From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.flame
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 3 of 4
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:09:17 GMT
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany

In article <12606@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
writes:

>The number "10%" has been ignorantly (or perhaps dishonestly)
>thrown around for so long by the homosexual community, that a
>lot of people just accept it as fact.

If people like Jesse Helms would quit blocking it, the NIH was prepared
to do a study to get a better-established figure.  Various researchers
have come up with different numbers, but Kinsey was the biggest and
best-known study, so it is natural (wanting a figure) to use the sum of
the Kinsey 5 and 6 classes.

>Why does the percentage of homosexuals matter?  First of all, because
>the number "10%" is used to scare politicians into voting the "right"
>way.  

Doesn't work though, does it?  Politicians don't need help to figure
this sort of stuff out, which is why you see the votes split along
party lines so often.

>Secondly, because a percentage as large as, or larger than, the
>number of molestation victims would destroy any argument of causality
>between child molestation and the victim becoming an adult homosexual.

This is a truly paranoid idea.  When and how did this delusion occur to
you? Once again I wonder if you shouldn't get psychological counseling.

>It has been an article of faith for the homosexual community that
>a child molester isn't "a homosexual," regardless of the sex of
>his victims.  This wonderfully reassuring (to homosexuals) idea 
>seems not to have taken hold with any of the three specialized
>books examined.  Quite the opposite.  In describing a study done 
>in Calgary:

>    Abuse of both males and females was overwhelmingly at the
>    hands of males, so the abuse of boys was usually homosexual
>    in nature.[Bagley & King, 122]

Clayton, anyone with the intelligence to post to the net should be
capable of seeing that this is simply a tautology, conveying absolutely
no (as in none, as in 0) information.  To quote this in support of your
argument is to sink to a new low of absolute, moronic stupidity.  Wipe
the damned drool off your damned chin and think occasionally.

What a maroon!

>In describing the nature of the abuse received by children:
>
>    The encounters with female victims were usually heterosexual
>    (94%), whereas for males they were usually homosexual (84%).
>    [Faller, 18]

Which is just another way of saying most molesters are male, you dumb
stupid get.  People like you should be sterilized to preserve the gene
pool.

>    The molester is a man who, by default, tends to rely on women
>    for support and nurturance.  He has always found, in the adult
>    women who guided him through the shoals of childhood, a source
>    of solace.  As a result, he has become dependent upon female
>    authority figures, even though he resents this trait in him-
>    self.  At an unconscious level, he feels a strong identification
>    with women, but he would never be able to confront or admit
>    this introjected *persona*.

Sounds like a bunch of Freudian BS, and nothing to do with science.
Not that it is relevant in any case.

>    The molester tends to deny his homosexuality.  As Geiser
>    (1979) put it, "It is not unusual for a child molester to
>    express strong feelings against homosexuals" (p. 92)  This
>    self-deception is a key to understanding the fact that he
>    is, in many cases, a married man who has fathered children.
>    By not having overt adult-with-adult homosexual experiences,
>    he manages to (by a certain form of logic) to avoid the
>    stigma of being the "gay" men who is living a lie by being
>    married to a woman.

In other words, he is not gay-identified, and is not what is normally
meant by a gay or homosexual person.  Which is precisely the point you
were proposing to refute.  My God you are stupid.

>Obviously, this sort of "closeted homosexual" is more dangerous 
>in the closet than out.  But if we pass antidiscrimination laws
>that protect based on sexual orientation, he can come out of the 
>closet, and a day care center, school, or Boy Scouts of America
>will be unable to exclude him from employment.

You really can't absorb the implications of what you have just yourself
quoted, can you?  I think Clayton really should go on the Council
of net.idiots for this one.  Damn, but he is stupid.
>
>Much to my surprise, my thoughts on this subject weren't the
>first.  The Everstines describe the ways in which, long-term,
>a female victim may respond to the damaged parent-child relation-
>ship:

>
>    She might adopt an asexual or homosexual lifestyle, as a
>    method of coping with the original incestuous conflict,
>    designed to protect her from the source of trauma in 
>    possible future conflicts.[Everstine & Everstine, 101]

This stuff is meaningless Freudian drivel unless there are statistics
to back it up.  Or didn't you know that?

>Bagley & King take a more direct position, though they commit
>great crimes against good English in the process:

>    Boys who had been sexually abused and who as young adults
>    were currently practising homosexuals, had rather poor
>    self-concept in comparison with all other groups, except
>    those who were currently homosexual but who had never been
>    sexually abused as children.

>It took me a while to parse that sentence, 

Why am I not surprised?

>In brief, the bottom  rungs in self-concept were the homosexual young
>adults.  But the  amazing statement is the following sentence:

From which you might conclude that childhood activity is good for you,
which is also the opposite of what you want to argue for.  Again, these
quote mean nothing absent any indication of methods and data. In
particular, what was the sample group of non-molested homosexuals and
ho was it concluded they had poor self-concept?

>    It looks as though sexual abuse of boys acts for some as a
>    kind of recruitment process into adult homosexuality:
>    it is the conflicts surrounding the homosexual role rather
>    than the childhood abuse *per se* which diminishes self-
>    esteem and self-concept.[Bagley & King, 122]

>Yup.  Molesting boys seems to be a recruiting process into
>adult homosexuality.  That's not just some crazy guy at Optilink,
>that's a professor of social work.

Read it again.  The authors did not draw a causal link between sexual
abuse and adult homosexuality.  At least, if that was their  intention
they failed to say so clearly.  They claim there is a causal link
between homosexuality and low self-esteem, but they don't say why or
how this conclusion was arrived at.  They are also *denying* that
sexual abuse of children does them any harm in itself.

>Note, also, that I am NOT saying that every homosexual is a child
>molester, or is likely to be one.

This is just as well, since your quotes not only do not support this
conclusion, but tend to refute it.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc