dk

Dr Rick: It's obvious that dk cut and pasted a portion of the article itself; the study authors put that at the end as a kind of brief summation (the parts left out by dk are highlighted):
dk: Good catch Rick, I also provided a link to the source. Why do you so seldom provide links to sources you quote?
(snip)

dk: Furthermore the study was designed to examine the cycle of child abuse, not investigate the link between paraphilia and gays.
Dr Rick: The "cycle of child abuse" is part of the title; when one reads a scientific peer-reviewed paper, it's generally a good idea to look at what the authors state was their purpose:
"Aims: To identify perpetrators of such abuse who had been victims of paedophilia and/or incest, in order to: ascertain whether subjects who had been victims become perpetrators of such abuse; compare characteristics of those who had and had not been victims; and review psychodynamic ideas thought to underlie the behaviour of perpetrators[emphasis added]. - ibid
dk: That’s what I said, the study had nothing to do with homosexuality, or a possible link to homosexuality.

Dr Rick: As I pointed-out before, no one is seriously going to waste time and grant money primarily studying "the link between paraphilia and gays" anymore than someone is going to try and study if their is link between pedophilia and demons. The results of either type of study, no matter how rigorously the research is conducted, are unlikely to get published. Does anyone in the scientific community really need to read that demons don't cause pedophilia or that pedophilia and homosexuality are not linked?
dk: There has been painfully little research on paraphilia done because its politically incorrect. Here’s the kicker…
People lie Dr. Rick, and sexual predators are, as a rule, practiced liars.

Dr Rick: That doesn't mean in that a psychology journal there will never be a reference to demons or sexual orientation of pedophiles; it just means you're not likely to read a study aimed primarily at determining one of those things. But just because there's no recent study aiming to prove or disprove that demons cause pedophilia doesn't mean that there's still a question about the link.
dk: It means psychology journals are unreliable.

Dr Rick: If dk were to read and understand the article, he would find that the characterization of probable sexual-orientation was done quite rigourously. Not because there's a question about a link between paraphilia and homosexuality, but because characterization of the traits of pedophilias was one of the goals of the study.
dk: I don’t read into studies what I want to hear.

Dr Rick: Since no method of scientific inquiry is perfect, anything studied scientifically will have potential confounders. The authors identified places where things might have skewed data which is usually a sign of objectivity. If the reviewers felt the authors weren't rigourous enough, they wouldn't have published the darn thing in the first place
dk: I don’t have a problem with the study, its what biased people read into studies that causes problems.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): Removing pedophilia from a list of mental illnesses would no more change the criminality involved in sexually using a child, than removing pyromania from such a list would change the criminality involved in burning down a building.
Now, I don't recall if it's you or yguy who feels under no obligation to substantiate what you say, so I may be wasting my time, but I'd appreciate some justification for your assertion that a primary source of support to "normalize" (whatever that means) pedophilia comes from the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement.

yguy

Thanks, Doc. I certainly couldn't have done nearly as good a job of discrediting researchers in this area.

dk

From the mouth of babes, "The situation of the paraphilias at present parallels that of homosexuality in the early 1970s. Without the support or political astuteness of those who fought for the removal of homosexuality, the paraphilias continue to be listed in the DSM," Moser and Kleinplatz wrote.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): Nothing there to show that removing pedophilia from a list of mental illnesses would result in decriminalizing child sex abuse.
And nothing there to show that the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement is a prime mover behind some imagined movement to "normalize" pedophilia.

Do you have a point?

yguy

He's right, dk - you're misreading that. It actually says "gay" advocates aren't supporting removal from the DSM.

Dr Rick

I always try to provide references to my sources, and unlike some posters, I try to reference the sources and the actual studies, not just the opinion pieces that often follow.

But my access to the literature is not shared by everyone on the planet; some sources, though by no means secret, require a subscription or fee. I already have access to many of those sites as part of my work, but not everyone does. As a result, I found out long ago that what I can link to is not always available, so I stopped linking to journal sites. But nonetheless, I still reference my sources, so that those sites that are open can be seen by any non-subscribers that may have access.

As dk found out, it's easy to find a site I reference if it's open to everyone or if one already has access to it.

Wrong.

As part of the study, the researchers collected excellent data to characterize pedophiliac characteristics. That the study's primary aim was not to establish what is already well-established does not allow one to conclude that the study had no bearing on what is already well-established.

In the course of collecting data, the researchers accumulated data that incidently confirms what is already well-established.

If that was the only study on the entire planet done on pedophilia, it could possibly be a kicker. However, hundreds of studies have been done on peodphilia, and no reliable data has been collected that can support an accusation that homosexuals are more likely to assault children.

Let's look at the reference dk provides but fails to link: it addresses the general category of paraphilia, which includes but is much broader than pedophilia, but does not include any evidence that allows a conclusion that studies directed at pedophilia confirming there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia are invalid. The researcher themselves draw no such inferences.

<biting my tongue, biting my tongue...that one is way to easy>

It means that objective scientific studies have practical limits, particularly when it comes to the applied sciences. Those limits are no secret.

Dude, you don't know how to read scientific studies. You don't understand them, nor do you know how to interpret their conclusions, limits, or meaning.

Your lack of understanding is vulgarly apparent

That by itself would normally be okay; the same could be said of me when it comes to legal briefs. No one is an expert in everything.

What's not okay is to try to lecture and interpret for others a subject one cannot comprehend.

Boom!

<AARRRGGH> , gawd dammit!;
these irony meters aren't cheap, you know...

dk

The APA has had nothing new to say about paraphilia for almost 30 years, especially pedophilia. In fact for reasons beyond my humble mind to reason the APA calls pedophilia... "An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act and this is never considered normal or socially acceptable behavior." (AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION STATEMENT DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR PEDOPHILIA; June 17, 2003 ). This almost sounds like a religious statement. The quote I gave begged support from homosexual activists for pedophilia. I’m not sure why anyone at a scientific meeting would make an appeal to gay activists?

yguy

I think pedophiles see homosexuals as having the attitude that says, "To hell with you Jack, I've got mine."

I also think perversion pushers have realized that organizations like Queer Nation, ActUp, NAMBLA and the like are easy targets and have donned the cloak of academic erudition as camoflage.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Two steps forward, one step back.

Nowhere357

Here is another self-evident assertion: People seriously disturbed by homosexual behavior are, for a fact, seriously disturbed.