Yes, but most readers - and even more so writers of slash - are young nerds with considerable social and emotional problems. They are a tiny minority of the population, so you cannot say that because most slash writers and readers are women, that most women enjoy male homosexual behaviour. That’s like saying since most goths are girls, all girls are depressed and morbid.
UnuMondo
Cite?
I’d really like to know, what EXACTLY is this damage that homosexual behaviour does to society?
I think gay people are gay because of a mutation. If this mutation affects more people then there will be a lot less babies being born. THATS the damage to society. Other then that, gay people are cool and alright. More girls for the rest of us.
Understood. Wasn’t this argument used by Falwell and Robertson right after Sept. 11th? It seems weird to me that (the J/C/I) God would punish a whole nation for the behaviour of a small minority within said nation. Is that response biblically based?
Did you forget about Sodom and Gamorah(sp?)?
should I tell him about the lesbians?
Understood. Wasn’t this argument used by Falwell and Robertson right after Sept. 11th? It seems weird to me that (the J/C/I) God would punish a whole nation for the behaviour of a small minority within said nation. Is that response biblically based?
Did you forget about Sodom and Gamorah(sp?)?
oops…
Sodom and Gomorrah is more reasonably taken to be against the sins of inhospitability (Ezekiel 16:49: “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy”) and forcible rape, rather than homosexuality.
More to the point, Jesus said nothing about gay people in the Gospels. If it were as important and terrible as many latter-day fundamentalist Christians seem to think, you think God might have had his son say something about it during his time on earth.
Cite?
You can always find a few stray idiots in any scientific field who will ignore all the data and pursue their own theories. There are geologists who think the Earth is ten thousand years old, there are doctors who believe in demonic possession and there are psychologists who hate gay people. So what?
I try to stay out of Great Debates, but I have to ask if you have a cite for this. In addition, do you distinguish ego-syntonic and ego-dystonic disorders? IIRC, ego-dystonic homosexuality (i.e. “I’m gay and I don’t want to be”) is still recognized in the DSM-IV.
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was also not due to “the behaviour of a small minority”; IIRC Lot and his family were pretty much considered the only decent people in the city AND God gave them a chance to escape.
Ah…heading into “ad hominem” territory here, which you’d think someone with your debating background would be aware of. The adult version of “if you don’t agree with me, you must be a poopyhead.” I wasn’t particularly worked up by your statement, just didn’t buy it. I still don’t, and that’s fine, but I still question the relevance of the possible female readership of gay novels to whether or not homosexuality is “bad” or not.
I had already provided a few references. I did another perusal of “Psychlit” and found very few articles, other than the Tewksbury article (which is not on prison rape, per se) to support your claim, certainly nothing within the last 10 years or so.
I decided to go ahead and try your “Google” method. I typed in “Prison rape” and “perpetrators” and found nothing like the dozens and dozens of cites you seem to find. Here is a typical site that I found Cite
Here is an illustrative passage from the text:
“In the most extreme cases, Human Rights Watch found that prisoners unable to escape a situation of sexual abuse may find themselves the “slaves” of their rapists. Forced to satisfy another man’s sexual appetites whenever he demands, they may also be responsible for washing his clothes, massaging his back, cooking his food, cleaning his cell, and a range of other chores. They are frequently “rented out” for sex, sold, or even auctioned off to other inmates.”
Doesn’t sound all that heterosexual to me. Perhaps I am not imaginative enough.
I then typed in “heterosexual” in addition to the first three terms, and I think I found some of the cites you are referring to. Here is a typical one.
Cite
I quote the one mention of heterosexuality from his article: “Male rape assailants are almost always heterosexual in their own understanding ; making the term “homosexual rape” ambiguous in this context.”
The bolding is mine. Here is another one:
Cite
The quote: “The myth of the “homosexual predator” is groundless. Perpetrators of rape typically **view themselves ** as heterosexual and, outside of the prison environment, prefer to engage in heterosexual activity. Although gay inmates are much more likely than other inmates to be victimized in prison, they are not likely to be perpetrators of sexual abuse.”
I’m doing your work here for you.
The problem with this is, as I mentioned, the SELF REPORT nature of this information. Many prisoners, particularly those who commit violent crimes such as rape, have antisocial personalities, which makes them prone to lying. Not only will they lie about experiencing homosexual inclinations, they will also lie that any rape occured of any sort. That is why most researchers don’t take these lines of argument too seriously…most people recognize that information based solely on inmate self-report is highly dubious. Let me see if this conversation sounds about right:
Interviewer Good morning, I’m soliciting volunteers for a study on sexual behavior among male prisoners. Would you be willing to volunteer some time to let me ask you some questions? (A Discussion of informed consent would ensue)
Prisoner What’s in it for me?
Interviewer Um, well, nothing really, but it won’t be used against you either. Interested?
(Prisoner agrees, some background info is obtained).
Interviewer If you don’t mind, I would like to discuss the incident that happened last Tuesday with Inmate Jones.
Prisoner Nah, man, Jones is a lying sack of shit, I never touched the fool.
Interviewer You did receive a new charge of sexual assault based upon that incident haven’t you?
Prisoner Yeah, man, but it ain’t true. I’m not into that kinda shit. Jones is a pervert and a liar.
Interviewer I understand that a security camera got the whole incident on tape.
Prisoners I don’t know what they think they’ve got on tape, but it ain’t me. Probably one of the COs doctored it to get me. They treat us like animals in here.
Interviewer I see. So you’re saying that no rape occurred.
Prisoner Nah, man, I’m not gay.
** Interviewer ** So you never feel attracted toward other men
Prisoner No, man, on the outside I can get any woman I want, why would I look at a guy…
And this is basically what those statistics take at face value and sell to you. The problem is, you see, prisoners and inmates are not always the most forthcoming bunch.
Further most of these “google” pages make reference to the same One article, Scarce (1997), which at least is fairly recent. However, I found that this source is a book, not a peer-reviewed journal and is based on anecdotal evidence, not a well designed study. That decreases its relevance significantly. Further, as I read the description of the book, he incorporates a lot of personal data into the book, which begins to make it sound less like “science” and more like “agenda”.
I then went back to Psychlit, typed in the same search terms and came up only with 1 article by John Money who refers explicityly to “homosexual rape” as occuring in prisons. In all fairness, it should be noted that John Money himself has come under a great deal of scrutiny for bad science as well.
So if you look under “google” it appears that you find a number of cites referring to a single reference which is highly debatable in its reliability. If you look under peer-reviewed journals I find nothing.
Do you have a cite for this?
I wouldn’t say that the majority of psychologists or psychiatrists think that homosexuality is a disorder (I certainly don’t as a psyche grad-student)…but there does seem to be a general understanding that the decision to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM-III was motivated by politics, not science. To be clear, I absolutely think removing it was the right thing to do…but UnoMondo’s characterization of how it occured seems pretty much on the money. This is just sort of the “undercurrent” of opinion in the field…not sure exactly how you would cite that!!!
—Ah…heading into “ad hominem” territory here, which you’d think someone with your debating background would be aware of. The adult version of “if you don’t agree with me, you must be a poopyhead.”—
I didn’t think this before when you were disagreeing with me. In retrospect to how you’ve acted since… Look: being a professional researcher in my book confers a certain amount of professional respect and candor in arguments, which up to then you had displayed. But, irregardless of whether you are or not, you’ve squandered that respect, not by your position, but by the way you played it.
And you still got wooshed, baby. And since you pulled a sarcastic bit of my post to someone else, not to respond to it but just to ridicule it, you actually sought out a wooshing.
—I wasn’t particularly worked up by your statement, just didn’t buy it. I still don’t, and that’s fine, but I still question the relevance of the possible female readership of gay novels to whether or not homosexuality is “bad” or not.—
This doesn’t explain the ridiculous beavior of you asking for more evidence about a tangent… and then acting as if I’m a nutball for providing some. The original context in which it was offered wasn’t “oh, this proves that homosexuality is good/bad” but rather “As for women admiring male gay sexual activity, I haven’t heard much about it.” And it wasn’t even directed at you.
As to your post to someone else, quite frankly it DID seem ridiculous to me…way over the top. And yes I did point it out, and would do so again. As for the rest, to my knowledge at least, I don’t remember calling you names, but I have called you on some statements that either seemed “ridiculous” or unsupported. If calling you to task is “unprofessional” or “being whooshed” than so be it. I think that some of your posts have been a.) over the top, at least as far as the debate class stuff goes b.) unsupported by evidence and c.) ad-hominem in nature. I’m going to get a tissue to help whipe away the whooshness from my misty eyes. Oops, there I go being unprofessional and sarcastic again. :smack:
Well, I have provided far more cites to support my claim than you have to refute it. Actually you haven’t provided any. My searches on the references you provided did not turn up anything that substantiated your position, other than a pretty scathing review of a book by Thornhill and Palmer in which the reveiwer stated that their theories were largely discredited by their peers. I chose not to include it however, because a review of a book is not necessarily objective evidence.
If your views are so widely supported by the scientific community, surely you could provide some actual cites, rather than references, to support them. I’m not in any way suggesting that they don’t exist, I just would like to see them.
—If calling you to task is “unprofessional” or “being whooshed” than so be it.—
You don’t know what “whoosed” is do you? Now you’re getting whoosed by “whooshed”!
You didn’t call me to task (calling me to task was what you did before): you started acting bizzarely. I actually had to check back to make sure you were the same guy from page one. But anyway, I presume we can continue any further discussion of these devastaingly important issues in the pit if need be.
:rolleyes:
Fair enough, from Psychlit, not Google:
Prah & AyerAkwa (2001). How rape offenders view their crimes: A study of offenders in selected police cells and the central prison in Kumasi, Ghana. Psychologia: An International Journal 2001, Vol 9(1), p 193-205
From the abstract:
"Results show that although most offenders know what constitutes rape, they underestimated the gravity of their actions. They seemed to have been more concerned about satisfying their sexual urges at all costs and accepted the myth that men cannot control their sexuality. They generally did not accept responsibility for their crimes. "
this covers all rape, not just prison rape:
Kurt & Smartt (2–2). Prisoner-on-prisoner violence: Victimization of young offenders in prison. Some German findings.
Criminal Justice: International Journal of Policy & Practice Nov 2002, Vol 2(4), p 411-437
Which makes no reference to prison rapist being heterosexual.
Money & Bohmer (1980). Prison sexology: Two personal accounts of masturbation, homosexuality, and rape. Journal of Sex Research Aug 1980, Vol 16(3), p 258-266
An old one, true.
Nacci & Jane (1984). The incidence of sex and sexual aggression in Federal prisons. Federal Probation Dec 1983, Vol 47(4), p 31-36
Also old.
Then there is the “textbook” on sex crimes by Holmes and Holmes (I think 2001 was the most recent addition) which makes no reference to rapes between men, in or out of prison, being conducted by heterosexual men. And that’s just the point…this idea that was purported as “fact” simply never seems to come up in the literature, at least among most articles that I seem to come across.
These cites were from a 2 minute lit search. I fail to see any indication that this idea…that heterosexual men are committing the majority of prison rapes,…is widely accepted.
Fair enough, from Psychlit, not Google:
Prah & AyerAkwa (2001). How rape offenders view their crimes: A study of offenders in selected police cells and the central prison in Kumasi, Ghana. Psychologia: An International Journal 2001, Vol 9(1), p 193-205
From the abstract:
"Results show that although most offenders know what constitutes rape, they underestimated the gravity of their actions. They seemed to have been more concerned about satisfying their sexual urges at all costs and accepted the myth that men cannot control their sexuality. They generally did not accept responsibility for their crimes. "
this covers all rape, not just prison rape:
Kurt & Smartt (2–2). Prisoner-on-prisoner violence: Victimization of young offenders in prison. Some German findings.
Criminal Justice: International Journal of Policy & Practice Nov 2002, Vol 2(4), p 411-437
Which makes no reference to prison rapist being heterosexual.
Money & Bohmer (1980). Prison sexology: Two personal accounts of masturbation, homosexuality, and rape. Journal of Sex Research Aug 1980, Vol 16(3), p 258-266
An old one, true.
Nacci & Jane (1984). The incidence of sex and sexual aggression in Federal prisons. Federal Probation Dec 1983, Vol 47(4), p 31-36
Also old.
Then there is the “textbook” on sex crimes by Holmes and Holmes (I think 2001 was the most recent addition) which makes no reference to rapes between men, in or out of prison, being conducted by heterosexual men. And that’s just the point…this idea that was purported as “fact” simply never seems to come up in the literature, at least among most articles that I seem to come across.
These cites were from a 2 minute lit search. I fail to see any indication that this idea…that heterosexual men are committing the majority of prison rapes,…is widely accepted.
Fair enough, from Psychlit, not Google:
Prah & AyerAkwa (2001). How rape offenders view their crimes: A study of offenders in selected police cells and the central prison in Kumasi, Ghana. Psychologia: An International Journal 2001, Vol 9(1), p 193-205
From the abstract:
"Results show that although most offenders know what constitutes rape, they underestimated the gravity of their actions. They seemed to have been more concerned about satisfying their sexual urges at all costs and accepted the myth that men cannot control their sexuality. They generally did not accept responsibility for their crimes. "
this covers all rape, not just prison rape:
Kurt & Smartt (2–2). Prisoner-on-prisoner violence: Victimization of young offenders in prison. Some German findings.
Criminal Justice: International Journal of Policy & Practice Nov 2002, Vol 2(4), p 411-437
Which makes no reference to prison rapist being heterosexual.
Money & Bohmer (1980). Prison sexology: Two personal accounts of masturbation, homosexuality, and rape. Journal of Sex Research Aug 1980, Vol 16(3), p 258-266
An old one, true.
Nacci & Jane (1984). The incidence of sex and sexual aggression in Federal prisons. Federal Probation Dec 1983, Vol 47(4), p 31-36
Also old.
Then there is the “textbook” on sex crimes by Holmes and Holmes (I think 2001 was the most recent addition) which makes no reference to rapes between men, in or out of prison, being conducted by heterosexual men. And that’s just the point…this idea that was purported as “fact” simply never seems to come up in the literature, at least among most articles that I seem to come across.
These cites were from a 2 minute lit search. I fail to see any indication that this idea…that heterosexual men are committing the majority of prison rapes,…is widely accepted.
Obviously you’re not up on both long term and current research. Please allow me to try to bring you up to speed.
Dr. Paul Vasey (Department of Psychology and Neuroscience for The University of Lethbridge) has done significant work in the field of female homosexual behavior in Japanese macaques.
Dr. Vasey found that female macaques engage in homosexual activity often purely for fun, even when virile male macaques are handy. Yep, they pass on passing along their genes. There are a couple of reasons why this behavior exists, he goes on to explain.
Female macaques engage in homosexual behavior to excite unwilling males. Yep, seems like the fellows need a little priming of the pump before they can go do their duties.
Female macaques engage in homosexual behavior as a means of power control in the troop. Even when male macaques tried to lure away a female macaque from her lover, 90% of the time the challengded female macaque was able to defeat the male and keep her partner.
It’s just fun. Primates of all types regularly masturbate. It’s a lot more pleasurable with a partner. Look at female bonobos and their propensity for mutual genital rubbing.
Source: Sexual Preference in Female Japanese Macaques. *Archives of Sexual Behavior *
He’s also published the following articles you might want to read:
Comment on the Evolution of Human Homosexual Behavior. Current Anthropology 41: 402-403.
Female Choice and Inter-Sexual Competition for Female Sexual Partners in Japanese Macaques. Behaviour 135: 579-597.
Skewed Sex Ratios and Female Homosexual Activity in Japanese Macaques: An Experimental Analysis. Primates 41: 17-25.
Homosexual Behaviour in Primates: A Review of Evidence and Theory. International Journal of Primatology 16: 173-203.
Happy reading!