March 2009
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
		Apr »
	1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30	31

Pharmacy Links

HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS VS. CHILDREN: EARLY LIFE

27th March 2009

There is nothing distinctive about the homosexual offenders vs. children with respect to whether they were only children or whether or not they had older or younger siblings. Like the other homosexual offenders, however, they did not get along with their fathers at ages fourteen to seventeen; in fact, the homosexual offenders as a whole had the worst paternal relationship of any tripartite group, though the homosexual offenders vs. children had a somewhat better relationship than the other two homosexual groups.

The reverse is true in regard to their mothers, with whom they had one of the worst relationships of any of the groups, while the homosexual offenders vs. minors and adults had a better (though still below-average) record.

Nevertheless, the homosexual offenders vs. children exhibit a strong partiality for their mothers: 56 per cent reported they got along better with their mothers, 29 per cent got along equally well with both parents, and 15 per cent preferred their fathers, this strong maternal preference typifies all the homosexual offenders, a preference they share with the exhibitionists and the heterosexual aggressors. Partiality, especially if pronounced, would seem an ill omen.

A higher percentage (62 per cent) of homosexual offenders vs. children than of any other sex offenders came from broken homes, except the heterosexual aggressors vs. children, who have 64 per cent. The breakup occurred early in their lives, in 44 percent of the cases before the boys were ten. Moreover, the homosexual offenders are unique in that a relatively large number of their homes were broken up before they were five. These offenders had the second youngest average age at the breakup of the home—4.8 years.

Consequently our question, “How did your parents get along together when you were in your middle teens?” applies primarily to subsequent family units. The parents in these later marriages did not have satisfactory relationships: 45 per cent (a relatively small proportion) got along well and 35 per cent (a relatively large proportion) got along badly, giving in summary the next-to-worst interparental relationship of any group. This unfortunate parental situation is characteristic of all homosexual offenders.

The high percentage of broken homes is necessarily mirrored in a tabulation of the number of years that the subjects spent in homes in which both a husband and wife were present; here they are below most sex offenders in this respect, but above them in the number of years spent in all-female households.

At ages ten to eleven the homosexual offenders Vs. children present a curious picture as far as the number and sex of their playmates are concerned. They rank second among those with numerous male and female companions, and again second among those with numerous female companions, yet one third of them completely lacked female playmates at this age. To put it another way, one third had no heterosexual social life but the remaining two thirds socialized unusually well with females. The tendency for all the homosexual offenders to have had numerous girl playmates (they rank first, second, and third in this respect) suggests a “sissy” situation. The homosexual offenders vs. children are unlike the other homosexual offenders in that such a large proportion of them had no female companions; relatively few of the homosexual offenders vs. minors and adults share this lack.

Like the other homosexual offenders, the homosexual offenders vs. children were quite apt to have had prepubertal sex play: 56 per cent had heterosexual play and 60 per cent had homosexual play. Significantly, the homosexual offenders are the only groups in which homosexual experience outweighs heterosexual experience. Also, more of the homosexual offenders (almost one quarter) confined their prepubertal sociosexual activity to males: in a rank-order of those whose sex play was exclusively homosexual they rank first, second, and third. However, the homosexual offenders vs. children are unlike the other homosexual offenders in that nearly one fifth of them engaged exclusively in heterosexual play; the other homosexual groups do not exceed 15 per cent. This heterosexuality was of short duration in comparison to the homosexuality: one quarter of the future homosexual offenders vs. children experienced three or more years of heterosexual play, whereas over half had three or more years of homosexual play.

Similarly, the percentage with well-developed heterosexual techniques (mouth-genital contact and coitus) is small in comparison with other types of sex offenders, while the number with elaborate homosexual techniques is comparatively large. In general, this holds for all homosexual offenders. For example, in a rank-order of those with heterosexual mouth-genital contact and coitus, the homosexual offenders are in the lower half of the scale, whereas in rank-orders of homosexual masturbation, mouth-genital contact, and anal coitus they tend not only to be in the upper half, but to monopolize the first, second, and third ranks. These comparisons tend to make the homosexual offender vs. children seem more homosexual in his early life than he actually was; in terms of absolute numbers essentially the same number had heterosexual coitus as had homosexual anal activity.

More of the homosexual offenders were, while preadolescent, the recipients of approaches by adult males than were the members of any other sex-offender group: roughly a third had such experience. Note that only 8 per cent of the control group were similarly approached. The approaches turned into overt physical contact for between 20 and 28 per cent of the three homosexual-offender groups—higher percentages than exist for other groups. So few adult females are interested in preadolescent boys that the percentages in this category are so small as to render comparisons of modest value. Nevertheless, the homosexual offenders tend to be low or intermediate in this type of experience.

The record of the homosexual offenders’ childhood contacts with adult males immediately suggests that their experiences may have predisposed them to subsequent homosexual activity and, ultimately, to committing the acts that resulted in their convictions. This suggestion leads one into a chicken-egg paradox: was the experience with adults a causative factor of the homosexuality or a by-product of pre-existing homosexuality? Both explanations are probably true. It is, however, worth noting that the contact with adults ordinarily came later than homosexual experience with other children. Yet, physical sexual contact with an adult male would be a graphic demonstration to the child that some adult males can find sexual gratification with boys, and this concept could be of importance when the child himself becomes adult, particularly if he recalls the experience as having been pleasurable.

The homosexual offenders vs. children, like all homosexual offenders, had relatively poor childhood health, 60 per cent reporting good health (the second smallest proportion recorded), and 14 per cent (the second largest percentage) reporting ill health. In short, the homosexual offenders vs. children were the next to the most unhealthy group, the unhealthiest being the homosexual offenders vs. adults.

The homosexual offender vs. children ranks fifth (with 47 per cent) in order of those with prepubertal masturbatory experience. This high incidence is typical of homosexual offenders, who also tend to have begun such masturbation at an early age: the homosexual offenders vs. children rank second along with the homosexual offenders vs. adults in the percentage (60 per cent) who began before age ten. This record, coupled with their relatively high incidence of sex play, makes the homosexual offenders vs. children one of the most sexually active groups in preadolescence—again a distinction shared by the two other homosexual-offender groups.