You are quite misinformed and misguided about pedophelia, I see. Your
Reich wing statistics are incorrect.
99 percent of Pedophiles are heterosexual. About 90- 92 Percent of the
population is heterosexual.
Please read this in it's entirety and then report back to me:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
A snippet:
Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as
representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For
example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian
babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often
lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.
In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat
to children. Back in 1977, when Anita Bryant campaigned successfully
to repeal a Dade County (FL) ordinance prohibiting anti-gay
discrimination, she named her organization "Save Our Children," and
warned that "a particularly deviant-minded [gay] teacher could
sexually molest children" (Bryant, 1977, p. 114). [Bibliographic
references are on a different web page]
In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay
people are child molesters. This argument was often made in debates
about the Boy Scouts of America's policy to exclude gay scouts and
scoutmasters. More recently, in the wake of Rep. Mark Foley's
resignation from the US House of Representatives in 2006, antigay
activists and their supporters seized on the scandal to revive this
canard.
The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual
orientation is important because many child molesters don't really
have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the
capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men
or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys,
girls, or children of both sexes.
Statistics and Conclusion:
Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age
preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.
This article is discussed above in the "Other Approaches" section. As
the FRC concedes, it contradicts their argument. The abstract
summarizes the authors' conclusion: "Findings indicate that homosexual
males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children
than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to
female children."
Silverthorne & Quinsey. (2000). Sexual partner age preferences of
homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 29, 67-76.
The FRC cites this study to challenge the Freund et al. data (see the
previous paper above). However, the methodologies were quite
different. Freund and his colleagues used a sample that included sex
offenders and they assessed sexual arousal with a physiological
measure similar to that described below for the 1988 Marshall et al.
study. Silverthorne and Quinsey used a sample of community volunteers
who were asked to view pictures of human faces and use a 7-point scale
to rate their sexual attractiveness. The apparent ages of the people
portrayed in the pictures was originally estimated by Dr. Silverthorne
to range from 15 to 50. However, a group of independent raters
perceived the male faces to range in age from 18 to 58, and the female
faces to range from 19 to 60.
The article doesn't report the data in great detail (e.g., average
ratings are depicted only in a graphic; the actual numbers aren't
reported) and the authors provide contradictory information about the
rating scale (they describe it as a 7-point scale but also say it
ranged from 0 to 7, which constitutes an 8-point scale). In either
case, it appears that none of the pictures was rated as "very sexually
attractive" (a rating of 7). Rather, the highest average ratings were
approximately 5.
On average, gay men rated the 18-year old male faces the most
attractive (average rating = about 5), with attractiveness ratings
declining steadily for older faces. They rated the 58-year old male
faces 2, on average. By contrast, heterosexual men rated the 25-year
old female faces the most attractive (about 5), with the 18- and
28-year old female faces rated lower (between 2 and 3) and the 60-year
old female faces rated the least attractive (about 1).
A serious problem with this study is that the researchers didn't
control for the possibility that some of the faces pictured in the
photos might simply have been more or less physically attractive than
the others, independent of their age or gender. The researchers
explicitly acknowledged this shortcoming, speculating that the women's
faces in the 25-year old group might have been more attractive than
women's faces in the other age groups. But they didn't address the
possibility that the attractiveness of the male and female faces may
not have been comparable.
This issue could have been addressed in various ways. For example,
prior to collecting data, the researchers could have started with a
large number of photographs and asked a group of independent raters to
evaluate the general physical attractiveness of the face in each
photo; these ratings could have been used to select photos for the
experiment that were equivalent in attractiveness. Getting independent
ratings of experimental stimuli in this way is a common procedure in
social psychological research.
Thus, even if one accepts the questionable assumption that this study
is relevant, it doesn't support the FRC's contention that gay men are
more likely than heterosexual men to be child molesters for several
reasons:
the researchers failed to control for the varying attractiveness of
the different photos;
all of the faces portrayed in the photos were perceived to be at least 18; and
the study merely assessed judgments of sexual attractiveness rather
than the research participants' sexual arousal.
Blanchard et al. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation
in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463-478.
This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether
they molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only,
or both boys and girls. These groups were labeled, respectively,
homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual
pedophiles. This classification referred to their attractions to
children. Adult sexual orientation (or even whether the men had an
adult sexual orientation) wasn't assessed.
Elliott et al. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders
tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 579-594.
In this study, child sex offenders were interviewed. Their sexual
orientation (gay, heterosexual, bisexual) wasn't assessed. The authors
drew from their findings to suggest strategies for how parents and
children can prevent sexual victimization. It is noteworthy that none
of those strategies involved avoiding gay men.
Jenny et al. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by
homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41-44.
This study, described above in the section on "Other Approaches,"
contradicts the FRC's argument. The FRC faults the study because the
researchers didn't directly interview perpetrators but instead relied
on the victims' medical charts for information about the offender's
sexual orientation. However, other studies cited favorably by the FRC
(and summarized in this section) similarly relied on chart data
(Erickson et al., 1988) or did not directly assess the sexual
orientation of perpetrators (Blanchard et al. 2000; Elliott et al.
1995; Marshall et al., 1988). Thus, the FRC apparently considers this
method a weakness only when it leads to results they dislike.
Marshall et al. (1988). Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual
preference. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 383-391.
In this study, the researchers compared 21 men who had sexually
molested a male under 16 years (and at least 5 years younger than
themselves) to 18 unemployed men who were not known to have molested a
child. Over a series of sessions, each man watched color slides of
nude males and females of various ages and listened to audiotaped
descriptions of both coercive and consensual sexual interactions
between a man and a boy. During the sessions, each man sat in a
private booth, where he was instructed to lower his trousers and
underwear and attach a rubber tube to his penis. The tube detected any
changes in penis circumference, with increases interpreted as
indicating sexual arousal.
The FRC cites this study as showing that "a homosexual and a
heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders." This
is true but hardly relevant to their claims.
The researchers categorized 7 offenders who were more aroused overall
by the male nudes than the female nudes as the homosexual subgroup.
They categorized 14 offenders who were more aroused overall by the
female nudes as the heterosexual subgroup. The offenders were not
asked their sexual orientation (gay, straight, bisexual) and the paper
does not report any information about the nature of the offenders'
adult sexual relationships, or even if they had any such
relationships.
Bickley & Beech. (2001). Classifying child abusers: Its relevance to
theory and clinical practice. International Journal Of Offender
Therapy And Comparative Criminology, 45, 51-69.
This is a literature review and theoretical paper that discusses the
strengths and weaknesses of various systems for classifying child
molesters. In citing this study, the FRC says it:
refers to homosexual pedophiles as a "distinct group." The victims of
homosexual pedophiles "were more likely to be strangers, that they
were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from
that involved in the offence, and that they were more likely to have
past convictions for sexual offences.... Other studies [showed a]
greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls"
and that the "recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is
approximately twice that for female-victim offenders."
In reality, however, the paper was summarizing the findings of other
studies, not reporting new data. In the passage excerpted by the FRC,
the authors were discussing published papers that used a
classification system focusing entirely on the sex of victims (not
whether the perpetrator is straight or gay). Here is the complete text
(the passages that FRC omitted are highlighted):
"Grubin and Kennedy (1991) reported that when dividing sex offenders
based simply on the sex of their victims, offenders against boys stood
out as a distinct group. They noted that their victims were more
likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in
paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and
they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences.
Other studies have employed the sex-of-victim approach in the
prediction of future risk, with offenders who have sexually abused
boys or both boys and girls reported as having more victims and being
at greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against
girls only [bibliographic references omitted]. In the nondiagnostic
remarks, DSM-IV (APA, 1994) claims that the recidivism rate for
male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim
offenders, and although not demonstrating such a marked difference,
Furby,Weinrott, and Blackshaw (1989), in an extensive review of
recidivism rates, found that reoffending was higher for male victim
offenders. [¶] However, the sex-of-victim distinction has not been
consistently found, and contrasting findings have been reported in
studies that have demonstrated no differences in recidivism rates
between the groups [bibliographic references omitted]. Furthermore,
Abel, Becker, Murphy, and Flanagan (1981) found that those child
molesters who offended against girls reported more than twice as many
victims as those who had offended against boys, a finding contrary to
the hypothesized outcome." (p. 56)
Jay & Young. (1977). The gay report: Lesbians and gay men speak out
about sexual experiences and lifestyles. New York: Summit.
This book, published nearly 30 years ago by a team of
writer-activists, is not a scientific study. The authors' survey
methodology is not reported in detail and, because it was a
journalistic work, the survey was never subjected to scientific peer
review.
Erickson et al. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86.
This study was based on a retrospective review of the medical records
of male sex offenders admitted to the Minnesota Security Hospital
between 1975 and 1984. Apparently, 70% of the men abused girls, 26%
abused boys, and 4% abused children of both sexes. (The paper is
unclear in that it doesn't explain how perpetrators with multiple
victims were counted.) The paper asserts in passing that "Eighty-six
percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual
or bisexual" (p. 83). However, no details are provided about how this
information was ascertained, making it difficult to interpret. Nor did
the authors report the number of homosexual versus bisexual offenders,
a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study (described above)
indicates is relevant.
In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not
support their argument. Most of the studies they referenced did not
even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly
concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated.
Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum,
which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et
al., 1988) might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it
failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate
bisexual from homosexual offenders.
Do Any Studies Claim To Show That Homosexuals Are More Likely To
Molest Children?
One individual has claimed to have data that prove homosexuals to be
child molesters at a higher rate than heterosexuals. That person is
Paul Cameron. As detailed elsewhere on this site, Cameron's survey
data are subject to so many methodological flaws as to be virtually
meaningless. Even so, his assertions are sometimes quoted by antigay
organizations in their attempts to link homosexuality with child
sexual abuse.
In a 1985 article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron
purported to review published data to answer the question, "Do those
who commit homosexual acts disproportionately incorporate children
into their sexual practices?" (p. 1227). He concluded that "at least
one-third of the sexual attacks upon youth are homosexual" (p. 1228)
and that "those who are bi- to homosexual are proportionately much
more apt to molest youth" than are heterosexuals (p. 1231).
Cameron's claims hinge on the fallacious assumption that all male-male
molestations are committed by homosexuals. Moreover, a careful reading
of Cameron's paper reveals several false statements about the
literature he claimed to have reviewed.
For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned
previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of "heterosexual" (i.e., female
victim) to "homosexual" (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted
that "54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by
bisexual or homosexual practitioners" (p. 1231). However, Groth and
Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an
exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the
22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult
females. The "54%" statistic reported by Cameron doesn't appear
anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron
explain its derivation.
It is also noteworthy that, although Cameron assumed that the
perpetrators of male-male molestations were all homosexual, he assumed
that not all male-female molestations were committed by heterosexuals.
He incorporated a "bisexual correction" into his data manipulations to
increase further his estimate of the risk posed to children by
homosexual/bisexual men.
In the latter half of his paper, Cameron considered whether
"homosexual teachers have more frequent sexual interaction with their
pupils" (p. 1231). Based on 30 instances of sexual contact between a
teacher and pupil reported in ten different sources published between
1920 and 1982, Cameron concluded that "a pupil would appear about 90
times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a homosexual
practitioner" (p.1232); the ratio rose to 100 times when Cameron added
his bisexual correction.
This ratio is meaningless because no data were obtained concerning the
actual sexual orientation of the teachers involved; as before, Cameron
assumed that male-male contacts were perpetrated by homosexuals.
Furthermore, Cameron's rationale for selecting particular sources
appears to have been completely arbitrary. He described no systematic
method for reviewing the literature, and apparently never reviewed the
voluminous literature on the sexual development of children and
adolescents. His final choice of sources appears to have slanted his
findings toward what Cameron described as "the relative absence in the
scientific literature of heterosexual teacher-pupil sexual events
coupled with persistent, albeit infrequent, homosexual teacher-pupil
sexual interactions" (p. 1232).
A subsequent paper by Cameron and others (Cameron, Proctor, Coburn,
Forde, Larson, & Cameron, 1986) described data collected in a
door-to-door survey in seven U.S. cities and towns, and generally
repeated the conclusions reached in Cameron (1985). Even Cameron
himself admitted that his conclusions in this study are "based upon
small numbers of data points" (Cameron, 2005, p. 230). As before,
male-male sexual assaults were referred to as "homosexual"
molestations (e.g., Abstract, p.327) and the perpetrators' sexual
orientation apparently was not assessed. This study also suffers from
fatal methodological problems, which are detailed elsewhere on this
site.
In yet another article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron
claimed to have reviewed data about foster parents in Illinois and
found that 34% were perpetrated by a foster parent against a child of
the same sex, that is, female-female or male-male (Cameron, 2005). Not
only did Cameron again make the fallacious claim that all male-male
molestations are committed by homosexuals, he also made the same claim
about female-female molestations. Once again, he had no data about the
actual sexual orientations of the molesters.
Cameron continues to produce reports that essentially repeat the same
inaccurate claims. Perhaps one of the best indicators of his
diminishing credibility in this area is that his work was not cited in
the 2004 FRC report discussed in detail above.
Conclusion
The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any
more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to
argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But
there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely
than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child
molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual
orientation at all; they are fixated on children.
More:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
On 1/3/11, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There are more hetero pedophiles than homo pedophiles because there
> are more heterosexuals than homosexuals.
>
> A LOT more!
>
> Pedophilia isn't about sexual identity, regardless of the assholes at
> NAMBLA
>
> On Jan 1, 9:29 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tom?
>>
>> Did you read the article that you sent?
>>
>> One of your studies concluded that homosexuals were more likely going to
>> be
>> sexual predators or child molesters than heterosexuals, and several of the
>> studies found that homosexuals were about as likely to be child molestors
>> as
>> their heterosexual counterparts.
>>
>> Where and how did you come to the conclusion, and I quote: "please know
>> that most pedophiles are heterosexual" ?
>>
>> This is the reason that you are a Moonbat. You didn't even read your own
>> article!!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > What kind of statistics?
>> > You mean about most pedophiles being Heterosexual?
>> > I have done that already here. Please go and search your group
>> > archives, forgetful Lil' Keithie Keith.
>>
>> > Your ignorance and hateful homophobia are showing again Keith. Here is
>> > your homework assignment.
>> > Please Go here and read this again in it's entirety and then write a
>> > report for us.
>>
>> >http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
>>
>> > A snippet:
>>
>> > Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as
>> > representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For
>> > example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian
>> > babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often
>> > lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.
>> > In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat
>> > to children. Back in 1977, when Anita Bryant campaigned successfully
>> > to repeal a Dade County (FL) ordinance prohibiting anti-gay
>> > discrimination, she named her organization "Save Our Children," and
>> > warned that "a particularly deviant-minded [gay] teacher could
>> > sexually molest children" (Bryant, 1977, p. 114). [Bibliographic
>> > references are on a different web page]
>>
>> > In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay
>> > people are child molesters. This argument was often made in debates
>> > about the Boy Scouts of America's policy to exclude gay scouts and
>> > scoutmasters. More recently, in the wake of Rep. Mark Foley's
>> > resignation from the US House of Representatives in 2006, antigay
>> > activists and their supporters seized on the scandal to revive this
>> > canard.
>>
>> > The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual
>> > orientation is important because many child molesters don't really
>> > have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the
>> > capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men
>> > or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys,
>> > girls, or children of both sexes.
>>
>> > Statistics and Conclusion:
>>
>> > Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age
>> > preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.
>> > This article is discussed above in the "Other Approaches" section. As
>> > the FRC concedes, it contradicts their argument. The abstract
>> > summarizes the authors' conclusion: "Findings indicate that homosexual
>> > males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children
>> > than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to
>> > female children."
>>
>> > Silverthorne & Quinsey. (2000). Sexual partner age preferences of
>> > homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual
>> > Behavior, 29, 67-76.
>> > The FRC cites this study to challenge the Freund et al. data (see the
>> > previous paper above). However, the methodologies were quite
>> > different. Freund and his colleagues used a sample that included sex
>> > offenders and they assessed sexual arousal with a physiological
>> > measure similar to that described below for the 1988 Marshall et al.
>> > study. Silverthorne and Quinsey used a sample of community volunteers
>> > who were asked to view pictures of human faces and use a 7-point scale
>> > to rate their sexual attractiveness. The apparent ages of the people
>> > portrayed in the pictures was originally estimated by Dr. Silverthorne
>> > to range from 15 to 50. However, a group of independent raters
>> > perceived the male faces to range in age from 18 to 58, and the female
>> > faces to range from 19 to 60.
>>
>> > The article doesn't report the data in great detail (e.g., average
>> > ratings are depicted only in a graphic; the actual numbers aren't
>> > reported) and the authors provide contradictory information about the
>> > rating scale (they describe it as a 7-point scale but also say it
>> > ranged from 0 to 7, which constitutes an 8-point scale). In either
>> > case, it appears that none of the pictures was rated as "very sexually
>> > attractive" (a rating of 7). Rather, the highest average ratings were
>> > approximately 5.
>>
>> > On average, gay men rated the 18-year old male faces the most
>> > attractive (average rating = about 5), with attractiveness ratings
>> > declining steadily for older faces. They rated the 58-year old male
>> > faces 2, on average. By contrast, heterosexual men rated the 25-year
>> > old female faces the most attractive (about 5), with the 18- and
>> > 28-year old female faces rated lower (between 2 and 3) and the 60-year
>> > old female faces rated the least attractive (about 1).
>>
>> > A serious problem with this study is that the researchers didn't
>> > control for the possibility that some of the faces pictured in the
>> > photos might simply have been more or less physically attractive than
>> > the others, independent of their age or gender. The researchers
>> > explicitly acknowledged this shortcoming, speculating that the women's
>> > faces in the 25-year old group might have been more attractive than
>> > women's faces in the other age groups. But they didn't address the
>> > possibility that the attractiveness of the male and female faces may
>> > not have been comparable.
>>
>> > This issue could have been addressed in various ways. For example,
>> > prior to collecting data, the researchers could have started with a
>> > large number of photographs and asked a group of independent raters to
>> > evaluate the general physical attractiveness of the face in each
>> > photo; these ratings could have been used to select photos for the
>> > experiment that were equivalent in attractiveness. Getting independent
>> > ratings of experimental stimuli in this way is a common procedure in
>> > social psychological research.
>>
>> > Thus, even if one accepts the questionable assumption that this study
>> > is relevant, it doesn't support the FRC's contention that gay men are
>> > more likely than heterosexual men to be child molesters for several
>> > reasons:
>>
>> > the researchers failed to control for the varying attractiveness of
>> > the different photos;
>> > all of the faces portrayed in the photos were perceived to be at least
>> > 18;
>> > and
>> > the study merely assessed judgments of sexual attractiveness rather
>> > than the research participants' sexual arousal.
>>
>> > Blanchard et al. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation
>> > in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463-478.
>> > This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether
>> > they molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only,
>> > or both boys and girls. These groups were labeled, respectively,
>> > homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual
>> > pedophiles. This classification referred to their attractions to
>> > children. Adult sexual orientation (or even whether the men had an
>> > adult sexual orientation) wasn't assessed.
>>
>> > Elliott et al. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders
>> > tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 579-594.
>> > In this study, child sex offenders were interviewed. Their sexual
>> > orientation (gay, heterosexual, bisexual) wasn't assessed. The authors
>> > drew from their findings to suggest strategies for how parents and
>> > children can prevent sexual victimization. It is noteworthy that none
>> > of those strategies involved avoiding gay men.
>>
>> > Jenny et al. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by
>> > homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41-44.
>> > This study, described above in the section on "Other Approaches,"
>> > contradicts the FRC's argument. The FRC faults the study because the
>> > researchers didn't directly interview perpetrators but instead relied
>> > on the victims' medical charts for information about the offender's
>> > sexual orientation. However, other studies cited favorably by the FRC
>> > (and summarized in this section) similarly relied on chart data
>> > (Erickson et al., 1988) or did not directly assess the sexual
>> > orientation of perpetrators (Blanchard et al. 2000; Elliott et al.
>> > 1995; Marshall et al., 1988). Thus, the FRC apparently considers this
>> > method a weakness only when it leads to results they dislike.
>>
>> > Marshall et al. (1988). Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual
>> > preference. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 383-391.
>> > In this study, the researchers compared 21 men who had sexually
>> > molested a male under 16 years (and at least 5 years younger than
>> > themselves) to 18 unemployed men who were not known to have molested a
>> > child. Over a series of sessions, each man watched color slides of
>> > nude males and females of various ages and listened to audiotaped
>> > descriptions of both coercive and consensual sexual interactions
>> > between a man and a boy. During the sessions, each man sat in a
>> > private booth, where he was instructed to lower his trousers and
>> > underwear and attach a rubber tube to his penis. The tube detected any
>> > changes in penis circumference, with increases interpreted as
>> > indicating sexual arousal.
>>
>> > The FRC cites this study as showing that "a homosexual and a
>> > heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders." This
>> > is true but hardly relevant to their claims.
>>
>> > The researchers categorized 7 offenders who were more aroused overall
>> > by the male nudes than the female nudes as the homosexual subgroup.
>> > They categorized 14 offenders who were more aroused overall by the
>> > female nudes as the heterosexual subgroup. The offenders were not
>> > asked their sexual orientation (gay, straight, bisexual) and the paper
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment