From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:47:12 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

You know, I really love this.  I thought that finally we were going to see
some real evidence to support Clayton's crusade.  I thought that finally we'd
have something to read, something to argue about.  Unfortunately, I was mostly
wrong.  All he's done in this 300-line posting is to present some character-
istics of people who were molested as children.  Then he says that a certain
(unspecified) percentage of homosexuals also have some of these character-
istics.  Therefore, they were molested as children.  Do I really have to
point out the logical flaw in that?

Additionally, he still makes the fundamental error, which invalidates all of
his arguments, that the people who post to soc.motss are representative of
homosexuals in general.

Finally, he discusses the scholarly works--but the speculations are mostly
his, not theirs, and are not supported by his quotations.

Some specific instances:

> Identifying With The Abuser

[discusses this, using references, then proceeds to follow it with his
speculations--unsupported by the research, nor by any reputable authority.]

> We should not be surprised at the number of net.homosexuals who
> have related accounts of molestation by adults, and who insist
> vigorously that THEY were the aggressor, not the adult, and that
> the experience of being used by an adult as a sexual plaything 
> at 12 was a positive experience.

Please tell us how many this was, Clayton.  What is the percentage of people
who post to soc.motss who have related accounts of molestation by adults?
How many young men (or women) have initiated (or claimed to initiate) sex
with members of the opposite sex?

In short, Clayton, you still don't have the evidence to back up this claim
of yours.

> Eating Disorders

[discusses this, using references, then proceeds to follow it with his
speculations--unsupported by the research, nor by any reputable authority.]

> Significantly, soc.motss is a group
> where many members identify themselves as "bears" (overweight
> and hairy) as distinguished from "twinks" (those with more
> normal body shapes).

Significant to you, perhaps, but you still don't have the evidence to back
up this "significance" of yours, Clayton.  Also, can you please define
"many"?  What is the percentage of people who post to soc.motss who identify
themselves as such?  The percentage of people who read soc.motss who do
the same?  The percentage of homosexuals in the entire country who do this?

> Promiscuity

Ah, now this one, he actually presents some research from Masters & Johnson
that appears to corroborate his claim.  One to Clayton.  Four caveats,
though:  One, can you please post the corresponding data for heterosexuals?
Two, when was the survey taken?  Three, can you provide any evidence that
this promiscuity is 1) related to child molestation/abuse, or 2) intrinsic
to homosexuality?  Four, how was their sample set chosen?  Finally, discuss
alternate theories of promiscuity--e.g., low self-esteem--since you haven't
yet produced any evidence that molestation is responsible for this pro-
miscuity (nor did Masters & Johnson claim this).

> Powerlessness

[discusses this, using references, then proceeds to follow it with his
speculations--unsupported by the research, nor by any reputable authority.]

> which certainly describes the continual whining in soc.motss
> about being an oppressed minority in a heterosexist world.

Since the oppression is real and documented, that rather lets the wind
out of your sails on this one.  A person is not paranoid if everyone is
indeed out to get him.  Sorry, Clayton, you strike out again.

> Self-Mutilation & Piercing

[discusses this, using references, then proceeds to follow it with his
speculations--unsupported by the research, nor by any reputable authority.]

> The obvious parallel to "piercings," in which homosexuals
> (though not exclusively homosexuals) have nipples (male and
> female), scrotums, and the labia pierced, should be obvious.

Since none of your authorities mentions this, I'd say that this speculation
of *yours* is perhaps not as obvious as you might think.  Incidentally,
how many homosexuals pierce portions of their bodies?  How many hetero-
sexuals?  Sorry, Clayton, another strike.

> Chemical Dependency
> 
[discusses this, using references, then proceeds to follow it with his
speculations--unsupported by the research, nor by any reputable authority.
Sorry, Clayton, but Arthur Hu is not exactly noted for getting his facts
straight.  The validity of the data is indeed questionable.]

> As you can see, a lot of homosexuals not only have chemical
> dependencies, but were sexually abused as kids -- more than
> you would expect, if there were no connection between their 
> sexual abuse, and their current behavior.

So, once again, we have Clayton's speculations, without any evidence to
support them.  Sigh....  Your references do not support your conclusions,
Clayton (no surprise there).

Now, Clayton, shall we discuss alternate reasons for alcoholism?  There
are a hell of a lot of alcoholics out there that were not abused as
children.  Why, we might even discuss low self-esteem and societal rejec-
tion as causes for alcoholismm.

> Suicide
[discusses this, using references, then proceeds to follow it with his
speculations--unsupported by the research, nor by any reputable authority.]

> Perhaps homosexuality isn't
> the reason for the suicides, but both are symptoms of the same
> underlying pain?

Big of you to admit that this supposition isn't supported by your research.
Shall we once again talk about low self-esteem and societal rejection?
Another strike.

> Interesting Parallels
> 
> As should be obvious from the list of symptoms described
> above, there is some astonishing parallelism between the char-
> acteristics of childhood sexual abuse victims, and homosexuals.

No, what's obvious is that your obsession has totally blinded you once
again.  In every case but one, you have completely failed to prove that
the homosexual population exhibits the characteristics of people
molested as children.  In every case but one, your suppositions and
conclusions are *not* supported by the data you present.  And, in
every case but one, you once again whine about reading soc.motss.  Now,
why don't you go back to the library and try to find a source that
supports your conclusions?

> "[V]irtually all the paraphilias have their origins in a person's 
> early sexual history."[Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny, 426]  This also 
> fits in with my hypothesis that homosexuality is a result of childhood
> sexual abuse

*Your* theory, unsupported by any evidence and not backed up by any
reputable authority!  Get the goddamned facts, Clayton.

> "I've Always Been Gay"
> 
> This claim is made frequently -- one email correspondent related
> getting started having sex at seven, and suggested that homosexuals
> just get started younger than straight people.

Hell, Clayton, straight people start out just the same time as homo-
sexual ones.  Or haven't you heard of two favorite childhood occupa-
tions (playing doctor and "I'll show you mine if you show me yours").

> The parallel
> to molested children expressing a precocious knowledge or interest
> in sex is obvious

And once again, this parallel is not supported by any evidence nor by
any research.  Another strike.

> -- but can we trust the claim, "I've always been
> gay"?  In spite of Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny being so very 
> Politically Correct about homosexuality, they discount this claim:

Bravo!  You actually have a second conclusion supported by some evidence.
What's that now, something like two out of ten or so?  Not bad--better than
your usual record.

Same old crap, folks.  He's found evidence to support only two of his claims:
that homosexuals tend to be promiscuous and that homosexuals are not born
gay.  The rest of them, well, he still doesn't have the facts to support his
claims.  Want to try again, Clayton?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------