Wait wait . . . you’re citing 53-year-old data on a subject that, as much as it’s tabooed today, was positively REVILED by just about EVERYONE in this country back then? And furthermore you’re citing data where they’re talking about an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old?
Pardon me if I don’t think THAT’s pedophilia. Or the 18-16 bit. In fact, here’s what mentalhealth.net (the APA website isn’t up) had to say:
"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).
The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in the first category.
Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old."
Oh, and this is summarized from the DSM-IV.
Could you give me the website whence you found these studies so I can take a look at them myself?
“(And there are numerous studies concluding the percentage of homosexuals in the general population to be 1% to 3%.)”
And there are numerous studies concluding that Elvis is still alive. What’s your point? Demographics are key in any study like that.
“So I am to believe the Kinsey report is fraudulent?”
No, you’re to conclude that it doesn’t discuss pedophilia and that it’s over half a century old.
“The response to this post will be very predictable? I’m a gay basher, I’m a homophobe, those reports are misleading, they’re biased, blaa blaa blaa.”
Sorry to disappoint you . . . I can call you those things if you like, but instead I’ll just repeat my request: give me the website or the book in which you found those studies.
And I will say to you as I’ve said to many people before that citing studies done on sexuality back in the 60s and early 70s is not going to give you an accurate, modern picture.
“The latter includes allowing your son to spend a week in the woods with an adult male homosexual,”
Nobody suggested they’d be alone, which you seem to imply. Scouts are (someone with experience here, please correct me if I’m wrong) out with other scouts, not just their scoutmaster.
Waterj2, in your experience how many other scouts would be going on a camping trip? Would two or three troops ever go in the same location? How many people could be expected on one of these things?
Not sure what you mean by “one location”. At summer camp, for example, I have been there when there were upwards of 400 scouts. Each troop stayed in a separate campsite, with its own two or more adults. Also, there were several adults on camp staff. Hell, at MassJam in 1994 when I was there, I believe there were about 10,000 scouts from all over Massachusetts, with each troop separated from the next by mere feet, and each had its own leaders. Actually, I think my troop and another troop shared a site, (probably about 30 kids total) and I know our troop had at least 3 adults and the other one at least 1 (probably 2), though I don’t know if we could have gotten away with fewer.
Incidentally, have you noticed that it seems all the people on the SDMB who are or have been heavily involved with the Boy Scouts as adult leaders are the ones opposed to the policy? Those like MC seem to have no real connection to the organization.
Iampunha: These references are exerts from reputable studies. (In fact, there are many, many more statistics available, and they all basically say the same thing. But many of them are based on surveys, which I find somewhat unscientific.)
Perhaps you think I made these up… Are you familiar with search engines? Use a comprehensive or meta- type search engine to look up further details on these studies. You might even find actual copies of the studies on-line, but I doubt it.
Your response, BTW, is understandable. Every one of us has a mental picture in our mind of the way we wish things were – in your case, you wish it were true that homosexuals and heterosexuals had equal tendencies toward pedophilia – but sooner or later we must come to grips with reality. “The Truth Will Set You Free” is one of my favorite sayings.
Paedophilia does not relate to sexuality. It is a sickness, not a legitimate sexual preferance. The majority of Paedophiles do not have any preference to male or female, its basically what they can get access to.
It is what they are doing that fulfils their desires, not who they are doing it to.
“Shut the fuck up, you spam-brained, spunkmop” is one of mine.
Well, we can seperate the wheat from the chaff a bit, so to speak:
That is a valid observation - I admit to seeing that as well, in many different areas of controvery.
So, based on the descriptions here, let’s look at abstracts and see if we can clarify some:
I don’t think the age ranges of the offenders here clearly qualify for pedophelia. It could include a lot of 18 year-old/16-year old sex. The percentage of possible 18 year-old/15-year old possible sex though seems high, as abstracted.
This study, as abstracted, appears disturbing. I do wonder about the sample size, but 565 is large-seeming.
Once again, I wonder if 457 is a statistically large enough sample? And this could be somewhat skewed based on the area of specialty of the doctors, and the prevelance of referrals from other doctors. For example, they may see an inordinate amount of homosexuals based on their practical practice. It would be worth reviewing.
This says that their average age was 34 years, but as abstarcted does not say at what age they had the sexual contact. And while I’m not calling it wrong or a lie, I find incredible the number of “85 different boys per man”. I just have a hard time believing that figure - I can’t imagine coming into close contact with 85 people over a year, let alone children that I would have an opportunity to victimize.
This study seems like it would be worth further looking at. My only concern is how “homosexual in orientation” is defined, and it does not specifically say that the homesexual molesters had committed homosexual acts. This is one to look at.
Here I don’t think adolescents qualify under our definition of child molesters.
Another one that would be worth examining in detail, at least from the abstract.
This one too would be worth seeing in detail, since it does not define whether they were homosexual acts of molestation, or heterosexual.
And I’m not trying to split hairs on the homosexual/heterosexual acts of molestation topic. I’m trying to limit this to the OP, which is referring to the controversial subject of gay scoutmasters.
So how would you qualify my response?
You know, the problem is that for the most part, the original studies in their entirety are not readily available to examination by either side. At least for armchair debaters, like most of us here. If it is possible to find links to unbiased sites that can present these studies in their entirety, without editorial alteration or comment, that would be great.
Another thing that would be good is if we had links to studies pointing the opposite direction, or at least pointing to their being no connection between the prevelence of child molestation and sexuality of the offender. In my searches this morning, I was able to find none myself that seemed to clearly point that direction. A little help, anyone?
Whoa there Crafter_Man. Since this is turning into an actual debate rather than just rants, I tried to find these studies online. I was unable to find them. Since you are familiar with the search criteria that you used, it is up to you to post the links to these studies. Otherwise, we are all free to assume that you are making those numbers up. So, CM show us the studies, or cite the books you are getting them from if not online. Until then, I will post some statistics of my own.
The Dr Fraud and Goatfeltcher of the Imaginary Statistics Institute say that a whopping 90% of the people who quote studies and then refuse to post their sources are heroin users who enjoy felching weasels while riding a unicycle. I assume that you are familiar with a search engine, and can easily find the ISI website which outlines their methodology to determine if it is valid or not.
Jeeves
That’s unfair, Jeeves. He did post reference information for all his cites; enough that you can look them up yourself if you’re so inclined. Not all the information in the world is available online. Just because you choose not to visit a library and look them up yourself is no reason to assume Crafter_Man is “making them up.” I would hope you’ll retract that statement.
Somebody needs to do some explaining, that’s for sure. If I understand the study correctly, the results say that 32%-34% of offenders against children were homosexual. This implies that the majority of offenders are heterosexual (around 64%).
This is not the same as saying that 32-34% of the general homosexual population are offenders. It’s also not saying that 32-34% of the population as a whole are homosexual offenders.
I understand Crafter_Man’s point, although I disagree with his conclusions. He’s saying that, given that homosexuals represent 3%-10% of the general population, then all other things being equal, we should expect homosexuals to represent 3%-10% of offenders against children. If homosexuals are in fact represented among offenders against children out of proportion to their percentage in the general population, then other things are not equal, and there must be some other explanation.
Anthracite, though, has raised valid questions regarding the cites provided, and hopefully they can be addressed.
Oops. Thanks for clarifying Phil. I see where I misread. After so many posts about the “majority of pedophiles” I got into a groove. I’ll quit now while I’m behind.
Thanks for the rational response. As usual, you were able to articulate your observations without name-calling or bashing.
Obviously I have not read these studies (nor, apparently, has anyone else here), and am relying on exerts. Like you, I would also be very interested in looking at the actual data. Granted these stats came from conservative-leaning sites, but we shouldn’t blast them because of it, just as we shouldn’t immediately discount stats from liberal organizations. It’s human nature… when a person disagrees with a conclusion, then the knee-jerk reaction is, “It’s a flawed study, it’s biased, etc.”, yet when a person agrees with a conclusion, they do not question it’s validity.
I’m an objective person, and I just want the truth, pure and simple. I don’t care about what minority groups will be offended, or how politically incorrect it is – just the truth. And those stats were the only ones I could find which appeared to be genuine. If anyone has any additional studies, no matter what the conclusions, please feel free to post.
One possible explanation is that some people don’t want to know the truth, and thus are unwilling to dig deeper (visiting the library, etc.). Again, “The truth will set you free.”
Another explanation is that some of us can’t get to the library just now and we’d like to be able to read the data for ourselves. If you didn’t find it online, where did you find it that they just gave you exerpts? It sounds like you know damn well where the studies are but you’re hoarding them for yourself.
To me, reading this thread it sounds like you want YOUR truth to set us free. Not the pesky ACTUAL truth.
Um, I provided references. Do you have a car? Do you know what time the library opens?
Again, it’s human nature… when you disagrees with a conclusion, your knee-jerk reaction is, “It’s a flawed study, it’s biased, you’re a liar, etc." yet when you agree with a conclusion, you will not question its validity.