Box Turtle Bulletin

What Is Abstinence?

An April 2007 report (PDF: 704KB/64 pages) for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that abstinence-only education had no impact on the number of sexual partners and sexual activities among students who were in abstinence-only programs versus students in other types of sex-ed program. New research to be published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior suggests that it may also fail from an STD-prevention standpoint as well.

Canadian researchers E. Sandra Byers, Joel Henderson and Kristina M. Hobson asked 298 heterosexual Canadian college students about how they defined “abstinence” and “having sex.” Students were pretty consistent about a few things: Nobody really thought having intercourse was “abstinence”, and most students didn’t include non-genital contact as “having sex.” But there areas where the distinction between “abstinence” and “having sex” weren’t so clear:

Students were quite mixed in whether activities involving unidirectional genital stimulation (e.g., oral sex, genital fondling) constituted abstinence, having sex, or neither abstinence nor having sex. However, they were more likely to see these behaviors as abstinent than as having sex. Students were more likely to rate a behavior as abstinence if orgasm did not occur… The results indicated that male participants who were more involved with their religion and sexually conservative, less sexually experienced, and who had not received sexual health education at home were more likely to define bidirectional genital stimulation and less likely to define no genital stimulation and unidirectional sexual stimulation as sexual abstinence.

In other words, many students believe they can engage in oral sex and still be “abstinent,” and religious students in this particular sample are more likely to believe so. Since STD’s can be transmitted through oral sex, this finding represents a significant potential failure in abstinence-only education.

Americans Support Civil Unions

A new ABC poll shows broad support for recognition of same-sex relationships by means of civil unions.

A random telephone survey of 1,131 American adults asked (among other questions)

Do you think homosexual couples should or should not be allowed to form legally recognized civil unions, giving them the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance and pension coverage?

ABC tells us:

Overall, 55 percent favor allowing homosexual couples to form legally recognized civil unions, giving them the same rights as married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance and pension coverage. That’s up from 45 percent in an ABC/Post poll in 2006; the previous high was 51 percent in 2004.

While this is an encouraging result, there are specific subsets of the population that suggest that over time equality for gay persons will be readily accepted by the citizenry at large. Saying yes to civil unions were:

In addition to Democrats (66%), civil unions are supported by independants (58%) and even a healthy showing of Republicans (39%). Even those identifying as “Conservatives” and “Conservative Republicans” were about a third supportive (35% and 31%, respectively). Politicians who seek to stir up “the base” of conservative Republicans with an anti-gay attack may want to note that a third of their audience will not be receptive to such a call.

While only 44% of those over 65 were supportive, those 18-29 were two-thirds in favor. This speaks well for future benefits in the private sector as these individuals become the CEOs and small-businessmen of tomorrow.

A Predictive Formula for Orientation?

As of yet there is no convincing study that can definitely prove that sexual orientation can be fully attributed to biology (genes, hormones, inuterine circumstances) or societal factors (parents, peers, self imaging). Twin studies suggest some genetic impact, but also seem to suggest that gene may not work alone. Studies on other mammals (rams in particular) suggest that brain structure is relevant, but we are humans not sheep and there is some argument that the brain structural differences may be a result rather than cause of sexual attraction/behavior.

However, in recent years there has been a regular stream of studies, all of which seem to support the notion that sexual orientation is heavily influenced by non-voluntary determinants, most of which appear biological in nature. Yet another has appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.

Previous studies have established that left-handedness appears to a greater degree in the male homosexual population than in the male heterosexual population (it also appears among Presidents). Studies have also linked handedness with increased size of an area of the brain, the corpus callosum, particularly the isthmus.

We hypothesized that isthmal area would be greater in homosexual men, even among right handers. Twelve homosexual and ten heterosexual healthy young men, all consistently right-handed, underwent a research-designed magnetic resonance imaging scan. We found that the isthmal area was larger in the homosexual group, adding to the body of findings of structural brain differences between homosexual and heterosexual men.

This led researcher to think that right-handed gay men were less right-handed (“less marked functional asymmetry”) than their straight counterparts.

A logistic regression analysis to predict sexual orientation category correctly classified 21 of the 22 men (96% correct classification) based on area of the callosal isthmus, a left-hand performance measure, water level test score, and a measure of abstraction ability. Our findings indicate that neuroanatomical structure and cognition are associated with sexual orientation in men and support the hypothesis of a neurobiological basis in the origin of sexual orientation.

Past studies have suffered from the problems of exceptions. While “on average” an attribute might be observed to be different between the orientations, the variances were small and many individuals were observed to be on both sides of the observation window. If I am reading this correctly, however, Sandra Witelson and her team may have found a predictive test, a formula, for determining sexual orientation, using MRI and dexterity testing.

However, in Science Daily, Witelson appears to be hesitant to make such a claim:

The size of the corpus callosum is largely inherited suggesting a genetic factor in sexual orientation, said Witelson “Our results do not mean that heredity is destiny but they do indicate that environment is not the only player in the field,” she said.

While this is not a litmus test for sexual orientation, Witelson said this finding could prove to be one additional valuable piece of information for physicians and individuals who are trying to determine their sexual orientation. “Sometimes people aren’t sure of their sexual orientation.”

It will be interesting to see if her 96% correct prediction rate can be replicated in a larger population. Further, it will be interesting to see longitudinal testing to determine if sexual orientation can be predicted early in life.

In any case, this is yet one more study that supports a biological etiology for sexual orientation.

[Hat tip: GoodAsYou.org]

Associated Baptist Press Reports Criticism of Ex-Gay Study

In an article today, Robert Marus reported in ABPnews.com both the claims and the criticisms of the Jones and Yarhouse study. It is encouraging that this Christian press was willing to put accuracy ahead of theology in reporting the story.

A new study suggesting that religiously motivated conversion from homosexual orientation is possible and not harmful has been hailed by some social conservatives, while others are questioning the study’s motive and methodology.

It’s also cool that they quoted us.

Jones and Yarhouse’s effort did not provide much better evidence, Burroway said. “This study held great promise based on its initial design, but its conduct left much to be desired,” he wrote. “Its rigorous design was not matched by similar rigor in execution. And so we’re still left waiting for that definitive breakthrough ex-gay study. I don’t think this one is it.”

Focus Seeks to Deceive about NYT Poll

What do you do if a poll releases information that you don’t like? Well, if you are Focus on the Family, you spin yourself in circles.

The New York Times issued a poll on June 27 revealing some attitudes of America’s youth. The survey of 659 adults ages 17 to 29, dealt with social and political issues and indicated that youth are currently more liberal than are the population as a whole. Let’s compare Focus on the Family’s reporting with the results shown from the poll.

FotF Headline: Young Americans Hold Conservative Views
NY Times Headline: Young Americans Are Leaning Left, New Poll Finds

Focus: Sixty-two percent said abortion should be outlawed or restricted.

Actual poll results:

37% – Abortion should be generally available to those who want it
38% – Abortion should be available but under stricter limits than it is now
24% – Abortion should not be permitted

Focus: Fifty-four percent of young adults expressed opposition to same-sex marriage.

Actual poll results:

44% – gay couples should be allowed to legally marry
24% – gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry
30% – there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship

Now Focus on the Family can argue that the words they put down on paper are technically true. But the message they tried to convey is completely dishonest.

There is no point at which Focus believes that holding “conservative views” includes support for civil unions. Nor is 68% support for recognition of gay couples cause for Focus to triumphantly declare that young Americans “hold conservative views”.

But the worst example in the Focus article of deliberate misinformation is the secondary heading:

A majority opposes abortion and same-sex marriage.

That’s just an outright lie.

(hat tip to Scott H.)

Gallup Poll: They Like Us! They Really, Really Like Us!

The latest Gallup poll of attitudes toward gays and lesbians shows significant improvements on several fronts. Among the findings:

1. 59% now think homosexual relations should be legal. This is up from 50% in July 2003, during the aftermath of Lawrence vs. Texas, which threw out anti-sodomy statutes nationwide. Interestingly, that 50% figure represents something of a backlash reaction; 59% thought homosexuality should be legal just two months earlier. With this latest poll, that backlash is now officially over.
2. 89% agree that gays and lesbians should not face discrimination in job opportunities. That figure has been in the eighties since 1993.
3. 57% think homosexuality is an acceptable “lifestyle”; 39% do not.
   • And time is definitely on our side. Among those 18-34 years of age, 75% say it’s acceptable while 23 do not.
   • Among those aged 35-54, it’s still 58% acceptable; 39% not.
   • You have to go to the 55+ age group to find a majority disapproving, and even there the level of acceptance is quite high (45% acceptable; 51% not).
4. The public is split on whether homosexuality is morally acceptable: 47% think it is, and 49% say it isn’t.
5. On the nature/nurture debate, 42% now believe gays and lesbians are born that way, and 35% think it’s the result of upbringing or the environment. Eleven percent say it’s both.
   • Where people fall on the the nature/nurture debate plays a humongous role in whether they believe homosexuality is an acceptable “lifestyle”.
   • Among those that believes gays and lesbians are born gay, a whopping 78% believe it is an acceptable “lifestyle”; only 19% do not.
   • Among those who subscribe to the nurture side of the debate, a mere 30% find homosexuality to be an acceptable “lifestyle,” while 68% do not.
6. When it comes to same-sex marriage, we still have some work to do: 46% support them; 53% do not.

To me, there are two significant findings. First of all, time is definitely on our side. As far as everyone who is under the age of 55, we’re golden. And even for those who are above the age of 55, there’s a significant level of acceptance. Barely over half disapprove.

And the second thing is that this poll shows in the sharpest contrast imaginable the differences between those who believe gays and lesbians are born gay versus those who think we were raised that way. It’s no wonder anti-gay activists are so heavily invested in the ex-gay movement and the environmental theories which are at their core.

Sampling error varies according to the number of respondents and the responses they give. The Gallup organization gives the maximum sampling error at +/- 3% (95% confidence level).

Familiarity Breeds Support

Pew Research has released a report that shockingly shows that people who know gay folk are more likely to support their civil freedoms than people who only hear about gay folk from preachers and politicians. 

An analysis of survey results suggests that familiarity is closely linked to tolerance. People who have a close gay friend or family member are more likely to support gay marriage and they are also significantly less likely to favor allowing schools to fire gay teachers than are those with little or no personal contact with gays, the poll found.

Well knock me down with a feather.  Who’d a thunk it?

Another Gay Brain Study

It has long been known that men and women, collectively, do not perform mental tasks identically. And previous research has suggested that gay men and women perform mental tasks in a manner closer to that of the opposite sex.

An article in the April 2007 Archives of Sexual Behavior discusses a study by University of Warwick researchers of 109,612 men and 88,509 women which confirmed these observations. Although I’ve not yet seen the article, a summary was presented at Physorg.com.

In general, over the range of tasks measured, where a gender performed better in a task heterosexuals of that gender tended to perform better than non-heterosexuals. When a particular gender was poorer at a task homosexual and bisexual people tended to perform better than heterosexual members of that gender.

The results seem to be a tiered effect in which orientation correlated with gender expectations for mental tasks.

For instance in mental rotation (a task where men usually perform better) they found that the table of best performance to worst was:

— Heterosexual men
— Bisexual men
— Homosexual men
— Homosexual women
— Bisexual women
— Heterosexual women

The summary did not report as to the extent of the variation so I don’t know how much significance can be placed on the information. But to me this is further indication that orientation is “hard wired” and pre-natal.

Others may argue the order of causation (ie. that homosexual behaviors or thinking resulted in change in brain functioning). But in either case, this is another study on the large and growing pile that compellingly argues that orientation is not simply selected behavior and that it impacts more in one’s life than the object of one’s attraction.

The study also reported an item of bad news for gay men and good news for gay women.

However age was found to discriminate on gender grounds but not sexual orientation. The study found that men’s mental abilities declined faster than women’s and that sexual orientation made no difference to the rate of that decline either for men or women.

Sorry guys, both straight and gay.

Conservative Christians Support Hate Crimes Bill

If we were to believe the rabid “Christian” media, we’d think that all Christians, or at least the conservative ones, are quivering in fear of being jailed for expressing their disapproval of homosexuality.  While I’m quite certain that the authors of the articles are well aware that no such danger exists, one might understand if decent but uninformed everyday church-going folk were troubled by these reports of impending doom.

But they’re not.  According to pollster Gallup (as reported in the Christian Post), every demographic identifiable supports the hate crimes legislation.

…no group identifiable in Gallup’s standard categories – including the Republicans, Independents, Democrats, conservatives, moderates, liberals, Protestant and those with no religious identity – expressed less than majority support for the legislation that some Christians fear could strip away their right to express a biblical view on homosexuality, according to the poll report.

New Survey: 95% Have Had Premarital Sex

Finer, Lawrence B. “Trends in premarital sex in the United States, 1954-2003.” Public Health Reports 122, no. 1 (January 2007): 73-78. Abstract available here.

A new study on premarital sex has been published in the peer-reviewed journal Public Health Reports by Lawrence Finer, Director of Domestic Research of the Guttmacher Institute. Dr. Finer observes that “Over the past decade, increasing amounts of advocacy, finding and programmatic effort have focused on encouraging Americans to abstain from sexual intercourse until they marry.” But Americans have been pushing the age of marriage later than previous generations, so that now the median age of first marriage for women has increased from 22.1 to 25.8 years in the past 25 years. The median age of first marriage for men increased from 24.4 to 27.4 years in the same period. This study examines whether Americans are actually likely to buy into the “abstinence until marriage” approach favored by social conservatives.

This study is based on the probability-sampled National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), a set of nationally representative surveys conducted in 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002. From this data, we learn:

• By age 20, 75% of respondents had had premarital sex.
• By age 44, 95% of respondents had had premarital sex.
• Even among those who abstained until age 20, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44.
• Even among those women who turned 15 between 1954 and 1963 (generally before the “sexual revolution”), 82% had had premarital sex by age 30 and 88% had done so by age 44.

So, in short, the answer is no, the “abstinence until marriage” message is not taking root. What’s more, it wasn’t followed by more than four-fifths of the women born between 1939 and 1948. These figures are difficult to refute. They come from a very large set of nationally representative surveys, with margins of error of around a single percentage point or less.

As you can imagine, this survey has social conservatives in a tizzy. Focus on the Family has led the way with the talking points that other social conservatives have picked up on:

But Linda Klepacki, analyst for sexual health at Focus on the Family Action, said the motive behind the Guttmacher report is suspect, especially given the group’s close affiliation with Planned Parenthood.

“This is the condom cartel’s attempt at normalizing out-of-wedlock sexual behavior,” she said. “This is one in a series of documents that is designed to set the battle lines for January’s congressional battles over (funding for) sex education.”

Glenn Stanton, senior analyst for marriage and sexuality at Focus on the Family, questioned the method used to collect the data.

“These numbers seem a little high to me,” he said. “Additionally, what they don’t tell us is how active people were before marriage. Were most of these encounters among people who were engaged or were they simply casual hook-ups? We don’t know.”

Other reactions continue in that vein: Personal attacks on Dr. Finer’s integrity, vague references to un-named studies on unrelated issues, and comments like “these numbers seem a little high”. There are virtually no critiques of this study’s methodologies, just gripes about its findings.

Most telling in Focus on the Family’s reaction is their attempt to go after Dr. Finer’s reputation, citing his connections with Planned Parenthood and claiming that he is biased towards condom-based education. But as Paul Cameron recently wrote, “Accuracy is the most important aspect of empiricism. If investigators are clear about their method and employ it to generate ‘facts,’ their opinions are irrelevant.” (Letter: “Facts, not opinion, drive science: A reply to Morrison” Journal of Biosocial Science 39, no. 1 (January 2007): 155-156)

Far be it for me to ever agree with Paul Cameron, but as my father used to say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. If the methodology is sound, then it doesn’t matter what personal opinions the researcher holds. The data stands on its own. But if the methodology is flawed, it should be relatively easy to list those flaws and what they may mean for the findings. But because these findings are based on nationally representative surveys with margins of error of about 1% or less, Focus on the Family didn’t cite flaws in the methodology, apparently because they couldn’t find any. So they did the next best thing. They attacked the messenger.

But as far as I can tell, this data is solid. And it’s not the first time we’ve seen evidence that premarital sex is normative behavior in overwhelming numbers. Just last February, a survey of devout Baptist newlyweds (all of them “professed faith in Christ,” 99% attended church weekly, and 84% grew up in church) found that only 27% of them “entered the marriage bed chaste.” In other words, 73% of these devout Baptists had had premarital sex. And this came from a researcher who claimed that abstinence-until-marriage messages were successful!

And so the pattern continues. When Focus on the Family is caught manipulating research, they dig in their heels and claim they are victims of attacks by “homosexual activists” — even when the scientists themselves denounce Focus’ misrepresentations. But when Focus on the Family is confronted by real science like this, they do the very thing they claim “homosexual activist” are doing. They attack the messenger. That’s a very poor way to bolster scientific credibility, and it’s a funny way to promote values. But that’s what passes for scientific inquiry and family values at Focus on the Family.

Pink News Gets It Even More Wrong

An update to an earlier post The Advocate Gets It Wrong

A tip from a reader (Thanks Jeffery!) led me to this article from London-based Pink News, which breathlessly exclaims:

Up to 20 per cent of gay men have tried crystal meth

Research published today by City University, London has found that up to twenty ten [sic] per cent of gay men in London have tried the clubbing drug crystal methamphetamine (crystal meth). Of these men, most use it only infrequently.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! And what’s with the “twenty ten per cent”? Did the article originally read “ten per cent” and someone decide it needed punching up?

I expect this from Paul Cameron, Melissa Fryrear and others like them. (And I fully expect the anti-gay press to pick up on this very soon.) But when I set out to counter the misrepresentation of research by anti-gay activists, I certainly didn’t expect to see the same thing coming from the gay press. I am pulling out what little remains of my hair here.

So, where does the 20% figure come from? It comes from an even smaller sample from that same study’s convenience samples we talked about before — gay men who attend selected gyms in central London. I’m not familiar with the gym scene in central London, but these researchers appear to conclude that the gym scene is closely related to the club scene. I don’t know about the gym venues surveyed to know if this connection is real.

But for the sake of argument, let’s just assume that the connection is there. If so, it still doesn’t mean that this sub-sample of a sub-sample is representative of gay men in London overall. To say that one in five London Men have used meth, even infrequently, blasts right through credulity and proceeds straight to ludicrous.

And how do we know this? Other London-area researchers have looked into exactly this issue. They compared survey responses from a national probability sample (The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, or Natsal) and a “community sample” from London drawn from gay bars, clubs, saunas and STD clinics (The Gay Men’s Sexual Health Survey, or GMSHS). Here is what they found:

These results show that the Natsal London men recruited by a probability sample were less likely to report STIs [STI in UK=STD in North America – ed.], GUM clinic attendance [GUM=Genitourinary Medicine, the British term for STD clinics – ed], or HIV testing than GMSHS men recruited from gay venues…

It is important to consider the appropriate sampling frame for a particular set of research questions. … Our findings suggest that focusing on a community sample of MSM [Men who have sex with men – ed.] is likely to result in an overestimate in the prevalence of sexual risk behaviour and sexual health outcomes with respect to all MSMs in Britain.

— Ref: Dodds, Julie P.; Mercer, Catherine H.; Mercey, Danielle E.; Copas, Andrew J.; Johnson, Anne M. “Men who have sex with men: A comparison of a probability sample survey and a community based study.” Sexually Transmitted Infections 82, no. 1 (February 2006): 86-87. Abstract available here.

Crystal meth is serious business. Because meth users are at least twice as likely to engage in unsafe sex, studies like this one are exceptionally important to understand how we can better target educational and prevention programs. And we can better target these programs when we know where we can find these high-risk groups. Professor Jonathan Elford, one of the authors of the study, noted:

What is clear from the research in the gyms is that crystal meth is a part of the London gay club-drug scene. Health promotion and awareness campaigns around crystal meth must therefore focus on the gay club scene to have maximum impact.

And Will Nutland, Head of Health Promotion at Britain’s Terrence Higgins Trust, added:

This research adds to the growing understanding of crystal meth use among gay men in London and helps to ensure that our educational responses are properly grounded in evidence.

That’s why we do these studies — to provide intelligent responses to a serious problem, not to provide headline writers with sexy headlines.

To learn more about convenience samples, see The Survey Says… What Everyone Should Know About Statistics. You can also see how the Washington Times started an urban myth in What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples.

The Advocate Gets It Wrong

The Advocate just posted this news item:

Approximately 10% of gay men in London have used the recreational drug methamphetamine, according to a study published in the online edition of the journal Addiction.

Well, er, no. It’s bad enough when anti-gay extremists get research wrong to portray gays as drug-fueled sex fiends. We don’t need our own media outlets feeding the myths.

It appears that neither The Advocate nor Sirius OutQ (which originated the story) read the abstract to that article very closely:

Participants HIV-positive gay men attending the HIV treatment clinic in 2002–03 (n = 388); HIV-negative gay men attending the HIV testing/sexual health clinics in 2002–03 (n = 266); gay men using the gyms between January and March 2003 (n = 445), 2004 (n = 653) and 2005 (n = 494).

Conclusion Among gay men in London surveyed in clinics, approximately one in 10 reported using crystal meth in the previous 12 months (HIV-positive men 12.6%; HIV-negative men 8.3%).

That’s right. The 10% statistic came from men surveyed at HIV/STD clinics. So what does that prove? Only that 10% of gay men surveyed in HIV/STD clinics used crystal meth. That’s it. Nothing else. It is not generalizable to gay men across London or anywhere else. It applies only to gay men at HIV/STD clinics. In London. Crystal meth usage may be different elsewhere.

This study is based on what’s called a convenience sample — an easy-to-access group of people recruited to test a particular hypothesis. This is a perfectly legitimate means of studying simple correlations. But it is by no means a general population survey, and the authors did not intend for it to be cited as such.

This is not to say that men who take the responsible step of getting tested should fall under the suspicion of being drug users. But the only thing this study can possibly demonstrate is that when targeting intervention programs for crystal meth users among the gay population in London, one place to look might be in HIV/STD clinics. But even there, only one in ten are likely to be users. (I’ll have to get the article’s full text from the library to know the nature of the “gyms.”)

Anti-gay extremists often misrepresent research to claim that a given survey represents everyone regardless of how the survey was put together. And when they turn to studies based on STD clinics, they obtain some pretty out-of-whack statistics (which is why STD population-based studies are especially popular with that crowd.) But when the media does it (and especially our own) it is downright irresponsible and outrageous.

Ten percent would be a large chuck of gay men using crystal meth. One in ten — look around and consider that possibility. This would be big news. But to use this study to say that 10% of all London gay men are meth users is simply wrong, not to mention slanderous to the men of London. Give us — and especially our gay friends in London — a break.

UPDATE: To learn about other research which proves this study cannot be extrapolated to the general male population in London, see our response to an even more eggregious misrepresentation of this study in Pink News Gets It Even More Wrong.

To learn more about convenience samples, see The Survey Says… What Everyone Should Know About Statistics. You can also see how the Washington Times started an urban myth in What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples.