I had to share this detail from the Family Research Council’s webpage for their book Getting It Straight:What the Research Shows About Homosexuality:
Chapter 6: Is There a Link between Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse?
· A study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” (emphasis added)
(W. D. Erickson, “Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1988): 83.)
I’m reminded of Kieran’s classic question, “Why are so many of the closets I open full of my clothes?”
{ 20 comments }
jet 04.18.05 at 1:46 pm
Screwdrivers are used for stealing stereos, Kieran’s closet houses his clothes, and “homosexuals are responsible for male child molestations”? You are letting them score free points on this one. I’d probably retort with something like we don’t condemn being a white male because most serial killers are white males. We don’t condemn being black because most gang violence is black. And we shouldn’t condemn being gay if most male child molestations are carried out by gays.
paul 04.18.05 at 1:46 pm
For what it’s worth, in some cultures this would not be quite as stupid as it seems (i.e. those in which the active/penetrative male partner is considered straight and only the “passive” male partner is considered queer). There it might say something interesting about the self-image of the molesters.
OK, just barely less stupid.
bi 04.18.05 at 1:48 pm
I’d expect that most _female_ molestations are carried out by, um, … :)
And here’s another example of innumeracy regarding a (IMO) more serious problem.
rob 04.18.05 at 1:49 pm
Another study shows that 99% of drug users started on baby-milk.
Ted 04.18.05 at 1:51 pm
Jet, I don’t think that we disagree, do we?
jet 04.18.05 at 1:57 pm
Ted,
Oh no, I’m agreeing with you fully. It’s just their language is quite noxious, and I like to see it discussed in more negative terms :P But I should apologize for my post, as I should not presume to advise someone else’s blog.
Ted 04.18.05 at 2:05 pm
Incidentally, IMHO, the question is not stupid at all. I’m interested in the question of how male child molestors who molest boys define their sexual identity. I would have guessed that they’d largely call themselves homosexual, but I obviously don’t know until someone does the research.
I’m also interested in their sexual relationships, if any, with adult men and women. This doesn’t seem to be a question that Erickson asked. From Greg Merek:
What’s ludicrous is to take this study as evidence that we should beware of gay men because they’re likely to be child predators. That’s absolutely not an inference that can be drawn.
C.S.Strowbridge 04.18.05 at 2:21 pm
Saw a ‘survey’ that tried to prove gays were molesting kids. Any gay man who had sex with a woman, just one, was considered not gay. While a child molested could be completely hetrosexual, married for 20 years, had sex with a dozens of women, molested a hundred girls, but if had sex with one boy he’s 100% gay.
Well, if you manipulate the data like that you can come up with any conclusion.
Julian Sanchez 04.18.05 at 2:55 pm
This is actually NOT a stupid question. Most surveys of instances of child molestation have found that male molesters of male children are typically not “homosexual” in any conventional sense (i.e. pursuing relationships with adult males). And that’s important because the proportion of instances of child molestation that involve male-male contact is much higher than the proportion of gay men in the population. Those two facts are used by conservatives to claim that gay men are more likely than other men to molest children; the reason they’re wrong about that is precisely because, in fact, the overwhelming majority of male molesters of male children are not “gay” in the colloquial sense. The survey result is probably the result of men whose primary sexual attraction is to young boys (though they may be heterosexual or, more likely, totally asexual, in their relationships with adults) concluding that they must, therefore, be “gay” (since it is, after all, *boys* they’re attracted to–the conservative argument). But psychologists and social scientists tend to regard pedophilia as, in a sense, a separate orientation of its own. If someone’s primary sexual activity is screwing goats, you don’t ask whether the goats are male or female to determine whether the person is “straight” or “gay”.
C.J.Colucci 04.18.05 at 4:03 pm
When are women going to step up to the plate and do their fair share?
missgrundy 04.18.05 at 4:41 pm
Agreed, c.j. Since most people who molest boys are men, and most people who molest girls are men, isn’t the problem . . . men . . . ? We should just tell children to keep their distance . . .
Anderson 04.18.05 at 4:49 pm
Apropos of Miss Grundy, I recall that (the American feminist) Charlotte Perkins Gilman carried a revolver with her when on lecture tours. A gentleman of her acquaintance protested that she shouldn’t be protecting herself but should rather rely on men, her natural protectors. “But my natural protectors are why I carry the revolver,” she answered.
(Quoted from memory; anyone got her autobiography handy?)
mw 04.18.05 at 6:28 pm
I’d probably retort with something like we don’t condemn being a white male because most serial killers are white males.
Well, I don’t and maybe you don’t but maybe you’ve run across the phrase ‘testosterone poisoning’ thrown about? Or maybe Maureen Dowd’s treatise on the pathetic, endangered state of t he Y-chromosome?
Since most people who molest boys are men, and most people who molest girls are men, isn’t the problem . . . men . . . ? We should just tell children to keep their distance . . .
Many people have, haven’t they (though perhaps less now than during the ‘satanic preschool child abuse’ panics of 15 years ago).
Here’s the thing. It’s all semantics. In some obvious sense all male abusers of boys are ‘gay’ because…duh…they’re having sex with males. But we can’t have that because, although heaping abuse and derision on males in general is generally OK among left-leaners, doing so to gays is not OK (they are, of course, a protected minority). So we must change the semantics–men who have sex with boys arent ‘gay’ and therefore gays, by definition, don’t abuse boys. Of course the religious right come at it from the opposite point of view–if they can blame pedophilia mostly on gays, then they’re happy.
But of course what actually matters is that an extremely small percentage of males of any sexual orientation are abusers (or serial killers for that matter).
Tom T. 04.19.05 at 12:03 am
Ted: Note also one study in which 98% of male pedophiles apparently self-identified as heterosexual. I have no idea of this study’s validity, however.
dsquared 04.19.05 at 1:59 am
If someone’s primary sexual activity is screwing goats, you don’t ask whether the goats are male or female to determine whether the person is “straight†or “gayâ€.
I can see you’re not Welsh.
jet 04.19.05 at 9:20 am
Damn it dsquared, that got coffee all over my monitor.
nofundy 04.19.05 at 9:31 am
Most violent crimes are committed by bread eaters shortly after consumption of the product. Therefore, eating bread contributes to violent crime and should be made illegal.
Are the Dobson acolytes concerned about the homosexual activity and gang rape committed in our wonderful prison systems as well? I’m thinking incarceration promotes homosexuality and therefore must be eliminated if we are to preserve our christian heritage. Who’s with me?
Functional 04.19.05 at 10:18 am
“eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.â€
Why is that figure not relevant? If it turned out that 100% of all molestations of boys were committed by adult females — i.e., none by adult male homosexuals — that would be a very different scenario. It would be a good argument, for example, against the Boy Scouts’ policy on adult male homosexuals. But if most molestations of young boys are committed by adult male homosexuals, then the Boy Scouts’ policy looks like a rational (even if overdone) response to liability issues.
bi 04.19.05 at 11:26 am
Functional: the figure is obviously not relevant to the original question “Is There a Link between Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse?”
(Even when it comes to the acceptance policy of the Boy Scouts — I presume you mean the Boy Scouts _of America_ — I’m not sure that this figure means their policy is rational. Does the organization reject all white males because (as jet said) most serial killers are white males?)
Steve LaBonne 04.19.05 at 12:40 pm
I seem to remember George Gilder singling out Bayesian statistics for abuse in one of his idiotic rants some years ago. So maybe it’s not surprising that social conservatives have trouble getting their conditional probabilities the right way around. I wonder what functional’s excuse is though.
Comments on this entry are closed.