advertisement
On MP3.com: Interview with Paul Oakenfold
Find Articles in:
all
Business
Reference
Technology
News
Sports
Health
Autos
Arts
Home & Garden
advertisement

Content provided in partnership with
Thomson / Gale

Biased Use of Cross-Cultural and Historical Perspectives on Male Homosexuality in Human Sexuality Textbooks

Journal of Sex Research,  Nov, 1998  by Bruce Rind

<< Page 1  Continued from page 7.  Previous | Next

At the bottom of each sheet judges indicated whether they thought the textbook drew moral distinctions between man-man sex and man-boy sex in our society. Evidence that it did, specified by instructions on a separate sheet, included (a) labeling man-man sex homosexuality and presenting it as normal, but labeling man-boy sex pedophilia and presenting it as pathological; (b) explicitly distancing the former from the latter by claiming, for example, that homosexual men are unlikely to have sex with boys and disdain men who do; and (c) grouping man-boy sex morally and conceptually with rape, incest, and/or man-girl sex.

Coding Procedure

Most Popular Articles in Health
Fuel your workout: exercisers who eat before they work out have more energy ...
Soothe a dry, itchy scalp: 5 easy expert solutions
Cocktails and calories: Beer, wine and liquor calories can really add up. ...
The sour truth about apple cider vinegar - evaluation of therapeutic use
The, six best supplements you've never heard of: these secret weapons can ...
More »
advertisement

Four judges familiar with the previously presented cross-cultural and historical data on homosexuality coded the textbooks. Another professor who is also a sex researcher, a graduate student in human sexuality, a lawyer with an advanced degree in history and knowledgeable about sex in history, and the author acted as judges. Each judge independently read the material from the 18 textbooks and coded it. Except for the author, the judges were masked with respect to the names of the textbook authors when coding the photocopied material. Judges worked on the photocopied material first and then evaluated the actual textbooks for evidence of drawing moral distinctions between man-man and man-boy sex in our society. After coding all the material, the judges used instructions from a separate sheet to assign values to the entries in 3 of the columns. For codings on how the example was described, instructions were that transgenerational examples were to be assigned a 0 (i.e., biased) if they were described as relations between men, a 2 (i.e., unbiased) if they were described as relations between boys and older males, and a 1 (i.e., mixed) if they were not described. Transgenderal examples were assigned a 2 regardless of actual description. For codings on how the example was labeled, based on the assumption that the textbook referred to man-man sex as homosexuality and man-boy sex as pedophilia in our society, transgenerational examples were to be rated as 0 (i.e., biased) if they were labeled homosexual, 1 (i.e., mixed) if they were not labeled, and 2 (i.e., unbiased) if labeled pederastic or pedophilic. For codings on whether the example was appropriate, codings judged inappropriate were assigned 0, mixed were assigned 1, and appropriate were assigned 2. In a second step, the judges shared their results with one another and attempted to resolve discrepancies through discussion, which involved going hack to the scholarly literature reviews on cross-cultural and historical homosexuality, if necessary, to argue for a particular coding.

In addition to coding examples, as discussed above, the author recorded the number of times scholarly reviews of cross-cultural or historical homosexuality (e.g., Carrier, 1980; Ford & Beach, 1951) were cited in the chapter on homosexuality and in the chapter discussing pedophilia. The rationale was that these reviews are at least as much about man-boy (transgenerational) sex as man-man (transgenderal) sex. Hence, they provide legitimate perspective for both types of sex in our culture. To use them for man-man sex, but not man-boy sex, would then constitute bias.