Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Harm in Homosexuality?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 226 of 309 (161437)
11-19-2004 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Jon_the_Second
11-19-2004 6:14 AM


I read it all through. Twice. You don't appear to have done any such thing, as you keep asking me to provide you with age details (which are all listed at the top).
Tsk tsk. I sure did. And just because an age is listed does not make it proof of anything particular. For example how would it change if I moved it up or down?
I would have thought you should ALWAYS read the links, not just assume they are wrong.
Oh the irony. The problem was he didn't read your link and assumed it was right.
I already said I didn't assume anything, and did read it. My recommendation was that if he wanted a laugh OR A GOOD COUNTERPUNCH, he should read links in the future... before ASSUMING THEY ARE RIGHT.
It's cute how you then chose to make it look like the problem is assuming something is wrong, and saying I only read things for a laugh.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-19-2004 6:14 AM Jon_the_Second has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 227 of 309 (161450)
11-19-2004 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Jon_the_Second
11-19-2004 5:43 AM


Steeeeeerike Three, an' yer out of there! This was so bad it didn't meet my criteria for even having to rip it to shreds. But what I will do is give you some pointers on how to analyze a study and so where you missed a few things.
The study questioned 2474 men (mean age 46 years) attending one of 18 general practices.
Nice way to pretend like you are answering my question... put in a few details.
Thankfully it provides a few examples of where you should realize what this study is limited to. It is indeed a study of men, specifically just england, and those in general practice... actually just a percentage of men willing to agree to self-assessment tests that are in general practice.
The fact that they are in general practice has some important ramifications which even the authors mention in places. These are not the general population. These are people that are seeking help in the first place and may be more likely to have psychological issues they want to deal with.
The stats may be very different for the general population. And indeed it may be a function of the nature of certain people that will influence them seeking treatment.
So right off the bat, we realize what is under study is a statistical breakdown of men in english culture, who are inclined to seek help and take part in surveys about their issues. This study could have had vastly different results for the population, and if done in different cultures (even crossing the english channel could make a difference).
They even mentioned cultural differences within england that might have had an influence (cohort effect).
Experiences of non-consensual and consensual sex before and after the age of 16 years---that is, as a child and adult respectively
I thought this was a very smart move on the part of the authors. While they did include the legal age (16) they actually ignored its ramifications for determination of consensual and nonconsensual. They then used as a separate criteria a common concept of child sexual abuse which is 5 year difference when under legal age, no matter if consensual.
But this should be made clear. The one thing they did not do is define what is a child and what is adult. They were not probing, nor did they intend to probe, into the specifics of sex as it relates to age. They were pretty clear about looking at the effects of concensual and nonconsensual sex, and as a variable added the socially arbitrary definitions of age with respect to abuse.
They were looking if correlations would match expectations, and this would include perhaps sex/age issues, but as another poster and I keep pointing out that in no way indicates anything beyond cultural expectations creating the results. This is, after all, what hurt gays for such a very very very long time.
They did not break it down through age groups, nor did they simply raise and lower the age bar. The exact same study could have been conducted in the Netherlands and the age could have been set at 12, or Denmark and it set at 15. Given the results of this study can you tell me what you would have seen?
Did you understand what you were reading or did you simply see 16, and think that meant something objective?
It does not show inherent damage in under age sex
This of course was the claim from the original poster of this thread, and you originally claimed this is what the study showed.
but it DOES show a correlation between under age sex and psychological problems.
But that is just the point. It is not a causative effect, and in any case the effects are mainly related to nonconsensual variety which includes rape and yes I already agree that rape has negative effects...
Here is their list again:
Ranking of sexual experiences from most to least severe
Non-consensual sex as an adult and as a child (irrespective of consensual experiences)
Non-consensual sex as a child (irrespective of consensual experiences)
Non-consensual sex with a man in adulthood, but no history of non-consensual sex as a child (irrespective of consensual experiences)
Non-consensual sex with a woman in adulthood, but no history of non-consensual sex as a child (irrespective of consensual experiences)
Consensual sexual experiences as a child
No non-consensual or consensual sexual experiences
Here is the result:
There were significant associations between increasing severity of sexual experiences and increased likelihood of reporting psychological symptoms.
Look what that says..
Moreover it shows a huge correlation between homosexual acts and nonconsensual sex, and as a result... since that was the most tied to psychological problems... psychological problems.
Thus it appears that homosexuality ought to be a pretty big concern all around.
Personally I'd love to see more data from the CAGE assessment anyway.
This, coupled with the incredibly damaging effects of rape on children
How do two, totally separate things, suddenly get coupled?
This would be like me saying this stat about homosexuality, coupled with the incredibly damaging effects of rape on men...
Give me a break. Yeah, rape is damaging. I would argue we are all as a society making it a lot worse on the victim than it has to be, but yes the effects of rape alone (depending on level of violence) can be bad enough.
That does not then attach itself to something else.
As I have asked Tusko, can you come up with a way to determine consensual and non-consensual sex in children?
Yeah, do you have to force the kid to do it or not. Why are you asking after presenting a study which explicitly defined consensual/nonconsensual?
If not, surely it is better to make it illegal for ANY adult to have sex with a child?
Why?... By which I mean for the reasons listed so far... Are you saying that with a law in place saying you can't rape a child, there will be more rapes happening than if you have a law saying you can't have sex with a child?
Having sex with one man, monogomously for life would not put you at increased risk of rape.
I'm sorry where did you get that. Where exactly did you get the data to make the conclusion it was promiscuity versus monogamy which increased the risk of rape?
If anything, since you are obviously basing it off of a couple of conjectural statements, you should note that they could just as easily be saying that promiscuity is correlated highly to being gay... maybe inherent?
And again I should point out that if it was promiscuity alone, then this should show up for promiscuous straight men too, right? Unless of course, and correct me if I'm wrong but this would be necessary, gay men are more likely to rape... and I suppose that would have to conclude raping children.
There is of course already a "study" going around fundie circuits supporting that claim.
Therefore being homosexual would not be harmful. It is, however, concerning that the indication is from the study that the incidence of rape is higher amongst the gay participants.
The above is an ironic conclusion given your described moral system, and your boosting the claims of this study on where it found minimal effects and then attempting to dodge the stats on the other side.
Let's look at those quotes again...
Gay and bisexual men have more sexual partners than do heterosexual men.
That is a clear statement. It is either conjecture on their part or homosexuality shows an inherent inclination to promiscuity, no?
Increasing numbers and anonymity of sexual partnersmay increase the risk of non-consensual sex.
Conjecture. Thus maybe promiscuity may be the culprit maybe not. Maybe gays in england tend to live in areas where they are more likely to be victimized. Or viewed as victimizable?
These factors may explain why previous studies of gay men have found high rates of non-consensual sex.
Or maybe not.
You are pretty well tied into rejecting or accepting the results of this study for the claim that you made. I think I know what the right answer is. Do you?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-19-2004 5:43 AM Jon_the_Second has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-19-2004 10:33 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 267 by Rrhain, posted 11-23-2004 4:42 AM Silent H has not replied

Jon_the_Second
Member (Idle past 19811 days)
Posts: 33
From: London, UK
Joined: 11-07-2004


Message 228 of 309 (161458)
11-19-2004 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Tusko
11-19-2004 7:16 AM


no, I was asking from the point of view of a law maker. How would you decide if consent was given if allegations of rape were made?
We know children can be more easily coerced by adults, especially by parents. (have a look at this Hunger strike if you are not sure).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Tusko, posted 11-19-2004 7:16 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Tusko, posted 11-19-2004 1:49 PM Jon_the_Second has replied

Jon_the_Second
Member (Idle past 19811 days)
Posts: 33
From: London, UK
Joined: 11-07-2004


Message 229 of 309 (161462)
11-19-2004 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Silent H
11-19-2004 9:35 AM


erm, do you know what a GP is? It's a normal family doctor. ANYONE who EVER gets ill AT ALL goes to their GP. That's what they do. Admittedly this study is restricted to men who were unwell in some way (like a cold) but you are right, all the men who are immune to disease and injury are excluded.
I really am confused by your claim that they are not the general public because they go to their GP. Do you know anything about the british healthcare system, or are you arrogantly claiming authority about things you don't understand at all?
"but yes the effects of rape alone (depending on level of violence) can be bad enough."
The level of violence is more or less irrelevant. Rape victims who were non-violently raped still carry the psychological damage of being forced into sex against their will.
HOW would you know if a child was forced? Ask them? Children are easily coerced (see the link I gave Tusko). So again, HOW would you tell who did and did not consent, without being coerced?
The study shows clearly that homosexual men are more at risk of being raped by other men, I don't dispute that.
The addition of my comments on rape relate to the fact you CANNOT tell whether children were raped or consented, because they are too easily coerced and frightened.
and AGAIN if you READ the paper, "Gay and bisexual men have more sexual partners than do heterosexual men." had a reference after it. Use that, don't claim, FALSELY it is conjecture on the part of the authors.
And it is not culturally looked down upon to have sex under 16 in the UK. A lot of men boast about it. There's no reason why societies views should cause extra stress for them because they had sex early.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2004 9:35 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2004 12:42 PM Jon_the_Second has replied

Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6696 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 230 of 309 (161486)
11-19-2004 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by coffee_addict
11-16-2004 9:09 PM


Replies
I don't know how she was using the Bible to justify her position or where she received her revelation about what God hates, but according to the Bible, it is never stated that God hates a person for practicing homosexual sex actions. The Bible claims that God hates the sin, but not the sinner. Her presumtion that God hates fags would also condem her. If he hates the sinner as much as the sin then he would also hate people with self righteous pride which is what I sence is ozzing from her mind.
Actually, God addresses the issue of self righteousness 10 fold more in the Bible then any other single sin and probably 100 fold more than homosexuality, so she should be greatly concerned if her exposition of God's disposition is correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by coffee_addict, posted 11-16-2004 9:09 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Rrhain, posted 11-23-2004 4:44 AM Lizard Breath has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 231 of 309 (161488)
11-19-2004 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Jon_the_Second
11-19-2004 10:33 AM


ANYONE who EVER gets ill AT ALL goes to their GP.
The fact that anyone who gets ill, goes to their GP, does not mean or even imply that a study based on men going to the GP during a certain section of time is getting an accurate representation of the population as a whole.
What's funny is that you missed the statement in the study which explicitly made that point. Indeed there is a potential that people with psych problems may have differences in attending the GP when they have problems.
I've lived in two different nations with socialized healthcare systems, I know what a GP is, I know what limitations specific location testing provides, and I know how to read.
Looks like one for you, three for me.
The level of violence is more or less irrelevant. Rape victims who were non-violently raped still carry the psychological damage of being forced into sex against their will.
The degree of violence used most certainly plays a significant part in how much psych damage is caused, as well as number of violations, and duration. I didn't say there would be no damage when a person is forced to have sex without overt violence, just that it would not necessarily be as deep and longlasting.
I would also point out that in cases of nonviolent rape the problems stem more from social impacts than from the actual sex itself. For example creating socialization problems due to trust issues (as they get mixed messages). I am also suspicious if you are trying to equivocate nonviolent rape, with consensual sex, as if lack of violence means lack of force.
HOW would you know if a child was forced? Ask them? Children are easily coerced (see the link I gave Tusko). So again, HOW would you tell who did and did not consent, without being coerced?
I must point out that we are now getting into legal questions, which are a totally different subject. Even if I were to agree to your position for legal reasons I would not then say that a person conducting consensual sex acts with a child would be morally wrong, just legally proscribed.
That said, I don't agree. We would ask, and we would have counselors talk to the child. Unfortunately that is what we are stuck with. The fact that plenty of innocent people have had their lives ruined, and gone to jail, by false testimony by children, coerced by relatives and zealous psychologists, sort of undercuts your argument.
Children can be coerced either way, and legal proceedings end up hurting child and adult alike for actual consensual cases, so I'd rather wait and only punish people for actual rape, rather than watering it down and punishing everyone.
I guess I tend to feel it is wrong to punish the innocent for no better reason then bad guys can cover their trail. Wrong morally and wrong legally.
And as you have pointed out rape does result in some sort of trauma, if real rape does occur their should be signs which a doctor can help or treat, or use to bring a case against a perpetrator that has convinced a child to remain silent.
The addition of my comments on rape relate to the fact you CANNOT tell whether children were raped or consented, because they are too easily coerced and frightened.
You are intentionally blurring lines. Indeed you are using a form of the argument from ignorance. The fact that consensual sex is possible for children argues for not punishing every sexual act as if it is nonconsensual. That in some cases you might not be able to tell should not tarnish them all.
Abuse cases happen at all ages, as your very link suggested. It is well established that coercion prevents many adult domestic abuse cases from ever seeing court. They also result in lots of psychological problems, perhaps more percentage wise than any other problem. The answer would not then be to outlaw relationships and marriage.
If you have some indication that allowing consensual sex to occur would somehow make the amount of real rapes increase, then you might have a case. This actually has some evidence against it... but that is a different topic.
had a reference after it. Use that, don't claim, FALSELY it is conjecture on the part of the authors.
Given the fact that you have missed most of what this study has said, including points I haven't even mentioned yet, the question is more whether you read the reference or understood it... not me.
Remember what I'm saying is that if we are to use the same criteria that you are for underage sex to homosexuality, that very statement ends up quite damning unless it is conjecture.
My actual feelings about whether conjecture actually lay were with what came after... whether promiscuous nature of homosexuals alone became a factor in unconsensual sex.
And it is not culturally looked down upon to have sex under 16 in the UK. A lot of men boast about it.
I want to get this straight, your claim is that the UK does not look down on underage sex, and yet they have laws in place, and should have laws in place because the majority feel that it poses a great threat and harm is done to them?
That is, even in spite of what you claimed earlier, now you are saying that kids are harmed and yet love it?
There's no reason why societies views should cause extra stress for them because they had sex early.
And so your position is that homosexuality, mixed race relationships, masturbation, unmarried motherhood, and other previously hated and demonized behaviors were actually bad, despite their apparent "psychological effects" clearly coming from the social isolation and pressures put upon those by society?
The above comment defies any sociological or historical knowledge.
But hey... you find me the study which shows that people live isolated from the stresses of societal expectations.
Now let's review.
1) After announcing you had positive proof, you have avoided addressing the counters to your claim of harm coming from the study itself, gradually shifting to legalisms of not knowing if someone had nonconsexual sex or not.
2) You are now claiming that in spite of what the study is showing for homosexuals, it is more about promiscuity. You appear to be asserting that gays are not intrinsically promiscuous though that would be the suggested connection, not to mention they are more likely perpetrators (if you are going to be consistent).
This is nice use of a study to prove your point.
Oh by the way, so I guess you are in favor of making fornication and adultery illegal as promiscuity is certainly highly correlated with increases in nonconsensual sex and psychological problems and so we are better off preventing anything but monogamy just to be safe? That's a great answer right? Then you couldn't have sex with minors and there is little chance for rape from casual flings!
This message has been edited by holmes, 11-19-2004 01:25 PM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-19-2004 10:33 AM Jon_the_Second has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-19-2004 1:43 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 236 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-19-2004 2:53 PM Silent H has replied

Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6696 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 232 of 309 (161496)
11-19-2004 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by The Dread Dormammu
11-15-2004 10:22 PM


Re: READ THE FRICIN POSTS!
quote:
Why is doing something "unnatural" wrong? What are your criteria for deturmining what is and isn't unatural? Is getting a haircut unnatural? Becase, after all according to your logic, if God had wanted us to get our hair cut he would have had it stop growing after it becomes the approprate length? Is planting crops unnatural? After all according to your logic if god had wanted us to have feilds of crops he would have made them grow like that. You need to prove that:
According to your logic, you answered your own question. If God had intended for there to be just one human, he would have stopped at Adam. If God intended for there to be only 2 humans, he would have created Steve from Adam and the 2 would have enjoyed each other sexually because being the same, they would know how to please each other without the distractions of the opposite gender dispositions. Perhaps Steve would have been a more formidable opponent for the serpent at the tree and we wouldn't be where we are today (speaking from a Biblically historical perspective).
According to the Bible, God did intend for us to populate so he created the male/female arrangement and he left it at that without creating a third being called Steve, that would have been Adam's lover while Eve was his reproduction factory. Also, he did not create Eva from Eve to give her a same sex companion to rush to after the reproductive act with Adam was completed. So he made one arrangement, one man to one woman as blueprinted in Genesis 3.
The naturals of us are that we grow to a certain size and then stop and we have little say about that. The hair length is a choice as is fingernail length and hygene. After all, if God wanted us to be physically cleanly, he would have made our skin in such a way that it would repel dirt. He would not have made the Sun because it burns the skin - another unnatural act.
As far as crops, the Bible says that Adam had dominion over the earth, so his powers were far greater than ours are in matters of food production. As it is, farming is natural as was commanded that we will eat of the dust of the ground all of the days we live.
As far as eye glasses being unnatural, if your logic holds up, then Jesus should have condemed the sick and lame for having walking aids since they are unnatural, but he never did that. Even Moses carried a walking staff and that instrument was used by God to demonstrate his powers. According to you, God should have made fire shoot out of the Burning Bush and incinerate Moses for bring the abomination in his hand near the Holy Ground.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 11-15-2004 10:22 PM The Dread Dormammu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 11-19-2004 8:05 PM Lizard Breath has not replied
 Message 269 by Rrhain, posted 11-23-2004 4:51 AM Lizard Breath has not replied

Jon_the_Second
Member (Idle past 19811 days)
Posts: 33
From: London, UK
Joined: 11-07-2004


Message 233 of 309 (161501)
11-19-2004 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Silent H
11-19-2004 12:42 PM


"Looks like one for you, three for me"
I hadn't realised debate was about scoring points. But hey, if you need the validation...
The representation of the population may not be entirely accurate, but it is far less questionable than your previous post claimed.
The level of violence is far less imported to rape victims than the psychological damage of being totally dominated. The after effects include eating disorders, self harm, suicidal tendencies and high risk sexual behaviour, particularly in child rape victims. I am not going to post sources for this, I am too busy. Just have a look on journal sites and you'll find them.
In fact, the less violent rapes are often the MOST damaging - because of the after effects of self blame and self hate, as well as that non-violent rape are often committed by those to close to the victim, which leads to initmacy problems. Trust me, I know about this.
The legal questions were not me "blurring the issue" I thought you might have some thoughts where Tusko did not.#
A quick note though, with your counsellor idea we'd probably have even more child abusers evading prosecution than we already do. If the prosecution had to prove a lack of consent, not just that the act occurred, I don't think they'd convict very many people at all.
It's bad enough as it is.
I am also deeply suspicious as to whether ANY young child can engage in consensual sex without being coerced. Afterall, most of them don't even know what it is.
And no, men in the UK are not ashamed of having sex before 16. All the people I know who have done so are not ashamed about it, most are quite proud.
Women is perhaps a different matter.
I don't know of any case where a woman has been prosecuted for having consensual sex with an older child (like 14/15). The british justice system more or less ignores it.
I am saying PRECISELY that older boys DO boast about sex and are often very pleased with the events, but that doesn't change the fact that if the woman involved is much older she is abusing her position.
As for the bit about society, you misunderstood me. Of course societies views will affect people, I was saying that British society's views on under 16 boys having consensual sex is not going to cause any upset to them, because it is more or less condoned/applauded by their peers.
I stand by my concern about the figures for men engaging in under age consensual sex having increased psychological problems. I don't see this as consistent with society looking down on them, as I have stated. I cause, as you have said, is not clear. But the correlation is concerning.
I know monogomous gay couples, so it's clear that it isn't an inherent part of being gay. But maybe in British gay culture it IS acceptable / expected to be more promiscuous?
One more slightly off the point question. Would consensual child prostitution be acceptable to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2004 12:42 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2004 5:22 PM Jon_the_Second has replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 234 of 309 (161505)
11-19-2004 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Jon_the_Second
11-19-2004 10:16 AM


Hi Jon. It would really help me if you gave me your thoughts on my previous post, because its not clear to me what position you are coming from. I have to go now, but will try to cobble something together to answer you in the next day or so. x

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-19-2004 10:16 AM Jon_the_Second has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-19-2004 1:55 PM Tusko has replied

Jon_the_Second
Member (Idle past 19811 days)
Posts: 33
From: London, UK
Joined: 11-07-2004


Message 235 of 309 (161508)
11-19-2004 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Tusko
11-19-2004 1:49 PM


Sex CAN be a deeply damaging thing, and not because of societies views. If someone is forced into sex or coerced into sex, the following feelings of self hate that they may get are not from society, but from themselves. Victims of abuse feel THEY have done something wrong for it to happen. So many rape victims spend their lives thinking it was somehow their fault, that "they asked for it".
With regards to children, I was meaning how do you tell which were raped and which gave consent, to prosecute rapists. Rape is a terribly damaging crime, and if you can't tell which children are raped and which are not, then you can't prevent it.
The link I gave you was an indication of the ability of parents to coerce their children - where the children on hunger strike ate when offered, even if they claimed the reason for the hunger strike was their own political view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Tusko, posted 11-19-2004 1:49 PM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Tusko, posted 11-20-2004 6:23 AM Jon_the_Second has not replied

Jon_the_Second
Member (Idle past 19811 days)
Posts: 33
From: London, UK
Joined: 11-07-2004


Message 236 of 309 (161526)
11-19-2004 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Silent H
11-19-2004 12:42 PM


The paper that I linked has been cited by several others. It is interesting to read them too.
Have a look at The British Journal of Psychiatry | Cambridge Core
Again, "consensual" sex is a predictor of self harm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2004 12:42 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2004 7:02 PM Jon_the_Second has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 237 of 309 (161559)
11-19-2004 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Jon_the_Second
11-19-2004 1:43 PM


I hadn't realised debate was about scoring points. But hey, if you need the validation...
I was making a joke. You knew what a GP was, I knew that and two more important things in order to understand the results of the study.
The representation of the population may not be entirely accurate, but it is far less questionable than your previous post claimed.
Questionable? I'm sorry if I made it sound like I called it questionable... I was trying to explain its limits. It is not wholly representative. Let me give you a concrete example.
All people that vote go to a polling place... exit polls in the US (which is a very strong analogy to what we have here) had Kerry given a strong victory. Whoops!
This does not even make exit polling questionable, just limited. In addition this was in a limited time, in very few locales, and entirely within England.
They themselves mentioned cohort effects and an apparent (though not studied to be definite) effect on answers based on gender of their contact.
The level of violence is far less imported to rape victims than the psychological damage of being totally dominated.
I have already said that number and duration of instances can have an effect which is equal to level of violence. If you are suggesting that for a singular instance of rape with same duration, a person (or child) will be more taumatized by the acts commited if they were done by coercion or drugging than by overt and/or extreme violent acts, that is pretty counterfactual.
I am not going to post sources for this, I am too busy.
Actually I was just coming on to say I am going to be off for a while, so I guess it doesn't matter whether you post them or not. The fact that you think I am unaware of research in this area boggles me. I just showed how you did not properly cite a resource for a claim, so why you act as if you have high credibility in this matter, well, good luck.
the after effects of self blame and self hate, as well as that non-violent rape are often committed by those to close to the victim, which leads to initmacy problems. Trust me, I know about this.
Assuming of course that I don't know about this... including personally having been through a trauma. Your statement above just goes to reinforce what I said earlier, which is that this is socially derived and not physically derived. And it sure isn't inherent from the sex, which I notice you have slid back into claiming.
If the prosecution had to prove a lack of consent, not just that the act occurred, I don't think they'd convict very many people at all.
This is obviously a fear you have, whether this is true or not is unknown. Whether their would be an increase in rapes or decrease is an unknown. If there is indeed trauma as you suggest then that would be enough, without requiring proof on nonconsent. Indeed if the argument is that consensual sex does not result in trauma, clearly the presence of a trauma can be used as evidence of nonconsensual activity (in a trial).
Again we have gotten into the legal. I do believe laws can be made for totally different reasons, just not for the reasons you keep going back to. Personally I think the current dutch laws are some of the most reasonable laws on the books. They balance freedom and commonsense (regarding the nonharm of sex) and other issues that could be considered.
I am also deeply suspicious as to whether ANY young child can engage in consensual sex without being coerced. Afterall, most of them don't even know what it is.
Well you are now back to countering plain fact with suspicion. Certainly kids do not know what sex is until they are given the terminology matched to the actions. That does not mean they don't have an interest in doing such things, or will hate doing them.
If your concept was true, kids would not playing with themselves (masturbation) and with others (of whatever age). You would also not have the claims being made now in support of homosexuality being gene based, that kids had such feelings from extremely early ages.
Don't answer me (as I won't be back on to reply for a while anyway), but think back to your first feelings of sexual attraction, when you played with yourself and with others (or wanted to if not able to for other reasons). How old were you? You more than likely had no concept of what it was in name, but you were still curious and desired it. That is the natural state of kids.
By the way kids may be dragged to church kicking and screaming and they certainly don't start with a knowledge, nor interest in God. They are then told how bad they are and how bad their sexuality is. You have been worrying about sex and kids, have you ever actually looked into the psychological effects of enforcing negative sexual issues on kids? The pathology of selfhate and confusion without sex?
I am saying PRECISELY that older boys DO boast about sex and are often very pleased with the events, but that doesn't change the fact that if the woman involved is much older she is abusing her position.
The question is harm. Legally (in your nation) she is abusing. Whether she is morally and psychologically abusing is another matter. Again different cultures have totally different expectations and results.
the correlation is concerning.
Yes, but is possible from cultural expectations. If you are claiming that everyone underage is bragging and all society is loving them for it, then its hard to believe these kids are suffering the harm you are claiming. It also seems odd if the laws are firmly against it.
Indeed what harm are you claiming while saying everyone is happy? Or are you saying it is smiles on the outside and frowns on the inside?
I know monogomous gay couples, so it's clear that it isn't an inherent part of being gay
You have already said that you are for laws excluding something just to make sure something bad does not happen. If you are going to be consistent, and homosexuality is inherently tied to greater rates of psychological problems (whether that is from promiscuity or not) then you should be against it just to be safe.
I will repeat that it was conjecture that it was elements of promiscuity in gay life that were the reason for nonconsensual sex. If promiscuity per se was a problem then you would see that in straights that were promiscuous (even if a lower number of straights were promiscuous). This was unanalyzed so we just don't know. Thus the only link we do have correlation wise is homosexuality to nonconsensual sex (many many times higher) and psychological problems.
One more slightly off the point question. Would consensual child prostitution be acceptable to you?
Morally and legally it would all depend on the specifics of the situation. You could say that in the broadest theoretical sense, yes. But for all practical purposes no.
I would actually love to see an objective study of longterm effects of prostitution in the nations where it currently is acceptable practice.
Of course looking around and seeing all the things kids are made to do for money which repulse me and likely harm them mentally, I wonder what the real definition of child prostitution covers.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-19-2004 1:43 PM Jon_the_Second has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-19-2004 5:46 PM Silent H has replied

Jon_the_Second
Member (Idle past 19811 days)
Posts: 33
From: London, UK
Joined: 11-07-2004


Message 238 of 309 (161569)
11-19-2004 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Silent H
11-19-2004 5:22 PM


quote:
If you are suggesting that for a singular instance of rape with same duration, a person (or child) will be more taumatized by the acts commited if they were done by coercion or drugging than by overt and/or extreme violent acts, that is pretty counterfactual.
Actually I have been reading a lot of studies today, and it is strongly suggested that non-violent rape is worse, psychologically speaking, because of the guilt and self blame that victims attach, whereas with violent attacks there is to some degree of the rapist HAVING to force the victim. As you said you won't be on for a while, I won't bother hunting back through my history to find it.
In my experience the self hate/self harm aspect for victims is often NOT related to how society views them or treats, but to the feeling of weakness and complicity to what happened to them.
I don't subscribe to the historical christian position of evil-sex. I do, however, have serious concerns about younger children being preyed upon by older children/adults to satisfy their own desires.
As you mentioned, the dutch laws seemed to be reasonable (though they are under going an overhaul) where the age difference between partners is considered - reflecting the reality that in modern society age (up to a point) does come with increased authority.
What struck me as odd about the original study I posted is that even though British society consider teenage boys engaging in sex with older women to be either not serious (from adults, and especially the legal system) or even positive (from their peers) they still had a higher incidence of psychological problems. Makes you wonder.
Child prostitution would not be morally accpetable to me (I'm not sure any prostitution really is - even porn films, when you see interviews with the stars, who are for the most part seemingly desperate to find love and confused between love and sex) because I don't think a child can make that kind of decision. Can a baby give consent? A toddler? Where do you draw the line?
As for a study into prostitution, if I come across one in my exploration, I will let you know!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2004 5:22 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2004 7:25 PM Jon_the_Second has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 239 of 309 (161590)
11-19-2004 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Jon_the_Second
11-19-2004 2:53 PM


Again for posterity, I post statement and link #2 made by Jon to suggest something which in all reality does not, and indeed provides yet more evidence homosexuality has statistical correlation to harm...
The paper that I linked has been cited by several others. It is interesting to read them too. Have a look at The British Journal of Psychiatry | Cambridge Core ... Again, "consensual" sex is a predictor of self harm.
After I just took you apart on your first link, why did you not read this one first. But in any case thank you for proving all my points. There is so much here that I encourage everyone to go to that link and read it, as I will only touch on the best parts...
1) They describe what I was telling you regarding limits for the first study, based on location, even if GP...
The GP attenders may differ from the general population in terms of their current medical and social difficulties. However, because two-thirds of the population consult their GP in any one year, such differences are often negligible. We chose GUM as a second site for the study because we were aware that men attending such clinics are more likely than other men to give a history of sexual molestation
See, often negligible, not always (just like exit polling) and they have added yet another source which may have other issues. They go on to explain...
Third{limitation of the study}, the fact that the GP sample was limited to a number of volunteer practices and our GUM sample to one inner-city clinic may limit the external validity of our results.
and if you didn't get it the first time they had a nice large LIMITATIONS SECTION you clearly did not read (and we'll repeat later)...
The general practitioner sample was limited to a number of volunteer practices and the genitourinary medicine sample to one inner-city clinic, which may limit the generalisability of the results.
2) They totally repeated what I was suggesting were limits based on the nature of the study itself...
One important limitation to our study, however, is our inability to make a temporal link between the reported problems and the sexual molestation. Thus, we can only report associations and cannot conclude that the links are causal. A second limitation is that our study lacks power to examine associations between the nature and circumstances of particular sexual acts and reported psychological difficulties... Finally, and largely because of the length of the interview, standardised assessments of past psychological disorder were not applied, except in the case of alcohol misuse.
They were repeated again in the LARGE PRINT LIMITATIONS SECTION, which apparently you did not read.
3) You mine quote that consensual sex is a predictor of self harm. But what does the study really say? First of all it is interesting to see what Psychological problems we are discussing. These are not all major shattering effects. It would be more interesting (and relevant) to have a study using those with the worst psych problems and work back to a range of variables that could be associated to it (including nonsexual issues).
In any case look at Table 1... while childabuse (nonconsensual) does show a large increase in selfharm and psych probs, consensual child sex has no effects near that seen in any nonconsensual sex (child or adult). Yes, you can clearly see an increase in report of selfharm from the general population from 8% to 13%. That is the largest difference from general population and it is really not that much.
Indeed you miss some important comments...
So-called ‘consensual’ sexual experiences in childhood were associated with fewer psychiatric disorders than child sexual abuse.
and
we conflated data from the victims of experiences perpetrated by men and women. There is some evidence that sexual assault of men by women is less disturbing than sexual assault by other men (Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994). We found a trend that confusion about sexual orientation was more common after sexual molestation by another man (26%; 13/50) compared with sexual molestation by a woman (11%; 4/35; 2=2.7, 1 d.f., P<0.10). Second, our data analysis strategy may have an impact on the findings pertaining to adult sexual molestation. We divided our sample in such a way that men who reported sexual assault as a child and as an adult were placed in the child sexual assault group, because we assumed that child sexual abuse was the most serious category of assault. We did not retain them as a separate group in the analysis because men reporting both types of assault were relatively uncommon. Had we placed these men with the group reporting only sexual assault as an adult, we may have found that adult sexual molestation was a significant predictor of a wider variety of disturbance
Which means that this is biased to make abuse in childhood (that is nonconsensual sex) look worse than it might be, and homosexual sexual conduct is apparently worse than heterosexual conduct. It is more scarring, or felt as bad and lead to confusion.
Just more evidence for the harm of homosexuality and I haven't even gotten to that point yet.
In the end it does conclude that given the rise from 8 to 13% (that is just 5% difference from gen pop) in reported selfharm by those with consensual child sex experiences, we can say it is a significant predictor, that is not to say it is an overwhelming percentage or change from base. If they added in religious persuasion or income level and tracked that it may very well have shown a greater increase from either one of those. I will also add that they also indicate in another part that not all selfharm reporting may have been actual selfharm for old acts (I'll let you find that one).
In any case that while they can say it is a significant predictor, it does not rise to the level that they can use selfharm as an "alert" that consensual activity had taken place.
4) Oh man, you suggested society effects are nil, yet this piece goes on to describe them as factors. Why why why did you not read this first? But thank you...
sex between a teenage boy and an older woman is popularly regarded in some cultures as an introduction to sexual matters and to manhood (Bolton et al, 1989)
and
anxiety and depression may be associated with differential recall, attribution and/or labelling of the sexual experiences (Beck, 1976; Derry & Kuiper, 1981). Men who have not developed psychological disturbance as adults may be less inclined to describe childhood sexual experiences as unwanted.
I'm assuming that you understand that recall and labelling will be influenced by sociological issues. A person may also develop psychological problems for other reasons (usually sociological in origin) which this shows may as a result create a shadow over past experiences (making them remembered worse than they were).
5) These were not findings of the study, but findings listed in the study which just layer on more evidence of harm in homosexuality (clearly we are reaching greater proportions than what we are seeing in just child sex)...
There is evidence that people who report same-sex partners are more likely to report psychiatric disorders than those who report opposite-sex partners (Sandfort et al, 2001). Our data had also already shown that men who reported male sexual partners were significantly more likely to report sexual molestation in adulthood (Coxell et al, 1999, 2000).
And to this we must remember their other points that nonconsensual sexual activity when young is more often perpetrated by males, or at least that is what is most often viewed as nonconsensual and leads to psychological issues.
Conclusion:
I don't know how soon I will be back to EvC, may be a bit, but I heartily suggest you get some training in psychological and sociological research methods. That will help you "read" a study, and understand its limitations. Or conversely, you should literally read your citations more closely. You have just reinforced my position, and incredibly undercut your own. If you do not understand this, and make statements to that affect, then I'll take that as a sign I don't have to take you seriously in the future.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-19-2004 2:53 PM Jon_the_Second has not replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 309 (161609)
11-19-2004 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by pink sasquatch
11-14-2004 2:52 AM


Re: 1978!?! historical perspective needed.
Sorry for taking so long to respond...
No, the question becomes, do you have any source on homosexual behavior that isn't thirty years old? Your assertion that the present "homosexual lifestyle" is one of promiscuity needs evidence.
Ok, sorry for the outdated stats.
From http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/000418.html:
Homosexuals still have 3-4 times as many partners as heterosexuals. Source: Laumann, FO. Gagnon, JH., Micheal, RT., Micheals, S., The Social Organization of Sexuality ( Chicago: university of Chicago Press, 1994 ).
A three-year study in Boston found that 77% of 481 male subjects had had more than 10 partners in the previous 5 years, 34% more than 50 partners in the previous 5 years. Source: G. R. Seage III et al., " The Relation Between Nitrite Inhalants, Unprotected Anal Intercourse and the Risk of Immunodeficiency Virus Infection," American Journal of Epidemiology 135 (January 1, 1992), p. 5.
The national gay and lesbian publication, The Advocate, reported " of 600 gay and bisexual male Milwaukeeans, 73% said they've had sex in the past six months with someone they never saw again." Source: The Advocate, June 14, 1994, p.16.
An upscale homosexual men's magazine, Genre, surveyed 1037 readers in October of 1996. Here are some of the results: " One of the single largest groups in the gay community still experiencing an increase of HIV are supposedly monogamous couples." 52% have had sex in a public park. 45% have participated in three-way sex. 42% have had sex with more than 100 different partners and 16% claim between 40 to 100 partners. Source: LaBarbera, Peter, " Survey finds 40% of Gay men have had more than 40 Sex Partners," The Lambda Report, January-February 1998, p.20.
Dr. Martin Dannecker, a homosexual German Sexologist, studied 900 homosexuals in 1991 living in "steady relationships". 83% of males had numerous sexual encounters outside their partnerships over a one-year period. Dr. Dannecker observed "clear differences in the manner of sexual gratification" between single and non-single gay men that were the reverse of what he expected. Of the homosexual men in steady relationships, he wrote, " the average number of homosexual contacts per person was 115 in the past year." In Contrast, single gay men had only 45 sexual contacts. Source: Wittmeier, Carmen, " Now they know the other half," Alberta Report, 1999 06 07, p.27.
______________________________________________________________
(I'm assuming you meant to say "not a harmful lifestyle".)
No, the statistics do not mean that ethnicity determines "danger" of HIV infection. It implies that there are black culture attributes (likely in a certain subculture) that result in a higher rate of exposure. It is those attributes, and not "blackness", that increase likelihood of HIV infection.
Yes I meant "not," sorry for the typo
Yes, what you say here is correct. I was extremely unclear - I did not mean to say that "blackness" in itself is dangerous - just the sububculture of blacks, as you say.
Just like it is not "homosexuality", but certain attributes of (a likely subculture of) homosexuality that increase risk.
Yes - the subculture of homosexuality increases risk. But I think the very nature of homosexuality itself often (not always) leads to this dangerous subculture.
Yes, I can, following your simple reading of statistics. I did exactly what you did, only with global statistics rather than national statistics. In examining the global epidemic, would you throw out the US numbers because they "skew the statistics" towards homosexuality?
Since I used a much bigger sample size, I have a better representation of the average person with HIV, and that average person is heterosexual.
Again, Africa throws a loop in everything when you are trying to compare homosexuality and heterosexuality. 30 years ago the US did not know about the dangers of AIDs- true. So lets look at the recent statistics, when the US DOES know the risk - you will still find homosexuals are the greatest group both with AIDS and being diagnosed with new cases of AIDS.
You need to learn some AIDS-related history. The epidemic spread of HIV in homosexual populations of the US happened twenty years ago, when the US was no more "knowledgeable about these things" than Africans currently are.
Fine - look at US statistics now.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-14-2004 2:52 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Rrhain, posted 11-23-2004 4:59 AM General Nazort has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024