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

Anti-Gay Extremists Cite Gay Pedophile As Typical Of All Gays

Jim Burroway

June 30th, 2009

Anti-gay extremists are all over this news item from Durham, North Carolina:

A Duke University official has been charged in federal court with offering his 5-year-old adopted son up for sex. Frank Lombard, associate director of the Center for Health Policy, was arrested Wednesday in Raleigh, the FBI said.

An unidentified informant who already faces child porn charges in a different child sex case pointed investigators to Lombard, according to court documents. The informant told investigators he had met Lombard on the Internet four years ago. The informant described in graphic detail how he allegedly observed Lombard molesting an African-American child on four occasions over an Internet video chat service called ICUii.

…During the chats, according to the affidavit, “FL” [Frank Lombard's screen name] told undercover investigators that he had himself molested his child, whom he adopted as an infant, and that he had allowed others to molest his child. “FL” stated that “the abuse of the child was easier when the child was too young to talk or know what was happening, but that he had drugged the child with Benadryl during molestation.”

Predictably, anti-gay extremists are already using this horrific crime as “proof” that all gay people are unfit to be parents. They’ll tell you that this is how virtually all gay men behave. LifeSite is already eating it up, as are Dakota Voice’s Bob Ellis and Town Hall’s Mike Adams.

We’ve seen them equate homosexuality with pedophilia by tagging the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act with the libelous “Pedophile Protection Act” moniker. Adams piled onto that them by following his first post up with another one noting that Lombard was Facebook Fan with Rev. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Bishop of the Anglican Church. The Right Rev. Robinson has 3,668 other fans, but that didn’t deter Adams from asking, “Is this arrest thwarting an effort by Lombard to promote tolerance of pedophilia in the Episcopal Church?”

This episode even gave discredited anti-gay “researcher” Paul Cameron the chance to come out of the woodwork to claim that this sad episode “demonstrates why gays should not be able to adopt.”

Kiliann Melloy has a great rundown on anti-gay reactions to Lombard’s arrest at EDGE Boston, including a blog which claims to be a “grassroots network of the Republican Party of Virginia.” And she reviews the contention by Paul Cameron and another so-called “researcher,” Dr. Judith Reisman, that gay men are more likely to molest children. (Reisman’s Ph.D. is in Communications, but as Melloy notes, that doesn’t stop her from writing about the physiological effects of pornography on the brain without the aid of any research.)

The lesson we ought to learn from Lombard’s arrest is that being a horrible, abusive parent is an equal-opportunity crime. Gay individuals are no more immune from engaging in criminal conduct with five-year-olds than straight people. Like this heterosexual couple from Indiana, just to name one tragic example.

To learn more about what research says about homosexuality and child abuse, see our report, "Testing the Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?"

To learn more about what research says about homosexuality and child abuse, see our report, "Testing the Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?"

But it’s gay men in particular which get the blame for molesting children. Anti-gay activists will claim that gay men are guilty of this horrible crime in numbers far exceeding their proportion in the overall population. The problem with that assertion though is that there is absolutely no evidence to support that claim. That’s not to say that there are no gay predators. But there is no evidence to suggest that gay men are more likely to molest children than straight men, which is the fear-mongering message that extremists return to again and again.

The real tragedy in this case is that a very young boy has been horribly abused. The crime that anti-gay extremists engage in by slandering all gay people with this episode is, without a doubt, the much lesser crime. But it is a crime nevertheless, and it’s one they will have to answer for someday. Just like this Lombard bastard.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Jake
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

Reading the LifeSite article, I wanted to cry and throw up at the same time.

I just feel saddened, angry, and disgusted. Primarily for what happened to that little boy, and secondarily at Paul Cameron. This is a new low for him.

His last quote says it all: “By endorsing gay adoption, President Obama, the state of North Carolina, and Duke University share blame for this tragedy.”

Go to hell Paul.

Christopher Waldrop
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

First a child was exploited by his adopted father, and now he’s being exploited by ideologues who have, at best, a minimal interest in actually helping him. That’s what I think is being missed here. While I don’t believe the anti-gay extremists really want this sort of abuse to happen to anyone, the fact that they’re using it to promote their own claims isn’t helping the young boy.

Regan DuCasse
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

OMG…the poor little boy! I absolutely hate it when a child is abused.
Here are some facts I can attest to:
For this to have happened in a gay adoptive situation (if it was a legal adoption) is way beyond rare, if not non existent. Because gay parents are subject to some intense scrutiny.

This is, as I’m sure you know, an aberration.
Further, gay men short eyes serve more time, and are less paroled than their heterosexual counterparts.
In the case of same sex child murders, they are most likely to be killed in prison or be executed than their hetero counterparts.

I had to do some research for a project on incarcerated gays and lesbians.
Lombard ain’t EVER getting out. Believe that.

But this might be as indicative of the failure of the adoption service, but I digress.

Yes, for the anti gay to exploit this sad situation to indict the whole of potential adoptive gay parents is a terrible agenda.

With so many children needing homes, if they had their way, more children will be subject to abuse: either in foster care or by their own parents for LACK of ENOUGH good adoptive parents.

Penguinsaur
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

Well of course this one guy being a pedo is absolute proof that every homosexual everywhere is a raving child molester! But dont you fu**ing DARE try to draw any conclusions about christianity from those dozen or so priests who got caught molesting children.

Zeke
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

I think it is entirely inappropriate for you and others to refer to this man as “gay”. It’s bad enough that we have to constantly explain to anti-gay people that pedophiles are pedophiles. they may prefer children of the same sex or opposite sex but that doesn’t mean that they are gay or straight. At the very most one might use the term “homosexual” in the most clinical sense of the word but “gay” is completely inaccurate and terribly inappropriate.

AJD
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

I hope this bastard goes to prison for the rest of his life. I can’t imagine the scarred and damaged life that boy is going to have to live because of this.

I’m also disgusted that the religious right wants to use this to play up their ever-effective “gays are a threat to children” meme. You know they’re going to use this to its maximum effect, and we’ll respond with facts and logic, but the emotional appeals are always more effective on the irrational masses.

AJD
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

Good point, Penguinsaur. Actually, now that I think about it, that would make a nice counterpoint if the RR tries to cite this one, wouldn’t it? Maybe also something like, “You’re a conservative Christian? So is Eric Rudolph!”

Two can play the guilt-by-association game, as far as I’m concerned.

jim
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

What a sad story. Thank you for posting it.

For anti-gay people to use this as ammunition for their cause is sickening to me.

To abuse children, or anyone, is sickening to me.

Abuse of people happens all around the world.

Box Turtle Bulletin can’t stop it.

But, Box Turtle Bulletin reports it! Thank you Box Turtle Bulletin.

Keep up the good work! Love, Jim.

Bill S
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

I know I should be used to this sort of bigotry. I know I shouldn’t expect anything more from them but the most repulsive fear-mongering demonizing bullshit.
And yet it’s still jarring. You think, “People CAN’T be this filled with hatred, can they?”
Yet they are. They take a horrific case of child abuse, and actually use it to malign an entire group of people, and don’t even bother to consider the implications of it. They truly do not see gay people as human beings, capable of moral distinctions, capable of being as outraged by the abuse of a five-year-old as anyone else.
It’s 2009. When do these people stop being assholes?

Jim Burroway
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

Zeke,

What you say is true most of the time. But in this case, it is, sadly, appropriate to describe Lombard as gay because he has a male (adult) partner. Police believe that partner did not know anything about these crimes.

Jake
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

Penguinsaur, Great point!!!!

Swampfox
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

I took great offense at Mike Adams’ article.

Regan DuCasse
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

Hi Jim, I appreciate you posting this. TownHall’s anti gay threads attract a very different kind of opinion than BTB or PHB does in these cases.

My main concern is that bias in crime investigation or enforcement can increase tragedy. It requires serious dereliction up and down the line of duty and I had to work on my research for 7 months.
I went to school at Cal State Fullerton and when you’re in school for criminal science, you can pick projects and get interesting access for your subject matter. Like prisons, wardens and inmates.
I used to think that bringing credential of my own to the threads would make people have a reasoned discussion about crimes against children and how bias makes the situation WORSE.

I guess I underestimated how absurd opinions could range against ME. For example, instead of asking me MORE questions about where certain kinds of criminals are concentrated or where to find links to information regarding pedophiles profiles and so on…I was attacked as having NO sense of evil in the world and that I SUPPORTED child abuse because I bear no animosity against gay people.

These reactionary tactics and accusations can easily put a person on the defensive.
But I have to wonder at the kind of mentality that is SO invested in being anti gay, serious common sense and coming together on PREVENTION of abuse of children flies out of the window.

You can’t get off of the first base with these people.
I guess I gave them more credit in thinking they had an interest in how someone in law enforcement would RECOMMEND they keep more vigilant across the board.

And that’s the point, they DON’T help law enforcement OR children in any way by such misdirected paranoia.

I guess it’s the same thing as all those organizations that say they are advocates of marriage and family are really anti gay in their activity.

Richard Wood
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

There’s little good evidence in large part because no one in their right mind will even propose doing a study that will show the facts b/c people in their right minds want to keep their jobs and anyone who even proposes doing science that would actually put the wheel to the pavement on gay issues is already one step closer to being fired in this world.

Very, very few homosexual men ever get the *chance* to molest children b/c, as someone already noted, we still make sure to check the holy crap out of them.

The world homosexual activists want, of course, is one in which any homosexual who showed up at the right building would be allowed to adopt; in *that* world, you can be sure the homosexual parent molestation rate would rise considerably.

Trying to meaningfully compare rates of homosexual and heterosexual parent molestation would necessitate controlling for the fact that basically ANY heterosexual man who wants to become a parent can do so just by finding a woman who will bear his child, while homosexual men are still, thankfully, very thoroughly vetted, and in most cases rejected, as potential parents.

In a better world, not only would we continue to keep almost all homosexual men from adopting or otherwise becoming parents, we’d make it harder for many more heterosexuals to have them too.

tristram
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

Despicable man, despicable wingnuts. But this should prompt us all to keep our eyes open and speak up if we detect indications of child abuse – physical, sexual or even psychological. Having had to confront the issue several times in my years as a teacher (almost always with heteros and mostly cases of battering), I understand how horrendously difficult it is to raise this question, but to remain silent is to be an accomplice to the unspeakable. And there are options. Someone who suspected a problem could, for instance, have alerted Lombard’s partner (who seems to have been unaware of what was going on). If more priests had spoken up, the tragedy in the Catholic Church could have been much reduced.

Bill S
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

Richard Wood, you just implied that almost all homosexual men are likely to molest children.

Jim Burroway
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

Richard Wood, instead of clinging to your ignorance on the subject, I encourage you to read what the acknowledged experts in child sexual abuse have to say about it.

And instead of spouting unsubstantiated claims, how about providing some source information to back them up.

Emily K
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

oh great, now the closet cases come out of the woodwork to insert themselves into a gay blog. Pun intended.

It’s bad enough that this guy’s name is basically “Dick Wood” – he could potentially make some interesting career choices with a name like that – now he’s come here to specifically and ONLY rail on gay MEN. Because it’s the MEN who have sex with other MEN that he finds so darn threatening. Cuz gay women really aren’t gay, they’re just confused and practicing/waiting for the right man to drag her to bed and get her preggers. So they’re not a threat to people like Dick Wood, who are for some reason only threatened by other penises.

I apologize for the harsh nature of my comment. Sometimes I have a pretty blue tongue. But this stuff pisses me off to no end.

Thank heavens my generation is mostly getting OVER this crap.

Mael
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

What I find interesting is that the complete denial I see evidenced here. It is this denial that is hurting the homosexual movement more than ever what those “anti-gay extremists”.

As for Paul Cameron you still insist on posting what is a lie about his credentials. You may not like him but just because you can’t deny his arguments in an open debate doesn’t mean he doesn’t make some valid points.

There is a horrible pattern and tactic acceptance of pushing the limits where children are concerned that has always bothered me. I had a friend who was molested by a open gay uncle and up until that point he showed normal interest in girls after his molestation he was never the same.

The problem as I see it is that far too many gay men and woman have suffered from abuse which undoubtedly in many cases does feed into gender identity issues to deny this is to deny the bulk of the research on the topic. It does not mean that every homosexual is the product of abuse but study after study shows horribly that a disproportionate number are and this also means that a disproportionate number are also more likely to abuse especially if they are not treated.

That statement isn’t about hating gays it is about just owning up to the facts and the homosexual community would do far better if it policed itself more. The fascination and seduction of underage men or women should be seen as unacceptable as is the passing around of child porn.

Also it isn’t helpful that the people who lived near Frank won’t even make a statement expressing horror at what he did that is a problem. His church that accepts open homosexuals made him a Deacon or vester as they call it and still has not released a statement. This is just not normal and the press refused to call him a gay man though it is without a doubt he is and what of his lover who has not shown his face? If there is nothing wrong with being gay then why all the covert ops stuff to cleanse the gay friendly nature of the eco commons commune he belongs to?

This is not asking a lot when the press reports endlessly on a politician who gets caught tapping his foot in a bathroom stall and makes it into a political marathon of hand wringing and moralizing. One would think that the homosexual community should be demanding accountability not going on and on about how gays aren’t all child molesters. No one is saying that at all.

Also you are going to have to realize that so many African American children being adopted by gay men some of which have been abused is not going to sit well with the African American community especially with this thing having the feel of a cover up. Frank Lombard is already one of the number one searches on google trends. Today someone just found out that he helped put together a Valentines day adult child matchup to help children related to other adults in the community.

One doesn’t even have to elaborate how that sounds whether you like it or not. Frank Lombard is a coming to Jesus moment for gay rights.

Emily K
June 30th, 2009 | LINK

Nope, never been abused. No “blocks” of childhood memories missing, either. Always knew my sex was female, never felt I was anything but a biological female.

There are many gay African Americans. Just ask Pam Spaulding or prominent Washington, D.C. gay activists.

And all of the lies about the “bulk of research” and “Cameron having good points” and “some argue…” have been disproven long before “Mael” showed up.

One would think that the homosexual community should be demanding accountability not going on and on about how gays aren’t all child molesters. No one is saying that at all.

…except for you and Dick Wood, above you.

Any other theories?

Oh, and your side has already lost. You’ll be crying in your beer in 20 years when marriage equality is real and anti-discrimination laws are in place federally (assuming you’re still alive then, I don’t know how old you are).

Christopher Waldrop
July 1st, 2009 | LINK

That statement isn’t about hating gays it is about just owning up to the facts and the homosexual community would do far better if it policed itself more.

Mael, you’ve already undermined your credibility with a pathetic attempt to defend Paul Cameron’s credentials. However, to address this point of the “homosexual community” policing itself, GLBT people aren’t part of an organization. There isn’t a membership form or an initiation–although you certainly go to great lengths to imply that being molested is a major factor while providing nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

Since others have mentioned the abuse by Catholic priests, it’s worth noting that no one’s born a priest. They go through a rigorous process and are part of a large and well-organized organization. And yet priests did very little to “police” each other for decades.

Finally, straight people don’t “police” each other. Why should GLBT people?

William
July 1st, 2009 | LINK

This case of sexual abuse is appalling. The fact that the man responsible happens to be homosexual is immaterial; if he were heterosexual, that wouldn’t make it either any better or any worse.

To use this case as a pretext for attacking gay men in general is both illogical and contemptible. It makes me wonder whether those who are doing this are not secretly more concerned about vilifying gay men than about protecting children.

Bill S
July 1st, 2009 | LINK

William, you needn’t wonder about it. They’re not “secretly more concerned about vilifying gay men than about protecting children.”
They’re blatantly, openly OBVIOUS about it. So much so they might as well wear a blinking neon sign that says “Kill All Fags!”

Jim Burroway
July 1st, 2009 | LINK

Mael, it isn’t a lie to point out that Cameron does not write for a peer-reviewed journal. Psychological Reports is a pay-to-publish journal, the only one that demands payment from authors. It is a lie when Cameron claims otherwise. Psychological Reports will publish anyone willing to pay the $27.50 per page. No other reputable journal does that.

And Cameron consistently lies about research across the board in everything he writes, lies that are easily verifiable.

It is not a lie to point out that Cameron’s consistent lying has resulted in his being censured by the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association (twice), the Nebraska Psychological Association, and the Canadian Psychological Association.

He even lied about a boy that was supposedly castrated in Omaha during a gay rights referrendum.

A more recent lie, that he presented a paper to the Eastern Psychological Association, earned him a censure from the president of the EPA when it was learned that he did not, in fact, present the paper, and that the EPA did not publish it with its name applied to the paper’s header. That was all Cameron’s doing — Cameron’s lie.

But if you want to defend an easily-proven liar in order to cling to your bigotry, I have a feeling that easily proven facts won’t make even the slightest dent in your thick skull.

johnozed
July 1st, 2009 | LINK

and here I thought you had to be a member of the clergy to be a child molester.

a. mcewen
July 1st, 2009 | LINK

Mel,

It also isn’t a lie that Cameron is not above making up stories about gays raping and castrating children like he did in 1982 in an effort to defeat a pro-gay ordinance in Nebraska.

That alone should send a warning sign about his credibility.

grantdale
July 1st, 2009 | LINK

Dick Wood: The world homosexual activists want, of course, is one in which any homosexual who showed up at the right building would be allowed to adopt

Utterly false. No activist or non-activist, gay or otherwise, has ever made that demand. Prove otherwise. Children available for adoption should ALWAYS go to the best home on offer — and sometimes those homes are found within a gay family. That is all that has ever been demanded.

Adoption is a long, slow process. You cannot drop into an orphanage and take a child home for Xmas, on a whim. Prospective parents are screened over an extended period.

Mistakes can be made, but it’s comparatively rare. Adoptive parents, of any stripe, compare very favourably to biological parents for the simple fact that they have had to prove they would make a suitable home for a child in the first place.

Gay men and women can make good parents. Children are in need good parents. Your awful opinions should not stand between those two facts.

Mael: you give me a name, we’ll report them. As would the overwhelming majority of gay men or lesbians. Paedophilia is viewed with disgust, and for the same reason most other people see it that way. You obviously know very little about gay men and women.

You probably cannot be talked to sensibly, but the facts are (again) VERY clear and have been for decades: gay men are no more of a risk, and possibly less than half the risk, to children than are straight men. Lesbians barely even register.

Your opinions are ignorant, therefore dangerous, and therefore repulsive; as is child abuse itself. Paedophiles thrive in such an environment, and you should question how much help you are unwittingly giving them because of your ignorance.

But you’ve already dropped the J-bomb for no good reason, so you’re unlikely to be reachable without a severe attitude adjustment. Go and get one.

jboston
July 1st, 2009 | LINK

Funny how everyone ignores the huge straight pedophilia business in this country.
I remember hearing way back in the 70s about straight teachers having sex with their students, and getting away with just a slap on the wrist.

William
July 1st, 2009 | LINK

Mael, it’s also not a lie to say that people whose work has been cited by Cameron in “proof” of his lies have been among those who have explicitly repudiated his misrepresentations.

fannie
July 1st, 2009 | LINK

Other than the damage to the LGBT community, another problem with the tendency of anti-gays hyping instances of gay men molesting children is that it takes the focus off of how many heterosexual men are molesting little girls.

Timothy Kincaid
July 1st, 2009 | LINK

Paul Cameron has been shown to be dishonest on many occasions. In fact, I don’t know if there are any of his claims that hold up to inspection. He has been debunked by scientists, scholars, researchers, and even conservative Christian advocates. His references have even been removed from some of the most anti-gay advocacy groups. No one believes his claims.

Only those organizations which do not care about the truth will repeat Paul Cameron’s assertions or rely on him as a source. They know they are spreading lies, they just don’t care.

There may be some few who have been fooled by others and think he is credible. But when they are exposed to the facts, honest people always disassociate themselves from his bigotry and bogus “studies”.

In fact, Cameron can be used as a litmus test. Those who seek to defend him and repeat his lies – after they have been informed about his history, his methods, and his motivation – are not honest people. They put anti-gay bigotry as a higher priority in their lives than they do honesty and integrity.

Alex
July 2nd, 2009 | LINK

Has anyone else checked out the article and discussion at Dakota Voice? The word “lesbian” hasn’t been uttered once. I guess Bob Ellis would rather not discuss the fact that pedophiles are almost never lesbians.

Ben in Oakland
July 2nd, 2009 | LINK

I didn’t think we would be hearing from Mael and Dick Wad, er, Wood again. I’ve noticed a pattern in the few years ui’ve been following this blog and others. These people will drop their ltitle bombs, people will respond with fact and reason, and we never hear from them again. IO’ve yet to figureo ut exactly what they get from it, since thet are clearly not open to and kind of debate, and they must know they change no one’s mind. Nevertheless, i’m pretty sure they keep reading the responses anyway, much like a child bully wants to see if he’s still “bothering” his victims.

All that being said, a week hardly goes by where I don’t read of at least one hetero parent murdering one or more of their kids. Another one in this morning’s paper– a owman killed her 8 year old son because she didn’t want him to go through the heartache of her impending divorce. (Like I believe that).

So the natural parent, the true heir of divine parent-ness, the good and loving hetero parents, murder their children on at least a weekly basis. Yet this excites not even a ripple of concern. Yet the case of this one sick piece of human trash– the only one I ever heard of, and I read at least two newspapers EVERY day– brings out the Maels and the Wads in their full glory.

Have you no sense of shame, or does your out-and-out hatred of gay people excuse you from normal human decency? Or thought? Or humanity?

Richard Wood
July 4th, 2009 | LINK

I haven’t posted anything else b/c, as I suspected, no one here can respond to anything I wrote the first time.

Jim Buroway’s response is to link to another post of his which does not respond to what I said. What he does there is, in part, admit what I already said–that no research that would actually test the hypothesis will ever be done b/c the relevant academic communities are far too far gone down the PC pipeline.

The ‘experts’ will bend any way they need to in order to make sure they don’t find anything that will stir up the gay activists–e.g., as Buroway notes, they will invent new categories of sexual identity so as to make sure they can classify as many man-on-boy sexual abuse cases as possible as something other than homosexual (with no basis in anything other than their own whim).

As I already said, gay men molest children as infrequently as they do in large part b/c they are mostly kept away from children–in part b/c most gay men have no interest in parenting, and in part b/c our society is still largely (and sanely) committed to keeping children away from adult men period when there are no women present to moderate the sexual impulses of those men.

Gay male sexuality is in many ways normal male sexuality on cultural steroids–w/out female sexuality and natural parenthood to balance it, it leads to chaos much of the time. This is why young, single males, gay or not, are the single biggest problem population in sexual terms–they want to run around and have sex with anything that moves, as often as possible, and this is a problem. This is why you had gay men in the bathhouse communities around the country pre-AIDS who had had sex with literally thousands of partners, and why you still get insane sexual things happening in the gay male world (i.e., bug chasers) that could not happen in the heterosexual world, where female sexuality moderates the impulses of heterosexual men.

Richard Wood
July 4th, 2009 | LINK

Mr. Buroway, one of the least honest things to do in discussions about homosexuality is to imply that it is ‘anti-gays’ who have set the estimates for % of population who are gay at a max of around 3 or 4%.

You may of course make bizarre claims that it might reasonably be as high as 20% (as you do in your second post to which you direct me above), but no reliable research suggests such high numbers, and you should know that. Not even Kinsey, who has been thoroughly debunked on his estimates about this fact, goes that high.

The 3-4% figure first came from the monumental U of Chicago studies done in the 1990s, which produced 3 or 4 fat books on the topic of sexuality in America, and has been replicated since. Implying that it is somehow ‘anti-gay’ to go with the most reliable numbers we have reflects badly on you.

Emily K
July 4th, 2009 | LINK

oh MAN, this guy is RICH. pun intended. He’s trotting out the canard that male sexuality needs to be “tamed” and “feared” by sexless, un-horny females in order to make them productive members of society. Most of the guys I knew as a teen didn’t want to “have sex with anything that moves.” And certainly none of those that were gay wanted to do that. Cuz, you know, gay male sexuality is the same as straight males sexuality. At least we can all agree there.

DickWood probably believes (like Paul Cameron, strangely) that when a man has sex with another man the experience is so mind-blowingly pleasurable that women can’t compete and ZOMG everyone will be gay and the human race will die out and every marriage and family ruined.

I”m assuming that dick supports lesbian coupling and parenthood, since females alone are so sexually dormant that none of those “dirty urges” will influence their lives.

grantdale
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Woody, Woody, Woody…

If you’re going to quote specific studies please make sure you have read and understood them. Or, possibly, simply restrain yourself in an educated forum such as this to continuing to make wild and unreferenced claims. You were going so well while you were doing that.

Laumann et al (1994), based on the 1992 NHSLS survey, is not that simplistic. (yes, the “monumental U of Chicago” study did have authors known by name).

As they reported, 10.1% of adult males exhibited at least one measure of homosexuality.

7.7% answered yes to “Desire”. The lifetime prevalence for homosexual behaviour was 9.1%, 4.9% in adulthood, 4.1% in the past 5 years and 2.7% in the past 12 months. Women are lower on behaviour-based measures, but not on interest-based measures (in general).

(All of which indicates dear old Aldred wasn’t that far off the mark some 60 years ago… with his 4% estimate for men.)

You also have our deepest sympathies — it must be dreadful to go through life with your uncontrollable, fearful, destructive sexual urges — but please don’t compound your error by assuming that other people are as equally afflicted.

Clinging to urban myths etc probably does make you feel less alone and more self-justified in your wild opinions, but it does also risk making you a laughing stock among those who know better. Quite a dilemma. For you.

William
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Richard Wood, I venture to suggest a rather more obvious explanation for why gay men molest children as infrequently as they do, namely that the vast majority of us have no interest in molesting children. As for your statement that we are “mostly kept away from children”, that is simply fatuous. We aren’t and can’t be: most of us have nephews and nieces, and many of us work in jobs that involve regular contact with children, as I have done for many years.

When it comes to “man-on-boy sexual abuse cases”, most of these are committed by men who have no interest in sexual contact with adults of their own sex. While there may be a good linguistic case for calling them “homosexual”, their homosexuality is usually of a different kind from that of ordinary gay men. In his 1994 paper “In search of an etiological model of pedophilia” in the “Sexological Review” Kurt Freund said that the most parsimonious inference to be drawn from the evidence was that:

“the heterosexual and homosexual types of pedophilia are substantially more closely related to each other than to the heterosexuality or homosexuality of males who erotically prefer physically mature partners. Also, pedophilia has little in common with homosexuality or heterosexuality in males who prefer physically mature partners.”

This is not to suggest that gay men are never responsible for the sexual molestation of children; clearly this does sometimes happen, as in the case that we’re discussing here. All but a few of us, however, are as safe with children as any heterosexual man is – if not safer.

Jim Burroway
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Richard, the piece doesn’t hang on whether the percentage is 20% or 10%. It does point out that measuring gay identity (which is where the 2-3% figures come from) is a VERY different thing from measuring same-sex behavior.

But if you had bothered to go ahead and read the piece further (which I suspect you didn’t because you didn’t bother to address it), you would see that when researchers try to assess whether the molester were actually gay in his sexual orientation, they typically found that he wasn’t. In other words, if police were looking specifically for a gay person to arrest for the crime, they would never have found him.

But it makes your worldview much tidier to ignore research and cling to urban myths. Since we don’t do urban myths here, we expect you to provide evidence to your claims. Which I note that you have consistently failed to do here.

Jason D
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Jim,
I have to quote you in bold because it bears as much repeating as possible:

“But if you had bothered to go ahead and read the piece further (which I suspect you didn’t because you didn’t bother to address it), you would see that when researchers try to assess whether the molester were actually gay in his sexual orientation, they typically found that he wasn’t. In other words, if police were looking specifically for a gay person to arrest for the crime, they would never have found him.

Pedophilia, like rape, is NOT about legitimate sexual desire — it is, in fact, a thirst for power and control — often in reaction to being abused themselves.
Conversely, homosexuality is parallel to heterosexuality — having to do with non-abusive, non-coercive, desires for partners who are sexually mature.

Someone who makes the ridiculous argument that men who attack boys are gay are forgetting that prepubescent boys and girls have virtually identical bodies — semi-androgynous bodies that are much more similar to adult female bodies than adult male.

Essentially, If you stripped them naked, I would not have a hard time telling the difference between Brad Pitt, Zak Spears, Bruce Willis, Hugh Jackman and a toddler. And someone who suggests I would be attracted to Hugh and a baby seems to not understand the glaringly obvious differences between them. And someone who cannot see those obvious differences is far, far more disturbed and dangerous than I could ever hope to be.

William
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

“In other words, if police were looking specifically for a gay person to arrest for the crime, they would never have found him.”

I remember a case here in the UK some years ago which demonstrates this danger very vividly. I remember it so well because the story was made into a Crimewatch documentary film and shown on television.

The body of a missing 11-year-old boy was discovered, and the police pathologist immediately determined that he had been forcibly raped and strangled. The detective in charge of the case instructed his officers to interview “every known homosexual” in the area. This they did, and after months of investigation they got absolutely nowhere.

It was only when they decided to ignore all considerations of sexual orientation and to concentrate instead simply on the men with whom the boy was know to have had any association that they found the man who had done it, a referee at the football club that the boy had attended. He was completely unknown on the local gay scene, and he was – surprise, surprise? perhaps not – living with a woman in a heterosexual relationship.

Richard Wood
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

It is no urban myth that leftist academic researchers in psychology have remade the categories to suit their politics.

When you look closely at the research you brush over in your post, as when you actually look closely at the cases described in research on, e.g., the outcomes for kids who have gay parents, you find how much almost all of the researchers have skewed the empirical facts to fit their political preferences. An abuser of male children is not attracted to images of adult males, but only to images of prepubescent males? Then he must not be a homosexual, b/c we know (our politics have already told us this) that REAL homosexual men don’t like boys. And never mind that gigantic literature in the gay male community featuring images of teenish looking youth, and never mind the fact that historically the gay liberation movement and the movement to ‘liberate’ child sexuality (i.e., to make children legally sexually accessible to adults) have been very tightly interconnected, as even pro-gay scholarship pointed out in the heady days before they realized much of American society did not agree with them that making children sexually accessible to adults was a good thing (look at e.g., the 1990 special issue in the Journal of Homosexuality on “Male Intergenerational Intimacy” that had numerous articles promoting ‘boy love’ as an integral part of the homosexual movement).

Research by those not blinded by politics has shown that gay men have a higher propensity than straight men to be sexually attracted to adolescents (Silverthorne and Quinsey in Archives of Sexual Behavior 29, 2000). But you’ll never hear about that kind of finding in the media, b/c it doesn’t fit their desires about what homosexuality is like.

Emily K
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

I can tell ya right now I don’t want to f**k a teenage girl. I especially don’t want to f**k someone who’s prepubescent. But teenage girls just IRK me. I didn’t like teenage girls when I was a teenage girl – though that admittedly wasn’t that long ago.

This guy is wacko. Every single one of his theories is justified in his mind because there is a perpetual conspiracy case against him, in which “all” of those who prove otherwise are actually part of a vast conspiracy to quelch his ideas.

I’m not a shrink, but I’ve had a lot of experience with mental illness – and schizophrenia comes to mind.

We should just leave him alone in his sad little life. What kind of “straight” man so desperately trolls a gay blog, anyway?

Richard Wood
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Emily K. has not written a single post here that doesn’t violate at least two or three tenets of your comments policy, Mr. Burroway. I wonder how long her posts would stay up if she weren’t on your side and used the same gutter language, insulted everyone who disagreed with her in personal terms, etc….

William
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

Richard Wood, I’m not prepared to spend money on refuting you, so I haven’t accessed the whole article in the Archives of Sexual Behavior to which you refer, but according to the abstract:

“It was predicted that HOMOSEXUAL AND HETEROSEXUAL men would prefer younger partners of their preferred sex than would homosexual and heterosexual women and that age preference would not vary with participant age. BOTH predictions were supported, although homosexual women preferred older partners than expected.” (Emphases added by me)

That doesn’t seem to me to support your thesis with regard to homosexual vs. heterosexual men. You find me some heterosexual men of any age who don’t find attractive teenage girls sexually appealing. I don’t say that you can’t do it, but you’ll have your work cut out. I fail to see why gay men should be censured for something which in straight men is accepted as “normal”.

It’s true that at one stage those of the NAMBLA tendency attempted to hi-jack the gay rights movement for their own purposes and were allowed to do so by those who were scared of being thought illiberal. That mistake – and it was a serious one – has on the whole been corrected.

The crux of the matter, however, is this: you have men who are sexually attracted to other men, and you have men who are sexually attracted to boys. While both can be described as homosexual on linguistic grounds (just as, on the same grounds, men who are sexually attracted to young girls can be described as heterosexual), are they the same people? The answer is that they can be, but they seldom are. The vast majority of men who molest small boys are either sexually interested exclusively in children – and the British sociologist Michael Schofield found that over a quarter of the men convicted of molesting boys had also molested girls – or they are found to be heterosexual in their sexual interaction with adults.

So why don’t you come out directly with what you are trying to say? Is it that all homosexual men are to be condemned because some men have molested boys? If so, then all heterosexual men must be condemned equally by the same logic.

Richard Wood
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

Translation: I can’t be bothered reading the article that makes the case Wood summarized, so I’ll talk as though it doesn’t exist.

Read the article, or please don’t waste my time ‘responding’ to the article you haven’t read.

William
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

Sorry, Mr Wood, I’d be more than willing to read the article – I’m quite an avid reader – but I’m not prepared to spend money on doing so. Surely someone of your erudition and lucidity can produce a clear and honest synopsis which explains exactly how it supports your thesis, since you imply that the abstract isn’t sufficient.

You still haven’t replied to the question in the last paragraph of my previous post. Why are you being so coy about doing so?

William
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

For a criticism of the use that has been made of the Silverthorne and Quinsey paper, see:

http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/10/14/boyz-2-men/

Jason D
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

“Then he must not be a homosexual, b/c we know (our politics have already told us this) that REAL homosexual men don’t like boys. And never mind that gigantic literature in the gay male community featuring images of teenish looking youth,”

Ha!

Here we see your ignorance. Pedophilia is the attraction to pre-pubescent children, yet your sentence here:

“never mind that gigantic literature in the gay male community featuring images of teenish looking youth,”

refers to POST-pubescent, as in sexually mature, minors — some of whom may be of the legal age of consent.

It’s rather telling that on top of your fabrications and wild assumptions you conflate pedophilia with ephebophilia (which is an interest in adolescents, not children) and you seem to suggest that this is unique to the gay community, completely ignoring the “Girls Gone Wild” and “Barely Eighteen” phenomena prevalent and accepted among straight society as “normal”.

“Research by those not blinded by politics has shown that gay men have a higher propensity than straight men to be sexually attracted to adolescents (Silverthorne and Quinsey in Archives of Sexual Behavior 29, 2000). But you’ll never hear about that kind of finding in the media, b/c it doesn’t fit their desires about what homosexuality is like.

No, we don’t hear about it because there are so many gay men like me. I’m not interested in anyone more than a year younger than me. Most gay people I’ve met, like most straight people I’ve met, are not interested in dating a non-peer. I attempted to date someone 3 years younger than me when I was in my late 20s and there was such a difference in life experience, in maturity, in so many facets of life that it didn’t last more than a date or two because we were simply in two different places in our lives. And that’s what most people, gay or straight, are looking for, someone who is in roughly the same place in their life physically, spiritually, emotionally, and psychologically.

No, we don’t hear about it because it doesn’t match reality.

And like others, I’m not going to pay to refute you.

You present doubts and pass off the research regarding Cameron as lies without presenting one, single, solitary fact. As if we’re to believe you on faith or merit. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. You came here to dispute, so the onus is on you to provide counter arguments to the claims made on this site — not to issue blanket dismissals and expect us to prove you wrong. You still have to do the work to prove yourself right, which you have not done, all you’ve done is assert that you are right and claimed political bias at the lack of evidence supporting you. A rather lazy and ineffective strategy. Doubts and disbelief are not evidence in and of themselves. Present counter arguments complete with reputable, easily obtainable supporting documents or take your shtick elsewhere. You didn’t stumble into amateur night here.

Emily K
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

So, nobody has answered my question,

Why the focus on gay men by the bigotariat? Why aren’t lesbians included?

Is it because lesbians are way less threatening to people like Wood? Or is it because lesbians don’t have a history of being stereotyped as diseased pedophiles?

Well? Anybody care to answer?

Jim Burroway
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

Richard Wood,

I wonder if by any chance you read Silverthorne and Quinsey. The study asked respondents to rate attractiveness of photos of males and females of various ages. All photos were of people age 18 and above, which is the legal age of consent in all fifty states. (Most states, in fact, set their ages of consent at 16.)
Because of the study’s construction, it demonstrates noting insofar as pedophilia is concerned.

The study did find that gay men tend to perfer younger partners than straight.
The study also showed that heterosexual men strongly disliked women above the age of 28, while gay men were much more likely to find older males attractive.

But the study’s authors report that the results for heterosexual males may have been skewed by a photo of one particularly attractive 25-year-old female. They suggest that further studies be done to determine the impact of that particular photo. So far as I know, no further studies have been undertaken.

In any case, this study proves absolutely nothing with regard to pedophilia. I’m afraid it doesn’t fit your “desires about what homosexuality is like.”

Jim Burroway
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

William, thanks for providing this link:

http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/10/14/boyz-2-men/

Not only did it repeat what I just said above, the point about the 25-year-old female was raised by one of the authors himself.

Richard Wood
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

“Study did find that homosexuals tend to prefer younger partners than heterosexuals”

Then Mr. Burroway does everything he can to move away from that fact, the central one in the study that I noted.

Constant prevarication, obfuscation, denial, equivocation. Hallmarks of ‘debate’ by the gay activist crowd.

William
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

Prescindng from the possible defect in the study, which one of the authors himself acknowledges, “tend to prefer younger partners than heterosexuals” isn’t quite the same thing as “tend to like children as partners”; in fact, it isn’t the same thing at all, and you must know perfectly well that it isn’t, Mr Wood.

Jim Burroway
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

Then Mr. Burroway does everything he can to move away from that fact, the central one in the study that I noted.

Constant prevarication, obfuscation, denial, equivocation.  Hallmarks of ‘debate’ by the gay activist crowd.

Well no. What I did do was present it in the full context JUST AS THE AUTHOR DID when he was questioned about it in 2006.

Constant prevarication, obfuscation, denial, equivocation –and pulling single sentences out of context.  Hallmarks of ‘debate’ by the anti-gay activist crowd. Checkmate

Richard Wood
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

As I’m clearly the only one here who can be bothered to actually have read the article in question, let me cite from it: “all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories” (p. 73). Telling.

On that same page, a graphic representation of the preferences of all subjects can be found. The one for homosexual men is remarkable–it is highest for the youngest photo images and declines precipitously as the subject age of the photos increases.

Another remarkable fact of the graphic rep is that homosexual men find almost ALL the images to be relatively sexually attractive compared to the responses of heterosexual men–i.e., they have a tendency to be significantly sexually attracted to just about every male subject they see, although the clear winner is the youngest of the photos.

Given the clear slope of the graphic, reasonable people can draw reasonable conclusions about how homosexual men would score if photos of 15 year old boys were included in the sample (they were not for reasons having to do with ethics in research–Silverthorne and Quinsey note that previous studies of homosexual male sexual attraction have systematically skewed results toward higher age ranges, by e.g., selecting out homosexual male subjects attracted to teens in advance (Freund 1973) or giving homosexual respondents only images of men in very limited age ranges starting in the clearly adult categories (Jankowiak 1992).

Heterosexual men, on the other hand, did not prefer the youngest subjects, but those in the mid-20 range.

William
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

Sorry, Mr Wood, you can’t draw “reasonable conclusions” about something for which the data don’t provide any basis for drawing a conclusion one way or the other. You can guess, if you like, but a guess isn’t a reasonable conclusion; it’s just a guess.

Timothy Kincaid
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

Given the clear slope of the graphic, reasonable people can draw reasonable conclusions about how homosexual men would score if photos of 15 year old boys were included in the sample

And just imagine what would happen if they included picture of fetuses. Gay men wouldn’t be able to control themselves. OH MY!!!

Sometimes arguments are so blatantly downright stupid that you can only laugh (and mock, of course).

Jason D
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

“Study did find that homosexuals tend to prefer younger partners than heterosexuals”

Then Mr. Burroway does everything he can to move away from that fact, the central one in the study that I noted.

Constant prevarication, obfuscation, denial, equivocation. Hallmarks of ‘debate’ by the gay activist crowd.”

You seem to refuse to understand the study involved LEGAL ADULTS. You have no reason to suggest that if a 16 year old were included, that the gay men would go ga ga. As 28 seems to be the line in the sand for straight men in that study, without further study, one would not actually know what the low end line would be fore gays. Perhaps 18 is the limit, perhaps not. Your attempt to suggest that “reason” dictates that as the ages get younger, gay men would be more attracted is pure speculation with 5th-grade logic to boot. As Timothy rightly points out, by the same logic you use — fetuses would be the ultimate sexually attractive person…or perhaps it’s the zygote, or sperm and egg just before conception. hot hot hot. You’re using a weak argument (the slippery slope) and trying to apply it to a legit scientific study. it’s amazing what mental gymanstics you’ll put yourself through to prove an invalid point.

We get it, Richard, you don’t like, trust, or believe gay men. You will use whatever skewed logic and “wink wink, nudge nudge” reasoning you have your disposal. No wonder Cameron appeals to you, you’ve the same mindset. You come from the perspective that there is something wrong with gays, thus you find no problem grasping at straws to prove your point and dismissing legit research to the contrary as politically biased.

William
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

Yes, Timothy and Jason, you’re right. Using Richard Wood’s method of “reasoning”, you can keep on piling guess upon guess (or, as some might prefer to put it, reasonable conclusion upon reasonable conclusion) to get to where you want to get. The whole line of argument then becomes something along the lines of “If only we can get hold of some bacon, we can have bacon and eggs – if we’ve got any eggs, that is. In fact we can have bacon, eggs and sausages – assuming that we’ve got some sausages.”

Jim Burroway
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

Mr. Wood wants to pretend that he’s the only one to have read the Silverthorne and Quinsey study, as it is convenient to assume that others on this thread don’t have access to it. But I fist read this study two years ago, and have retained a copy of it to go over again and again, as many anti-gay activists claim this study “proves” that gay=pedophilia.

Unfortunately, this study makes no such claim. Nor does it claim that gay men are more likely to be attracted to underage men. It doesn’t even address underage subjects at all. But Mr. Wood and others like him would have him “extrapolate” the data in this study toward areas for which there is no data. No serious scientist would do that, and neither should anyone else who take science seriously.

In fact, there are many areas in which Mr. Wood and others like him would seek to extrapolate the data from this study. The study consisted of 192 participants, divided into equal groups of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, lesbians, and gay men. The gay men were recruited from weekly meetings of a gay bowling league, while hetero men were recruited from two coffee shops. All groups were from Kingston, Ontario. Mr. Wood would have us believe that the 48 gay bowlers from Canada are representative of all gay men across the United States, a most extraordinary claim that no one in their right mind would ever argue. Which leaves only Mr. Wood and other anti-gay activists making precisely that argument by implication.

He would also have you “extrapolate” the charts shown in the study, identified as figure 1, to imply that gay male attraction for underage kids would be off the charts. But he doesn’t explain why it is that for the females photos, there was a sharp drop-off from the 25-year-old subject to the 19-year-old subject. Clearly there are limits to extrapolation.

In fact, it’s that 25-year-old female photo that presents the greatest problem in the whole study. The photos aren’t reproduced in the article, but she must have been damn hot. Everyone (except for the lesbian subjects) thought she was the most attractive of all the females, and the heterosexual males thought so by a huge margin. That’s why the study authors cautioned:

The difference between male heterosexuals’ ratings of 25-year-old female faces and those of 18 and 28 year olds was in the expected direction but much larger than expected. The size of this difference suggests that the 25-year-old female faces may have been artifactually attractive in that more attractive individuals may have been sampled by chance in the 25-year-old category. Future research could eliminate this possible confounding of age category and attractiveness either by using the same individuals photographed at different ages or by employing large random samples of faces from different age categories

And that is probably the single greatest weakness of the study. What did the 25-year-old female look like? What did the 18-year-old male look like? Were they of “average” attractiveness for their age? The authors thought so until they saw the results for the 25-year-old female.

That study was in 2000. No one else has attempted to replicate it or attempt a similar one. I suspect it’s because the methodology itself is fraught with problems. (What is attractive for each age group? How does one construct a set of photos of “equal attractiveness” across age when that is one of the factors you’re trying to measure?)

When Tim Dailey of the Family “Research” Council tried to use this study to claim that gay men were more likely to like underage children — just as Mr. Wood does — Dr. Vernon L. Quinsey, one of the two authors, essentially yelled “Not so fast!”

The problem is, I called Quinsey to see what he thought of Dailey’s interpretation of his findings. And Quinsey emphasized that his study made use of groups of photographs representing ranges of ages to test attraction, that the mean age for their youngest category was 18, and that “the only statistically valid conclusions that could be drawn concern these average ages.” Moreover, he noted that “we wondered in the paper whether the heterosexual men’s very high ratings of the 25-year female faces were an artifact of unusually attractive pictures in that category (there were some very pretty models) on the similar grounds that–data from a better controlled study show age preference gradients for homosexual males viewing men and heterosexual males viewing women.” That’s significant because Dailey’s avowed reason for preferring the Silverthorne-Quinsey study is his concern that selection bias had provided Freund with an unrepresentative sample skewed toward gay men with older age preferences. But what distinguishes the Quinsey-Silverthorne study and accounts for the age-preference gap it finds, Quinsey told me, is the unexpected (and, he suspects, perhaps idiosyncratic) “spike” in attraction to older women among heterosexual men. In other words, Dailey is trying to base his conclusion that homosexual preferences tend unusually young by relying on a study where there’s an unusual difference—but the difference is accounted for by how uncommonly old the women picked by heterosexuals were.

So you see, Mr. Wood, I’m not asking you to take my word for it. I suggest you actually pay attention to what the study’s author actually said when confronted by the thesis you propose. Pay attention to the guy who designed the study, recruited the participants, executed the study, analyzed the data, and published the results. If you don’t want to pay attention to him, then I can’t help you.

And that last point, I think, is where all this comes to. You’re not here to engage in a discussion or get to know anyone or participate in the give-and-take of examining the facts, aren’t you? No, you’re here for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that’s to tell us who we are attracted to, in essence. You purpose is to continue to put forward the idea that we gay men are child molesters. Okay, you didn’t say all of us. Okay, you didn’t say most of us. You didn’t actually say how many of us are. But you did come in here expecting one criminal from Virginia to be representative of all of us, and you’ve brought along a study that does not say so to say that it does.

Your motives are clear.

The benefit of running a web site is that the web site’s owner gets to set the parameters of debate. We tolerate all sorts of differing opinions here. We tolerated 18 of yours, including 8 on this thread alone, which is much, much more than any anti-gay web site would tolerate of mine. But I think this line of discussion has come to an end. I’m placing you on moderation. When you have a different line of discussion, those comments will be published.

Jason D
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

“So you see, Mr. Wood, I’m not asking you to take my word for it. I suggest you actually pay attention to what the study’s author actually said when confronted by the thesis you propose.”

Jim, you realize Wood is only going to offer up the claim that the author of the study is politically compromised, right?

to paraphrase monty python.

“No one expects the homosexual agenda!!”

Burr
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

All I know is I’ve heard far more lecherous thoughts about underage girls from heterosexual men than from gay men about underage guys. In fact I have not heard one gay guy exclaim about anyone, “Man, I can’t wait until ____ turns 18!”

cowboy
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

That’s the beauty of a blog. It has the immediacy of timely response where a vast number of people can read and determine the facts and logic in a debate. No debate in the public forum in a newspaper can accomplish this quite like a blog. No debate on whatever TV show could even come close to giving us the details we have read here. Can you imagine having to wait for the next issue of TIME/Newsweek to get a response and only then it would have scratched the surface on this topic.

I’m grateful for Dick Wood (I won’t honor in calling him Mr. Wood since it’s obviously a pseudonym intended to mock and deride gays.) He has given me an opportunity to see the sordid mindset and the evil that lurks in some people.

Thank you Mr. Burroway for taking the time to respond to this and thanks to everyone who contributed to this discourse. This is exactly what makes this blog so worthwhile.

Jason D
July 10th, 2009 | LINK

“As I already said, gay men molest children as infrequently as they do in large part b/c they are mostly kept away from children–in part b/c most gay men have no interest in parenting, and “in part b/c our society is still largely (and sanely) committed to keeping children away from adult men period when there are no women present to moderate the sexual impulses of those men.”

Being a man yourself, Richard, have a few questions based on your line of thinking.

1.How many women have to be present to “moderate” YOUR sexual impulses? And are these average women, or say, female bodybuilders?

2. On the off chance that you are some sort of exception to the rule, that your sexual impulses aren’t an overwhelming force of nature compelling you to rape anything and everything in sight — how do you know you’re an exception and not the norm?

Dick Mills
July 26th, 2009 | LINK

Child molesters should be shot! There is just no polite way to say it, and no polite way to deal with them. And, that includes all of those kid-fucking Catholic priests, and I also think it is appropriate that those who covered up the priests’ crimes should be shot as well.

But, the one overriding fact here is that by far, the vast majority of child molestations are perpetrated by heterosexuals. And, that is true most of the time when children of the same sex are molested as well.

Denis
August 12th, 2009 | LINK

Does charged mean he has actually had a trial and been found guilty? If he was arrested, then he should be considered innocent until proven otherwise. It seems odd that all the evidence put forth was from another person that may or may not be lying to reduce his sentence (plea bargain). I hate it when people presume everyone that is arrested is guilty of the crimes because that’s mostly not the case, especially when it comes to gay men and police sting operations. How many lives have been ruined because of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and not actually doing the things they were charged for? If he is really guilty, then punish him, but give everyone the benefit of the doubt — for God’s sake this is America!

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)
(Required, never shared)

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