yguy

As usual, the question is better directed at someone who has made such a claim.

Daggah

In specific situations (varying from person to person, of course), masochists experience endorphin release from pain. I personally have experienced this.

Sorry ladies and gents, but I won't go any further than that. :-P

Dr Rick

...Of the 544 male subjects with no evidence of homosexuality, 185 (34%) were perpetrators; of the 203 male subjects who were homosexually inclined, only 40 (20%) were perpetrators; the differences were significant (2=14.4; P<0.001; odds ratio=2.1; 95% CI 1.42-3.10)."
The British Journal of Psychiatry (2001) 179: 482-494Cycle of child sexual abuse: links between being a victim and becoming a perpetrator M. GLASSER (deceased), FRCPsych and I. KOLVIN, FRCPsych

"The man who offends against pre-pubertal or immediately post-pubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women"
Aust N Z J Psychiatry, April 1, 1998; 32(2): 252-65.
Paedophilia: a review of the evidence. N McConaghy

dk's assumption is clearly false and circular. Pedophiles do not select their victims by adult gender-attraction criteria. He is defining men that abuse boys as homosexuals; therefore, he will find homosexuals abuse boys.

note; The reason why I didn't post this earlier is that it's hard to find this kind of info utilizing typical medline search techniques, and that's because this nonsense about "homosexuals being more likely to abuse children" has been discredited and doesn't warrant any more study than other racist/bigoted beliefs still do. These findings were buried in papers about pedophilia that discussed/studied unsettled issues; the sexual-orientation stuff was part of the statistics gathered, but weren't prominent (and therefore harder to find) because they aren't anything new.

yguy

This certainly appears to contradict Dr. Laura's claim at face value. I would point out that according to the material posted here by Miss Djax, pedophiles can't possibly be homosexuals, so there appears to be a disparity within the psychiatric community as to definitions. Since I have no way to evaluate the validity of the study's methods, my stance at this point is one of suspended judgment.

Thanks for the research, Doc.

keyser_soze

I apologize yguy, for my comments. Apparently you are capable of making an informed opinion, or relaxing one in the face of evidence. So I will make a suggestion: You research it yourself, and I mean looking at sources OBJECTIVELY. Perhaps I'm wrong about you, in light of this...but of course it's a suspended judgement kind of thing...it is to be determined if you will look into it or just stop using this particular argument.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): I'm left to wonder why you didn't exercize the same intellectual caution with respect to the 2nd-hand quote from Dr Laura that you posted.

Dr Rick

Your welcome, yguy; isn't it nice when two opinionated people with very different povs can exchange information without insulting eachother? Let's both try to make that the rule rather than the exception.

Nobodies mind is definitely changed, but that's okay; we both learned something.

dk

The limitations of the study follow

• The subjects of this study derive from an unusual, selected clinical population and are not representative of the wider population of victims or perpetrators of child sexual abuse.
• The retrospective case note review methodology is open to questions regarding unsystematic recording of the data and recall bias.
• Systematic checks were not available about denial of abusive behaviour. However, it is argued that the subjects were more likely to disclose intimate personal details under the confidential forensic psychotherapy conditions of the 1980s than in the current social and legal climate.

- REVIEW ARTICLE ; Cycle of child sexual abuse

Furthermore the study was designed to examine the cycle of child abuse, not investigate the link between paraphilia and gays.

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):

"[COLOR=dark-blue]CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:

Our data support the notion of a cycle of child sexual abuse in a minority subgroup of male perpetrators attending a specialist national forensic psychotherapy centre. [note: no relation between homosexuality and the cycle is found - Rick]

There was no evidence of a cycle of abuse in the female attendees.

Although the numbers are small, abuse by a female during childhood appears to be a risk factor for a cycle of abuse in males.[/COLOR]

LIMITATIONS:


The subjects of this study derive from an unusual, selected clinical population and are not representative of the wider population of victims or perpetrators of child sexual abuse.

The retrospective case note review methodology is open to questions regarding unsystematic recording of the data and recall bias.

Systematic checks were not available about denial of abusive behaviour. However, it is argued that the subjects were more likely to disclose intimate personal details under the confidential forensic psychotherapy conditions of the 1980s than in the current social and legal climate."

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:

"[color=dark-blue]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[/color][emphasis added].

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?

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.

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 homoseucality, but because characterization of the traits of pedophilias was one of the goals of the study.

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

DrRick: dk's assumption is clearly false and circular. Pedophiles do not select their victims by adult gender-attraction criteria. He is defining men that abuse boys as homosexuals; therefore, he will find homosexuals abuse boys.
dk: My point was that the definitions used to develop psychological DMS-IV paraphilia list are baseless, including pedophilia because homosexuality was removed from the list.
People that want to normalize pedophilia are the scum of the earth, and a primary source of support stems from the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement.

My personal theory is much simpler. Gays kill more gays, Caucasians kill more Caucasians and Blacks kill more Blacks because they live together. In the 1990s when gay associations won access to public education for hiv/aids education, they transported hiv/aids into the public schools. Since the 1960s Gays have migrated to big metropolitan areas like NYC, LA and SF but lacked access to children. Today gays are gaining access to children, and consequences are quite predictable. The problem with psychological studies is they can only look back at the world that used to be, and that world no longer exists.