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

Heterosexual Menace: A Mom’s Novel Approach To Conflict Resolution Between Children

Jim Burroway

July 3rd, 2009

Maggie Gallagher, in reaction to the Frank Lombard case, admits that she is very mistrustful of men adopting children. “I have a bias in favor of mothers,” she writes. “I have a suspicion (let me be frank — I’m not proud, but it’s true) of men who want to get close to children while depriving them of mothers.” I guess when it comes to raising children, mothers really know best. We can all probably learn some valuable lessons from moms on raising children.

Like this dilemma every parent faces. What do you do when your nine-year-old child is in the middle of a long-running dispute with one of her classmates?

Well if you’re a licensed clinical social worker and a classroom mother at your daughter’s elementary school, you post a sexually suggestive ad in the “Casual Encounters” section of Craigist. And when throngs of sex-seeking men answer the ad, you give them the phone number of your child’s antagonist.

It just makes sense, right?

That’s what Margery Tannenbaum thought. She placed the ad with the headline of “Looking for a good time? W4M21″ on Craiglist. The ad read, “I need a little affection. … I  am blonde and very cute! I’ll be waiting!”

Next thing you know her child’s arch-enemy’s mother had to field at least 50 calls from horny straight men in two days before changing her number. Tannenbaum also ordered at least eight magazine subscriptions, a book and a DVD to be sent to the child’s home.

Tannenbaum was arraigned on Thursday on charges of aggravated harassment and endangering the welfare of a child. Her defense lawyer — he’s probably straight too, but we haven’t confirmed that yet — called her a “good, hardworking professional.” He also says “this is being blown out of proportion.”

This is outrageous, so outrageous I think it calls for some LaBarbera-esqe typography. Heterosexuals will stop at nothing in their thirst for debauchery! If you think this latest example is beyond the pale, then I’ve got news for you: this barely scratches the surface. There’s more heterosexual menace here and in our report, “The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths.”

Update: News coverage of the Long Island mom accused of sending sex-crazed men to her daughter’s nine-year-old classmate is apparently lacking what some say is a key piece of information: the fact the alleged perpetrator is a heterosexual who lives with a “straight” man. Where’s the media frenzy? Why do all these reports hide that important fact?

Okay, I’ll stop with the red ink. It makes my eyes hurt.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

a. mcewen
July 3rd, 2009 | LINK

I’ve written something on the case too -“Should white women be teaching children?”

With your permission, I would like to post the link – http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2009/07/should-white-women-be-teaching-children.html

Jake
July 3rd, 2009 | LINK

By endorsing heterosexual parenting, President Obama, the state of New York, and the National Association of Social Workers share blame for this tragedy.

Heterosexuals Not Fit To Raise Children « Camels With Hammers
July 4th, 2009 | LINK

[…] Burroway offers an hysterical satire which laments the danger heterosexuals pose to our children.  He cites this (true) insane story to make the point that bad parents come in all sexual orientations… Like this dilemma every parent faces. What do you do when your nine-year-old child is in the middle […]

Richard Wood
July 4th, 2009 | LINK

You DO see that the two cases aren’t comparable in the terms you imply they are, right? The woman didn’t sexually molest her child, or any child. What she did is horrible, and criminally actionable, to be sure, but it is not a case of sexual abuse of children in her custody.

If you want this to work, find some cases of moms sexually abusing their own children. Those exist, surely. But I assure you the propensity is much, much lower than for men molesting their own children (natural, adopted, step-, or whatever). And that’s the reasonable point Gallagher is making. Which you catastrophically fail to really challenge here. Not that the gallery will notice, of course.

Christopher Waldrop
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Richard, I noticed it, but I don’t notice anything “catastrophic” about failing to challenge it here. This was a piece of satire, but, if you’re going to defend LaBarbera’s belief that gay men should not be allowed to adopt children, and that homosexuals are a menace to society, perhaps you should check out the links to the “heterosexual menace”.

Not that you would notice, of course, since those links might contain information that would challenge your belief that LaBarbera is right.

Jim Burroway
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Richard Wood.

Where is the evidence that “propensity is much, much lower than for men molesting their own children” (including married, step-, adopted, etc). I don’t know of any study that has ever proven or disproven this. Most studies that I’ve seen tend to indicate that the molester is typically a trusted figure, and often a close relative.

Richard Wood
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

The most basic of the basic facts, Mr. Burroway. http://books.google.com/books?id=V1rogCrcOMwC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=child+sexual+abuse+fathers+mothers&source=bl&ots=piXcuh74ah&sig=i3c39RAbN2uk82mtgmPXWBeev0c&hl=en&ei=quxQSo3KBoXCtwft1NGgBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5

Jim Burroway
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Sorry< I misread your earlier statement, overlooking the word “that.” I had misread it as
…”propensity is much, much lower … for men molesting their own children” (including married, step-, adopted, etc).”

I take it, then, that you are opposed to all men adopting children?

Jason D
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

“You DO see that the two cases aren’t comparable in the terms you imply they are, right? The woman didn’t sexually molest her child, or any child. What she did is horrible, and criminally actionable, to be sure, but it is not a case of sexual abuse of children in her custody.”

You’ve missed the point, Wood.

The point is that homosexuals aren’t more likely to be awful, irresponsible, ill-fit parents.

The point is also that heterosexuality is no guarantee of saintly parenting, just as homosexuality is not a recipe for abuse.

If you want to blow the Lombard case out as an indictment of all homosexual parenting, then this case logically is an indictment of all heterosexual parenting. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Funny how every week there’s another case of heterosexuals beating, raping, abusing, or killing their own kids or someone else’s, like this, or this, or this, or this. That’s just from a two-minute google search of child abuse from news reports of the last seven days! Contrast that with this lombard case which seems to be the only gay parent abuse case for quite some time — at least according to google. I doubt very seriously that gay parents, going through relentless scrutiny before adoption are as bad, if not worse, than straight couples —and somehow —- somehow able to cover it up so well.

Richard Wood
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

JasonD, you’re the one missing the point. The reason there are so many more cases of het parents hurting their kids is b/c there are so many more het parents. If the same % of gay men were parents as is true of het men, we’d certainly see many, many, many more cases of gay male child abuse. We see relatively few now b/c the vast majority of gay men are not parents and have little or no unsupervised access to children.

Richard Wood
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Single men adopting? Yes, in general to be opposed, for the reasons I’ve already given. Men in couples with other men? Same thing, for same reasons.

Richard Wood
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Google won’t do as a way of searching for gay male child abuse–we know how the media reacts to such cases, i.e., by not talking about them at all if possible, and by not mentioning the fact of sexual orientation unless it is forced out of them.

Emily K
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

So Richard supports lesbian couples and lesbian parents, I’m assuming, since they are not perverted gay men but “confused” gay women waiting for the “right man” to take them out of their homosexuality.

Jason D
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

“JasonD, you’re the one missing the point. The reason there are so many more cases of het parents hurting their kids is b/c there are so many more het parents.”

Ergo, heterosexuality is more dangerous to children than homosexuality. There’s more heterosexuals, therefore more opportunity for abuse. Which should we be more worried about (using your own data) 4% of the population, or the other 96%?

“If the same % of gay men were parents as is true of het men, we’d certainly see many, many, many more cases of gay male child abuse.”

This is unsubstantiated speculation. First because you don’t know the ratio of straight fathers to straight non-fathers, nor do you know the percentage of the population which is gay, nor do you know the ratio at which gay men are parents.

That’s a lot of things riding on your assumptions and speculation. And very little in the way of facts, which isn’t surprising.

“We see relatively few now b/c the vast majority of gay men are not parents and have little or no unsupervised access to children.”

More speculation. We only know that we see few. We don’t know why we see few, you are boldfaced lying to suggest otherwise.

“Google won’t do as a way of searching for gay male child abuse–we know how the media reacts to such cases, i.e., by not talking about them at all if possible, and by not mentioning the fact of sexual orientation unless it is forced out of them.”

More speculation.

And a rather ridiculous assertion to boot.

So, basically you’d have us accept the word of a debunked and thoroughly discredited researcher (Cameron) based on nother but your charge that he is correct, and you follow that up with the phony and unsubstantiated set of assumptions about both straight and gay men?

You have posted 1 link, one that barely supported your argument. Meanwhile this site is littered with evidence to the contrary with th0roughly researched articles with full citations.

Richard Wood
July 5th, 2009 | LINK

Can’t even take you seriously, Jason, with argumentative ‘logic’ like that.

Many, many more heterosexual men have kids than homosexual men, b/c there are a LOT more of them and b/c they’re actually capable of CREATING them w/their partners in the first place, and so the numbers being so overwhelming inevitably quantitatively more kids are harmed by their natural dads than by gay men who’ve adopted them, and to you this proves that heterosexuality is more dangerous to kids than homosexuality.

Exactly like arguing that breathing oxygen is more harmful to people than breathing clouds of sulfuric acid b/c so many more people die from the former (b/c there is pollution, some people respond negatively to airborne allergens, etc.). Never mind that the numbers are as they are b/c everyone breaths oxygen and very few people breath sulfuric acid clouds, that they NEED to breath oxygen to live (as the human race NEEDS heterosexual couples to repopulate the globe)and that almost no one ever even has the opportunity to breath sulfuric acid clouds (just as very few gay men ever desire and get the chance to be parents), though if they did, many, many more would surely die from it.

Really bad thinking on your part.

----
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

Prove how many other children have been molested by their gay adoptive parents. I’ll be waiting for a credible source.

William
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

“… we know how the media reacts to such cases…by not mentioning the fact of sexual orientation unless it is forced out of them.” – Richard Wood

Yes, there’s certainly something in that. When men who are married or are living in a heterosexual relationship are convicted of molesting boys, their heterosexual lifestyle is usually concealed by the media.

Timothy Kincaid
July 6th, 2009 | LINK

Richard,

…just as very few gay men ever desire and get the chance to be parents…

You are factually mistaken. The Urban Institute reports that “more than half of gay men want to have a child” and that “one in six gay men have fathered or adopted a child.” (see, we like facts here)

While that is fewer than heterosexual men, it is still quite a substantial number of men, more than 800,000 in the US. And, as best I can find, this may be the sole example of a self-identified gay man molesting his adopted son.

Yet we see report after report of self-identified heterosexual men that abuse and molest their sons, step-sons, adopted sons and foster sons.

If we were just making comparisons, wouldn’t this suggest that the safest household for a male child is among self-identified gay men?

Richard Wood
July 8th, 2009 | LINK

You don’t like facts enough to actually pay attention to the ones that are inconvenient to your cause. Only 5% of homosexual male homes include children: http://www.buddybuddy.com/parent.html. In other words, 95% of homosexual male homes do NOT include children. A fact I’m sure you’ll find a way to discount or ignore.

Timothy Kincaid
July 8th, 2009 | LINK

Oh, Richard, you are a funny one.

The “facts” on that page are a listing of the broad range in estimates from 5.2% of male homes up to 10 million.

It isn’t at all surprising that you picked the smallest number and declared it to be a “fact”. You poor sad man, how difficult it must be to go through life with the weight of bias wrapped around your eyes allowing you to only see what agrees with your presumptions.

But even at the smallest 5.2% estimate that you sought out, there are still hundreds of thousands of gay fathers out there productively raising healthy happy children. And if we accept the upper estimates (which are also unlikely) then we have millions upon millions of wonderful exemplary devoted gay fathers and thank God for them.

Jason D
July 8th, 2009 | LINK

Can’t even take you seriously, Jason, with argumentative ‘logic’ like that.

Really bad thinking on your part.

Richard, you don’t even recognize satire, are you sure you’re gay? I was using your own overly simplistic line of thinking on you. It’s called turning the tables.

Richard Wood
July 9th, 2009 | LINK

My statement is correct. Of the gay males existing in the US, “very few” have children living with them. 5%.

Contrary to your statement, the page I linked to has no “range” of different “estimates”–it has info on ONE demographic study showing 5% of gay male homes with children living in them. 5%. God only knows where you got 10 million b/c there is no claim there about 10 million homosexual males with children.

Indeed, such a statement would be insane, as there are certainly not 10 million homosexual males in existence in the US. You see, there are 300 million people total in this country. About half of them are women. About 75 million of the people living in the US are children, half of them male, so cut out another 37.5 million from the male side. This leaves about 112.5 million adult men.

The U of Chicago study shows that about 3-4% of American men have sex with other men most of the time, have mostly homosexual fantasies, and self-identify as homosexual–i.e., are gay by the definition reasonable people understand. (I leave aside the fantasy world of the person who responded re: the Chicago study earlier by suggesting that e.g., people who had one homosexual encounter at age 12 or who rarely have a homosexual fantasy but never act on it and self-identify as straight can in fact reasonably be classified as gay). 3-4% of 112.5 million only gets you 3.4-4.5 million gay males total.

10 million? You can’t be serious. Even “millions on millions” as you want to believe possible would require 50% or so of the existing number to be parents, which is obviously not true.

You might consider thinking a bit more before you post.

Timothy Kincaid
July 10th, 2009 | LINK

Mr. Wood,

We’ll just let others go to the site and see for themselves.

But regardless of whether one selects the largest estimate or, like you, the smallest, there are still AT LEAST a couple hundred thousand gay fathers.

I’ll repeat your original claim for clarity’s sake:

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.

Unlike you, I don’t describe a population ranging in size from hundreds of thousands up to millions (the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse estimate) to be “very, very few”.

Perhaps you do. But at this point I suspect you are just arguing for argument sake.

Richard Wood
July 10th, 2009 | LINK

The NAIC number is not about the same thing as the demographic study I cited, Mr. Kincaid.

If you’d bothered to think a minute before lashing back in reactionary fashion, you’d have seen that. The NAIC number claims to be about the number of homosexual male *parents*, while the stat I cited is about how many male homosexuals are actually living with children. (And the 6-14 million number they gave for “homosexual households”, God only knows what methodology they used to get it, but it combines homosexual male and female, so is not helpful for making claims about how many homosexual males are actually custodial parents of minor children).

As anyone with the 15 seconds needed to think about this would note, one can be a parent without having custody of children. Indeed, in most cases when divorce is involved, male parents do NOT have custody of children. So, in your effort to try to gin the numbers of gay males with children up as high as you can, you equate two figures that are not about the same thing.

I submit that it is interesting that such a tiny percentage of homosexual men actually live with children. Part of this is likely because they do not want to, but another part of it is that OTHERS do not want them to (i.e., the courts and professionals who make decisions about custody of minor children). You can try to fudge the facts all you want, but the study I cite on that page is the only one on the point I was making. If you want to make another claim that e.g., a substantial number of homosexual men have become parents in their previous lives as married men and then have lost custody of those children once they became homosexuals, well, that’s another discussion. I am making a point about how many homosexual men are actually the custodial parents of minor children. THAT number is, in terms of the overall number of homosexual men, very, very small. And there are very good reasons why it is so small.

I am in fact arguing b/c you and others here systematically refuse to see facts, or systematically attempt to prevaricate about or obfuscate the evidence.

Timothy Kincaid
July 10th, 2009 | LINK

As I thought, you are simply being argumentative. OK, you’ve had the last word.

Jason D
July 10th, 2009 | LINK

“I am making a point about how many homosexual men are actually the custodial parents of minor children. THAT number is, in terms of the overall number of homosexual men, very, very small. And there are very good reasons why it is so small.”

Nice intellectual slight-of-hand. You have yet to prove what those “very good reasons are” you simply point to your statistics and suggest the answer is obvious, when in fact, your stats don’t support your conclusion.

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.