Homosexuality And Pedophilia: The False Link
By Joe Kort, MSW
Originally published in “In the Family” magazine, Fall 2003
I thought I would publish this here on this site as I know that those involved in the ex-gay movements often believe that homosexuals are pedophiles. In my research I found useful arguments for those who wish to speak up and teach the truth to those who misunderstand.
Q: I’ve heard therapists say that a male adult who sexually abuses a boy isn’t necessarily ‘homosexual.’ This seems confusing: If he isn’t homosexual, then why would he sexually molest boys, instead of girls?
This is a very good question, and there are several ways to respond to it. First, we need to clarify our definitions. When discussing sexual abuse and molestation of children, there’s often conflict over terminology. One frequently quoted researchers on the topic of homosexuality and child molestation, Gregory Herek, a research psychologist at the University of California, defines pedophilia as “a psychosexual disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners, which may or may not be acted upon.” (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow and http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow//html/facts_molestation.html) He defines child sexual abuse as “actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent.” Not all pedophiles actually molest children, he points out. A pedophile may be attracted to children, but never actually engage in sexual contact with them. Quite often, pedophiles never develop a sexual orientation toward other adults.
Herek points out that child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to “actions,” without implying any “particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator.” In other words, not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles. Pedophilia can be viewed as a kind of sexual fetish, wherein the person requires the mental image of a child–not necessarily a flesh-and-blood child–to achieve sexual gratification. Rarely does a pedophile experience sexual desire for adults of either gender. They usually don’t identify as homosexual–the majority identify as heterosexual, even those who abuse children of the same gender They are sexually aroused by youth, not by gender. In contrast, child molesters often exert power and control over children in an effort to dominate them. They do experience sexual desire for adults, but molest children episodically, for reasons apart from sexual desire, much as rapists enjoy power, violence and controlling their humiliated victims. Indeed, research supports that a child molester isn’t any more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual.
In fact, some research shows that for pedophiles, the gender of the child is immaterial. Accessibility is more the factor in who a pedophile abuses. This may explain the high incidence of children molested in church communities and fraternal organizations, where the pedophile may more easily have access to children. In these situations, an adult male is trusted by those around him, including children and their families. Males are often given access to boys to mentor, teach, coach and advise. Therefore, a male pedophile may have easier access to a male child. In trying to make sense of an adult male’s sexually abusing a male child, many of us mislabel it as an act of homosexuality, which it isn’t.
Feminists have argued for years that rape is not a sex act–it is an act of violence using sex as a weapon. In the same way, a pedophile abusing a child of the same sex is not perpetrating a homosexual act, but an act of violence and exploitation using sexuality. There is a world of difference between these two things, but it requires a subtle understanding of the inner motivation of the abuser.
To call child molestation of a boy by a man “homosexual” or of a girl by a man “heterosexual” is to misunderstand pedophilia. No true pedophile is attracted to adults, so neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality applies. Accordingly, Herek suggests calling men’s sexual abuse of boys “male-male molestation” and men’s abuse of girls, “male-female molestation.”
Interestingly, Anna C. Salter writes, in “Predators, Pedophiles, Rapists and other Sex Offenders”, that when a man molests little girls, we call him a “pedophile” and not a “heterosexual.” Of course, when a man molests little boys, people say outright, or mutter under their breath, “homosexual. Herek writes that because of our society’s aversion to male homosexuality, and the attempts made by some to represent gay men as a danger to “family values,” many in our society immediately think of male-male molestation as homosexuality. He compares this with the time when African Americans were often falsely accused of raping white women, and when medieval Jews were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Both are examples of how mainstream society eagerly jumped to conclusions to that justified discrimination and violence against these minorities. Today, gays face the same kind of prejudice. Most recently, we’ve seen gay men unfairly turned out of the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of this myth that gay men are likely to be child molesters. Keeping gays out of scouting won’t protect boys from pedophiles.
In reality, abuse of boys by gay pedophiles is rare, and the abuse of girls by lesbians is rarer still. Nicholas Groth is a noted authority on this topic. In a 1982 study by Grot, he asks, “Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children, and are pre-adolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual.” Herek writes, similarly, that abuse of boys by gay men is rare; and that the abuse of girls by lesbians is rarer still.
The topic of female-female molestation continues to be largely ignored. There are few books on female sex offenders, particularly about mothers sexually abusing their daughters. I can find no books on mothers who sexually abuse their sons. There is one handbook by Hani Miletski, M.S.W., entitled, “Mother-Son Incest: The Unthinkable Taboo.” Unthinkable is an appropriate word–so much so that there is nothing else in the literature on this topic, even though female pedophiles and female child molesters certainly exist.
We know so much more than we did historically and yet have a long way to go. We can understand child sexual abuse further when people’s bias and prejudice are removed and the evidence is empirical and scientific.
Thanks for the piece Mike. I’ve been familiar with Herek’s work for some time, and it is some of the best at debunking the slander that all gay men are child molesters. For that reason, of course, it and all other work that contradicts this myth are dismissed by those who are anti-gay.
But there is another issue around the supposed molestation of children by gays that does not affect straight men. Even if you believe the myth that gay men are MORE LIKELY to molest children, that still does not give any government or private organization the right to assume that ALL gay men WILL molest children. Groups like the Boy Scouts have convicted us all before any crimes actually have been committed.
Like any other American, I should be judged on my life and my actions, not on the assumptions of someone else.
Many thanks to Joe Kort for posting this article.
While the article is certainly interesting, it’s way too long — when somebody throws the “3% of the population do 33% of the molestations” soundbite at you, you need an equally short but convincing soundbite answer.
More ridiculous misinformation that obscures much more than it reveals.
If you parse the context here, then pedophilia is just as valid an orientation as is homosexuality, and the folks at NAMBLA are right to demand their civil rights accordingly. But if you are able to look past “orientation” and consider behavior, then men do almost all the child molesting, and boys are disproportionately victimized. Either way Joe, the truth hurts.
“No true pedophile is attracted to adults, so neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality applies.”
No TRUE pedophile? That’s like saying no TRUE homosexial is attracted to members of the opposite sex, or no TRUE heterosexual is ever attracted to members of the same sex. What happened to all the talk of “fluidity” that used to take place here at XGW? I think those discussions made it clear that the persons at the extreme ends of the scale were actually very rare indeed. Perhaps it’s not the TRUE pedophiles that are doing the bulk of the damage — but the “fluid” ones. There are tons of anecdotes backing this up, and they show up in the news on a regular basis.
“In reality, abuse of boys by gay pedophiles is rare”
Do you bother to read what is written, or make your assumptions first and then only read the pieces that fit your view?
It is clear that Joe Kort is making a distinction between pedophiles, who are unable to form an attraction to adults, and regular heterosexuals/bisexuals/homosexuals. He does not claim that the latter groups do not molest, but that molestation when it occurs in those groups is more about power and violence than it is about sexual gratification.
This is not news – it has been the understanding of the clinical community for some time. Pedophiles who are only attracted to children will typically molest both boys and girls, but have more access to boys because we don’t protect them in society as much. Yes, pedophilia is considered a “sexual orientation” by the APA, but there is a clear distinction between that orientation and heterosexuality/bisexuality/homosexuality – namely that pedophiles cannot form attachments to other adults. Therefore fighting for civil rights for those who must exploit the young would be inappropriate, while civil rights for consenting adults is completely appropriate.
Now Mr. Kort does not mention one piece of information that really throws a monkey wrench in your view of gay people – other research has shown that 75 – 80 percent of the men who molest boys are in a sexual relationship with the boy’s mother at the time. Clearly these men are not pedophiles, as they are able to have an adult attachment, and you really can’t call them gay, either. It remains true that the man least likely to molest your son is the out and proud gay man down the street.
Oh, please, this Marty character is noting more than a troll. Here to advertize its web site.
A male friend of mine from high school was molested by his father. When he was 13-14 years old. The father also molested his eight sisters when they were in the same age range. And, of course, he had sex with his wife–otherwise it is unlikely that the fam’ly would have had 9 kids.
What was the father? Hetero? Homo? I’ve related the story–a true one–on right-wing web sites such as FreeRepublic.com. Wackos there opine that the father must have been a homo, because heteros just aren’t interested in males–even if the males are 13-14 years old. And notwithstanding the fact that he also porked little girls. And the wife, of course. The idea that these men are porking 13-14 year old boys because they are attracted to even the semi-adult male physique is dumber than the proverbial crap that church mice leave behind.
Sorry, Marty, you’re posts more than suggest that you are nothing more than the proverbial horse’s rear end.
“Oh, please, this Marty character is noting more than a troll. Here to advertize its web site.”
Marty’s a decent guy; reason with him, don’t insult him.
Pyschologists do draw a distinction between “pedophilia” — molesting pre-pubescent minors, and “ephebophila,” sex between adults & teenagers.
My own research has told me that true “pedophiles” — whether they molest boys or girls, have a separate & usually exclusive orientation. And that molesters of boys are in fact more likely to be attracted to adult women (or at least, married to them), not adult men and they do not identify as “gay” nor do they consider themselves such. In short, they are not part of our community. And if they come knocking asking to join, we need to show them the door.
This orientation, whether it is biological, developmental, or whatever, can never be accepted by society, because pedophilia harms children (in my mind, that’s the ONLY thing wrong with pedophilia — and this entirely distinguishes it from adult homosexuality).
What has been called “ephebophilia” or adults having sex with underaged teenagers, is not a separate orientation, but rather stems from a “normal” sexual orientation. Meaning that if a man is interested in underaged but post-puberty girls, he is probably attracted to adult girls as well, and is attracted to the teen BECAUSE she is a young ADULT. And if a man is interested in underaged but post-puberty boys, he is probably also attracted to adult men and it WOULD be accurate to lump him in with the gays.
Prominent examples confirm this: Mary K. Let., didn’t have a “separate orientation” towards young boys — she was married to an adult man before, and is now engaged to this former “boy” who is now a legally adult male.
Roman Polanski who molested a 13 year old girl also demonstrated no exclusive orientation towards little girls. He was married to Sharon Tate, and the girl that he raped was a biological young woman.
Jerry Lee Lewis, and Mr. Lorreta Lynn were both married to their respective spouses when the girls were 13. Strom Thurmond impregnated his black mistress when she was 15 or so. These men, as far as I know, all had a normal “heterosexual” orientation, fully attracted to adult females.
But here’s the rub: This type of sex is wrong just as true pedophilia is wrong; they are wrong for the same reason: the actions harm the underaged child or teenager.
So, any stat. that lumps in homosexual pedophilia & ephebophila is flawed b/c pedophiles aren’t gay. They certainly don’t self identify as “gay” on those surveys that show that gays are 3% of the population.
Now, if the social-right can do an accurate study that eliminates the preteen molestations, and show that a self-identified gay man is more likley to have sex with an underaged teen than a heterosexual, then the point would be valid.
However, I don’t think that such a study will ever be produced, because since the Ancient Jews declared the age of adulthood to be “12” for girls, and “13” for boys, sex between an adult male and an underaged girl has been practically normalized in Western society, so long as it took place within the context of a marriage.
And ironically, it’s has only been in this post-60s modern society that we have begun to realize that sex between an underaged teen and an adult is always wrong (probably because underaged teens were protected against most forms of adult abuse by the moral stigma against fornication. In other words, if you want to do the 13-year-old girl, you’ll have to marry her first).
Just look at Jerry Lee Lewis and Lorretta Lynn. In the South, in the heydey of social conservatism, we had a legal “marriage” between adult males and 13-year-old girls.
Could you imagine the outrage if an adult male wanted to marry a 13-year-old boy?
The mere fact that statutory rape laws have glaring double standards re: whether the act is heterosexual or homosexual shows that there is a built in bias that must be removed from the system in order to answer whether gays are more likley to have sex with the underaged: An adult male having sex with an underaged teen girl = normal. An adult male having sex with an underaged teen boy = abuse.
Personally, I think they are both abuse.
Marty- good to hear from you. I thought you had fallen off the face of the earth.
I have to agree john and CPT here. Too many conservatives try to paint the issue that gays are responsible for child molestation by lumping any male that molests a boy into the gay category.
Now, I am sure you are saying to yourself, “of course!” But the problem with that is that it doesn’t help anyone. As others have pointed out, it is hard to call a man that is married to a woman, molests 8 girls and one boy, gay. By all societal accounts, he is straight. In fact, he almost definitely lived as a straight man.
So, trying to keep gays out of schools, out of boyscouts, etc. etc. does not help protect them from molestation because we still leave the self-identified straight men out there that will molest.
Gay men that have sex with men (or out gay men) are at no greater risk to molest than straight men that have sex with women. So, shielding kids from contact with just gays doesn’t really make much sense.
Jon Rowe | October 25, 2004 02:52 PM
>Marty’s a decent guy; reason with him, don’t insult him
Oh, can it, Jon. I have no idea who this Marty fellow is. Nor, quite frankly, do I have any idea who you are–other than the fact that Ed
Brayton seems to have linked to some of the bloviations on your web site. Marty might be the Queen of the May, for all I care. As far as I can tell, he’s merely here to bait–that’s what he’s done over tha last few years. And to advertise his web page. That should be evident from more than a few of his posts. I suppose that the troll will welcome you standing upt for him but, please, give me a break.
>Pyschologists do draw a distinction between “pedophilia” — molesting pre-pubescent minors, and “ephebophila,” sex between adults & teenagers.
Oh, I’m sure that that’s encouraging. Some people label something “x” that other people label “y.” Your labeling means nothing. Unless you can provide something resembling a rational basis for the labeling. Good luck. There are more than a few facts that you people choose to ignore.
I could go on, and on, and on, regarding Rowe’s clap traps. Unfortunately, his idiocies have nothing to do with reality. The fact that should be clear from any of us who have actually followed Rowe’s writings, is a religious nut case–an apologist for the roman catholic church. If this web site is so beholden to catholic theology that that is its central them, so be it. On the other hand, Mike Airhart, if that’s the case, why are you lying?
Oh, btw, Mr. Rowe, if you are wondering about guys frigging under-aged females, why don’t you ask your bud Tom Greene? I’m sure you know who he is.
Oh, BTW, Mr. Rowe, I suspect that you really don’t have any idea why boys are held in higher regard–in regards adult males having sex with them–than females. You really should do a little research.
BTW, your bud Harry Jaffa (referencing a post of yours on another web site) strikes me as being nothing more than another nut.
Raj–I really think that you ought to read my work more carefully before you go off half-cocked and attack me.
Anyone who would call me a “religious” nut case?!?! The only time I attend church is on weddings & funerals. And I am known on the web for being an advocate of secular rationalism and the separation of Church & State.
I think you got confused by the fact that I attended a Catholic-esq. natural law conference and praised it on my website.
I am a libertarian defender of natural rights. And re: Jaffa, I’m one of the few people who attack his work on homosexuality — not by simply writing off his natural law premises — but by demonstrating that a naturalistic view of reality by no means leads to the conclusion that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore wrong, which is what he and Claremont argue.
Jon Rowe is one of the most rational, intelligent, and secular-oriented thinkers around. I say this as a fairly hard-line atheist, and I say it knowing full well that Mr. Rowe sometimes says good things about Catholics.
With that said, I think Rowe is wrong about Marty, who does indeed seem to be a troll. Marty as much as admits it when he writes, “If you parse the context here, then pedophilia is just as valid an orientation as is homosexuality.”
But “parsing the context” is precisely what you are NOT supposed to do when you read…anything! Pedophilia may be involuntary, but that does not mean that acting upon it is right. By what standard do we judge that adult homosexuality is okay, but pedophilia is wrong? Simple. Adults have a natural right to make sexual decisions for themselves, and further, the evidence suggests that consensual homosexual acts need not harm anyone involved.
Pedophilia, though, does tremendous harm to the child. Moreover, children do NOT have a natural right to engage in sex, since they cannot be said to understand the consequences of their actions.
The distinction is simple, and society has drawn a bright line–properly, I think–at 18, an age of consent that errs on the side of caution.
Okay, rant’s over. Now, can two people whose comments I usually respect go back to being civil?
This discussion seems to be going round in circles to a great extent. Why? Because, instead of definitions and classifications clarifying the issue, they are being used to obfuscate it.
(1) Some people wish to confine the word “homosexual” to adult males whose sexual attraction is primarily or exclusively to other adult males. (Sorry to leave out the women here, but I’m deliberately not making the language gender-inclusive, in order not to make the explanations cumbersome, and in any case this issue is more relevant to men than to women).
There is, I think, a good case for this: when I say that I’m “homosexual” or “gay” I mean that the people to whom I’m sexually attracted are other adult males, and if I’m told that someone else is “homosexual” or “gay” I presume – unless told otherwise – that the word is being used in the same sense. Similarly, if they hear that an adult male is “heterosexual” or “straight”, most people would presume – again, unless told otherwise – that this means that his sexual attraction is primarily or exclusively to adult females.
(2) Marty, however, wishes to give the term “homosexual” a wider sense: he apparently wants to apply it to any male who has sex with any other male or males of any age, no matter what the reasons or the circumstances. He, too, can make a good case for this: after all, the term “homosexual” means “same-sex”, so isn’t sexual behaviour that takes place between an adult man and a male child “homosexual”?
What is not admissible, however, is to switch, in an argument, between meanings (1) and (2), as given above, to try to “prove” your thesis. That is merely verbal card-sharping; it is intellectually dishonest.
Let us allow Marty, for the sake of argument, to use the word “homosexual” in the way that he wants – provided that he sticks to it. The real crux of the issue, then, is this:
• There are adult males who have (or want to have) sex with other adult males. We can call them “ordinary” homosexuals.
• There are adult males who have (or want to have) sex with male children. We can call them homosexual paedophiles.
Are they the same people?
The answer is that they can be and occasionally are – but in general they are not. The overlap, such as it is, between “ordinary” (adult-preferring) homosexuals and homosexual paedophiles is no greater than the overlap between “ordinary” heterosexuals and heterosexual paedophiles.
Most “ordinary” homosexuals would not dream of having sex with a pre-pubertal boy, and most homosexual paedophiles would not dream of having sex with another adult male – in fact, they are more likely, if they have sex with adults at all, to have it with women.
Here in England, when the sociologist Michael Schofield researched the behaviour and attitudes of men who committed sexual offences against boys he found, among other things, that:
• Most homosexual paedophiles did not knowingly associate with “ordinary” (i.e. adult-preferring) homosexuals, did not believe that they knew any (shades of naïve heterosexuals!), and had no experience of, or desire for, adult homosexual contact – indeed, many said that the very idea was disgusting to them.
• Over a quarter of men convicted for sexual offences against boys had also molested girls.
A paper by Freund and Watson, published in 1992 in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, has been repeatedly cited in recent years by the “Christian” right as “proof” that “ordinary” homosexuals are more likely than “ordinary” heterosexuals to molest children. The citation is spurious. Most of those who virtually shake this paper in our faces clearly haven’t read it – at least, that is the most charitable interpretation. I have to admit that I haven’t read it either, and I doubt that, as a layman, I could understand it even if I could obtain a copy of it. I have, however, been able to read Dr Freund’s Abstract of it. This states that, “the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1”. This, of course, is different from the ratio of heterosexuals to homosexuals among those who are orientated towards adults, which is more like 20:1. But Kurt explicitly notes that this “would not indicate that androphilic [“man-loving”] males have a greater propensity to offend against children than do gynephiles [“woman-lovers”], a myth refuted in an earlier study.”
I have yet to hear any of these people cite Freund’s paper “In Search of an Etiological Model of Pedophilia” (which can be found on the Internet). In this paper Kurt notes that the “most parsimonious” interpretation of his data is “that the heterosexual and homosexual types of pedophilia are substantially more closely related to each other than to the heterosexuality or homosexuality of males who erotically prefer physically mature partners. Also, pedophilia has little in common with homosexuality or heterosexuality in males who prefer physically mature partners.”
Thanks for the kind words Jason. Re: me & Catholics. You know there are a lot of Catholics that I have debated on the web that would be shocked at how “pro-Catholic” a reputation I am developing.
I praise the Catholic natural lawyers for taking a natural law based approach to constitutional and public issues as opposed to doing what the Protestant fundies do, claim that the Declaration & the Constitution are Biblical documents and that we were founded on Biblical revelation, which is absolutely a false view of history.
Since we were founded on universal principles of reason, the natural law approach — even the Catholic one — is more consistent with original principles that claiming that we were “founded” on the Bible, which we weren’t.
But that being said, I don’t think that our founders had a Thomistic view of nature either, and I have debated this point to death with doctronaire Catholics, and Thomists over at places like the Claremont Institute.
This is the real split between the socially conservative Thomistic natural lawyers, and the libertarian natural lawyers like Randy Barnett. And I have taken Barnett’s side, who BTW, appealed to natural rights principles in drafting a brief submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of the WINNING PARTY in Lawrence v. Texas.
If you want to see one of my debates with a real troll, who happened to be a doctronaire Catholic and a purveyor of the natural law, check out this thread. This fellow named, “Dan” would be real shocked that I “Catholic religious nut.” If that were true, I think he would want to quit the Catholic religious nut movement.
This fellow named, “Dan” would be real shocked that I am a “Catholic religious nut.” If that were true, I think he would want to quit the Catholic religious nut movement.
I would distinguish them as
* Adult men who have (or want to have) sex with other adult men, in a consensual act as “gay men” — the sexuality is part of one’s being as an integrated whole person.
* Adult men who have (or want to have) sex with male children, I would call ‘homosexual predators’ — the power/manipulation is as much a part of (or probably even more than) the actual sexual activity.
I have to view adult predators preying on minors as something intrinsically different from adults engaging in consensual activity amongst themselves. To me “gay” includes both the homosexuality AND a different worldview and manner of relating to all people, with or without sex. (not that there aren’t manipulative, controlling gay men preying on each other… but that’s a whole different thread!) 🙂
It’s probably just semantics, the way some folks use ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ interchangably, but in my mind it helps me distinguish between gay men and homosexual men. I think all gay men are homosexual, but I do not accept that all homosexual men are gay.
Note to Jon Rowe:
I apologize for raising the issue here regarding our disagreement on Ed Brayton’s blog. It is unfair of me to try to debate the issues I have on two comment threads on two different blogs, particularly when the issue arose on a blog other than here. I have been in the process of preparing a response to you, which I intend to post probably tomorrow. Unfortunately, what I have so far is a bit on the lengthy side, and the post on the other site is a bit on the old side, but I wanted to give you a head’s up. Check there about noon tomorrow 10/29.
>Check there about noon tomorrow 10/29.
BTW, on a topic of relevance here, if Marty isn’t a troll perhaps he should stop posting as if he were one. I haven’t read all of his posts, but virtually all of those that I have read on this web site suggests that he is one.
From The New Hacker’s Dictionary:
>1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase “trolling for newbies” which in turn comes from mainstream “trolling”, a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don’t fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. 2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand – they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, “Oh, ignore him, he’s just a troll.” 3. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS student. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.
>Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial.
http://www.drbbs.com/jsw/jargon/jargon_35.html#SEC42 (scroll down)
As far as I can tell, “troll” characterizes Marty to a “T.” Posting outlandish statements whose only apparent goal is incite flaming. And to divert attention from the content of the thread.
As we’ve mentioned elsewhere, scroll the troll.
Ray | October 26, 2004 08:50 PM
>I think all gay men are homosexual, but I do not accept that all homosexual men are gay.
I disagree. While I agree that it is useful to distinguish between “gay” and “homo,” I think it a bit naive to opine that all gay men are homosexual. My first boyfriend (in college in 1970-73) appeared to be bi, but he was straight before he met me, gay while he was with me, straight after he got married, and eventually settled on gay after he got divorced. I’ve chatted on message boards over the last few years with younger guys–not kids–who are self identified bi-guys, but who also self-identify as being gay. I really do believe it a mistake not to acknowledge that there really are lifestyles that one might categorize as being “gay.” Just as there are lifestyles that one might categorize as being straight, and a category of lifestyles that one might categorize as being blue collar, white collar, politician, tinker, etc. There’s no such thing as “the” gay lifestyle, just as there isn’t anything such as “the” straight” lifestyle, or even “the Red Sox fan” lifestyle.
Yes, thank you. I stand semi-corrected. In the context of what I was trying to say, then, those who identify as gay can be homosexual, bi-sexual, or whatever degree of orientation along the spectrum.
If pedophiles like both boys and girls then why is there NAMBLA and NAMGLA? Shouldn’t they just join since they should have the same membership. Oh but they don’t. Because there are gay pedophiles and hetero ones. I don’t understand why there is such an eagerness to expand sexual categories in other areas e.g. lesbian, gay, bisexual and of course 6 different types of transexual (two basic types maletofemale femaletomale multiplied by 3 different sexual orientations). Yet there is only one kind of pedophile. Maybe there are 6 kinds of pedophile , male/females who like girls/boys/both. In this case the pedophile priests are men who like boys only and the married guy who abused different sexes is just a bisexual pedophile.
Why exactly is this an impossibility. Maybe its an impossibility because its politically incorrect since it implies that the priest sexual scandal has a lot to do with gay priests and of course its wrong to ever criticize anything whatsoever about homosexuals.
From what I’ve read it seems that pedophiles generally get off on the helplessness/innocence/youth of their victims and their gender seems to come in second. Most of the ones I’ve heard of (other than the priests) have molested kids of both genders. The only molester I’ve met was abusing both his son and his daughter.
In fact, I believe the statistics show that the vast majority of molestation is within the family and is directed towards whatever children are available, both boys and girls.