From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:43:32 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <13062@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <lfe38lINNk65@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
> 
> The 10% figure is false, and nearly everyone in the field agrees
> it's bogus.

You've consulted one (1) study (Masters & Johnson) and you now feel qualified
to state what "everyone in the field" thinks?  Give me a break....

> # There's several other major problems with your numbers that you don't
> # seem to address.
> # 
> # 1. The higher number of victims per molestor seems like it might skew
> #    the detection rate for molestors of boys -- if they are detected
> #    more easily, that would both increase their representation in the
> #    group of known molestors, and decrease their representation in the
> #    homosexual population.  (On the other hand, perhaps different
> #    reporting rates make it possible to molest longer before detection.)
> 
> EVEN IF we accept this possibility, it means that homosexual molesters
> are much more dangerous than heterosexual molesters, and caution is
> therefore justified.

Well, do you accept the possibility or don't you?  In any case, caution is
*not* justified for one simple reason--the majority of men who molest boys
lead heterosexual lifestyles.  If you decide to use "caution" in hiring
homosexual men on this basis, you will be completely ignoring the majority
of offenders.  The people you'll be using "caution" on are in fact less likely
than the average heterosexual male to molest children.

This is akin to the bogus argument that the military used for so many years--
that homosexuals were a security risk.  The only homosexuals that were a
security risk were those still in the closet, not the openly homosexual people
that the military was rejecting.

> # 2. The higher number of victims per molestor also seems to confuse the
> #    issue; as your own numbers show, the chance that any given
> #    homosexual male molests boys is far lower that the chance that a
> #    given heterosexual male molests girls; however, given two
> #    molestors, the odds are that the molestor-of-boys has molested
> #    more children.
> 
> No, it says nothing of the sort.

Then what does it say?  I agree with David that that is exactly what your own
statistics say.  If you disagree, then why don't you post an alternative
explanation?  Brian Kane has also posted refutations of your claims, also 
based on your own numbers.  If you disagree with this, then why don't you
respond?

> Who said anything about "latent" homosexuals?  A man who has sex
> with another male is a homosexual -- as nearly all the sources
> I consulted agreed.

Not according to the information you posted, I'm afraid.  Your "mother"
postings only provided information that one (1) of your sources agreed with
your interpretation.  That is not "nearly all".  If you have additional
sources or more information from the sources you cited, then please provide
it.  Otherwise, I'm afraid that once again you're making claims unsupported
by the evidence.

And as has been pointed out by others in the past, your "black & white"
scenario (that a man having sex with another man is automatically homosexual)
is far too simplistic and does not reflect reality.  I can come up with
half a dozen scenarios in which a man has sex with another man and yet can
not be called homosexual by any reasonable analysis.

In any case, the people you are describing as "homosexual" in fact only had
sex with boys, not with men, and led, in every other respect, heterosexual
lifestyles.   As has been pointed out by others, a number of mental health
experts believe that such men cannot be labeled "homosexual".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------