Study: Homosexuality Linked with Childhood Trauma

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | July 27, 2010 | By James Tillman

[topher]

Tuesday July 27, 2010

---

Study: Homosexuality Linked with Childhood Trauma

By James Tillman

DUNEDIN, New Zealand, July 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A recent Otago University study has found that homosexual or bisexual individuals are more likely to have undergone a variety of of traumas in childhood, including sexual assault, rape, violence, and witnessing violence in the home.

"People who either identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual, or have had a same-sex encounter or relationship, tend to come from more disturbed backgrounds," said Research Associate Professor Elisabeth Wells.

The study analyzed results from a New Zealand Mental Health study that surveyed about 13,000 people between 2003 and 2004.  98% of the participants in the study identified themselves as heterosexual; 0.8% identified as homosexual; 0.6% identified as bisexual; and 0.3% identified as "something else."

Of people who reported certain traumatic childhood events, 15% were not heterosexual; of those without such experiences, only 5% were not heterosexual, suggesting that such experiences tripled the chance of later professing homosexual or bisexual inclinations.

Some homosexualist leaders took issue with the study's findings: Tony Simpson, chairman of the national homosexualist group Rainbow Wellington, said that the research should not be taken to mean that homosexuals are not born that way. "I have no doubt that the religious right will leap to the conclusion that this goes to show conclusively that homosexuals are made rather than born," he said.

Wells attempted to assuage fears over the study's conclusions.

"I suspect there might be some gay and lesbian people who will be indignant, but it is not my intention to anger them," she said.  "You could say that if someone was sexually abused as a child, chooses to live as a homosexual and lives life well, then that is not a bad thing.  But if they are living a homosexual life and regretting it, that is another matter."

Although sexual or physical abuse in childhood was associated with adult homosexuality, other traumatic experiences, such as the sudden death of a loved one or serious childhood illness or accident, were only slightly associated with non-heterosexual identity or behaviour.

Of females who self-identified as homosexual, more than 40% had been married and had children, whereas 13% of male homosexuals had done so.  Over 80% of those who identified as bisexual were women.

The association between child abuse and later homosexual identification is not young.  

One 1992 study found that 37% of homosexual and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner.  The median age of first contact was 10 years old.

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10072701.html

---

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

[SonOfDarkSkies]

There is no homosexual behavior in animals because there is no emotion to sex

Not saying that isn't true but there is no way of knowing for sure whether or not animals have an emotional connection to their sexual behavior. And that is an impossibly broad statement considering the vast array of animal life on this planet.

One would have to be an animal to know for sure (or at least be inside their heads).

That said, if you have a source, I sure would like to pore over the analysis that supports this conclusion.

[Wuli]

“Of people who reported certain traumatic childhood events, 15% were not heterosexual; of those without such experiences, only 5% were not heterosexual, suggesting that such experiences tripled the chance of later professing homosexual or bisexual inclinations.”

Statistics can be explained, in a skewed manner, to say almost anything you want them to, when 100% of the dataset is not reported.

The survey said 98% of the respondents professed to be heterosexual, and about 1.7% professed to not be heterosexual.

And, by the stats in the paragraph quoted above, among those who reported to NOT have one of a number of certain traumatic childhood events, 5% (of the total respondents to that question) were those who professed to NOT be heterosexual.

But, wait a minute, there were only 1.7% of the total respondents who professed to NOT be heterosexual, to begin with. In order to represent a portion of those who did not have a “traumatic event” (5%) that was larger than their demographic portion of the total respondents (1.7%) one could say they had to be 2.94 times more likely to answer “Not” to that question.

Also, the only stats reported (in the above quoted paragraph) are “among those who reported certain traumatic childhood events”. It does not tell you how many of the total respondents were in that group, in the first place. It does not tell you how many of the total “heterosexual” respondents were in that group, nor how many of the total NOT “heterosexual” respondents were in that group. Does that group represent 5, 10, 20, 25% ??% of all respondents, and what % of either the total “heterosexual” respondent group or the not “heterosexual” respondent group are “among those who reported........”. You don’t know.

So, for instance, if the % of either group that DID NOT answer in the affirmative to the “traumatic event question” is more than 50% of the total respondents in their group, then the percentages cited are fractions of 50% of the respondents represented by their group and not, as the text would have you believe, a fraction of the total respondents in their group.

In sum, without all the data, you cannot trust the reporting of statistics or the analysis based on such reporting.

And the missing data is the important question. Why? Well the author is trying to make the case for a specific set of “nurture” causes to “homosexuality”. But, instead of reporting “among all NON ‘heterosexual’ respondents” X% “reported certain traumatic childhood events”, the author only gives you the group breakdown of those who did respond in the affirmative. Therefore, it is a totally inaccurate gauge of its implication, if any, to the (not reported) total.

While both nurture and nature may supply some fraction of a total set of conditions from which an adult self-identifies as “homosexual”, those “nurture” factors said to be sure fire causes, cannot be “sure fire”, because, in spite of any statistical reports, a larger portion of self-professed “homosexuals” do not identify with those “nurture” factors in their own experience than those who do. If those factors were definitive causes, it would be the other way around.

For instance, for further evidence of the mis-use of statistics:

“One 1992 study found that 37% of homosexual and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner.”

That’s like saying “37%” of “men over 45” attending “cardiology clinics” reported having “high blood pressure”.

Does that mean that “37% of men over 45 have high blood pressure”? No. Because, you don’t know what % of “men over 45” visited the “cardiology clinics” in the first place;

Or, similarly its like saying:

“90% of women under 35” visiting “sexually transmitted disease clinics” reporting working as prostitutes.

Does that mean that “90% of women under 35” are working as prostitutes”? No. Because, you don’t know what % of “women
under 35” visited the clinics in the first place.

Just as the author’s stats cited does not tell you what % of “homosexual and bisexual men”, in the locality of the study, visited the “sexually transmitted disease clinics” in the first place. So, how does the reported stat translate to some fraction of the total “homosexual and bisexual men”? You have no idea, because it’s a stat that is only applicable to some fraction of the total.

[stuartcr]

OK

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm not sure I understand your point. The study finds a statistical correlation between childhood trauma and later homosexual or bisexual behavior. One could reasonably infer that there was childhood trauma and, correlatedly, homosexual and bisexual behavior in the non-modern societies you mentioned.

That doesn't make this behavior pattern inevitable. I don't think any human behavior pattern is literally inevitable.

[Cacique]

Do you feel the same way about pedophiles and those sexually attracted to other species?

Feelings have nothing to do with anything. This is not a matter of opinion. The fact is we clearly don't know. Opinions have no place in science. We base our findings on proven testable hypothesis and hard data. None of which we posses at the moment. I had not given any thought to the other two conditions. But now that you bring that up it appears we need studies in those areas as well.

I could have opinions as to what may be the cause of these aberrant behaviors. But opinions without any knowledge of relational cause and effect would mere speculation. All I am saying is that we simply have very little knowledge in the subject matter because it is politically very controversial and therefore little adequate research has been done. We need to get the politics out of it and let scientists do objective science to get the answers.

[warsaw44]

“no stigma attached to the aggressor in such a relationship. “
________

Saw that myself while in college. I had many good friends from Lebanon and I picked up more than a few of their common swears and insults. One very common insult was to state that you had intercourse with the person you were insulting. I never understood this and questioned them about it. They insisted that only being on the receiving end of such behavior made one gay. They could not get it around their head that any sexual contact with someone of the same gender qualified both men as gay.

In certain Afghan tribes when warriors go off for weeks / months at a time a man will take a submissive male with him to sodomize while away from his wife. The wife certainly isn't going off to battle with the men and taking a submissive male on the trip is perfectly normal to them.

The idea that people are born gay is preposterious. How would any one explain people who were once gay but whom are no longer gay? Equating being born gay to someone born black is laughable but heard from any number of people. What black man wakes up one day and decides he is now Asian or white?

Anyone claiming people are born with a same sex attraction must logically extend this claim to people being born with attraction to children, or animals.

Some men are wild for slender women, some to voluptuous ladies and some white men claim they are only attracted to Asian women. Are these men all born this way? Of course not. It all based on prior and early experiences in that man's life.

[stuartcr]

I don’t have any idea how someone becomes a homosexual, but since we can’t prove that people are not born that way, then I say, maybe, maybe not.

[TigersEye]

That depends on what the cause and effect chain is. Does hormonal imbalance lead to homosexual thoughts and desires or is it the reverse. Mind is very powerful and how a person views themselves shapes their physicality in many ways.

[Ol' Sparky]

The fact is we clearly don't know. Opinions have no place in science

The fact is that we do there are environmental factors. If genetics caused homosexuality, all identical twins were be both homosexual or straight since they have identical or virtually identical DNA. They aren't.

Homosexual gene researcher Dean Hamer:

"From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."

[warsaw44]

In my line of work I have known an endless number of gay men and gay women. What they all had in common was one or more of the following at a very young age: abusive relationships, sexual abuse, repeated rape, sexual abuse at the hands of older men ( with the women always step-fathers / uncles or other male family member ) and so on.

Not one had a normal, happy childhood.

[word_warrior_bob]

The classic psychological recipe is the overbearing mother and/or the absentee or distant father, the other predominant factor is same sex sexual abuse. Add in the other kinds of abuse like mentioned in this article and you have a potential homosexual. They’re not born that way.

[King Moonracer]

to help show that homosexuality is really a mental illness.

Lest we not forget the Convicts and Ancient Greeks among others. Its minimally an lack of self control deviance to say the least.

[Osage Orange]

I happen to think...that the lack of a two-parent family...especially no father in the home, is a tell.

I know..two families at the moment...that have kids that say they are homosexual. Both mom's deny that their lack of a husband has anything to do with it.

It's sad...that they won't even entertain the thought.

FWIW-

[Regulator]

What black man wakes up one day and decides he is now Asian or white?

The original premise of civil rights in the 60's was how could you discriminate against someone based on something they could do nothing about, like their race or gender?

The radical homosexuals picked up on that and have been pushing "born gay" ever since as a way to nullify anti-homosexual laws.

But it's a scam, as you make clear. Only if we accept the premise does their claim hold water...and it's a false premise.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"What about those that didn’t undergo any trauma?"

It follows that they would be less likely to be homosexual.

The causality is probably multifactorial: genetic variation, prenatal hormonal influence, trauma, culture, choice.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"To simply say that being gay is a choice is extremely ignorant. If this were true, then you being hetero is also a choice right?"

I don't think that one's particular pattern of affective response or attraction is a "choice," but one's behavior is.

As regards heterosexuals (or anyone else): being chaste is a choice. Being monogamous is a choice. Being promiscuous is a choice. These are behaviors, not "givens," and subject to the will, inasmuch as we are rational persons.

[Ben Mugged]

The study is fundamentally flawed. First they start off with homosexuals and ask them how many were sexually abused as children. They should sample the entire spectrum of adults regardless of sexual preference. The sample should show how many who were abused as children eventually became homosexual. I give little credulity to studies that seem to have the result in mind before the study is started.

I know of many adults who experimented sexually as children (not with adults) some as early as the age of six. This is not normally classified as "abuse" or at least not in the 1950s. They experimented with both sexes and yet almost all (around 99%) ended up heterosexual. Mind you this is personal relationships and not some foundational study. It is from my own personal experiences that I draw my conclusions from they are not spoon fed to me.

[PeterPrinciple]

Interesting, but I also think that it may also be genetic and inherited. Sim[ply based on the fact that some of these people appear to have some kind of hormonal imbalance that makes them act effeminate and therefore easy to spot.

---

The one thing we should all agree on is that it is a behaviour. Once the this truth enters in, the discussion changes a lot.

[PeterPrinciple]

The predatory homosexual activists pressure even elementary schools to teach about homosexual “choice.”

“Hi, Johnny. You’re in first grade, right? Do you like to play with Gary more than you do Jane? Jason more than Sarah? Well, then, you are probably what’s clled “gay.” It’s a very good choice. The best. Tell your parents and teachers and classmates, so everyone will know who you are. Don’t let anyone tell you it isn’t a good choice.”

---

I think imprinting plays a big role........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)

[humblegunner]

Stinkin’ pimps.