The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Clayton Cramer
The Results of Childhood Sexual Abuse
-------------------------------------
Identifying With The Abuser
What are the consequences of childhood sexual abuse? One sur-
prising result is "traumatic bonding," similar to the well-known
"Stockholm Syndrome," where hostages over time sometimes develop
a sense of identity with the terrorist:
The final component of victimology we note is that of
traumatic bonding, described by Don Dutton and Susan Painter
(1982). This refers to the development of strong emotional
attachment under conditions of intermittent maltreatment.
Experiments with dogs showed that those who were treated
intermittently with indulgence and punishment showed higher
degrees of bonding than dogs who had been consistently
either indulged, punished, or isolated....
This explains the strong attachments many abused children
have for their parents (Kempe and Kempe 1978) and the
tendency of many sexual abuse victims to deny their own
hurt in sympathetic understanding of their abuser.[Bagley &
King, 109-110]
We should not be surprised at the number of net.homosexuals who
have related accounts of molestation by adults, and who insist
vigorously that THEY were the aggressor, not the adult, and that
the experience of being used by an adult as a sexual plaything
at 12 was a positive experience.
Eating Disorders
Eating disorders are also a common nonsexual response to
childhood sexual abuse.[Bagley & King, 114, 117, Faller, 150,
Everstine & Everstine, 18] Significantly, soc.motss is a group
where many members identify themselves as "bears" (overweight
and hairy) as distinguished from "twinks" (those with more
normal body shapes).
Promiscuity
Not surprisingly, a child's sexuality frequently becomes severely
distorted by the experience of molestation, with all three sources
agreeing that "Children so traumatized may cope by becoming
promiscuous or developing an aversion to sex. Each type of
reaction represents a failure to develop normal sexual relation-
ships."[Bagley & King, 115, 119, Faller, 147-148] This promiscuity
"frequently represents a lack of inhibition against and sometimes
a compulsion toward sexual behavior of all sorts, including
sexual abuse."[Faller, 209]
We have observed that some persons (men as well as women)
who are promiscuous or who appear to be unable to "attach"
by establishing trusting love relationships may have been
victimized as children. These people may easily involve
themselves in sexual encounters with strangers, but have
tremendous difficulty in forming and maintaining healthy
partnerships. They may enter therapy with the complaint
that they feel adrift and alienated from life. Many appear
socially adept but in fact lead solitary lives, devoid of
close ties or committments.[Everstine & Everstine, 153-154]
Of course, the resemblance to the gay bath house, sex club,
gay bar scene, and public restroom activities of homosexuals
should be obvious. How typical are these stereotypical behaviors?
Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny include a table titled, "Sexual
Partners Among Homosexuals." The results of the survey are
fascinating, and nicely dovetail with reading soc.motss:
Homosexual Males Homosexual Females
White Black White Black
N=574 N=111 N=227 N=64
Lifetime number of
homosexual partners
1 0% 0% 3% 5%
2 0 0 9 5
3-4 1 2 15 14
5-9 2 4 31 30
10-14 3 5 16 9
15-24 3 6 10 16
25-49 8 6 8 11
50-99 9 18 5 8
100-249 15 15 1 2
250-499 17 11 1 2
500-999 15 14 0 0
1000 or more 28 19 0 0
Proportion of partners
who were strangers
None 1% 5% 62% 56%
Half or less 20 43 32 38
More than half 79 51 6 6
Proportion of partners
with whom sexual activity
occurred only once
None 1% 4% 38% 41%
Half or less 29 59 51 55
More than half 70 38 12 5
[Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny, 404]
Read this chart carefully. More than half of the white male
homosexuals had 250 or more lifetime homosexual partners, as did
44% of the black male homosexuals. Just like the rest of us?
How many heterosexuals do you know that have 250 different
sexual partners in one lifetime? How many do you know with 1000
or more?
Note that these aren't close, loving relationships of relatively
short duration -- majorities of both black and white male homosexuals
had more than have of their sexual relationships with strangers.
The number of partners with whom sexual activity "occurred only
once" is really astonishing. Long-term, emotionally satisfying
relationships? Don't let this lie continue to be told. There may
be homosexuals for whom this true, but it would appear that they
are very few and far between.
The female homosexuals figures are considerably closer to self-
restraint -- which may be one of the explanations for their
relatively low levels of AIDS infection.
Powerlessness
Bagley & King describe one traumatic effect of childhood sexual
abuse as a sense of powerlessness[Bagley & King, 115-116] --
which certainly describes the continual whining in soc.motss
about being an oppressed minority in a heterosexist world.
Self-Mutilation & Piercing
Both Bagley/King and Faller mention self-multilation as a response
of childhood sexual abuse victims.[Bagley & King, 117, Faller, 152,
306] The obvious parallel to "piercings," in which homosexuals
(though not exclusively homosexuals) have nipples (male and
female), scrotums, and the labia pierced, should be obvious. As
a female victim of childhood sexual abuse who had taken to burning
herself with cigarettes and pulling out her hair told my wife,
"It's a different kind of pain. It takes your mind off the other
things that hurt."
Chemical Dependency
Alcoholism and other forms of substance abuse are repeatedly
mentioned by all three sources, as a method of deadening the
pain of childhood sexual abuse.[Bagley & King, 117, Faller, 103,
152, 306-307, Everstine & Everstine, 153]
I'm reluctant to quote secondary sources (especially postings),
but I have been unable to locate the original documents, and
while Arthur Hu received substantial namecalling and insults,
I don't recall anyone questioning the validity of the data
presented:
The taboo on criticizing lifestyles means that means you
can't explain about massive numbers of sexual partners, or
the unhealthy level of drug and alcohol use, which was well
documented in a recent report for the Lesbian & Gay
Substance Abuse Planning Group in San Francisco. [EMT] The
report got just the barest 2 inch mini-article in the
Chronicle, and was extremely difficult to track down even
after calling the San Francisco AIDS office.
The study found that while some earlier studies may have
exaggerated the degree of drug use among gays, one quarter
of gays were recovering from alcohol or drug use. 33 to 42
percent of lesbians and gays were using drugs and alcohol at
dangerous levels, much higher than the general population.
In addition a strong link was established between combined
sex and drug use and unsafe sex practices, even without IV
drug use. Though Kaposi's Sarcoma is a skin condition
commonly associated with AIDS, it is most probably caused by
use of nitrate inhalants, often used by gays during sex.
[EMTC p. 42] One quarter of gay men and half of lesbian
women had been sexually abused as children.
EMT: San Francisco Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Substance Abuse
Needs Assessment, Executive Summary(A), Anonymous Survey(B),
and A Review of the Literature(C). Prepared for the Lesbian
& Gay Substance Abuse Planning Group, San Francisco by EMT
associates, 3090 Fite Circle, Suite 201, Sacramento CA
95827. Contact San Francisco Department of Public Health,
Community Substance Abuse Services, 130 Howard Street, Suite
400, San Francisco CA 94103 (free)
[Arthur Hu, Arthu...@cup.portal.com, <50...@cup.portal.com>]
As you can see, a lot of homosexuals not only have chemical
dependencies, but were sexually abused as kids -- more than
you would expect, if there were no connection between their
sexual abuse, and their current behavior.
Hyde also confirms the use of amyl nitrate by homosexuals as
an aphrodisiac, and because it relaxes the anal sphincter muscles
to allow sodomy.[Hyde, 242-243]
Suicide
The high rate of suicide among homosexual teenagers has long
been shown as "evidence" that the heterosexism of our society
is destructive. But a characteristic of childhood sexual abuse
victims is abnormally high levels of suicide attempts and
successes.[Bagley & King, 121, 123, 141-142, Faller, 152, 306-307,
Everstine & Everstine, 13, 153] Perhaps homosexuality isn't
the reason for the suicides, but both are symptoms of the same
underlying pain?
Interesting Parallels
As should be obvious from the list of symptoms described
above, there is some astonishing parallelism between the char-
acteristics of childhood sexual abuse victims, and homosexuals.
Perhaps the most interesting of all is Faller's description of
the characteristics of child molesters:
A fourth and related pattern to look for in evaluation is
unusual or bizarre sexual practices. Sometimes these are
encounters in which the perpetrator is very regressed.
Other times they are patterns of sexual deviation such as
transvestism, sadistic or masochistic activities, copro-
philia and coprophagia, zoophilia, fetishism, or certain
kinds of homosexual encounters.[Faller, 212]
Why, that's just a normal month in soc.motss! Some of you may
recall the postings there discussing what parts of the human anatomy
they would like changed to an animal part, to make sex more
"interesting."[George Dalton Madison, Fu...@cup.portal.com,
<56...@cup.portal.com>, Mark Manning, ma...@trillian.jsc.nasa.gov,
<1992Mar27.2...@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>]
What are these deviant sexual behaviors called? Masters, Johnson,
& Kolodny define these as "paraphilias":
Recurrent, intense sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies
usually involving either (1) nonhuman objects, (2) the suffering
or humilation of oneself or one's partner, or (3) children or
other nonconsenting persons.[Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny, 418]
"[V]irtually all the paraphilias have their origins in a person's
early sexual history."[Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny, 426] This also
fits in with my hypothesis that homosexuality is a result of childhood
sexual abuse -- and the connection of dominance, pain, suffering,
and the various fetishs, to an adult dominating a child, causing
pain in connection with the sexual organs, or tying a child up,
should be obvious.
Differences In Response Between Men & Women
"So why don't lesbians go molest little girls? Huh? Huh?"
is the usual response of the homosexual community. The answer
is straightforward:
Halliday (1985) identifies migraine headaches, back problems,
stomach problems, infections (27 per cent of her sample
had hysterectomies because of infections), anorexia, obesity,
asthma (especially among male victims of oral sex), epilepsy,
multiple personality, addictions, severe depression, self-
multilation, and increased acceptance of pain, as long-
term sequels. She found that male victims tend to be more
aggressive or externalizing of their distress, while females
tend to be more internalizing and self-destructive.[Bagley
& King, 119; also see Everstine & Everstine, 387]
"I've Always Been Gay"
This claim is made frequently -- one email correspondent related
getting started having sex at seven, and suggested that homosexuals
just get started younger than straight people. The parallel
to molested children expressing a precocious knowledge or interest
in sex is obvious -- but can we trust the claim, "I've always been
gay"? In spite of Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny being so very
Politically Correct about homosexuality, they discount this claim:
Some homosexuals say that they were aware of being gay as early
as age five or six, while others don't make the discovery until
sometime in adulthood. However, it is not very likely that the
young child has a real sense of homosexual orientation. The
sense of being "different" during childhood that some homosexuals
recall as adults is not always an accurate barometer of later
sexual orientation, since many "straight" adults also feel
"different" as children. Furthermore, adult recollections of
childhood feelings and behaviors may possibly be influenced
by social expectations of what homosexuals "should" have felt
(Ross, 1980).[Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny, 399]
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get
your way, have a riot. Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
Paul Bartholomew
some real evidence to support Clayton's crusade. I thought that finally we'd
have something to read, something to argue about. Unfortunately, I was mostly
wrong. All he's done in this 300-line posting is to present some character-
istics of people who were molested as children. Then he says that a certain
(unspecified) percentage of homosexuals also have some of these character-
istics. Therefore, they were molested as children. Do I really have to
point out the logical flaw in that?
Additionally, he still makes the fundamental error, which invalidates all of
his arguments, that the people who post to soc.motss are representative of
homosexuals in general.
Finally, he discusses the scholarly works--but the speculations are mostly
his, not theirs, and are not supported by his quotations.
Some specific instances:
> Identifying With The Abuser
[discusses this, using references, then proceeds to follow it with his
speculations--unsupported by the research, nor by any reputable authority.]
> We should not be surprised at the number of net.homosexuals who
> have related accounts of molestation by adults, and who insist
> vigorously that THEY were the aggressor, not the adult, and that
> the experience of being used by an adult as a sexual plaything
> at 12 was a positive experience.
Please tell us how many this was, Clayton. What is the percentage of people
who post to soc.motss who have related accounts of molestation by adults?
How many young men (or women) have initiated (or claimed to initiate) sex
with members of the opposite sex?
In short, Clayton, you still don't have the evidence to back up this claim
of yours.
> Eating Disorders
[discusses this, using references, then proceeds to follow it with his
speculations--unsupported by the research, nor by any reputable authority.]
> Significantly, soc.motss is a group
> where many members identify themselves as "bears" (overweight
> and hairy) as distinguished from "twinks" (those with more
> normal body shapes).
Significant to you, perhaps, but you still don't have the evidence to back
up this "significance" of yours, Clayton. Also, can you please define
"many"? What is the percentage of people who post to soc.motss who identify
themselves as such? The percentage of people who read soc.motss who do
the same? The percentage of homosexuals in the entire country who do this?
> Promiscuity
Ah, now this one, he actually presents some research from Masters & Johnson
that appears to corroborate his claim. One to Clayton. Four caveats,
though: One, can you please post the corresponding data for heterosexuals?
Two, when was the survey taken? Three, can you provide any evidence that
this promiscuity is 1) related to child molestation/abuse, or 2) intrinsic
to homosexuality? Four, how was their sample set chosen? Finally, discuss
alternate theories of promiscuity--e.g., low self-esteem--since you haven't
yet produced any evidence that molestation is responsible for this pro-
miscuity (nor did Masters & Johnson claim this).
> Powerlessness
[discusses this, using references, then proceeds to follow it with his
speculations--unsupported by the research, nor by any reputable authority.]
> which certainly describes the continual whining in soc.motss
> about being an oppressed minority in a heterosexist world.
Since the oppression is real and documented, that rather lets the wind
out of your sails on this one. A person is not paranoid if everyone is
indeed out to get him. Sorry, Clayton, you strike out again.
> Self-Mutilation & Piercing
[discusses this, using references, then proceeds to follow it with his
speculations--unsupported by the research, nor by any reputable authority.]
> The obvious parallel to "piercings," in which homosexuals
> (though not exclusively homosexuals) have nipples (male and
> female), scrotums, and the labia pierced, should be obvious.
Since none of your authorities mentions this, I'd say that this speculation
of *yours* is perhaps not as obvious as you might think. Incidentally,
how many homosexuals pierce portions of their bodies? How many hetero-
sexuals? Sorry, Clayton, another strike.
> Chemical Dependency
>
[discusses this, using references, then proceeds to follow it with his
speculations--unsupported by the research, nor by any reputable authority.
Sorry, Clayton, but Arthur Hu is not exactly noted for getting his facts
straight. The validity of the data is indeed questionable.]
> As you can see, a lot of homosexuals not only have chemical
> dependencies, but were sexually abused as kids -- more than
> you would expect, if there were no connection between their
> sexual abuse, and their current behavior.
So, once again, we have Clayton's speculations, without any evidence to
support them. Sigh.... Your references do not support your conclusions,
Clayton (no surprise there).
Now, Clayton, shall we discuss alternate reasons for alcoholism? There
are a hell of a lot of alcoholics out there that were not abused as
children. Why, we might even discuss low self-esteem and societal rejec-
tion as causes for alcoholismm.
> Suicide
[discusses this, using references, then proceeds to follow it with his
speculations--unsupported by the research, nor by any reputable authority.]
> Perhaps homosexuality isn't
> the reason for the suicides, but both are symptoms of the same
> underlying pain?
Big of you to admit that this supposition isn't supported by your research.
Shall we once again talk about low self-esteem and societal rejection?
Another strike.
> Interesting Parallels
>
> As should be obvious from the list of symptoms described
> above, there is some astonishing parallelism between the char-
> acteristics of childhood sexual abuse victims, and homosexuals.
No, what's obvious is that your obsession has totally blinded you once
again. In every case but one, you have completely failed to prove that
the homosexual population exhibits the characteristics of people
molested as children. In every case but one, your suppositions and
conclusions are *not* supported by the data you present. And, in
every case but one, you once again whine about reading soc.motss. Now,
why don't you go back to the library and try to find a source that
supports your conclusions?
> "[V]irtually all the paraphilias have their origins in a person's
> early sexual history."[Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny, 426] This also
> fits in with my hypothesis that homosexuality is a result of childhood
> sexual abuse
*Your* theory, unsupported by any evidence and not backed up by any
reputable authority! Get the goddamned facts, Clayton.
> "I've Always Been Gay"
>
> This claim is made frequently -- one email correspondent related
> getting started having sex at seven, and suggested that homosexuals
> just get started younger than straight people.
Hell, Clayton, straight people start out just the same time as homo-
sexual ones. Or haven't you heard of two favorite childhood occupa-
tions (playing doctor and "I'll show you mine if you show me yours").
> The parallel
> to molested children expressing a precocious knowledge or interest
> in sex is obvious
And once again, this parallel is not supported by any evidence nor by
any research. Another strike.
> -- but can we trust the claim, "I've always been
> gay"? In spite of Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny being so very
> Politically Correct about homosexuality, they discount this claim:
Bravo! You actually have a second conclusion supported by some evidence.
What's that now, something like two out of ten or so? Not bad--better than
your usual record.
Same old crap, folks. He's found evidence to support only two of his claims:
that homosexuals tend to be promiscuous and that homosexuals are not born
gay. The rest of them, well, he still doesn't have the facts to support his
claims. Want to try again, Clayton?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew | "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
| many things..." Lewis Carroll
pdb...@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov | Disclaimer: Opinions? What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gene W. Smith
writes:
>Eating disorders are also a common nonsexual response to
>childhood sexual abuse.[Bagley & King, 114, 117, Faller, 150,
>Everstine & Everstine, 18] Significantly, soc.motss is a group
>where many members identify themselves as "bears" (overweight
>and hairy) as distinguished from "twinks" (those with more
>normal body shapes).
This is so completely stupid I should save it an quote it from time to
time. FYI, a bear does not mean "overweight and hairy", though it is
possible for a bear to be heavy. Anybody who actually knows anything
about the gay community knows it is not overrun by heavy people.
>Read this chart carefully. More than half of the white male
>homosexuals had 250 or more lifetime homosexual partners, as did
>44% of the black male homosexuals. Just like the rest of us?
>How many heterosexuals do you know that have 250 different
>sexual partners in one lifetime? How many do you know with 1000
>or more?
How many had the opportunity, O Wise One?
>Both Bagley/King and Faller mention self-multilation as a response
>of childhood sexual abuse victims.[Bagley & King, 117, Faller, 152,
>306] The obvious parallel to "piercings," in which homosexuals
>(though not exclusively homosexuals) have nipples (male and
>female), scrotums, and the labia pierced, should be obvious.
Right. Now go and find an actual connection, or shut the hell up.
> In addition a strong link was established between combined
> sex and drug use and unsafe sex practices, even without IV
> drug use. Though Kaposi's Sarcoma is a skin condition
> commonly associated with AIDS, it is most probably caused by
> use of nitrate inhalants, often used by gays during sex.
> [EMTC p. 42] One quarter of gay men and half of lesbian
> women had been sexually abused as children.
This is what comes of quoting Arthur Hu: an assertion that nitrate
inhalants cause KS. I would suggest you check your sources, except you
have already admitted you have none.
> [Arthur Hu, Arthu...@cup.portal.com, <50...@cup.portal.com>]
A well-known expert in the field.
> A fourth and related pattern to look for in evaluation is
> unusual or bizarre sexual practices. Sometimes these are
> encounters in which the perpetrator is very regressed.
> Other times they are patterns of sexual deviation such as
> transvestism, sadistic or masochistic activities, copro-
> philia and coprophagia, zoophilia, fetishism, or certain
> kinds of homosexual encounters.[Faller, 212]
>Why, that's just a normal month in soc.motss! Some of you may
>recall the postings there discussing what parts of the human anatomy
>they would like changed to an animal part, to make sex more
>"interesting."[George Dalton Madison, Fu...@cup.portal.com,
><56...@cup.portal.com>, Mark Manning, ma...@trillian.jsc.nasa.gov,
><1992Mar27.2...@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>]
>What are these deviant sexual behaviors called? Masters, Johnson,
>& Kolodny define these as "paraphilias":
Discussing what parts of the human anatomy you want changed is not a
paraphilia. And have you read alt.sex lately (or ever?)
>"[V]irtually all the paraphilias have their origins in a person's
>early sexual history."[Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny, 426] This also
>fits in with my hypothesis that homosexuality is a result of childhood
>sexual abuse -- and the connection of dominance, pain, suffering,
>and the various fetishs, to an adult dominating a child, causing
>pain in connection with the sexual organs, or tying a child up,
>should be obvious.
To have a hypothesis you ought to have evidence, which you don't give.
--
Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Phil Ronzone
>In article <12...@optilink.UUCP> cra...@optilink.UUCP
>(Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>>Eating disorders are also a common nonsexual response to
>>childhood sexual abuse.[Bagley & King, 114, 117, Faller, 150,
>>Everstine & Everstine, 18] Significantly, soc.motss is a
>>group where many members identify themselves as "bears"
>>(overweight and hairy) as distinguished from "twinks" (those
>>with more normal body shapes).
>>
>This is so completely stupid I should save it an quote it
>from time to time. FYI, a bear does not mean "overweight and
>hairy", though it is possible for a bear to be heavy. Anybody
>who actually knows anything about the gay community knows it
>is not overrun by heavy people.
Wading through the morass of "Gene Smith" postings regarding Claytons
recent posting on homosexuals, it has struck me how, uh, "driven" this
person is.
Clayton lists his sources, people that are professionsal in the field,
and "Gener Smith" counters with the experiences of his mother (!!!) who
says that her experience was that the scholastic level was "low"!
His mother! I.e., you are wrong because my mommy said so!!
But, more to the point, consider the above. Upon reading it, an
immediate bullshit alert should go up. Clayton mentioned a "bear",
and "Gene Smith" immediately says, nope, that's not it, you're stupid.
Curiously, "Gene Smith" doesn't say what a bear is.
Now, if someone I disagreed with, and that I wanted to discredit
posted a statement that the distance of the Earth from the Sun is
50,000 miles, I wouldn't say. nopes, that's not it, you're wrong.
I'd say, it's about 93,000,000 miles dipshit.
In short, the emotional reaction shows that Clayton has clearly hit
a nerve.
Anybody else going to "argue by mommy figure"?
--
ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.
These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Paul Bartholomew
>
> But, more to the point, consider the above. Upon reading it, an
> immediate bullshit alert should go up. Clayton mentioned a "bear",
> and "Gene Smith" immediately says, nope, that's not it, you're stupid.
>
> Curiously, "Gene Smith" doesn't say what a bear is.
I asked a gay friend of mine and he told me that he believes that a "bear"
is a man who is big and hairy. They can be overweight, just as anybody else
can, but it's not part of the definition.
Phil Ronzone
>In article <1992Oct8.1...@netcom.com> ph...@netcom.com
>(Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>In short, the emotional reaction shows that Clayton has
>>clearly hit a nerve.
>>
>One example is the comparison of a study of homosexual
>behavior with "how many heterosexuals do you know that are
>like this?" This indicates either an intent to mislead, or
>gross ignorance of statistical methods (my acquaintances are
>a biased sample, not a random sample). Another problem is the
>way the label "homosexual" is applied. Someone who has sex
>exclusively with boys is not a "homosexual" in the same sense
>that someone who has sex with men is a "homosexual". Lumping
>them together will artificially inflate the rate at which
>"homosexuals" molest children.
Well, do, or do not, male homosexuals on the average, have close to TWO
orders of magnitude more sex partners than hetersexuals? Do you NOT
accept that many many people find this disgusting?
And that female homosexuals do not have this kind of difference?
>At this point I was skimming along pretty rapidly, but I got
>the impression that at least one study was also claiming that
>married men who molest boys are "actually homosexual". This
>acts both to deflate the heterosexual molestation rate and
>increase the homosexual molestation rate, if it is included
>in Clayton's statistics.
Are you stating that married men AREN'T ever homosexuals? I thought it
was not unusual for homosexuals who have not come out to get married to
hide or hope that they themselves will change etc.
>Note that social and legal discrimination against those
>"homosexuals" (not yet known to be child molestors) is not
>applied to married men who molest, nor is it applied to
>otherwise non-sexual men who molest. When these men are
>discovered to be "homosexual" (whether the label is correct
>or not), they are also discovered to be child molestors.
>Discrimination is applied only to men who (are perceived to)
>have sex with other men. There is no sensible way to
>interpret Clayton's "statistics" as justifying discrimination
>against perceived homosexuals in any form.
I disagree. If I found out someone I knew molested children,
I would strongly shun him/her.
And I don't think Clayton is justifying any discrimination at all.
Did he call for this in any way?
>Clayton's crusade is also a little weird, in that it ignores
>roughly 75% of the children molested -- girls. It is also
>weird in that it apparently does not distinguish between male
>and female homosexuals. Such a stickler for details would
>surely note that female homosexuals rarely (to my knowledge
>-- sorry, no references) abuse children and rarely pass
>deadly diseases on to other members of society. Last I
>checked, there was no prohibition against female
>homosexuality in Leviticus, either (my favorite tax code for
>sin -- it's certainly easy to interpret, though a wee bit
>dated).
Hot Young Star
ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <ld98vl...@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
cha...@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.1...@netcom.com> ph...@netcom.com
>>(Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>>In short, the emotional reaction shows that Clayton has
>>>clearly hit a nerve.
>>Clayton hit a nerve, yes. He hit my "bad statistics nerve".
>Well, do, or do not, male homosexuals on the average, have close to TWO
>orders of magnitude more sex partners than hetersexuals? Do you NOT
>accept that many many people find this disgusting?
You are using the phrase "two orders of magnitude" deceptively, Phil.
Most people with scientific backgrounds will understand this to mean
10*10, or 100 times the promiscuity.
What you actually appear to be referring to is the Masters, Johnson,
and Kolodny studies which showed that straight unmarried men have
about 10 sex partners per year, and that gay men have about 22 partners
per year on average. The difference is "two times", NOT "two orders of
magnitude"!!!
As for the "digusting" part, then any straight man who beds a different
woman every month must also be depraved and disgusting, too. The average
gay man is not incredibly different than the average unmarried straight
man. The behavior that Clayton always highlights---gay men who frequent
bathhouses and have a dozen partners a night---is clearly on on fringe
of a distribution of behaviors. Any attempt to portray it as "NORMAL"
gay behavior is outright fraud.
Do you really want to differentiate between bedding a new person every
two weeks instead of once a month? These aren't married people, you
know.
Their promiscuity may be incredibly stupid in the age of AIDS, but
disgusting? What's disgusting about it? (Careful how you use that word,
"disgusting"!)
In any case, you can't really compare the relationship between two men
to that between a man and a woman, NOT because they are inherently different,
but because men and women are STILL socialized differently. Men are
still taught to be the hunters and the aggressors, and women the more
passive, intuitive, and sensible.
Clayton implies that two men can not inherently have a romantic and
loving relationship, that their relationships would naturally devolve
into buddy-buddy, or competitive, or sex-crazed relationships, and that
is why gay relationships supposedly don't last.
There was a study done in the mid-80's by a gay male professional couple---
one is a clinical psychologist, the other a psychiatrist---the names escape
me (one is named McWhirter???)---who chronicled the relationships of roughly
150 male couples. Their durations ranged from 1 year to over 40 years.
The average length in the relationship, if I remember right, was about
15 years.
As a comparison, new divorce statistics indicate that of all the marriages
which took place in 1989, 49% of those couples are now divorced in 1992.
Are you really going to go out on a limb and say that gay male behavior
is INCREDIBLY DIFFERENT than straight male behavior? Sure, they're a bit
different, but there is no hard evidence of a night-and-day situation.
We'd all do better to regard each other as _human beings_, instead of
"US vs THEM".
Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
ste...@orchid.ucsc.edu
>In article <ld98vl...@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> cha...@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct8.1...@netcom.com> ph...@netcom.com
>
>orders of magnitude more sex partners than hetersexuals? Do you NOT
>accept that many many people find this disgusting?
>
>And that female homosexuals do not have this kind of difference?
>
Show me any study that can positively demostrate the above statements
as concrete fact. And that is just my point, all studies are biased
by the reseacher and their subjects. I have been evolved in studies
where the subjects have later claimed that they were not quite honest
in their responses.
We must be careful about what we are trying to extract informationally
from some given studies results. I have respect for the Kinsey reports
but in no way have can I conclude that it applies to the everyday
existence of people.
So as far as the questions: Well, do, or do not, male homosexuals on the average,
have close to TWO orders of magnitude more sex partners than hetersexuals?
Do you NOT accept that many many people find this disgusting?
They are not answerable in any concrete way, if you are attempting to apply a
studys particular results to the entire population of homosexual individuals.
And this is what really becomes our problem, the application of study results
that only reflect a 'very' small subset or group chosen in a way that will
obviously introduce bias results.
One need only look at the constant studies that come through talking about
health issues- is red wine good or bad? is butter good or bad? is maragine
good or bad? is oat bran good or bad? If I can't trust a study that is
attempting to determine if oat bran or red wine are good/bad for me, how would
I ever trust a study that attempts to answer questions about human behavior.
> >At this point I was skimming along pretty rapidly, but I got
> >the impression that at least one study was also claiming that
> >married men who molest boys are "actually homosexual". This
> >acts both to deflate the heterosexual molestation rate and
> >increase the homosexual molestation rate, if it is included
> >in Clayton's statistics.
>
>Are you stating that married men AREN'T ever homosexuals? I thought it
>was not unusual for homosexuals who have not come out to get married to
>hide or hope that they themselves will change etc.
>
I have known many married men who 1) were gay, 2) were bisexual, 3) were
curious about male to male sexual contacts, even if this only results in
talk about it. There is much more in the way of male to male sexual
contact then one may know about. How would one know? Since many would
want to keep it a secret.
I don't think the above poster is trying to say that there are not married
homosexual men, what he is saying or trying to demostrate is, that it might
be the study that is introducing a bias by making a blanket statement that
this men are "actually homosexual". I would not believe such a statement
either, since I have known men who have had sex with other men, and still
claim they are 'straight' or 'bi'.
>--
>ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>
My only conclusion from the number of studies that I have seen on sexuality is as
follows;
The Sexual Spectrum is fairly wide and people cover it from one end to the other
in varying degrees.
I include percentage as an indicator of the distribution not absolute numbers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusively Exclusively
Homosexual Bi-Sexual Heterosexual
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% <------------------------------90%----------------------------> 5%
David Chase
>Well, do, or do not, male homosexuals on the average, have close to TWO
>orders of magnitude more sex partners than hetersexuals?
I don't know. If Clayton presented his most "scholarly" data, then he
doesn't really know either, though he thinks he may. I don't really
care. The point is that Clayton's statistics are junk.
> Do you NOT accept that many many people find this disgusting?
I don't know. I haven't conducted a proper poll. Neither have you.
Nor has Clayton, near as I can tell. Asking your friends is not
statistically sound.
> >At this point I was skimming along pretty rapidly, but I got
> >the impression that at least one study was also claiming that
> >married men who molest boys are "actually homosexual". This
> >acts both to deflate the heterosexual molestation rate and
> >increase the homosexual molestation rate, if it is included
> >in Clayton's statistics.
>Are you stating that married men AREN'T ever homosexuals?
No. I stated what I wrote. One study quoted by Clayton seemed to
state that men-who-are-married-and-not-having-sex-with-men-but-
molesting-boys are, in fact "homosexual". However, this is not
homosexual in the same sense that having sex with other men is
homosexual, and to lump the two together is wrong in several senses
(statistically bogus, and rather insulting to your run-of-the-mill
homosexual).
> >Note that social and legal discrimination against those
> >"homosexuals" (not yet known to be child molestors) is not
***********************************
> >applied to married men who molest, nor is it applied to
> >otherwise non-sexual men who molest.
>I disagree. If I found out someone I knew molested children,
>I would strongly shun him/her.
You do not disagree. Read what I wrote. Note the quote marks around
"homosexual", and the preceding context in which Clayton's researchers
are claiming that married men who molest are "really homosexual".
Hypothetically speaking, suppose John Smith is a married man who does
not have sex with men. Lacking other information, you do not shun
him. If you discover that he does molest boys, then you shun him.
You do not shun him because he is "homosexual" -- you shun him because
he is a child molestor. If you had previously avoided men who have
sex with men, you would not have avoided John Smith.
Do the case analysis -- (ignoring women, for brevity) you've got:
a) adult homosexuals (who do not molest)
b) adult heterosexuals (who do not molest)
c) adult bisexuals (who do not molest)
d) adult nonsexuals (who do not molest)
e) adult homosexuals who molest boys (if you find out, you shun them)
f) adult heterosexuals who molest boys (if you find out, you shun them)
g) adult bisexuals who molest boys (if you find out, you shun them)
h) adult nonsexuals who molest boys (if you find out, you shun them)
Clayton's sources seem to be saying that people in categories
a,c,e,f,g and h are all "homosexuals". Since f and h are only labeled
"homosexual" because they molest male children, pooling them with
other "homosexuals" will inevitably raise the rate at which
"homosexuals" molest children, even though these men(f&h) never have
sex with other men. If you choose to shun/not hire/not rent to
homosexuals, you are missing the people in categories f and h
(assuming that they are not known to be child molestors). We
do not know (given Clayton's numbers) anything about the relative
sizes of groups a and e, or b and f, or c and g, or d and h.
Understand that there are other reasons to argue with Clayton about
this -- I'm only looking at his statistics, which are sufficiently bad
that they do not justify any conclusions about anything.
David Chase
Sun
Clayton Cramer
> In article <1992Oct8.1...@netcom.com> ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> >In short, the emotional reaction shows that Clayton has clearly hit
> >a nerve.
>
> example is the comparison of a study of homosexual behavior with "how
> many heterosexuals do you know that are like this?" This indicates
> either an intent to mislead, or gross ignorance of statistical methods
> (my acquaintances are a biased sample, not a random sample). Another
> problem is the way the label "homosexual" is applied. Someone who has
> someone who has sex with men is a "homosexual". Lumping them together
If you read the rest of the postings, you would see that there is
agreement from at least two of the sources that indeed, someone who
has sex with boys IS a homosexual. By the way, none of the books
indicated that there were men who had sex exclusively with boys --
just that this was a preference.
> will artificially inflate the rate at which "homosexuals" molest
> children.
>
> At this point I was skimming along pretty rapidly, but I got the
> impression that at least one study was also claiming that married men
> who molest boys are "actually homosexual". This acts both to deflate
> the heterosexual molestation rate and increase the homosexual
> molestation rate, if it is included in Clayton's statistics.
Because men having sex with other males IS homosexual, as two of
the three books on the subject agreed. At best (for the homosexual
side), such men are bisexual.
> Note that social and legal discrimination against those "homosexuals"
> (not yet known to be child molestors) is not applied to married men
> who molest, nor is it applied to otherwise non-sexual men who molest.
> When these men are discovered to be "homosexual" (whether the label is
> correct or not), they are also discovered to be child molestors.
They are? A bisexual who gets discovered may be discovered in a
public restroom with an adult.
> Discrimination is applied only to men who (are perceived to) have sex
> with other men. There is no sensible way to interpret Clayton's
> "statistics" as justifying discrimination against perceived
> homosexuals in any form.
Except that you are assuming that every homosexual child molester
is ashamed of his sexual orientation. Roy Radow at NAMBLA sure isn't.
> Clayton's crusade is also a little weird, in that it ignores roughly
> 75% of the children molested -- girls. It is also weird in that it
Not ignored. But then again, no one is trying to get pedophiles
(regardless of preference) protected by laws, except for the homosexual
fascist lobby.
> apparently does not distinguish between male and female homosexuals.
Because the laws in question don't make that distinction.
> Such a stickler for details would surely note that female homosexuals
> rarely (to my knowledge -- sorry, no references) abuse children and
True.
> rarely pass deadly diseases on to other members of society. Last I
As I posted from the CDC AIDS Daily Summary recently, this is not so
clear.
> checked, there was no prohibition against female homosexuality in
> Leviticus, either (my favorite tax code for sin -- it's certainly easy
> to interpret, though a wee bit dated).
This has nothing to do with the Bible.
> I took special effort to make this not a flame. Presumably, Clayton
It's not.
> can now straighten out the different definitions of "homosexual" and
> explain how his sampling technique ("how many people do you know ...")
> is unbiased.
>
> David Chase
> Sun
Mr. Kane has posted some numbers that, even leaving out monogamous
heterosexuals, and making obviously absurd assumptions about non-
monogamous heterosexuals remaining so, and at the same sexual
promiscuity level throughout their lifetimes, still show homosexual
men as at least twice as promiscuous as the non-monogamous homosexuals.
Gene W. Smith
>Wading through the morass of "Gene Smith" postings regarding Claytons
>recent posting on homosexuals, it has struck me how, uh, "driven" this
>person is.
Gene Smith is my actual name, and therefore does not belong in quotes.
I sometimes become annoyed at stupidity, which means I sometimes
become annoyed reading netnews. As for driven, a clear example of
seemingly irrationally driven behavior is Calyton's obsessive postings
on the subject of the supposed connection between child molestation
and homosexuality.
>Clayton lists his sources, people that are professionsal in the field,
>and "Gener Smith" counters with the experiences of his mother (!!!) who
>says that her experience was that the scholastic level was "low"!
My point was, my mother had those very same professional credentials.
If you want to give that much credit to a person who may have done
their thesis as macrame, go ahead.
The people Clayton quoted had in several instances very dubious
credentials (about as bad as your preposterous citation of the opinions
of detectives who work in the area.) Neither a police detective nor a
psychiatric social worker nor a psychoanalyst is qualified by reason of
what they do or know to give an informed opinion on the statistical
relationship, if any, between homosexuality and child molestation.
Having said that, I also take note of the fact that the evidence
offered by both you and Clayton Cramer shows, if anything, the *lack*
of such a relationship. Deducing it from this evidence therefore shows
that you are both ignorant of what real evidence would be and unable to
reason correctly with what you consider to be evidence.
>His mother! I.e., you are wrong because my mommy said so!!
Is your mind still at a grade-school level? This could explain this
obsession with child-molestation, I suppose.
>Curiously, "Gene Smith" doesn't say what a bear is.
Why should I? It would take to long to explain, anyway.
>Now, if someone I disagreed with, and that I wanted to discredit
>posted a statement that the distance of the Earth from the Sun is
>50,000 miles, I wouldn't say. nopes, that's not it, you're wrong.
>I'd say, it's about 93,000,000 miles dipshit.
>In short, the emotional reaction shows that Clayton has clearly hit
>a nerve.
I'm afraid the nerve it hit was the funnybone. You and Clayton sit and
talk about stuff ("bears" and "twinks") with little or no idea what it
means. If you want to find out, get a copy of Bear Magazine or
something. I have no particular interest in giving a course in intro
gay studies to a couple of moronic homophobes. What I am really
curious about now is the question of whether your really think you've
scored some kind of a rhetorical triumph here. Do you think Clayton
knows more about the gay lexicon than I do, or do you think I am
deliberatly covering up the awful truth?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Phil Ronzone
>Neither a police detective nor a psychiatric social worker
>nor a psychoanalyst is qualified by reason of what they do or
>know to give an informed opinion on the statistical
>relationship, if any, between homosexuality and child
>molestation. Having said that, I also take note of the fact
>that the evidence offered by both you and Clayton Cramer
>shows, if anything, the *lack* of such a relationship.
>Deducing it from this evidence therefore shows that you are
>both ignorant of what real evidence would be and unable to
>reason correctly with what you consider to be evidence.
Considering that a police officer working with abused children is the
first line of encounter, I'd say that such a police officer has a much
better, more accurate, and clearer picture of such a relationship
that any one else.
>I'm afraid the nerve it hit was the funnybone. You and
>Clayton sit and talk about stuff ("bears" and "twinks") with
>little or no idea what it means. If you want to find out, get
>a copy of Bear Magazine or something. I have no particular
>interest in giving a course in intro gay studies to a couple
>of moronic homophobes. What I am really curious about now is
>the question of whether your really think you've scored some
>kind of a rhetorical triumph here. Do you think Clayton knows
>more about the gay lexicon than I do, or do you think I am
>deliberatly covering up the awful truth?
No, I just think you are a rationalizer. You have a set of beliefs
and you choose to ignore or belittle any factual knowledge that
disagrees with your beliefs and preconceptions.
You are typical in this regard.
You assert that others are "wrong".
Rather than enlightened us and show use where we are wrong,
state that you have no particular interest in giving a course
on gay studies to a couple of moronic homophobes.
You lie.
1. You do have an interest, else why the several long posts?
2. The people you denigrate are neither moronic nor homophobic.
And to state that someone else is wrong, but that you are just
too "about it all" to give the "correct" facts is an arrogant
elitist pig-headed Politically Correct(tm) fascist approach
given off by intellectually dishonest people cornered by their
own contradictions.
If you were right, you would have no problem is telling it.
David Chase
Sigh. Clayton, you are confusing definitions again, and muddying the
waters with NAMBLA again. NAMBLA is irrelevant -- nobody I know is
likely to choose a NAMBLA spokesman to run a day-care center or Boy
Scout troop.
Try to break your results down by the following groups, based on
actual behavior (i.e., what we have a prayer of observing) and not
some Freudian mind-reading of people already known to molest children.
1. Men who have sex with men (and nobody else).
2. Men who have sex with women.
3. Men who have sex with men and women.
4. Men who have sex with nobody.
5. Men who have sex with men and boys.
6. Men who have sex with women and boys.
7. Men who have sex with men and women and boys.
8. Men who have sex with boys.
If, hypothetically speaking, you are choosing a Boy Scout troop
leader, you have already ruled out people known to be in groups 5-8,
homosexual or not. Assuming that you are inclined to make these
distinctions, your next step is to decide, based on knowing that
someone is a member of 1+5 or 2+6 or 3+7 or 4+8 (you don't know for
sure whether this person is a child molestor or not) how likely it is
that that person is in fact a member of group 5, 6, 7 or 8
(respectively).
This does not seem to be what you are measuring -- you are measuring
the odds that someone is a member of 5+6+7+8 (i.e., a child molestor),
given that you already know someone is a member of 1+3+5+6+7+8 (a
"homosexual", using your definition). Unfortunately, this mixes very
important information (someone is known to be a child molestor) with
very unimportant information (someone has sex with men).
I hope I'm not giving anyone the impression that this is the only
point to argue -- this just happens to be the point that I am most
capable of arguing.
David Chase
Sun
ste...@orchid.ucsc.edu
>
>"All studies are biased ..."?
>
How could it be any other way- show me, demostrate to me, that there
are studies in existence that have no 'human psychological' bias
element. If you believe this not to be true... well I don't know
what to tell you.
>How do you KNOW this? Have you been a participant and/or observer in
>ALL studies?
>
>No? Oh, "[you] have been evolved [sic] in studies" -- that is, you
>speak based on a [very small] subset of all studies.
>
Actually I have not been 'evolved' in studies.
Yes I stated that I have limited experience- and having read a large
about of literature on how studies are conducted and how one attempts
to eliminate bias- but you can't get rid of all of it. Even your
reading it has a bias which is slanted towards your view of the
world.
>So how do we know that you aren't biased and wrong, and that all
>studies ARE correct?
>
Studies come out of our existence- they do not exist as entities
within themselves. We create them and we interpret them. If you
want to argue about their 'existence' as entities- go ahead.
Everything we state has a bias towards what we know and have accepted
as being valid and true- unless we remain vigilant and aware of
our own viewpoints and what they may mean to others.
>
> >We must be careful about what we are trying to extract
> >informationally from some given studies results. I have
> >respect for the Kinsey reports but in no way have can I
> >conclude that it applies to the everyday existence of people.
>
>As Kinsey was studying the overall sexualality of people, it certainly
>does apply to the everday existence of people. What you write is
>nonsense.
So what I write is nonsense, but what you write is not? Hmmm
Sounds like a good case for bias right here.
Well again you have to prove that to me- show me that all of the
findings in a 'study' e.g. the one above applies to everyday
existence of all people.
>
> >So as far as the questions: Well, do, or do not, male
> >homosexuals on the average, have close to TWO orders of
> >magnitude more sex partners than hetersexuals? Do you NOT
> >accept that many many people find this disgusting?
> >
> >They are not answerable in any concrete way, if you are
> >attempting to apply a studys particular results to the entire
> >population of homosexual individuals.
>
>Why not?
If they are, then give the solid and unshakeable truth of the
findings of a study. That is, show me, in relationship to the above
questions, solid irrefutable evidence and facts. I am afraid that
you can not.
>
> >And this is what really becomes our problem, the application
> >of study results that only reflect a 'very' small subset or
> >group chosen in a way that will obviously introduce bias
> >results.
>
>Sex you. I.e., what is the BASIS for your statement, other than a desire
>to live with your preconceptions?
>
The BASIS for my statement is that I am 'human' and have biases
built in via my education and the shaping of my viewpoints by
others- just like you, you are the product (as I am) of this
society. It is now in your power to begin thinking and evaluating
for yourself as to what is true and what is not.
What is 'Sex you'? Anyway, I would beg to differ on the point that
I have the desire to live with my preconceptions. Everyone to some
degree does live with preconceptions, but that is not the thrust
of my postings. You are living with preconceptions if you accept
the results of studies, as 'givens' 'facts'.
>
>Good and bad can range from arbitrary personal value judgements
>to valid medical judgements. You seem to not be able to understand
>that a scientific report, say, on butter comsumption and the
>incidence of various heart diseases is very valid -- but NOT when
>interpreted through three paragrapghs in the local paper.
>
Yes that is right- we must apply the findings in a careful manner.
We cannot just run out and start eating oat barn like a horse and
thinking that we will never have heart related problems.
> >I have known many married men who 1) were gay, 2) were
> >bisexual, 3) were curious about male to male sexual contacts,
> >even if this only results in talk about it. There is much
> >more in the way of male to male sexual contact then one may
> >know about. How would one know? Since many would want to keep
> >it a secret.
>
>And I haven't. So whose viewpoint is more valid, and why?
I suppose 'mine', since you do not have the experience, and I will
state that I made the above statement with complete honesty. If
your statement is true "that you haven't" then you do not have
a viewpoint that I have. In fact, you lack information about it,
from a personal perspective.
I believe that you live in Santa Rosa, or Petaluma... I use to
work and live in that area for several years. I can tell you
with complete confidence that the various situations as I spoke
of above, did happen in Santa Rosa, Petaluma, and other towns
in the Sonoma Valley- not to mention SSU.
>
>
>--
>ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>
One thing is for sure- most people do not understand or see their
own surrounding environment except in the terms of their own viewpoints
and knowledge (including biases).
Phil Ronzone
>In article <1992Oct9.1...@netcom.com> ph...@netcom.com
>>Well, do, or do not, male homosexuals on the average, have
>>close to TWO orders of magnitude more sex partners than
>>hetersexuals? Do you NOT accept that many many people find
>>this disgusting?
>>
>You are using the phrase "two orders of magnitude"
>deceptively, Phil. Most people with scientific backgrounds
>will understand this to mean 10*10, or 100 times the
>promiscuity.
>
>What you actually appear to be referring to is the Masters,
>Johnson, and Kolodny studies which showed that straight
>unmarried men have about 10 sex partners per year, and that
>gay men have about 22 partners per year on average. The
>difference is "two times", NOT "two orders of magnitude"!!!
Well, time out here. We have some MAJOR differences in "facts"
I'm not saying you are wrong or that I am right (yet! :-)), but
your figures and the ones that I have are very very much at odds.
In short, I have to go to the library, and that is going to be a week
or so.
Several comments, based on things I "know" but haven't verified.
I'm mentioning them ONLY because it will be a while before I can
afford the time.
Ball park figures I keep in mind is that a lifetime typical number of
partners is around 15 for men (that's TOTAL for entire life), and around
half of that for women.
Interestingly, every time I see those set of figures, in various popular
magazine articles (like Time), the numbers are always the same, and
so is the ratio -- men having about twice as many partners as women.
Several questions that your article has raised:
1. Your numbers are VASTLY different than any others.
2. Your ratio shows women with somewhat MORE sexual partners than
men -- a VERY VERY different and unexpected number.
3. The numbers are out of anything I am familar with. The most
promiscous men I know might have 2 or 3 different women a year.
4. Are the numbers an instance? Does a heteresexual single male,
for the period of six months at age 18, have 6 partners, only
to then settle down?
Note that a key word is unmarried. Are you comparing brief
periods in a hetereosexuals life .vs. the ongoing and continous
homosexual lifestyle?
These are all issues I need to research -- right now, I only know that
your numbers are VASTLY different than the numbers I am familar with.
I mean, when the background number in my mind is 6 partners average
lifetime for a women, I could accept a number that is double or triple
that.
But 3-4 times a lifetime number for a YEARLY number?????
Could you repost the article? I have lost the original.
Phil Ronzone
>Show me any study that can positively demostrate the above
>statements as concrete fact. And that is just my point, all
>studies are biased by the reseacher and their subjects. I
>have been evolved in studies where the subjects have later
>claimed that they were not quite honest in their responses.
"All studies are biased ..."?
How do you KNOW this? Have you been a participant and/or observer in
ALL studies?
No? Oh, "[you] have been evolved [sic] in studies" -- that is, you
speak based on a [very small] subset of all studies.
So how do we know that you aren't biased and wrong, and that all
studies ARE correct?
>We must be careful about what we are trying to extract
>informationally from some given studies results. I have
>respect for the Kinsey reports but in no way have can I
>conclude that it applies to the everyday existence of people.
As Kinsey was studying the overall sexualality of people, it certainly
does apply to the everday existence of people. What you write is
nonsense.
>So as far as the questions: Well, do, or do not, male
>homosexuals on the average, have close to TWO orders of
>magnitude more sex partners than hetersexuals? Do you NOT
>accept that many many people find this disgusting?
>
>They are not answerable in any concrete way, if you are
>attempting to apply a studys particular results to the entire
>population of homosexual individuals.
Why not?
>And this is what really becomes our problem, the application
>of study results that only reflect a 'very' small subset or
>group chosen in a way that will obviously introduce bias
>results.
Sex you. I.e., what is the BASIS for your statement, other than a desire
to live with your preconceptions?
>One need only look at the constant studies that come through
>talking about health issues- is red wine good or bad? is
>butter good or bad? is maragine good or bad? is oat bran good
>or bad? If I can't trust a study that is attempting to
>determine if oat bran or red wine are good/bad for me, how
>would I ever trust a study that attempts to answer questions
>about human behavior.
Good and bad can range from arbitrary personal value judgements
to valid medical judgements. You seem to not be able to understand
that a scientific report, say, on butter comsumption and the
incidence of various heart diseases is very valid -- but NOT when
interpreted through three paragrapghs in the local paper.
>I have known many married men who 1) were gay, 2) were
>bisexual, 3) were curious about male to male sexual contacts,
>even if this only results in talk about it. There is much
>more in the way of male to male sexual contact then one may
>know about. How would one know? Since many would want to keep
>it a secret.
And I haven't. So whose viewpoint is more valid, and why?
--
Phil Ronzone
>ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>Well, do, or do not, male homosexuals on the average, have
>>close to TWO orders of magnitude more sex partners than
>>hetersexuals?
>>
>I don't know. If Clayton presented his most "scholarly" data,
>then he doesn't really know either, though he thinks he may.
>I don't really care. The point is that Clayton's statistics
>are junk.
>
>>Do you NOT accept that many many people find this disgusting?
>>
>I don't know. I haven't conducted a proper poll. Neither have
>you. Nor has Clayton, near as I can tell. Asking your friends
>is not statistically sound.
You don't know. Thanks for your honesty.
I rely on the recent Newsweek magazine articles on homosexuality,
which include a nice set of polls on peoples attitudes on homosexuality.
But judging from the cries of discrimination from many homosexual
posters on the net, surely you assert that most people don't like
homoseuality?
Hot Young Star
>Mr. Kane has posted some numbers that, even leaving out monogamous
>heterosexuals, and making obviously absurd assumptions about non-
>monogamous heterosexuals remaining so, and at the same sexual
>promiscuity level throughout their lifetimes, still show homosexual
>men as at least twice as promiscuous as the non-monogamous homosexuals.
The assumptions aren't that absurd given recent divorce stats.
I realize this will be difficult to digest, especially since some of
my interlocutors go under the assumption that sexual fidelity is the
end-all of a good marriage.
While I remain monogamous at this point, I don't delude myself by believing
that the day will never come when my partner and I might come to an agreement
that we may entertain outside partners from time to time.
As long as we mutually agree about it, and we are honest, who cares.
(And we realize that doing so entails a large amount of responsibility
to practice safer sex, preferably safe sex, i.e. masturbation.)
We know what makes our relationship work. We feel that love should be
and is UNCONDITIONAL. Honesty, integrity, and a positive image of
oneself (including ones sexual self), the building blocks of a
commitment based solely on ideas, on love, is infinitely more appealing
to us than commitment grounded solely on behavior.
Saying "If you do this, or if you don't do this, you don't love me"
strikes us as a very artificial, superficial, self-comsumed declaration
of what love ought to be.
I prefer to base my ideal relationship on my belief in God. God's love
for us is unconditional, and we only realize this by accepting OUR
imperfection. Why do we then expect perfection in our mortal partners?
Sexual infidelity may indeed be a sign of a troubled marriage, when such
behaviour is not mutually agreed upon, or hidden completely (makes ya
wonder---how many straight couples do you think hide their infidelities
completely?). But if there is good communication and such behaviour is
mutually OK'd, then is it not a sign that the love each partner has for
the other transcends expectations of sexual perfection?
If not, why do we ascribe unconditional Godly love as good? Is it not
rather hypocritical not to live this way ourselves?
If you decide to be sexually monogamous for the rest of your life, for
whatever reason, fine. This might describe me, who knows!
But it you and your partner mutually agree that some other arrangement
is feasible, so be it, too!
Live life the way you want to---be responsive to your partner, put him/her
first, but also come to respect that you are not the sole answer to your
partners needs and wants. One is selfish believing that.
Brian
Hot Young Star
>In article <98...@bu.edu> ka...@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>>What you actually appear to be referring to is the Masters,
>>Johnson, and Kolodny studies which showed that straight
>>unmarried men have about 10 sex partners per year, and that
>>gay men have about 22 partners per year on average. The
>>difference is "two times", NOT "two orders of magnitude"!!!
>Several questions that your article has raised:
>1. Your numbers are VASTLY different than any others.
They're not MY numbers, they're Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny's---the
same researchers from whom Clayton provided data on homosexual behavior.
>2. Your ratio shows women with somewhat MORE sexual partners than
> men -- a VERY VERY different and unexpected number.
I thought it was surprising, too. But then I thought...who are all these
straight men having sex with...blow-up dolls ??? (actually, having gone
to professional baseball games this year and seen the Neanderthal behavior
in the bleachers, this supposition might not be so wild :-))
Prostitution might also explain it. But it's probably the double-standard
myth (women don't cheat or aren't promiscuous while men are) that may be
troubling you.
>3. The numbers are out of anything I am familar with. The most
> promiscous men I know might have 2 or 3 different women a year.
Sounds like you know mainly priests.
These studies by the above-mentioned authors covered the years 1977-1986.
Behaviour has been modified since then.
>4. Are the numbers an instance? Does a heteresexual single male,
> for the period of six months at age 18, have 6 partners, only
> to then settle down?
They only quoted averages, for both their heterosexual and homosexual studies.
I would expect the general case for both was this sporadic promiscuity followed
by relative monogamy. That is the experience I see in many gay men my age.
> Note that a key word is unmarried. Are you comparing brief
> periods in a hetereosexuals life .vs. the ongoing and continous
> homosexual lifestyle?
That's the best I can do now, until legal and religious homosexual marriages
become widespread (which will be sooner than you may think!)
Brian
Michael A. Thomas
> You don't know. Thanks for your honesty.
>
> I rely on the recent Newsweek magazine articles on homosexuality,
> which include a nice set of polls on peoples attitudes on homosexuality.
Um Phil, what do people's attitudes toward homosexuality have to
do with *anything*. People's bigotry is not a validation of anything.
I have little doubt if we interchanged the word "Italian" for "homosexual"
you'd be the first to howl in protest that this is no voting matter.
>
> But judging from the cries of discrimination from many homosexual
> posters on the net, surely you assert that most people don't like
> homoseuality?
Stop trying to co-opt the rest of the heterosexuals of the world
into your bigotry. That Phil Ronzone is a bigot does not imply that
the world is or should be bigoted.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@gordian.com)
"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."
-- Hobbes to Calvin
USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca, 92707-5637
PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Gene W. Smith
>Considering that a police officer working with abused children is the
>first line of encounter, I'd say that such a police officer has a much
>better, more accurate, and clearer picture of such a relationship
>that any one else.
Actually, social workers such as my much-derided mother are likely to
be the first line of encounter. Neither a police officer nor a
CPS worker is studying the problem scientifically--that isn't their
job.
Your citation of the detective who opined that the membership of Nambla
consisted almost entirely of sadistic child-rapists is a good example
of the limitation of this perspective. A police officer tends to look
at the world in terms of perps, other officers, and civilians (since
you seem to hate this kind of thing, I will spare you the details of
why and how I had the opportunity to get to know some police
detectives.) If you have an organization like Nambla, a police
officer's first instinct will be that these guys sound like perps.
When some of them turn out to be, it is easy to assume that they all
are, more or less. But this isn't a reasoned judgment based on
evidence. If you had given any evidence that the detective involved
actually knew anything to base his judgment on, your preposterous
credulity might have made some sense. But you didn't and it doesn't.
>No, I just think you are a rationalizer. You have a set of beliefs >and
>you choose to ignore or belittle any factual knowledge that >disagrees
>with your beliefs and preconceptions.
It say a lot about you (and none of it good) that you charge *me* with
this, given the Clayton Cramer postings which started all this. I
respond to information rationally. If you don't know how that works,
try bringing in *real* data and arguments. You'll get a lot more
respect. I've gotten in trouble enough for objecting to stuff with
whose conclusions I am in sympathy. I don't think you know much about
the scientific mind and how it works, Bub. I've been trained to
go after weak arguments, and so that is what I do. If the weak arguments
are personally offensive to me, so much the worse for them, but
that doesn't mean I let it cloud my judgment.
If you want to see a rationalizer, buy a mirror.
>Rather than enlightened us and show use where we are wrong, tate that
>you have no particular interest in giving a course on gay studies to a
>couple of moronic homophobes.
You are capable of doing your own homework, are you not? I told you
one place you could find out what "bear" means in gayspeak if you felt
you absolutely must know. In fact, if you really, truly are interested
in the question of what "bear" and "twink" actually mean, I suppose I
could explain. But my impression is that you are using this as
something on which to base a bogus rhetorical point.
>>You lie.
You didn't do this right. The correct, Maroney-style syntax is:
YOU LIE!!!!
If you want anyone to take you seriously, you then need to
post actual lies.
>1. You do have an interest, else why the several long posts?
My several long posts are not evidence that I am interested in
furthering *your* education, Stupid.
>2. The people you denigrate are neither moronic nor homophobic.
If you and Clayton don't want to be considered moronic and homophobic,
then don't post moronic and homophobic stuff all the time. To show this
is a lie, you would have to show that I knew neither of you was
moronic and homophobic, but said so anyway.
Speaking of fundamental dishonesty, what about your contention that you
and Cramer are *not* homophobic? In Cramer's case it is painfully
obvious, and only a person who was capable of and in the habit of lying
to himself could ignore this.
If you want to see a liar, buy a mirror.
>And to state that someone else is wrong, but that you are just too
>"about it all" to give the "correct" facts is an arrogant elitist
>pig-headed Politically Correct(tm) fascist approach given off by
>intellectually dishonest people cornered by their own contradictions.
If you want to corner someone with their contradictions, you must first
find at least one actual contradiction. And I am considered
Politically Incorrect(tm) by some, so I aint worried about that rather
limp epithet.
Paul Bartholomew
>
> Well, do, or do not, male homosexuals on the average, have close to TWO
> orders of magnitude more sex partners than hetersexuals?
Not according to the statistics Clayton produced. You are aware of the
meaning of the term "orders of magnitude", I trust?
> Do you NOT accept that many many people find this disgusting?
No, actually I don't. For example, I don't find it disgusting and have
trouble understanding why anyone would. I think it's entirely up to
them whom they want to sleep with and how often they do it. It's none
of my business.
Yes, I know this wasn't precisely what you were asking, but my answer is
still no, I don't accept that "many many" people find this disgusting.
Can you put some numbers on this for me, please?
> I disagree. If I found out someone I knew molested children,
> I would strongly shun him/her.
Yes, but Clayton is making the argument that "out" homosexuals should be
denied positions as counselors, teachers, etc., when by his own statistics,
it's the closeted homosexuals who are the problem. This is akin to the
old military argument that homosexuals were security risks. If you were
a closeted homosexual, you might be, but the argument just doesn't work
for the openly gay person.
[re: discrimination against gays]
> Did he call for this in any way?
Well, yes, actually he did. Do I really have to go through his postings
to find this? C'mon, Phil, you read 'em.
Donn F. Pedro
A bunch of stuff to Gene Smith that, in fact, applies to the very person
he is striving to protect -- Clayton Cramer.
:In article <1992Oct10.1...@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsm...@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
:
:No, I just think you are a rationalizer. You have a set of beliefs
:and you choose to ignore or belittle any factual knowledge that
:disagrees with your beliefs and preconceptions.
A very accurate description of Clayton's behavior.
:You assert that others are "wrong".
Another.
:1. You do have an interest, else why the several long posts?
Yes. Why the several long posts?
:If you were right, you would have no problem is telling it.
We are not here for you, Phil. Clayton can make all the assertions (lies)
he wishes, and you can defend him all you want, but no one is obligated
to educate someone who will refuses to listen.
Clayton's 'culling' of soc.motss should be all the education he needs,
yet he only sees what he wants to see.
Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com
There are no ordinary moments.
Phil Ronzone
>Um Phil, what do people's attitudes toward homosexuality have
>to do with *anything*. People's bigotry is not a validation
>of anything. I have little doubt if we interchanged the word
>"Italian" for "homosexual" you'd be the first to howl in
>protest that this is no voting matter.
Interesting. If peoples *attitude* is something along the lines that *you*
don't like, it's "bigotry".
Now THAT attitude is true bigotry.
How long have you held this arrogant world viewpoint?
A large number of people find homosexuality disgusting, disagreeable,
or abhorent. There is no right or wrong on that, and is has little to
do with bigotry.
Secondly, to correct your narrow mindedness, it wouldn't bother me one bit
if Italian was substituted homosexual.
Your basic trouble, it seems from reading your posts, is that being dislike
for an attribute worries you a great deal.
You;d be a lot more happy if you didn't let YOUR happiness depend on the
opinions of others. Then maybe you'd stop trying to use force to "make"
people like you (or your cause).
>Stop trying to co-opt the rest of the heterosexuals of the
>world into your bigotry. That Phil Ronzone is a bigot does
>not imply that the world is or should be bigoted. --
First of all -- I'm not a bigot. Stop equating any aspect of dislike with
bigotry. Secondly, I have every right to co-oipt anybody into anything
(that is moral).
If you are doing something that a large number of people find disgusting,
then either stop it, or live with it.
Phil Ronzone
>In article <1992Oct11.1...@netcom.com>
>ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>>"All studies are biased ..."?
>>
>How could it be any other way- show me, demostrate to me,
>that there are studies in existence that have no 'human
>psychological' bias element. If you believe this not to be
>true... well I don't know what to tell you.
Double blind experiments to start with.
Paul Bartholomew
>
> 3. The numbers are out of anything I am familar with. The most
> promiscous men I know might have 2 or 3 different women a year.
Trust me, Phil, I know of heterosexual men who are quite a bit more pro-
miscuous than that. Heck, I live with one. At his worst, he was
sleeping with a different woman every week. In the 3 years I've been
his roommate, I'd estimate the number of sexual partners at about 30.
I, on the other hand, am probably at the lower end of heterosexual un-
married men since I tend to average about 1 partner per year.
I'm not claiming he's typical--in fact, I'd be willing to bet he's on the
high end. I'm just saying that it sounds like you know some pretty non-
promiscuous men.
Paul Bartholomew
> Except that you are assuming that every homosexual child molester
> is ashamed of his sexual orientation. Roy Radow at NAMBLA sure isn't.
This from a man who piously declares that he doesn't indulge in attacks.
Clayton, do please give us the evidence that Roy is a child molester.
While you're at it, give it to your police department as well, so they
can take the appropriate action. Of course, if you didn't mean to imply
that Roy molests children, then you might want to publicly apologze to
him. You might also want to explain to Brian Kane your rationale for
calling him "depraved".
Incidentally, Clayton, you still haven't told me what ad hominem attacks
I made on you when I responded to your "Mother" postings. And you still
haven't addressed the substance of my response. Care to respond?
> Not ignored. But then again, no one is trying to get pedophiles
> (regardless of preference) protected by laws, except for the homosexual
> fascist lobby.
And your evidence for this rather bizarre claim? Since there's no such
thing as a "homosexual fascist lobby", the point is moot, I suppose.
Still, the only people who are trying to get pedophiles protected by law are
the members of NAMBLA, a small group indeed, with absolutely no chance
of having their agenda approved. If this is the rationale for continuing
your crusade, then I'd say it's long past time to quit.
David Chase
>posters on the net, surely you assert that most people don't like
Absolutely not. First, the net is not a good sample. Your friends
are not a good sample. Neither are mine. Second, you say "most".
"Most", last I heard, is 50% or more. I think 5-10% would be large
enough to generate many reports of discrimination (assuming a good
sample, of course).
I don't put a great deal of stock in your quote of a Newsweek poll,
either. It is very important exactly how the question was asked.
Newsweek is not exactly high on my list of statistically literate
publications.
David Chase
Sun
Hot Young Star
In article <12...@optilink.UUCP> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>The Results of Childhood Sexual Abuse
>-------------------------------------
[...]
>Eating Disorders
>Eating disorders are also a common nonsexual response to
>childhood sexual abuse.[Bagley & King, 114, 117, Faller, 150,
>Everstine & Everstine, 18] Significantly, soc.motss is a group
>where many members identify themselves as "bears" (overweight
>and hairy) as distinguished from "twinks" (those with more
>normal body shapes).
First of all, you misinterpret what a "bear" is. Clue: there is no
one "type" of bear. The whole bear mystique has a lot to do with
body hair, to be sure, but just as much to do with a rugged, outdoorsy,
masculine bearing (sorry for the pun!) as with actual hirsuteness.
It has nothing much to do with body shape at all.
Secondly, and more importantly, is your false implication that
gay men tend to be more overweight than the general population.
My experience among gay men my age is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. They seem
to be more interested than the average young man in perfecting their
bodies. As a result, gyms have become staples in the daily routines of
many, to the point that they have also become major places of congregation
and friendly conversation.
I often give advice to the newly out who ask me about good ways of
meeting other gay men. I always say "avoid the bars", and point them
to gymnasiums (not to mention bookstores and dinner parties!). People
seem to be a lot more friendly with a dumbbell in their hand than with
a drink! Maybe because there are fewer pretentions at the gym. You can
see your workout partners and the other gym members all have less than
perfect bodies. Everybody knows it. Bars on the other hand tend to be
the way of offering yourself as a "perfect package"---if you don't go
to bars to socialize, that is.
This whole "gym body" phenom does have a bit unsettling implications,
though. It speaks of how we still expect men to notice the most physically
attractive people first, whether they be male or female.
Says a lot about how many women must feel about appearing attractive to
straight men!
Hot Young Star
pdb...@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes about Clayton's
_ad hominem_ attack on me (a tactic he claims to despise from his
opponents):
>You might also want to explain to Brian Kane your rationale for
>calling him "depraved".
He did. He told me that it was solely because of my sexuality. He's never
met me, not even come close to meeting me. That should give you some
idea of how "rational" he is when talking about sex.
Clayton Cramer
> In article <1992Oct9.1...@netcom.com>
> ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> >In article <ld98vl...@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
> cha...@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
> >>In article <1992Oct8.1...@netcom.com> ph...@netcom.com
> >>(Phil Ronzone) writes:
# ###clearly hit a nerve.
#
# ##Clayton hit a nerve, yes. He hit my "bad statistics nerve".
#
# #Well, do, or do not, male homosexuals on the average, have close to TWO
# #orders of magnitude more sex partners than hetersexuals? Do you NOT
# #accept that many many people find this disgusting?
#
# You are using the phrase "two orders of magnitude" deceptively, Phil.
# Most people with scientific backgrounds will understand this to mean
# 10*10, or 100 times the promiscuity.
#
# What you actually appear to be referring to is the Masters, Johnson,
# and Kolodny studies which showed that straight unmarried men have
# about 10 sex partners per year, and that gay men have about 22 partners
# per year on average. The difference is "two times", NOT "two orders of
# magnitude"!!!
#
# As for the "digusting" part, then any straight man who beds a different
# woman every month must also be depraved and disgusting, too. The average
I would certainly say so -- especially if most of the partners were
complete strangers, as was the case for gay men.
# gay man is not incredibly different than the average unmarried straight
# man. The behavior that Clayton always highlights---gay men who frequent
# bathhouses and have a dozen partners a night---is clearly on on fringe
# of a distribution of behaviors. Any attempt to portray it as "NORMAL"
# gay behavior is outright fraud.
Yet that's clearly what the study I quoted showed was the norm.
# Do you really want to differentiate between bedding a new person every
# two weeks instead of once a month? These aren't married people, you
# know.
Odd. I know lots of unmarried couples that are monogamous. How
DO they do it, without a piece of paper from the state?
# kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Clayton Cramer
# #heterosexuals, and making obviously absurd assumptions about non-
# #monogamous heterosexuals remaining so, and at the same sexual
# #promiscuity level throughout their lifetimes, still show homosexual
# #men as at least twice as promiscuous as the non-monogamous homosexuals.
#
# The assumptions aren't that absurd given recent divorce stats.
Guess what -- lots of divorced people get remarried. (And many
of them get divorced again, because they haven't resolved the
problems that caused the first divorce). I have known heterosexual
men who engaged in the sort of promiscuity that you talk about.
They have been extremely rare -- even in the late 1970s, they were
pretty remarkable cases.
# I realize this will be difficult to digest, especially since some of
# my interlocutors go under the assumption that sexual fidelity is the
# end-all of a good marriage.
#
# While I remain monogamous at this point, I don't delude myself by believing
# that the day will never come when my partner and I might come to an agreement
# that we may entertain outside partners from time to time.
Thank you for shooting yourself in the foot. My wife and certainly
engage in this "delusion." That you are prepared to plan for this
eventuality shows your committment to monogamy.
# Brian
Alberto Adolfo Pinkas
Thanks,
AAP
.
Paul Bartholomew
>
> # As for the "digusting" part, then any straight man who beds a different
> # woman every month must also be depraved and disgusting, too. The average
>
> I would certainly say so -- especially if most of the partners were
> complete strangers, as was the case for gay men.
Why is this "depraved" and "disgusting" in either case? I'm serious, I
really would like to know why you regard making love to a different
woman every month as offensive behavior.
> # gay man is not incredibly different than the average unmarried straight
> # man. The behavior that Clayton always highlights---gay men who frequent
> # bathhouses and have a dozen partners a night---is clearly on on fringe
> # of a distribution of behaviors. Any attempt to portray it as "NORMAL"
> # gay behavior is outright fraud.
>
> Yet that's clearly what the study I quoted showed was the norm.
This is an outrageous claim. Your study showed nothing of the kind. Read
Brian's paragraph again, please: "gay men who [...] have a dozen partners a
night". By my arithmetic, that's 4380 partners per year. Your study
showed nothing like that. It's statements like this, among others, that
make people refuse to take you seriously.
David Chase
> >Absolutely not. First, the net is not a good sample. Your
>It's not a good sample with respect to actual or perceived antihomosexual
>sentiment? Why not?
Because you choose your friends, and I choose mine. (Why are you
asking this question? Is this a debating trick, or do you really not
know?) For instance, the percentage of PhD's in my circle of friends
is way out of whack, as is the average/median income and level of
education of my friends and acquaintances.
The net is a bad sample, because (generally speaking) people posting
to the net have some education, and a job where they have both access
to the net and the freedom to post here. Auto mechanics, janitors,
and plumbers are probably under-represented. So are doctors and
dentists.
>Newsweeks did a large section of a recent issue on homosexuality, and
>commissioned a bunch of polls from poll companies. Certainly what they
>did was far more accurate than the individual stories related on the net.
"Better than the net" can still be very very bad.
>If what Newsweek did was not so hot, then just what is better as an
>autoritative source???
Note that you are assuming that there exists a sufficiently
authoritative source for this sort of information. It's always
possible that there is no good information to be had. I'm quite
comfortable with this, since I don't see any special need to justify
discrimination. (I suspect that many people discriminate merely
because they have been fed bad "facts" like those Clayton posted to
the net).
However, I think you can generally find better information in The
Economist (they take special pride in being reliable, I think), and I
am told that the fact-checkers for The New Yorker are second-to-none
(how this may change under Tina Brown remains to be seen) (Note that
checking facts is not the same as presenting all the facts.) The Wall
Street Journal is not a bad source of information, provided that you
steer clear of the editorial page, and especially if it concerns
financial matters. The New York Times is a better newspaper than the
local ones, though I suspect it may have some bias (though I think the
WSJ gives the left somewhat better representation on its editorial
pages).
My point, again: Neither you nor Clayton has presented good
statistical information. Your samples are bad, and your use of
labelling is also bad. There's no special need to present good
numbers refuting your claims, because you've presented no compelling
evidence. Your question about samples is particularly telling -- if
you aren't familiar with the sources of bias in samples, you've got
little business making statistically based claims.
David Chase
Sun
Phil Ronzone
>In article <1992Oct15.0...@netcom.com>
>ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>>Absolutely not. First, the net is not a good sample. Your
>>>friends are not a good sample. Neither are mine. ...
>>>
>>It's not a good sample with respect to actual or perceived
>>antihomosexual sentiment? Why not?
>>
>Because you choose your friends, and I choose mine. (Why are
>you asking this question? Is this a debating trick, or do you
>really not know?) For instance, the percentage of PhD's in my
>circle of friends is way out of whack, as is the
>average/median income and level of education of my friends
>and acquaintances.
People on the net are not typically one's friends.
However, homosexuality of net posters and experience with anti-homosexual
sentiment -- are homosexual net posters a reliable cross section of
all homosexuals, with respect to said sentiment, or not?
>The net is a bad sample, because (generally speaking) people
>posting to the net have some education, and a job where they
>have both access to the net and the freedom to post here.
>Auto mechanics, janitors, and plumbers are probably
>under-represented. So are doctors and dentists.
Again, we are talking about an attribute that has little to do with being
on the net. For example, are net posters a reasonable cros section of
people that have had bad experiences with a bank?
>"Better than the net" can still be very very bad.
And it can also be better. Quit whistling in the dark.
>However, I think you can generally find better information in
>The Economist (they take special pride in being reliable, I
>think), and I am told that the fact-checkers for The New
>Yorker are second-to-none (how this may change under Tina
>Brown remains to be seen) (Note that checking facts is not
>the same as presenting all the facts.) The Wall Street
>Journal is not a bad source of information, provided that you
>steer clear of the editorial page, and especially if it
>concerns financial matters. The New York Times is a better
>newspaper than the local ones, though I suspect it may have
>some bias (though I think the WSJ gives the left somewhat
>better representation on its editorial pages).
The Economist is about my favorite. They do of course, have their
wonderful and obvious biases -- they are whacked out on gun control,
and until recently, were quite blatant about sneering and belittling
libertarians and the United States Constitution Bill Of Rights.
It seems they can't quite shake that "The State Is Good" mentality
in certain areas.
>My point, again: Neither you nor Clayton has presented good
>statistical information. Your samples are bad, and your use
>of labelling is also bad. There's no special need to present
>good numbers refuting your claims, because you've presented
>no compelling evidence. Your question about samples is
>particularly telling -- if you aren't familiar with the
>sources of bias in samples, you've got little business making
>statistically based claims.
Oh, this is wonderful. Simply superb. Let me translate:
"The figures you have presented and sources (all carefully cited) by
people who work in the field in question, are no good. I, a figure
that is neither professional nor working the field, say this is true.
Since I have said YOUR figures are no good, I do not need to give
any figures to refute this, because, as I have said, your data doesn't
count."
Blow it out your Politically Correct fascist intellectually dishonest
orifice-of-choice.