The High Rate Of Child loveual Abuse By Homoloveual Males 1395

Another problem related to terminology arises because loveual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homoloveual molestation." The adjective "homoloveual" (or "heteroloveual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's loveual orientation. To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's loveual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the love of the individuals involved but don't convey implicit buttumptions about the perpetrator's loveual orientation. � Typologies of Offenders

The distinction between gender of victim and loveual orientation of perpetrator is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult loveual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature loveual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Over the years, this fact has been incorporated into various schemes for categorizing child molesters. For example, Finkelhor and Araji (1986) proposed that perpetrators' loveual attractions should be conceptualized as ranging along a continuum with exclusive interest in children at one extreme, and exclusive interest in adult partners at the other end. Typologies of offenders have often included a distinction between those with an enduring primary preference for children as loveual partners and those who have established age-appropriate relationships but who become loveually involved with children under unusual circumstances of extreme stress. Perpetrators in the first category those with a more or less exclusive interest in children have often been labeled fixated. Fixation means "a temporary or permanent arrestment of psychological maturation resulting from unresolved formative issues which persist and underlie the organization of subsequent phases of development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 176). Many clinicians view fixated offenders as being "stuck" at an early stage of psychological development. By contrast, other molesters are described as regressed. Regression is "a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual's development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 177). Regressed offenders have developed an adult loveual orientation but under certain conditions (such as extreme stress) they return to an earlier, less mature psychological state and engage in loveual contact with children. Some typologies of child molesters break the fixation-regression distinction into multiple categories, and some include additional categories as well (e.g., Knight, 1989). For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homoloveuals, heteroloveuals, or biloveuals because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their loveual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals who are often characterized as fixated are attracted to children, not to men or women. Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Mbuttachusetts of loveual buttault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homoloveual adult loveual orientation. 83 (47%) were clbuttified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were clbuttified as regressed adult heteroloveuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were clbuttified as regressed adult biloveuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in love on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily loveually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180). � Other Approaches

Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homoloveuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the loveually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in only 2 of the 268 plus 1 cases in which an adult molester could be identified fewer than 1% (Jenny et al., 1994). In yet another approach to studying adult loveual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homoloveual and heteroloveual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature loveual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary loveual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure loveual arousal, changes in the subjects' privates volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homoloveual males responded no more to male children than heteroloveual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989). Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homoloveual or biloveual males are no more likely than heteroloveual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homoloveual males are more likely than heteroloveual men to molest children or to be loveually attracted to children or adolescents. � The Mainstream View

Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child loveual abuse is that homoloveual and biloveual men do not pose any special threat to children. For example, in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth Are homoloveual adults in general loveually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homoloveual adults than from heteroloveual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homoloveual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of loveual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who loveually molests young boys is not likely to be homoloveual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147). In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homoloveuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not loveually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259). � Other loveual Abuse

In recent scandals involving the Catholic church, some Church officials have tried to link loveual abuse with gay priests, arguing that the victims were often adolescent boys rather than small children. Here is an example where the term pedophilia referring as it does to attractions to prepubescent children can cause confusion. More broadly, such accusations against gay priests raise the question of whether gay men or lesbians should not be trusted in positions of authority where there is any possibility of loveual abuse or harbuttment. Scientific research provides no evidence that homoloveual people are less likely than heteroloveuals to exercise good judgment and appropriate discretion in their employment settings. There are no data, for example, showing that gay men and lesbians are more likely than heteroloveual men and women to loveually harbutt their subordinates in the workplace. Data from studies using a variety of psychological measures do not indicate that gay people are more likely than heteroloveuals to possess any psychological characteristics that would make them less capable of controlling their loveual urges, refraining from the abuse of power, obeying rules and laws, interacting effectively with others, or exercising good judgment in handling authority. As explained elsewhere on this site, loveual orientation is not a mental illness nor is it inherently buttociated with impaired psychological functioning. Gay men and lesbians function effectively in a wide variety of employment settings. No differences have been reported between heteroloveuals, biloveuals, and homoloveuals in job performance or ability to properly exercise authority in supervisory roles. As indicated by workplace policies around the United States, a large and growing number of private and public employers do not perceive a problem with hiring gay and biloveual people as employees or managers. A large number of corporations, educational insbreastutions, and local governments have adopted policies that prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of loveual orientation. In many cases, those organizations give employee benefits such as health insurance to employees' same-love partners. Indeed, one reason often cited for providing such benefits is that they enable a company to remain compebreastive by attracting high quality employees who happen to be homoloveual or biloveual. Thus, the scientific literature does not provide any basis for organizations to avoid hiring homoloveual or biloveual people, simply on the basis of their loveual orientation, for positions that involve responsibility for or supervision of others, whether children, adolescents, or adults. � Do Any Studies Claim To Show That Homoloveuals Are More Likely To Molest Children? One individual has claimed to have data that prove homoloveuals to be child molesters at a higher rate than heteroloveuals. That person is Paul Cameron. As detailed elsewhere on this site, Cameron's survey data are subject to so many methodological flaws as to be virtually meaningless. Even so, his buttertions are often quoted by antigay organizations in their attempts to link homoloveuality with child loveual abuse. In a 1985 article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron purported to review published data to answer the question, "Do those who commit homoloveual acts disproportionately incorporate children into their loveual practices?" (p. 1227). He concluded that "at least one-third of the loveual attacks upon youth are homoloveual" (p. 1228) and that "those who are bi- to homoloveual are proportionately much more apt to molest youth" than are heteroloveuals (p. 1231). Cameron's claims hinge on the fallacious buttumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homoloveuals. Moreover, a careful reading of Cameron's paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed. For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of "heteroloveual" (i.e., female victim) to "homoloveual" (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that "54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by biloveual or homoloveual pracbreastioners" (p. 1231). However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homoloveual adult loveual orientation, and that none of the 22 biloveual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. The "54%" statistic reported by Cameron doesn't appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation. It also is noteworthy that, although Cameron buttumed that the perpetrators of male-male molestations were all homoloveual, he buttumed that not all male-female molestations were committed by heteroloveuals. He incorporated a "biloveual correction" into his data manipulations to increase further his estimate of the risk posed to children by homoloveual-biloveual men. In the latter half of his paper, Cameron considered whether "homoloveual teachers have more frequent loveual interaction with their pupils" (p. 1231). Based on 30 instances of loveual contact between a teacher and pupil reported in ten different sources published between 1920 and 1982, Cameron concluded that "a pupil would appear about 90 times more likely to be loveually buttaulted by a homoloveual pracbreastioner" (p. 1232); the ratio rose to 100 times when Cameron added his biloveual correction. This ratio is meaningless because no data were obtained concerning the actual loveual orientation of the teachers involved; as before, Cameron buttumed that male-male contacts were perpetrated by homoloveuals. Furthermore, Cameron's rationale for selecting particular sources appears to have been completely arbitrary. He described no systematic method for reviewing the literature, and apparently never reviewed the voluminous literature on the loveual development of children and adolescents. His final choice of sources appears to have slanted his findings toward what Cameron described as "the relative absence in the scientific literature of heteroloveual teacher-pupil loveual events coupled with persistent, albeit infrequent, homoloveual teacher-pupil loveual interactions" (p. 1232). A subsequent paper by Cameron and others (Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Forde, Larson, & Cameron, 1986) described data collected in a door-to-door survey in seven U.S. cities and towns, and generally repeated the conclusions reached in Cameron (1985). Even Cameron himself has admitted that his conclusions in this study are "based upon small numbers of data points" (Cameron, 2005, p. 230). As before, male-male loveual buttaults were referred to as "homoloveual" molestations (e.g., Abstract, p.327) and the perpetrators' loveual orientation apparently was not buttessed. This study also suffers from bane methodological problems, which are detailed elsewhere on this site. More recently, in yet another article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron claimed to have reviewed data about foster parents in Illinois and found that 34% were perpetrated by a foster parent against a child of the same love, that is, female-female or male-male (Cameron, 2005). Not only did Cameron again make the fallacious claim that all male-male molestations are committed by homoloveuals, he also made the same claim about female-female molestations. Once again, he had no data about the actual loveual orientations of the molesters. � Conclusion The empirical research does not show that gay or biloveual men are any more likely than heteroloveual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homoloveual and biloveual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for butterting that they are more likely than heteroloveual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult loveual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.