Most of the legal discussion that I've seen of the Foley case has focused on whether he could be on the hook for attempting to physically seduce the pages. Might it be a crime, though, for him to try to get the page to masturbate? (It's not clear from the material that I've seen whether he was in fact trying to do that, but I suppose it's possible.)
Masturbating isn't a crime, fortunately, whatever the age of the person's who's masturbating; but getting a minor to masturbate for you might be, depending on the jurisdiction and on the minor's age. People v. Imler., 9 Cal. App. 4th 1178 (Cal. App. 1992), for instance, held that Cal. Penal Code § 288()a), "Any person who willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or lascivious act, ... upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14 years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child, is guilty of a felony," outlawed a person's telephoning a child and ordering him (through threats of harm to the child's parents) to masturbate while the child is on the phone:
It matters not that Imler could not touch his victim. "The touching necessary to violate Penal Code section 288 may be done by the child victim on its own person providing such touching was at the instigation of a person who had the required specific intent." The accused does not have to commit the lewd act. The defendant's intent may be inferred from his conduct which was to order the victim to commit a lewd act upon himself.
(The logic of the case would extend to persuasion without the use of threats as well.) Likewise, People v. Poplaski, 616 N.Y.S.2d 434 (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 1994), held that N.Y. Penal Law § 260.10(1), which prohibits "knowingly act[ing] in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old," made punishable the defendant's phone conversations in which he directed 12-to-15-year-olds to masturbate.
My sense is that such a theory is a longshot, even if Foley was trying to get a minor to masturbate during their electronic conversation; among other things, I'm not sure that all similar statutes would be read this way, and I'm not sure that many states have such statutes that reach up to the level of the older minors who seem to have been involved in the Foley case. (I should note that some states ban using a child in a "sexual performance," which conceivably could include getting the child to masturbate in front of one person, but the Florida statute, for instance, is limited to visual performances rather than acts which someone merely hears, or is told about.) And, more importantly, it's hard to figure all this out without knowing more about exactly what Foley said, and exactly where the minors were at the time.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Prosecution of Foley:
- More on the Foley Legal Issues:
- Legal Issues in the Mark Foley Investigation:
Or they'd never be able to build a big enough prison. =)
Is there a history where laws against masturbation were ever on the books in the US? I don't see how such a law could survive Lawrence. But masturbation, like sodomy, does violate Aquinas's natural law and some Protestant fundamentalists believe the Bible forbids it as well.
And Justice in his dissent in Lawrence specifically mentioned masturbation in his parade of horribles where once we hold sodomy a constitutional right, then laws against X,Y, and Z are also suspect.
"State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices."
(Or is it supposed to be self-enforced. "Officer, I've come to turn myself in. I'm tired of running from the law..........")
Of course, that excerpt didn't make it to my 11th-grade lit textbook.
Sadly, the Puritans lacked the grace of Friedrich II of Prussia, who when he saw a cavalryman being led off for execution, and learned that the man's crime was carnal relations with a horse, expostulated, "Fools, don't hang him -- transfer him to the infantry!"
"Sorry you'll lose your horse," the king is said to have added by way of consolation to the weeping, pardoned man.
Heh, who says that history is a boring subject?
I can understand it's lewd if done in public, but there are lot of things that are, in my mind, lewd if done in public -- trimming your nails, pulling out the lint from your belly button, picking your nose -- Personally, those examples should be a greater crime than jerking off in your own bedroom.
Wow, sounds like it was quite a party. More fun than the ones I get invited to, anyway.
"Sorry you'll lose your horse," the king is said to have added by way of consolation to the weeping, pardoned man.
Was he weeping from joy or because he was losing his horse?
It reminds me a story I heard about the Foreign Legion back the French Colonial days. A new leiutenant is assigned to a remote outpost and as the Sergeant Major is showing him around he points out a camel and says "When the men get lonely, they avail themselves of the camel, you can to if the urge strikes you". The young officer, quite taken aback, replies, "I am sure I will never become that desperate". After a few weeks though, he sneeks into the camel's pen and has his way with it. As he emerges, buttoning up his pants, he runs into the Sergeant Major and asks, "is that how the men do it". The Sergeant Major looks at him and says "Well, they generally just ride the camel into town."
That was my reaction too.
The revelation that Foley was molested as a child raises the questions:
What is the relationship between childhood molestation and homosexuality?
And, if there is a relationship, what does this say about the nature versus nurture debate over the origins of homosexuality?
Doesn't the hypothesis that homosexuals are "born that way" seem specious if it turns out that 60% of homosexual men were molested as a child as compared to, say, 20% of heterosexual men.
Has anyone seen studies like this?
I haven't seen studies one way or the other. (This means nothing-- I haven't searched for any.)
I would, however, be cautious about thinking the Foley case tells us anything. Being somewhat cynical, I need to ask this: other than the presumption that people don't ordinarily go around making things up, is there any reason to believe Foley's claim of youthful molestation?
I don't disbelieve Foley out of hand; he may be revealing a truth. However, I am suspicious of this sort of revelation when it is made public in the wake of a scandal and particularly if the revelation seems to be provided as some sort of mitigation.
If I were trying to do a scientific or even non-scientific study, based on what I've heard so far, I'd put the Foley claim in the "seriously dubious" category!
But, as EV correctly notes, most of these statutes only apply to children below the age of consent (typically 16, sometimes younger), which would appear to exclude Foley. (For some offenses the age can go to 18 if there is a guardian-type relationship, such as student/teacher or juvenile correctional officer/ inmate, but this would likely not apply here either).
Interesting Citations About Sexual Abuse &Sexual Orientation
I pointed out in a comment over here that sexual abuse of children and adult homosexuality are positively correlated, and this really shouldn't be any surprise, especially for lesbians. Not surprisingly, the homosexual law professor and law student brigade started calling me names. Another commenter put up a rather extensive list of abstracts from recent journal articles on the subject.
Sexual assault and alcohol abuse: a comparison of lesbians and heterosexual women. Hughes TL, Johnson T, Wilsnack SC. J Subst Abuse. 2001;13(4):515-32.
RESULTS: Lesbians reported more childhood sexual experiences, were more likely to meet the study definition for childhood sexual abuse (CSA), and were more likely to perceive themselves as having been sexually abused as children. CSA was associated with lifetime alcohol abuse in both lesbian and heterosexual women.
Sexual Orientation, Sexual Abuse, and HIV-Risk Behaviors Among Adolescents in the Pacific Northwest. Saewyc E, Skay C, Richens K, Reis E, Poon C, Murphy A. Am J Public Health. 2006 May 2
Conclusion. Sexual minority adolescents who attended school reported higher HIV risk behaviors, and higher prevalence of sexual victimization may partially explain these risks.
Victimization over the life span: a comparison of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual siblings. Balsam KF, Rothblum ED, Beauchaine TP. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005 Jun;73(3):477-87.
Compared with heterosexual participants, LGB participants reported more childhood psychological and physical abuse by parents or caretakers, more childhood sexual abuse, more partner psychological and physical victimization in adulthood, and more sexual assault experiences in adulthood. Sexual orientation differences in sexual victimization were greater among men than among women.
Lesbian survivors of childhood sexual abuse: community, identity, and resilience. Baker S. Can J Commun Ment Health. 2003 Fall;22(2):31-45.
Adult lesbian survivers of childood sexual abuse were interviewed using grounded and structured methods to explore the interaction between being, or coming out as, a lesbian and healing from childhood sexual abuse (CSA). A history of CSA was found to render coming out as a lesbian more complicated and often more difficult. Having or developing a lesbian identity caused significant changes in respondents' social support networks and spiritual beliefs and communities, afforded many opportunities for greater healing, and in the balance seemed to facilitate the healing process.
Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons. Tomeo ME, Templer DI, Anderson S, Kotler D. Arch Sex Behav. 2001 Oct;30(5):535-41.
In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls.
Most studies, therefore, have concluded that sexual orientation is set either by the time the person is born, or shortly thereafter.
If, however, IF it is true that a large number of gay men were molested when they were young, it is would be difficult to say that this 'caused' them to be gay. We know that there are plenty of men who were molested who do NOT become gay, and we know plenty of gay men who were NEVER molested. So the best you could say is that molestation, plus some other important factor, would need to be present to say that this affects sexual orientation.
One step further: Being sexually molested can be quite devestating to a person. In extreme cases, people can be left unable to function as a adult. if true that molestation in some way causes a person to become gay, then it would be clear proof that a person does not 'choose' to be gay. Moreoever, all the homophobia and hate directed at gay people, especially by religious groups, would look pretty damn insensitive at best.
Wikipedia references studies that purport to show a biological basis for homosexuality. It also references studies that purport to show a psychological basis for homosexuality (namely, the relationship between a homosexual man and his father), but I do not see any studies regarding relative molestation rates among homosexual and heterosexual men.
Is it just me, or doesn't it seem that this data would be relatively easy to collect and extremely damaging to the "nature hypothesis" if homosexuals, in fact, suffer from significantly higher molestation rates than heterosexuals?
Anyone disagree? Endogeniety (reverse-causation) does not seem plausible. That is, it does not seem likely that boys who become homosexual "attract" molestors more than boys who become heterosexual.
True. Demonstrating that nurture, not nature--and I suspect that it's a mixture of both--determines sexual orientation, a person would nevertheless have no more "choice" in their own sexual orientation unless they can influence whatever "nurture" factors that cause homosexuality.
State v. Every
However, that court limited its holding in State v. Brown, when it held that expressions of attractiveness and affection, which while improper stopped short of being explicitly sexual, are not covered by the indecent liberties with a minor statute.
State v. Brown
I have not seen much hate directed towards gay people--at least, by any organized religious groups (with the notable and quite exceptional case of Fred Phelps' little hate cult). I have seen a lot of people arguing that homosexuality is not immutable, and we have some evidence that for those who are highly motivated, about half are successful (with therapies that in some cases are secular, and in other cases religiously based) at changing not just behavior, but also orientation.
If the correlations do indicate causality, it means that homosexuality is not an immutable congenital trait, like race. Nor is it a choice in the sense of, "I'll have chocolate."
It has been gathered (as I point out above), and it is extremely damaging to the "nature hypothesis" (at least, as an explanation for all homosexuality). But what are mere facts when you have a fully developed political movement built around a beautiful theory? This is doubtless why enthusiasm for this theory is far stronger among intellectuals than among ordinary people.
While some gays and lesbians are intellectuals, most are "ordinary people." And they, by overwhelming majorities, believe it's nature. But why take their word over yours?
Atop that, one would then need to find out every straight person who had been molested, to judge how often molestation turns people gay. This would be roughly 10 times as hard as the impossible first task.
So sadly I think this theory is one that really can't be confirmed.
Thank you! The links you pointed me to are precisely what I was looking for: Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons
I haven't had a chance to read the entire article, but here's what the abstract says:
Wow! The implications of the "molestation as cause of homosexuality" model are huge. It would be easy, for example, for Christians to maintain that God did not intend homosexuality.
Why isn't this model more publicized, with articles discrediting it if it deserves to be discredited? Wikipedia's entry on homosexuality doesn't even reference the model. There is no excuse for that.
2. I'm not asking you take my word for it. The data is very persuasive showing a correlation. That isn't enough to prove causality--but along with the many related correlations (adult substance abuse and child sexual abuse, adult substance abuse and adult homosexuality, disproportionate sexual abuse of children by homosexuals--typically 7x to 10x higher than you would expect for their trivial percentage of the population) and a plausible causal relationship (someone gets sexually abused when they are too young to process it and as an adult, their sexual behavior is abnormal), it is pretty apparent that there's a political agenda involved that prevents discussion of this.
3. While I don't have any data that proves this, I think everyone knows that paraphilias (such as sadomasochism) are more common in the gay population than the straight population--hence many of the enduring and necessarily inaccurate stereotypes that homosexuals hate, expect when the Village People are doing it, or it is someone marching in a gay pride parade. Of course, the paraphilias are also a notable characteristic of adult survivors of child sexual abuse.
I think you are overstating the difficulty of getting valid data.
To get correlation:
Take a random sample cross-section of the population. Inquire about their first sexual experience, including molestation. Find out whether the individuals are homosexual or heterosexual. Compare molestation rates amoung homosexuals with molestation rates amoung heterosexuals.
Causation will be more difficult, but I don't know why it would be more difficult than the typical "soft science" inquiry.
What makes this difficult? There's no shortage of survey data on this--and unfortunately, you don't a large survey to get data on this, since sexual abuse of children is disturbingly common.
One of my readers emailed me to criticize my use of this study, claiming that:
1. Those rates of child sexual abuse really aren't all that high compared to the general population.
2. The study in question was focused on substance abusers, who are almost certainly atypical, and very probably disproportionately child sexual abuse victims (which would contradict claim #1).
3. The study says that its results are not indicative of the state of gays and lesbians in San Francisco, because it wasn't a random survey.
Let me deal with these, one by one.
"Rates of Child Sexual Abuse On That Study Aren't All That Much Above the General Population"
The reader directed me to this report by David Finkelhor, "Current Information on the Scope and Nature of Child Sexual Abuse," and told me that the numbers in that study were in line with those in the S.F. Dept. of Public Health study. I notice that the surveys listed in Finkelhor's report, however, are generally below the general population sexual abuse rates for females, and in line with the numbers that I was quoting for males. Of the nineteen studies Finkelhor's report summarized, nine included males. Eight of those surveys produced numbers that roughly matched the numbers I quoted: 8%, 6%, 7%, 3%, 1%, 3%, 4%, and 9%.
The one very notable exception: a study by Finkelhor, Hotaling, Lewis, and Smith (1990) that reported 16% of males reported sexual abuse as children. This one outlier, however, still just over half the rate reported in the San Francisco Dept. of Public Health survey for homosexual males. This outlier study asked questions that included all unwanted contact, including that involving no age differential between victim and aggressor. I would suggest that this outlier study may include a lot of locker room "unwanted contact" of a sexual nature (snapped towels, hazing), or the sort of young teen peer masturbation activity which is pretty common--and for which some boys as adults may feel guilt, and regard retrospectively as unwanted. I am not denying that these are bad situations, but it might explain why this one study is such a serious outlier. I notice also that in box 3 of Finkelhor's report, when trying to make a guess at the number of child sexual victims, he used rates of 20% and 7% for women and men respectively, suggesting that he considers these to be responsible percentages. The percentage in the S.F. study--48% of lesbians, and 28% of gay men--is still quite a bit higher than you would expect relative to the general population.
I guess we don't ask that question do we? Does it dawn on anyone how offensive all this speculation about what "causes" gay people to be gay is to those who are gay. It reeks of pity, paternalism and contempt.
One big problem with the study you cite is the self-selection effect for people who choose to hang out in overtly gay and lesbian locals. Likely this will reflect a disproportionate number of gay and lesbian individuals hoping to hook up or in need of greater social support. At least in my experience my best adjusted homosexual friends seem to spend the least time in overtly gay and lesbian enviornments. They just happen to have a s.o. of the same sex and mostly engage in the same activities as anyone else while my friends who are more uncomfortable with their sexuality seem far more likely to hang out in gay bars or seek social support in explicitly homosexual enviornments. Secondly just doing the sample in SF, which has a large number of gays and lesbians who felt the need to relocate from elsewhere, is a biasing effect in and of itself.
I'm generally annoyed by this tendency of people to assume that the people who most strongly identify as gay/lesbian (as opposed to identifying as a lawyer and happening to be gay) are representitive of homosexuals in general. I think it's no more reasonable to generalize from people at gay/lesbian events/stores than it would be to generalize about black people from the people at bookstores focusing on black heritage or overtly black oriented events (NAACP meetings).
Even if the numbers are right, (see my *) this confuses correlation for caustion. And it also depends on what the meaning of the word "abuse" is. If "abuse" includes consensual behavior -- as we all agree it does -- then it makes sense that a homosexually oriented youth would be more likely to consent to sex with an adult of the same gender.
Occam's Razor also suggests that someone interested in a younger partner of the same sex will take the path of least resistance and hence would target a homosexually oriented youth who would more likely consent to the behavior.
* It's doubtful that 46% of homosexual men were molested, as most people understand the term. What may be true is that 46% of homosexual men report having sex before they were 18 with a party over 18. If that qualifies as "molestation" then you are likely to find similar number among heterosexuals.
Note that the "7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women " refers to heterosexuals who report "homosexual" molestation. If a 21-year-old male having sex with a 16-year old girl, etc. qualifies as "heterosexual molestation," then you will likely find similarly high numbers of them who report "molestation."
In short while the general gist of the results may or may not be right (I don't know) the problem is that someone who was molested as a child, particularly by someone of the same sex, is going to be way more likely to require reassurance that their sexuality is okay and not bad.
--
On a different point I find that law interestingly written. It seems to suggest that if I was to induce an underage individual to masturbage for someone else's sexual gratification (not mine or theirs) I wouldn't be guilty of anything.
Clayton knows that this isn't true given that some unknown but huge % of "homosexual molestations" are committed by adult men, often married to women, who have no attraction to adult members of the same-sex, don't identify as "gay" and have no otherwise connection to the gay community.
If you want to lump such a person into the "gay or bi" box, then such a box's definition (and size) radically changes. While it may be true that self-defined gays and bisexuals -- those with a full or predominant same-sex attraction, are a "trivial" number of the population (2-3% probably), they don't represent all or probably even the majority of people who have same-sex experiences. Self-identified gays and bis probably constitute 3-6 on the Kinsey scale (with 0 being perfectly straight, 3 perfectly bi and 6 perfectly gay). If we add in all of the 1s and 2s as *some* kind of bisexuals then the gay or bi box expands into the double digits, and perhaps may be as large as 1/3 of the population.
Patently untrue. Ex. Gov. McGreevey, and Rep. Foley. Didn't identify themselves as gay until late in life and only when it was already exposed for them. There are tons of gay people who are currently married with kids, but can't, for whatever reason, come out.
Rob: Wow! The implications of the "molestation as cause of homosexuality" model are huge. It would be easy, for example, for Christians to maintain that God did not intend homosexuality.
Not really. They study you cite says that 46% of the gay men were molested. That's less than half. Why are the remaining 54% gay then? 22% of lesbians were molested, but what of the remaining 79%? How did they become gay, if not molested?
And it doesn't mention how many young boys were molested by older men who did not turn gay.
One thing the studies that I mentioned is that they have been able to identify people who are gay at least to the age of 7, sometimes earlier. Many researchers have interpreted the data to say that it reflects that some older men are able to discern which children are likely gay, and then molest them. That's at least as plausible an explanation as any brought forth on this board.
I'm a gay man, very happy, no real issues, and I was never molested in any way as a child or as a youth. I didn't choose this: Rather, I am just attracted to other men. Why is that? Your theory gives no explanation.
One last point: Who we find attractive in a sexual way is very subjective. You might find blonds really hot, other's find redheads. Ever have a friend date a girl who thinks she's the hottest, only to have you wonder what he sees in her? That's the nature of love and attraction. Poets from Shakespeare to today have wrestled with this issue. We really don't know what makes us attracted to certain people, and everyone is attracted to others. There is no explanation to it, and it's one of the enduring mysteries of human life. I prefer to keep it that way: I really don't see the point of trying to figure it out. The fact is it just IS, and all our attractions, be they to redheads or blonds, men or women, fat or thin, ought to be respected and accepted.
On the contrary, the whole theory of Darwin answers that question. Not trying to hurt your feelings CLS, just trying to get information and answers on a scientific question.
Must we get your approval for every area of study in physical and social sciences? Do we need to be sure that all the questions we ask are not offensive to every group, majority or minority?
Here's a thought problem for you. Suppose the entire world was light-skinned. Except, apparently randomly, 1% (or 5%, or 10%, you choose) of babies are born with dark skin. They grow up and are in the general population, and some of them form political interest groups for the dark-skinned, based solely on chromatic affinity.
Are you saying that scientists can't study what makes their skin dark and look for causes and explanations, just because some of them would be offended?
What other areas of study would you like to see blocked?
Personally, I was offended by the guy that tried to show how preschool and kindergarten bullies grew up to be conservatives, but I could just laugh at him and get over it.
Sexuality is a difficult subject, and even the idea that sexuality is bipolar, that everyone is either straight or gay, is an extreme oversimplification. There are far too many counter examples, gay men who were never molested, straight men who were molested etc. for any glib conclusions about a "cause" of homosexuality.
Suffice to say that some people feel sexually attracted to others of the same sex, and some people are so agitated by that fact that they seem rarely to think or talk of anything else.
The origin of sexual preferences is a scientific question. I hope you will not try to to put the kibosh on the inquiry because you do not like some of the potential answers. I'm not trying to be offensive here, just trying to answer a scientific question.
Randy R. says:
You overstate the Christian's burden. He does not have to explain why every person is gay. It is enough if the Christian can demonstrate that molestation played a role (it need not be the sole role) in a significant number of people becoming gay.
Randy R. asks:
If the molestation explains a portion of homosexual behavior, that is significant finding even if it cannot explain it all. I personally suspect that homesexuality is explained by both biological and environmental factors. One of the environmental factors appears to be childhood molestation. How else to explain the correlation? (I'm sorry but the hypothesis that molestation causes homosexuality strikes me as far more likely than the hypothesis that homosexuality (in children) causes molestation. I am just not persuaded that molestors could or would preferentially identify and molest homosexual children.)
That's true. My hunch is that Kinsey -- whatever overall problems exist in his research -- was right in positing that sexuality exists on a continuum, which potentially gives us infinite shades of gray. But many other traits -- for instance height, weight, IQ and race, -- exist on a continuum as well.
This article is interesting. It doesn't exactly illustrate my point in the above post about how the numbers on the continuum likely spread. But it does show that more self-identified straights are having gay sex than self-identified gays or bis.
A survey was done among men in New York and apparently 19% of them qualify as "gay or bi." But here's the rub. Only 9% identified as "gay or bi." 10% of the men surveyed had same-sex experiences and identified as "straight."
But -- here's where the results differ from what I would expect -- that 10% of MSM who identify as "straight" apparently didn't have sex with women, only homo sex. I would expect this crowd to be predominantly hetero, incidentally homo. The article suggests a different reason: Many of them are immigrants from cultures who don't accept homosexuality.
Cornelian,
Are you suggesting that inquiring whether childhood molestation is more common among homosexuals than among heterosexuals is innapropriate? If so, why? Especially, after Foley announces that he was molested as a child. Don't you at least want to challenge the relevance of his announcement?
How does that study with the 46% define "children"? It might be very difficult to identify a homosexually oriented 5-year old, but not so difficult to identify a homosexually oriented 15-year-old. Also, if the adult is simply looking for same-sex contact with underaged same-sex members, he could simply "put out the vibe" and the homo teens with the raging libido that all teen males have are the ones likely to consent.
Bill Donahue makes an apt point. He's apparently ticked off that Foley is trying to blame a Catholic priest for the molestation. He notes,
I'm not saying I agree with Donahue's sentiment completely. It's entirely possible for a clever Priest in their revered position of authority to manipulate a straight teen to consent to sex. It would be a lot easier for a Priest, however, to seduce a homosexually oriented teen, which is likely what happened with Foley.
Well, there are many ways to explain the correlation. That you find one explanation more persuasive than another based on nothing more than some vague gut feeling doesn't mean that there is only one explanation. And any explanation that leave a majority of people unexplained is hardly a good correlation, as any statician will tell you. For the lesbians at coming in at 22? That's simply too low a number for any degree of correlation. Don't argue with me: argue with staticians who do this for a living.
A recent study in NY indicated that there was a group of men who self-idenfitied as heterosexual, yet only had sex with men. How do you explain that? It certainly contradicts Cramer's view that all gay men identify themselves as gay. if you watch Oprah, you will find that there are plenty of men who think and act striaght, when they are out have sex with other men.
A friend of mine who is a prominent oncologist says that they used to ask men if they are gay when getting their medical histories. That wasn't getting the right answers, so they started to ask, are you having sex with men. That still wasn't getting the right answers, so now they say, do you fuck other men. This question comes closer to getting an accurate sexual history of men than anything else. Whether it's still completely accurate is another matter.
The point is that asking people if they are gay or straight doesn't always get you the answer you want. Therefore, altough the study you cite says that 46% of homosexuals say they were molested, how many where actually molested, and what is there sexual orientation today? The bottom line: no one really knows. We don't even know if the labels gay or straight, hetero or homo, really do the job that we need. Many people are somewhere in between -- how do you count them in the equation?
But the real bottomline: what's the point? Even if true that there is a correlation between molestation and sexual orientation (which I doubt), for more than half the gay population, it simply isnt' true. What would you do with it? It still means that we deserve the same rights as you do, and the same respect. It still means you can't assume that any person you met has been molested. It doesn't give any gay people a pass if they molest someone else. I really don't know what it would mean.
It is a well known / well researched observation that mid-late Victorians males who had German nannnies, nannies who believed that "regularity" was supremely important, and who would administer enemas to ensure regularity, were excited by enemas when they were grown.
See Konrad Lorenz and Imprinting in Ducklings. It used to be considered particularly amusing for Grad students to imprint Ducklings on a beer bottle for the elucidation of sophomores.
There are probably as many reasons to be gay as there are people who are gay. Within the shades of gray, those far from the middle have ended up straight, and some close to the middle have ended up gay. The multiple male birth thing, whose closest analog is RH- syndrome, does affect some, but not all. TO here the arguments you would think that every 3rd boy was gay. Yet as a 7th son who has younger brothers, none of us are. So it means something, but not everything.
Many gay people have argued that their lives are very much less happy than they would be otherwise (in arguing that it is not a choice) Why is it then evil to understand what the factors are, and see if, for some, they can be remediated and/or avoided.
Some of this reminds me of the discussions in the deaf community, passionately arguing against cochlear implants, lest they reduce deaf culture.
Penal Code:
647.6. (a) Every person who annoys or molests any child under the age of 18 shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment.
Decision:
8] We now consider the range of conduct proscribed by
the state Annoy/Molest misdemeanor statute. See Taylor, 495
U.S. at 602. We should note first that California has a felony statute that prohibits lewd and lascivious acts against minors, see Cal. Pen. Code § 288(a), 6 which requires (1) the touching of an underage child’s body (2) with a sexual intent. See People v. Lopez, 19 Cal. 4th 282, 289 (1998). The misdemeanor statute at issue here applies to less serious conduct. See id. at 290. As the California Supreme Court has put it, “Section 288, subdivision (a), requires a touching . . . done with lewd intent. Section 647.6, subdivision (a), on the other hand, requires an act objectively and unhesitatingly viewed as irritating or disturbing, prompted by an abnormal sexual interest
in children.” Id. (emphasis in original). In short, whereas the California felony statute requires a physical touching, the misdemeanor statute requires only an act that is irritating or annoying.
Pallares-Galan, 359 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. February 20, 2004)
First answer: Let's get the science right, then let's worry about the implications.
Second answer: You are right. You are entitled to respect, regardless of the origin of your sexual preferences.
Third answer: If it really doesn't matter, why are you (and others) trying so desperately to find a biological basis for your homosexuality? Why is the hypothesis that childhood molestation causes homosexuality so threatening to you? I think the reason you and I both think that the hypothesis is important is because it goes to the question of whether nature, or nature's God, intended you to be homosexual.
As a 51-year old gay man, who has been "out" since the age of 23, perhaps I am "too close to the subject" to give a dispassionate contribution to this discussion. As a guest, and in a valiant attempt to refrain from ad hominem attacks on some of the posters, I will limit my participation to a simple question to the "straight" posters. When did you know you were a heterosexual?
Yes folks, it’s that simple for us too. Get over it!
If your analyses of legal issue matches your analyses of sexual identity issues, I truly feel sorry for the current state of legal education.
WE gay people don't really care about the origins of sexual orientation. Most, but not all, gays go through a period of denial, then closetedness, then finally openness. Self-acceptance can be especially difficult, especially when we have religious and conservatives groups constanting harping upon us that we are not 'natural', that we chose this lifestyle and so on.
If you look at the dis- information propagated by these groups, they often say that the 'homosexual lifestyle is a chosen one, and it leads to destruction, it's immoral, it's unnatural' and worse. So we react by saying, no, we did not 'choose' this lifestyle. When people keep calling you an abomination, unclean, branding us all as child molesters, well, you get a little defensive. Ever been beaten up for being straight? Gay kids get picked on and roughed up far more than straight kids do. (Sourse: US dept of Education).
We are very happy to conclude that we are gay because of something deep within us, most likely we were born with it. It can't be changed no matter how much 'reparative therapy' you throw at us.
The molestation issue is a particularly sensitive one for us. There are many straight people. people on the VC even, who assume that every gay man wants to molest young men, and usually does. The foley incident gives them fodder for it. However, it simply isn't true, but that doesn't matter -- they think I'm lying.
The issue of child molestation is serious one, and it deserves serious study. But assuming you know a lot about it because you read headlines, or a study, or know someone who was a abused is not being serious. Jumping to conclusions doesn't help either, especially if you have no background in the subject area.
So by all means, more study! More light on the subject. But your last sentence is the most revealing, about nature or God's intentions. Nature has NO intentions -- it just is. (And BTW, there is plenty of evidence of homosexuality in many species of animals) What God intends for me is between God and me, and I'm perfectly sure that God intended me to be gay. It's frankly none of your business. Even if I didnt' believe in God, though, I would be happy to let others live the life that they lead, secure that it is not for me to judge whether God intended you to be a Democrat or a Republican or a Green.
I hope not to provoke an ad hominem attack, but the question some of us have been asking is not "when do homosexuals first learn of their sexual preference," but "what causes homosexuality."
As for your relevance criticism, mea culpa. I'll stop posting on this thread. Thanks to Clayton for the links and to others for the discussion.
Sequencing of the human and Drosophila genomes has shown that a large fraction of the genes in both species are orthologs, that is they have a common evolutionary origin and similar function in both species.
Human behavior is obviously much more complex than that of Drosophila. However, I believe it most likely that human sexual orientation is determined in large part by genetics.
One more quick post to thank you for the discussion. I am happy you are open to more research. It is not obvious to me why asking the question "why are some people homosexual and others not" should be any more controversial than asking "why are some people deaf and others not." Whatever the answers to these questions, one thing is for certain: homosexuals, heterosexuals, deaf people and hearing people are all entitled to respect.
ONe more point: There has been a lot of research done about genetics and sexual orientation. For instance, it has been found that there is high correlation between a small thalmus in the brain and gay men. Lesbians tend to have one finger shorter than another, and there is also something about the shape of the ear.
In other words, studies have found some sort of correlation between certain physical aspects of a person and homosexuality. These correlations are not strong, but they are stronger that your example of child molestation. And they have been criticized as not proving much at all, even though they seem to support a genetic component to sexual orientation.
My belief is that we will likely never find a definitive answer as to why one person is gay, another straight, and I'm perfectly okay with that. The sad fact is that we know very little about sexuality in general. However, I DO believe that the more we research, the more we know, and that's a good thing.
It's my recollection that it doesn't actually require much to induce a teenage male to masturbate...
Foley should, however, be prosecuted for abject stupidity and not a little hubris.
As for his 7.5 claim, wasn't Rep. Foley a big advocate for metric conversion?
Not in the District of Columbia, where the sexual age of consent is 16. If physical sex with a 16-year-old is legal, cybersex with said teen must be legal also.
I've been wondering who lobbied for lowering the age of consent to 16 in DC. Those with such inclination have a long history of not allowing laws to interfere with sexual predation, but aren't they even more likely to hit on 16-year-olds when the laws allow it?
So what we're saying is that the Republicans, by molesting children, are actually spreading homozexuality!
Fascinating.
Perhaps the more relevant question is whether molestation causes heterosexual identity. Run the numbers.
"Republicans [are] molesting children"...hmmm...doesn't that draw on the same statistical errors that crank out statements like "homosexuals molest children," "blog commenters make crude jokes about Michelle Malkin," or "Democrats claim that Bush is manipulating the price of oil for political purposes"?
(That last one is representative of only some Democrats - but not a small number.)
Are you sure it was actually "lowered" to 16 in DC? Historically, ages of consent were far lower than they are today; and the push to "18" in the modern era represents an upward drift or a raise in the age of consent.
I haven't been able to find any peer review of this paper. I did find some an that challenged the methodology and validity of the sample used.
OBTW, 98 percent of male victims and 99.6 percent of female victims are molested by heterosexuals.
See: pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/94/1/41
I'm not sure what correlations might be drawn from those stats.
The claim that men who molest little boys but have sex with adult women aren't "really" homosexuals is in this same category of nonsense. Of course, men (and sometimes women) who identify themselves as homosexual do molest kids, and it sometimes makes the papers. Paula Poundstone, for example. Here's another example that doesn't fit your "molesters aren't homosexuals" model:
Obviously, most homosexuals aren't molesters, and it is quite clear that much of the sexual abuse that seems to cause little girls to grow up to be lesbians is done by heterosexual men. (They may have sex with adult women, but they are still heterosexuals if they are only interested in sex with females.) Redefining a guy who likes sex with little boys as "not homosexual" makes about as much sense as men who have sex with men calling themselves "straight."
Concerning the study about older brothers and homosexuality--an interesting study, and not impossible, but my thoughts on why this might be quite as significant as it first appears are here.
I don't think you are lying. While child molesters are disproportionately homosexual, it is still a relatively tiny fraction of homosexuals. While it appears that molesters were almost always sexual abuse victims themselves, most victims don't become molesters. There's a lot of head scratching about psychiatrists who have studied the problem trying to figure out why some become molesters.
Still, it would help a lot if homosexuals had early on told NAMBLA where to go--instead of welcoming them into gay pride parades, and not engaged in heated internal debates about whether NAMBLA was part of your movement or not. Of course, then you would have had to tell poets like Ginsburg where to go.
OBTW, 98 percent of male victims and 99.6 percent of female victims are molested by heterosexuals. See: pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/94/1/41 I'm not sure what correlations might be drawn from those stats.From the logic one sees in some of the posts around here, clearly the implication must be that heterosexuality causes one to be a child molester.
Sure! Lots of empirical evidence for that!
Clayton, if a man molested male dogs only, I could see you writing a headline "gay man" molests dog.
I realize that many of you would like to define "gay man" as "decent, caring, responsible person who never does anything wrong" but that would be as accurate as defining that a guy who rapes women isn't a heterosexual. He's a screwed up heterosexual, sure, but pretending that he's not a heterosexual is silly.
And yes, I know what it is like to be assumed to be a monster. I think almost all men over 30 have had at least one experience where they have seen a woman react with fear, because as far as she is concerned, any man who she doesn't know might be a rapist. Is it fair? Not at all. But all she knows is that men are roughly twice as likely as the "general population" (all men and women) to be rapists. Her "bigotry" in assuming that a man she doesn't know is a rapist is completely unfair, because most men aren't rapists. But what does she risk by assuming that every strange man is not a threat? What does she gain by operating on the side of prudence with respect to a strange man.
Pedophile = a pretty clear definition of someone who has sex with children.
Just as you can use "homosexual" to qualify "pedophile" you could also use "homosexual" to qualify a man who likes male dogs only.
Doesn't necessarily mean either one has anything to do with "homosexuals"/"gays" meaning adults who have an attraction to other adult members of the same-sex.
My understanding of the social science is while there may be exceptions to the rule, those who like little boys (pre-puberty) tend to have no attraction to adults of the same sex, don't identify as "gay," are often married to women, and have no otherwise connection ot the gay community. See for instance, Arnold Friedman. They are not what we typically think of as "gay men" anymore than a man who likes male sheep only is what we think of as a "gay man." Thus, lumping them into a stastics about "gay" men is dishonest.
Those who are into underaged teens -- like Mark Foley --tend to also be attracted to adults and are what we think of as gay men. If a study were done that shows that gay men are more likely to have sex with underaged teens than straight men, then we'd be comparing apples to apples. But 1) I'm not aware of any such study, and 2) My common sense tells me given straight men have been boinking underaged teen girls since time immemorial at very high rates -- indeed given so many prominent historical marriages with girls well under the age of 18 -- you won't find gays more likely to be involved in the behavior.
82% of all sexual assault victims under the age of 18 are female. (Pg. 4 of report, 7 of pdf.)
94% of offenders who sexually assaulted juveniles were male. (Pg. 8 of report, 11 of pdf.)
It is not: Who molests children, homosexuals or heterosexuals?
It is: Does being molested cause (even partially) children to become homosexual?
1. Definition of "patently offensive."
Sct. 1021(A)(3) states that:
Sct. 1024.1(B) states that:
(Putting aside jurisdictional questions), my understanding is that, under Miller, Oklahoma is required to specifically define the conduct which is "patently offensive." Is this definition of "obscenity" unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, because it just leaves it to the average person applying contemporary community standards?
2. Can a state prohibit "communication" without defining it to be obscene?
Sct. 1040.13a(A) states that:
Sct. 1040.13a(D) states:
Can Oklahoma prohibit "communication for sexual or prurient interest with any minor" without defining it as obscene, or would it just be constitutional as a necessary measure to achieve a compelling interest?
Just to be clear, I was responding to comments such as "While child molesters are disproportionately homosexual..."
There are pedophiles. Pedophiles molest little girls exclusively or molest little boys exclusively or molest them 'em both. The point being that pedophiles like CHILDREN. Homosexuality has no more relevance to pedophilia than heterosexuality is.
Boy, you are the most persistant gay-hater I've run across. There is almost no arguement you can't twist into some gay-bashing session.
The paper itself acknowledges what has been long known--homosexuals are more likely to be interested in children than heterosexuals:
I've pointed out before that the evidence is clear that homosexuals are overrepresented among pedophiles, and that a very PC journal like Archives of Sexual Behavior published a paper that uses a term like "homosexual pedophile" shows that the gay claim that pedophiles can't be homosexual is simply wrong.
No. There is no demonstrable causal relationship between child sexual abuse and future sexuality in men.
However, there appears to be a statistical anomaly with women. Women molested by men as children seem more likely to become lesbians, in my decidedly non-scientific experience.
I would thus postulate that sexual molestation impels the child in the opposite direction: same-sex molestation impelling toward heterosexuality, opposite-sex toward homosexuality. Since most abuse of boys is same-sex, the resulting impulse toward heterosexuality gets lost in the noise, but the primarily opposite-sex abuse of women becomes noticeable.
But like I said, not even remotely scientific. Just my own little hypothesis, and I lack both the funding and the qualification to back it up with real research. It would be nice if someone else took an interest in the question, but I don't think that's likely.
But NARTH's claim that 35% of pedophiles are gay stems from "a flawed assumption" that men who prey on young boys also are attracted to grown men, says Johns Hopkins University psychiatrist Frederick Berlin, an expert on sexual disorders.
Psychologist Joseph Nicolosi, president of NARTH, declined to speak to USA TODAY. But when asked about evidence of a gay-pedophilia link, publications director Linda Nicolosi responded in an e-mail that the link is "hard to track down." Many pedophiles, she said, "are married men homosexually seducing boys. So are they bisexual? Homosexual?"
No scientifically conclusive research exists that would answer questions about pedophiles' sexual orientation, says Berlin.
But clinical experience with pedophiles suggests "it's kind of a separate sexual orientation," says David Finkelhor, author of four books on child sexual abuse and director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. "Often they have no attraction to adults whatsoever."
Bancroft agrees. "They're men interested in children. They're more interested in boys than girls, but they're interested in kids, not adults."
Just ignore the strong correlation.
There's plenty of statistical evidence that would suggest this as well. But I have also seen this, many, many times among people that I have known.
It has long been a question why, if sexual abuse as a child causes homosexuality, why boys would grow up to prefer the sex that abused them, and girls would grow up to prefer the sex that did not. Surprisingly enough, men and women are different. They respond differently to traumas. Men who were sexually abused often end up quite destructive of others; women often end up self-destructive.
Why is it necessary for people to tell these outrageous lies? To claim that there is no research on this--and that pedophiles have no sexual attractions to adults--is clearly false, and the research on the subject is very clear.
I guess a lot of lies are required to make homosexuals happy.
> Just ignore the strong correlation.
What strong correlation? Every man I've ever met that was molested as a child is straight, and I know a lot of gay people.
> Why is it necessary for people to tell
> these outrageous lies?
"Often they have no attraction to adults", says the article; "many had sexual orientations towards both" you respond. Those statements can both be true.
Likewise, "clinical experience suggests" doesn't directly contradict "researchers had no problem whatsoever". Those statements can both be true, too.
Looks to me like the outrageous lie is that there's any real solid consensus one way or the other.
But I see a suggestion myself: since the vast majority of pedophiles who have molested boys self-identify as heterosexual, it's apparently far more common for pedophiles to go off-gender - to molest the gender other than what they prefer, because they see an opportunity. The population at large has only a tiny minority of people who, lacking an available member of the appropriate gender, will pursue a partner of the other gender - probably less than 2%. But if we are to believe the statistics on pedophile self-identification, pedophiles overwhelmingly elect to switch gender to gratify their desires... more than 90% of the times pedophiles molest boys. If I remember correctly, the figure exceeded 98 percent.
> I guess a lot of lies are required to make
> homosexuals happy.
No... just you.