I can't say I'm thrilled with the Roberts nomination, but we shall see...

There's a curious decision from Robert's tenure as appellate court judge in DC that may give some indication about his views -- Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:

To quote Robert's decision:

A twelve-year-old girl was arrested, searched, and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later — all for eating a single french fry in a Metrorail station. The child was frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal. The district court described the policies that led to her arrest as ‘‘foolish,’’ and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry. The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm.

One of the arguments of the plaintiffs against the WMTAA was that the arrest violated equal protection statutes, because adults caught during the same undercover operation were only given citations and were not arrested.

Roberts rejected that argument:

Issuing a citation to a child is complicated by the fact that there is often no ready way to ensure that the child is providing truthful or accurate identifying information. A child often will not be carrying a form of identification, and there is nothing to stop one from giving an officer a false name — an entirely fanciful one or, better yet, the name of the miscreant who pushed them on the playground that morning. In this situation parents would be none the wiser concerning the behavior of their children. The correction of straying youth is an undisputed state interest and one different from enforcing the law against adults. Because parents and guardians play an essential role in that rehabilitative process, it is reasonable for the District to seek to ensure their participation, and the method chosen — detention until the parent is notified and retrieves the child — certainly does that, in a way issuing a citation might not. The district court had and we too may have thoughts on the wisdom of this policy choice — it is far from clear that the gains in certainty of notification are worth the youthful trauma and tears — but it is not our place to second-guess such legislative judgments.

Roberts concludes that the WMTAA's zero tolerance policy regarding eating on the Metro and arrest of a minor for breaking this policy was not "unreasonable" under the 4th Ammendement:

Her claim that a policy of mandatory arrest for certain minor offenses is unconstitutional boils down to an assertion that officer discretion is a necessary element of a valid seizure under the Fourth Amendment, at least for some minor offenses. She has not made an effort to defend that assertion under the usual first step of any analysis of whether particular government action violates the Fourth Amendment — asking "whether the action was regarded as an unlawful search or seizure under the common law when the Amendment was framed."

In other words, because the minor's arrest would not have been considered unreasonable when the 4th Ammendment was written, it is not unreasonable now.

I suspect that this case will come up during the confirmation process, because, well, a girl was dragged away in handcuffs for eating a french fry.

Greetings Szdfan,

Thank you for the input. This actually made me feel even better about Roberts as it supports his reputation as a judge who sees his role as enforcing the law, not creating new law or overturning bad law. As you quoted Roberts The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm.

This is the heart of the conservative legal position. It is the job of the legislature to legislate (pass laws). It is the job of justices to enforce the Constitution first and then other laws as passed by the Legislation second. It is not the job of justices to determine what laws are bad ideas (at least in their opinions), what laws are good ideas, and what laws are needed and thus should be created by justices.

Do you disagree?

Test message. I signed up for a TypeKey account, but my first comment did not work. I then went back to TypeKey and told it to also provide my email address to the sites where I comment. I'm now testing that.

Verification Test

I had to do what Lucy suggested, also.

The software seems to have some bugs. I clicked the option to allow registered people (those with TypeKey accounts) to post without my needing approval. But I still had to approve all the new comments.

Hopefully the other part of the comment software is working. In theory, now that I've approved your comments, you should be able to post again without my intervention. We'll see.

I'm also disappointed that spammers are still attempting to comment even with the TypeKey system. Fortunately, so long as disapprove of them, they can't get their posts on Solport itself.

Let's see.

I've been looking forward to this movie— will have to head up to La Crosse to see it some time soon. I've always been a huge fan of the Fantastic Four, ever since I was a kid back in the 1960s reading the comic.

In fact, at one time I had a virtually complete collection of FF comics— I think I was missing only three issues. I went and sold off my FF collection, and lived off the proceeds one summer in grad school when I was studying for my prelims. Financially it was a lifesaver at the time, but I've regretted ever since letting those comics go. Now at this late date I dread to think what it would cost to replace them!

I've read a couple of negative reviews of the movie, and was glad to hear that you liked it. From what I've seen just in the movie preview, I expect I'm going to enjoy it.

Thoughts, prayers, and anger.

The British are certainly in our thoughts and prayers. Unfortunately, I have cause to find it all too true ... my past speculation that I would be as angry if the British were attacked as if we were attacked again here.

Your support is much appreciated. Thank you.

These sort of acts can only be condemned.
Current reports seem to indicate that this has not been as bad as Madrid and in no way compares to 9-11. I suspect that the toll will rise higher though - the buses and trains are usually pretty packed at that time.
I think the UK is shocked but London is a strong city and "business as usual" will prevail much as it did during WWII.
I have just spoken to my brother - he was in a train two stations away from one of the tube trains that was bombed. Apparently it blew up while passing another train. My brother's train would have passed that train only a few minutes later.
He has managed to get a ride home with a workmate who drove in that day.
He described a rather wierd scene of empty streets but the major routes outside of the city being extremely clogged up.
He will be going to work tomorrow - business as usual - most of the transport mechanisms are back on-line it seems.

It's sad to think that on a day that Londoners should be celebrating selection for the 2012 Olympics that they are mourning.

Many Regards
--
Oliver Harlow

Hi Lucy, Oliver,

Oliver, your mayor had a great speech today. Drew sent me a transcript and I was very impressed.

For those who haven't read it, do so.

Hi Don,
I hadn't read the whole transcript before, thanks!
Ken Livingston is quite a character. I don't follow politics very closely, but I have a lot of time for a man like him, even though he was/is left wing and I am right wing.
He got elected Mayor because of his personality, personal beliefs and his obvious love of the city. Not because he was towing any "party line".
When he talks, he talks straight. No spin, no party political waffle. He used to be the Leader of the GLC.

Things seem to be settling down now over here after yesterday's events. The BBC seem to be back to schedule (I'm watching the golf at the moment).
Whilst I don't work in London, it was just "another day" for the rest of the UK I suspect, sort of.
I don't want to sound pompous here, but London and the UK in general are used to bombs, and terrorism. Somebody always mentions "the Blitz" at some point on TV and our perpectives shift. The sense of outrage is not diminished, what seems to happen is that people try to live up to that legacy and subsequently work together even better. Much as New Yorkers did on 9-11.
These atrocities make a nation and its people stronger, not weaker. Terrorists do not seem to understand that. Sad.

Many regards
--
Oliver

It sounds to me like he's accusing westerners of destroying the economy with handouts. If that's the case, why not just change the focus of the aid rather than eliminate it?

Something like the New Deal programs in America might be appropriate. Westerners could provide the financing to hire thousands of Africans for the purpose of improving their own infrastructure and economy - building roads, equipment, schools, etc... The only tricky part is putting trustworthy officials in charge of the programs so that the money isn't lost to corruption.

Hi Pyro,

Good to hear from you. I agree, The only tricky part is putting trustworthy officials in charge of the programs so that the money isn't lost to corruption. Any suggestions?

I'm not being sarcastic, I don't know of a way to do this for nations with corrupt leaders. In fact, giving aid to these nations allows corrupt leaders to stay in power as they can use their skimmings to pay for muscle and allies.

I still want to help, but I'm starting to think the best way is to offer scholarships to some of their citizens to study here in the US. Once they have a degree and/or other skills, they can then go back and hopefully start a business. Of course, then you have to wrestle with a brain drain problem where many of their brightest won't want to go back, but that is easier to handle.

Wow! I've been dropping by here every now and then for months (though evidently not in the past week or two), hoping this blog would sooner or later come back to life.

Welcome back!!! :-)

Thanks Paul! Glad you kept checking in despite my hiatus.

"Since homosexual men are disproportionately likely to commit child abuse..."

Proof, please. Cite the source of this "fact" -- if you can.

The other day I saw TV footage of a Spanish marriage of two lesbians, and I had to wonder: who would do the housework?

Well now... at first I assumed this was an ironic article. But when I read the bit about "homosexual men are more likely to commit child abuse" I realised it has a high degree of prejudice. Here in the UK, statistics show they are LESS likely. Can you back your statement up by anything?

The Spanish voted the opposition in because the government reflexively blamed the Basque separatists for the Madrid bombing, and this was not felt to be a rational response and seemed opportunistic - it did not inspire trust and made the population angry enough to change their vote.

The long term ramifications of actions are always hard to predict, and sometimes result in delicious irony (unless we ourselves are affected).

By the way, nice to see you back and up and posting again. I know I missed the civil yet serious discussions here.

Nice to see the comments are starting to work, even if there is a delay between your posting them and the comments appearing on the Roundtable. I'm still working on that. The good news is that I've yet to be comment-spammed since I started revamping the site.

Chuck, Paul H,

Statistics on these facts are hard to find since they are so politically incorrect. I know, because I got in a debate with someone last year and had to search for them. I did post all I found at the time, but the debate was at his site which I can no longer find. That'll teach me not to post it at my site as a back up.

I'm glad to see you ask for proof, people should not accept these sort of statements without references. So I'll make you a deal. I'll go ahead and do another search for what I can find, but I'd like you to do the same. In other words, Chuck, please find what you can and Paul, please find some references for your claim that homosexual men are less likely to commit child abuse in the UK. If true, that would really surprise me as it is different than all the references I found last year.

Well, this didn't take as long as I feared. Some of the pro-family sites have started maintaining a list of these studies. I'm glad some folks are – this research is important even if it is politically incorrect.

I found a site that has some references, including some that look familiar. I'm pretty sure I quoted from Dr. Reisman's work (from journal articles, not her book) in my previous discussion on the matter. Here are a few of the more empirical findings listed at the site.

Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.

Other surveys have also found that homosexuals, consisting of a tiny percent of the population, are responsible for a disproportionate number of child molestations.

In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescents who were sex offenders found that 35 of them were homosexuals (22%). (Wasserman, J., “Adolescent Sex Offenders—Vermont, 1984” Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2)

This study found that bisexuals committed as many child molestations as homosexuals. I'm not sure how large this group is, from the limited research I've seen on it, I'd say that are approximately as many bisexuals as there are homosexuals. In other words, bisexuals probably make up another 1 to 2% of the population. In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, “Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,” Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991)

Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals. (Freund, K. “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200)

So professional researchers have found that 22% to 34% of child molestations are committed by homosexuals. What about studies by journalists?

On July 30, 2001, The New York Post published a story about sexual child abuse by New York teachers. In 117 cases, 212 children were victimized. According to the report, “Nearly 20 percent of the offenders are homosexuals and in most of these cases, the attack led to a sexual relationship with the student.”

The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. According to this survey, 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985)

In addition to the much greater likelihood of committing sexual crimes on children, are there are other differences in homosexual child molestors?

Dr. Gene Abel compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a sample of 153 homosexual molesters, they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. In other words, not only are homosexuals much more likely to molest children than heterosexuals, a homosexual child molester is a much more prolific child molester than his heterosexual counterpart.

Since the search for US statistics didn't take too long, I thought I'd look for some UK statistics. I first found a site from an institution that is set up to support victims of sexual abuse. Let's look at the research findings they have collected.

Perpetrators of Male Victimization Sexual Abuse

Most of the data that has shaped our view of sexual abuse perpetration has been drawn from case report studies, official crime statistics, police reports, and the records of child welfare agencies. Using case report studies, it is evident that the majority of sexual abusers of both girls, boys, women, and teen girls are heterosexual males (DeJong et al., 1982; Ellerstein and Canavan, 1980; Faller, 1987; Farber et al., 1984; Reinhart, 1987; Showers et al., 1983; Spencer and Dunklee, 1986).

At first read, this appears to support what Paul H has heard. But given that heterosexuals make up between 96% and 98% of the world's population and that men commit the majority of crimes, this is hardly a surprise. My original statement, which both Chuck and Paul H referred to in their comments, was homosexual men are disproportionately likely to commit child abuse. So if this is true in the UK (as my previous comment clearly showed it is true in the US), homosexuals in the UK should be responsible for much more than 1 to 2% of all child molestation cases. Let's see what they found in their next sentence.

Ramsay-Klawsnik (1990a) found that boys were abused by adult males 33% of the time and by adolescent males 12% of the time.So after making the politically correct statement that it is evident that the majority of sexual abusers of both girls, boys, women, and teen girls are heterosexual males, they then discuss research that shows that 45% of all child abuse committed on boys was done by males. I can understand why Paul H had the impression he did. While everything posted was true, you have to read carefully to understand that homosexual men are disproportionately likely to commit child abuse.

I checked another UK site and located this reference: A Police Research Series paper in 1998 suggested that 20-30% of child sexual abuse was by men on boys and about 10% was mixed. The police research paper mentioned was Grubin D. Sex offending against children: understanding the risk. Police Research Series, Home Office 1998; 99: 14.

So I stand by my statement that homosexual men are disproportionably likely to commit child abuse. This is true in the United States, in the United Kingdom, and in all likelihood, in every nation in the world (with the possible exception of where they execute homosexuals – I would expect such a policy to be a major deterrent to such crimes).

Interesting stats there, Don. I'm honestly surprised to see that there's that much statistical evidence to support your claims. On the other hand, some of the conclusions drawn from the data are questionable (the LA Times article, for example, stating that same-sex molestation was done by a homosexual simply because it was same-sex, when research shows that same-sex molestation by straight males is common), not to mention that sources of the studies themselves. I'm not dismissing the data, I'm just saying that it does carry the same weight with me that it does for you.

On my end, I offer the following links to support my contention that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than straights. I'm not going to quote extensively from them; I'll leave it to you to follow the links and read for yourself.

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Conclusion

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

Myths About Male Sexual Victimization
Myth #2 - Most sexual abuse of boys is perpetrated by homosexual males.

Pedophiles who molest boys are not expressing a homosexual orientation any more than pedophiles who molest girls are practicing heterosexual behaviors. While many child molesters have gender and/or age preferences, of those who seek out boys, the vast majority are not homosexual. They are pedophiles.

Cite on Child Molestation
CHICAGO - A study of sexually abused children found that they were unlikely to have been molested by identifyably gay or lesbian people, the American Academy of Pediatrics says. The study, published in the July 1994 issue of "Pediatrics", explored the assertion that gays and lesbians are at particular risk of sexually molesting children. This was one of the justifications presented for strong anti-gay legislation placed on ballots in several States in 1992.

Of 249 cases of child abuse studied, only two offenders were identified as gay or lesbian. In this sample, a child's risk of being molested by the heterosexual partner of a relative is more than 100 times greater than by somebody who might be identifiable as being homosexual, lesbian or bisexual.

New York City Alliance Against Sexual Assault
Aren't gay people more likely to sexually abuse children than straight people?

No. Adult sexual orientation is irrelevant to the sexual abuse of children. The vast majority of adults who sexually abuse children identify as heterosexual, even those men who sexually abuse boys. Child sexual abuse and homosexuality are linked by a series of odd and unsettling connections in the public mind. Heterosexism - the belief that heterosexuality is the only normal and natural form of sexual expression - tends to reinforce the belief that homosexual people are somehow sexually deviant. Once this belief system is in place, it is just a quick step to thinking that homosexuals might be more likely to sexually abuse children.

The truth is that the sexual abuse of children has little to do with adult sexual preference. Child sexual abuse is more about the expression of sexual power than about the expression of sexual preference for one gender or another. Some sexual offenders have a preference for children of one gender or the other, but this preference is not necessarily reflected in their adult sexual choices. This stereotype is part of broader cultural homophobia, which not only scapegoats gay men as sexual offenders but also makes it difficult for boys to disclose sexual abuse by men for fear of being labeled gay. This type of homophobia also makes it difficult for gay men and women to disclose child sexual abuse because it might be used to explain their sexual orientation.

------------------------------------------------

...and so on. You're basically asking me to prove a negative, which is just about impossible to do, but here's what I found by Googling just about 15 minutes myself.

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for your response and links as well. I'd like to do three things in this reply. 1) clarify a few impressions. 2) Express some comments on the information in the links you provided. 3) Try another proposal for you.

1) I can understand that the journalism data carry less weight with you. For my part, I put more faith in the empirical studies myself, when they follow a decent methodology. But this may be my own personal bias – I have a Ph.D. in Marketing and we place proper methodology above almost all else in our particular branch of social research. I am willing to spend the time looking up these sources, because this is an empirical question that has a definite answer. If homosexuals are indeed more likely to molest children, then they clearly should not be allowed to adopt children or become scoutmasters. If homosexuals are not more likely to commit crimes on children, then laws prohibiting them from exposure to children are unjust. It is a very important issue and we should be as objective as possible in determining the facts.

However, I think our biggest disagreement may be with terms. I would define a homosexual as someone who has a (current) sexual attraction to someone of the same gender. A bisexual is someone who has sexual attractions to people of both genders. And a heterosexual is someone who is sexual attracted to people of the opposite gender. People who engage in sexual activities are placed into one of these three categories based on their behavior. If there is no behavior, then they may be placed in a category due to preference, but behavior always trumps stated intentions. This latter rule is a common rule in the social sciences, otherwise there would be very few alcoholics as most alcoholics state (and believe) they can quit whenever they want. Behavior is the key.

So when I see a few folks claim that "research shows that same-sex molestation by straight males is common" I shake my head. Isn't the contradiction obvious? By definition, people who engage in same-sex molestation are not straight. They may be bisexual, they may be homosexual. But they are not heterosexual. Any claim otherwise is Orwellian - a clear attempt to confuse the link between homosexuality and child molestation. While you also place less weight on the newspaper findings I quoted, what do you think about the empirical studies that clearly show that homosexuals commit a disproportionate number of child molestations?

2) I went to your first link and reviewed their findings. As a professional researcher I was quite unimpressed. Let me explain why as I am always open to new findings. I just insist on decent methodology. I looked up the Jenny et al article. The average age of the molested child in the survey was 6.1 years. Thus, in general, it should be obvious that the overwhelming majority of these cases will be family members or someone else with immediate access to the child. Going by other research, I would expect most of these cases would be young girls being victimized by a stepfather or their single mother's boyfriend. The second largest group of abusers would be daycare workers and this group should be significantly smaller than the first group. At any rate, you don't need to agree with my assumptions, but I hope you see a study of people in this age group – where children are almost always in the presence of a relative or day care worker – is hardly the population one would choose if one wanted an objective answer to our question.

The other empirical study quoted by this site was Ferund's study. First he screened every potential subject member to ensure that all subject preferred adult sexual partners. Then he exposed them to various scenarios involving children. See the problem? First you do your best to filter out all those who are likely to be sexually interested in children. Now that you have filtered out the probable child molesters, you then "discover" there is no significant difference between homosexual adults who don't commit child molestation and heterosexual adults who don't commit child molestation. Again, this type of research is hardly the type of research one would do if one wanted an honest answer to our question.

I then went to the second link you found. "Myth 2" directly related to our discussion, so I presumed this is what you wanted me to read. They stated that it was a myth that most sexual abuse of boys was committed by homosexuals, but did not provide a single source or citation on this issue. Then they stated that the majority of those adults who seek out boys are pedophiles. More Orwellian doublespeak. Yes, if you redefine all homosexual child molesters as pedophiles, then you can claim that homosexuals do not sexual abuse children. After all, homosexual child abusers are no longer called homosexuals, but pedophiles, so this isn't even a lie in the eyes of those doing the redefining.

Your third link was simply another summary of the Jenny et al article mentioned by those at the first link (the study where the average victim was 6.1 years old).

Your fourth link had no empirical evidence or sources at all. Just another unverified claim about homosexuals.

So your links do a good job exposing what many people believe, but there were only two empirical studies done in an attempt to support their claims. Both of these studies use samples that an objective person would have picked if he wanted to show that homosexuals were not more likely to molest children. On the other hand, the case to support the premise that homosexuals are more likely to abuse children is fairly strong and has been replicated in many empirical studies (see my earlier comment for links and summaries).

3) Chuck – your comments have been polite and reasonable although I don't think I'm asking you to prove a negative. It is an empirical question (which means it can be measured to learn the right answer). Given your reasonableness, I have another proposition for you. Tell me what sort of experiment or study would cause you to change your mind on this issue. After you describe it, I'll make the time to search my university's library on the subject and see if I can find a study that comes close to your description. On my honor, I'll post the results of my search, even if they surprise me and support the opposite of what I currently believe.

Don,

1) I too put more weight on empirical studies, but I am wary of seeing their results misinterpreted, which I believe the anti-gay movement has done to great effect. You yourself are doing it with the terminology that -- you're right -- we disagree on.

I believe that a heterosexual male is capable of same-sex molestation without that single act making him gay. Child sexual abuse is most often a crime of opportunity rather than desire. To argue otherwise is to suggest that the desire is normal and that the real problem was the age of the victim, which I don't think you intend. To take your logic to its extreme, everyone can be categorized for life by any activity they performed only once: I was a born again Christian at age 13 and have completely rejected that at age 42, but you'd still call me Christian. 10-year olds commonly engage in same-sex experimentation with their peers -- does this make them gay for life, even if they identify as straight as adults? College age same-sex experimentation is fairly common among young women who never do it again -- does this make them lesbians, even though they identify as straight?

It makes it very convenient for your argument to assign attributes and labels to infrequent or one-time behavior, but I don't think it is accurate to do so.

2) Further research unearthed the following. These are not my words or analysis, it's something I copied from a discussion in Usenet; but it references a study of reliable (one would think) data and summarizes the data with conclusions in opposition to your own. (Forgive me for being lazy with this.)

------------
The Bureau of Crime Statistics
has a 2000 report (NCJ 182990) "Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement" Victim, Incident and Offender Characteristics". If you Google "NCJ 182990" you can get a list, the pdf downloaded file is best since it has all the graphs and tables.

The important points from that report are:

The proportion of female victims in sex crimes for all ages is 86.2% and varies between 69.4% for children under 5, 74.9% for children between 6-11, and 90.9% between 12-17. Above this ages the rate is above 95%.

Figure 4 of this report gives a graph of the rate per 1,000 as a function of age and sex.

There are two peak ages. For both females and males one peak occurs around
4 yrs of age, at around 30/1,000 for females and 12/1,000 for males.

The male victimization rates drops monotonically from the age of 4 and
goes to nearly 0 at 20. At around the age of 14, the male rate is around
6/1000. However, the female rates of victimization drops slight from 30 into the mid 20 and then peaks to about 60/1,000 around 14 yr old and then drops. At 20, female victimization rates are about 20, the male near 0. The female victimization rates never drops below 10 in the range below 30 years of age.

Finally, the relation between victim and offender (table 7).

Between victim ages of 0-5 years, female are victimized by a family member, 51% or an acquaintance, 45.9 and rarely by
a stranger, 3%. For boys the balance is a little different, 42.4% family and 54.1% acquaintance. For whatever age group up to 17, strangers represent less than 10% of the offenders. So even for those on a homosexual witch hunt, don't look for them in the stranger group. Family and friends. But the risk is higher far higher for your teen age daughter than son. She is likely to encounter a nice normal heterosexual than your son will be entrapped by a lurking homo.

The peak age for offenders vary, for young children, the offender age peaks strongly at around 14, not shifting for victimes between 6-11 and barely shifting to around 17 for victims between 12-17.

This report and above figures demonstrate that the main problem with sex crimes concerns male offenders and female victims. This does not minimalize the male victims but one can not just
talk about them as the homophobes seem adept on doing.

-----
(Chuck again)

The anti-gay stance aside, why not take it a step further? One could argue from these results that children are more likely to be molested by men than by women, and thus only single women should be permitted to adopt; that no child should be permitted in any home with a male adult because abuse might happen. Or since children are most likely to be molested by family or acquaintainces, perhaps they should only be cared for by strangers.

3) A study I'd like to see is one looking solely at children in adoptive and foster care settings, comparing incidences of documented (not alleged -- *documented*) sexual abuse *by the adoptive/foster parents* of these children between heterosexual and homosexual households. I've never seen such a study (but then I've never looked for it, either), but I would be surprised to find a higher rate of abuse in the homosexual households. In fact, if you can find such a study, I fully expect the opposite.

Chuck,

Details matter and terminology is important. Before I respond to your points, let me make one request of you. Let's try to avoid loaded terminology like "anti-gay". In my entire life I have only meet a few folks who are anti-gay. I have met many people who want to help gays escape what they consider to be a destructive lifestyle, but they do so out of consideration for their fellow man. And yes, homosexuals can go straight (to avoid another tangent, here is a research summary and here are some testimonials of former homosexuals. Now I know you did not call me anti-gay, which I appreciate, but I dislike seeing the term bandied about when the target is usually people doing their best to help those that they consider (rightly or wrongly) to have a problem and/or doing their best to protect children.

Now, on to our discussion!

You said, I believe that a heterosexual male is capable of same-sex molestation without that single act making him gay. Child sexual abuse is most often a crime of opportunity rather than desire. To argue otherwise is to suggest that the desire is normal and that the real problem was the age of the victim, which I don't think you intend. OK, this is two points. 1) whether or not the single act makes a person gay and 2) child sexual abuse is a crime of opportunity rather than desire. I'll try to address these points in order, using your examples.

Point 1: Behavior and Classification Perhaps my definition was not clear, but if you reread my comment, you'll see that I specifically defined a homosexual as someone who has a (current) sexual attraction to someone of the same gender. The "current" is important as it eliminates arguing from extremes. Thus, using your examples, you could have been classified as a Christian in your youth, but you would not be classified as such now. Or the 10-year-olds in your example may have exhibited homosexual (or bisexual) behavior in their adolescence, but if their adult sexual activities are with the opposite gender, then they are heterosexuals. The distinction is WHEN the activities take place. Yes, people change with time. Let me use a more neutral marketing example. If I am studying consumers of soft drinks and someone tells me he is a Coke fan, I will tentatively label him this way. However, if I monitor his behavior and he regularly imbibes Pepsi I will label him a Pepsi drinker. If he drinks both Coke and Pepsi, I'll label him as a bi-soda drinker. What he drank 10 years ago has no impact on my classification. But his current behavior determines his classification. By definition, someone who commits same-sex acts, is a homosexual if this action is exclusive, or bi-sexual, if this action is non-exclusive. Otherwise, labels are meaningless and analysis is vain.

Point 2: Child sexual abuse: Crime of opportunity or desire? I don't understand your point. Why do you think this is an "either/or" situation? Child sexual abuse is a crime of both opportunity and desire. Neither is sufficient for the crime to occur. With just the opportunity, but no desire, no crime would take place. With just the desire, but no opportunity, you just have a frustrated would-be criminal.

I also don't understand why you say to argue otherwise is to suggest that the desire is normal and that real problem is the age of the victim. Frankly, I'm not even sure what we are discussing here. Forgive my obtuseness, but I am not following your train of thought. Sexual desire is normal when aimed at the appropriate partner and abnormal when it is aimed at the inappropriate partner. Yes, age is one of the factors that can make sexual desire inappropriate. So is species (e.g., most people would agree that bestiality is inappropriate sexual desire and behavior).

Comments on link from USENET I could not find the data to which the USENET post referred, but for the sake of discussion, I'll accept it as accurate. I'll even agree with the author's main point, that heterosexual men commit most of the sexual crimes in America and that most of the victims in America are women (the obvious corollary since heterosexual men target females by definition). This was clear at the beginning of our discussion. The point which we are discussion is that homosexuals molest children disproportionately to their population. So far, all of the empirical evidence which we have reviewed has supported this point other than two reports which suffered from fatal methodology flaws.

You then said The anti-gay stance aside,[It is not anti-gay. If you must label my stance, call it pro-truth. If homosexuals do not commit child abuse disproportionately, some of our existing laws are unjust and should be changed. On the other hand, if homosexuals do commit child abuse in disproportionate numbers, these laws are just and should be strengthened. Knowing the truth is not anti-gay.] why not take it a step further? One could argue from these results that children are more likely to be molested by men than by women, and thus only single women should be permitted to adopt; that no child should be permitted in any home with a male adult because abuse might happen. Or since children are most likely to be molested by family or acquaintainces, perhaps they should only be cared for by strangers.

I suspect you are being facetious, but if I were a single mother with children, I would be very, very concerned. The unfortunate fact that most molested children are likely to know the molester comes back to our earlier discussion on desire and opportunity. Strangers are unlikely to have the opportunity, thus they do not commit many of these crimes (if your satirical suggestion of hiring strangers to take care of children were implemented, I would predict, with a high level of confidence, that even more children would be abused once strangers had opportunity). Natural fathers are probably the absolute safest bet. Yes, there are exceptions, but these are the best odds a little girl is going to get. According to the state records of New Jersey, Indiana and Alaska, step-fathers and boyfriends are 8 times more likely to abuse a child than a natural father. It is a very sad fact and yet another reason why the consequences of divorce are so bad for children.

Personally, as a father of a precious little girl, there are only two other men that I have ever left alone with her without a female chaperone. Her two grandfathers… I am aware of the statistics and protecting her is one of my responsibilities as a father.

I think the study you proposed would be an interesting one and I'll see what I can find. Despite the fact that I think this is a best case scenario for your argument, given the empirical evidence to date I would predict a greater rate of child abuse in homes with homosexual male parents vs. homes with a pair of heterosexuals (I am not familiar with enough lesbian studies to make any predictions about these households).

In the meantime, thank you for the dialogue. I appreciate the difference in perspective, it always helps to have someone check your assumptions.

Don, Chuck,

Nice to see a civil exchange on such an emotional issue. I also appreciate you both posting some references for your points.

Don, I don't understand something you said: "Despite the fact that I think this is a best case scenario for your argument". Why is this a best case scenario for Chuck?

Hi Philip,

I had two reasons for my comment. My initial thought was that adoptive fathers would be more risky than natural fathers. Per our earlier discussion, step-fathers and boyfriends are 8 times more likely to commit these types of crimes than natural fathers. One would expect adoptive fathers to be safer than boyfriends and step-fathers (since presumably they had to agree to adopt the child and want it – whereas the boyfriend/stepfather wanted the mother and the kid(s) came with her) and less safe than natural fathers. On the other hand, you could argue that all adopted children are wanted whereas some natural children are accidents. So I may be wrong about adoptive fathers being more risky after all (and I hope I am).

My other reason is simply statistics. In general, homosexuals do not stay together as long as heterosexuals. This is a statistical observation, not a judgment. So any pair of homosexuals who stayed together long enough to be able to adopt a child is already atypical. I would guess (and it is a guess) that these couples would be safer bets than placing kids with the average homosexual couple.

Despite this, I think such a survey, if one exists, would help us answer our question and I'll see what I can find.

I’m disturbed by your definitions. I’m close friends with a number of abuse and incest survivors – my wife, in fact, was molested by her biological father and so the continuing trauma of child abuse is something that impacts my personal life.

Your equation that abuse of a male child by a man is a “homosexual act” and indicates that the perpetuator is a “homosexual” places the abuse into the same basic category as sexual relations between two consenting adults. In your framework, both are expressions of sexuality and sexual identity. A man molests boys and not girls, because he is “gay.” To be fair, you are consistent – a man abusing a female child is a “heterosexual act.” Abuse in your framework, (I assume) is then a twisted, perverted expression of the perpetuator’s sexuality. And while you don’t actually say this, an underlying assumption I’ve often encountered with similar argument is that since homosexuals are perverts anyway, they will have a tendency to abuse children.

However, your definitions ignore the power dynamics in sexual abuse. I suspect that the majority of perpetuators that commit single sex abuse neither identify themselves as homosexual nor pursue romantic/sexual relationships with adults. Why? Because the dynamics here are not same-sex attraction, but the abuse of power over children. Pedophilia has the same relationship to sex that rape has to sex – it’s neither “sex” nor is an expression of sexuality. For example, no one in the mainstream suggests that rape is an expression of male heterosexual sexuality (even though most rapes are by heterosexual men) and those who do, (like the late Andrea Dworkin) are not taken seriously in most (even feminist) circles. Both rape and pedophilia are expressions of violence and domination -- coercing a child to participate in sexual activity is a far, far cry from sexual activity between two consenting adults.

For example, my wife, her brother and sister were molested by their biological father. Does this make him a “bisexual?” No – because what drove the abuse was not orientation but the need to dominate and abuse power.

Even when the perpetuator is a homosexual, the cause and problem is the abuse of power, not of orientation, in the same way that the cause for abuse by a heterosexual is not their orientation.

The American Psychological Association has concluded that homosexuals are no more likely to commit child abuse than heterosexuals. The response from your viewpoint I imagine is that the APA has a pro-gay “agenda” that color their conclusions. Okay, but what’s not to say that groups like the Family Research Council have their own “agenda” that would color the results as well? Much of the little research (both pro and con) out there on this particular issue has an ideological bent to it. I’m sure you know from your own experience that statistics can be slippery things and that methodology can skewer the results. I would argue that equating incidences of same-sex molestation with homosexuality is one of those ideological choices that affect conclusions.

But what most concerns me about what I see as a witch hunt by “pro-family” groups against homosexuals is that it takes the proper focus from the actual problem of child abuse. When the Catholic priest abuse scandal broke, the response that homosexual priests were to blame was a red herring from the real problem – pedophilia and a church hierarchy that protected the perpetuators. To ban gays from the priesthood would have done little to actually solve the problem. In the same way, trying to prevent child abuse by preventing homosexuals from adopting will do little to deal with child abuse. And since we still live in a society that stigmatizes all things “gay,” to emphasize a homosexual – child abuse connection will stifle discussion on what already a taboo discussion in America.

I believe that conservatives tend to idolize the “traditional” family structure as a cure-all for society’s ills, but in my experience, two-parent households are not a guarantee against trauma. My wife, for example, grew up in a Mormon household headed by two toxic, damaged people that physically, emotionally and sexually abused her. The fact that her family belonged to a conservative religious group that emphasized traditional family values and structure did nothing to stem the abuse she experienced. Furthermore, the Mormon hierarchy was unequipped to deal with her abuse – for example, LDS Social Services does not even keep figures about child abuse in the Church.

In my own faith tradition – Mennonite and Amish – there has been very little discussion about sexual abuse among the more conservative groups that still live in colonies through out the US and Canada. These are family centered groups, but anecdotal evidence suggests that at least in the past, abuse was more widespread than previously thought.

Conservative morality and traditional family structure is not a guarantee against child abuse. I know you mean well Don, but I fear that the emphasis on homosexuals as child predators, will do more harm to dealing with the problem than good.

Pedophilia is not sex. Pedophilia is domination, violence and power.

Looks good, so far!