This is a funny post. But I have to tell you, I have frequently wondered what was wrong with me as a kid. I never was molested when I was a kid, but I turned out homosexual anyway.
Yes, I am being very very sarcastic. (True though)
Off topic MikeA, but, it appears that your buddy Steve Miller does not want dissenting opinions on his comment threads over at IndeGayForum. He has blocked my comments for several days.
I understand that your infographic is intended to make a point about the self-selecting nature of Ms. Fryrear’s contacts. I offer this study as a possible support for her observations. Looks like the abuse percentage here is just over 25% which is somewhat higher than in the general population. Relevant to your infographic is the observation that sexual abuse may be associated with risky behavior. Seems like ex-gays are often in therapy because in addition to same sex attraction that they are concerned about, they also have disordered lives in many other ways. Of course, this is true in staights as well.
Childhood Sexual Abuse and HIV Risk-Taking Behavior Among Gay and Bisexual Men
Samuel Jinich1 , Jay P. Paul1, Ron Stall1, Michael Acree1, Susan Kegeles1, Colleen Hoff1 and Thomas J. Coates1
Abstract We explored the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse among adult gay and bisexual men and measured the association between childhood sexual abuse and high-risk sexual behavior in adulthood. Two separate population-based samples of gay and bisexual men (n = 1,941) residing in Portland and Tucson were surveyed. Over one quarter reported a history of childhood sexual abuse (sexual behavior with someone at least 5 years older prior to age 13, or with someone at least 10 years older when between ages 13 and 15). Men who were abused were more likely to engage in sexual risk behavior than men who were not abused (e.g., unprotected anal intercourse with non-primary partners in the previous 12 months: 21.4% vs. 15.0%, p
Aids and Behavior, Issue: Volume 2, Number 1, March 1998, Pages: 41 – 51.
PS – Let me add a PS to the percentage issue of abuse. Look at the definition of sexual abuse: sexual behavior with someone at least 5 years older prior to age 13, or with someone at least 10 years older when between ages 13 and 15). This means that a 13 year old victimized by a 20 year old would not be considered abuse in this study. If the definition was expanded to include non-consensual actions with the 5 year span after age 13, I suspect the percentage would increase to closer to that 46% named by Focus.
Even if those numbers bear out, correlation does not establish causation. Child molesters tend to target more vulnerable youth, and gay kids have historically tended to be more lonely and vulnerable and hence probably more likely to fall under the spell of an adult who claims to offer understanding.
25-46% reporting molestation is actually on the low side. When these stats are produced by groups such as focus, they are used to establish causation and provide reasoning for their persecution of the gay community. If similar research were conducted of heterosexual molestation, I suspect the percentage would be much higher. Are we to believe that molestation also causes opposite sex attraction. If one were to use the premise and apply it to homosexuals, why not heterosexuals as well? Throckmorton stated: “they also have lives disordered in many other ways”. That may be true, but being homosexual does not imply disorder in of itself. I suggest he check out statements from the APA and AMA for clarification that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. This is important to know as a practicing psychologist.
Warren, that 46% figure is ridiculous.Why don’t you drive the 50 miles to Pittsburgh and ask around the 11 venues?But it is not, I suspect, ridiculous for exgays — they attract the abused.Why chose that survey in particular? Well, I don’t know as to the reason you suggest it but we do have a highly regarded meta-anaylis to look at:
We identified 166 studies representing 149 sexual abuse samples. Studies were methodologically limited and definitions of sexual abuse varied widely. Prevalence estimates [of CSA of boys] varied widely (by definition used and population studied), ranging from 4% to 76%. (Holmes & Slap JAMA 1998)
4% to 76%??? … urgh, ummm, jeez, take your pick…The same team you quote from CAPS also reported on their Portland/Tuscon sample in 1996. They quite deliberately recruited from gay bars looking, I might add, for target populations in comparative surveys to indentify risk-taking and precursers to unsafe sex. Not, one would suspect, a representative sample of gay men; and nor did they need one.For BooFinkelhor as good as they get, so:
Estimates of the prevalence of CSA in the US are about 33% for females under the age of 18 and 10% in males under 18 years of age. (Finkelhor 1994 refd by CAPS).
Ok — (assume) 25% from the AZ/OR study as applying to (assume) 5% of the male population and (assume) 10% as applying to 100% of the male population. This means 87.5% of those abused boys are now heterosexual adults.Where, one wonders, is that “causation” linkage? The large majority of gay men were not abused. The large majority of boys who were abused become straight adults.Rather than causation, are we not seeing a simple intersection of two unrelated population groups?And here’s a quirky little bit of info from the same volume of Aids and Behavior refd by Warren…
At public sex environments in four U.S. cities, 1,369 men who have sex with men (MSM) were asked about sexual self-identification … Half of respondents self-identified as gay, 40% as bisexual, and 10% as straight.
I also remember seeing (sorry, no ref) that 80% of MSM at public locations (eg road side stops etc) self-identify as straight.Of yes… those “straight men” who have sex with men… exgays???
And Melissa is free to call us. We’re in the phone book.Not to spoil her perfect score on the issue, but we’ve never been “sexually violated”.Well, not unless we really begged for it I mean…
Over one quarter reported a history of childhood sexual abuse (sexual behavior with someone at least 5 years older prior to age 13, or with someone at least 10 years older when between ages 13 and 15).
PS – Let me add a PS to the percentage issue of abuse. Look at the definition of sexual abuse: sexual behavior with someone at least 5 years older prior to age 13, or with someone at least 10 years older when between ages 13 and 15). This means that a 13 year old victimized by a 20 year old would not be considered abuse in this study. If the definition was expanded to include non-consensual actions with the 5 year span after age 13, I suspect the percentage would increase to closer to that 46% named by Focus.
That is a very interesting definition of abuse, because I fit into it, and yet was never molested. My first sexual experience was at age 16, and I guarantee you the man was well more than 10 years older than me (although I have no idea how old). But I initiated the encounter, lied about my age and at no point was victimized.
By defining abuse solely on the ages of the individuals involved, the study may overstate the amount of “abuse,” as many gay people have their initial sexual encounters with people far older than they are. Until relatively recently, it has been impossible for most gay and lesbian teenagers to date and experience sexuality as straight teenagers do – with their same-age peers, so they turn to those who are older, often significantly older.
Certainly I do not argue this is a healthy approach to teenage sexuality, and that is why I believe the abiltiy to come out as a teenager and experience a more “normal” or typical teenage love life is key for the healthy development of gay and lesbian people.
As Boo also points out, the desperation and loneliness felt by gay and lesbian teenagers, particularly those in rural and other non-accepting areas (have you ever how many gays have reported believing they are the only ones in the world while growing up? Particularly gay and lesbian people who are 40 and older) may lead to them putting themselves in situations where they are more likely to be molested or targeted by unscrupulous adults. In that case, being gay would actually be a factor in being molested, rather than the other way around.
It is also interesting that, in the on-line version of the abstract of the article referenced by Dr. Throckmorton, the following is also included Perception of having been coerced was associated with greater sexual risk. Furthermore, childhood sexual abuse and level of coercion were associated with reported levels of HIV infection among gay and bisexual men.
Clearly the issue of coercion was a factor in this research as well, and therefore it is hard to say that this research has any bearing on the idea that being gay is somehow “caused” by being molested. Because there are more than a few thousand anecdotal personal histories of gay and lesbian people who have not been molested, and millions of straight people who have been, once again we are left with the fact that molestation cannot be considered a contributing factor towards the biological process of homosexuality.
More importantly, for this posting, the idea that 100% of gays and lesbians have been molested is simply not supportable.
Throckmorton has provided another distortion typical of both him and FOTF groups. Can someone tell me if there is any valid reason why he doesn’t test exgay claims of complete conversion with a penis volume measurement device using sexual images of both men and women. The only reason I can see is that he doesn’t want to know the truth about self reported ‘success’ verified by therapists with a financial incentive to lie.
Throckmorton, your contributions here can be taken apart easily.
You’re leaving out the female equation when it comes to sexual encounters, abuse of power regarding males in their lives and the ages they were and the relationships they had with said males.
Females are a dramatic range when it comes to sexual abuse, and how their orientation is affected isn’t making the cut in the biased research you keep citing.
For one thing, and it’s pointed out here-gay teens and their natural acceptance of their gay identity is skewed, denied or not honestly revealed at a young age because of heterosexual assumptions and presumptions and control of that identity.
It’s taken DECADES for heterosexuals to allow the participation of enough healthy well adjusted gay people in any studies at all.
Mostly because heterosexuals have made it difficult for gay people to feel comfortable in being honest.
And STILL, even with the revelation of priest abuse, FEMALES are virtually out of the discussion and the answer to priest abuse is to exclude homosexuals from seminaries.
Sometimes, Throckmorton, whenever you have something to say I look at your posts and think to myself…DUH.
Power and control are at the root of all abuse, Throckmorton and it doesn’t change sexual orientation, so much as sexual orientation is forced to defer to the majority that’s in control.
This obssession with GAY MALES is a matter of socio/political repression, Throckmorton, not a manifestation of interest in social responsibility and cooperation…and the less you acknowlege that or just deny it grates my last nerve no end.
It’s a type of emasculation of gay men, something that BLACK men have dealt with historically and our national legacy is STILL paying for.
Every single time you show up here with your stiff opinions and stats I want to push you into a chair and throw some reality into your face.
I’m SICK of statistics.
The statistics you keep bringing in here are so half assed and are an insult to any one with the ability of critical thinking.
I seem to be the only black woman that shows up in here on a regular basis…and frankly…very frankly, I’m very tired of you robotic and repititious ex gay conversion supporters.
You’re all of a PIECE. You talk the same, look all the same and make me feel like I’m living in and Orwellian doublespeak universe.
I’m not even gay…I find it very interesting that most of the regulars here have no objections to what I tend to say.
In spite of not being gay, I know what identity means and what having it under constant siege can do to a person.
I also see that you choose not to address anything I say, not even personally.
You’re not the only one.
Ex gay conversion supporters have been weird that way.
Reality aversion is your distinct disease.
My guess would be that Warren is referring to stats that show a 30% molestation rate among girls and a 10% molestation rate among boys. I think it is safe to assume that such a low molestation rate for boys is probably a rather large underreporting. I tried to find a definitive study that showed this but I’m limited today to Google, and everything I could find seemed to assume underreporting as a given–with most assuming that the rate for boys was probably pretty close to that of girls. It seems to me the Jinich study pretty much indicates that this might be a fairly accurate assumption. The low rate for boys seems to be a problem of diagnosing and reporting sexual abuse against boys rather than an indication that only 10% of boys are sexually abused.
Warren, for you to assume that 25% of gay and bisexual men self-reporting sexual abuse against health professionals reporting abuse in 10% of all boys indicates that gay men are abused more often than straight boys is the height of disingenuousness. It is this kind of disingenuousness that leads to the rep that reparative therapies have among the general populace. If you and others could only participate in good faith and without the blatant dishonesties, it might actually be possible to have a dialogue about reparative therapy. But that’s not going to happen until your habit of lying stops.
Let me encourage all to re-read what I wrote. I did not make any case for abuse causing sexual preferences. I was offering a possible factor for why Melissa might be meeting many ex-gays who were abused. I think the age difference issue is relevant still but finding higher incidents of abuse in gays and/or lesbians (I doubt that would be true of lesbians however) does not mean that I would attribute anything causal to the difference. In fact, I don’t for an entire group. Do I think that some people may have sexual confusion due to sexual abuse that leads to compulsive sexual behavior of all sorts? Yes, and I suspect some of you would agree. Do I think that all gays were abused? No, of course not.
Throckmorton, as a gay person never molested as a child, I was told in therapy that I had to have been. The participants were hounded to say they were molested, even to the point of being punished by the overall therapy group if we did not respond. I have heard this is true in many exgay therapies. So I have a real problem with these stats from exgay groups in general. I was never molested and neither was my spouse. THe only gay people I have known who say they were molested are from the exgay groups. One of the reasons I left exgay therapy was because they were forcing me to lie about something that had never happened.
Exgay therapists, like Throckmorton, are similiar (if not the same) to those Christian therapists in the late 80s-early 90s who got people to believe that they were invovled in Satanic worship. They created the Satanic panic. Exgay therapy is no different.
Any reason why you call Warren and/or Prof. Throckmorton by his last name only?
Posted by: Mike Airhart”
Randi here, I believe I started that and harshened the tone a bit. My apologies to Warren and the pursuit of fairness. Its difficult to follow the rules of fairness when one’s opponent does not do the same and by that I mean Warren pays lip service to science and truth with statements like:
“Let me encourage all to re-read what I wrote. I did not make any case for abuse causing sexual preferences.”
Technically true but I believe Warren knows the mental linkage is likely amongst readers and intends it be made. Regan Duccasse stated it extremely well, I am most impressed with her and profoundly grateful to heterosexuals like her for defending justice and fairness for gays with such intelligent and convincing remarks. Regan please read my post under National Comming Out day or “Protect the children”. I believe you’ll find it supports your statements.
It has been my experience that some gay men I know had a time when they were ‘teenage adult molesters’. I have also had teenagers come on to me, at least when I was younger. (And, no, I never did anything with them.) It seems to me that if we change the perspective to see when people began their sexual careers, we would find that some gay men began early, others later. And probably at the same rate as straight boys.
It seems to be that these events are retrospectively rated as ‘abuse’. Which does not tell us if the teenager consented or not at the time. I wonder what the outcome would be if we strictly limited it to cases where the abuse was a reported offense?
IMHO, ‘abuse’ is a vague and chimeric idea. It seems to vary all over the place. And it also appears as something that gets applied to actions at a much later time. Perhaps using ‘rape’ which does seem to have a fairly firm meaning would help clear up this situation.
Dan – brilliant graphic. I had not thought of looking at the statistical probability that Melissa Fryrear was actually telling the truth. Very funny and very telling.
Warren – I know that you are trying to provide cover for FOTF here on this issue. But it is not compelling.
Without further research into the study you quote of a 25% childhood molestation rate for gay men, I can’t comment on its accuracy. Frankly, it seems improbable and grantdale (who incidentally continue to impress me with their research and analytical abilities) have pointed out some flaws.
However, for the sake of argument, let’s accept the 25% number.
Recognizing that the 25% quote is far far less than 46% used by FOTF, you seek to fill in the missing 21% with this:
“If the definition was expanded to include non-consensual actions with the 5 year span after age 13, I suspect the percentage would increase to closer to that 46% named by Focus.”
Here are my observations on your assumption:
1. You are including the age group from 13 to 18 for FIRST TIME molestation.
As children age they become less and less vulnerable. Yet your scenario has almost as many molestations (21%) in this range alone as is in the combined ranges mentioned in the study (25%).
Interesting, the study did not assume child molestation for 16, 17, and 18 year olds. You seem to want to include this demographic in the definition of “child”. That’s very curious. Do you see many FIRST TIME molestations in 17 year olds?
2. You remove the age difference.
As you well know, molestation occurs when there is inequality of power. As ages near, power positions diminish and the likelihood of molestation goes down. In your scenario it increases.
3. You state that the acts are non-consensual.
This is interesting in that you close a loophole, here. You can’t back out now and say that all sexual acts involving persons not of legal age are molestation.
What you are claiming here, Warren, is that nearly as many gay men were molested for the first time between the age of 13 and 18 by persons 5 to 10 years older as were molested in the entire categories selected by researchers. In your scenario, the researchers were woefully sloppy and underreported their results by 45%. If you seriously believed that, you wouldn’t quote the study at all.
I see that you left yourself wiggle room by saying “CLOSER to that 46%”, but the language you used here, Warren, implies is that it is more than a few percent closer. If you are parsing your words to say things that you don’t mean, Warren, that would be dishonesty.
From all of this we can conclude:
1. From Daniel’s stats we see that Melissa Fryrear is lying (we don’t have words in the language for odds that great)
2. From Warren’s quoted study we see that Focus on the Family is lying (they are nearly doubling the rate of molestation)
3. IF Warren is claiming that the study he quotes is off by 45%, he is either foolish or lying. (I use “if” in case Warren wants to clarify).
Finally, Warren, you say “I understand that your infographic is intended to make a point about the self-selecting nature of Ms. Fryrear’s contacts.”
Actually, I think Dan’s infographic was intended to point out that Melissa Fryrear is lying. Plain, old-fashioned, undiluted, doing the work of the Father of Lies. And that, Warren, we can all agree is true.
I wouldn’t use “prof” in connection with “Throckmorton” either. He’s got a gig with that religious college. That doesn’t mean that I have to credit him with his gig.
Like most of us here, I’ve known gay men and women who were sexually abused as children or youth. I’m aware of three, specifically. But because I’m interested in the topic, I’ve asked lots and lots of LGBT persons if they were sexually abused – and except for those 3, the answer has been ‘no.’
I was annoyed by Stephen Bennett’s claim last year at a rally I attended that 75% of all gay men were sexually abused as children. He refused (or was unable) to provide any documentation to support that other than the claim that it was based on random phone calls to his office from persons struggling with their sexuality.
Melissa Fryrear’s claim (brilliantly illustrated – thanks, Dan!) is more of the same. It’s not about whether stats are close to reality or far off – it’s about the unrelenting lies told to an uninformed public for the sake of excluding non-straight persons from hetero privilege and for the sake of personal power.
I have two degrees (masters and doctorate) from the same grad school Melissa attended – Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky. Although I am no longer a theological conservative, I have generally respected the academic integrity of the school. Asbury’s delight in Melissa’s ‘celebrity’ status with FOTF – has diminished my respect for the school and is an embarrasment to me and to other alumni I have spoken with.
Do you have a tin ear? Statistics that you are referring to are self-reporting. You, as an alleged scientist, should know that self-reporting is highly unreliable. I would use a Perry Mason analogy, in which the defense attorney (accurately) noted the same.
Two, apparently you do not understand the import of the abstract of the article that you cited:
Childhood Sexual Abuse and HIV Risk-Taking Behavior Among Gay and Bisexual Men
Samuel Jinich1 , Jay P. Paul1, Ron Stall1, Michael Acree1, Susan Kegeles1, Colleen Hoff1 and Thomas J. Coates1
The abstract related to the prevalence of homosexuality among people who claimed to have been molested. It did not relate to the prevalence of homosexuality among people who had not claimed to have been molested. And it did not relate to the prevalence of molestation among the homosexual population as a whole. As a professor I would have assumed that you would understand the difference. Apparently you do not.
Mike, I tried to be respectful before. I have asked legitimate questions a doctor should expect and got blown off.
Hard to maintain respect when that happens.
I love learning about things and making observations.
But I have issues with folks who don’t seem to be serious about a serious subject.
The title of doctor won’t impress me until I feel like I’m dealing with one.
I told you even as a child, when I dared question the validity of the Bible and any other holy writ because of the dearth of women who are credited with writing them, I was blown off too.
I’m the impudent one, remember?
And I’m going to keep on being impudent, cause the violation of anyone’s identity gives me MY license to be.
BTW, I work in a paramilitary environment-the Los Angeles Police Dept.
Everyone’s tag is their last name.
So what if I get called DuCasse in here? What do I care?
I really think and feel that these assaults on Regan should cease. It begins to sound like we are at Bridges Across where dissent is met by endless technical flim flam. Some of us have seen the dead end that produces. Enough already. Regan is an excellent poster who has an her own voice. Which we should recognize and rejoice in. Not engage in endless quibbling. Let us be happy that Regan chooses to speak to and with us, in her own special way. Let Regan be Regan.
Do I think that some people may have sexual confusion due to sexual abuse that leads to compulsive sexual behavior of all sorts? Yes, and I suspect some of you would agree.
Indeed “we” at XGW would — we had a mention of Tim Wilkins just days ago… The link through from Jim Johnson was interesting. I thought it was, anyway.One could easily see the violated child of Tim becoming the repressed and strange-acting teenager Tim, and then the even more repressed Jesus-freak in his 20’s and 30’s before — what? — growing up into what he always should have been without that violence, abuse and repression?I’m not even going to start with the disturbed Greg Quinlan who you held up as (I assume, because you chose him) a great example of what exgay is…P.S. any clues why those two men would many in their late 30’s to young women in their very early 20’s? Cause they’re compliant virgins who won’t make too many demands??? AKA Diana, Princess of Wales Syndrome 1981…
Daniel, not wishing to be pedantic here (ha!)…But I get 1 in 3.3E+150 for lesbians by 1/(0.25^250).I’d hate for Melissa to correct you, if and when she makes contact…
The title of doctor won’t impress me until I feel like I’m dealing with one.
The title of “doctor” (presumably someone with a PhD) shouldn’t impress you at all. When I was in grad school, it became clear to me that a “doctorate” meant little more than time spent in some professor’s lab. And that was in a real science (physics). Gawd knows what goes on in a fake science or the humanities.
Grant, thanks I checked that out. If you calculate it (1/4)^250 that gives you 3.05 E -151. That however is a tiny fraction that’s hard to express as a statistic so I convert it into the form “1 in Y chance” by simply taking the inverse of 2.05E-151. The inverse turns out to be my 1.8E146 figure making the odds “1 : 1.8E146”
Warren wrote,
“If the definition was expanded to include non-consensual actions with the 5 year span after age 13, I suspect the percentage would increase to closer to that 46% named by Focus.”
Timothy replied,
Here are my observations on your assumption:
1. You are including the age group from 13 to 18 for FIRST TIME molestation.
As children age they become less and less vulnerable. Yet your scenario has almost as many molestations (21%) in this range alone as is in the combined ranges mentioned in the study (25%).
Interesting, the study did not assume child molestation for 16, 17, and 18 year olds. You seem to want to include this demographic in the definition of “child”. That’s very curious. Do you see many FIRST TIME molestations in 17 year olds?
Hoestly, Timothy, I’m more offended by the idea that non-consensual relations between a teenager and someone less than five years older then them is not considered sexual abuse. Is that the official definition of sexual abuse or is it an opinon of what it constitutes?
Oh, and a pretty funny graphic, too, although Ms. Fryrear didn’t need a dunce cap to show how much of one she was being. ;p
While I don’t know that I would use the same parameters as the study, I can only guess as to the reasoning. I think the assumption is that for sexual activity within a five year range, there is less of a power imbalance and therefore a lower likelihood of abuse.
I would focus less on age and more on consent, but I suspect social scientists would tell me that consent in teenagers is a tricky concept. Often their own sense of identity is yet undeveloped and when an authority figure persuades you to do something, where does consent come into play? Also, an adult can manipulate a child’s emotional state and changing hormones so that a child might well “consent” to something that really is just pressure.
Conversely, a teenager might enter into something that truly was initiated by himself and yet afterwards view it as molestation.
My best guess is that within a certain age range the odds are that actions entered are more likely to be truly consensual and outside a range they are more likely to be manipulated, regardless of what is thought afterward. But it would be nice if someone trained in all this weighed in.
Daniel…Logically, an inverse of anything “3.05” cannot be anything “1.8”… The formulae I gave already gives the inverse of the power function.Stepwise:1/4 = 0.25+0.25^250 = 3.055E-151 (so far so good…)+1/(3.055E-151) = 3.3E+150Not 1.8E+147, which is the inverse of 5.556E-148. To get that you’d have to use 25.76% instead of 25% for all those interested. (Probably none.)
TimothyInterestingly, in Warren’s home state (PA) the age of consent is 16. A 16 or 17 year old can agree to have sex with a person of any age. I understand that from 13 to 16 the “Romeo & Juliet” laws apply provided the age diff. is less than 4 years.Previously (pre-1995/97) the age of consent in Pennsylvania was 14. Most US states have pushed the age upwards in recent decades — from 12 (yes, 12!!!) in some cases.And, of course, prior to the laws being struck by those crazy liberal activist judges in 1980… it was illegal to have gay sex at any age in Pennsylvania.
Oh dear how embarrassing. Of course the inverse of an exponent is the same value but negative. That’s what I get for using a cheapie scientific calculator. I have my graphing calculator here at work and I’ll fix the numbers as soon as I’m home tonight.
I’ll leave the math debate for a bit (I scored a perfect 5 on the AP math exam, but the nomenclature being used here is a bit obscure). One thing that I noted when I started going to gay bars was that there was often a number of young men standing around outside who appeared to either were too young to get into the bars, or who did not want to pay to get into them. I suspect, but cannot prove, that most of them were the former–they were too young.
Hence–and going upthread, they knew that what the kids were looking for was to “hook up” with the people who were entering or exiting the bars. I wonder the extent to which this may have been reduced by the internet chat rooms, such as those on gay.com. No idea.
Yeah, sorry. Better than egg on face :)And you’re a MUCH better whiz at PhotoShop than the Bennett’s, so I’ll know you’ll get it to work with all your usual flair — ah, I see you have already!
Perhaps Dr Throckmorton would be more comfortable if we used a theological criteria. For almost all of Christian history the age at which someone could consent to marriage has been about 12. The Inquisition and civil authorities executed children for ‘sodomy’ with none of this molestation and/or abuse flim flam. So, if we go by settled, long time useage in accordance with Christian teachings, we can see that most of his evidence vanishes. Because those involved are regarded as able to consent.
Just a thought. And as an aside, I am old enough to remember when 14 year olds could marry in Indiana. This was in the mid 60’s. It was the preabortion solution to problem pregnancies. Slip over the border and get hitched. The marriages were usually disasters with the girl’s education ruined in the bargain.
Back to what you all were talking about earlier, I would like to add another tidbit that suggests that boys molested by women are grossly underreported. As I wrote earlier:
“Sociologists and case workers have noted that many boys who are sexually involved with adult women rarely complain simply because they don’t believe they’ve been molested. In fact, they’re likely to brag about their exploits to their friends, who in turn admire them for being enough of a “man” to have sex with an older woman.”
I got that observation from the same JAMA article that Grant/Dale cites above. (Holmes & Slap)
I am reminded of a co-worker, many, many years ago, who bragged of having been initiated into the ways of women at the age of twelve by a woman who was ten years his senior. He not only gave absolutely no thought of having been molested, he treasured the experience of evidence of his prowess. I am also reminded of a single woman in her thirties in my old neighborhood where I grew up who propositioned me and several others when we were young teenagers. (For the record, I declined, but we all got a good laugh out of it.)
While I wouldn’t go so far as to say my co-worker’s experience is typical, but I am quite certain it is far from rare. And I am also certain that it is rarely experienced or reported as molestation. Consequently, I don’t see how the relative prevelance of boys molested by men verses boys molested by women can even be guessed at, let alone cited as a hard “statistic” with any real meaning, regardless of how it is used.
I have some very in-depth discussions with women straight, gay, and bisexual. I can tell you that all (around 50) that I have talked to when we broach the subject of abuse/rape/etc. (something I termed “hurt” with the exception of one, has ever claimed NOT to have had that type of experience. And that one exception happened to be a 20 year old lesbian.
When I share this factoid with other women who are less comfortable with discussing sexual/abuse matters, (this was before meeting said lesbian) I say, “I have talked to a lot of women about this and never have I met one that has never been ‘hurt’ by a man.” If at this point they don’t admit abuse, they sure as hell don’t deign it either. They usually just nod sadly.
Of course this is not a scientific study, but it sure leads me to believe that many women either do not recognize or do not report abuse because it so widespread. It would be my guess that close to every woman that lives to 50 has been sexually assaulted.
As for the gay women that reported abuse by men, they had known their true sexuality (although maybe not the word for it) before they were molested. They also believed that their abused stemmed from their confusion, isolation, and that they never quite fit in with their peers making them easy prey for their abusers.
This is a funny post. But I have to tell you, I have frequently wondered what was wrong with me as a kid. I never was molested when I was a kid, but I turned out homosexual anyway.
Yes, I am being very very sarcastic. (True though)
What is this woman’s problem?
Off topic MikeA, but, it appears that your buddy Steve Miller does not want dissenting opinions on his comment threads over at IndeGayForum. He has blocked my comments for several days.
Dan:
I understand that your infographic is intended to make a point about the self-selecting nature of Ms. Fryrear’s contacts. I offer this study as a possible support for her observations. Looks like the abuse percentage here is just over 25% which is somewhat higher than in the general population. Relevant to your infographic is the observation that sexual abuse may be associated with risky behavior. Seems like ex-gays are often in therapy because in addition to same sex attraction that they are concerned about, they also have disordered lives in many other ways. Of course, this is true in staights as well.
Childhood Sexual Abuse and HIV Risk-Taking Behavior Among Gay and Bisexual Men
Samuel Jinich1 , Jay P. Paul1, Ron Stall1, Michael Acree1, Susan Kegeles1, Colleen Hoff1 and Thomas J. Coates1
Abstract We explored the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse among adult gay and bisexual men and measured the association between childhood sexual abuse and high-risk sexual behavior in adulthood. Two separate population-based samples of gay and bisexual men (n = 1,941) residing in Portland and Tucson were surveyed. Over one quarter reported a history of childhood sexual abuse (sexual behavior with someone at least 5 years older prior to age 13, or with someone at least 10 years older when between ages 13 and 15). Men who were abused were more likely to engage in sexual risk behavior than men who were not abused (e.g., unprotected anal intercourse with non-primary partners in the previous 12 months: 21.4% vs. 15.0%, p
Aids and Behavior, Issue: Volume 2, Number 1, March 1998, Pages: 41 – 51.
PS – Let me add a PS to the percentage issue of abuse. Look at the definition of sexual abuse: sexual behavior with someone at least 5 years older prior to age 13, or with someone at least 10 years older when between ages 13 and 15). This means that a 13 year old victimized by a 20 year old would not be considered abuse in this study. If the definition was expanded to include non-consensual actions with the 5 year span after age 13, I suspect the percentage would increase to closer to that 46% named by Focus.
Even if those numbers bear out, correlation does not establish causation. Child molesters tend to target more vulnerable youth, and gay kids have historically tended to be more lonely and vulnerable and hence probably more likely to fall under the spell of an adult who claims to offer understanding.
25-46% reporting molestation is actually on the low side. When these stats are produced by groups such as focus, they are used to establish causation and provide reasoning for their persecution of the gay community. If similar research were conducted of heterosexual molestation, I suspect the percentage would be much higher. Are we to believe that molestation also causes opposite sex attraction. If one were to use the premise and apply it to homosexuals, why not heterosexuals as well? Throckmorton stated: “they also have lives disordered in many other ways”. That may be true, but being homosexual does not imply disorder in of itself. I suggest he check out statements from the APA and AMA for clarification that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. This is important to know as a practicing psychologist.
Warren, that 46% figure is ridiculous.Why don’t you drive the 50 miles to Pittsburgh and ask around the 11 venues?But it is not, I suspect, ridiculous for exgays — they attract the abused.Why chose that survey in particular? Well, I don’t know as to the reason you suggest it but we do have a highly regarded meta-anaylis to look at:
4% to 76%??? … urgh, ummm, jeez, take your pick…The same team you quote from CAPS also reported on their Portland/Tuscon sample in 1996. They quite deliberately recruited from gay bars looking, I might add, for target populations in comparative surveys to indentify risk-taking and precursers to unsafe sex. Not, one would suspect, a representative sample of gay men; and nor did they need one.For BooFinkelhor as good as they get, so:
Ok — (assume) 25% from the AZ/OR study as applying to (assume) 5% of the male population and (assume) 10% as applying to 100% of the male population. This means 87.5% of those abused boys are now heterosexual adults.Where, one wonders, is that “causation” linkage? The large majority of gay men were not abused. The large majority of boys who were abused become straight adults.Rather than causation, are we not seeing a simple intersection of two unrelated population groups?And here’s a quirky little bit of info from the same volume of Aids and Behavior refd by Warren…
I also remember seeing (sorry, no ref) that 80% of MSM at public locations (eg road side stops etc) self-identify as straight.Of yes… those “straight men” who have sex with men… exgays???
And Melissa is free to call us. We’re in the phone book.Not to spoil her perfect score on the issue, but we’ve never been “sexually violated”.Well, not unless we really begged for it I mean…
Over one quarter reported a history of childhood sexual abuse (sexual behavior with someone at least 5 years older prior to age 13, or with someone at least 10 years older when between ages 13 and 15).
PS – Let me add a PS to the percentage issue of abuse. Look at the definition of sexual abuse: sexual behavior with someone at least 5 years older prior to age 13, or with someone at least 10 years older when between ages 13 and 15). This means that a 13 year old victimized by a 20 year old would not be considered abuse in this study. If the definition was expanded to include non-consensual actions with the 5 year span after age 13, I suspect the percentage would increase to closer to that 46% named by Focus.
That is a very interesting definition of abuse, because I fit into it, and yet was never molested. My first sexual experience was at age 16, and I guarantee you the man was well more than 10 years older than me (although I have no idea how old). But I initiated the encounter, lied about my age and at no point was victimized.
By defining abuse solely on the ages of the individuals involved, the study may overstate the amount of “abuse,” as many gay people have their initial sexual encounters with people far older than they are. Until relatively recently, it has been impossible for most gay and lesbian teenagers to date and experience sexuality as straight teenagers do – with their same-age peers, so they turn to those who are older, often significantly older.
Certainly I do not argue this is a healthy approach to teenage sexuality, and that is why I believe the abiltiy to come out as a teenager and experience a more “normal” or typical teenage love life is key for the healthy development of gay and lesbian people.
As Boo also points out, the desperation and loneliness felt by gay and lesbian teenagers, particularly those in rural and other non-accepting areas (have you ever how many gays have reported believing they are the only ones in the world while growing up? Particularly gay and lesbian people who are 40 and older) may lead to them putting themselves in situations where they are more likely to be molested or targeted by unscrupulous adults. In that case, being gay would actually be a factor in being molested, rather than the other way around.
It is also interesting that, in the on-line version of the abstract of the article referenced by Dr. Throckmorton, the following is also included Perception of having been coerced was associated with greater sexual risk. Furthermore, childhood sexual abuse and level of coercion were associated with reported levels of HIV infection among gay and bisexual men.
Clearly the issue of coercion was a factor in this research as well, and therefore it is hard to say that this research has any bearing on the idea that being gay is somehow “caused” by being molested. Because there are more than a few thousand anecdotal personal histories of gay and lesbian people who have not been molested, and millions of straight people who have been, once again we are left with the fact that molestation cannot be considered a contributing factor towards the biological process of homosexuality.
More importantly, for this posting, the idea that 100% of gays and lesbians have been molested is simply not supportable.
Throckmorton has provided another distortion typical of both him and FOTF groups. Can someone tell me if there is any valid reason why he doesn’t test exgay claims of complete conversion with a penis volume measurement device using sexual images of both men and women. The only reason I can see is that he doesn’t want to know the truth about self reported ‘success’ verified by therapists with a financial incentive to lie.
randi.schimnosky@sasktel.net
Throckmorton, your contributions here can be taken apart easily.
You’re leaving out the female equation when it comes to sexual encounters, abuse of power regarding males in their lives and the ages they were and the relationships they had with said males.
Females are a dramatic range when it comes to sexual abuse, and how their orientation is affected isn’t making the cut in the biased research you keep citing.
For one thing, and it’s pointed out here-gay teens and their natural acceptance of their gay identity is skewed, denied or not honestly revealed at a young age because of heterosexual assumptions and presumptions and control of that identity.
It’s taken DECADES for heterosexuals to allow the participation of enough healthy well adjusted gay people in any studies at all.
Mostly because heterosexuals have made it difficult for gay people to feel comfortable in being honest.
And STILL, even with the revelation of priest abuse, FEMALES are virtually out of the discussion and the answer to priest abuse is to exclude homosexuals from seminaries.
Sometimes, Throckmorton, whenever you have something to say I look at your posts and think to myself…DUH.
Power and control are at the root of all abuse, Throckmorton and it doesn’t change sexual orientation, so much as sexual orientation is forced to defer to the majority that’s in control.
This obssession with GAY MALES is a matter of socio/political repression, Throckmorton, not a manifestation of interest in social responsibility and cooperation…and the less you acknowlege that or just deny it grates my last nerve no end.
It’s a type of emasculation of gay men, something that BLACK men have dealt with historically and our national legacy is STILL paying for.
Every single time you show up here with your stiff opinions and stats I want to push you into a chair and throw some reality into your face.
I’m SICK of statistics.
The statistics you keep bringing in here are so half assed and are an insult to any one with the ability of critical thinking.
I seem to be the only black woman that shows up in here on a regular basis…and frankly…very frankly, I’m very tired of you robotic and repititious ex gay conversion supporters.
You’re all of a PIECE. You talk the same, look all the same and make me feel like I’m living in and Orwellian doublespeak universe.
I’m not even gay…I find it very interesting that most of the regulars here have no objections to what I tend to say.
In spite of not being gay, I know what identity means and what having it under constant siege can do to a person.
I also see that you choose not to address anything I say, not even personally.
You’re not the only one.
Ex gay conversion supporters have been weird that way.
Reality aversion is your distinct disease.
Yeah, I said it.
My guess would be that Warren is referring to stats that show a 30% molestation rate among girls and a 10% molestation rate among boys. I think it is safe to assume that such a low molestation rate for boys is probably a rather large underreporting. I tried to find a definitive study that showed this but I’m limited today to Google, and everything I could find seemed to assume underreporting as a given–with most assuming that the rate for boys was probably pretty close to that of girls. It seems to me the Jinich study pretty much indicates that this might be a fairly accurate assumption. The low rate for boys seems to be a problem of diagnosing and reporting sexual abuse against boys rather than an indication that only 10% of boys are sexually abused.
Warren, for you to assume that 25% of gay and bisexual men self-reporting sexual abuse against health professionals reporting abuse in 10% of all boys indicates that gay men are abused more often than straight boys is the height of disingenuousness. It is this kind of disingenuousness that leads to the rep that reparative therapies have among the general populace. If you and others could only participate in good faith and without the blatant dishonesties, it might actually be possible to have a dialogue about reparative therapy. But that’s not going to happen until your habit of lying stops.
DuCasse,
Any reason why you call Warren and/or Prof. Throckmorton by his last name only?
Let me encourage all to re-read what I wrote. I did not make any case for abuse causing sexual preferences. I was offering a possible factor for why Melissa might be meeting many ex-gays who were abused. I think the age difference issue is relevant still but finding higher incidents of abuse in gays and/or lesbians (I doubt that would be true of lesbians however) does not mean that I would attribute anything causal to the difference. In fact, I don’t for an entire group. Do I think that some people may have sexual confusion due to sexual abuse that leads to compulsive sexual behavior of all sorts? Yes, and I suspect some of you would agree. Do I think that all gays were abused? No, of course not.
Throckmorton, as a gay person never molested as a child, I was told in therapy that I had to have been. The participants were hounded to say they were molested, even to the point of being punished by the overall therapy group if we did not respond. I have heard this is true in many exgay therapies. So I have a real problem with these stats from exgay groups in general. I was never molested and neither was my spouse. THe only gay people I have known who say they were molested are from the exgay groups. One of the reasons I left exgay therapy was because they were forcing me to lie about something that had never happened.
Exgay therapists, like Throckmorton, are similiar (if not the same) to those Christian therapists in the late 80s-early 90s who got people to believe that they were invovled in Satanic worship. They created the Satanic panic. Exgay therapy is no different.
“DuCasse,
Any reason why you call Warren and/or Prof. Throckmorton by his last name only?
Posted by: Mike Airhart”
Randi here, I believe I started that and harshened the tone a bit. My apologies to Warren and the pursuit of fairness. Its difficult to follow the rules of fairness when one’s opponent does not do the same and by that I mean Warren pays lip service to science and truth with statements like:
“Let me encourage all to re-read what I wrote. I did not make any case for abuse causing sexual preferences.”
Technically true but I believe Warren knows the mental linkage is likely amongst readers and intends it be made. Regan Duccasse stated it extremely well, I am most impressed with her and profoundly grateful to heterosexuals like her for defending justice and fairness for gays with such intelligent and convincing remarks. Regan please read my post under National Comming Out day or “Protect the children”. I believe you’ll find it supports your statements.
randi.schimnosky@sasktel.net
Regan Duccasse,
It has been my experience that some gay men I know had a time when they were ‘teenage adult molesters’. I have also had teenagers come on to me, at least when I was younger. (And, no, I never did anything with them.) It seems to me that if we change the perspective to see when people began their sexual careers, we would find that some gay men began early, others later. And probably at the same rate as straight boys.
It seems to be that these events are retrospectively rated as ‘abuse’. Which does not tell us if the teenager consented or not at the time. I wonder what the outcome would be if we strictly limited it to cases where the abuse was a reported offense?
IMHO, ‘abuse’ is a vague and chimeric idea. It seems to vary all over the place. And it also appears as something that gets applied to actions at a much later time. Perhaps using ‘rape’ which does seem to have a fairly firm meaning would help clear up this situation.
Dan – brilliant graphic. I had not thought of looking at the statistical probability that Melissa Fryrear was actually telling the truth. Very funny and very telling.
Warren – I know that you are trying to provide cover for FOTF here on this issue. But it is not compelling.
Without further research into the study you quote of a 25% childhood molestation rate for gay men, I can’t comment on its accuracy. Frankly, it seems improbable and grantdale (who incidentally continue to impress me with their research and analytical abilities) have pointed out some flaws.
However, for the sake of argument, let’s accept the 25% number.
Recognizing that the 25% quote is far far less than 46% used by FOTF, you seek to fill in the missing 21% with this:
“If the definition was expanded to include non-consensual actions with the 5 year span after age 13, I suspect the percentage would increase to closer to that 46% named by Focus.”
Here are my observations on your assumption:
1. You are including the age group from 13 to 18 for FIRST TIME molestation.
As children age they become less and less vulnerable. Yet your scenario has almost as many molestations (21%) in this range alone as is in the combined ranges mentioned in the study (25%).
Interesting, the study did not assume child molestation for 16, 17, and 18 year olds. You seem to want to include this demographic in the definition of “child”. That’s very curious. Do you see many FIRST TIME molestations in 17 year olds?
2. You remove the age difference.
As you well know, molestation occurs when there is inequality of power. As ages near, power positions diminish and the likelihood of molestation goes down. In your scenario it increases.
3. You state that the acts are non-consensual.
This is interesting in that you close a loophole, here. You can’t back out now and say that all sexual acts involving persons not of legal age are molestation.
What you are claiming here, Warren, is that nearly as many gay men were molested for the first time between the age of 13 and 18 by persons 5 to 10 years older as were molested in the entire categories selected by researchers. In your scenario, the researchers were woefully sloppy and underreported their results by 45%. If you seriously believed that, you wouldn’t quote the study at all.
I see that you left yourself wiggle room by saying “CLOSER to that 46%”, but the language you used here, Warren, implies is that it is more than a few percent closer. If you are parsing your words to say things that you don’t mean, Warren, that would be dishonesty.
From all of this we can conclude:
1. From Daniel’s stats we see that Melissa Fryrear is lying (we don’t have words in the language for odds that great)
2. From Warren’s quoted study we see that Focus on the Family is lying (they are nearly doubling the rate of molestation)
3. IF Warren is claiming that the study he quotes is off by 45%, he is either foolish or lying. (I use “if” in case Warren wants to clarify).
Finally, Warren, you say “I understand that your infographic is intended to make a point about the self-selecting nature of Ms. Fryrear’s contacts.”
Actually, I think Dan’s infographic was intended to point out that Melissa Fryrear is lying. Plain, old-fashioned, undiluted, doing the work of the Father of Lies. And that, Warren, we can all agree is true.
It’s been a while, but
Mike Airhart at October 24, 2005 01:43 PM
I wouldn’t use “prof” in connection with “Throckmorton” either. He’s got a gig with that religious college. That doesn’t mean that I have to credit him with his gig.
Like most of us here, I’ve known gay men and women who were sexually abused as children or youth. I’m aware of three, specifically. But because I’m interested in the topic, I’ve asked lots and lots of LGBT persons if they were sexually abused – and except for those 3, the answer has been ‘no.’
I was annoyed by Stephen Bennett’s claim last year at a rally I attended that 75% of all gay men were sexually abused as children. He refused (or was unable) to provide any documentation to support that other than the claim that it was based on random phone calls to his office from persons struggling with their sexuality.
Melissa Fryrear’s claim (brilliantly illustrated – thanks, Dan!) is more of the same. It’s not about whether stats are close to reality or far off – it’s about the unrelenting lies told to an uninformed public for the sake of excluding non-straight persons from hetero privilege and for the sake of personal power.
I have two degrees (masters and doctorate) from the same grad school Melissa attended – Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky. Although I am no longer a theological conservative, I have generally respected the academic integrity of the school. Asbury’s delight in Melissa’s ‘celebrity’ status with FOTF – has diminished my respect for the school and is an embarrasment to me and to other alumni I have spoken with.
Earth to Throckmorton:
Do you have a tin ear? Statistics that you are referring to are self-reporting. You, as an alleged scientist, should know that self-reporting is highly unreliable. I would use a Perry Mason analogy, in which the defense attorney (accurately) noted the same.
Two, apparently you do not understand the import of the abstract of the article that you cited:
Childhood Sexual Abuse and HIV Risk-Taking Behavior Among Gay and Bisexual Men
Samuel Jinich1 , Jay P. Paul1, Ron Stall1, Michael Acree1, Susan Kegeles1, Colleen Hoff1 and Thomas J. Coates1
The abstract related to the prevalence of homosexuality among people who claimed to have been molested. It did not relate to the prevalence of homosexuality among people who had not claimed to have been molested. And it did not relate to the prevalence of molestation among the homosexual population as a whole. As a professor I would have assumed that you would understand the difference. Apparently you do not.
Mike, I tried to be respectful before. I have asked legitimate questions a doctor should expect and got blown off.
Hard to maintain respect when that happens.
I love learning about things and making observations.
But I have issues with folks who don’t seem to be serious about a serious subject.
The title of doctor won’t impress me until I feel like I’m dealing with one.
I told you even as a child, when I dared question the validity of the Bible and any other holy writ because of the dearth of women who are credited with writing them, I was blown off too.
I’m the impudent one, remember?
And I’m going to keep on being impudent, cause the violation of anyone’s identity gives me MY license to be.
BTW, I work in a paramilitary environment-the Los Angeles Police Dept.
Everyone’s tag is their last name.
So what if I get called DuCasse in here? What do I care?
I really think and feel that these assaults on Regan should cease. It begins to sound like we are at Bridges Across where dissent is met by endless technical flim flam. Some of us have seen the dead end that produces. Enough already. Regan is an excellent poster who has an her own voice. Which we should recognize and rejoice in. Not engage in endless quibbling. Let us be happy that Regan chooses to speak to and with us, in her own special way. Let Regan be Regan.
Warren mentioned:
Indeed “we” at XGW would — we had a mention of Tim Wilkins just days ago… The link through from Jim Johnson was interesting. I thought it was, anyway.One could easily see the violated child of Tim becoming the repressed and strange-acting teenager Tim, and then the even more repressed Jesus-freak in his 20’s and 30’s before — what? — growing up into what he always should have been without that violence, abuse and repression?I’m not even going to start with the disturbed Greg Quinlan who you held up as (I assume, because you chose him) a great example of what exgay is…P.S. any clues why those two men would many in their late 30’s to young women in their very early 20’s? Cause they’re compliant virgins who won’t make too many demands??? AKA Diana, Princess of Wales Syndrome 1981…
Daniel, not wishing to be pedantic here (ha!)…But I get 1 in 3.3E+150 for lesbians by 1/(0.25^250).I’d hate for Melissa to correct you, if and when she makes contact…
The title of doctor won’t impress me until I feel like I’m dealing with one.
The title of “doctor” (presumably someone with a PhD) shouldn’t impress you at all. When I was in grad school, it became clear to me that a “doctorate” meant little more than time spent in some professor’s lab. And that was in a real science (physics). Gawd knows what goes on in a fake science or the humanities.
Grant, thanks I checked that out. If you calculate it (1/4)^250 that gives you 3.05 E -151. That however is a tiny fraction that’s hard to express as a statistic so I convert it into the form “1 in Y chance” by simply taking the inverse of 2.05E-151. The inverse turns out to be my 1.8E146 figure making the odds “1 : 1.8E146”
Warren wrote,
“If the definition was expanded to include non-consensual actions with the 5 year span after age 13, I suspect the percentage would increase to closer to that 46% named by Focus.”
Timothy replied,
Here are my observations on your assumption:
1. You are including the age group from 13 to 18 for FIRST TIME molestation.
As children age they become less and less vulnerable. Yet your scenario has almost as many molestations (21%) in this range alone as is in the combined ranges mentioned in the study (25%).
Interesting, the study did not assume child molestation for 16, 17, and 18 year olds. You seem to want to include this demographic in the definition of “child”. That’s very curious. Do you see many FIRST TIME molestations in 17 year olds?
Hoestly, Timothy, I’m more offended by the idea that non-consensual relations between a teenager and someone less than five years older then them is not considered sexual abuse. Is that the official definition of sexual abuse or is it an opinon of what it constitutes?
Oh, and a pretty funny graphic, too, although Ms. Fryrear didn’t need a dunce cap to show how much of one she was being. ;p
Chronic,
While I don’t know that I would use the same parameters as the study, I can only guess as to the reasoning. I think the assumption is that for sexual activity within a five year range, there is less of a power imbalance and therefore a lower likelihood of abuse.
I would focus less on age and more on consent, but I suspect social scientists would tell me that consent in teenagers is a tricky concept. Often their own sense of identity is yet undeveloped and when an authority figure persuades you to do something, where does consent come into play? Also, an adult can manipulate a child’s emotional state and changing hormones so that a child might well “consent” to something that really is just pressure.
Conversely, a teenager might enter into something that truly was initiated by himself and yet afterwards view it as molestation.
My best guess is that within a certain age range the odds are that actions entered are more likely to be truly consensual and outside a range they are more likely to be manipulated, regardless of what is thought afterward. But it would be nice if someone trained in all this weighed in.
Daniel…Logically, an inverse of anything “3.05” cannot be anything “1.8”… The formulae I gave already gives the inverse of the power function.Stepwise:1/4 = 0.25+0.25^250 = 3.055E-151 (so far so good…)+1/(3.055E-151) = 3.3E+150Not 1.8E+147, which is the inverse of 5.556E-148. To get that you’d have to use 25.76% instead of 25% for all those interested. (Probably none.)
TimothyInterestingly, in Warren’s home state (PA) the age of consent is 16. A 16 or 17 year old can agree to have sex with a person of any age. I understand that from 13 to 16 the “Romeo & Juliet” laws apply provided the age diff. is less than 4 years.Previously (pre-1995/97) the age of consent in Pennsylvania was 14. Most US states have pushed the age upwards in recent decades — from 12 (yes, 12!!!) in some cases.And, of course, prior to the laws being struck by those crazy liberal activist judges in 1980… it was illegal to have gay sex at any age in Pennsylvania.
Oh dear how embarrassing. Of course the inverse of an exponent is the same value but negative. That’s what I get for using a cheapie scientific calculator. I have my graphing calculator here at work and I’ll fix the numbers as soon as I’m home tonight.
I’ll leave the math debate for a bit (I scored a perfect 5 on the AP math exam, but the nomenclature being used here is a bit obscure). One thing that I noted when I started going to gay bars was that there was often a number of young men standing around outside who appeared to either were too young to get into the bars, or who did not want to pay to get into them. I suspect, but cannot prove, that most of them were the former–they were too young.
Hence–and going upthread, they knew that what the kids were looking for was to “hook up” with the people who were entering or exiting the bars. I wonder the extent to which this may have been reduced by the internet chat rooms, such as those on gay.com. No idea.
Ok Grant, I got 1.8×10^75 times 3.27×10^150 gives a grand total of 5.9×10^225
That means I’m gunna have to add even more zeros 😛
Yeah, sorry. Better than egg on face :)And you’re a MUCH better whiz at PhotoShop than the Bennett’s, so I’ll know you’ll get it to work with all your usual flair — ah, I see you have already!
Has Melissa offered any response re: Dan’s question (forwarded by Bob Ditmer) – or in direct response to the issues raised on this thread?
nope, no word from Fryrear
Perhaps Dr Throckmorton would be more comfortable if we used a theological criteria. For almost all of Christian history the age at which someone could consent to marriage has been about 12. The Inquisition and civil authorities executed children for ‘sodomy’ with none of this molestation and/or abuse flim flam. So, if we go by settled, long time useage in accordance with Christian teachings, we can see that most of his evidence vanishes. Because those involved are regarded as able to consent.
Just a thought. And as an aside, I am old enough to remember when 14 year olds could marry in Indiana. This was in the mid 60’s. It was the preabortion solution to problem pregnancies. Slip over the border and get hitched. The marriages were usually disasters with the girl’s education ruined in the bargain.
Back to what you all were talking about earlier, I would like to add another tidbit that suggests that boys molested by women are grossly underreported. As I wrote earlier:
“Sociologists and case workers have noted that many boys who are sexually involved with adult women rarely complain simply because they don’t believe they’ve been molested. In fact, they’re likely to brag about their exploits to their friends, who in turn admire them for being enough of a “man” to have sex with an older woman.”
I got that observation from the same JAMA article that Grant/Dale cites above. (Holmes & Slap)
I am reminded of a co-worker, many, many years ago, who bragged of having been initiated into the ways of women at the age of twelve by a woman who was ten years his senior. He not only gave absolutely no thought of having been molested, he treasured the experience of evidence of his prowess. I am also reminded of a single woman in her thirties in my old neighborhood where I grew up who propositioned me and several others when we were young teenagers. (For the record, I declined, but we all got a good laugh out of it.)
While I wouldn’t go so far as to say my co-worker’s experience is typical, but I am quite certain it is far from rare. And I am also certain that it is rarely experienced or reported as molestation. Consequently, I don’t see how the relative prevelance of boys molested by men verses boys molested by women can even be guessed at, let alone cited as a hard “statistic” with any real meaning, regardless of how it is used.
I have some very in-depth discussions with women straight, gay, and bisexual. I can tell you that all (around 50) that I have talked to when we broach the subject of abuse/rape/etc. (something I termed “hurt” with the exception of one, has ever claimed NOT to have had that type of experience. And that one exception happened to be a 20 year old lesbian.
When I share this factoid with other women who are less comfortable with discussing sexual/abuse matters, (this was before meeting said lesbian) I say, “I have talked to a lot of women about this and never have I met one that has never been ‘hurt’ by a man.” If at this point they don’t admit abuse, they sure as hell don’t deign it either. They usually just nod sadly.
Of course this is not a scientific study, but it sure leads me to believe that many women either do not recognize or do not report abuse because it so widespread. It would be my guess that close to every woman that lives to 50 has been sexually assaulted.
As for the gay women that reported abuse by men, they had known their true sexuality (although maybe not the word for it) before they were molested. They also believed that their abused stemmed from their confusion, isolation, and that they never quite fit in with their peers making them easy prey for their abusers.