Alice Dreger, writing at the Psychology Today blog, has an important post addressing the title above. Presenting data from Ray Blanchard, she says that the answer to the question is: no, gay men don’t have more sexual interest in children than straight men do. This is an important data set from Blanchard which I am sure will be good news to some and trouble those who want to stigmatize gays.
First a summary from Dr. Dreger:
So, at the outset, let me give away the answer to my headline question: Do gay men have more sexual interest in children than straight men do? No. And we have lab studies to prove it.
In fact, the British Journal of Psychiatry published a major study backing up the “no” answer almost 40 years ago. The distinguished sex researcher Kurt Freund and his colleagues used a laboratory method (described below) that demonstrated that the sexual responses of gay men to boys were similar to the responses of straight men to girls. (Both responses are relatively low.) This past June in Canada, at the major international research conference on sexual orientation science, sex researcher Ray Blanchard (who was trained under Freund) presented substantial new data confirming and expanding on Freund’s findings.
First, Blanchard describes the plethysmograph, which is in essence a means to measure erections in response to various sexual triggers. Although plethysmography has been criticized, it is a direct physical measure which allows comparisons across categories of response. Dreger and Blanchard describe the procedure in detail.
Although the sampling of men in the study raises some concerns, the research is quite relevant to the question about sexual interest. As Dreger notes, the sample is not representative of all men so the numbers of pedophiles are probably inflated compared to the total sample. Given that these are men suspected of a crime or seeking help, one might expect the non-clinical population to test more in keeping with their categorical orientation than this group.
Blanchard’s findings are represented well by this graph:
Dreger quotes Blanchard’s explanation for the figure:
This figure shows the mean (average) response of each group to each stimulus category. So that statistically inclined readers can make some comparisons besides those I will explicitly discuss, I have included the 95% confidence interval for each mean. These are represented by the vertical lines bracketing the top of each bar. Two means are significantly different if their confidence intervals do not overlap. The converse, however, is not true, and the significance of the difference between means with overlapping confidence intervals must be tested with methods other than visual inspection.
The key comparisons produced results similar to those of Freund et al. They show that gay men (homosexual teleiophiles) and straight men (heterosexual teleiophiles) have similar penile responses to depictions of children in the laboratory,” that is to say, relatively low. But more important than their being relatively low, they’re not really any different for gay and straight men.
The responses of heterosexual teleiophiles to prepubescent girls were similar to the responses of homosexual teleiophiles to prepubescent boys (gold bar in top left panel vs. green bar in top right panel). The difference between these means was not statistically significant. The responses of heterosexual teleiophiles to pubescent girls were actually slightly higher than the responses of homosexual teleiophiles to pubescent boys (orange bar in top left panel vs. blue bar in top right panel). This difference was statistically significant; however, it is most likely trivial, because the heterosexual teleiophiles were generally a little more responsive than the homosexual teleiophiles.
Dreger concludes: “So it doesn’t look like gay men are any more likely than straight men to be attracted to pubescent children.” Assuming (which seems safe to me) that non-clinical, representative sampling would produce at least the same if not more stable categories, I think Dreger and Blanchard have solid evidence for their conclusion.
Thank you for bringing this very interesting study up. Against the dual view “Pedophile” / “Teleophile” and “Heterosexual”/”Homosexual” it brings a interesting view of multible potential stimuli, from wich i had read sometimes, but this time in graphic.
Unfortunately, it’s not clear that the study shows this.
What the study does show is that there is such a thing as homosexual men who are neither teen-attracted nor child-attracted, but are only adult-attracted.
However, the sampling problems already discussed make it difficult to draw the conclusion that “men attracted to other adult men are no more interested in children than men attracted to adult women.”
For example, take another look at the top row of “teleiophiles.” There is definitely a hetero/homo symmetry in the height of the color bars. But note the little I-shaped brackets at the top of each color bar, representing “confidence intervals” (CI). Here there’s a notable lack of symmetry between the hetero and homo sides; among teleiophiles, the hetero CI’s are uniformly short and far from overlapping with each other, but the homo CI’s are rather long and much more nearly overlap, though without actually overlapping.
I would defer to a statistician, but what this appears to me to suggest is that homosexual teleiophiles, on average, tended to be slightly more hebephilic (i.e., a bit more responsive on the boner-o-meter) than the heterosexual teleiophiles. Of course, this could be an artifact of sampling or methodology and not really meaningful, but it does prevent the study from being the triumphant rebuttal you’re looking for.
Again, the study is only a definite rebuttal to the extremist claim that there is NO age preference among homosexual males, and that therefore ALL men who date other adult men are also potential pedophiles. But I would stand by my assertion that any sort of “no homosexual men are non-pedophiles” claim is rather rarely made today, although it may have been in wider currency when this study was done circa 1971. (In which case, one could say that the study was very important in its own time, but less so today.)
But the study is of less value in rebutting the (still current) claim that homosexual men are, to some unspecified degree, “more likely” than heterosexual men to be pedophiles.
One other thing I noticed: At least for purposes of the study described, “teleiophilia” was defined as an erotic preference for sexual partners anywhere and everywhere over the age of 17 — which is to say, there was no attempt to distinguish between a strong preference for 20-year-old women, and a strong preference for 40-year-old women. (For that matter, “gerontophilia,” a preference for much older adults, wasn’t measured either.)
May I ask a few questions of Dr. Throckmorton or any others who have some knowledge in this area:
– Is the plethysmograph considered reliable in measuring sexual arousal? Is there a protocol for administering a plethysmograph test – for example, procedures to relax the participant, the medium and duration of the sexual stimuli, etc?
– Has there ever been an attempt to use the plethysmograph to assess “ex-gays” who claim to have changed their orientation (as opposed to behavior)?
Finally, although I am no expert, I understand that the allegation of a link b/t gays and pedophilia is often backed up by a citation to a 1988 study by a researcher named WD Erickson. Although I have not seen the Erickson article, I have read that it contains a sentence, citing the conclusion of some other source that, in a particular group, 86 percent of abusers of male children identified themselves as gay or bisexual.
However, as I understand it, this was not the focus of the Erickson study, Erickson never vetted the statement, and there is no available source cited to support it. So you have this single sentence in a 23 year-old study that keeps appearing over and over, and no way to address it. Has anyone ever tried to track down this data or contact Erickson to get some clarification as to the source?
Well, thanks Dr. Throckmorton and everyone else for ignoring my questions. My mistake for posting here to begin with.
I think perhaps that there is some confusion. I read this as “are pedophiles more common among gays than straights” and, as some have noted, this study doesn’t speak to that question.
But what it does show – which is important – is that men attracted to other adult men are no more interested in children than men attracted to adult women. And that is a line that the Peter LaBarbera’s like to blur, preferring to imply that being gay – by definition – makes you a threat to kids.
And Throbert, you are mistaken when you say that “The thing is, though, that anti-gay voices today aren’t claiming that ALL gay men are potential pedophiles.”
Some do say so loudly and repeatedly. Many more do so by implication with “protect our children” messages.
Hmmm… well, yes, the results confirm that homosexual men have clear age preferences when it comes to their “objects of desire,” just as heterosexual men do — but is that really a “striking” revelation for today’s readers?
I mean, if there are any anti-gay groups out there who are saying that homosexual men will indiscriminately chase after anything human with a penis, from two years old to 102, we can consider THAT debunked. The study definitely establishes that there are markedly “teleiophilic” homosexuals who are aroused by other adult men, but not particularly aroused by underage males (at least, no more so than men who like adult women are mildly aroused by underage females).
The thing is, though, that anti-gay voices today aren’t claiming that ALL gay men are potential pedophiles (and thereby denying the very existence of strictly “teleiophilic” homosexuals who are only attracted to other adult men).
Rather, they’re apt to argue that pedophiles are in some way “disproportionately represented” in the gay community — and this study simply doesn’t offer any useful evidence to debunk that. (If anything, at a casual glance the study seems to support the idea that pedophiles are overrepresented among gays, but as we’ve all agreed, that might be a due to a sampling problem.)
So, in short, the study offers the earthshattering news that there are non-pedophiles among homosexuals, just as there are non-pedophiles among heterosexuals. Wowee.
Coming up at 11: A just-released government report indicates that fried chicken and watermelon are favored foodstuffs among some Blacks, Whites, Asians, and Hispanics, but are disliked by some other Blacks, Whites, Asians, and Hispanics — statistics prove it!!!
Well, thanks Dr. Throckmorton and everyone else for ignoring my questions. My mistake for posting here to begin with.
One other thing I noticed: At least for purposes of the study described, “teleiophilia” was defined as an erotic preference for sexual partners anywhere and everywhere over the age of 17 — which is to say, there was no attempt to distinguish between a strong preference for 20-year-old women, and a strong preference for 40-year-old women. (For that matter, “gerontophilia,” a preference for much older adults, wasn’t measured either.)
Incidentally, a few other minor points of interest from the PDF:
* All the heterosexual stories were recorded by an adult female narrator, and all the homosexual stories by an adult male. (I guess the assumption here was that the sound of another adult male’s voice would be a libiido-inhibitor for a hetero male, but I’m not sure that this assumption is necessarily justified — cf. the long tradition of raunchy locker-room stories that men tell for the titillation of other men.)
* “Hebephilia” is not, as I thought, a synonym for “ephebophilia” — the first term describes an attraction to minors in the 11-14 range who are only just past puberty, while the latter is an attraction to the “almost legal” 15-17 range. (Some versions of these plethysmograph tests have broken out ephebophilia as a separate narrative scenario between “hebe-” and “teleio-“.)
* Men who had been referred for the testing after arrests for child-sex offenses were NOT tested with the teleiophilic narratives — on the assumption that they would predictably try to cheat, presumably by ignoring the adult-sex narrative and fantasizing as feverishly as they could about a pedophilic scenario, so that it would seem that they got an erection in response to the teleiophilic story. That makes sense, I guess, but… how do you know they’re not deliberately thinking about baseball scores or dead kittens when you read them the pedophile story, in order to “stay soft”?
By the way, I emailed Alice Dreger yesterday asking for some clarification about the narratives used in the testing — I pointed out the problem that a homosexual man presented with a “Zeus and Ganymede” story about an adult male and a teenage boy might conceivably project himself into either the Zeus or Ganymede role, whereas as a heterosexual man listening to a “Zeus and Hebe” role would presumably have more difficulty casting himself as the teenage girl Hebe.
So anyway, I already got a response from her — she sent me a more detailed report of the study as a PDF, and it cleared up my question about the narratives: They were all about 100 words long, written in the 2nd-person present tense, and established the age and gender of the “object of desire” in the first sentence, for example:
“You are walking by yourself in a forest when you see a naked 8-year-old boy wading alone in a creek…”
(I don’t know how explicit things got after the ellipses because the PDF only included a sample opening, not the entire narratives.)
So, the fact that the stories were framed in the 2nd person would tend to encourage the listener to project himself into the narrative as his adult self and not as the younger party, which clears up my question.
Unfortunately, it’s not clear that the study shows this.
What the study does show is that there is such a thing as homosexual men who are neither teen-attracted nor child-attracted, but are only adult-attracted.
However, the sampling problems already discussed make it difficult to draw the conclusion that “men attracted to other adult men are no more interested in children than men attracted to adult women.”
For example, take another look at the top row of “teleiophiles.” There is definitely a hetero/homo symmetry in the height of the color bars. But note the little I-shaped brackets at the top of each color bar, representing “confidence intervals” (CI). Here there’s a notable lack of symmetry between the hetero and homo sides; among teleiophiles, the hetero CI’s are uniformly short and far from overlapping with each other, but the homo CI’s are rather long and much more nearly overlap, though without actually overlapping.
I would defer to a statistician, but what this appears to me to suggest is that homosexual teleiophiles, on average, tended to be slightly more hebephilic (i.e., a bit more responsive on the boner-o-meter) than the heterosexual teleiophiles. Of course, this could be an artifact of sampling or methodology and not really meaningful, but it does prevent the study from being the triumphant rebuttal you’re looking for.
Again, the study is only a definite rebuttal to the extremist claim that there is NO age preference among homosexual males, and that therefore ALL men who date other adult men are also potential pedophiles. But I would stand by my assertion that any sort of “no homosexual men are non-pedophiles” claim is rather rarely made today, although it may have been in wider currency when this study was done circa 1971. (In which case, one could say that the study was very important in its own time, but less so today.)
But the study is of less value in rebutting the (still current) claim that homosexual men are, to some unspecified degree, “more likely” than heterosexual men to be pedophiles.
Incidentally, a few other minor points of interest from the PDF:
* All the heterosexual stories were recorded by an adult female narrator, and all the homosexual stories by an adult male. (I guess the assumption here was that the sound of another adult male’s voice would be a libiido-inhibitor for a hetero male, but I’m not sure that this assumption is necessarily justified — cf. the long tradition of raunchy locker-room stories that men tell for the titillation of other men.)
* “Hebephilia” is not, as I thought, a synonym for “ephebophilia” — the first term describes an attraction to minors in the 11-14 range who are only just past puberty, while the latter is an attraction to the “almost legal” 15-17 range. (Some versions of these plethysmograph tests have broken out ephebophilia as a separate narrative scenario between “hebe-” and “teleio-“.)
* Men who had been referred for the testing after arrests for child-sex offenses were NOT tested with the teleiophilic narratives — on the assumption that they would predictably try to cheat, presumably by ignoring the adult-sex narrative and fantasizing as feverishly as they could about a pedophilic scenario, so that it would seem that they got an erection in response to the teleiophilic story. That makes sense, I guess, but… how do you know they’re not deliberately thinking about baseball scores or dead kittens when you read them the pedophile story, in order to “stay soft”?
By the way, I emailed Alice Dreger yesterday asking for some clarification about the narratives used in the testing — I pointed out the problem that a homosexual man presented with a “Zeus and Ganymede” story about an adult male and a teenage boy might conceivably project himself into either the Zeus or Ganymede role, whereas as a heterosexual man listening to a “Zeus and Hebe” role would presumably have more difficulty casting himself as the teenage girl Hebe.
So anyway, I already got a response from her — she sent me a more detailed report of the study as a PDF, and it cleared up my question about the narratives: They were all about 100 words long, written in the 2nd-person present tense, and established the age and gender of the “object of desire” in the first sentence, for example:
“You are walking by yourself in a forest when you see a naked 8-year-old boy wading alone in a creek…”
(I don’t know how explicit things got after the ellipses because the PDF only included a sample opening, not the entire narratives.)
So, the fact that the stories were framed in the 2nd person would tend to encourage the listener to project himself into the narrative as his adult self and not as the younger party, which clears up my question.
Two prominent examples that explicitly link (adult) homosexual orientation with pedophilia:
The Family Research Council:
American Family Association:
Two prominent examples that explicitly link (adult) homosexual orientation with pedophilia:
The Family Research Council:
American Family Association:
May I ask a few questions of Dr. Throckmorton or any others who have some knowledge in this area:
– Is the plethysmograph considered reliable in measuring sexual arousal? Is there a protocol for administering a plethysmograph test – for example, procedures to relax the participant, the medium and duration of the sexual stimuli, etc?
– Has there ever been an attempt to use the plethysmograph to assess “ex-gays” who claim to have changed their orientation (as opposed to behavior)?
Finally, although I am no expert, I understand that the allegation of a link b/t gays and pedophilia is often backed up by a citation to a 1988 study by a researcher named WD Erickson. Although I have not seen the Erickson article, I have read that it contains a sentence, citing the conclusion of some other source that, in a particular group, 86 percent of abusers of male children identified themselves as gay or bisexual.
However, as I understand it, this was not the focus of the Erickson study, Erickson never vetted the statement, and there is no available source cited to support it. So you have this single sentence in a 23 year-old study that keeps appearing over and over, and no way to address it. Has anyone ever tried to track down this data or contact Erickson to get some clarification as to the source?
I think perhaps that there is some confusion. I read this as “are pedophiles more common among gays than straights” and, as some have noted, this study doesn’t speak to that question.
But what it does show – which is important – is that men attracted to other adult men are no more interested in children than men attracted to adult women. And that is a line that the Peter LaBarbera’s like to blur, preferring to imply that being gay – by definition – makes you a threat to kids.
And Throbert, you are mistaken when you say that “The thing is, though, that anti-gay voices today aren’t claiming that ALL gay men are potential pedophiles.”
Some do say so loudly and repeatedly. Many more do so by implication with “protect our children” messages.
Throbert
Very good point.
I disagree with the above. I use the “compass” metaphor that was once used over at BTB – that the four major orientations (homo-, hetero-, bi-, a-) are like directions on a compass. The needle points in the direction (or approximate direction) of where your attractions lie.
However, as a compass cannot point you to- for example – “dry land” or “calm seas,” one’s sexual orientation cannot tell you if one is turned on by prepubescent children, feet, or heavy-set adults.
David,
I would agree with this. All of this.
Throbert,
Ok, I feel like I have been tickled and am laughing. Thanks for such a great sense of humor and for all of your other contributions on this blog. I appreciate your intelligence and look forward to your comments. Off to work now – and am still smiling 😀
Quite understandable!
Oh, but one other thing from one of the links — evidently there was a variation of the described experiment in which closeup photos of “skin eruptions” from dermatology textbooks were interpolated with the nude drawings… to help measure the, ahem, “detumescence” response!
Bleh. 😛
Throbert,
Thank you. I find articles like this difficult to read (personal reasons) so I just read the post.
Funny 😀
According to the write-up, “pedophiles” were defined as those who were most strongly responsive to children 10 and under, while “hebephiles” were those who were most strongly responsive to the 11-14 age range.
And incidentally, just for everyone’s peace of mind, they didn’t use actual photos of real children, teens or adults (in any state of undress) nor did they use pornographically explicit drawings of “nekkid” people. Rather, subjects were presented with nude illustrations in the sort of decorous and non-erotic poses you might find in a textbook about the development of secondary sex characteristics.
Along with this, the subjects listened to audio recordings of a narrator describing fictional sexual encounters with children, teens, or adults, in order to stimulate their imaginations beyond what was offered by the illustrations.
Hmmm… well, yes, the results confirm that homosexual men have clear age preferences when it comes to their “objects of desire,” just as heterosexual men do — but is that really a “striking” revelation for today’s readers?
I mean, if there are any anti-gay groups out there who are saying that homosexual men will indiscriminately chase after anything human with a penis, from two years old to 102, we can consider THAT debunked. The study definitely establishes that there are markedly “teleiophilic” homosexuals who are aroused by other adult men, but not particularly aroused by underage males (at least, no more so than men who like adult women are mildly aroused by underage females).
The thing is, though, that anti-gay voices today aren’t claiming that ALL gay men are potential pedophiles (and thereby denying the very existence of strictly “teleiophilic” homosexuals who are only attracted to other adult men).
Rather, they’re apt to argue that pedophiles are in some way “disproportionately represented” in the gay community — and this study simply doesn’t offer any useful evidence to debunk that. (If anything, at a casual glance the study seems to support the idea that pedophiles are overrepresented among gays, but as we’ve all agreed, that might be a due to a sampling problem.)
So, in short, the study offers the earthshattering news that there are non-pedophiles among homosexuals, just as there are non-pedophiles among heterosexuals. Wowee.
Coming up at 11: A just-released government report indicates that fried chicken and watermelon are favored foodstuffs among some Blacks, Whites, Asians, and Hispanics, but are disliked by some other Blacks, Whites, Asians, and Hispanics — statistics prove it!!!
When referring to children in this study, what age(s) are they using?
Throbert
Very good point.
I recognise completely that it demonstrates similar response patterns for similar groups (i.e. hetero and homo teliophiles). That’s great, but it **doesn’t** (as I’ve seen suggested elsewhere) tell us that homosexuals as a whole population are more or less likely then heterosexuals to be ebephiles or pedophiles. That is the headline report that is being communicated, that homosexuals are NOT more likely to be ebephile or pedophile then the heterosexual population, and that’s my issue.
Frankly, I would love to see the survey that demonstrates that there is no difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals in ebephilia or pedophilia, but this is NOT that survey, and everytime someone suggests that it is it weakens, not strengthens, their case.
I disagree with the above. I use the “compass” metaphor that was once used over at BTB – that the four major orientations (homo-, hetero-, bi-, a-) are like directions on a compass. The needle points in the direction (or approximate direction) of where your attractions lie.
However, as a compass cannot point you to- for example – “dry land” or “calm seas,” one’s sexual orientation cannot tell you if one is turned on by prepubescent children, feet, or heavy-set adults.
Peter, Throbert – One cannot make predictions about proportions of offenders for these groups based on these data since this is not a representative sample of the population of men or even offenders. No doubt more of those called into the attention of Blanchard’s clinic were in the groups you identify. I suspect the gay hebephiles and pedophiles are overrepresented here based on the sampling.
What this study is doing is showing the similar response patterns of these straight and gay groups. The symmetry of the findings is striking and relevant to the question of how sexual interest is expressed by those in the different categories.
I am curious about the relative number of gay and straight pedophiles but I don’t this sample can address that issue.
David,
I would agree with this. All of this.
Throbert,
Ok, I feel like I have been tickled and am laughing. Thanks for such a great sense of humor and for all of your other contributions on this blog. I appreciate your intelligence and look forward to your comments. Off to work now – and am still smiling 😀
Quite understandable!
Oh, but one other thing from one of the links — evidently there was a variation of the described experiment in which closeup photos of “skin eruptions” from dermatology textbooks were interpolated with the nude drawings… to help measure the, ahem, “detumescence” response!
Bleh. 😛
Throbert,
Thank you. I find articles like this difficult to read (personal reasons) so I just read the post.
Funny 😀
According to the write-up, “pedophiles” were defined as those who were most strongly responsive to children 10 and under, while “hebephiles” were those who were most strongly responsive to the 11-14 age range.
And incidentally, just for everyone’s peace of mind, they didn’t use actual photos of real children, teens or adults (in any state of undress) nor did they use pornographically explicit drawings of “nekkid” people. Rather, subjects were presented with nude illustrations in the sort of decorous and non-erotic poses you might find in a textbook about the development of secondary sex characteristics.
Along with this, the subjects listened to audio recordings of a narrator describing fictional sexual encounters with children, teens, or adults, in order to stimulate their imaginations beyond what was offered by the illustrations.
When referring to children in this study, what age(s) are they using?
Let me preface this comment by saying that I am not one of the “homosexual = pedophile” camp by any means. Rather, I’m putting my statistician’s hat on.
OK? Ready?
This is comparing apples to oranges, as Throbert quite rightly is pointing out. Whilst this is a fantastic study showing the sexual stimuli of different groups of men, the simple raw data indicates that homosexual men are more likely to be in the hebephilic or pedophilic group.
Of course, this may be to do with the sample itself (of prisoners), but then if we reject the easily seen conclusion from this dataset that homosexuals are more likely to be attracted to children or pubescents, we need to reject the rest of the conclusions.
Or, having read the full paper, am I still missing something?
I recognise completely that it demonstrates similar response patterns for similar groups (i.e. hetero and homo teliophiles). That’s great, but it **doesn’t** (as I’ve seen suggested elsewhere) tell us that homosexuals as a whole population are more or less likely then heterosexuals to be ebephiles or pedophiles. That is the headline report that is being communicated, that homosexuals are NOT more likely to be ebephile or pedophile then the heterosexual population, and that’s my issue.
Frankly, I would love to see the survey that demonstrates that there is no difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals in ebephilia or pedophilia, but this is NOT that survey, and everytime someone suggests that it is it weakens, not strengthens, their case.
Peter, Throbert – One cannot make predictions about proportions of offenders for these groups based on these data since this is not a representative sample of the population of men or even offenders. No doubt more of those called into the attention of Blanchard’s clinic were in the groups you identify. I suspect the gay hebephiles and pedophiles are overrepresented here based on the sampling.
What this study is doing is showing the similar response patterns of these straight and gay groups. The symmetry of the findings is striking and relevant to the question of how sexual interest is expressed by those in the different categories.
I am curious about the relative number of gay and straight pedophiles but I don’t this sample can address that issue.
Let me preface this comment by saying that I am not one of the “homosexual = pedophile” camp by any means. Rather, I’m putting my statistician’s hat on.
OK? Ready?
This is comparing apples to oranges, as Throbert quite rightly is pointing out. Whilst this is a fantastic study showing the sexual stimuli of different groups of men, the simple raw data indicates that homosexual men are more likely to be in the hebephilic or pedophilic group.
Of course, this may be to do with the sample itself (of prisoners), but then if we reject the easily seen conclusion from this dataset that homosexuals are more likely to be attracted to children or pubescents, we need to reject the rest of the conclusions.
Or, having read the full paper, am I still missing something?
Well, the first comment that comes to mind is: if “age preference” is a type of orientation, does this say anything about “change therapy” for pedophiles and hebephiles?
The second comment is, as I already pointed out above: the study suggested that, overall, preference for penises vs. vaginas seems to outweigh the age preference.
So, if we’re talking about male orientation towards objects of sexual desire, “androphilic vs. gynecophilic” is the primary variable, and “teleiophilic vs. hebephilic vs. pedophilic” is only secondary.
After thinking about it, there’s one other significant nuance that the study and Dreger’s article don’t get into.
Imagine the case of a 35-year-old man who, on the plethysmograph test, was mainly responsive to woman of about his own age — i.e., a “heterosexual teleiophile.”
Now suppose that this man is read a scenario about a 12-year-old boy who has an erotic encounter with a sexy 35-year-old female schoolteacher — in modern slang, a “MILF story.” And in response to the story, the man pitches wood on the plethysmograph. Does this mean that he secretly has “homosexual hebephile” tendencies and likes 12-year-old boys? Well, that’s a possible interpretation — but many people would argue, instead, that he’s responsive to the story because he’s projecting himself into the role of the 12-year-old boy, and is primarily reacting to the description of the 35-year-old woman teacher (i.e., the group that he tends to be attracted to).
With this in mind, how do we interpret the case of a 35-year-old man who pings the boner-graph in response to a story about a 12-year-old boy having sex with a 35-year-old man similar to himself?
Again, a possible interpretation is that the subject actually does have an attraction to 12-year-old boys. But an alternative analysis would be that the subject is not particularly attracted to the 12-year-old boy, but rather is imagining himself as a 12-year-old boy who’s playing the “catamite” role to a 35-year-old male “pederast” — which would be consistent for a subject who overall tends to be a “homosexual teleiophile.”
Anyway, my point is that the framing of the sexual scenarios and the POV from which they’re told may tend to affect a subject’s response.
McGee,
Thanks for the breakdown…
And this is interesting in the article:
Comments?
The results of the study might suggest, however, that we should be skeptical about claims that pedophiles are “neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals,” but rather tend to be equal-opportunity offenders attracted to prepubescent children regardless of gender.
The study suggests, instead, that among men who favor little girls, adolescent girls are the second-favorite, and preferred to little boys; and similarly, men who strongly prefer little boys tend to prefer adolescent boys as the second-favorite, ahead of little girls.
So, in either case, there is a “genitalia preference” that tends to trump the age preference.
Also:
So, out of 292 homosexual men, only 96 (about 33%) were overwhelmingly adult-attracted, while a total of 196 (about 67%) were attracted to minors under 15; with 110 (about 38% of the total) attracted particularly to prepubescent minors.
But out of 1986 heterosexual men, 1066 (about 54%) were overwhelmingly adult-attracted, while a total of 920 (about 46%) were attracted to minors under 15; with 159 (about 8% of the total) attracted particularly to prepubescent minors.
However, let us finally note that there were 2278 men total, of which 292 were tested as “homosexual” — or about 13%! That in itself suggests that the subjects were far from being a good randomized sample of the adult male population.
Right away, I can see one gigantic problem with the study, or rather with how the study is reported.
Dreger says:
But as you might expect in a 40-year-old study, the classification of men as “gay” or “straight” was not based on the subjects’ social self-identification in a preliminary interview; rather, it was based on the plethysmographic response. (Those who mainly got boners for female imagery were classified as hetero; those who mainly got boners for male imagery were classified as homo.)
And similarly, the categorization as “teleiophilic” (adult-attracted), “hebephilic” (teen-attracted), and “pedophilic” (“child-attracted”) was NOT done prior to the test, based on, e.g., arrest records or reporting from prior psychotherapy treatment, and subsequently confirmed by the machine test; again, the categorization was based totally on the results with the boner-graph.
So, to go back to Dreger’s summary of the results:
What this actually means is: Men who got erections PRIMARILY in response to adults, tended to not get erections in response to children.
Well, holy sh*t and stop the presses!
Seriously, how is this more enlightening than saying, “Plethysmographic tests proves that Kinsey 6’s tend to not be Kinsey 0’s”??
I would certainly like to agree with the findings of this study (and see no reason not to do so).
Whatever the truth may be, of this I am absolutely convinced: most gay people as well as most straight people, find the idea of having sexual relations with prepubescent youngsters not only morally abhorrent but also aesthetically repulsive.
Well, the first comment that comes to mind is: if “age preference” is a type of orientation, does this say anything about “change therapy” for pedophiles and hebephiles?
The second comment is, as I already pointed out above: the study suggested that, overall, preference for penises vs. vaginas seems to outweigh the age preference.
So, if we’re talking about male orientation towards objects of sexual desire, “androphilic vs. gynecophilic” is the primary variable, and “teleiophilic vs. hebephilic vs. pedophilic” is only secondary.
After thinking about it, there’s one other significant nuance that the study and Dreger’s article don’t get into.
Imagine the case of a 35-year-old man who, on the plethysmograph test, was mainly responsive to woman of about his own age — i.e., a “heterosexual teleiophile.”
Now suppose that this man is read a scenario about a 12-year-old boy who has an erotic encounter with a sexy 35-year-old female schoolteacher — in modern slang, a “MILF story.” And in response to the story, the man pitches wood on the plethysmograph. Does this mean that he secretly has “homosexual hebephile” tendencies and likes 12-year-old boys? Well, that’s a possible interpretation — but many people would argue, instead, that he’s responsive to the story because he’s projecting himself into the role of the 12-year-old boy, and is primarily reacting to the description of the 35-year-old woman teacher (i.e., the group that he tends to be attracted to).
With this in mind, how do we interpret the case of a 35-year-old man who pings the boner-graph in response to a story about a 12-year-old boy having sex with a 35-year-old man similar to himself?
Again, a possible interpretation is that the subject actually does have an attraction to 12-year-old boys. But an alternative analysis would be that the subject is not particularly attracted to the 12-year-old boy, but rather is imagining himself as a 12-year-old boy who’s playing the “catamite” role to a 35-year-old male “pederast” — which would be consistent for a subject who overall tends to be a “homosexual teleiophile.”
Anyway, my point is that the framing of the sexual scenarios and the POV from which they’re told may tend to affect a subject’s response.
McGee,
Thanks for the breakdown…
And this is interesting in the article:
Comments?
Thank you for bringing this very interesting study up. Against the dual view “Pedophile” / “Teleophile” and “Heterosexual”/”Homosexual” it brings a interesting view of multible potential stimuli, from wich i had read sometimes, but this time in graphic.
The results of the study might suggest, however, that we should be skeptical about claims that pedophiles are “neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals,” but rather tend to be equal-opportunity offenders attracted to prepubescent children regardless of gender.
The study suggests, instead, that among men who favor little girls, adolescent girls are the second-favorite, and preferred to little boys; and similarly, men who strongly prefer little boys tend to prefer adolescent boys as the second-favorite, ahead of little girls.
So, in either case, there is a “genitalia preference” that tends to trump the age preference.
Also:
So, out of 292 homosexual men, only 96 (about 33%) were overwhelmingly adult-attracted, while a total of 196 (about 67%) were attracted to minors under 15; with 110 (about 38% of the total) attracted particularly to prepubescent minors.
But out of 1986 heterosexual men, 1066 (about 54%) were overwhelmingly adult-attracted, while a total of 920 (about 46%) were attracted to minors under 15; with 159 (about 8% of the total) attracted particularly to prepubescent minors.
However, let us finally note that there were 2278 men total, of which 292 were tested as “homosexual” — or about 13%! That in itself suggests that the subjects were far from being a good randomized sample of the adult male population.
Right away, I can see one gigantic problem with the study, or rather with how the study is reported.
Dreger says:
But as you might expect in a 40-year-old study, the classification of men as “gay” or “straight” was not based on the subjects’ social self-identification in a preliminary interview; rather, it was based on the plethysmographic response. (Those who mainly got boners for female imagery were classified as hetero; those who mainly got boners for male imagery were classified as homo.)
And similarly, the categorization as “teleiophilic” (adult-attracted), “hebephilic” (teen-attracted), and “pedophilic” (“child-attracted”) was NOT done prior to the test, based on, e.g., arrest records or reporting from prior psychotherapy treatment, and subsequently confirmed by the machine test; again, the categorization was based totally on the results with the boner-graph.
So, to go back to Dreger’s summary of the results:
What this actually means is: Men who got erections PRIMARILY in response to adults, tended to not get erections in response to children.
Well, holy sh*t and stop the presses!
Seriously, how is this more enlightening than saying, “Plethysmographic tests proves that Kinsey 6’s tend to not be Kinsey 0’s”??
I would certainly like to agree with the findings of this study (and see no reason not to do so).
Whatever the truth may be, of this I am absolutely convinced: most gay people as well as most straight people, find the idea of having sexual relations with prepubescent youngsters not only morally abhorrent but also aesthetically repulsive.