Pedophilia in the gay community - oh no, homophobia

[ryu289]

You didn't answer my question, if the fetish is not sexual, then what kinds of enjoyment do you get from viewing the stuff in the first place. If you can explain that, people won't immediately assume you're a pedo for looking at "fetish" art that contains children.

Hold on even if I say I get off on transformation art, then everyone will still assume it means pedophilia?
Even if it is just art involving no real life people? How does it hurt children since I am not molesting them, not consuming real life child porn nor do I have a primary/exclusive attraction to them?
That seems very unfair, like it's entrapment.

Pedophilia is a paraphilia- not just sexual attraction. Its a fetish in the same way voyeurism is a fetish: absolutely degenerate. A paraphilia is a fetish that is detrimental to the person with it and or others.

And no, heterosexually is not a fetish. Neither is homosexuality. Homosexuality used to be considered a paraphilia, until people realised two consenting adults can do whatever the fuck they want when they aren't hurting each other.

While I am glad homosexuality isn't considered degenerate, it seems the defintion of "causes harm to yourself or others" might be a little too broad? Like it labels people as "thought criminals"

Also, I can quote things too

Give the link man.
Ok that was from 2013...

In 1981, an article published in American Journal of Psychiatry described paraphilia as "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving" the following:

Could it be outated?

 

[The Spice boi]

Can Null Himself give this Ryu Nonce a month suspension already?

This topic thread is clearly going nowhere but in a circular direction and it got old pages ago.

Or a containment thread so peeps can come in and throw peanuts at him

His stupidity is hilarious, if gross

 

[NerdShamer]

Hold on even if I say I get off on transformation art, then everyone will still assume it means pedophilia?

It is if it involves underaged characters.

 

[Lemmingwise]

The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic.

First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about.
Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Blaustein had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck.

I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.

Gradually I began to hate them.

 

[Newman's Own]

Gradually I began to hate them.

The hate should be instantaneous with this one given his thinly veiled proclivities and obvious need to justify them.

It's the proper response when one encounters a human monster of this sort.

 

[IKOL]

Do you? Please explain how a fetish is the same as an attraction to children. I'll wait.

You're not in position or social trust to demand anything, bitch.

Cobain yourself.

 

[Newman's Own]

Even if it is just art involving no real life people? How does it hurt children since I am not molesting them, not consuming real life child porn nor do I have a primary/exclusive attraction to them?
That seems very unfair, like it's entrapment.

You admit far more than your atypical brain realizes when you make statements like the one above. Intelligent readers recognize the subtext you're incapable of recognizing or censoring in your writing.

That's why no one believes your qualified denials. You show your hand without realizing.

It's idiocy and it would be more entertaining if you weren't such a danger to children.

 

[ryu289]

It is if it involves underaged characters.

Ah so it doesn't matter if it doesn't involve real life children nor does my interest involve any minor character because they are a minor. Nor does it matter if the character isn't in a sexual situation at all...

Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Blaustein had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

I think you are projecting here. Remember the fact that when I gave a counter link to what you gave, you overfocused on a single stat from Kinsey even though it had nothing to do with the study?
Remember when you said:

Investigate for yourself their accuracy, I've not vetted these stats, but they seem somewhat compatible with the other research I've done.

Family Research Institute » Blog Archive » Child Molestation and Homo…

archived 2 Jun 2015 01:06:36 UTC

archive.md

But when I responded with this link, you didn't focus or address the part which directly debunked your source:

What About Claims That Scientific Research Proves Gay Men Are Likely To Molest Children?
Some conservative groups have argued that scientific research strongly supports their claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. The Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive attempt to document this claim. It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse.

With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals, it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue. On further examination, however, its central argument – that "the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls" – doesn't hold up.

In the following section, the main sources cited by Dailey and the FRC to support their claim are reviewed. The papers are listed in the same order in which they are first cited by the FRC article.

1. Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.
   This article is discussed above in the "Other Approaches" section. As the FRC concedes, it contradicts their argument. The abstract summarizes the authors' conclusion: "Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children."
   
2. Silverthorne & Quinsey. (2000). Sexual partner age preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 67-76.
   The FRC cites this study to challenge the Freund et al. data (see the previous paper above). However, the methodologies were quite different. Freund and his colleagues used a sample that included sex offenders and they assessed sexual arousal with a physiological measure similar to that described below for the 1988 Marshall et al. study. Silverthorne and Quinsey used a sample of community volunteers who were asked to view pictures of human faces and use a 7-point scale to rate their sexual attractiveness. The apparent ages of the people portrayed in the pictures was originally estimated by Dr. Silverthorne to range from 15 to 50. However, a group of independent raters perceived the male faces to range in age from 18 to 58, and the female faces to range from 19 to 60.
   The article doesn't report the data in great detail (e.g., average ratings are depicted only in a graphic; the actual numbers aren't reported) and the authors provide contradictory information about the rating scale (they describe it as a 7-point scale but also say it ranged from 0 to 7, which constitutes an 8-point scale). In either case, it appears that none of the pictures was rated as "very sexually attractive" (a rating of 7). Rather, the highest average ratings were approximately 5.
   On average, gay men rated the 18-year old male faces the most attractive (average rating = about 5), with attractiveness ratings declining steadily for older faces. They rated the 58-year old male faces 2, on average. By contrast, heterosexual men rated the 25-year old female faces the most attractive (about 5), with the 18- and 28-year old female faces rated lower (between 2 and 3) and the 60-year old female faces rated the least attractive (about 1).
   A serious problem with this study is that the researchers didn't control for the possibility that some of the faces pictured in the photos might simply have been more or less physically attractive than the others, independent of their age or gender. The researchers explicitly acknowledged this shortcoming, speculating that the women's faces in the 25-year old group might have been more attractive than women's faces in the other age groups. But they didn't address the possibility that the attractiveness of the male and female faces may not have been comparable.
   This issue could have been addressed in various ways. For example, prior to collecting data, the researchers could have started with a large number of photographs and asked a group of independent raters to evaluate the general physical attractiveness of the face in each photo; these ratings could have been used to select photos for the experiment that were equivalent in attractiveness. Getting independent ratings of experimental stimuli in this way is a common procedure in social psychological research.
   Thus, even if one accepts the questionable assumption that this study is relevant, it doesn't support the FRC's contention that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to be child molesters for several reasons:
   • the researchers failed to control for the varying attractiveness of the different photos;
   • all of the faces portrayed in the photos were perceived to be at least 18; and
   • the study merely assessed judgments of sexual attractiveness rather than the research participants' sexual arousal.
3. Blanchard et al. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463-478.
   This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether they molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only, or both boys and girls. These groups were labeled, respectively, homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. This classification referred to their attractions to children. Adult sexual orientation (or even whether the men had an adult sexual orientation) wasn't assessed.
   
4. Elliott et al. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 579-594.
   In this study, child sex offenders were interviewed. Their sexual orientation (gay, heterosexual, bisexual) wasn't assessed. The authors drew from their findings to suggest strategies for how parents and children can prevent sexual victimization. It is noteworthy that none of those strategies involved avoiding gay men.
   
5. Jenny et al. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41-44.
   This study, described above in the section on "Other Approaches," contradicts the FRC's argument. The FRC faults the study because the researchers didn't directly interview perpetrators but instead relied on the victims' medical charts for information about the offender's sexual orientation. However, other studies cited favorably by the FRC (and summarized in this section) similarly relied on chart data (Erickson et al., 198 or did not directly assess the sexual orientation of perpetrators (Blanchard et al. 2000; Elliott et al. 1995; Marshall et al., 198. Thus, the FRC apparently considers this method a weakness only when it leads to results they dislike.
   
6. Marshall et al. (198. Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual preference. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 383-391.
   In this study, the researchers compared 21 men who had sexually molested a male under 16 years (and at least 5 years younger than themselves) to 18 unemployed men who were not known to have molested a child. Over a series of sessions, each man watched color slides of nude males and females of various ages and listened to audiotaped descriptions of both coercive and consensual sexual interactions between a man and a boy. During the sessions, each man sat in a private booth, where he was instructed to lower his trousers and underwear and attach a rubber tube to his penis. The tube detected any changes in penis circumference, with increases interpreted as indicating sexual arousal.
   The FRC cites this study as showing that "a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders." This is true but hardly relevant to their claims.
   The researchers categorized 7 offenders who were more aroused overall by the male nudes than the female nudes as the homosexual subgroup. They categorized 14 offenders who were more aroused overall by the female nudes as the heterosexual subgroup. The offenders were not asked their sexual orientation (gay, straight, bisexual) and the paper does not report any information about the nature of the offenders' adult sexual relationships, or even if they had any such relationships.
   
7. Bickley & Beech. (2001). Classifying child abusers: Its relevance to theory and clinical practice. International Journal Of Offender Therapy And Comparative Criminology, 45, 51-69.
   This is a literature review and theoretical paper that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various systems for classifying child molesters. In citing this study, the FRC says it:
   

   refers to homosexual pedophiles as a "distinct group." The victims of homosexual pedophiles "were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and that they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences.... Other studies [showed a] greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls" and that the "recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders."

   In reality, however, the paper was summarizing the findings of other studies, not reporting new data. In the passage excerpted by the FRC, the authors were discussing published papers that used a classification system focusing entirely on the sex of victims (not whether the perpetrator is straight or gay). Here is the complete text (the passages that FRC omitted are highlighted):
   "Grubin and Kennedy (1991) reported that when dividing sex offenders based simply on the sex of their victims, offenders against boys stood out as a distinct group. They noted that their victims were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences. Other studies have employed the sex-of-victim approach in the prediction of future risk, with offenders who have sexually abused boys or both boys and girls reported as having more victims and being at greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls only [bibliographic references omitted]. In the nondiagnostic remarks, DSM-IV (APA, 1994) claims that the recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders, and although not demonstrating such a marked difference, Furby, Weinrott, and Blackshaw (1989), in an extensive review of recidivism rates, found that reoffending was higher for male victim offenders. [¶] However, the sex-of-victim distinction has not been consistently found, and contrasting findings have been reported in studies that have demonstrated no differences in recidivism rates between the groups [bibliographic references omitted]. Furthermore, Abel, Becker, Murphy, and Flanagan (1981) found that those child molesters who offended against girls reported more than twice as many victims as those who had offended against boys, a finding contrary to the hypothesized outcome." (p. 56)
   
8. Jay & Young. (1977). The gay report: Lesbians and gay men speak out about sexual experiences and lifestyles. New York: Summit.
   This book, published more than 30 years ago by a team of writer-activists, is not a scientific study. The authors' survey methodology is not reported in detail and, because it was a journalistic work, the survey was never subjected to scientific peer review.
   
9. Erickson et al. (198. Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86.
   This study was based on a retrospective review of the medical records of male sex offenders admitted to the Minnesota Security Hospital between 1975 and 1984. Apparently, 70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4% abused children of both sexes. (The paper is unclear in that it doesn't explain how perpetrators with multiple victims were counted.) The paper asserts in passing that "Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (p. 83). However, no details are provided about how this information was ascertained, making it difficult to interpret or evaluate. Nor did the authors report the number of homosexual versus bisexual offenders, a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study (described above) indicates is relevant.

In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not support their argument. Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 198 might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders.

No, you focused on something that didn't have anything to do with the above:

The survey was conducted under the auspices of the Kinsey Institute (Klassen, Williams, & Levitt, 1989)

Are you sure you aren't the one forgetting things? After all in the end you ran away acting like you won.

You admit far more than your atypical brain realizes when you make statements like the one above. Intelligent readers recognize the subtext you're incapable of recognizing or censoring in your writing.

Let's look at the full quote without the bolding.

Even if it is just art involving no real life people? How does it hurt children since I am not molesting them, not consuming real life child porn nor do I have a primary/exclusive attraction to them?

You seem to think I am revealing myself by ignoring the fact I don't consume child porn, nor am I going out of my way to molest real life kids and that I don't have an attraction to them. You bold what you want to cherry-pick and ignore the rest to fit your narrative.

 

[Newman's Own]

You seem to think I am revealing myself by ignoring the fact I don't consume child porn, nor am I going out of my way to molest real life kids and that I don't have an attraction to them. You bold what you want to cherry-pick and ignore the rest to fit your narrative.

Absolutely no one believes you.

It must be frustrating for you to not understand why. You haven't the cognitive tools to "get it" but everyone around you does.

You're a nonce. This is obvious to all present in this thread. You're claims to the contrary are a thin gruel next to the cornucopia of indicators you aren't capable of processing or censoring out of your posts.

I'd feel sorry for you if you weren't despicable.

 

[ryu289]

Absolutely no one believes you.

It seems only by ignoring the context. It's amazing how much you wish to be willfully ignorant yet still able to project this onto others. You don't address my points, but ignore them and double down.

 

[Newman's Own]

It seems only by ignoring the context. It's amazing how much you wish to be willfully ignorant yet still able to project this onto others. You don't address my points, but ignore them and double down.

Nice try. And yet still no one believes you.

You think you're a genius poker player but you have no idea how obvious your tells are.

Hopefully you are just as obvious IRL.

 

[The Spice boi]

It seems only by ignoring the context. It's amazing how much you wish to be willfully ignorant yet still able to project this onto others. You don't address my points, but ignore them and double down.

Your points have been broken down and refuted several times.

You're the one who is willfully ignorant of the situation and how dumb you sound. Of course, if you possessed any amount of self awareness, we wouldn't be having this conversation

 

[ryu289]

You think you're a genius poker player but you have no idea how obvious your tells are.

This from the guy who had to cherry-pick what I said to keep his narrative going?

 

[Spoonomancer]

It seems only by ignoring the context. It's amazing how much you wish to be willfully ignorant yet still able to project this onto others. You don't address my points, but ignore them and double down.

Were you not defending pedophilia earlier this week on Reddit?
Were you not defending pedophilia on this very website?
How much times do people have to refute you to make you realize that maybe, just maybe, you'll understand that you're defending outright pedophilia while tip-toeing around what you mean?

 

[ryu289]

Were you not defending pedophilia earlier this week on Reddit?
Were you not defending pedophilia on this very website?

I wasn't defending child sex if that is how you are defining it.

 

[Newman's Own]

I wasn't defending child sex if that is how you are defining it.

The lack of self awareness is mind boggling.

 

[Ser Prize]

Can Null Himself give this Ryu Nonce a month suspension already?

This topic thread is clearly going nowhere but in a circular direction and it got old pages ago.

I want to see a MATI stream on him.

 

[The Spice boi]

Were you not defending pedophilia earlier this week on Reddit?
Were you not defending pedophilia on this very website?
How much times do people have to refute you to make you realize that maybe, just maybe, you'll understand that you're defending outright pedophilia while tip-toeing around what you mean?

I think he's just going to rattle on until he gets banned or ignored and then claim victory in his own sick and twisted little mind. Pigdeon shitting on the chessboard and all that

 

[IKOL]

I wasn't defending child sex if that is how you are defining it.

Pesophilia is not the sex act alone, nigger.
Learn the damn basics.

FBI are crying for your pedo ass. Shall somebody oblige them, they'll do a big service to everyone.

 

[ryu289]

Pesophilia is not the sex act alone, nigger.

Look here:

The term pedophile is commonly used by the public to describe all child sexual abuse offenders.[8][12] This usage is considered problematic by researchers, because many child molesters do not have a strong sexual interest in prepubescent children, and are consequently not pedophiles.[11][12][25] There are motives for child sexual abuse that are unrelated to pedophilia,[81] such as stress, marital problems, the unavailability of an adult partner,[102] general anti-social tendencies, high sex drive or alcohol use.[103] As child sexual abuse is not automatically an indicator that its perpetrator is a pedophile, offenders can be separated into two types: pedophilic and non-pedophilic[104] (or preferential and situational).[9] Estimates for the rate of pedophilia in detected child molesters generally range between 25% and 50%.[105] A 2006 study found that 35% of its sample of child molesters were pedophilic.[106] Pedophilia appears to be less common in incest offenders,[107] especially fathers and step-fathers.[108] According to a U.S. study on 2429 adult male sex offenders who were categorized as "pedophiles", only 7% identified themselves as exclusive; indicating that many or most child sexual abusers may fall into the non-exclusive category.[10]