"The Chief Instigator" wrote in message
news:JiEur.10994$4P3....@newsfe08.iad...
> A new study by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey and the Washington D.C.-based Family
> Research Council ...
No, it's not new.
And it's been thoroughly debunked:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Some conservative groups have argued that scientific research strongly
supports their claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. The
Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive
attempt to document this claim. It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled
Homosexuality and Child Abuse.
With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals,
it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the
issue. On further examination, however, its central argument – that "the
evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly
disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls" –
doesn't hold up.
In the following section, the main sources cited by Dailey and the FRC to
support their claim are reviewed. The papers are listed in the same order in
which they are first cited by the FRC article.
Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age
preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.
This article is discussed above in the "Other Approaches" section. As the
FRC concedes, it contradicts their argument. The abstract summarizes the
authors' conclusion: "Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred
mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males
who preferred mature partners responded to female children."
Silverthorne & Quinsey. (2000). Sexual partner age preferences of homosexual
and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 67-76.
The FRC cites this study to challenge the Freund et al. data (see the
previous paper above). However, the methodologies were quite different.
Freund and his colleagues used a sample that included sex offenders and they
assessed sexual arousal with a physiological measure similar to that
described below for the 1988 Marshall et al. study. Silverthorne and Quinsey
used a sample of community volunteers who were asked to view pictures of
human faces and use a 7-point scale to rate their sexual attractiveness. The
apparent ages of the people portrayed in the pictures was originally
estimated by Dr. Silverthorne to range from 15 to 50. However, a group of
independent raters perceived the male faces to range in age from 18 to 58,
and the female faces to range from 19 to 60.
The article doesn't report the data in great detail (e.g., average ratings
are depicted only in a graphic; the actual numbers aren't reported) and the
authors provide contradictory information about the rating scale (they
describe it as a 7-point scale but also say it ranged from 0 to 7, which
constitutes an 8-point scale). In either case, it appears that none of the
pictures was rated as "very sexually attractive" (a rating of 7). Rather,
the highest average ratings were approximately 5.
On average, gay men rated the 18-year old male faces the most attractive
(average rating = about 5), with attractiveness ratings declining steadily
for older faces. They rated the 58-year old male faces 2, on average. By
contrast, heterosexual men rated the 25-year old female faces the most
attractive (about 5), with the 18- and 28-year old female faces rated lower
(between 2 and 3) and the 60-year old female faces rated the least
attractive (about 1).
A serious problem with this study is that the researchers didn't control for
the possibility that some of the faces pictured in the photos might simply
have been more or less physically attractive than the others, independent of
their age or gender. The researchers explicitly acknowledged this
shortcoming, speculating that the women's faces in the 25-year old group
might have been more attractive than women's faces in the other age groups.
But they didn't address the possibility that the attractiveness of the male
and female faces may not have been comparable.
This issue could have been addressed in various ways. For example, prior to
collecting data, the researchers could have started with a large number of
photographs and asked a group of independent raters to evaluate the general
physical attractiveness of the face in each photo; these ratings could have
been used to select photos for the experiment that were equivalent in
attractiveness. Getting independent ratings of experimental stimuli in this
way is a common procedure in social psychological research.
Thus, even if one accepts the questionable assumption that this study is
relevant, it doesn't support the FRC's contention that gay men are more
likely than heterosexual men to be child molesters for several reasons:
the researchers failed to control for the varying attractiveness of the
different photos;
all of the faces portrayed in the photos were perceived to be at least 18;
and
the study merely assessed judgments of sexual attractiveness rather than the
research participants' sexual arousal.
Blanchard et al. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in
pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463-478.
This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether they
molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only, or both
boys and girls. These groups were labeled, respectively, homosexual
pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. This
classification referred to their attractions to children. Adult sexual
orientation (or even whether the men had an adult sexual orientation) wasn't
assessed.
Elliott et al. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell
us. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 579-594.
In this study, child sex offenders were interviewed. Their sexual
orientation (gay, heterosexual, bisexual) wasn't assessed. The authors drew
from their findings to suggest strategies for how parents and children can
prevent sexual victimization. It is noteworthy that none of those strategies
involved avoiding gay men.
Jenny et al. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals?
Pediatrics, 94, 41-44.
This study, described above in the section on "Other Approaches,"
contradicts the FRC's argument. The FRC faults the study because the
researchers didn't directly interview perpetrators but instead relied on the
victims' medical charts for information about the offender's sexual
orientation. However, other studies cited favorably by the FRC (and
summarized in this section) similarly relied on chart data (Erickson et al.,
1988) or did not directly assess the sexual orientation of perpetrators
(Blanchard et al. 2000; Elliott et al. 1995; Marshall et al., 1988). Thus,
the FRC apparently considers this method a weakness only when it leads to
results they dislike.
Marshall et al. (1988). Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual
preference. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 383-391.
In this study, the researchers compared 21 men who had sexually molested a
male under 16 years (and at least 5 years younger than themselves) to 18
unemployed men who were not known to have molested a child. Over a series of
sessions, each man watched color slides of nude males and females of various
ages and listened to audiotaped descriptions of both coercive and consensual
sexual interactions between a man and a boy. During the sessions, each man
sat in a private booth, where he was instructed to lower his trousers and
underwear and attach a rubber tube to his penis. The tube detected any
changes in penis circumference, with increases interpreted as indicating
sexual arousal.
The FRC cites this study as showing that "a homosexual and a heterosexual
subgroup can be delineated among these offenders." This is true but hardly
relevant to their claims.
The researchers categorized 7 offenders who were more aroused overall by the
male nudes than the female nudes as the homosexual subgroup. They
categorized 14 offenders who were more aroused overall by the female nudes
as the heterosexual subgroup. The offenders were not asked their sexual
orientation (gay, straight, bisexual) and the paper does not report any
information about the nature of the offenders' adult sexual relationships,
or even if they had any such relationships.
Bickley & Beech. (2001). Classifying child abusers: Its relevance to theory
and clinical practice. International Journal Of Offender Therapy And
Comparative Criminology, 45, 51-69.
This is a literature review and theoretical paper that discusses the
strengths and weaknesses of various systems for classifying child molesters.
In citing this study, the FRC says it:
refers to homosexual pedophiles as a "distinct group." The victims of
homosexual pedophiles "were more likely to be strangers, that they were more
likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved
in the offence, and that they were more likely to have past convictions for
sexual offences.... Other studies [showed a] greater risk of reoffending
than those who had offended against girls" and that the "recidivism rate for
male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim
offenders."
In reality, however, the paper was summarizing the findings of other
studies, not reporting new data. In the passage excerpted by the FRC, the
authors were discussing published papers that used a classification system
focusing entirely on the sex of victims (not whether the perpetrator is
straight or gay). Here is the complete text (the passages that FRC omitted
are highlighted):
"Grubin and Kennedy (1991) reported that when dividing sex offenders based
simply on the sex of their victims, offenders against boys stood out as a
distinct group. They noted that their victims were more likely to be
strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac
behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and they were more
likely to have past convictions for sexual offences. Other studies have
employed the sex-of-victim approach in the prediction of future risk, with
offenders who have sexually abused boys or both boys and girls reported as
having more victims and being at greater risk of reoffending than those who
had offended against girls only [bibliographic references omitted]. In the
nondiagnostic remarks, DSM-IV (APA, 1994) claims that the recidivism rate
for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim
offenders, and although not demonstrating such a marked difference,
Furby,Weinrott, and Blackshaw (1989), in an extensive review of recidivism
rates, found that reoffending was higher for male victim offenders. [¶]
However, the sex-of-victim distinction has not been consistently found, and
contrasting findings have been reported in studies that have demonstrated no
differences in recidivism rates between the groups [bibliographic references
omitted]. Furthermore, Abel, Becker, Murphy, and Flanagan (1981) found that
those child molesters who offended against girls reported more than twice as
many victims as those who had offended against boys, a finding contrary to
the hypothesized outcome." (p. 56)
Jay & Young. (1977). The gay report: Lesbians and gay men speak out about
sexual experiences and lifestyles. New York: Summit.
This book, published nearly 30 years ago by a team of writer-activists, is
not a scientific study. The authors' survey methodology is not reported in
detail and, because it was a journalistic work, the survey was never
subjected to scientific peer review.
Erickson et al. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86.
This study was based on a retrospective review of the medical records of
male sex offenders admitted to the Minnesota Security Hospital between 1975
and 1984. Apparently, 70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4%
abused children of both sexes. (The paper is unclear in that it doesn't
explain how perpetrators with multiple victims were counted.) The paper
asserts in passing that "Eighty-six percent of offenders against males
described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (p. 83). However, no details
are provided about how this information was ascertained, making it difficult
to interpret. Nor did the authors report the number of homosexual versus
bisexual offenders, a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study
(described above) indicates is relevant.
In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not support
their argument. Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the
sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual
orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to
cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their
argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as
supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement
procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders.