From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 1 of 4 (Scholarly References On Sexual Orientation & Child Molestation)
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 18:51:27 GMT

In article <12604@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>1. Scholarly (footnoted & written by academics or professionals in the
>fields of mental or public health);

We shall see.

>1. Christopher Bagley and Kathleen King, _Child Sexual Abuse: The
>Search for Healing_, (New York, Tavistock/Routledge: 1990).  Bagley
>is Professor of Social Work at the University of Calgary.  Kathleen
>King is a social worker (MSW) in Nova Scotia.

MY mother got an MSW, and a clinical social work certificate.  Her
undergraduate degree was psychology.  She informs me that intellectual
standards were very low in her MSW program.  Her thesis was a novel,
burt other peoples were such things as (no, I am *not* making this up!)
macrame.  Professors of social work were in good measure bozos.  I
suggest forgetting this one.

>2. Kathleen Coulborn Faller, _Child Sexual Abuse: An Interdiscplinary
>Manual for Diagnosis, Case Management, and Treatment_, (New York,
>Columbia University Press: 1988).

No professional degree indicated.  Who knows?  

>3. Diana Sullivan Everstine and Louis Everstine, _Sexual Trauma in
>Children and Adolescents: Dynamics and Treatment_, (New York, 
>Brunner/Mazel Publishers: 1989).  The Everstines are professionals
>engaged in mental health treatment in Santa Clara County.  The title
>page indicates a total of two Ph.D.s between them, and Louis Everstine
>holds the M.P.H.  (Master's of Public Health).

You should hear my mother on the topic of the mental heath bozos she
met in Santa Clara County.  I don't know who these people are, but the
quotes made them sound like neo-Freudians.  No evidence any of this is
science, unless you want to post some.

>The Ground Rules

>I will not respond to any followup that contains ad hominem attacks,
>even if there are substantive criticisms contained therein, simply
>because it's too draining, and because someone who lacks the self-
>control to respond to facts without engaging in character assassination
>isn't worth my time; it's a sign that someone is so irrational as 
>to be a waste of time to argue with.  

You are such a complete clueless lackwit you probably think this sentence
is an _ad hominem_ attack, and my postings less rational than the absolute
nonsense you have been posting.  

>As you read the material in this posting, I think it will become 
>increasingly obvious while homosexuals become so livid at my postings:

Probably the same reasons the Jews in Germany didn't much like Herr
Goebbels.  If you gave a reasoned argument you might find the response
to be different.

>    Also, sometimes the victim will repress the sexual abuse.
>    This is more likely to happen when the sexual abuse occurred
>    sometime in the fairly distant past.  The entire scenario
>    may be repressed or just parts of it.[Faller, 176]

>Why is this relevant?  At various times in the last year, I have
>pointed to the large number of admissions of child sexual abuse
>received by homosexuals posting in soc.motss, and suggested that
>there might be some connection between the child sexual abuse and
>their current sexual orientation -- and the ready response from
>other homosexuals was, "I wasn't molested, so there can't be
>a connection."

So if you don't have any evidence, you propose to make some up?
I suggest you go out and find a study on the incidence of child
sexual abuse in homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals.  This should
be by someone who knows how to conduct such a study, by the way.
Otherwise, you don't have evidence.
-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51002 alt.politics.clinton:9796