I'm tired of
people saying, for
rhetorical effect, that Professor Rasmusen has no evidence to support
his claim that
homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children.
You'll find
detailed
discussion in earlier posts on why I made the claim. For now, though,
it might make
some people happy to see something that Professor Steven Willing
at our well-
regarded medical school cc'd me on from a couple of emails to
Chancellor Brehm this
morning:
"Heterosexual child molestations cases outnumber homosexual by eleven
to one, but
heterosexual males outnumber homosexual by 36 to 1. Although most
cases of molestation
are by heterosexuals due to their greater numbers, a homosexual male
is over three
times
more likely to molest a child." Freund K. Watson RJ. The proportions
of heterosexual
and
homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an
exploratory study.
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 18(1):34-43, 1992 Spring.
"Of 170 pedophiles, 60 [40%] were homosexual, 45 [26%] were bisexual,
34%
heterosexual."
[With a population prevalence of 2.8%, this indicates that homosexuals
are 14 times
more
likely to be pedophiles]. Bogaert AF. Bezeau S. Kuban M. Blanchard R.
Pedophilia,
sexual
orientation, and birth order. Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
106(2):331-5, 1997 May
Dr. Willing, of course, has looked at a lot more than just those two
articles. He
says,
Every published investigation, except perhaps one (the deeply flawed
study in
Pediatrics
1994) show a much higher representation of homosexuals and bisexuals
among convicted
child molesters than their percentage of the general population. Even
homosexual
advocates know this. They therefore rely on semantic chicanery to
redefine all
offenders
as "not really" homosexual.
Is this conclusive? No. I think it's correct, but I haven't looked
directly at either
article or at the material other people have sent me, so I don't know
whether the
studies were well done or not. On a topic like this one, it isn't
enough for someone
to say, "My position is correct, because Professor X at Bigname
University says so
and I can quote from two published articles." First, numerical
studies of the subject
are tricky enough to do that you need to see how the articles came to
their
conclusions.
Second, a lot of junk gets published, and someone outside the field
doesn't know which
journals are really good. Third, there is a lot of dishonesty out
there, so it is
riskier to accept supposedly scientific claims about homosexuality
than about how to
price call options or what the rate of GNP growth in the 1920's really
was. So even
though the evidence above supports my position, I shouldn't close my
mind on the
subject and won't.
[permalink, http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/03.09.17a.htm ]
To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.