Study of 1038 pedophiles shows no link with adult homosexuality

http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf

A study of 16,109 individuals was divided into three groups of people:

1: The "control group" made up of self-reported non-child molesters
2: The group of individuals who reported themselves as non-child molesters, but whom were suspected to be nevertheless (due to having been convicted of child molesting, having been reported by multiple family members or having made some excuse about why they molested the child).
3: self-reported child molesters.

Of the sample, 1038 individuals were identified specifically as pedophiles (with criteria including that the person be over 18, their victims be under 13, and that the desires or abuse lasted for longer than 6 months.

The study itself was intended to research the problem of pediphilia and identify solutions to help prevent future occurrences. To this end, the study aimed largely at creating a profile of a pedophile, so that they could be identified early on and ideally treated before any molestation occurs.

One part of the study specifically considered if there was or was not a link between the adult homosexual or heterosexual attractions of the pedophile and gender of the child(ren) that the pedophile molested.

The report itself was referenced by the Mayo Clinic in their report here: http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

In addition, the findings are consistant with the direct wording used by the authors of the mayo clinic report:

Indeed, the Mayo Clinic is quite explicit throughout their report to specify that the homosexuality they speek of with regard to pedophiles is specifically their orientation towards children, and does not imply that it's meant to include the category of all homosexuals together.

I hope this can help clear up some of the misreporting and misinterpreting some have done of the Mayo clinic's report. It may be difficult to believe that there can be a difference in orientation towards adults vs children. Regardless, it can't be implied that the Mayo report intended anything different.

 

It surely does clear things up; especially for those who haven't been paying attention before or (more importantly) those who would take the Mayo Clinic data, and skew it (as someone has in this forum) for the purpose of furthering their own (in my opinion) sinister agenda.

 

And who will continue to do so and repeat the same points. Are we taking bets on how many posts in that will happen?

 

I know that person will continue... but at some point (and we've reached it), it's like someone trying to say that water isn't 'wet'.

You either laugh at it, or show that the person is being idiotic.

 

I think people have a hard time seperating pedophilia with ephebaphilia (if I am spelling that right)

No one thinks a straight man is a pedophile if he finds a eighteen year old girl attractive...but for some reason if a gay man finds an eighteen year old boy attractive, he gets labeled a pedophile..*roll eyes*

or seventeen, or sixteen...

now don't get me wrong, I DO FIRMLY believe that men need to keep their paws off the teenagers, I don't think it is pedophilia..(I would feel the same way if I had a teenage girl OR boy) and I do support statutory rape laws...and I think men that try to date teenagers are immature...but!

gay does NOT equal pedophile.

 

___Exactly!!___

 

Hmm....what's that sound?

:crickets:

One wonders how much longer the avoidance of this thread will continue. Must be awfully hard to resist, considering it has even been linked to in replies elsewhere.

 

Sadly this won't change how certain members make threads attempting to link homosexuality with pedophilia.

 

Did you expect anything less?

I'm fairly sure she's read it, I can see the change of tactic in some of her posts:

http://www.politicalforum.com/1060893539-post411.html

We're now reduced to an argument that:

1: Imprinting (for pedophilia) exists because the Mayo Clinic says so.
2: Gays are molested as children "epidemically", and must have been imprinted on in that process

Ironically, the pedophiles end up being heterosexual the vast majority of the time when they are molested, but she's claiming that the "normal" gays must have been imprinted as homosexual when they were abused. If the homosexuality did not imprint on the pedophile that was molested, then there's no reason to believe it was imprinted on the non-pedophiles who were molested.

And then there's her support arguments:
3: Oh and look at this crazy website with definitions that proves gay culture at large supports pedophilia.
4: Oh and look at this questionable politician and see how his skeletons in his closet prove all gays support those skeletons.

Which prove little of course.

 

Uuuuuuuhhhhh Ill need to see some contradictory evidence. 8% + 19% + 9%= 36%

4% of the population makes up 36% of the men who molest boys. Men who have sex with men are NINE TIMES as likely to molest boys as men who do not have sex with men.

And isnt it revealing. Not a single one of these homosexual pedophiles that isnt really a homosexual because he is only attracted to children

 

Illiteracy FTL.

Go back and read again.

 

Make a point, if you can.

 

From the study:

As with other characteristics, the group of 1038 men who molest boys followed the general pattern of the U.S. male population in regard to their adult sexual preferences.

​

In other words, homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally likely to be pedophiles.

 

Sooooo lets see your evidence that 36% of the male population has sex with men. Ive showed you mine that states its 4%. Read the facts, not just the conclusions.

 

You're missing what the study is saying. The study shows that, among the pedophiles, a proportional amount identified as heterosexual or homosexual when it came to their adult preferences. Therefore showing that someone who has a preference for adults of the same sex is no more likely to also have a preference for children than a heterosexual.

Again, illiteracy FTL.

 

You are correct. And certain people try very hard to pin "pedophilia" upon homosexuals, in order to vilify them.

 

Your study says 51% of the men who molested boys were exclusively heterosexual, sooooo lets see your evidence that ONLY 51% of men are exclusively heterosexual.

 

To wit:

That illiteracy can be a killer.

 

To be "Pro Masculine" (Gay) is a main tenant of NAMBLA

 

I can see the conclusion. I am referring to the facts. If you would simply look at the facts you would see they are using the Kinsey study from the 50s to base their assertion upon. ABSURD!.

 

Apparently the Mayo Clinic liked them as a source, and supported the conclusion

http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

And that's the point... she can't push forward the mayo clinic as such an AMAZING, Slam Dunk source for her position, while picking and choosing which parts do and do not support her position.

 

The two sources are measuring two different things:

My source was measuring what people IDENTIFIED themselves as... whether they identified themselves as heterosexual, mostly heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. This does not imply that they had to have had sex with the men.

On the other hand, your source does. Your source was measureing specifically the number of men who have sex with men (msm)

There is often disagreement on what the definition of "homosexual" is, making it difficult to compare studies side-by-side without carefully examining their criteria. Does a man having a slight sexual attraction to another man that they saw make them gay, bi, mostly heterosexual, or heterosexual.... even if they'd never sleep with them? That's up to individual and how they wish to identify themselves and is a very different statistic from MSM

 

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! You people are so brainwashed, you cant even comrehend what you read

4-20 times. I said 9 times. Source confirms my statement and refutes your quoted claim.

 

Your source and conclusion, if it's accepted, shows that the mayo clinic was wrong, as with the source it relied on. Thus damaging their viability as a good source. Silhouette must then pick and choose which parts of a questionable source she wants to put forward, and then support that source knowing that its conclusions have been refuted.

Basically she's in a catch 22.

But this is only assuming, of course, that your conclusion is correct. Which it's not. As I said before:

 

Nope,
"As with other characteristics, the group of 1038 men who molest boys followed the general pattern of the U.S. male population in regard to their adult sexual preferences."
isnt from the Mayo clinic. Its from a book that uses 50 year old statistics, that have been contradicted by every study since then.