FAMILY RESEARCH REPORT	Journal of the Family Research Institute Founded 1982
Anti-Sodomy Laws Under Attack!			Vol. 16 No. 7 Nov 2001

So many professional associations are in favor of legalizing sodomy and protecting those who engage in homosexuality that a layman could be excused for having just this view. These professional associations claim that the ‘scientific evidence’ proves that anti-sodomy laws are not only unwarranted but -- get this -- also harmful to public health!

The latest attempt at this kind of ‘scientific steamrollering’ is occurring in Massachusetts, where, surprisingly enough, the state’s anti-sodomy laws are still on the books. As you might expect, these statutes are being challenged by gay activists. Furthermore, a host of professional associations submitted an amici curiae brief on June 25, 2001 in support of the activists.

In this issue of FRR, we examine the claims made by the ‘scientists’ writing for the professional organizations which sponsored the amici brief. We will demonstrate that their assertions are largely baseless or even false. Nevertheless, similar claims are being made across the land by the pro-homosexual crowd, so we believe it is important to document carefully just where their arguments fall short.

The Professional Associations

Those behind the amici brief included the Massachusetts Psychological Association (2,200 members), the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (responsible for managing federal and state AIDS funds), the National Association of Social Workers (160,000 members, formed in 1955), the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (devoted to furthering the sexual revolution), and the American Public Health Association (founded in 1872, it claims that it is “the largest public health organization in the world” with 3,200 members). The only ‘usual suspects’ missing from this list are the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Psychological and Psychiatric Associations, and the National Educational Association.

So-Called ‘Facts’ Aren’t

A. The amici falsely assert that oral and anal sex are physically benign.

The amici brief claims that: “Scientific and clinical data indicate that engaging in the acts prohibited by these laws is a normal, healthy part of most American adults’ intimate sexual lives.” (p. 2) … “The intimate sexual acts proscribed by the Massachusetts sodomy laws are not considered to be harmful to either an individual or to society. Engaging in oral or anal sex does not result in mental or physical dysfunction.” (p. 6) … “Mental health professionals agree that the ability to engage in sexually expressive behavior between consenting adults, including oral and anal sex, is critical to forging healthy relationships.” (p. 5)

To be perfectly clear and quite explicit, “oral and anal sex” includes mouth-to-penis, mouth-to-vagina, mouth-to-anus, insertion of penis in anus, or insertion of fingers, hand, ‘toys’ etc. in anus. These are the activities that the amici claim are biologically and ‘mentally’ benign -- even “critical to forging healthy relationships.” But examined in light of the medical facts, these assertions are decidedly erroneous and, as cast, deceptive.

Oral-genital sex:

It is probably true that mouth-to-genital sex is relatively benign biologically -- particularly when compared to oral-anal or anal sex (i.e., mouth-to-anus or penis-in-anus). After all, the mouth is designed to handle all kinds of food and it possesses numerous protective factors in the saliva. Once swallowed and beyond the esophagus, ingested material is subject to the strong processing fluids of the stomach and intestines. As such, the use of the mouth for sexual stimulation is probably fairly ‘safe.’ However, if the sex organ has an infection, or has recently been in contact with infectious germs (e.g., from the rectum), oral infections of sexually transmitted diseases can and do occur.

The owner of the sex organ being fellated may also be at risk. If their partner’s mouth contains pathogens, the sex organ is relatively unprotected against assaults by salivary-borne germs. Unlike the mouth, the penis has few protective defenses. So a person with infectious organisms in his mouth can infect a sex organ.

Not only is this possible, it occurs with regularity when homosexual group sex is involved. For example, earlier this year, four men were arrested one night for having “group sex” on a trail in Omaha, Nebraska.1 Under dim lighting, men who have sex with men [MSM] took all kinds of biological risks to enjoy the psychological ‘thrill’ of having an orgy in a public place, knowing such conduct was against the law.

As clearly, the many MSM who have sex with unknown men in restrooms and rest areas run the same kinds of biological risks. In one of the few random samples of men who call themselves homosexuals, 66% said that they had had sex in public restrooms and 88% said that they had engaged in orgies.2

Oral-anal sex:

Unlike mouth-to-genital sex, mouth-to-anus activities cannot possibly be considered medically benign. There is simply no way to ‘safely’ lick or insert the tongue into the anus without ingesting biologically significant amounts of fecal material. Not only do a host of viruses (e.g., Hepatitis A), bacteria, and other infectious organisms (e.g., Giardiasis, amebiasis) reside in feces, but various forms of hepatitis, herpes and many of the same organisms that cause food poisoning are transmitted through its ingestion.3

Separating feces from the food chain and living areas via modern sanitation has arguably been the single most important contribution of modern public health. Avoiding the ingestion of fecal material in either food or in sex practices is healthy; any oral exposure to feces is unhealthy. This is precisely what much of modern ‘sanitation’ is about.

To re-introduce intimate exposure to feces in the name of “sexually expressive behavior” -- “critical to forging healthy relationships” -- is biological insanity. Ingesting feces is far removed from anything that could rightfully be called “healthy.”

Indeed, in 1981, at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, Dr. M Heller, Director of the Division of Emergency Medicine at the University of California’s Moffitt Hospital, San Francisco, observed4 that “the large number of patients, virtually all male and all gay, with these diseases [various enteric infections collectively called ‘gay bowel syndrome’] is indeed a new phenomenon” which he noted was associated with “the emergence of a well-defined ‘gay scene,’ including gay bars, restaurants, movies, clubs, indeed whole neighborhoods catering openly to the gay lifestyle.”

The recipient of oral-anal sex is not immune to infection either. Unlike the mouth, the anus is designed to eliminate waste, not to process and incorporate semen, saliva, etc. So it has few protective devices. The mouth can and does transmit sexual infections to the anus. Ultimately, for either the ‘doer’ or the one to whom oral-anal sex is done, the claim that “engaging in... anal sex does not result in... physical dysfunction” is absolutely false.

Penile-anal sex:

Placing a penis in the anus is also fraught with medical risks. For the recipient, there is good evidence to suggest that the rectum and anus are negatively affected over the long term by the insertion and movements of the penis during sexual activity. Men who are the recipients of penile-anal sex are many times more apt to develop anal or rectal cancer and to lose sphincter tonus, perhaps up to 20 times the national average.5 Those who put their penis in others’ rectal cavities are also more apt to get urinary infections. After all, the penis is bathed in feces or surrounded by fecal residue during the process.

The bottom line is that the rectum was not designed for sexual activity. Indeed, because of its one-cell-wall thickness and rich supply of blood vessels, the rectum is almost ‘perfectly suited for infection.’ This is undoubtedly the reason that the vast majority of MSM who have gotten infected with HIV practiced penile-anal sex.

While only a smattering of evidence suggests that the ‘insertor’ of the penis has contracted HIV from anal sex, there is overwhelming evidence that the rectal ‘insertees’ got their HIV from penile-anal sex. Indeed, the practice of penile-anal sex is associated with well over 95% of all HIV infections among MSM.

There is also fair evidence that a disproportionate degree of HIV infection among women is due to penile-anal as opposed to penile-vaginal sex.6 The same is true of hepatitis B, syphilis, and all the other blood-borne pathogens. In short, the natural functions of the rectum (e.g., efficient absorption of water and other nutrients from the fecal mass) act to make it unsuitable for penile intromission.

Furthermore, there is good evidence that depositions of semen in the rectum are deleterious, per se, to the functioning of the immune system. This was first demonstrated in rabbits and has been confirmed in both male and female prostitutes.7

Oral & Anal Sex: Not Benign

Analysis of the obituaries of over 9,000 gay men suggests that they are unusually subject to cancer of the mouth, pharynx, stomach, and esophagus, all of which may be related to typical sexual practices among MSM of ingesting semen, urine or feces.8 Indeed, while the constellations of morbidities differ between the groups (with men who have sex with men [MSM] exhibiting higher rates of infectious diseases than heavy drinkers or illicit, but non-shooting/non-IV drug users), the lifespans of MSM are similar to the lifespans of very heavy drinkers or heavy consumers of illicit drugs, but not as short as regular IV drug abusers.

The evidence on women who have sex with women [WSW] is less certain, but it appears that their lifespan may be only a few years longer on average than the lifespan of MSM.

Activities do not have to be injurious every time to be medically dangerous

Certainly, while not every penile-anal or oral-anal sex act is likely to be deleterious, one’s penis need not ‘fall off’ or one’s rectum ‘explode’ for there to be physical dysfunction. Consider how we treat smoking. Eysenck and his colleagues have demonstrated that no more than 30% and perhaps as few as 15% of those who smoke tobacco are demonstrably harmed by the activity. After all, only 10% of heavy smokers die of lung cancer, so obviously 90% do not.9 However, that only a minority is adversely affected is hardly grounds for declaring smoking a ‘harmless activity,’ or one that is “critical to forging healthy relationships” even if many people enjoy having a smoke together.

For public health reasons, our society requires the occupants of automobiles to wear seatbelts. Yet only an infinitesimal number of those who travel by car on any given day get into an accident, and an even smaller number of those in accidents have their injuries mitigated or their lives spared by the use of seatbelts.

By analogy then, most men who practice penile-anal sex receptively do not get rectal cancer (although perhaps as many as 30% of MSM have been infected with HIV from this behavior). Likewise, most smokers do not get lung cancer, and most auto travelers never gain benefit from their use of seatbelts. Nevertheless, since a disproportionate minority of those who practice either anal sex or smoking do get cancer, there are reasonable grounds to condemn both activities as ‘harmful to personal and public health’ and a cause of ‘physical dysfunction.’

Similarly, because a disproportionate number of those who do not wear seatbelts -- if they get into an accident -- get more severely injured, it is reasonable to condemn not wearing seatbelts as ‘harmful to personal and public health.’

When we also consider that, in addition to higher rates of cancer, smoking is associated with higher cardiovascular risk and that being the recipient of anal sex is associated with higher risk of HIV, syphilis, hepatitis, etc., the condemnation of either practice is medically sound and appropriate.
Practice of oral and anal sex is associated with blood being banned from use and high levels of STDs.

Those persons our society calls “homosexuals” are characterized by high levels of participation in oral and anal sex. While the majority of homosexuals also engage in heterosexual sex, for which the sex organs are complimentary, they also engage in homosexual sex, for which no natural sex organ exists. Therefore, homosexuals must ‘make do’ with creative (and harmful) combinations of oral and anal sex.

Although adults who regularly engage in homosexuality probably make up less than 3% of the adult population,10 investigators who have conducted random surveys have reported that homosexuals generate between 15%11 and 12%12 of all sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). These very oral and anal sexual activities and the diseases with which they are associated led to the banning of all blood from MSM at U.S. blood banks in 1985 -- a ban that has spread and is currently maintained throughout the civilized world. Also, in 1996 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control considered both male and female homosexuality as independent “risk factors” for HIV infection in its first national sexuality survey.13

The regular practice of oral, and especially anal, sex is associated with poorer personal health, poorer public health, higher rates of STDs, and higher risk of HIV. Those who practice it most -- men who have sex with men -- are barred from giving blood to the nation’s blood banks. It verges on absurdity to argue that individual desires (e.g., “but I like it” or “it’s my identity”) or “the ability to engage in sexually expressive behavior between consenting adults, including oral and anal sex, is critical to forging healthy relationships” trump these far more important social concerns.

Society stigmatizes those who break its laws, irregardless of what kind of lawbreaker they may be. It also stigmatizes MSM by restricting them from donating blood. All of this is good social policy, based on both facts and historical experience. But now gay activists and their apologists want to eliminate the anti-sodomy laws, in part because of the stigma they create, even though the public health risks of homosexuality are both well documented and warrant continued stigmatization.

The authors of the amici brief appear to be lacking in either knowledge of medicine, integrity, or both. Their statements about anal sex, and to a degree about oral sex, are clearly false. There is no known biological benefit to anal sex and a host of contraindications. There is also certainly no known benefit to oral-anal sex. The amici brief sponsors should have known better.

B. No empirical evidence indicates that the presence of anti-sodomy laws increases the rates of HIV among men who have sex with men or among women who have sex with women. Further, no empirical evidence suggests that ‘AIDS education’ decreases the spread of HIV.

The amici brief states that “Amici have first-hand knowledge of the counterproductive and harmful effects on public health and individual mental health caused by criminal sodomy statutes, whether enforced or unenforced.” (p. 1) While amici admit that “the prevention of sexually transmitted disease remains a critical public health challenge” (p. 3) amici also assert that by “criminalizing and condemning acts of intimate sexual expression between consenting adults [the anti-sodomy laws] (1) undermine public health efforts to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases;” (p. 1) … “[S]tudies indicate that frank discussion about sexual practices and education about risk reduction results in dramatic changes in sexual behavior, thereby reducing the risk of HIV transmission” ( p. 10) … “the stigma resulting from the criminalization of any healthy private sexual expression undercuts public health efforts to control disease.” (p. 12)

It appears that ‘AIDS education’ provides employment to a number of the amici. But employment is not the same thing as ‘success in combatting the spread of HIV.’ The assertions of amici are not backed up by hard evidence. First, the rates of AIDS or HIV cases have no obvious relationship to the presence or absence of anti-sodomy laws in various states.14 This would indicate either that the anti-sodomy laws, as they are currently enforced, are either ineffective in suppressing homosexuality or have no real influence upon the spread of HIV.

More importantly, as opposed to the implication that ‘AIDS education’ has been some sort of smashing success, scientific reviews have found little in the way of empirical evidence that behavioral interventions work to reduce the spread of HIV. Analysis of the distribution of AIDS cases from 1988 through 1990 indicated that the ban against MSM blood had worked to reduce HIV contaminated blood but ‘education’ had not.15 In 1995, reviews of the empirical literature regarding ‘AIDS education’ once again concluded there was insufficient evidence that ‘education’ worked.16

The most recent review17 noted that three of seven carefully chosen and well-done interventions showed a higher STD rate than where no educational program was in place (p. S116). Little wonder these reviewers concluded that there “has been a tendency to think that behavioural interventions of the kind reviewed in this article will either be effective or, at worst, neutral. Our review suggests otherwise. Six of the seven studies reported improvement in self-reported behavioural outcomes, but only two interventions were effective in reducing STD rates.” (p. S121)

These reviews and empirical efforts, done by three different teams of researchers, but all arriving at the same general conclusion, are not mere ‘opinions’ or ‘assertions.’ Rather they passed rigorous scientific peer review and constitute solid estimates of the ‘state of the art’ regarding AIDS education. In a word, if in fact anti-sodomy laws impede ‘AIDS education’ (and there is no evidence that they do), nothing is lost. AIDS education does not appear to reduce the spread of HIV anyway.

C. If people engage in activities that harm themselves and the public health, they should expect others to ‘discriminate against them.’ However, it is not clear that such ‘discrimination’ leads to psychological ill health or that laws against such behavior cause others to assault them physically.

The amici brief noted that “Mental health professionals agree that the message of condemnation resulting from such laws can result in significant adverse mental health. In addition, sodomy laws promote a climate in which anti-gay violence is pervasive by creating a milieu that informs society that gay people’s lives are inferior....” (p. 4) “criminalizing and condemning acts of intimate sexual expression between consenting adults [the anti-sodomy laws] (3) harm the psychological health of gay and lesbian people and promote anti-gay prejudice and violence.” (pp. 1-2) … “Laws that make acts of intimate sexual expression a felony inevitably lead to stigma and shame.” (p. 11)

The brief also contended that “[Anti-sodomy laws] stigmatize gay people as ‘deviants’ and reinforce unfounded but widely held stereotypes about them. This process results in prejudice -- often called ‘homophobia’ -- against lesbians and gay men. While the majority of gay people successfully cope with the stresses created by stigma and develop a positive identify based upon their sexual orientation, a small group of gay people does not successfully cope with the stigma and prejudice associated with homosexuality. Mental health professionals agree that negative societal attitudes are related to adverse mental health. The stigma which is perpetuated by sodomy statues can fuel internalized feelings of self-hatred and inferiority and cause many individuals to live their lives in isolation, hiding their core identity from friends and family.” (p. 22)

As we have noted, from a medical and public health standpoint, those who engage in the activities criminalized by the anti-sodomy laws harm both themselves and society. It is reasonable for the rest of society to regard such malefactors as “inferior.” Those who regularly drive while intoxicated or who use illegal drugs are also often considered “inferior” and are as a consequence ‘discriminated’ against. Even smokers, who engage in a perfectly legal activity, are often considered “inferior” because they are captives to a bad habit.

However, it is not clear that being discriminated against because of one’s homosexual activities goes hand in hand with being assaulted or with promoting “anti-gay prejudice and violence.” Further, it is not clear that making an activity illegal leads either to mental “ill health” on the part of the participants or to more frequent assaults by others.

In part, because what they do harms themselves and the public, many people regard the activities of MSM and WSW as ‘disgusting’ or ‘loathsome’ and wish to have nothing to do with them. Similarly, in part because what smokers and illegal drug users do harms themselves and the public health, many people regard smoking or illegal drug use as ‘unseemly’ or ‘noxious.’ As a consequence many regard smokers and illegal drug users as being of a lesser or lower class and avoid their company.

It is a rule of thumb that if one regularly harms themself or society by what they do, they will often be ‘looked down’ upon as inferior. People quite reasonably avoid associating with those who participate in noxious or illegal activities. And they don’t want them around their families either. In a similar vein, since criminals are also typically regarded as inferior, others seek to avoid their company.

Discriminations of this sort are sensible and help make society tick. Such discriminations provide motivation for those involved in smoking, homosexuality, criminality, or illegal drug use, etc. to cease and desist. If society did not discriminate against certain activities there would be no criminal law. On the other hand, society must also discriminate for certain activities (e.g., heroism, achievement), otherwise fewer would be motivated to do them.

The only real question about discrimination against something is whether it rationally serves the interests of the greater good (e.g., as against theft or illicit drug use), or is prejudicial (e.g., as against blacks). As demonstrated above, the practices of oral and particularly anal sex are generally injurious to those who engage in them and degrade the public health. Consequently, those who might be tempted by such behaviors are sent a helpful message if these activities are illegal, just as the current anti-sodomy laws attempt to do.

References:
1. Omaha World Herald, 9/12/01
2. Cameron P, Cameron K, Proctor K. Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order. Psychological Reports, 1989, 64, 1167-1179
3. Beral V, Peterman TA, Berkelman RL, Jaffee HW. Kaposi’s sarcoma among patients with AIDS: a sexually transmitted infection? Lancet 1990, 335, 123-128
4. Medical problems: the gay bowel. Sexual Medicine Today, August 1981, 22-24
5. Koblin BA, Hessol NA, Zauber AG, Taylor PE, Buchbinder SP, Katz MH, Stevens CE. Increased incidence of cancer among homosexual men, New York City and San Francisco, 1978-1990. American Journal of Epidemiology, 1996,144,916-923. They published an estimated rate in excess of 20 times more apt; Daling JR et al. Correlates of homosexual behavior and the incidence of anal cancer. JAMA 1982, 247, 1988-1990 published estimates in harmony with the rate suggested by Koblin et al.
6. Chu et al., AIDS in bisexual men in the U.S. American Journal Public Health 1992, 82, 1549-52
7. Ratnam KV. Effect of sexual practices on T cell subsets and delayed hypersensitivity in transsexuals and female sex workers. International Journal of STD & AIDS, 1994, 5, 257-261
8. Cameron P, Playfair WL, Wellum S. The longevity of homosexuals: before and after the AIDS epidemic. Omega 1994, 29, 249-272; Cameron P, Cameron K, Playfair WL. Does homosexual activity shorten life? Psychological Reports 1998, 83, 847-866
9. Eysenck HL. Does smoking really kill anybody? Psychological Reports 1995, 77, 1243-1246
10. Laumann EO,, Gagnon JH, Michael RT, Michaels S. The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1994
11. Cameron P, Proctor K, Coburn W & Forde N. Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted diseases. Nebraska Medical Journal 1985, 70, 292-299
12. Johnson AM, Wadsworth J, Wellings K, Field J. Sexual attitudes and lifestyles. London: Blackwell, 1994
13. Anderson JE, Wilson RW, Barker P, Doll L., Jones TS, Holtgrave D. Prevalence of sexual and drug-related HIV risk behaviors in the U.S. adult population: results of the 1996 national household survey on drug abuse. Journal of the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 1999, 21, 148-156
14. CDC. HIV/AIDS surveillance report. December 2000, 12, no. 2
15. Cameron P, Playfair WL. AIDS -- intervention works; ‘education’ is questionable. Psychological Reports 1991, 68, 467-470
16. Oakley A, Fullerton D, Holland J. Behavioural interventions for HIV/AIDS prevention. AIDS 1995, 9, 479-486; Oakley A, Fullerton D, Holland J, et al. Sexual health education interventions for young people: a methodological review. British Medical Journal 1995, 310, 158-162
17. Stephenson JM, Imrie J, Sutton SR. Rigorous trials of sexual behaviour interventions in STD/HIV prevention: what can we learn from them? AIDS 2000, 14 (suppl 3), S115-S124

In the December 1995 FRR, we reviewed a study of 206 “seriously neglected or physically abused” children in Boston who were placed by court order and under social-worker supervision in either adoptive homes, foster homes, or juvenile facilities. The only success story centered on those kids who were adopted. The rest of the children did no better or worse if they were either returned to the abusive home, were placed with foster parents, or were housed in facilities. 22% of the ‘treated’ kids v. 21% of the ‘untreated’ kids were soon back in

Juvenile Court! We noted that these findings seemed to suggest that we don’t know how to prevent child abuse.

Now an even larger study, this time concentrating on families at risk of abusing one or more of their children, has been conducted in Oklahoma.1 After attending ‘preventative treatment’ at social service agencies designed to ‘aid families,’ ‘teach child rearing,’ and so on, approximately 1,600 clients were tracked for an average of 1.6 years per family.

The focus on ‘preventative treatment’ here stems from the fact that social service professionals became disillusioned “with after-the-fact treatment approaches, particularly traditional clinic-based approaches” (p. 1271). So “prevention” was the new battle cry. In 1993, the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect stated that “no other single intervention has the promise for preventing child abuse that home visitation has.” Federal money flowed, and numerous swell-sounding programs were launched: Homebuilders, Nurse Home Visitation Program, Healthy Families America, and Hawaii Healthy Start to name a few.

The intent was wonderful -- to prevent child abuse and neglect before it ever started. Who could be opposed to that? And the people involved were well-trained, enthusiastic, and educated. The authors of the study noted that “on the whole, we found the programs to be well organized and implemented.” “Indeed, we were impressed by the dedication of the staff, their commitment to serving famlies, and their belief in developing and promotiong family strengths.” (p. 1286). Almost every trainer or care provider had at least a bachelors degree and many had their masters.

Of those clients who were tested, 41% were married, 28% had never been married, and 69% received some form of public assistance. These generally poor people had, on average, two preschool children. They were about twice as apt to smoke as the general public, had an unemployment rate of 16% (about 4 times higher than the national average), had less frequently graduated from high school, and watched a lot of TV. And, of course, they were involved with social services because they either had lost a child because of difficulties prior to the study, or were considered at high risk.

So what was done to measure the success or failure of these programs? The test of failure was whether a referral to the Child Protection Service was logged after the program they attended was over -- either for neglect, or the physical or sexual abuse of a child. This strikes us as pretty reasonable.

As is common in studies of the generally poor and lower class, only 38% of participants stayed in the preventative programs long enough be counted as having been ‘served, or educated.’ Another 17% (i.e., one of six) of the families ‘failed’ within the first eighteen months of follow up: 61% of these failures were neglect, 21% were physical abuse and neglect, 10% physical abuse alone, and 8% were sexual abuse alone.

So what were the overall findings?

Not very encouraging. First, whether the program or intervention was a ‘one-shot, one-meeting event’ or an extended series of meetings, group counseling, or classroom activities, no differences between short and long durations were found. That is, the ‘dose’ of counseling, advice, lecturing, etc. was not related to a difference in referrals for child abuse and neglect. If ‘counseling’ is good, then more counseling (e.g., a larger dose) ought to have been better. Such was not the case.

Secondly, although the programs differed considerably, no significant difference between the programs emerged (although there were some hints that meeting immediate needs, as for food or medical services, tended to produce slightly better results).

The authors concluded that the “pattern of results are discouraging regarding the overall success of the programs in meeting their benchmark goal of reducing future rates of child abuse and neglect. Program completers did not have lower rates of future abuse or neglect cases than either program dropouts or clients who received only a one-time service. Increased program model intensity or duration of services were not associated with increased benefits. These findings held true for both future maltreatment and for the likelihood of child removal from the home by CPS [Child Protective Services].” (p. 1284)

“The findings were buttressed by other findings in the study: the failure to find significant changes in self-reported lifestyle, economic, or family variables; the failure to find net changes in out-of-home placement rates; the very small changes [on a paper and pencil test to measure parenting skills]; and the fact that simple provision of basic concrete needs seemed to perform as well as, or better than, many of the more involved and typical [governmentally-sponsored] parenting approaches, including in-home services.” (p. 1284)

Let us reiterate what these authors found. For especially high-risk families, the providing of basic concrete needs (e.g., food, medicine) or mentoring seemed to work somewhat better than the state-sponsored treatment programs. The standardized, nationwide programs which were supposed to be used for these families were not effective.

The study authors concluded that their findings “raise questions about the enthusiam for any and all services based upon home visiting. Center-based services, although serving a higher risk clientele, were associated with lower failure rates than home-based services.... The results suggest that there is nothing magic in simply delivering services in the home... (p. 1286)

And then they delivered the whopper: “The family preservation, family support, and child abuse prevention movements have been understandably criticized as being long on rhetoric and enthusiam and short on scientific support.” (p. 1286)

This is yet another decent study that arrives at the discouraging conclusion that no matter how wrought up about ‘saving children’ we become, no one knows how to do it predictably. No matter how hard we try and no matter how much money we throw at the problem, about the same proportion of children are physically or sexually abused.

And all the social work programs, counseling programs, psychiatric and psychological ‘helps’ -- all of them -- seem to be a waste of time and money. Intent, enthusiasm, and strategic remedies just seem to make little difference.

The authors noted that “although it would not be accurate to characterize maltreatment as the exclusive province of the ‘unworthy poor,’ is it also important to recognize that poverty is a dominant characteristic among CPS caseloads, and the national incidence of maltreatment among children in families with annual household incomes of less than $15,000 (the median in this study) is 22 times greater than the incidence among children in families with annual household incomes of over $30,000.” (p. 1286)

Notice what is going on here. In as free a society as America, people generally get what they deserve for their efforts. ‘Poverty’ does not ‘cause’ child abuse; rather the kinds of people who are or become poor are the same kinds of people who disproportionately abuse their children. Similarly, being ‘better off financially’ does not reduce child abuse, rather the kinds of people who do well economically are the kind of people who are much less apt to abuse their children.

But the ‘social work’ mentality of these investigators (and the fields of social work and public health in general) is evident: children will only ‘be saved’ by giving ‘everybody’ the same amount of stuff. What bunk!

Likewise, this study says something about psychiatry, ‘mental health practitioners,’ and others of their ilk. Just as the tribal witch doctor is sometimes ‘successful’ in curing a person by ‘blowing on their ear’ or ‘chanting for 65 hours,’ so are our ‘mental health’ professionals by ‘listening for 22 weeks, 3 hours per week.’ In the long run, however, witch doctors are little more than ‘fakes.’ This study suggests that social work and ‘mental health practitioners’ may be no better.

Reference:
1. Chaffin M, Bonner BL, Hill RF. Family preservation and family support programs: child maltreatment outcomes across client risk levels and program types. Child Abuse & Neglect 2001, 25, 1269-1289.

Corner

Two Curses of Modern Witch Doctors

One of the more important transformations wrought by the mental health movement has been the creation of two brand-new kinds of people: homosexuals and the transgendered. Though people clearly engaged in homosexual activity for millennia, it took psychiatrists to create the ‘homosexual’ as a different kind of human, one for whom homosexual activity was as ‘natural’ as skin color. The recipe was concocted just before the turn of the 20th century, and then was ‘baked’ and ready around the 1950s. By the 1960s the homosexual identity was ‘real,’ forcing our elite to start scrambling to retool society to accomodate ‘homosexuals.’ While this process is not completely finished, it looks like it will have taken about four to five generations -- 120 years from serious start to end.

Similarly, while a few individuals mutilated their genitals in the past (and were often incarcerated for their efforts), it took psychologists and psychiatrists to create the ‘transgendered,’ those who ‘were’ members of the opposite sex, but who were born into a body with the ‘wrong genitalia,’ and needed ‘gender reassignment.’ This creation started in the early 1920s, quietly brewed during the war years, and was ‘baked’ and ready around the 1970s. By the late 1980s the transgendered identity was ‘real,’ and the educated elite scrambled to retool society to accomodate these poor folk. While the transformation is not completely done either, the ‘tracks have been laid down’ to accomodate ‘new kinds of identities’ at an ever faster rate. It looks like three generations will do the trick.

Two stories that bear on these ‘identities’ have come across the wire recently. The first is from Boston, where a former Harvard professor, Dr. Richard Sharpe, 46, is accused of gunning down his wife in front of their young children, aged 4 and 8. While on trial, Sharpe has been exposed as a man who dressed in his daughters’ and wife’s underwear and took female hormones. His oldest daughter, who is 27 and currently caring for her younger siblings, told the court to block the father from seeing his youngest children. It appears that Dr. Sharpe first signaled his intentions when he stabbed his wife with a fork to her head in 1991 (which may have been less unpleasant than the acid he threw in her face in 1983). (Las Vegas Sun 11/6/01)

The good doctor is pleading ‘insanity.’ Whether his plea is accepted or rejected, who would bet that he won’t get a sex-change operation somewhere along the way? And who would bet against the taxpayers footing the bill for an operation that will ‘make him whole?’

From Philadelphia comes the story of an 18-year-old high school football player and a 17-year-old male ‘friend’ who were stopped by a cop for underage drinking and some ‘fooling around.’ After the cop lectured them about the Bible and homosexuality (and threatened to tell their families about what they had been caught doing), the older fellow told his friend he was going to kill himself. He did just that a few hours later.

A federal case has been filed. The family is claiming that threatening to ‘out’ the 18-year-old violated his constitutional right to privacy. A federal appeals court has already issued a preliminary ruling that “threatening to disclose his homosexuality” was tantamount to doing so “because the security of one’s privacy has been compromised by the threat.” (Las Vegas Sun 11/5/01)

Let’s get this straight. An 18-year-old man gets caught having homosexual sex at midnight in a car “in a lot next to a beer distributorship.” They weren’t in a motel room or at either’s home, but rather ‘in public.’ Yet the mere threat of telling his grandfather what had happened and that the young man was a homosexual, was enough to ‘cause’ the young man to commit suicide. So the police are ‘at fault.’

Getting caught having homosexual in public was not the fault of the young man. Rather, threatening to tell his grandfather what he was doing was the fault of the police -- and a violation of constitutional rights. A homosexual is allowed to ‘out’ himself, but you are not allowed to ‘out’ him. That is his right -- his alone! Just because he was caught having homosexual sex in public doesn’t mean anything! If and when he wanted to ‘declare himself,’ then and only then could his activities be made known to his family.
What new ‘identities’ do the mental health ‘witch doctors’ have in store for us? And how much more convoluted and unpredictable will society become as a consequence?

Family Research Report critically examines empirical data on families, sexual social policy, AIDS, drug addiction, and homosexuality, digging behind the 'headlines' and breaking new scientific ground.

FRR is published 8 times/year by the Family Research Institute.

Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher

Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor

Subscriptions: $25/yr ($40 foreign)

©2001

Family Research Institute

P.O. Box 62640

Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2640

(303) 681-3113

Return to top

Return to the FAMILY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Web site