Can being molested as a child make you gay?

I disagree with your premise.



​

 

Correlation does not necessitate causation - that's something you learn when you go to college and actually study psychology/sexuality rather than copy and paste BS you find on World Net Daily, one of the craziest, least scientific and most anti-gay sites to be getting your information from. http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/08/gay-lawmaker-to-christians-well-take-your-children/

It also says (assuming those numbers are even accurate) they are "more likely to report." It does not say they are more likely to actually be molested. What is reported and what actually happens can be two different things. Someone who is openly gay is more likely to be open about a same-sex experience. How many straight guys would not only admit to being molested, but that it was by someone of the same sex?

How about you link from the supposed CDC page and the other study this comes from, instead of a WND opinion piece?

You think molesting boys makes the offender gay, which shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Sexual attraction to prepubescent children is not related to normal sexual orientations in which the adult is attracted to other adults.

Either way, there the APA and other scientific associations have not found molestation to cause one's sexual orientation to change.

 

All mentally ill people aren't gay, but all gay people are mentally ill.

That being said, the question is whether people are gay because of their mental illness, or if it is simply coincidental.

 

Please back up that statement with some evidence unless that is an opinion. If it is an opinion, then you are making a false generalization.

 

Homosexuality is a mental illness. It's been known, and documented, for millennia.

 

The AMA took homosexuality out of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973 which means that psychiatrists and psychologists have not considered homosexuality a mental illness for 40 years. Also, a 1000 years ago, homosexuality was not considered a mental illness because they didn't know what a mental illness was. Depending on the culture, homosexuality was either the work of the devil or divine providence (or something in between).

 

"dark" - Political pressure from a powerful pro-Gay contingency and the "live and let live "LSD mentality of that era led to a lot of regretful decisions.
I bet you did not know that the APA vote was like 56 - 44 - a plurality but not overwhelming.
FACT: many psychologists still treat the Homosexual upon request, to either help them adjust and acclimate to their trait or, for the motivated, to reject and re-direct their sexuality ot heterosexuality.
FACT: The former president of APA in 1979-1980, man who agrees with and agressively advocated for the change in the DSM at the time...
still treats the "confused" and reports having turned "100's" back to hetero normative sexuality.

Google it and get over it.

 

That is similar to claiming that you can rule out combat as a cause of PTSD because there are people who go through combat who never develop PTSD and other people who develop PTSD have never experienced combat.

Of course some people who are molested never become gay, and some gay people were never molested. That doesn't rule out molestation as a possible cause of some people's homosexuality. Exceptions don't disprove a theory, especially in psychology.

As for just brainwashing, when it comes to something that is exclusively in the mind of the person involved, there is no difference between being brainwashed to believe you are something and actually being that thing. If someone brainwashes you to believe that you are afraid of spiders, then you are afraid of spiders - there is no difference between you and someone who was born arachnophobic.

The same is true here. There is no difference between someone who is brainwashed to believe that he is attracted to members of the same sex and someone who is naturally attracted to members of the same sex. Because sexual attraction is exclusively in the mind of the person involved, in either case the person would be a homosexual.

 

No. Demanding a basic standard of evidence, and rejecting studies that are fundamentally flawed.

First of all, there's no need to argue the null hypothesis - i.e. that homosexuality is not linked with child molestation. The burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders. And secondly, I gave you one very pertinent fact: not a single reputable medical association agrees with this idea. Why? If the facts are so clear, for all to see, why? The answer is most likely because they know something you don't - like that the association's very existence is plagued by selection biases, or that it goes against what we understand about sexuality.

You're not very good at analyzing data or understanding questions, are you? First of all, the study wasn't even trying to draw that connection in the first place. It dealt with pedophilia, not homosexuality - a fundamentally different beast which is categorized entirely differently. Indeed, as far as I can tell from the abstract (the full text is behind a paywall), the study doesn't bring up homosexuality whatsoever. And if it did, it would be incorrectly categorizing pedophiles. But even if it did, you would have the problem that this is yet another source with questionable sampling (which I'll ignore right now) bringing up the correlation but not the causation. In fact, if anything, that study seems to indicate that child molestation does not automatically lead to more child molesters, but rather that there's another important factor to be considered. Moving on...

Citation needed. It seems to me that asexuality kind of nips that in the bud.

How long has the nuclear family existed?

Well, there's nothing about this in the abstract, and you weren't kind enough to give us access to the full text.

See, this would be news to me, as neither the American Psychological Association nor the American Psychiatric Association hold this position. Certainly not with regards to homosexuality. Why don't you demonstrate your claims, and show that "psychologists agree"? You really need to start citing your claims better.

Is it present in humans? Can it affect sexual orientation? Saying "look it up" is nice, but I don't think I'm going to bother doing your work for you. Look, again, it's really simple. If child molestation can sexually imprint a child to become homosexual, why has not a single reputable medical association picked up on it? Or, you know, you could be so kind as to provide sources for contentious claims. I'm not going to do your research for you.

Now this makes no sense. Getting molested will make boys gay... and girls gay? Hang on, that doesn't sit right, as almost all molestation is performed by males. And the existence of homosexual imprinting is not a fact. It's a hypothesis that you have yet to provide any significant evidence for, and which major psychological organizations reject.

Oh goodie, so what you should have done in the first place!

What, you mean like "The Gay Report" (which I did refute by pointing out how the sampling is incredibly biased and that therefore taking any conclusions from it is ludicrous)?

Take it away, UC Davis:

And of course, more importantly, the simple fact that pedophilia is not seen on the same scale of homosexuality/heterosexuality. As the aforementioned UC Davis article explains:

So uh... My comments about how the sampling issues made this study completely worthless mean nothing to you? Or did you just ignore them?

The abstract say 5 times, but okay. Again, though, I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove with this, as pedophilia is, as previously stated, not an adult sexual orientation like homosexuality or heterosexuality is.

The fact is that this trope fundamentally misunderstands how human sexuality works. You're seeming to imply that pedophiles can be homosexual or heterosexual, when in fact age attraction is a fundamentally different category to gender attraction. It doesn't matter that man-on-boy pedophilia is more prevalent. Hell, I'm really left wondering what you're trying to prove, because none of this (*)(*)(*)(*) seems to make any assertion about child molestation making you gay.

The idea that sexual imprinting plays any sort of major role in human sexuality, or more specifically on gender selection, has no evidence or support.

Man, we haven't even started.

 

You have reversed cause and effect in your analogy. It's not the same. Further, combat is not the cause of PTSD — traumatic stress that may be encountered in combat or elsewhere is more likely the cause.

Everyone who suffers from PTSD has suffered under traumatic stress, therefore it is reasonable to suggest traumatic stress may be the cause of PTSD. Everyone who is gay has not been molested, therefore it is not reasonable to say molestation is the cause of homosexuality.

Exceptions do disprove a theory. That is the basis of scientific method. That some psychologists, psychics, tea readers, and astrologists suggest otherwise is why many don't consider their practice science.



​

 

Back up this statement with a link to a reliable source, or admit you are lying.

 

You have a lot of confidence in brainwashing. People can be convinced that almost anything is true, with enough time and control of their environment. Absent that environment, folks underlying tendencies and patterns tend to re-emerge. Hypnosis, for example, has been attempted to help folks quit smoking and it's had a poor record. The AMA rescinded their support of it as a technique in 1987. Even with the obvious benefits associated with the change, most people find it either doesn't work at all or doesn't work for long.

The difference between someone who doesn't like tomatoes and someone who loves them, but has been hypnotized to think he doesn't, is retention. Unless you continually recondition the subject, most will eventually start craving them again.



​

 

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/186/6/494.full

Since I just found a study that shows quite a few cases of PTSD without significant trauma, do I need to reject the idea that trauma causes PTSD?

The reasons for the numerous exceptions when it comes to psychological issues is the numerous variables involved. Two people in the same circumstances will react differently. Two sets of seemingly similar circumstances end up with different effects for no clear reason.

Humans are too complicated for anyone to completely understand. No rules of human behavior are ever accurate for all people or at all times. There are always exceptions. That doesn't change the fact that those tendencies are true and accurate descriptions of how people usually behave.

 

Yet the mental and behavioral changes that children exhibit due to childhood trauma are often permanent. Here is a site with a description of many of the permanent effects of childhood trauma:
http://www.nctsn.org/trauma-types/complex-trauma/effects-of-complex-trauma

There has been a lot of research done into the lasting effects of childhood trauma. It is quite clear that childhood trauma often has effects on the children involved that last well into adulthood, and often throughout their entire lives.

I've personally never read any research that shows that homosexuality is a potential effect of child abuse, but if it is an effect, it is likely that it would last well into adulthood, and in many cases for their entire lives.

 

You've replaced my term stress with your term trauma. You've qualified your new assertion by saying there is trauma — just not 'significant' trauma. You are now proposing that lack of 'significant' trauma shows trauma cannot be the cause.

That sleight of hand aside, I've already agreed with the position this study seems to offer: it's possible to encounter the kind of stress that likely produces PTSD outside of combat. That traumatic events like divorce, job loss, or prolonged illness could produce PTSD symptoms seems likely. If you can take that further and demonstrate that folks suffer from PTSD without encountering any stress at all, then you might find the cause is something else entirely. Or you might find that there is more than one condition which produces similar symptoms.

I agree with you that psychology is not a reliable predictor of human behavior (or anything really). It's terminology is vague and it's value is uncertain. Seems unfair to call psychology a science, even with the frequently applied qualifiers 'soft' or 'social' or 'pseudo.' But hey, it let's folks who found real science too complicated to completely understand feel like they're contributing. Live and let live.



​

 

... amazing how you go from conceding that there is no basis for believing homosexuality results from child abuse, to talking about many cases of sexually abuse caused homosexuality lasting a lifetime. All in one sentence.

It's true that not all damage heals. A messed up leg may never grow back right, and yes a mind can be damaged too. Trauma might result in a permanent dissociative state, impaired reasoning, depression... damage.

Sexual orientation is not damage. There isn't a bit you can flip to make someone 'go straight' or a drug you can take to make you gay. Who you're attracted to is a complex and integral part of your identity. It's woven into all your memories, it's embedded in your subconscious processes, it's been a part of countless decisions and judgements you've made in building your life.

Yes, you can probably fool the conscious mind with hypnosis or other techniques. Someone might walk out of a magic show thinking he's gay or black (when he's neither). But who you are isn't a magic trick and eventually any trick will break when it encounters reality. Either in a shaving mirror or upon more internal reflection.




​

 

can it, sure... is it a 1 to 1 association, no

 

Not even close.

 

Same here. I guess some just can't get it through their heads that we are just like them, just attracted to the same sex. I knew I liked guys WAY before I ever had sex.

 

Well my premise is right and you are wrong. It's right to be against gay/lesbian conduct and it's right to be against transsexuals (sex change maimings) just as it's right to be against drug junkyism. My reasons for being against gays, lesbians and transexuality is unrelated to any religion. If it can be predicted an unborn baby will be gay, lesbian or transsexual, then abortion is justified.

33% of gays report homosexual rape in youth. Many gays and lesbians who commit suicide do so because they often were childhood sex abuse victims and many have other copathologies such as antisocial conduct, drugs, etc. Sex abuse especially homosexual rape in youth is major cause of homosexuality & transexuality-those who deny it are dishonest, delusional or both. It remains to be seen how many of Gerald Arthur (Jerry) Sandusky's victims will think think they're gay or worse transexual because of this. Gerald Arthur (Jerry) Sandusky and Harvey B. Milk homolested young boys because they liked doing it for pleasure and are homolesters. See this column by Peter J. LaBarbera on Gerald Arthur (Jerry) Sandusky below:

CHICAGO—The discovery that former Penn State University defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky has been molesting boys as young as 10 years old – has shocked America. Peter J. LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), said the scandal exposes the continuing problem of homosexual predators in society. He offers the following observations related to the PSU scandal:

Many openly homosexual (“gay”) men, like CNN anchor Don Lemon, were molested as boys or experienced abnormally early sexualization. Yet many of these same men do NOT see their boyhood victimization at the hands of homosexual male predators as causing their homosexuality. (This is due partly to the success of the modern “gay” movement that falsely ascribes “gayness” to a person’s (innate) identity, and emphasizes the ambiguous notion of “sexual orientation” as opposed to behavior that is sinful, destructive and changeable.) Thus, how many boy victims of homosexual predator Sandusky will end up believing that being homosexual (“gay”) is “who they are”? How many will struggle with sexual identity issues? And how many will be told by LGBT advocates and liberal-minded people just to “accept being gay” as “who they are” because they were “born that way”?

Because the media and academia have largely become apologists for the modern homosexualist movement, they downplay or ignore obvious causative factors in the formation of “gay” identity – including pederastic molestation. CNN’s Lemon is a case in point: he is now an “out gay” celebrity, yet few question the absurdity of him not associating the molestation of his youth with his later embrace of homosexuality as a positive identity. There IS a long history connecting homosexuality to pederasty, and a disproportionate link between homosexuality and pedophilia: why else would so many child molestation victims be boys when only 1-3 percent of the population is homosexual? Since cases of women molesting boys remain rare, if homosexuality were not such a strong factor, nearly all of pedophile victims should be girls, which is far from the case. Sandusky is married but obviously has a homosexuality (perversion) problem. Yet pro-“gay” liberals will deny any linkage between homosexuality and Sandusky’s rape/seduction of boys. In fact, after news of the Penn State scandal came to light, “gay” activists stressed that Sandusky is married and that most pedophile cases involve “straight, married men.” However, behavior is what matters – not a person’s marital status or self-described “sexual orientation.” Sandusky was married but was he really “straight” (sexually or morally)? Some inner demons or life traumas – probably in his own youth – caused him to lust for boys, wrecking untold misery in the lives of his victims. Behavior is the issue, and this was a case of a serial homosexual predator raping boys.

 

Your premise is an opinion. I disagree with your opinion.



​

 

Great quote: "There IS a long history connecting homosexuality to pederasty, and a disproportionate link between homosexuality and pedophilia: why else would so many child molestation victims be boys when only 1-3 percent of the population is homosexual? Since cases of women molesting boys remain rare, if homosexuality were not such a strong factor, nearly all of pedophile victims should be girls, which is far from the case. Sandusky is married but obviously has a homosexuality (perversion) problem. Yet pro-“gay” liberals will deny any linkage between homosexuality and Sandusky’s rape/seduction of boys. In fact, after news of the Penn State scandal came to light, “gay” activists stressed that Sandusky is married and that most pedophile cases involve “straight, married men.” However, behavior is what matters – not a person’s marital status or self-described “sexual orientation.” Sandusky was married but was he really “straight” (sexually or morally)? Some inner demons or life traumas – probably in his own youth – caused him to lust for boys, wrecking untold misery in the lives of his victims. Behavior is the issue, and this was a case of a serial homosexual predator raping boys."

Even the CDC reports that male homosexual adults report they were molested as children / non-age of consent 3X's (3 times) more than non-homosexual adult men.
Is that the entire reason the kids became "gay" - absolutely not - but if the molested kid had accredited psychological counseling help as kids after the traumatic event of molestation by a homosexual pedophile, then there is a better chance they will come to terms with it and become well- adjusted hetero-sexual.

BTW - molestation happens to girls more than boys and it's usually by hetero-sexual pedophiles...

 

Well my facts are right. Gay/lesbian behaviors and transexuality (sex change mutilations) are bad for health just as smoking is. They must abolish sex changes. If a gay/lesbian isn't pushing their views on others, then I don't care. But problem is that gays push their views on people such as Harvey B. Milk and Methew Wayne Shepard on others. If a gay is going to push views of coward Harvey B. Milk on schoolkids, then schoolkids must tell the gay teacher that their view is wrong. Heros for gays are cowards such as homosexual statutory rapist Harvey B. Milk. Since you live in San Francisco, you know how gays push views of homosexual statutory rapist coward Harvey B. Milk on others. Gay schoolteachers are a bad idea and schoolkids need to tell gay schoolteachers that they aren't going to listen to them. Rest is copy/paste, as this topic doesn't raise much which is new.

33% of gays report homosexual rape in youth. Many gays and lesbians who commit suicide do so because they often were childhood sex abuse victims and many have other copathologies such as antisocial conduct, drugs, etc. Sex abuse especially homosexual rape in youth is major cause of homosexuality & transexuality-those who deny it are dishonest, delusional or both. It remains to be seen how many of Gerald Arthur (Jerry) Sandusky's victims will think think they're gay or worse transexual because of this. Gerald Arthur (Jerry) Sandusky and Harvey B. Milk homolested young boys because they liked doing it for pleasure and are homolesters. See this column by Peter J. LaBarbera on Gerald Arthur (Jerry) Sandusky below:

CHICAGO—The discovery that former Penn State University defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky has been molesting boys as young as 10 years old – has shocked America. Peter J. LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), said the scandal exposes the continuing problem of homosexual predators in society. He offers the following observations related to the PSU scandal:

Many openly homosexual (“gay&#8221 men, like CNN anchor Don Lemon, were molested as boys or experienced abnormally early sexualization. Yet many of these same men do NOT see their boyhood victimization at the hands of homosexual male predators as causing their homosexuality. (This is due partly to the success of the modern “gay” movement that falsely ascribes “gayness” to a person’s (innate) identity, and emphasizes the ambiguous notion of “sexual orientation” as opposed to behavior that is sinful, destructive and changeable.) Thus, how many boy victims of homosexual predator Sandusky will end up believing that being homosexual (“gay&#8221 is “who they are”? How many will struggle with sexual identity issues? And how many will be told by LGBT advocates and liberal-minded people just to “accept being gay” as “who they are” because they were “born that way”?

Because the media and academia have largely become apologists for the modern homosexualist movement, they downplay or ignore obvious causative factors in the formation of “gay” identity – including pederastic molestation. CNN’s Lemon is a case in point: he is now an “out gay” celebrity, yet few question the absurdity of him not associating the molestation of his youth with his later embrace of homosexuality as a positive identity. There IS a long history connecting homosexuality to pederasty, and a disproportionate link between homosexuality and pedophilia: why else would so many child molestation victims be boys when only 1-3 percent of the population is homosexual? Since cases of women molesting boys remain rare, if homosexuality were not such a strong factor, nearly all of pedophile victims should be girls, which is far from the case. Sandusky is married but obviously has a homosexuality (perversion) problem. Yet pro-“gay” liberals will deny any linkage between homosexuality and Sandusky’s rape/seduction of boys. In fact, after news of the Penn State scandal came to light, “gay” activists stressed that Sandusky is married and that most pedophile cases involve “straight, married men.” However, behavior is what matters – not a person’s marital status or self-described “sexual orientation.” Sandusky was married but was he really “straight” (sexually or morally)? Some inner demons or life traumas – probably in his own youth – caused him to lust for boys, wrecking untold misery in the lives of his victims. Behavior is the issue, and this was a case of a serial homosexual predator raping boys.

 

Where do you get that number?



​

 

That # is all over the net though with variances, but we do know that childhood sex abuse is major cause of gayism, lesbianism and that is truth. But some people are so biased on gay/lesbian topic that they either are dishonest or they're delusional. It's truth that heros for gay groups are cowards such as homosexual statutory rapist Harvey B. Milk who himself is believed to have been sexually abused as a child and sexually abused a 16 year old boy.

Things such as Milk, Laramie Project is about $$$ for gay groups. Judy Peck Shepard makes $5,000 to $20,000 per speech who also wrote book and Judy Peck Shepard sides with gays no matter what the gays do including homosexual coward Stephen Eric Starr (who she gave sympathy to) and gay Lawrence Fobes King who masturbated in front of others (among other things) and Lawrence Fobes King harassed other boys before 1 day, Lawrence Fobes King was shot and killed in class by a kid who could no longer tolerate Lawrence Fobes King harassing him. Gay groups saw nothing wrong with what Lawrence Fobes King masturbating in front of others and they saw no wrong with Stephen Eric Starr sexually abusing a 19 year old mentally handicapped kid before that kid shot and killed Stephen Eric Starr in his sleep and then axed his body.

1 of Methew Wayne Shepard's friends Romaine Patterson also wrote a book and makes money off of Methew Wayne Shepard. Laramie Project's interest is money. Gay/lesbian groups, they are not interested in what the truth is about homosexual statutory rapist Harvey B. Milk, but what they want the truth to be. But with Methew Wayne Shepard, when people have told ugly truths about who he was before that October 1998 day, such as Methew Wayne Shepard's rude habit of cutting in line in front of handicapped while shopping and then blaming this on his depression, etc. people have been condemned for this. People who tell the ugly truths about who Methew Wayne Shepard was, don't earn anything, though I wouldn't mind making money talking about Methew Wayne Shepard's rude behaviors.

The 2008 movie Milk about Harvey B. Milk was about money. I didn't see the 2008 movie but talking to people who did, the 2008 movie left out truth about homosexual statutory rapist coward Harvey B. Milk committing homosexual stautory rape on a 16 year old boy in 1964. Again, people who tell the ugly truths about who both Methew Wayne Shepard & Harvey B. Milk were don't make $ from this. When people tell the ugly truths about Methew Wayne Shepard being a drug a drug junky who mixed Ecstasy with anti-depressants, Methew Wayne Shepard chose University of Wyoming out of all the colleges he could get into but then continuously insulted the college & Laramie. Metthew Wayne Shepard had the rude habit of cutting in line in front of others while shopping including in front of handicapped & Methew Wayne Shepard falsely accusing a man of a crime that didn't happen in August, 1998, 2 months before his death-In few cases where people have told ugly truths of who Methew Wayne Shepard was, people get condemned, or there are excuses made such as his depression, PTSD, which explains it, but it's no excuse. Both Harvey Bernard Milk and Methew Wayne Shepard have become 2 icons for homosexual groups but both mistreated others. Before Methew Wayne Shepard was killed he was viewed as obnoxious, moody and selfish but after he has killed by 2 men, then he got hero or queero worship just as Harvey B. Milk has gotten. With both Harvey B. Milk and Methew Wayne Shepard, who we should care more about is the 16 year old boy who Harvey B. Milk sexually abused-that kid turned out gay and committed suicide in 1980 when he was 33. If the 2 men by murdering Methew Wayne Shepard prevented Methew Wayne Shepard from becoming a Harvey B. Milk, then we're better off without him. I don't want gays sexually abusing teenage boys as Harvey B. Milk and Stephen Eric Starr did and I don't want Methew Wayne Shepard to turn into another Harvey B. Milk or Stephen E. Starr.