Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Guess Who the First Published Author In Cameron’s New “Journal” Is

Go on. Take a wild guess.

Jim Burroway

October 17th, 2007

Last month, I reported on Paul Cameron’s new fake online “journal”, something he decided to call the Empirical Journal of Same Sexual Behavior. Maybe he can no longer afford the price of being published in his previous favorite vanity journal, the pay-to-publish Psychological Reports. Now, with his own pay-to-publish online “journal,” he can publish whatever he wants whenever he wants for free. Which pretty much means that his new “journal” is what the rest of us would call a “web site.”

His new web site, err, “journal” now features only one article for its premier: “Teacher-Pupil Sex Across the World: How Much Is Homosexual?” — by none other than Paul Cameron himself. And for Cameron’s first article in his little pretend journal, he decided to try to find every instance of teacher-student sexual abuse as reported in newspapers all over the English-speaking world.

But it doesn’t look like he was able to get very far. In his wide-ranging search of newspaper articles from 1980 to 2006, he was only able to find 340 perpetrators in the United States. That average out to fewer than thirteen per year. It’s hard to draw any conclusions from such a fractional size, but that has never stopped Cameron before — even though he understands perfectly well why his sample is so problematic:

Even though teacher/pupil sexual events are fairly common, an instance of teacher/pupil has to run a veritable gauntlet before it becomes public knowledge. Educational systems try vigorously to assure that teacher molestations are not brought to light. So such an event is likely to be suppressed. Thus, an Australian commission uncovered scores of teachers who were either shifted to other assignments or given a letter of commendation rather than being prosecuted…

Which may explain why there were only ninety-five teachers in his Australian sample.

I won’t bore you with the details since you can guess what he has to say: The gays are out to molest your children. Warren Throckmorton spotted the biggest problem with this “research” right away:

Anyone familiar with schools and teacher behavior knows that these events are frequently covered up with many never getting to trial and thus are not captured by newspapers. Who knows how many actual events occur? Who knows how many of the same-sex perpetrators are married with kids? Not to mention that same sex perpetrations might actually be more likely to be reported and made public. And yet, Cameron considers news reports a source of data adequate enough to include in his inaugural issue. So since he demolished any credibility the study could have, there is no point in going any further, right? Of course, he does, and we get statistics that may end up in a news release somewhere.

Whenever I come across a paper like this, the first thing I do is a survey of the footnotes or the bibliographical references. That’s where I get the first clues of where his distortions are (he typically recycles the same material over and over), and I am never disappointed. Cameron typically loads his papers up with dozens of bibliographical references. Even his popular tracts and brochures are burdened with such scholarly debris. Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do has thirty-three references alone.

But his latest effort stops at a paltry eleven. Three of them are Cameron’s own work. Another is a magazine article from McCall’s, which he brings up four times in the text as though it were a scholarly study. Now that he doesn’t have to pay Psychological Reports to get his stuff published, it’s as if he’s not even trying anymore.

See also:

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?



October 17th, 2007 | LINK

Even if Cameron managed to succeed in his bizarre goal of ridding schools of homosexual teachers, how does he propose to protect kids from the many molesters who remain and that he admits are heterosexual? “Mutie, the HIV+ Kenyan school teacher who declared he ‘would not die alone’, [was not] a ‘pedophile’ because he raped 5 elementary girls” — would that depraved bastard be an acceptable teacher in Cameron’s world?

And there are more self-publications to come from him, I’m sure. Oh JOY.

Martin Lanigan
October 17th, 2007 | LINK

Putting aside Cameron’s conflation of ‘pedophilia’ with ‘homosexuality’ for a moment, let’s examine his logic in a slightly different context.

According to Cameron’s logic: If men in 2 parent families abuse children at a greater rate than women, should men’s rights be curtailed in any way? For instance, should men be denied the right to teach children, or to interact in unsupervised settings with children?

To substantiate my point, The Public Health Agency of Canada found that fathers account for 67% of all substantiated cases of physical abuse of children in 2 parent families. Link to the 2003 study here:

It is pretty clear to me that Cameron and/or his supporters would not likely assert the curtailment of men’s rights based on this, or any similar survey. They would likely argue that only the rights of child abusers should be curtailed.

So if the rights of men may not be curtailed – even though they account for a disproportionate amount of child abuse in Canadian families – then why is it OK to deny the rights of homosexuals because of the actions of some pedophiles?

Futhermore, if pedophiles are not the same as homosexuals, then why is it that homosexuals must bear the responsbility for pedophiles?

October 17th, 2007 | LINK

How ironic — almost a mirror reason for one of the concerns about the Jones and Yarhouse book…

Anyone familiar with exgay groups knows that harmful outcomes are frequently covered up with many never getting into the media and thus are not captured by newspapers. Who knows how many actual events occur?

Apart from that… it’s Paul Cameron.

His transparent technique of data mining to arrive at an anti-gay conclusion based on proportional comparisons of two groups is exactly the same technique used by all others on the anti-gay side… to argue against including gay couples in marriage laws, adoption by gay couples etc etc.

There are those who directly quote Cameron… and there are those who use the Cameron technique.

(Warren, himself, is not above doing exactly that when it suits him eg [1], [2], [3] to give but a few at random.)

They all do it, and they all do it because their negative viewpoints — their allegations — cannot be sustained against individuals or against individual couples. One cannot argue against people such as those in the Lofton/Croteau household: instead, one slanders such people by false comparison.

Don’t have a sensible reason why some clearly identified stable long-term gay couples should be denied marriage?

Never mind, ignore those people and instead talk about how some nebulous thing called “gay relationships” are “more unstable” — as if all types of “gay relationships” as a whole said anything more about pair-bonded gay couples than all types of straight relationships do about straight marriages.

Cameron is simply doing what they are all guilty of. He doesn’t — cannot — have any sensible reason why individual gay men and women should not be teachers. Knowing this, he instead sets out to attack them with manipulative “research data” about The Gays(c).


Has anyone — Throckmorton, Jones, or Yarhouse — yet commented in public about their ISSI colleague Rekers working alongside Cameron on this vanity journal?

October 17th, 2007 | LINK

Clearly this man needs a hobby. Anyone want to volunteer to get Cameron into, say, model train sets? Fly fishing? Anything sufficiently “masculine” and time-consuming so that he’ll quit trying to obsessively codify All Things Homosexually Sordid?

October 17th, 2007 | LINK

I can start a journal too! Now let me think of a snazzy title. How about “The International Journal for the Study of People Who Need a Hobby”? Honestly, why does he spend so much time fretting about the gays?

October 18th, 2007 | LINK

Another problem with the use of news stories about child sexual abuse (CSA) is that many cases of CSA don’t make it into the news for a purely ethical reason: the circumstances of many if not most cases of CSA are such that practically any amount of coverage would make it easy to determine the victim’s identity. Thus the cases that actually do get coverage are going to skew towards the atypical, such as offenders with large numbers of victims. Because boys tend to be abused by non-household authority figures whereas girls tend to be abused by household members, the coverage is going to skew towards abusers of boys (who tend to have larger numbers of victims simply because their pool of available victims is larger).

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.