From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 4 Nov 92 18:42:11 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <lfe38lINNk65@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
> In article <13041@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <lf329eINN5fa@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
# ## There is a(nother) major flaw in Clayton's "statistics".  If you are
# ## interested in the relative rate at which "homosexuals" molest boys, it
# ## is not valid to use a narrow definition of "homosexual" to measure
# ## their portion of the general population (ignoring all the people in
# ## the population with latent tendencies or in denial, for example), and
# 
# Clayton, you left out, following "and" above:
# 
#    an expansive definition of "homosexual" to measure their portion of 
#    the molesting population (including all people in the population with
#    latent tendencies or in denial, for example).
# 
# Tell me, why did you leave this out?  If it were in my nature to
# assume malice by default, I'd have to say that you intentionally took
# that out of context so you could misinterpret it.

I left it out because it wasn't relevant.  We can't measure latent
tendencies, in denial, etc.  We can measure behavior, though.

# #You mean, "don't count the homosexuals based on who they have sex
# #with, just the ones that don't molest kids."  Homosexuals are
# #redefining "homosexual" to get around the problem of homosexual
# #molestation.  Sorry, it won't work.
# 
# First, I can only give you a mathematically literate heterosexual
# point of view.  Don't blame homosexuals for my opinions, ok?
# 
# Second, I'm not redefining anything.  I'm insisting on a consistent
# definition of what a "homosexual" is.  You are insisting on an

So am I.

# inconsistent definition (inflating the homosexual portion of a
# criminal group, and deflating their portion of the general population,
# so that it looks like homosexuals are disproportionately criminal.)
# Why not a consistent definition for both measurements?  (Could it be
# that your claims evaporate?)

I am using a consistent definition, based on behavior.

# What's your estimate of the portion of the general male population
# that is "homosexual"?  I've seen you use 5-10%, where I believe 10% is
# Kinsey's estimate for the portion that is exclusively homosexual.

No.  Kinsey's estimates are no longer taken seriously because of the
demographics of his sample population.

# What is Kinsey's estimate for the number of people who are latent, in
# denial, or otherwise display homosexual tendencies? (studied in the

I used current studies, cited by Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny, that
show that 3.3% of the male population is homosexual or bisexual, and 
less than that for females.

# same way that the researchers who studied child molestors studied
# them).  It's a larger number, so, instead of being able to claim that

Child molesters are classified based on behavior, because of the
difficulties in measuring what's going on in their heads.

# (on average) homosexuals molest twice as many children per capita than
# heterosexuals (20% divided by 10%), you must make the much less
# impressive claim that the rate is, say, 33% higher (20% divided by
# 15%, if 5% of the population is latent but not overtly homosexual) or
# only equal (if 10% of the population is latent but not overtly
# homosexual).
# 
# Do you understand this?  You must compare equals -- it's got to be
# oranges vs oranges, not oranges versus citrus.

The 10% figure is false, and nearly everyone in the field agrees
it's bogus.

# 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.

# 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.

# 3. Counting latent homosexuals as "homosexuals" may be interesting
#    from a psychological point of view, but given that I'm not
#    especially good at detecting non-latent homosexuals, I don't see
#    how it has much practical significance.  If A implies B, but I
#    have no way of detecting A, I don't get a lot of help in
#    avoiding B.

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.

# David Chase
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
October is National Quality Month.  That's why we wait until the first
Tuesday in November for national elections.

Xref: sparky ba.politics:6871 ca.politics:9411 talk.politics.misc:58756