The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 3 of 4
Clayton Cramer
How Many Homosexuals Are There?
-------------------------------
The number "10%" has been ignorantly (or perhaps dishonestly)
thrown around for so long by the homosexual community, that a
lot of people just accept it as fact. After explaining the
origin of the 10% number, Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny take the
position that "3.3% of the American adult male population had
homosexual contact 'occasionally' or 'fairly often' after age
20..." and that the percentage of women who were "mostly or
exclusively homosexual on a life-long basis" was about two or
three percent.[Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny, 387]
Using different sources (which, unfortunately, I was unable to
track down in our library), Ted Frank (who I know disagrees with
many of my conclusions) came to a very similar set of numbers:
One of the great myths of the Kinsey report was the 10% figure.
Kinsey found that 4% of *men* were more or less exclusively
homosexual for their whole lives and another 6% had been more
or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between
the ages of 16 and 55. [1] Prisoners or former prisoners were
overrepresented in Kinsey's sample. [2] Kinsey found there
to be far fewer lesbians, about a third as many as gay men, [3]
so even if the "10%" figure is correct for men, it doesn't state
the overall figure. Paul Gebhard, one of Kinsey's successors
at the Institute for Sex Research, estimates that 4% of men
and 1% of women are predominantly homosexual. [4] Many estimates
of the number of male homosexuals go down to 2%, as Kinsey
himself noted. [5]
[1] Kinsey, S[exual] B[ehavior] in the Human Male, 650-51.
[2] Posner, Sex and Reason, 294.
[3] Kinsey, S[exual] B[ehavior] in the Human Female, 474-75.
[4] Gebhard, "Incidence of Overt Homosexuality in the US and Western
Europe," in Nat'l Inst of Mental Health Task Force on Homosexuality,
"Final Report and Background Papers" 22, 27-28 (DHEW Publication
no. [ADM] 76-357, 1976; originally published in 1972.)
[5] Kinsey, S. B. in the Human Male, 618-620.
[Ted Frank, <1992Mar27....@midway.uchicago.edu>]
Why does the percentage of homosexuals matter? First of all, because
the number "10%" is used to scare politicians into voting the "right"
way.
Secondly, because a percentage as large as, or larger than, the
number of molestation victims would destroy any argument of casuality
between child molestation and the victim becoming an adult homosexual.
Third, because it will become apparent that homosexuals and bisexuals
are very disproportionately involved in child molestation. By
enlarging the apparent size of the homosexual population, the
disproportion of homosexual involvement in child molestation is
hidden.
The Sexual Orientation of a Child Molester
------------------------------------------
It has been an article of faith for the homosexual community that
a child molester isn't "a homosexual," regardless of the sex of
his victims. This wonderfully reassuring (to homosexuals) idea
seems not to have taken hold with any of the three specialized
books examined. Quite the opposite. In describing a study done
in Calgary:
Abuse of both males and females was overwhelmingly at the
hands of males, so the abuse of boys was usually homosexual
in nature.[Bagley & King, 122]
In describing the nature of the abuse received by children:
The encounters with female victims were usually heterosexual
(94%), whereas for males they were usually homosexual (84%).
[Faller, 18]
Similarly, I ran into several articles in _Archives of Sexual
Behavior_ in the last two years that discussed, with no apparent
embarrassment, "heterosexual pedophiles" and "homosexual pedophiles."
The Everstines, as well as Faller and Bagley/King, draw a line
between those molesters who go after females (who are usually
related, or part of the household), and those that go primarily
after males (who are usually NOT part of the household). In
describing the molester who goes primarily after boys:
The molester is a man who, by default, tends to rely on women
for support and nurturance. He has always found, in the adult
women who guided him through the shoals of childhood, a source
of solace. As a result, he has become dependent upon female
authority figures, even though he resents this trait in him-
self. At an unconscious level, he feels a strong identification
with women, but he would never be able to confront or admit
this introjected *persona*.
The molester tends to deny his homosexuality. As Geiser
(1979) put it, "It is not unusual for a child molester to
express strong feelings against homosexuals" (p. 92) This
self-deception is a key to understanding the fact that he
is, in many cases, a married man who has fathered children.
By not having overt adult-with-adult homosexual experiences,
he manages to (by a certain form of logic) to avoid the
stigma of being the "gay" men who is living a lie by being
married to a woman. He does not think of himself as bisexual
because his homosexual relationships with boys do not "count."
In this climate of self-deception and sham, it is not sur-
prising that in many cases the marriage of a molester has
been a superficial and unloving union prior to the husband's
being found out. The secret of its lasting so long may be
the dependency arrangement between these partners, in which
the wife is content to play a motherly role.[Everstine &
Everstine, 139-140]
Obviously, this sort of "closeted homosexual" is more dangerous
in the closet than out. But if we pass antidiscrimination laws
that protect based on sexual orientation, he can come out of the
closet, and a day care center, school, or Boy Scouts of America
will be unable to exclude him from employment.
Child Molestation As A Cause of Homosexuality
---------------------------------------------
Much to my surprise, my thoughts on this subject weren't the
first. The Everstines describe the ways in which, long-term,
a female victim may respond to the damaged parent-child relation-
ship:
She might adopt an asexual or homosexual lifestyle, as a
method of coping with the original incestuous conflict,
designed to protect her from the source of trauma in
possible future conflicts.[Everstine & Everstine, 101]
Bagley & King take a more direct position, though they commit
great crimes against good English in the process:
Boys who had been sexually abused and who as young adults
were currently practising homosexuals, had rather poor
self-concept in comparison with all other groups, except
those who were currently homosexual but who had never been
sexually abused as children.
It took me a while to parse that sentence, but they appear to
be saying that those boys who went from being sexual abused
children to homosexuals, had very poor self-concept relative
to all other groups, except for those who were homosexual and
NOT abused as children (or repressed the event, or refused to
admit it, if you buy into my hypothesis). In brief, the bottom
rungs in self-concept were the homosexual young adults. But the
amazing statement is the following sentence:
It looks as though sexual abuse of boys acts for some as a
kind of recruitment process into adult homosexuality:
it is the conflicts surrounding the homosexual role rather
than the childhood abuse *per se* which diminishes self-
esteem and self-concept.[Bagley & King, 122]
Yup. Molesting boys seems to be a recruiting process into
adult homosexuality. That's not just some crazy guy at Optilink,
that's a professor of social work.
Note, also, that I am NOT saying that every homosexual is a child
molester, or is likely to be one. As will be discussed later,
the circumstances that cause someone to become a "fixated pedophile,"
the most dangerous sort of child molester, appear to be a bit more
specific than the circumstances that merely result in a molestation
victim becoming a homosexual.
--
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.
Gene W. Smith
writes:
>The number "10%" has been ignorantly (or perhaps dishonestly)
>thrown around for so long by the homosexual community, that a
>lot of people just accept it as fact.
If people like Jesse Helms would quit blocking it, the NIH was prepared
to do a study to get a better-established figure. Various researchers
have come up with different numbers, but Kinsey was the biggest and
best-known study, so it is natural (wanting a figure) to use the sum of
the Kinsey 5 and 6 classes.
>Why does the percentage of homosexuals matter? First of all, because
>the number "10%" is used to scare politicians into voting the "right"
>way.
Doesn't work though, does it? Politicians don't need help to figure
this sort of stuff out, which is why you see the votes split along
party lines so often.
>Secondly, because a percentage as large as, or larger than, the
>number of molestation victims would destroy any argument of causality
>between child molestation and the victim becoming an adult homosexual.
This is a truly paranoid idea. When and how did this delusion occur to
you? Once again I wonder if you shouldn't get psychological counseling.
>It has been an article of faith for the homosexual community that
>a child molester isn't "a homosexual," regardless of the sex of
>his victims. This wonderfully reassuring (to homosexuals) idea
>seems not to have taken hold with any of the three specialized
>books examined. Quite the opposite. In describing a study done
>in Calgary:
> Abuse of both males and females was overwhelmingly at the
> hands of males, so the abuse of boys was usually homosexual
> in nature.[Bagley & King, 122]
Clayton, anyone with the intelligence to post to the net should be
capable of seeing that this is simply a tautology, conveying absolutely
no (as in none, as in 0) information. To quote this in support of your
argument is to sink to a new low of absolute, moronic stupidity. Wipe
the damned drool off your damned chin and think occasionally.
What a maroon!
>In describing the nature of the abuse received by children:
>
> The encounters with female victims were usually heterosexual
> (94%), whereas for males they were usually homosexual (84%).
> [Faller, 18]
Which is just another way of saying most molesters are male, you dumb
stupid get. People like you should be sterilized to preserve the gene
pool.
> The molester is a man who, by default, tends to rely on women
> for support and nurturance. He has always found, in the adult
> women who guided him through the shoals of childhood, a source
> of solace. As a result, he has become dependent upon female
> authority figures, even though he resents this trait in him-
> self. At an unconscious level, he feels a strong identification
> with women, but he would never be able to confront or admit
> this introjected *persona*.
Sounds like a bunch of Freudian BS, and nothing to do with science.
Not that it is relevant in any case.
> The molester tends to deny his homosexuality. As Geiser
> (1979) put it, "It is not unusual for a child molester to
> express strong feelings against homosexuals" (p. 92) This
> self-deception is a key to understanding the fact that he
> is, in many cases, a married man who has fathered children.
> By not having overt adult-with-adult homosexual experiences,
> he manages to (by a certain form of logic) to avoid the
> stigma of being the "gay" men who is living a lie by being
> married to a woman.
In other words, he is not gay-identified, and is not what is normally
meant by a gay or homosexual person. Which is precisely the point you
were proposing to refute. My God you are stupid.
>Obviously, this sort of "closeted homosexual" is more dangerous
>in the closet than out. But if we pass antidiscrimination laws
>that protect based on sexual orientation, he can come out of the
>closet, and a day care center, school, or Boy Scouts of America
>will be unable to exclude him from employment.
You really can't absorb the implications of what you have just yourself
quoted, can you? I think Clayton really should go on the Council
of net.idiots for this one. Damn, but he is stupid.
>
>Much to my surprise, my thoughts on this subject weren't the
>first. The Everstines describe the ways in which, long-term,
>a female victim may respond to the damaged parent-child relation-
>ship:
>
> She might adopt an asexual or homosexual lifestyle, as a
> method of coping with the original incestuous conflict,
> designed to protect her from the source of trauma in
> possible future conflicts.[Everstine & Everstine, 101]
This stuff is meaningless Freudian drivel unless there are statistics
to back it up. Or didn't you know that?
>Bagley & King take a more direct position, though they commit
>great crimes against good English in the process:
> Boys who had been sexually abused and who as young adults
> were currently practising homosexuals, had rather poor
> self-concept in comparison with all other groups, except
> those who were currently homosexual but who had never been
> sexually abused as children.
>It took me a while to parse that sentence,
Why am I not surprised?
>In brief, the bottom rungs in self-concept were the homosexual young
>adults. But the amazing statement is the following sentence:
From which you might conclude that childhood activity is good for you,
which is also the opposite of what you want to argue for. Again, these
quote mean nothing absent any indication of methods and data. In
particular, what was the sample group of non-molested homosexuals and
ho was it concluded they had poor self-concept?
> It looks as though sexual abuse of boys acts for some as a
> kind of recruitment process into adult homosexuality:
> it is the conflicts surrounding the homosexual role rather
> than the childhood abuse *per se* which diminishes self-
> esteem and self-concept.[Bagley & King, 122]
>Yup. Molesting boys seems to be a recruiting process into
>adult homosexuality. That's not just some crazy guy at Optilink,
>that's a professor of social work.
Read it again. The authors did not draw a causal link between sexual
abuse and adult homosexuality. At least, if that was their intention
they failed to say so clearly. They claim there is a causal link
between homosexuality and low self-esteem, but they don't say why or
how this conclusion was arrived at. They are also *denying* that
sexual abuse of children does them any harm in itself.
>Note, also, that I am NOT saying that every homosexual is a child
>molester, or is likely to be one.
This is just as well, since your quotes not only do not support this
conclusion, but tend to refute it.
--
Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Tim Pierce
figure" is that he's probably right -- it's likely to be incorrect.
Kinsey's study counted only those whom he labeled "5" or "6" on his
sexuality scale, and only measured behaviors.
If Kinsey had included everyone *inclined* towards homosexuality, but
without same-gender sexual experiences, as well as people more towards
the "bisexual" areas of the spectrum, I would be surprised if this
figure were less than 30%!
--
____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
\ / twpi...@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
Phil Ronzone
>The most amusing thing about the Claymer's rattling on about
>the "10% figure" is that he's probably right -- it's likely
>to be incorrect. Kinsey's study counted only those whom he
>labeled "5" or "6" on his sexuality scale, and only measured
>behaviors.
>
>If Kinsey had included everyone *inclined* towards
>homosexuality, but without same-gender sexual experiences, as
>well as people more towards the "bisexual" areas of the
>spectrum, I would be surprised if this figure were less than
>30%!
Dream on.
Of course, if you only have a teeny weeny hammer, I guess everything
looks like a great big nail, eh?
--
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 ...)
Hot Young Star
ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <Bvs8I...@unix.amherst.edu>
twpi...@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>If Kinsey had included everyone *inclined* towards
>>homosexuality, [...] I would be surprised if this figure
>>were less than 30%!
>Dream on.
Kinsey reported that 50% of the over 5,000 men in his study had at least
one homosexual fantasy in their lifetime.
Hot Young Star
>In article <Bvs8I...@unix.amherst.edu>,
twpi...@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>> If Kinsey had included everyone *inclined* towards homosexuality, but
>> without same-gender sexual experiences, as well as people more towards
>> the "bisexual" areas of the spectrum, I would be surprised if this
>> figure were less than 30%!
>Yeah, right. At the current rate of homosexual percentage inflation, expect
>any day now to find that I am the last heterosexual on Earth. :-)
From Kinsey 1948: 50% of males in the study expressed at least one homosexual
fantasy in their liftime.
Phil Ronzone
Sloppy. Very very sloppy.
There is a WORLD of difference between a fantasy and inclination.
I may fantasize about walking into a bank and helping myself to
lots of money, but I have ZERO (0) inclination to be a bank
robber.
Robert Rodriguez
>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.
Of course they would still have a calendar, advanced agriculture, and be able
to perform open heart surgery on each other.
Robert Rodriguez
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We need to preserve our Western Christian Civilization" -- Pat Buchannan
"Somehow I get the feeling that don't include me Pat." -- Robert Rodriguez
Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, and they are worth what you paid for 'em.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nadja Adolf
>In article <1992Oct8....@netcom.com> ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>>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.
>Of course they would still have a calendar, advanced agriculture, and be able
>to perform open heart surgery on each other.
Don't forget brain surgery, blood transfusions (blood typing was developed
by a black physician), and contraceptive diaphragms. :-)
PS - We'd also still have calculus, geometry, and we'd also have a FAR
more accurate calendar...
>Robert Rodriguez
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"We need to preserve our Western Christian Civilization" -- Pat Buchannan
>
>"Somehow I get the feeling that don't include me Pat." -- Robert Rodriguez
>
>Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, and they are worth what you paid for 'em.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
The Earth Pig Bourne....
na...@node.com (prefered email address)
na...@weitek.com
Phil Ronzone
>(Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>>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.
>>
>Of course they would still have a calendar, advanced
>agriculture, and be able to perform open heart surgery on
>each other.
Really? The first two were done by ???? I.e., where did you ever get
that time machine?
And the comment about open heart surgery is bizarre.
Unless of course, you are referring to certain central American
aborigines that had this wonderful practice of ripping the living
hearts out of sacrifices -- perhaps they notice sometimes that
in 1 out of a thousand cases, if they didn't rip the heart out
after tearing open the chest, the person once in a while lived?
Sorry to tell you this, but cutting open a mans chest does NOT
make you a surgeon.
As "they" say -- ask your local doctor ...
Oh, and don't forget some of the other barbaric things the Loathsome
Oppressors did to the various aborigines in the world, like ending
slavery and the tretament of women as property somewhere below the
status of dogs.
Damn us L.O.s' we just don't tolerate some of those "unique"
indigenous cultural aspects very well now, do we?
--
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 ...)
Hot Young Star
ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <98...@bu.edu> ka...@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8....@netcom.com> ph...@netcom.com
>>(Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>>Dream on [There can't be as many as 30% of the general male population
who have had homosexual fantasies!].
>>Kinsey reported that 50% of the over 5,000 men in his study
>>had at least one homosexual fantasy in their lifetime.
>Sloppy. Very very sloppy. There is a WORLD of difference between a
>fantasy and [an] inclination.
Fantasy is the mother of inclination.
Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cra...@optilink.uucp (Clayton Cramer): Message-ID: <12...@optilink.UUCP>
I realize it's difficult for a person as depraved as [Brian Kane].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Matt Brown
gsm...@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>It has been an article of faith for the homosexual community that
>>a child molester isn't "a homosexual," regardless of the sex of
>>his victims. This wonderfully reassuring (to homosexuals) idea
>>seems not to have taken hold with any of the three specialized
>>books examined. Quite the opposite. In describing a study done
>>in Calgary:
>> Abuse of both males and females was overwhelmingly at the
>> hands of males, so the abuse of boys was usually homosexual
>> in nature.[Bagley & King, 122]
Gene Smith pointed out that this is a tautology. Let me be more specific.
1) To equate child abuse of any nature with consenting adult behavior
is dishonest and dissembling. It is not possible to tell if this
was the authors' intent or Clayton's, as the context is insufficient
to judge. Regardless, it is a poor argument.
2) Equating abusers to non-abusers is also dishonest.
3) Now, if you want to argue that the psychological effects of an act of
abuse may have an impact on future sexuality, and/or future potential
for becoming an abuser, that is worth discussing. But using this
argument as a way to denigrate non-abuse behavior is bullshit.
4) An abuser is not a homosexual because of the sex of his/her victims.
An abuser is not bisexual because he/she practices equal opportunity
sex crimes, either. Nor does that exclude to possibility that a homo-
sexual may be an abuser. Words that have different clinical and social
meanings can not be validly interchanged with out regard to changes in
context. An act can be "same sex" clinically, but that act does not
mean that the performer is a "homosexual" now and forever. If an abuser
molests 5 girls and 5 boys, he is a homosexual (was just unlucky, and
would have prefered 10 boys and 0 girls, if he had his druthers)?
Come on!
>>Obviously, this sort of "closeted homosexual" is more dangerous
>>in the closet than out. But if we pass antidiscrimination laws
>>that protect based on sexual orientation, he can come out of the
>>closet, and a day care center, school, or Boy Scouts of America
>>will be unable to exclude him from employment.
So there is no difference between sexual abuse of a minor of either sex
and sexual relations between consenting adults? Is that your point?
Any undiscovered child abuser, regardless of sexual orientation or
number of child contacts, is more dangerous (to himself and others)
while undiscovered. This has absolutely NO relationship with an adult
who desires another adult of either sex, and who fears expressing that
desire. Current laws which punish a male teacher who rapes a female
student are not sufficient to punish the same teacher if he rapes a
male student? You are talking about different closets here.
>>Much to my surprise, my thoughts on this subject weren't the
>>first.
No comment, except: Clayton Revealed! Not the first thinker! Experts
befuddled! Women weep! Film at 11.
>>The Everstines describe the ways in which, long-term,
>>a female victim may respond to the damaged parent-child relation-
>>ship:
>> She might adopt an asexual or homosexual lifestyle, as a
>> method of coping with the original incestuous conflict,
>> designed to protect her from the source of trauma in
>> possible future conflicts.[Everstine & Everstine, 101]
>This stuff is meaningless Freudian drivel unless there are statistics
>to back it up. Or didn't you know that?
I don't agree here, Gene, but only because I must take a stronger position.
Any victim of sexual abuse, adult or child, is likely to view any sex differ-
ently and more cautiously after the fact. They have been violated! Their
fundemental rights have been trampled in a sexual manner. They can henceforth
act in several ways (just examples, not necessarily limiting or exclusive):
1) abstain from all sexual, if not social, contact.
2) gravitate toward a relationship opposite to the abusive one.
3) gravitate toward the same experience, either for "revenge" or due to
emotional scarring that tells then that they are worthy of only abuse,
because that is the parental judgement they are subject to.
I don't think it is a statistics issue, because statistics are meaningless
for so common sense an assertion, that a child "might" have a problem with
sex after parental abuse, that the incident "might" have an effect on sexual
preference. The event "might" motivate the child to become a doctor also.
The real problem here is the more general casting of aspersions. The
blanket implication here is that same sex relations between consenting adults
are a manifestation of mental illness, and that this is not just a preference,
but an uncontrollable primal urge that threatens all of society. Oh, and by
the way, it is so heinous a crime that it deserves more stringent punishment
than any other. And it is contagious. Why, I knew a Boy Scout troop that...
In other words, this is blatent and stupid paranoid homophobia at it's worst,
disguised as science. Using or abusing this quote in a context of justifying
discrimination against gays is unconscionable.
>>Bagley & King take a more direct position, though they commit
>>great crimes against good English in the process:
>> Boys who had been sexually abused and who as young adults
>> were currently practising homosexuals, had rather poor
>> self-concept in comparison with all other groups, except
>> those who were currently homosexual but who had never been
>> sexually abused as children.
>>It took me a while to parse that sentence,
One fucking comma and Clayton is enfeebled (the opposite of empowered?).
Parsing is not the problem. Sloppy word choice and references are.
Now why would it be surprising that some one who was sexually abused and
has ended up with a sexual preference that is taboo to society would
have a self-image problem? Wouldn't it be more surprising if it they did
not have poor self-concept?
>>In brief, the bottom rungs in self-concept were the homosexual young
>>adults. But the amazing statement is the following sentence:
In fact, your conclusion does not fit the passage at all. The non-abused
homosexuals are not identified in the passage as "young", at least not
specifically. "those" is indeterminate, and furthermore, "rather" is about
as unscientific a word as possible in this context. Leave it to Clayton to
trust bad writing to be good science. I have always found that bad writing
= bad science is a better coorelation.
>> It looks as though sexual abuse of boys acts for some as a
>> kind of recruitment process into adult homosexuality:
>> it is the conflicts surrounding the homosexual role rather
>> than the childhood abuse *per se* which diminishes self-
>> esteem and self-concept.[Bagley & King, 122]
>>Yup. Molesting boys seems to be a recruiting process into
>>adult homosexuality. That's not just some crazy guy at Optilink,
>>that's a professor of social work.
Again, bad writing fuels dimwittedness willing to jump to the preferred
conclusion. Yup.
Look at the passage! "acts for some"? "a kind of recruitment process"?
The total non-sequitor after the colon? "Professor of social work" has
dropped a few rungs on my occupational ladder. "It looks as though"? Is this
the "blind men and the elephant" school of psychology, or what?
My reading of this poor passage is that recruitment" is not an active
process like "Uncle Sam wants to bugger you." The word that should have
been used is "initiation," in that once abused this way, gender problems
manifest, and "it looks as though" "some" end up as adult homosexuals.
There is no suggestion that adult homosexuals are going around drumming
up business. Or at least no proof offered.
The second part argues that the way society views gays has a negative
effect on a gay man's self-image. No duh. No connection. No gay conspiracy.
The only thing Clayton's post offers is another refutation of my sig quote.
Matt
"Braindead individuals are incapable of accessing USENET." - Bruce Bufalini
psu.edu, naturally