers game. Because of the fact that sexual orientation is _not_ a determinant of whether one will be a child molester, and heterosexual men significantly outnumber homosexual men in the population, the _odds_ are that a child’s risk of being molested by a heterosexual male exceed the risk of molestation by a homosexual male. Does that clarify it better? **The Ryan** : My apologies. I must have missed where you said her axioms don’t make sense. I believed from the tone of your post that you were in agreement with her, and included you in my reply because of that. If you _don’t_ agree with her, then ignore said inclusion and consider it not directed towards you. Now that I’m pretty much done clarifying any previous statements, I’d like to return to the subject of the OP – that Ms. Coulter is espousing the removal of gay men from the priesthood, much as the BSA removed gay men from scout-leading, because she (and they) believe(s) there is an inherent risk in exposing children to gay men. The evidence proves this to be at best, untrue, and at worst, fear- and hate-mongering. I invite you to read this research report on Child Sexual Molestation from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice: [http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/163390.txt](http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/163390.txt) I’ll quote some relevant findings (all bolding mine) > [@](#): > > The classification, diagnosis, and assessment of child molesters are complicated by a high degree of variability among individuals in terms of personal characteristics, life experiences, criminal histories, and reasons for offending. **There is no single “profile” that accurately describes or accounts for all child molesters.** Note that there is nothing describing homosexuality as a factor in whether or not one will have a propensity towards molestation. What it does list are factors such as… [quote] [ul][li] **A history of impulsive, antisocial behavior** is a well-documented risk factor for certain predatory, extrafamilial child molesters.[/li] [li] **Early childhood experiences, such as a high turnover in primary caregivers** (which is a strong predictor of adult sexual violence), may interfere with the development of viable, age-appropriate adult relationships, making it more likely that children are selected as sexual targets. [/ul][/li][/quote] Ms. Coulter’s arrogance in thinking she knows better than the researchers, what causes pedophilia, is astounding. While she equates being gay with being a high risk, the research actually states: > [@](#): > > [F]ew [criminal offenses] are so **little understood** in terms of incidence (the number of offenses committed), prevalence ( **the proportion of the population who commit offenses** ), and reoffense risk. > > \ > > The sexual abusers of children are highly dissimilar in terms of personal characteristics, life experiences, and criminal histories. **No single “molester profile” exists**. Child molesters arrive at deviancy via multiple pathways and engage in many different sexual and nonsexual “acting-out” behaviors. > > Sexual focus. Evidence shows that sexual focus in child molesters comprises two separate components. The first is intensity of pedophilic interest, i.e., the degree to which offenders are focused or “fixated” on **children** as sexual objects. The second component involves the **exclusivity of their preference for children** as sexual objects. The second component is inversely related to social competence, as measured by the extent and depth of adult social and sexual relationships, and it is independent of the intensity of pedophilic interest. But Ms. Coulter knows it’s gays. Okaaaaay. With regard to the sex of the victim, it has this to say: > [@](#): > > Many reports have suggested that, among extrafamilial offenders, same-sex child molesters are at highest risk to reoffend and opposite-sex child molesters are at lowest risk. **However** , the sex-of-victim distinction has **not received consistent support**. In contrast to the typical finding, **at least four recent studies found either no differences in recidivism rates among groups or differences that were opposite to prediction.** > > \ > > Further, some studies do not distinguish between incest offenders, who are **almost exclusively heterosexual** in their choice of victims. Skipping all the information on recidivism and/or treatment, we get to the conclusion… > [@](#): > > Conclusion > > Sexual offenders constitute the one category of dangerous criminals most subject to either special commitment statutes or ad hoc discretionary and dispositional decisions. These laws and the decisions that they require are **often based on assumptions about sex offenders that are, at best, misleading and, at worst, erroneous**. So, to repeat, research studies have shown that whether a male is homosexual or heterosexual **does not determine** their propensity towards child molestation. Therefore, the removal of gays from _any_ particular organization will **not decrease the risk** of molestation. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2002, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/82 "2002-03-23T18:18:01Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m not entirely sure which post you are referring to, but in one post you said “It is an accurate adjective to describe the act, but not an accurate adjective to describe the perpetrator.” Yes, that is the post. Apparently you found it despite the ambiguousness of the phrase, “my second post )on teh first page of this thread).” I am happy that you managed to pull it out from all of my other second posts on that page. > [@](#): > > The first part of this statement supports my statement. No, it supports that descriptor “homosexual act” for an instance of male-male molestation. It also notes, **"People concerned with precision and clarity understand that distinction. People familiar with current research into sexual orientation understand the fallacy of using the term to describe the sexual orientation of the molester. . . People concerned with advancing an inflamatory agenda regardless of accuracy forgo such nuances and apply emotionally laden terms broadly and often inaccurately."** Which of those categories best applies to you is becoming quite clear. > [@](#): > > So do you agree that “molestation of someone of the same sex as you is homosexual conduct”? No. “Homosexual conduct” is a phrase which cannot be expected to clearly communicate the realities of the context. It carries a straightforward reading of “the conduct of homosexuals” which is both inaccurate and inflammatory. > [@](#): > > As for support for the rest of your statement, I am still waiting. Waiting for support!? How silly–generally one asks a question before one “waits for an answer”. Still, suit yourself. While waiting perhaps you could idly pass the time clicking some of the links **Shayna** provided, or typing a few choice phraes into google, or even (I know this is a stretch) asking for a specific point to be defended. For the rest, I see that **Polycarp** has answered you with far more patience and equanimity than I was likely to. I will simply recommend that you read his post more carefully than you have read my second post (on the first page of this thread). Yes, that one. ---
**Author:** ![Kirkland1244](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dc4da7/32.png) [@Kirkland1244](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kirkland1244)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2002, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/83 "2002-03-24T00:29:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shayna \* > \*\*Now that I’m pretty much done clarifying any previous statements, I’d like to return to the subject of the OP – that Ms. Coulter is espousing the removal of gay men from the priesthood, much as the BSA removed gay men from scout-leading, because she (and they) believe(s) there is an inherent risk in exposing children to gay men. The evidence proves this to be at best, untrue, and at worst, fear- and hate-mongering. \*\* Actually, not quiote. What they are calling for is the removal of _honest_ gay men from the priesthood. Right now, today, if I were to call up Troop 72, my old Scout troop and say “I wanna be an Assistant Scoutmaster,” they would jump at the chance to have me. They’d look at my record, see that I am an Eagle Scout, have served the Troop as an Assistant Patrol Leader, Patrol Leader, Assistant Senior Patrol Leader, Senior Patrol Leader and Junior Assistant Scoutmaster. They’d know that I was ASPL for a National Jamboree Troop (and one of less than 10 guys in the history of Troop 72 to go to ta Nat’l Jambo). Their records would show tht I am fully Youth Protection Certified, that I am a Brotherhood Member of the Order of the Arrow, a former District and Council Lever Officer for that organization, who has attended a National OA Conference, that I served on Summer Camp Staff for three months, and twice volunteered for Winter Camp staff. In essence, I am exactly the kind of person they would want to have as an Assistant Scoutmaster. The only thing they would have to check is my police record (which is relatively clean, and certainly clean enough), and of course, the prerequisite, “are you gay?” question. If I lie about that question (and remember not to wear my little rainbow bracelet to the meetings), I’m in like Flint. Exemplary Eagle Scout, dedicated former OA officer, I’m prime ASM material. But if I follow the Scout Law, and tell them the truth, I’m rejected. Not for anything I’ve done, or anything I’ve shown the propensity to do. But because of who I am, and the fact that I care enough about the BSA not to lie to it. All my past accomplishments, all my qualifications, and my clear dedication to the Scouting program? Worthless. Meaningless. The fact that I spent months on end among Scouts as a late teen and never molested anyone, and have full Youth Protection certification? Meaningless. One little trait, and it’s all thrown out the window. That’s wrong. I am not a threat to anyone. But the Scouts would treat me like a pariah, if I were to honestly apply. But if I lie? I’m fine. So an organization that prides itself on morality is, basically, encouraging dedicated Scouters and Scouting professionals to lie, lest they be tossed out on their asses. And trust me, there are a lot of gays involved at all levels of Scouting. They’re not a threat to the kids, and they’re not molestors. But they’re all forced to lie. Just like gay priests will be, if trash like Coulter get their way. And that’s wrong. That’s bigotry. It’s un-Christian. And definitely un-Scouting. Kirk ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2002, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/84 "2002-03-24T02:18:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > In the use of this definition, mutual consent as to the sexual activities engaged in is assumed. (E.g., a rapist is not among those engaged in what’s generally thought of as normal heterosexual sex.) While it is not what is considered “normal”, I think that most would agree that consent is irrelevant to determining orientation. > [@](#): > > Where you fall short in your arguments, IMHO, is in not distinguishing what the gay people trying to describe their orientation and behavior by the term mean, which does **not** include the attraction to prepubescent boys, any more than your own presumably normal heterosexual attraction includes prepubescent girls. Whether my heterosexual attraction includes prepubescent girls is irrelevant to the issue of whether the **category** of heterosexual attraction includes prepubescent girls, just as whether people describing themselves as homosexual normally are attracted to prepubescent boys is irrelevant to the **category** of homosexuality. You may not wish to associate yourself with fundamentalist Christians, but that does not mean that you can redefine the term “Christian” to exclude them just so you can avoid putting yourself in the same category as them when describing yourself as Christian. > [@](#): > > The attraction to prepubescents of either sex is considered a mental illness to which the term pedophilia is generally attached. In what way is this attraction a mental illness, and homosexuality not? > [@](#): > > If you find it difficult to draw the distinction between orientation and conduct, then you have a deficiency in empathy so far as I am concerned. I believe that you are misunderstanding my position. I certainly agree that there homosexuals who engage in heterosexual behavior, and vice versa. However, a person who, having no external forces favoring one choice over another, regularly chooses to engage in homosexual conduct is, in my mind, a homosexual. And vice versa. > [@](#): > > Accordingly, I call you to give your understanding of the distinctions between forcible sodomy and “normal gay sex” in the sense of what might be engaged in by two gay men or two gay women. This will probably just get me into more trouble, but I find the phrase “normal homosexuality” to be an oxymoron. Without ascribing any moral value to the term “abnormal”, I find all homosexual conduct to be abnormal. > [@](#): > > But presumably one will have the totality of them, along with gratifying mutual sexual relations, only with one person who is one’s life partner/spouse (or at least for the duration one’s significant other with the hope that it will continue indefinitely) – and that is the point **Esprix** seemed to me to be driving for. What is your take on that assertion? There are some people who have this sort of relationship with multiple people, with no expectation of exclusivity or permanence. Then there are a large number a people who simply are not looking for that sort of relationship. How would you categorize these people? Asexual? > [@](#): > > But it is not an appropriate transfer of meaning to therefore lift that definition and impose it into the situation where “homosexual” means a person oriented to, and if gratified in his or her desires engaging in, sexual activity by mutual consent and desire with another adult of the same sex. I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Are you saying that there is some fallacy, once having defined homosexuality as attraction to people of the same sex, to apply it to “a person oriented to, and if gratified in his or her desires engaging in, sexual activity by mutual consent and desire with another adult of the same sex”? [quote] Because that dog won’t hunt, to quote one of your old expression [quote] Hmmm, I don’t remember ever using that expression, but whatever. > [@](#): > > – it’s defining “conservative” with the dictionary definition and then condemning all people who define themselves as conservatives because they support the radical social agenda of the Religious Right when they may not. Are you saying that I am condemning all homosexuals for being child molesters? Because I never said anything of the sort. > [@](#): > > By the same token, if you care to use that broad-brush definition of homosexuality, then you must take into account that it is **not** the definition that homosexual people themselves use. Even if that were true, I don’t think that we are beholden to the definitions decided on by a minority. > [@](#): > > Just as I’ve been duly angered by the trollery that assumes my motivation as a Christian to be something totally other than what it actually is, and then proceeds to condemn it for believing something that I do not in fact believe. Is that a fair clarification? Not at all. For one thing, I am at a loss to understand where all this talk of condemnation is coming from. I don’t recall ever condemning anyone in this thread. Secondly, I don’t believe that I have ever assumed anyone to be something different from what they are. Simply because I believe that people that engage in consensual relationships with people of the same sex and people who engage in nonconsensual relationships with people of the same sex belong to the same category does not mean that I think that all who fit the first description fit the second, or vice versa. > [@](#): > > It is no more homosexual conduct in the sense of being the normal conduct of the people self-described as homosexuals than the forcible rape of an eight-year-old girl is “normal heterosexual conduct.” Where is the term “normal” coming from? I never claimed that it is normal homosexual behavior, or that it is representative of homosexuals. > [@](#): > > Given the distinction I’m drawing here between the broad-brush and specific uses of the term, are you willing to change the position you’ve been presenting? No. If you wish to introduce the term “consensual homosexuality” into this discussion, then I would be happy to agree that child molestation does not fit into that category. Redefining existing terms is something else entirely. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2002, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/85 "2002-03-24T02:36:47Z")
Shayna: > [@](#): > > The Ryan: My apologies. Accepted. And I hope that I can explain hudley’s reasoning without you or anyone thinking that I agree with him. > [@](#): > > hudley: Paraphrasing you, "First you (Shayna) said, “The fact that [I’d] apparantly have a problem with [male scout leaders for my daughter] speaks volumes.” Then you (Shayna) said you had “made no accusations either stated or implied that \* had a propensity to molest children.” It sounds like your buddy’s accusation that my “post gives a subtle implication that I would feel attracted to a young girl[s].” As you have failed to specify what the “volumes” are that it speaks, it is understandable that hudley would look to like minded individuals to find what these are. Kirkland1244: Without defending their position, I would like to state what I am sure would be their response to your argument. “The fact that the BSA has no way of enforcing their position in the event of an untruthful applicant does not mean that they are encouraging lying. The fact that being untruthful often is more beneficial than being truthful is, sadly, an aspect of the world that simply naturally exists and is not an invention of the BSA. An honest person will pay their bill in a restuarant while a dishonest person might skip out once finished eating, but that hardly means that restuarants ‘encourage’ dishonesty. If an applicant is really so concerned with morality, he would stop engaging in sodomy and then the issue of whether he should lie would not arise” [again, please remember that this is what I think their response would be, not my own advice]. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2002, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/86 "2002-03-24T03:02:52Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* Yes, that is the post. Apparently you found it despite the ambiguousness of the phrase, “my second post )on teh first page of this thread).” I am happy that you managed to pull it out from all of my other second posts on that page. [quote] I would appreciate it if we could keep the sarcasm and snippiness to a minimum. I have on multiple occasions scrolled past a person’s post, and in the case that I that this time, I did not wish you to think that I was intentionally ignoring your points. > [@](#): > > No, it supports that descriptor “homosexual act” for an instance of male-male molestation. In this context, I find “act” and “conduct” to be synomynous. > [@](#): > > It also notes, **"People concerned with precision and clarity understand that distinction. People familiar with current research into sexual orientation understand the fallacy of using the term to describe the sexual orientation of the molester. . . People concerned with advancing an inflamatory agenda regardless of accuracy forgo such nuances and apply emotionally laden terms broadly and often inaccurately."** > > Which of those categories best applies to you is becoming quite clear. Do you see me advancing an inflamatory agenda? And calling my use of the term “inaccurate” is simply begging the question. > [@](#): > > “Homosexual conduct” is a phrase which cannot be expected to clearly communicate the realities of the context. It carries a straightforward reading of “the conduct of homosexuals” which is both inaccurate and inflammatory. Simply because some people read it as being “conduct of homosexuals” does not mean that that reading is the straightforward one (no pun intended, I take it?), nor does it mean we must forego its use simply because some people take it in a way it is not intended. If I mean conduct that is homosexual, I will use the term “homosexual conduct”. If I mean conduct that is done by homosexuals, I will use the term “conduct of homosexuals”. I will not allow my vocabulary to be dictated by other people’s insistence on reading my statements in a manner completely at odds with their meaning. > [@](#): > > Waiting for support!? How silly–generally one asks a question before one “waits for an answer”. I thought that I had made it quite clear that I disagreed with your statement, and that a request for support was implied. > [@](#): > > While waiting perhaps you could idly pass the time clicking some of the links **Shayna** provided, or typing a few choice phraes into google, Those links, as I see it, are evidence **against** your statement “…but not an accurate adjective to describe the perpetrator.” Can you explain how the facts that most molestations are of a person of the opposite sex, and that most people are attracted to the opposite sex, and therefore presumably most molestations are in line with the perpetrators “adult” orientation supports your assertion? > [@](#): > > or even (I know this is a stretch) asking for a specific point to be defended. I have already posted this: > [@](#): > > Esprix > > ## quote: > > ## child molestation (which is non-consensual rape, in which the gender of the victim is a non-issue). > > ## quote: > > ## Your (and Ann’s) reasoning here is flawed, as pointed out by various posters. The gender of the victim is a non-issue to the child molester. Sexual orientation does not relate to pedophilia. > > Do you have a cite? Or did you mean “… specifically addressed to me”? ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2002, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/87 "2002-03-24T07:09:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hudley \* > **I think what a lot of you are missing is that she is making a connection between the Boy Scouts decision to exclude homosexual men from leadership positions PRECISELY because of the potential for a molestation problem.** Coulter got this absolutely wrong. The Boy Scouts explicitly said that the ban on homosexual leaders was not due to fears of molestation,but rather due to a belief that homosexuals are not of good enough moral character.As I recall,most of the Scout leaders who were found to have molested boys were married men with children of their own > [@](#): > > Think about it for a second. I’m a normal 36 year old male. Would you want me or any other heterosexual male to take your 8-14 year old daughters camping? If not, why not? I wouldn’t want you to take either my daughter or my son camping. Why? Because I don’t know you.I wouldn’t allow any one to take either my daughter or my son camping alone- because there’s no one I trust who has the sort of relationship with my kids that might lead to a camping invitation who shouldn’t also be bringing their own kids-except my husband, who by the way is a heterosexual male. Should I not let him take her camping? Should I never let my daughter go to a friend’s house because the mother might not be there? ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2002, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/88 "2002-03-24T07:14:29Z")
> [@](#): > > In this context, I find “act” and “conduct” to be synomynous. I am not surprised. You seem quite willing to twist the meaning of a word in order to fit it into your desired hole. “Conduct” refers to a manner or pattern of action, it is not generally used to describe a single act. Indeed, a single act is sometimes used as a guide to determine or declare one’s conduct, and it is just that fact which makes your usage so egregious. You use words like Inspector Clouseau uses logic. I guess that’s only fair; he uses words like you use logic. > [@](#): > > Do you see me advancing an inflamatory agenda? The categories listed were:[list=1] [li]concerned with precision and clarity–understand [the distinction between describing the act and describing the sexuality of the perpetrator][/li][li]familiar with current research into sexual orientation–understand the fallacy of using [homosexual] to describe the sexual orientation of [a generic male-male molester][/li][li]concerned with advancing an inflamatory agenda–forgo such nuances and apply emotionally laden terms broadly and often inaccurately[/list=1][/li]You fail miserably to meet the predicates of (1) and (2). You quite clearly favor the broad and inaccurate application of inflamatory terms to describe a highly sensitive issue. So, yes, category (3) fits you best. Admitedly, I might have made a fourth category “People who confuse owning a dictionary with understanding an issue,” but at the time I was describing Coulter, not you. > [@](#): > > calling my use of the term “inaccurate” is simply begging the question. No, calling your use of terms inaccurate is simply a tedious necessity of answering your posts. When examining pedophilia, people interested in precision of communication attempt to understand and apply the appropriate clinical terminology. You do not. > [@](#): > > If I mean conduct that is homosexual, I will use the term “homosexual conduct”. If I mean conduct that is done by homosexuals, I will use the term “conduct of homosexuals”. What you mean is, “a homosexual act”. Even this, while strictly accurate, is a poor choice of words. Pretending that words do not have emotional content or socially controversial connotations is not a means of achieving clear communication. Doing so ignorantly is simply a mistake. Doing so knowingly indicates a desire to inflame rather than communicate substantial information. > [@](#): > > I will not allow my vocabulary to be dictated by other people’s insistence on reading my statements in a manner completely at odds with their meaning. You miss the point. The inflamatory interpretation **is not at odds** with the meaning of the words. If it is at odds with the meaning you intend, then that is a good reason to choose other words. Of course, you cannot have read this thread with comprehension and avoided understanding that the language you are insisting upon is inflammatory, so I find your appeal to semantic principal hollow and unconvincing. _Do you have a lie-sahnse for your mun-kee?_ > [@](#): > > I thought that I had made it quite clear that I disagreed with your statement, and that a request for support was implied. No. You had made it quite clear that you disagreed with my statement and were using terms in manners at odds with current understandings of human sexuality. There are some inferences I could draw from that, but a request for a glossary of standard terminology was not one of them. [Here is a nice overview from a UC Davis psychologist that I have spoken to a few times.](http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html) [Here is a list of his publications, in case you wish to challenge his authority in presenting the general state of current research in the field.](http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/bibliography.html) [Here’s a University of Missouri site with some gernal information.](http://www.umkc.edu/sites/hsw/issues/pedophil.html) Please note the phrase, **"The pedophile is sexually aroused because the child is a child, regardless of the pedophile’s sexual orientation, or the child’s gender."** > [@](#): > > Can you explain how the facts that most molestations are of a person of the opposite sex, and that most people are attracted to the opposite sex, and therefore presumably most molestations are in line with the perpetrators “adult” orientation supports your assertion? Actually, that little tidbit of information is insufficient, in and of itself, to deduce anything about the adult sexual orientation of molesters. The “presumably” in your sentence is unjustified. It would seem that you apply statistical analysis with the same precision that you apply language. _Dez yur dog biiite?_ > [@](#): > > did you mean “… specifically addressed to me”? Yes–if you are waiting for me to provide support, then it’s probably a good idea to direct a question to me. On occassion, however, I will address points raised to other posters. For instance: > [@](#): > > In what way is this attraction a mental illness, and homosexuality not? In exactly the same manner that pedophilia is a mental illness and heterosexuality is not. > [@](#): > > This will probably just get me into more trouble, but I find the phrase “normal homosexuality” to be an oxymoron. Without ascribing any moral value to the term “abnormal”, I find all homosexual conduct to be abnormal. It is only oxymoronic if you are supplying the oxy, too. Do you find all minority traits do be abnormal, or just the ones that involve sexuality? _I would lahk to rent a rrrheum._ > [@](#): > > I don’t think that we are beholden to the definitions decided on by a minority. Well, when the definition in question is how we identify the minority in question it kind of makes sense to listen to them. Of course, you could listen to the experts in the field instead, but they generally listen to the people they are trying to identify. Maybe the just don’t have a dictionary as persuasive as **The Ryan’s**. _Good tomorrow, and have a pleasant today._ ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2002, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/89 "2002-03-24T07:53:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > **The Ryan** yes, you’re demonstrating an ignorance of the facts re: molesters, when you identify them as ‘homosexual’. their sexual identity re: adults is not any kind of predictor re: their gender preference (if any) with sexually immature people. Do you have a cite for that? (I’ starting to feel like a broken record. In case anyone else has or will make claims of this type that I haven’t gotten around to asking: Do **you** have a cite?) > [@](#): > > You’re looking at the wrong definition in the dictionary. (always the best place to define human behavior :rolleyes: ) the pertinent information is that for pedophilia, the sexual orientation involved is towards persons who are sexually immature, and gender of the victim may or may not be an ‘draw’. We aren’t debating the meaning of “pedophilia”; we’re debating the definition of “hoosexual”, so the definition for “homosexual” is indeed the correc one. As for looking in the dictionary, where else am I supposed to look? If I had siply said “this is what I think ‘homosexual’ means”, people would have jumped on me. I’m pretty sue that when I first posted that definition, I asked for alternative definitions. No one has presented me with one. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2002, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/90 "2002-03-24T08:26:21Z")
**The Ryan** Does your dictionary definition specifically restrict attraction to living partners? If not then we must obviouisly include necrophiliacs in the **category** homo/hetero-sexual. Or maybe that line of reasoning is utter nonsense, and there are sound reasons to differentiate between a description of normal human sexuality and specific psychological disorders with a sexual characteristic. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2002, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/91 "2002-03-24T08:46:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > I am not surprised. You seem quite willing to twist the meaning of a word in order to fit it into your desired hole. What are you talking about? **I’m** the one who is insisting that words be used according to their proper meanings. > [@](#): > > “Conduct” refers to a manner or pattern of action, it is not generally used to describe a single act. But it is used in this instance to refer to a single act. > [@](#): > > Indeed, a single act is sometimes used as a guide to determine or declare one’s conduct, and it is just that fact which makes your usage so egregious. Huh? [quote] The categories listed were:[list=1] [li]concerned with precision and clarity–understand [the distinction between describing the act and describing the sexuality of the perpetrator][/li][/quote] Simply because I don’t agree with you as to what that distinction is does not mean that I don’t understand it, or that I am unconcerned with precision and clarity. > [@](#): > > You fail miserably to meet the predicates of (1) and (2). You quite clearly favor the broad and inaccurate application of inflamatory terms to describe a highly sensitive issue. I do not “favor” inflammatory terms. Simply because I refuse to be intimidated out of using the terms that I believe are accurate does not mean I “favor” inflammatory terms. Do you **really** think that I’m using the terms I’m using **because** they’re inflammatory? > [@](#): > > No, calling your use of terms inaccurate is simply a tedious necessity of answering your posts. A tedious necessity? Do you really think that simply referring to my terms as “inaccurate” without providing any support is going to do anything? > [@](#): > > When examining pedophilia, people interested in precision of communication attempt to understand and apply the appropriate clinical terminology. You do not. The reason I am using the terminology that I am using is **because I believe that it is accurate**. It is dishonest of you to say that I am not attempting to use the correct terminology simply because I do not agree with you. > [@](#): > > What you mean is, “a homosexual act”. I do not need your help in determining what I mean. > [@](#): > > Even this, while strictly accurate, is a poor choice of words. Pretending that words do not have emotional content or socially controversial connotations is not a means of achieving clear communication. I am not doing so. I am simply refusing to allow the baggage that **other** people have attached to the word to dictate my word usage. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DENY ME THE USE OF A WORD SIMPLY BECAUSE **YOU** ARE UNABLE TO SEPARATE ITS MEANING FROM HOW IT MAKES YOU FEEL. > [@](#): > > Doing so knowingly indicates a desire to inflame rather than communicate substantial information. Basically, you’re saying “I can declare some words to be off-limits, and if you dare to use those words then I can accuse you to be inflammatory”. > [@](#): > > You miss the point. The inflamatory interpretation **is not at odds** with the meaning of the words. Yes it is. “Homosexual conduct” means conduct that is homosexual. It does **not** mean conduct by homosexuals, and the latter interpretation is at odds with its meaning. > [@](#): > > [Here is a nice overview from a UC Davis psychologist that I have spoken to a few times.](http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html) > > [Here is a list of his publications, in case you wish to challenge his authority in presenting the general state of current research in the field.](http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/bibliography.html) > > [Here’s a University of Missouri site with some gernal information.](http://www.umkc.edu/sites/hsw/issues/pedophil.html) Simply presenting me with a list of links is not going to convince me. I do not know which statements you think support your position or how. If you have a specific statement that you want to present to me, then quote it. > [@](#): > > Please note the phrase, **"The pedophile is sexually aroused because the child is a child, regardless of the pedophile’s sexual orientation, or the child’s gender."** Which is presented without empirical support. Sorry, but finding people who agree with you isn’t going to convince me. Truth is not a popularity contest. > [@](#): > > Actually, that little tidbit of information is insufficient, in and of itself, to deduce anything about the adult sexual orientation of molesters. I never claimed to have deduced anything. I simply asked you, who had implied that it supported your claim, to explain how it was consistent with your position. Are you able to do so, or are you going to just continue making ad hominem attacks in the hope that they will distract me? > [@](#): > > The “presumably” in your sentence is unjustified. Do you have any explanation of this claim? If, say 10% of the population is homosexual, and 75% of molestation victims are girls (as Shayna claims), and only 12% of molestation cases are by women (which I think is what Shayna is saying, but I’m not sure) then the at least one of the following statements must be true: a disproportiate percentage of molestation are by homosexuals or over 50% of all molestion cases, the orientation of the molester matches the sexes of the victim and perpetrator (in which case my “presumably” is justified). > [@](#): > > Yes–if you are waiting for me to provide support, then it’s probably a good idea to direct a question to me. I wasn’t waiting for you specifically, I was waiting for anyone. I’m still waiting. So I take it you respond to questions that aren’t addressed to you only when it’s convenient? > [@](#): > > In exactly the same manner that pedophilia is a mental illness and heterosexuality is not. That’s not answer. In what way is pedophilia a mental illness, and heterosexuality not? And how is this comporable to prepubescent attraction versus homosexuality? > [@](#): > > Do you find all minority traits do be abnormal, or just the ones that involve sexuality? I would point out that the dictionary defines abnormal to be of the minority, but apparently actually looking at a dictionary is a sign of weakness :rolleyes:. > [@](#): > > Well, when the definition in question is how we identify the minority in question it kind of makes sense to listen to them. But in order to question the minority in question, one must first know how to identify the minority, which requires one to have a definition already. Which makes the whole idea rather silly. Words are not owned by the people to whom they refer, especially when they are created by the majority. If you were talking about a term such as “queer” that has been largely championed by its constituents, then you would have a point. ---
**Author:** ![Kirkland1244](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dc4da7/32.png) [@Kirkland1244](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kirkland1244)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2002, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/92 "2002-03-24T09:28:50Z")
I have to say, The Ryan, as a gay male, I’ve found almost every one of your word choices offensive. Clearly you don’t care. Scum like you never do. You don’t care that you choose terms that have, in general, pejorative connotations and apply them at will. You don’t care that you use phraseology that is very easily confused. And you seem incapable of understanding the difference between conduct (which is behavior over a long period of time, such as being gay) and an act (which is a single, or a few, incidents occuring at a certain point of time, such as a male having sex with another male, even though neither of them are gay). The English language is not ruled by the dictionary. Words mean things to the people that hear them that are often in contrast with their “official meanings.” Which is more important, the official meaning, or the meaning most of your listeners would ascribe to the words? If you say “the official meaning” then you are a poor communicator. Take the words “gay” and “queer.” The primary meanings of those words are “happy, cheerful, lighthearted” and “peculiar.” However, if you use those words in a modern American context, you should not presume that those are the meanings people will ascribe to th words. If you say “gay vacation” and think that people are going to think, “ah, a cheerful trip,” instead of “oh, a homosexual cruise” or somesuch, then you’re really not fit to be expressing yourself in a public forum. How people will understand your words is more important than nitpicking what the words mean. If you say “homosexual conduct,” most Americans, I daresay, would react the same way most people here did, and take it as meaning “the behaviour of homosexuals.” The fact that you’re straining the meaning of “conduct” to be simply a single or few acts and don’t mean “homosexual” as in gay people but in a more general “male-male-sexual-contact” way, doesn’t matter. How your words are percieved is more important than how you intedn them to be percieved, and as a communicator it is incumbent upon you to express yourself in a manner that is clear to your audience. I’m a well educated person, but I also “hear” things with American ears, not with ears that reference everything back to strict meanings concocted by Merriam Webster. From a lay, non-nitpick perspective, every post you’ve foisted upon this thread has seemed to condemn homosexuals en-masse, and with glee. The fact that you have had this pointed out to you and you persist in saying “no, I am in charge and you will use my definitions, no matter how far they stray from the standard colloquial” and refuse to back down from your offensive statements. It is a sign of charachter when someone apologizes for unintended offense. It is a sign of a derth of character when you act offended that someone might dare take your word according to something other than the specific (and non-standard in everyday speech) meanings you have ascribed to them. Yes, you are the master of what you say. But you are a poor master indeed if you do not tailor your messages to 1) avoid unnecessary offense and 2) conform to the standard colloquial definitions of your audience. Kirk ---
**Author:** ![mrblue92](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@mrblue92](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrblue92)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2002, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/93 "2002-03-24T18:08:52Z")
Nice post **Kirkland**. I was just about to point it out like this: If you went around saying, “Oh, those clouds are a nice shade of green today,” others would look at you like you were crazy. If you went on to explain that because white objects reflect all colors of the spectrum, you’re technically seeing green along with the other wavelengths and simply chose to point out that color, people would think you were being intentionally difficult. But that post illustrates it much better, so I thank you for keeping me from having to come up with a more fitting example. **Ryan** , your word choice is, quite frankly, unthoughtful. It is not that I am not guilty of this from time to time, but at least I _try_ to make myself understood. As an example take: “In what way is this attraction [pedophilia] a mental illness, and homosexuality not?” Even if you didn’t mean it as such, the implication is that either you think pedophilia is a healthy mental condition or homosexuality is not. You are free to express yourself in whatever manner you choose, but don’t blame your audience for not understanding you if you refuse to try to make yourself understood in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2002, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/94 "2002-03-24T18:39:55Z")
and I find it most intersting that **the Ryan** demands ‘cite’ (Despite the great accumulation of data already presented), and immediately afterwards takes some one to task for ‘merely’ presenting cites, stating that he wants, in addition to the links themselves, a quote from the cite, then in the same post rejects the quote from the cite with "well, you may have found some one to agree with you, but that’s insiginificant.’ Saved me the trouble. And I like the cloud analogy, too. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2002, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/95 "2002-03-24T21:27:12Z")
> [@](#): > > What are you talking about? I’m the one who is insisting that words be used according to their proper meanings. No. You are the one lying about it. You are also the one who does not seem to understand what a “proper” meaning is, but your dishonesty extends beyond that. > [@](#): > > But [conduct] is used in this instance to refer to a single act. Yes, you aren’t even consistent in your fetishism for dictionary definitions. When it suits your purpose you are willing to use a word in a non-standard manner. I wonder if the readers at home can figure out why you would be so adamant about twisting the phrase “homosexual conduct” into this discussion? > [@](#): > > Simply because I don’t agree with you as to what that distinction is does not mean that I don’t understand it, or that I am unconcerned with precision and clarity. No, understanding the distinction yet insisting upon language which blurs the ditinction demonstrates that you place other desires above precision and clarity in communication. I wonder what those desires might be? > [@](#): > > I do not “favor” inflammatory terms. Simply because I refuse to be intimidated out of using the terms that I believe are accurate does not mean I “favor” inflammatory terms. Do you really think that I’m using the terms I’m using because they’re inflammatory? Yes. Using terms you know are inflammatory when more precise and less value-laden terms are both available and in comond use indicates that you want to be inflammatory. Lying about it indicates that you are pathetic or self-delusional. Possibly both. > [@](#): > > A tedious necessity? Do you really think that simply referring to my terms as “inaccurate” without providing any support is going to do anything? I have provided support. You have provided [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com). My inspector Clouseau analogy was too kind. He was just an honest bumbler. > [@](#): > > The reason I am using the terminology that I am using is because I believe that it is accurate. This is either a lie or a self-deception. You may well believe it to be accurate, but that is not **the reason** you insist upon your terms. It may be **a reason** , but when more than one accurate term exists, to insist upon only using the most inflammatory indicates a desire beyond “accuracy”. You cannot pretend ignorance, so the desire to inflame is conscious. > [@](#): > > It is dishonest of you to say that I am not attempting to use the correct terminology simply because I do not agree with you. It is simply a fact that you are using the incorrect terminology. Areas of scientific study quite often develop a specific jargon of usage. You know this, you have been shown examples, you persist in rejecting those conventions for your own usage. And you pretend that it is from a concern for accuracy. And you find dishonesty in my observation of those facts. I think you should pull your head out of a dictionary and find a mirror. > [@](#): > > I do not need your help in determining what I mean. No, but you need help in communicating what you mean in a precise and non-inflammatory manner. Wait–that would imply that you **want to communicate** in a precise and non-inflammatory manner. So sorry. Consider the point withdrawn. > [@](#): > > I am not doing so. I am simply refusing to allow the baggage that other people have attached to the word to dictate my word usage. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DENY ME THE USE OF A WORD SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ARE UNABLE TO SEPARATE ITS MEANING FROM HOW IT MAKES YOU FEEL. I denying you nothing. I am simply observing that choosing to be offensive carries certain implications. BY THE WAY–THE CONNOTATIONS OF A WORD ARE PART OF ITS MEANING. Ignorance and arrogance, what a charming combination. > [@](#): > > Basically, you’re saying “I can declare some words to be off-limits, and if you dare to use those words then I can accuse you to be inflammatory”. No, basically I am saying that some words have inflammatory connotations. If you know that, and you use those words anyway, then you are being deliberately inflammatory. If you do so and then whine about being called on it, then you are just being pathetic and silly. If you do that and then pretend that your only concern is being accurate, then you are being pathetic and silly and dishonest. > [@](#): > > “Homosexual conduct” means conduct that is homosexual. It does not mean conduct by homosexuals, and the latter interpretation is at odds with its meaning. So, police conduct would mean conduct that is police, not conduct by police? [Officer critical of police conduct](http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Jan-16-Wed-2002/news/17882928.html) [Police Conduct: Guide picks](http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/policeconduct/) [Directory of police conduct](http://www.free-market.net/directorybycategory/news/T7.1/) Your understanding of the English language is truly awe-inspiring. (That’s a synonym for awful, right?) > [@](#): > > Simply presenting me with a list of links is not going to convince me. I am not trying to convince you. You embrace your ignorance with a passion, and I never come between a man and his first love. You asked for support. I provided support. You have ignored that support. This is a fine demonstration of your intellectual honesty. Oh, don’t worry, I wouldn’t expect it to convince you. You are not the only one reading these words. > [@](#): > > I do not know which statements you think support your position or how. You either did not read and understand the page or you are telling another lie. I really don’t care which is the case. For those at home, ask youself how **The Ryan** might have missed a section marked **Terminology** in bold letters which discusses pedophilia, hebephilia, child molestation and homosexuality. > [@](#): > > Which is presented without empirical support. Sorry, but finding people who agree with you isn’t going to convince me. You asked for support for usage of terminology. You were given it, along with a list of prefessional publication for one cited individual. Examples of usage **is** empirical support for usage of terminology. If you wish to question the credentials of either author, or if you wish to impugn their usage as unjustified, then perhpas you should provide some citations of your own. > [@](#): > > I never claimed to have deduced anything. I simply asked you, who had implied that it supported your claim, to explain how it was consistent with your position. You said: \*\*therefore presumably most molestations are in line with the perpetrators “adult” orientation \*\*. That is a deduction–a conclusion drawn by [faulty, in this case] reasoning. Here is another deduction: you have told another lie. > [@](#): > > I simply asked you, who had implied that it supported your claim, to explain how it was consistent with your position. Are you able to do so, or are you going to just continue making ad hominem attacks in the hope that they will distract me? Actually, I implied no such thing. I did suggest looking at some of the links which **Shayna** had posted, but you chose the wrong links (for this question). Try the link in the post which appeared directly above the post where I made the suggestion. I know that was probably confusing for you. The ad hominems, by the way, are not designed to distract you, I just find it helpful to address folks with the respect that they have earned. > [@](#): > > Do you have any explanation [that **The Ryan** makes faulty deductions]? If, say 10% of the population is homosexual, and 75% of molestation victims are girls (as Shayna claims), and only 12% of molestation cases are by women (which I think is what Shayna is saying, but I’m not sure) then the at least one of the following statements must be true: > a disproportiate percentage of molestation are by homosexuals or > over 50% of all molestion cases, the orientation of the molester matches the sexes of the victim and perpetrator (in which case my “presumably” is justified). Well, since you yourself have listed 2 possibilities to accoutn for those numbers, then “presuming” one to be correct is unjustified. Of course, your list of possibilities is incomplete, but even under your flawed presentation your conclusion is demonstrably flawed. Beautiful. Had you actually read and understood some of the information presented in this thread you would be aware that some pedophiles do not develop **any** sexual desire for adults: male or female. So, your analysis is doubly flawed. Your gasp of statistical analysis is every bit as impressive as your understanding of language. > [@](#): > > So I take it you respond to questions that aren’t addressed to you only when it’s convenient? Of course. Are you under the delusion that anybody on this board feels a responsibility to answer every question which is not addressed to them? Here are some more news flashes:[ul] [li]I don’t feel obligated to read every thread on the SDMB. [/li][li]I don’t find it necessary to apologize for mistakes made by other people.[/li][li]I don’t feel an obligation to provide links for every OP which might benefit from one.[/ul][/li] Wow–I guess you really do need to point out the obvious to some people. > [@](#): > > That’s not answer. In what way is pedophilia a mental illness, and heterosexuality not? It is an answer. Apparently, you just don’t understand it. Okay, more pointing out the obvious. Well, when considering mental illness, the APA might be one place to go. The APA recognizes pedophilia as a psychological disorder. The APA does not recognize either homosexuality or heterosexuality as a psychological disorder. Also, homosexuality and heterosexuality are very similar psychological entities, thus the parallelism between teh relationship of one to pedophila and the relationship of the other to pedophilia. This makes the analogy valid as an illustration of “how”, presuming that one understands how heterosexuality is not a mental illness. > [@](#): > > And how is this comporable to prepubescent attraction versus homosexuality? Directly. > [@](#): > > I would point out that the dictionary defines abnormal to be of the minority, but apparently actually looking at a dictionary is a sign of weakness :rolleyes: It can be, if one doesn’t understand the language well enough to inerpret the entries. Do feel free to embrace you understanding of blue eyes as abnormal and males as abnormal and voting for Bush as abnormal. I’ll feel free to understand that you are an idiot. > [@](#): > > But in order to question the minority in question, one must first know how to identify the minority, which requires one to have a definition already. Which makes the whole idea rather silly. Actually, this makes it necessary for our understanding of terms to evolve through usage. Many people who are not idiots understand this. > [@](#): > > Words are not owned by the people to whom they refer, especially when they are created by the majority. The meaning of words is defined and refined through usage. Pretending otherwise does not make you “accurate”. It makes you a fool. Oh, and all words are created by minorites, usually a minority of one. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2002, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/96 "2002-03-24T23:04:06Z")
Dear, **The Ryan** , as frustrating as it’s been to try to communicate with you in this thread, in a way, I’m glad you’re still participating, because I hope that you’re here because you’d like to learn something as opposed to merely wishing to argue semantics. \ So I’m going to try one last time, ok? It’s pretty annoying to provide cites with research and conclusions that are conducted by and arrived at by professionals in the field, and have you ignore them completely. It’s painfully obvious that you haven’t actually clicked on the links and read the material contained therein, or you wouldn’t keep asking the same questions. So, since you’re looking for specific quotes, here goes… With regard to pedophilia being considered a disorder and adult heterosexual and/or homosexual consensual sex not, from **Spiritus Mundi** ’s link ( [http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts\_molestation.html](http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html) ): > [@](#): > > Pedophilia usually refers to an adult **psychosexual disorder** characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents and children who have reached puberty. > > \ > > Pedophilia and hebephilia are **diagnostic labels**. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them. > > **Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don’t imply a particular psychological makeup** or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children. > > \ > > As explained [elsewhere on this site](http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html), **sexual orientation is _not_ a mental illness** nor is it inherently associated with impaired psychological functioning. With regard to your use of “homosexual conduct” to describe molestation between same-sex perpetrators and victims, I believe that your intent is honestly not meant to be malicious. I really do understand that you believe you’re using the terminology correctly - and it’s easy (at least for me) to see how that mistake can be made. It saddens me that you think we are trying to “intimidate you” into using the correct terminology. On the contrary, we’re simply trying to educate you. Perhaps this information from the same cite will help clarify the distinction for you: > [@](#): > > Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men is often referred to as “homosexual molestation.” The adjective “homosexual” (or “heterosexual” when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim’s gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. **Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator’s sexual orientation.** > > **To avoid this confusion** , it is preferable to refer to men’s sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of _male-male molestation_. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men’s abuse of girls as _male-female molestation_. **These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don’t convey implicit assumptions about the perpetrator’s sexual orientation.** > > **The distinction between gender of victim and sexual orientation of perpetrator is important** because many child molesters don’t really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. > > Perpetrators with an exclusive interest in children are labeled fixated by some researchers. Fixation means “a temporary or permanent **arrestment of psychological maturation resulting from unresolved formative issues** which persist and underlie the organization of subsequent phases of development” (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 176). Put in simple terms, fixated offenders are “stuck” at an early stage of psychological development. > > By contrast, other molesters are described as regressed. Regression is “a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual’s development” (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 177). Regressed offenders have developed an adult sexual orientation but under certain conditions (such as extreme stress) they return to an earlier, less mature psychological state and engage in sexual contact with children. > > Fixated offenders never developed an adult sexual orientation of any sort, whereas regressed molesters have done so. Thus, regressed molesters can be adult homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals. **But it is meaningless to speak of fixated molesters in these terms – they are attracted to children, not to men or women.** It further goes on to describe how few of the men convicted of child molestation were actually considered homosexual in their adult sexual conduct… > [@](#): > > **[N]one of the 175 adult males** in their sample – all of whom were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child – **had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation**. 83 of the men (47%) were classified as “fixated;” 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that “in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, **in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women…There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males…** ” And we aren’t just making statements without empirical support, as you claim. The studies are referenced in the links provided, and the professionals who conducted those studies are quoted in those links. The authors of the articles linked to, do not just state opinions, they provide statements of fact based on scientific research. Reading further into the article, it states: > [@](#): > > Reflecting the **results of these and other studies** , the mainstream view among researchers and **professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse** is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children. For example, in one review of the **scientific literature** , noted **authority** Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote: > > Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and **the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual** (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147). > > In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly **cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia**. He noted, “The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically **not sexually interested in older men or in women** ” (p. 259). I’m hopeful that you can objectively see why your incorrect use of the terminology isn’t just about being “politically incorrect” or “offensive,” but about it actually being wrong, in spite of the fact that that wrongness is due to an unfortunately common misunderstanding on your part. I know it’s difficult to let go of strongly-held convictions, especially when one truly believes that their understanding is the correct one. What we’re asking you to do is to step back a moment and _try_ to understand where your logic took a wrong turn. And we’re asking you to do that based on studies and research performed by professionals in the field, not just because we’re knee-jerk liberals who want the paint the world in rainbow colors and demand that everyone conform to our way of thinking. We’re not saying the dictionary definition of the _word_ homosexual is incorrect. What we’re saying is that it’s _insufficient_ and _erroneous_ to apply that _word_ to the act of male-male sexual molestation. I’m hopeful that you can now see the difference. **Spiritus Mundi** , it’s taken me quite a while to compose this reply and I just had a visitor which caused me to stop completely for over an hour, and in the interim, I see that you have also posted a reply. However, I have not taken the time to read it yet (I’ll do that after I post this), so I hope that I haven’t contradicted anything you said in my effort to try to appeal to **The Ryan**. **Kirkland** , there isn’t much I can say regarding the unjust position the BSA has put you in, other than to offer my sympathies and hope that those of us trying to fight ignorance on this issue can eventually have some impact against the likes of Ms. Coulter. My fiancé, **Spiny Norman** , is also a former scout leader and it both saddens and disgusts me that there are people out there who would wish to ascribe ill motives to men who enjoy acting as role models for our youth, whether they be heterosexual _or_ homosexual. Keep up the good fight and hopefully one day we can win this battle. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2002, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/97 "2002-03-24T23:50:43Z")
Well, shee-yit, as long as we’re harvesting pearls for swine, how about another premier researcher in the field? Everyone (or at least some of us) will remember Dr. Marshall, whom **RickJay** wrote some months ago on the very subject **The Ryan** is struggling with now. Maybe Dr. Marshall will be able to put it empirically for us all. Let’s see… ah yes. I doubt this statement by the good doctor could be clearer if it soaked in Windex for a month. “All of those who had molested prepubescent boys showed a clear sexual preference for adult females and arousal to boys under age 12 years. Thus in terms of their adult sexual interests they were all heterosexual.” And later, “The men who molested post pubescent boys constituted about 20-25% of all those who molested boys. These men were almost all homosexual in their adult orientation.” [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81739&perpage=50&pagenumber=3](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81739&perpage=50&pagenumber=3) third of the way down the page. And while we’re on the subject of the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality, would you, **The Ryan** believe the APA, or would you take it to be me (and others) “finding someone to agree with us”? From the DSM-IV\_TR: "Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger). B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A." [http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm](http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm) Here is the DSM-IV page for sexual disorders: [http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/dsm4classification.htm#Sexual](http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/dsm4classification.htm#Sexual). You will note that homosexuality is nowhere to be found (at least, nowhere that I have ever seen. I take it from my passing grade in Abnormal Psychology that I didn’t miss anything key). By the way, **The Ryan** , who would you trust as a reputable and honest source on the subject of sexuality and psychosexual illnesses? What would change your mind regarding the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia? And lastly, some anecdotal evidence: my grandfather, as probably half the freaking board knows by now (because I talk about him a good bit) was a pedophile. He was also heterosexual. His victims were his legitimate children (as of yet we have nothing to indicate that his one out-of-wedlock [and with another woman] child was molested), five boys and five girls. How, while I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was heterosexual, I **seriously** doubt it. I guess you’ll have to just trust me on that one. The man was straight and a pedophile. His reasons for his actions are not related to some sexual frustration, as I would think would be obvious by the, ah, evidence for his procreative efforts:) The man was sick, not at a loss for sexual interaction. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2002, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/98 "2002-03-25T00:03:28Z")
Kirkland1244 > [@](#): > > I have to say, The Ryan, as a gay male, I’ve found almost every one of your word choices offensive. Clearly you don’t care. Scum like you never do. You are clearly trying to insult me while trying to tell me what I do and do not care about. This is presumptuous **and** hypocritical. > [@](#): > > The English language is not ruled by the dictionary. Words mean things to the people that hear them that are often in contrast with their “official meanings.” Which is more important, the official meaning, or the meaning most of your listeners would ascribe to the words? Both of them have to be taken into account. But the issue of what “most” people mean by a word is subjective and not subject to exact determination. > [@](#): > > Take the words “gay” and “queer.” The primary meanings of those words are “happy, cheerful, lighthearted” and “peculiar.” > [@](#): > > gay Pronunciation Key (g) > adj. gay·er, gay·est > > 1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. > 2. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry. > 3. Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room. > 4. Given to social pleasures. > 5. Dissolute; licentious. Looks like you’re wrong. > [@](#): > > How people will understand your words is more important than nitpicking what the words mean. You’re the one doing the nitpicking. > [@](#): > > If you say “homosexual conduct,” most Americans, I daresay, would react the same way most people here did, and take it as meaning “the behaviour of homosexuals.” I think that my statement was quite clear. > [@](#): > > The fact that you’re straining the meaning of “conduct” to be simply a single or few acts and don’t mean “homosexual” as in gay people but in a more general “male-male-sexual-contact” way, doesn’t matter. I’m not straining anything. This is how the words are used. > [@](#): > > From a lay, non-nitpick perspective, every post you’ve foisted upon this thread has seemed to condemn homosexuals en-masse, and with glee. If you insist on taking offense at my statements, there is nothing I can do about it. I have never condemned homosexuals, and your insistence that I have reflects more on you than it does on me. > [@](#): > > The fact that you have had this pointed out to you and you persist in saying “no, I am in charge and you will use my definitions, no matter how far they stray from the standard colloquial” and refuse to back down from your offensive statements. 1. No one has pointed out to me a place where I have condemned homosexuals. 2. It is others that are telling **me** that I must use their definitions, not vice versa. 3. I have not strayed from the colloquial. 4. There have been no offensive statements that I have refused to back down from. I’m amazed that you can pack so many false statements into such a small space. mrblue92 > [@](#): > > Even if you didn’t mean it as such, the implication is that either you think pedophilia is a healthy mental condition or homosexuality is not. I find it interesting that several people have harped on this question, but none have been able to answer it. > [@](#): > > You are free to express yourself in whatever manner you choose, but don’t blame your audience for not understanding you if you refuse to try to make yourself understood in the first place. I have made every reasonable effort to be understood. Allowing other people to dictate my vocabulary is not reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2002, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/99 "2002-03-25T01:01:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > and I find it most intersting that **the Ryan** demands ‘cite’ (Despite the great accumulation of data already presented), No data has been presented that opposed my view. > [@](#): > > and immediately afterwards takes some one to task for ‘merely’ presenting cites, stating that he wants, in addition to the links themselves, a quote from the cite, then in the same post rejects the quote from the cite with "well, you may have found some one to agree with you, but that’s insiginificant.’ The whole point is that links and “this person agrees with me” are **not** cites. Did you ever take high level or higher writing courses? Did your teacher allow you to get away with “Well, this book has some stuff in it that supports my thesis, but I’m not going to tell you what it is”? Spiritus Mundi > [@](#): > > No. You are the one lying about it. You are also the one who does not seem to understand what a “proper” meaning is, but your dishonesty extends beyond that. That makes no sense. For me to be lying, I would have to know that I’m using the words incorrectly, which would mean that I understand the “proper” meaning. You can’t have it both ways. > [@](#): > > Yes, you aren’t even consistent in your fetishism for dictionary definitions. When it suits your purpose you are willing to use a word in a non-standard manner. Either you have no idea what you’re talking about, or **you’re** lying. > [@](#): > > conduct > > n 1: manner of acting or conducting oneself [syn: behavior, behaviour] > [@](#): > > be·hav·ior Pronunciation Key (b-hvyr) > n. > The manner in which one behaves. > > The actions or reactions of a person or animal in response to external or internal stimuli. > **One of these actions or reactions** : “a hormone… known to directly control sex-specific reproductive and parenting behaviors in a wide variety of vertebrates” (Thomas Maugh II). p > [@](#): > > No, understanding the distinction yet insisting upon language which blurs the ditinction demonstrates that you place other desires above precision and clarity in communication. My language does not blur the distinction, nor are you justified in making ridiculous accusations just because I don’t agree with you. > [@](#): > > Using terms you know are inflammatory when more precise and less value-laden terms are both available and in comond use indicates that you want to be inflammatory. I didn’t consider my terms to be inflammatory when I used them, and I have refused to retract them because doing so would imply that I agree that they are inaccurate. If you had simply politely said something to the effect of “I find ‘conduct’ to have bad connotations; could you use ‘act’ instead?” I would have said “okay”. Instead you chose to personally attack me and to make a huge issue out of my word choice. If all you wanted me to do is to change my word choice, I could have dealt with that. But that’s not what you want. You want me to apologize for daring to use the “wrong” words. I’m not going to do that. Because they aren’t the wrong words. You’re the one that’s been inflammatory. Have I implied that you are an idiot or a homophobe? No, I haven’t. You have gone out of your way to make this personal, despite my attempts to calm it down. Yet you accuse **me** of being inflammatory. > [@](#): > > I have provided support. Where? > [@](#): > > You may well believe it to be accurate, but that is not the reason you insist upon your terms. If you really think that you’re a better authority on what my reason is than I am, then you are really full of yourself. > [@](#): > > Areas of scientific study quite often develop a specific jargon of usage. You know this, you have been shown examples, you persist in rejecting those conventions for your own usage. Before you were claiming that I’m not using words in accordance with their common usage. Now you seem to be saying that I’m not using them according to technical jargon. Which is it? I can’t possibly do both, since “jargon” is by definition usage that deviates from the standard. But I guess setting up impossible standards for me and then complaining that I don’t meet them is just part of how you “debate”. > [@](#): > > No, but you need help in communicating what you mean in a precise and non-inflammatory manner. If you were actually interested in conveying your concern in a precise and non-inflammatory manner yourself, you would have said “Hey, that’s kinda inflammatory. Mind using a different term?” instead of pretending to be a mind reader. In case you didn’t know already, telling other people what they mean doesn’t come anywhere near the category of “non-inflammatory”. > [@](#): > > BY THE WAY–THE CONNOTATIONS OF A WORD ARE PART OF ITS MEANING. Your unstated assumption is that the way you feel is the same as its connotations. Now, what was that you say about people that refuse to state their assumptions again? > [@](#): > > No, basically I am saying that some words have inflammatory connotations. If you know that, and you use those words anyway, then you are being deliberately inflammatory. That does not follow. > [@](#): > > So, police conduct would mean conduct that is police, not conduct by police? That doesn’t make any sense. “Police” isn’t an adjective. > [@](#): > > Examples of usage is empirical support for usage of terminology. You said "It is an accurate adjective to describe the act, but not an accurate adjective to describe the perpetrator. " You did **not** say “It is an adjective used to describe the act, but not an adjective used to describe the perpetrator.” We are debating accuracy, not usage. You completely missing the point may explain why your “support” is not. > [@](#): > > You said: therefore presumably most molestations are in line with the perpetrators “adult” orientation . That is a deduction–a conclusion drawn by [faulty, in this case] reasoning. Do you really not understand the difference between presuming something and deducing it? > [@](#): > > Here is another deduction: you have told another lie. I see you’ve gone for the “ad hominem to try to distract” option. > [@](#): > > Well, since you yourself have listed 2 possibilities to accoutn for those numbers, then “presuming” one to be correct is unjustified. Of course, your list of possibilities is incomplete, but even under your flawed presentation your conclusion is demonstrably flawed. So do you think that homosexuals disproportianately molest children? Or do you have another suggestion? Or are you simply not going to add anything to this discussion, and simply attack what other people say? > [@](#): > > Had you actually read and understood some of the information presented in this thread you would be aware that some pedophiles do not develop any sexual desire for adults: male or female. So, your analysis is doubly flawed. Yet again you’re begging the question. I point out that there is evidence that suggests you’re wrong, and you say that it’s obviously invalid because you’re right, and therefore no such evidence can exist. BTW, putting links in the thread is **not** the same as presenting evidence in the thread. I’m not going to read through every single website that anyone is this thread has ever linked through just on the off chance that there might be some evidence that supports you. That’s silly. If you want evidence, you find it. > [@](#): > > Well, when considering mental illness, the APA might be one place to go. The APA recognizes pedophilia as a psychological disorder. The APA does not recognize either homosexuality or heterosexuality as a psychological disorder. Again, truth is not a popularity contest. What are the bases that the APA has for their determinations? > [@](#): > > The meaning of words is defined and refined through usage. Yes; usage **by the majority** ---
**Author:** ![Denis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5e9695/32.png) [@Denis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Denis)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2002, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386/100 "2002-03-25T01:20:36Z")
I’ll give you and example of my own shitheadedness to illustrate why people are calling you on yours: I am an atheist (no shitheadedness yet). I bitterly resent it when _some_ religious folks try, and all too often succeed, getting religious dogma made into laws (still no shitheadedness). Often, when I see or hear about another of these outrages, I’ll vent with (shitheadedness approaching), “Fucking _Christians_!” Now I know full well that not all Christians want their religious beliefs made into law. Most people I know are Christians and they are generally kind, tolerant people. The problem is, I come off as an anti-Christian bigot when I say these things. And I really can’t blame someone who thinks I am one because (wait for it): **My statement sounds ignorant and bigoted to them. No matter how well they may know me, the perception is that I have contempt for Christians and Christianity in general when they hear me express myself in that fashion.** **Shayna** in particular, has provided plenty of info illustrating that whether or not someone is homosexual or heterosexual is _irrelevant_ to pedophilia. Pedophiles are turned on by little kids. Doesn’t matter what the gender of the kid is, according to the info provided. Doesn’t matter what the pedophile’s sexual activity with adults is, if any. Little kids are the target. Frankly, it opened my eyes. I always thought a pedophile would target kids of the gender they are attracted to in adult sexual relations. The research doesn’t bear that out. Your continued use of terms in the way that people are objecting to here implies that you _don’t care_ about clearly communicating your ideas, or that you are being willfully ignorant. I hope you take the time and trouble to read and _understand_ the info others have provided on pedophilia. It may open your eyes, I know it did mine. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-is-at-it-again/99386.md?page=6)