I’m inclined to agree; my letter seemed to set the thread off on titters of “We were right after all!” even though it’s only one source, which in academic circles ain’t proof or anywhere near it. As of yet, nobody in the thread except myself AND CRAFTER_MAN has cited any evidence at all. Personally, if Bill Marshall says it that’s good enough for me (bearing in mind that I’ve asked him for more evidence anyway) but I’m finding it interesting to see how long this goes before someone else does some actual research.
That said, I have found some other studies:
A.N. Groth and T.S. Gary: Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and pedophilia: Sexual offenses against children and adult sexual orientation (1982). In A.M. Scacco (Ed.), Male rape: A casebook of sexual aggressions (pp. 143-152). New York: AMS Press. They write:
A 1978 study by Groth (See above) and Birnbaum, “Adult Sexual Orientation and Attraction to Underage Persons”, (Archives of Sexual Behavior 7, 175.) states
Dr. Carole Jenny was lead on a fairly well known study published in a 1994 issue of “Pediatrics” that indicated that among a sample of child molesters, virtually all were heterosexual. According to the study, gay perpetrators accounted for about 2% of all molested boys; lesbians accounted for less than half a percent of all molested girls. (No age data here.)
In “Homosexual Behavior and Child Molestation: A Review of the Evidence”, (1978) Adolescence, 13, 29, researcher David E. Newton finds
In every study I have found that cited unusually high rates of pedophilia among homosexuals, homosexuals were defined as men who molested boys. Not one of these studies distinguished men who were attracted to other men from men who only molested boys and were otherwise attracted to women.
Since the issue here is whether or not we should consider homosexuals are safe around children, it seems obvious to me that the appropriate measurement is the rate of pedophilia among men attaracted to other adult men, since that’s the group we’re talking about. We’re discussing whether or not people like matt_mcl and Esprix - adult males we know are gay because they have sex with other adult males - are safe around kids. Obviously, men who have sex with KIDS aren’t safe around kids, but that’s circular, goes without saying and is not the subject at hand.
Try as I might, I can’t find a study that specifically finds that men attracted to other men are disproportionately likely to commit acts of child molestation. And I really have tried; I don’t have any particular bias one way or the other, and if you’d shown me genuine, objective evidence gays were liklier to molest kids I would have been willing to believe it might well be true. But the same three sources are invariably cited by people who want to claim gays are likelier to be molesters; Paul Cameron, Judith Reisman, and a UT stdy by Freund and Watson that doesn’t actually say what they claim it does. In every case, “homosexual” is used to mean “abused a boy,” an obviously circular argument. I have yet to see a single exception.
The problem I’m having, cites or no, is that some people are quick to label homosexuals as “deviant”. At that point they feel free to lay all sorts of flaws on them, including pedophilia.
Just from a human standpoint, for a person to say, “Homosexual men are bound to molest children,” is just being illogical. Homosexual men are atracted to men. Not boys – men. Are some homosexual men attracted to young boys? I’m sure a few are, just as some heterosexual men are attracted to young girls (or boys for that matter). The point is, I think everyone here can agree that pedophilia is the deviant condition. One which has no corelation to sexual preference. It’s apples and oranges.
So why all the derision and implications heaped upon homosexuals? It seems to me that those kind of arguments are based in a prejudice against homosexuals to begin with, and the arguer is looking for more “bad things” to attribute to the particular group of people for which they have an irrational dislike.
MC and Crafter_Man have given me every indication that they consider homosexuality a “deviant” behavior, thus their argument seems to be, “Hey, deviance is deviance - they must be prone to pedophilia too.”
First of all, determining if homosexuals are any more inclined to molest minors is such a “hot potato / politically charged” subject that I believe it would be very difficult to find a truly thorough and objective study. After all, if the researcher is left-of-center, or even gay (who knows?), and if he is politically motivated (as many researchers are), then I would hold the results of the study suspect. The same can be said for right-wing researchers. This is one of the reasons my original post listed the Kinsey study, which is generally regarded as being thorough and objective. (Some posters discounted the Kinsey study due to the time frame… I think the time frame is actually an advantage in terms of validity, because I believe sociology researchers as a whole were not as politically left-of-center during that era as compared to today’s.)
That being said, I believe prejudice certainly has a role in it. If you hold prejudices against a certain group of people, “facts” will not matter much in the big scheme of things. This certainly applies to me, and (I would guess) MC.
I’m saying this one more time, and MC, this goes for you too:
Prejudice is a common human frailty. I admit everyone has their prejudices about some things. Bigotry on the other hand is different. The two of you seem to be equating it to the same thing, and since everyone has prejudices, you’re using it as a rationale to retain and defend your own beliefs.
First off, just becaue other people have some prejudices doesn’t excuse or defend your beliefs.
Secondly, and most importantly, bigotry is clinging to those prejudices in light of evidence that would disprove them. See the difference now boys? One more time since you two seem to be a bit slow… Prejudice is a preconceived idea about something, bigotry is holding on to those ideas in light of evidence to the contrary. Stop equating this words, as they are not the same thing.
What if I made the statement that I would want my kid to have a black scout leader because blacks are gang members and drug dealers and I don’t want my son doing drugs or being in a gang. Then people showed me evidence to the contrary, that blacks are not predisposed to being gang members or drug dealers. However, I turn a blind eye, stand fast by my beliefs, and maintain that I still would not leave my child with black scout leaders. Would I be a bigot or would I be valiantly un-PC and honest about my opinions?
Ok, I just had to get thru all the quote-quote-requotes and page after page of 'em so I could jump into the fire. Yippee. I gotta (sorta) agree with MC. I also prefer not to have my two sons around gay scoutmasters. Why, you ask, (just as you leap for my throat), would I have such an unwholesome opinion? I disagree, fundamentally, (gak, hate to see the word fundamental in print)with homosexuality. It is a deviant, or different, or like whatever snaz phrase you choose, behavior, just as toe fetishes, cross dressing, sado-masochism, etc. I’d also throw in pedophiles, but they’re abusive by definition (mine, anyway) and I don’t equate gays or the other folk with the pedophiliacs. Do I want a scoutmaster to explain to my 10 year old son what homesexual behavior is? No. Ditto the other behavior noted above. What’s the difference between gays and, say, cross dressers? Gays don’t ever seem to shut up about it. Are you really, really, telling me that anyone’s sexualbehavior should constitute special recognition from society? Are you really, really, telling me that your sexual proclivity is the determining factor in your life? C’mon! I say, if the closet is big enough for toe fetishers, cross dressers, et al to rock their socks off, gays should find room too.
You’re missing the point as well.
Sexuality is not something scoutmasters should be teaching Boy Scouts, period. Whether it’s homosexual practices or heterosexual practices.
Would you want a heterosexual scoutmaster to explain to your son how to go down on a girl?
And being “fundamentally against” homosexuality could come back to bite you in the ass. First of all where do you get off being “fundamentally against” someones being. No sexuality is not everything, as you point out, but it isn’t nothing either. By saying you are against homosexuality, you are denegrating a great many fine people simply for being who they are.
Now, what if your ten year old son grows to be a strapping 20 year old young man, and he tells you he is gay? Since you’re “fundamentally against” homosexuals, you would obviously disown and shun him, no? Or do you know for a fact that there’s no way any fruit of your loins could be light in the loafers?
You know what NaSultainne you are completely right. What was I thinking? Of course the closet is where I need to be. I am not worthy of being treated as equally as heterosexuals. My god, how wrong I was. Please, People, I beg of you, if you are anything other than heterosexual, please for the love of god, stay in the closet. We certainly would not want to offend or live in a world any different than the one that NaSultainne and the others of his kind want. After all, we are deviant and sick and obviously inferior.
I think I am going to go throw up now.
(Going back to the thread to Get NaSultainne’s name I see that Jack Batty has already replied, but I spent time writing this, so I am going to post it darnit.
Ok, JB, at least you ain’t yelling at me yet. Let me get you screaming. Homosexuality is a biological mistake. Not reproducible in and of itself. Just like my having to wear glasses, someone born deaf, blind, etc. I exclude illness related physical slights. Children are born every day with asthma, CP, MS, and later develop numerous other diseases. The human species is not perfect, and I for one hope it doesn’t ever seek to be. Really, really not into eugenics, altho…stem cell research will be just the unfortunate beginning of that…never mind, that’s another thread. Now, I can still function in society with the aid of those glasses, and gays can function because sexual behavior is not integral to their day to day survival. WHICH IS MY POINT. Sexual behavior is made much more of in our society than it should. I don’t care what any two (or however many) adults do wherever they do it, but don’t ask me to grant societal recognition and status to that sexual behavior. And please, don’t equate gays with straights, rights wise. Straight people perpetuate the species (including the gays)and our society has developed rules to promote stability of the whole by prescribing and proscribing behaviors of the one. It ain’t fair. Boy, ain’ it. And I can bitch and moan all I want, won’t change a darn thing. Now, if you wanna argue marriage rights, well, that’s like Pepe Le Pew chasing the paint smattered cat, hoping to convince the frantic feline that it’s meant to be. Oranges and apples, my friend, oranges and apples. If you ain’t an apple, be an orange, and be satisfied.
Then give us back your glasses and go sit in the corner with the rest of the “physical defectives”. With your less-than-perfect eyesight, you’re clearly an orange, so just shut up and be satisfied with your lot in life.
You’re not worth wasting my breath to scream. You’re beyond hope. Everything you’ve said in your last post is offensive. I’m not going to argue your points because you are obviously a misguided, dip-shit.
At least MC and Crafter_Mantry to use a little reason, and occasionally a fact or two.
Your statement that “homosexuality is a biological mistake” would be laughable if it didn’t make you look so pathetic.
So, are you up for answering my question though (this should be interesting): What would you do if your son came to you when he is an adult and tells you he’s gay?
Wow. I mean, wow. That’s some big ol’ heap of ignorance you got there, NaSultainne. You must be proud of that shit.
So, MC, Crafter_Man, this is the kind of person who shares your viewpoint. Be sure to disassociate yourself from NaSultainne as soon as possible, because, as we all know, you’re holding onto your bigotry not because you’re stupid and pathetic, like him, but because you’re rebellious and un-PC.
Right, guys? Fighting the good fight, and all. Ignorance and intolerance forever!
Don’t argue, just insult, ok, got it. Do you disagree with me? If so, why? If gays make up only 1-10% of the population, with some degree of variation in the exact number, doesn’t that automatically make them NOT the norm? Take any sociology classes, anyone? And, if not being the norm, makes them ABnormal, which is the more accurate definition of the word, not the disparaging connotation usually associated with it, why am I wrong? I was just joking about the closet, but I reckon closet humor doesn’t translate well, so mea culpa. My point is, I don’t expect gays to try to be straight. Don’t believe it’s doable. I also don’t expect gays, and here’s the punchline that gays I’ve argued with absolutely hate, to insist that the majority of people (read: straight) confer normality upon the select few. Why should we? And please, I’m being totally serious here, no offense is intended. There are many fractions of society (and it’s curious that most of the ones I can think of are sexually oriented. I must have a serious hangup here) that the majority doesn’t find acceptable. And stop with the ‘cite’ nonsense. I’m purely talking common knowledge, anecdotal if you wish, not what can be found in some textbook or so-called scientific study somewhere. Prostitution is illegal almost completely, still goes on, 'cause people are gonna do what they want, aren’t they? Golden showers, S&M, fetishes of all kinds (say, I once saw and HBO special on clown sex, how’s that for ya?)
and you can probably ask a whole bunch of people, and I’m guessing you’d get the same answer for gay sex and anything else - i.e., don’t advertise. Is this too much to ask?
JB, your dripping contempt isn’t changing my mind a whit. I am serious here. Tell me why humans aren’t an imperfect species? We still have birth defects of all kinds, and many are due to genetic errors, or deficiencies, aren’t they? Isn’t that what stem cell research and fetal tissue research is all about? Fixing what’s wrong with people? I don’t want to rub my view into your mindset, but really, give me an honest answer? Gays do not reproduce, do they? And hetero’s only produce a small number of gay children, correct? If you make a basic assumption, and feel free to argue my point, but the basic assumption that sex is a biological tool to replenish the species, what would be the point of having gays at all? You know, that really sucks, what I just said. I’m just really slamming you hard, aren’t I? I apologize totally. I’m trying to be honest here, and ask for another point of view. Where am I going wrong? I don’t advocate eugenics, I don’t approve of selective abortion in order to “advance” the species. I just believe, logically thinking, the above to be true.
Oh yeah, about a gay son/daughter. Hope not, to be perfectly frank. I’d have to say I’d consider it a limiting lifestyle. I’d be disappointed. I’d also be disappointed if I had a child with Down’s. Like it or lump it, the future possibilities change for that child.
They aren’t. Gay men like to have sex with other men. Natural taste. Snakes bite when frightened. Natual instinct.
How that has anything to do with child molestation, you have yet to support. That’s why people are saying your analogy is flawed. Unless you are saying that gay men don’t have a natural inclination to have sex with other men, but actually have a natural inclination toward having sex with children. Which has been cited to be an incorrect position.
I believe you’re serious. Doesn’t make me any less incredulous of your ignorance.
I never said they were. You say tomato, I say tomahto. What you call “defects”, I call “diversity”.
So you think we should “fix” the homosexuals. Would it surprise you to know that most (if not all) homosexuals don’t want to be “fixed”? We’re talking about the essence of their being, not something they enjoy on the weekend. Should we endeavor to “fix” your lefthandedness, or your blond hair? Where do you get off telling people they are defects? How did you get so fucking superior?
The same point to having men and women who choose not to have children (procreate). Do you propose that we get rid of the defectives not willing to further the species? The point to “having gays”, as you so eloquently put it, is so that gays may exist. Pure and fucking simple, Gomer. They have every much a right to exist as you do (possibly more).
Your logic is clouded by your bigotry. Try again.
Homosexuals aren’t aren’t to get you. They aren’t looking to ruin mankind. They don’t want your children. They just wasnt to exist. And you, in your infinite ignorance, are proclaiming them to be mistakes - that they don’t deserve to live alongside such perfect humans such as you.
Allow me to symbolically join hands with all my homosexual, bisexual and transgendered brothers and sisters and heartily offer you this: Suck my dick!