Study of 1038 pedophiles shows no link with adult homosexuality

Here we go, let's look closer at the source wikipedia used to give you that 4% number:

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/vct/sw_toolkit/Between_men_full_version.pdf

Let's go over some substantial differences between what this source has said, and the source I used.

1: The report I used was specific to the United States, while your source uses figures from around the world - including places with strong taboos and people where people may be unwilling to answer the question honestly. If you go to a place like the middle east and ask this question, odds are people who might even identify as homosexual would never have acted on it due to fear of criminal prosecution, or at least lie about it. The MSM is also specific to people who are alive and studied... there's a good chance if you go to the middle east that the people who would have made the MSM statistic were killed, in prison, or in deep hiding - all of which would reduce the global MSM statistic.

2: The source said "at least 3%", and acknowledged that it could be more than 5 times larger than that (16%).

3: The question itself was different... were your source asks specifically "have you had sex with men", vs a more broad question of "how do you identify on a scale of 1-6 as heterosexual or homosexual". A man can be attracted to other men, somewhere on a scale of 1-6, without having had sex with any. Particularly in places with strong taboos, you'll likely see that people who have some degree of attraction to the same sex will suppress and never act on it, or at least lie about not having acted on it. And your source acknowledges this.

4: Your source does not identify age groups... i.e. you can ask the question "do you identify as homosexual/heterosexual" to a 14 year old, and that homosexual/heterosexual can say "yes" without having had sex at all (and thus would not be part of the msm statistic).

Long story short, the two statistics are related, but are not comparable side by side without considering the criteria for how they came together.

 

The mayo clinic REFERENCED the report in question as a source of their own report.

And they did indeed say something of similar accord:

http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

 

That ideology is again distorting your perception of reality. To repeat-

My source didnt determine what they identified as and instead determined if they were a man who has sex with men. Your desparation is showing.

 

They didnt reference the book that made the statement about the report, quoted. Mayo clinic wouldnt use 50 year old Kinsey studies to determine the prevalence of different sexualities in the population.

 

An eighteen year old is an adult. Most mental health professionals classify Pedophiles as adults who are attracted to prepubescent children. The courts have more complicated laws that vary by state.

I think almost any adult male will find an attractive post-pubescent girl at least somewhat pleasant to look upon, even if they have no interest whatsoever in a sexual relationship (this applies to women too). This comes down to basic biology, and despite what the most prudish posters may say, is true. Similarly, I think homosexual men and women should be judged by the same standard. I'm not in anyway saying its appropriate for adults to go after anyone under-18 here. I'm trying to look at this in a slightly more scienfitic manner. Someone should only be classified as pedophile who engages in sex/is attracted to prepubescent children.

 

I stand corrected, I looked at the wrong source (both were referenced)

Now, looking at this other source more closely:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/#ref1

That "1" above leads us to this footnote about what they mean by "MSM":

And nicely summarizes the distinction they acknowledge in identity vs practice. MSM, by definition, includes only men who have had sex with men, and does not include those who have various degrees of self-identity as homosexual. It also excludes those who have not had sex at all, or at least those who have not had sex with men despite how they identify.

These these distinctions still apply:

3: The question itself was different... were your source asks specifically "have you had sex with men", vs a more broad question of "how do you identify on a scale of 1-6 as heterosexual or homosexual". A man can be attracted to other men, somewhere on a scale of 1-6, without having had sex with any. Particularly in places with strong taboos, you'll likely see that people who have some degree of attraction to the same sex will suppress and never act on it, or at least lie about not having acted on it. And your source acknowledges this.

4: Your source does not identify age groups... i.e. you can ask the question "do you identify as homosexual/heterosexual" to a 14 year old, and that homosexual/heterosexual can say "yes" without having had sex at all (and thus would not be part of the msm statistic).

 

Taking a closer look at one of the distinctions of the MSM statistic vs "identifying as homosexual" statistic, a look at virginity was a little interesting.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/06/who-is-the-40-year-old-virgin.html?fark

They also took a closer look at homosexuals:

The source itself acknowledges the small scope of the study, and so are not nailing themselves down to the statistic, nor am I. But it does highlight an important difference between the "homosexual identity" statistic and the "MSM" statistic... i.e. the MSM statistic does not include virgins and those who have not acted on their various degrees of homosexuality/bisexuality to have sex with men.



Looking again at the source that shows MSM at 2-3% in the USA also needs a bit more digging. Their meaning for this was a little cryptic.

For one, it doesn't clarify if the statistic means "has ever had sex with a man", or "recently had sex with a man" or whatever their criteria was for it. They mention some "CDC surveillance" which I'll have to look into.

 

Found it:

The wikipedia article you referenced used this site as its source:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

Which used this definition of "MSM"

This somewhat cryptic definition is explained in their bibliography:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/bibliography.htm
(click on the first source in their bibliography)

And there it is, "MSM" is defined as people who recalled having sex with a man in the last 5 years.

They further clerified this definition in a press release:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html

It thus explicitly excludes those who are virgins, or those whom, for whatever reason, do not have sex with other men despite having a sexual attraction for them - for example, men with various degrees of bisexuality who are married to a women may not have sex with a man in a 5 year period and thus would not be "MSM", yet might still be considered "homosexual". And being married isn't the only reason to not act upon your bisexuality to have sex with another man. A man may not act on their bisexuality for religious reasons, fear of being caught or stigmatized, or simply because their attraction to men is not so great that they would want to have sex with them... yet in all cases, these men could consider themselves as "bisexual" to some various degree.

The MSM statistic is very clearly defined and useful for the purposes of analyzing and preventing disease.This definition highlights only a portion of homosexuality, specifically the portion that needs to be looked at for disease control purposes... i.e. the homosexuals who are actually having sex with men frequently.

In short, if you're not a homosexual that has sex with men frequently, the CDC doesn't include you in the MSM statistic.

 

You dont have a clue. Kinsey didnt ask people to pick from a scale of 1-6 and he instead assigned them a #1-6 based upon their behaviors.

And Again. My source didnt ask what they identified as. Your desparate grasping for straws is noted.

 

It's been brought up a couple times but it seems the discussion is only tangential to it.

Either this study actually indicates that there IS a strong link between pedophilia and homosexuality, or at most 51% of the male population is entirely straight, even in our society that would tend to repress homosexual self identification or reporting.

The latter seems wrong. And if correct puts the whole "threat to traditional marriage" discussion in a rather different light.

I don't think people really do that, I'm pretty sure it's well understood that when you're talking about pedophilia that you're talking about attraction to pre-pubescent individuals.

However going after the jailbait could get you labelled a "predator," a sex offender, and a criminal, and it's generally felt to be innapropriate and wrong.

 

Kinsey may not have, but that's what the researchers in my source did with the pedophiles they questioned.

It's the method for calculating homosexuality in the total population that you are concerned with, I understand this - you dispute using Kinsey's calculation on the total population, and you instead push forward the CDC's 4% MSM calculation. Which I've also demonstrated only shows a fraction of bisexuals/homosexuals, and is thus not comparable side-by-side with what the pedophiles reported in my source.

Yes, and that's exactly the problem... your source only focused on behavior over the last 5 years of the individual surveyed.

My source asked the pedophiles how they identified - without criteria for length of time or having actually acted on it.

You keep looking at the Kinsey estimate for the general population, but that's not what I'm focusing on. I'm focusing on the estimate that was given for the pedophiles, which was indeed a question of identity, not behavior.

 

Looking closer at the age distinction:

the MSM calculation put forward by the CDC surveys men starting at age 13 to determine the population of MSM.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html

On the other hand, my source was strictly men over the age of 18

http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf

The odds of a 13 year old boy having sex with a male are relatively small vs someone 18 or above, so will likely deflate the MSM calc as well. So not only are the two sources asking different questions, but they're asking them to a different representative sample of the population, which will cause a difference even if the question was the same.

 

LOLOL!!!! ABSURD to argue that men would lie about being homosexual in your study, turning 4% into 36%

 

Dont be silly. They simply estimated the # of gays in the population of men 13 and up. Likely because they were recording the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases in people 13 and up.

 

I didn't say anyone lied. I said the two studies asked to different questions.

First, there's the study on pedophilia
http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf

- This study included people from age 18 to 95.
- It asked them to rate their preference in the Kinsey scale. Key word there is preference - it did not require that the person actually acted on it any preference, just asked what they had
- There was no time constraints... The person being surveyed could consider themselves any degree of homosexual or heterosexual, without criteria on when or how long ago they had sex

Then we have the CDC:
- The study included people aged 13 and older
- It asked them if they had sexual activity with a man - strictly behavioral, excluding any consideration for preference.
- There were time constraints - the person questioned had to have had sex with a man in the last 5 years to be considered part of the MSM statistic.


Thus, the CDC statistic excludes:
1. Homosexual/bisexual virgins
2. Homosexual/bisexual men who have not had sex with men because they are married to a woman and monogamous (or monogamous for whatever other reason)
3. Homosexual/bisexual men who don't have sex with men for religious reasons.
4. Homosexual/bisexual men who don't have sex with men because they're afraid of being caught and stigmatized
5. Homosexual/bisexual men who might have some degree of preference for men, but whom have just not acted on it.
6. Homosexual/bisexual men who are abstinent. You might find many older men in this category.. can't say this for a fact for gay men, but like most people.... as you get older, you have less and less sex. Men 60+ may be having very little and would not be on the MSM statistic.
7. Homosexual/bisexual men who simply didn't remember having sex with a man, or those who may have lied about it (the study was based on recall alone)

I could see these reasons adding up to 36% and then some. Remember, we're not talking about people who are having no sex at all. A substantial portion of these people have sex with women, but that doesn't preclude some interest in men - even if they would never act on it or acknowledge it in a non-confidential setting.

And let's also not forget the interesting study on virginity:

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...rgin.html?fark
~14% of men ages 25-45 were virgin.
male homosexuals were 11 times more likely to be virgins
That's a lot of homosexual virgins not included in the MSM statistic...

 

You just made my point for me. They did so with the intention of studying disease caused by homosexual behavior... naturally their definition only includes males who are actively involved in MSM intercourse. Their goal was not to measure all gays that exist, regardless of sexual activity, nor was it to distinguish between those with various degrees of preference. It quite simply asked, did you have sex with a man in the last 5 years?

And I'm not saying this is incorrect either - it suits the purpose of disease control very nicely. But it's not the same as asking about sexual preference.

 

LOLOL!!!! ABSURD to argue that men would lie about being homosexual in your study, turning 4% into 36%. And while my study was looking at STDs, your study was looking at pedophillia. Neither, having any relevance whatsoever to the estimation of the prevalence of homosexual behavior in the general population.
Amazing the mental gymnastics you will go through to make your reality, match your perception.

 

From Dixon's source:

Also this:

 

Oh, and Dixon's source says 4% of American men have sex with MEN. Not boys, but men. So this asserted extrapolation that 4% account for 36% of male on male child molestation is completely bogus. First, it attempts to imply through sloppy construction that the entire 4% are child molesters. Second, the 4% aren't molesters at all, since Dixon's article isn't about child molestation, but the designation of men who have sex with MEN.

 

You really dont have a clue. Im not extrapolating anything. From JEFF'S study. Of the men who molested boys

It was my addition, NOT extrapolation.

You really are hopelessly lost. 4% is the percentage of the population of men in the US, who have sex with men. FROM THAT POPULATION they found 36% of their molesters of boys. 8% of them exclusively men, 19% predominately heterosexual, but not exclusively. And another 9% that are equally attracted to both men and women. 36% of those who molested boys were men who have sex with men, while they only make up 4% of the general population. I dont expect you to really unsderstand. Kinseys estimates of the prevalence of men who are having sex with men, have never been duplicated since. Study after study has found a mere fraction of the prevalence. But thats exactly why you believe Kinseys numbers with a religious zeal. Thats why this book author took a modern study of pedophillia in the 21st century, and combined it with a 1950s study of the prevalence of homosexual behavior, even though there had been dozens of studies since the 1950s that have ALL come to completely different results.

Kinsey did get one thing right.

Kinsey himself avoided and disapproved of using terms like homosexual or heterosexual to describe individuals, asserting that sexuality is prone to change over time, and that sexual behavior can be understood both as physical contact as well as purely psychological phenomena

4% is the percent of men in the US who are men who have sex with men. Basic CDC statistics having absolutely nothing to do with child molestation. And then there is Jeffs separate study on child molestation that chose not to use the CDC numbers of 4% for the general population, opting instead for Kinsey numbers from 1950 that the author says mirror the 36% in Jeffs study.

Im sure you are hopelessly confused now. I dont believe these are concepts you will be able to grasp.

 

And that's where you're wrong. They said that they expressed various degrees of preference for men, but they didn't say they slept with them - particularly within a 5 year time frame that would bring it closer in line to what the CDC's statistic was measuring. The CDC and the researchers in the study I posted were asking two different questions. If you need a refresher on the distinction, review this post again: http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...ink-adult-homosexuality-4.html#post1060897753

Having a preference does not mean you actually act on it, which is why they do things like create and specifically use terms like MSM and not homosexual. A difference is recognized, particularly with regard to the purposes of the CDC.

Let me put it to you this way. I think Angelina Jolie is hot. Jessica Alba? She's up there too. Movie stars aside, there's lots of women I find attractive. On a Kinsey scale, I'd probably put myself down as mostly homosexual.

Does that make me an MSW (man that has sex with women)? Nope. I would not make that statistic because I have not had sex with a woman in the last 5 years. I've been in a monogamous relationship for the last 6 years. Even if I wasn't in a monogamous relationship, I would probably not make the MSW statistic. Having an attraction or preference != acting on it.

I don't understand how you can understand and agree with the part I bolded, and then seem to be completely unable to understand why the 4% estimated by the CDC does not represent the total gay population, because it only focuses on the physical over (and over only a 5 year time frame).

Condescending much? whatever happened to friendly debate.

 

you'll have to point out to me where I said they lied to make that 32 point jump.

Agreed! Two different statistics measured for two different reasons. I never claimed one was better than the other, each was designed for its purpose. There is no solid, agreed upon definition of MSM or Homosexual. Each study puts forward its own criteria, usually keeping in mind the purpose of the study they are doing. i.e. the CDC defined it such that they would focus on the group of people at highest risk of disease, men who have had sex with men in the last 5 years. On the other hand, the researchers from my source wanted to take a broader look at homosexuality among pedophiles and see how it compares to the broader US population of homosexuals, which is not the same as the 4% from the CDC. The criteria was different. Their criteria was based on self-reported preference, which does not directly imply MSM... just an expressed preference or attraction.

 

What is a pedophile?
Is a guy who was born with sexual desires to screw kids but controls himself and never does a pedophile? And do you arrest him with the rest even though, like homo's, it's not his fault he was born that way?

What if he gets off to pictures, do you arrest him then even though he's never harmed a child?

 

To me, it looks like your report shows a clear link between homosexuality and pedophiles.

Of the men who molested boys:
51% - heterosexual
19% - predominantly heterosexual
9% - equally heterosexual & homosexual

Thats 79%, leaving 21% as homosexual or predominantly homosexual. Thats 10 times the percent of homosexual men in the general population. SOunds like a link between homosexuality and pedophiles.

Your quote from the Mayo Clinic seems to completely contradict your positon as well.

Seems pretty clear. If you want to look for the pedophiles, start with the gay community.

 

It doesn't account however for the fact that pedophilia tends to be an orientation unto itself that can be either homosexual or heterosexual in nature. A man attracted to pre-pubescent boys may have no interest in either adult men or adult women, and is unlikely to be part of the "gay community" - or any effort to legalise same-sex marriage between adults.

I still maintain that the only relevant statistic with regards to same-sex couple adoption is comparing the rate of abuse between those households and heterosexual households. The source I posted said the rate of abuse in a heterosexual environment is 100 times higher, At least double the rate even proportionally adjusted.